To think that law is an academic degree

[ordermeapizza]

and not a vocational degree?

IMO medicine, nursing, etc are vocational as they lead directly to a job and once you've finished your degree you are qualified to work in that profession.

Law on the other hand doesn't actually qualify you to be a lawyer and you need to complete further training after your degree if you want to be a lawyer.

I class a law degree to be academic like English and history.

AIBU?

Not too hung up on whether it's academic or vocational, but I'd add my voice to questioning the assumption that the majority of law students become lawyers, or that the majority of lawyers studied law as a first degree. In my university class (very small, part-time study), around three quarters were planning to qualify as lawyers - but that was, I think, because most of us were being funded by our employers, and the funding was conditional upon our qualifying. In my trainee intake, around 40% had law degrees, and in private practice, there were only two of us in my department who had taken law as a first degree - department of around 15 permanent lawyers, new trainee every six months. Not a single one of the trainees with a seat in my department over seven years had taken law as a first degree - and this was a practice area with a very high proportion of black-letter law work (think in terms of tax).

I think that probably, there are more lawyers with a first degree in law than with a first degree in any other single subject, but as a proportion of all lawyers, the ones with a law degree as a first degree are in the minority. But I accept that anecdote doesn't equal data, am content to be disproved.

In 2013, 20,072 people studied law and around 8000 qualify each year so under 50% of people who embark on law degrees end up as lawyers.

www.lawsociety.org.uk/careers/becoming-a-solicitor/entry-trends/

Just under 3/4 of lawyers who qualified in 2011 had law degrees - my guess (based on being a uk solicitor and seeing a lot of CVs) is that this number is dropping. I'd also echo a pp's point that it's certainly not seen as a lesser route to not have a law degree.

www.lawsociety.org.uk/careers/becoming-a-solicitor/entry-trends/

It is also (or used to be?) possible to qualify with no degree at all and all the people I know who did that are elderly. Is there some confusion between these two routes?

I'd agree with you OP. I have an LLB but used it just like any other academic degree getting a place on a grad scheme in financial services when I graduated.

The LLB / GDL stage is called the academic stage of study. The next stage is the vocational one.

I think you're more likely to go on to do the LPC / (what was the) BVC if you do the GDL as it's not something you'd usually embark on without wanting to be a solicitor.

None of the LLB graduates I went to university with are solicitors now (obviously I only knew a tiny percentage of law students at my uni though!).

I did an Eng. Lit. degree and then the GDL a few years later, so most of the lawyers I know went down that route, and I think it is becoming more popular.

City lawyer here - ex-Magic Circle trained. Probably only about 50% of my colleagues read law at university - history was an extremely popular alternative. My DH read physics and become a lawyer.

I did a law degree and enjoyed it but it was definitely an academic degree (not sure how much practical use jurisprudence is when drafting contracts...).

Also had a lot of friends at college who studied law and then did something completely different - some work in fashion, the charity sector, property, events management, even a couple of career politicians! All were glad they had stuck with law and say it has a massive impact on their understanding of, in particular, the way that governments and legislation work.

I did a law degree and enjoyed it but it was definitely an academic degree (not sure how much practical use jurisprudence is when drafting contracts...)

It would help you understand the balance between rights and obligations and where those originate from surely?

I had no idea that my and my former colleague's experience of studying the LLB were so unusual. Surely if for example you are going to become a court or family law practitioner, you benefit from having a full law degree behind you, not least to understand the cases you are going to present and the system of stare decisis, overruling and distinguishing? Mind you, English law is analogous in many ways - common law system, no written constitution or constitutional court, adversarial procedure...

Academic vs vocational is a really false opposition. Kind of assumes there's one world of action and another of theory, which is behind a lot of what is wrong in both critical theory and professions today.

you learn all that, how cases are distinguished, you do cover everything you need in the graduate diploma not that I can remember much now

I only wonder how my daughter will bear to spend quite so long on it all as her LLB is 4 years for some reason

I studied law in Scotland (4 years). Whilst I might not use my degree much in everyday terms in my job currently, