legal training solicitor

moneysaver129

poet123 wrote: »

You have given no evidence to back your assertion. Others on this thread have also had first hand experience of these courses and they disagree with you. I personally know of four young law graduates without training contracts who passed their LPC.

In fact, I would venture the opinion (based on anecdotal evidence) that more and more of those who do the LPC do not actually have such contracts as fewer firms wish to pay for the qual and so actively recruit for training contracts candidates who already have it.


If there is a higher pass rate by those with a TC it could be for several reasons; they are more motivated as their job depends on it, they are brighter, they are better supported etc, etc.

Poet 123
I will answer you question even though it is difficult given the amount of disgraceful trolling and personal abuse nothing to do with the subject to be found here. It does at least grasp some of the ideas without launching into disgraceful personal attacks.

The evidence is provided - if the courses when asked these questions (How many pass with TC's v. those without?) do not provide the data or present it in such a way to obfuscate. That is why I ask people who are thinking about the course investigate these areas. I ask a question and suggest a possible motive. The evidence can be provided by the institutions. By the way I did say this was my experience and of course others have had different experiences but my post was not about that.

If those with TC are regularly passing with greater ease it could well be to do with areas you mention - better motivated, brighter etc. BUT that raises more questions than it answers. All of those with TC's are better motivated or brighter? Really? This would contradict many of the statements from others here (albeit doubtfully expressed and not valid in my opinion ) that 'many' people who pass have no contracts. It would also call into question the colleges motives in recruiting non-TC people knowing they were less motivated etc? Not very honourable.

Finally, I agree that many firms are potentially recruiting those already with TC's but this has little to do with my point about doubtful selection of LPC passes and more to do with greed of firms in wishing to avoid costs - which you indicate. If your point is that the firms and colleges would not now need to favour LPC attendees with TC's I cannot agree as if anything it puts even more pressure on the colleges/uni's to pass them in order to receive the regular income from large firms with many candidates. Especially in times where fewer private students are prepared to cough up the large sum involved.

moneysaver129

I am afraid you are the one with the poorly reasoned argument.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

As for your educational systems 'point' (a little off topic) as far as I am aware State schools have been outstripping private schools for some years now - Do pay attention!;)

Nicki

It is almost universal practice to only moderate selected scripts so that is not evidence of corruption.

So long as their fees are paid by someone why would the centre care whether this was by the candidate personally or by a law firm? And training contracts done properly cost law firms a packet as trainees don't usually cover their own costs for the two years in terms of billables so a law firm would rather have weak candidates weeded out at the beginning than pay for 2 years for someone they wouldn't offer a job to at the end of the training contract anyway, so they would rather the LPC provider fail someone not up to snuff as it's hard to get out of a training contract otherwise as an employer. It's only really financially viable for the big firms to run training contracts to home grow their own talent.

You may not like the plain truth but you are not analysing this issue like a lawyer would nor does your evidence support your hypothesis. That's why I feel you have little natural aptitude for a career in law.

jacques_chirac

moneysaver129 wrote: »

I am afraid you are the one with the poorly reasoned argument. At least I do not have the ill breeding to make personal comments to you (although I return the comment to you but in relation to how you managed to even learn to read - errrrr - let's say read approximately shall we?):rotfl:

As for your educational systems 'point' (a little off topic) as far as I am aware State schools have been outstripping private schools for some years now - Do pay attention!;)

My argument is perfectly reasoned, and you have failed to respond to my point - private school pupils outperform state school pupils at school age exams and at university. Are you suggesting their marks are also fixed?

Please provide evidence that state schools outstrip private schools ... I await with bated breath!

heretolearn_2

If there is a higher pass rate by those with a TC it could be for several reasons -

I would suggest it is because it is so very competitive and difficult to get one of the few TCs available (I've seen someone get one last year, it took them two years of extremely hard work, unpaid internships, massively competitive and even when taken on it was STILL competitive with more trainees recruited than final places so there was a cull after 3 months), so those with TCs are the cream of the crop of potential lawyers. And are pretty much guaranteed to do well.

poet123

moneysaver129 wrote: »

Poet 123
I will answer you question even though it is difficult given the amount of disgraceful trolling and personal abuse nothing to do with the subject to be found here. It does at least grasp some of the ideas without launching into disgraceful personal attacks.

Thanks;) I do try, but I am afraid your argument really is a weak construct which is why others are less placatory.:D

moneysaver129 wrote: »

The evidence is provided - if the courses when asked these questions (How many pass with TC's v. those without?) do not provide the data or present it in such a way to obfuscate.

Surely the benefit to the individual is to have the overall pass rate of any given institution not the split between those with and without TC's? They can then compare like with like.

The difference between the two groups contains too many variables to make a reasoned judgement as to why one person from one camp passed and one from the other camp failed.

moneysaver129 wrote: »

That is why I ask people who are thinking about the course investigate these areas. I ask a question and suggest a possible motive. The evidence can be provided by the institutions. By the way I did say this was my experience and of course others have had different experiences but my post was not about that.

If you are suggesting that it is in any way in the interests of any educational institution to deliberately mark down and thus fail a specific and targeted section of the student body you really have little grasp of educational finances.

Why would they do that? What is in it for them?

moneysaver129 wrote: »

If those with TC are regularly passing with greater ease it could well be to do with areas you mention - better motivated, brighter etc. BUT that raises more questions than it answers. All of those with TC's are better motivated or brighter? Really? This would contradict many of the statements from others here (albeit doubtfully expressed and not valid in my opinion ) that 'many' people who pass have no contracts.

The fact is that those who already (prior to doing an LPC) have a TC in place undoubtedly are the cream of the crop, competition is fierce. Strict application deadlines, sometimes as long as 2 years in advance of a start date mean only the very organised even get past that hurdle, and the ongoing process also requires stamina and motivation.

So, it comes as no surprise to me that they would do better than those who have not managed to achieve a TC. That said, it is a fact that many who pass (and I personally know four) do not have a TC in place and indeed go straight onto the LPC after graduation with the hope that it will be a catalyst to obtain a TC down the line.

moneysaver129 wrote: »

It would also call into question the colleges motives in recruiting non-TC people knowing they were less motivated etc? Not very honourable.

Colleges are businesses, it is niave to believe they are going to turn down any law graduate with c£12,000 to spend. The motivation should be there, if it isn't, or they are actually not bright enough to pass the LPC that really isn't the concern of a college educating at that level.

It comes down to finance and bums on seats.

moneysaver129 wrote: »

Finally, I agree that many firms are potentially recruiting those already with TC's but this has little to do with my point about doubtful selection of LPC passes and more to do with greed of firms in wishing to avoid costs - which you indicate

Is it greed or is it sound business sense?

Additionally, many firms are looking to recruit more mature candidates rather than recent graduates, so, if they have been out of university a while and their aim is to become a solicitor then they are more likely to have gone down the LPC route themselves to increase their attractiveness to such firms.

moneysaver129 wrote: »

If your point is that the firms and colleges would not now need to favour LPC attendees with TC's I cannot agree as if anything it puts even more pressure on the colleges/uni's to pass them in order to receive the regular income from large firms with many candidates. Especially in times where fewer private students are prepared to cough up the large sum involved.

I can see no vested interest for any college to favour one cohort over another. Their reputation stands or falls on the stats, they are the headline stats of % passes, not the drilled down split of TC v non TC.

External moderation of any set of scripts is done by random (but fixed name) sampling, internal moderation is done by two different lecturers to a set mark scheme.

I am afraid that if one cohort routinely does better it is for the most obvious reasons; they are cleverer, better prepared, more organised and self motivated. Or any combination thereof.

I also disagree that fewer private students are prepared to pay. The reality is that many know that few firms now want to pay and so they are realising that they have to personally invest in their own future.

moneysaver129

poet123 wrote: »

Thanks;) I do try, but I am afraid your argument really is a weak construct which is why others are less placatory.:D

.

Not really - I would say the other way around . My point is pretty strong as no one has shown evidence that the colleges are not preferring TC examinees over others. Instead, preferring to troll and insult. Not really convincing is it?

In any case my point was simply to ask potential payers of large fees to interogate colleges and Uni's about this and make up their own minds before releasing the all important cash. If colleges and Uni's have nothing to hide what is the problem? I think that is what 'upset' a few. Could it be they are employed in some way in legal education and fear some light being cast on this area?

I think my points stand and the burden of proof rests with those running the questionable show.:D

poet123

moneysaver129 wrote: »

Not really - I would say the other way around . My point is pretty strong as no one has shown evidence that the colleges are not preferring TC examinees over others. Instead, preferring to troll and insult. Not really convincing is it?

In any case my point was simply to ask potential payers of large fees to interogate colleges and Uni's about this and make up their own minds before releasing the all important cash. If colleges and Uni's have nothing to hide what is the problem? I think that is what 'upset' a few. Could it be they are employed in some way in legal education and fear some light being cast on this area?

I think my points stand and the burden of proof rests with those running the questionable show.:D

No, I suspect that it is because if you make an accusation it is expected that you have proof to back up that assertion. As it stands you don't. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yorkie1

poet123 wrote: »

No, I suspect that it is because if you make an accusation it is expected that you have proof to back up that assertion. As it stands you don't. Nothing more, nothing less.

Quite agree.

OP has made allegations of corruption and dishonesty without a shred of evidence. And refuses to recognise that an essential element of being a competent lawyer is being able to substantiate what you claim in order even to be taken seriously, let alone be engaged with.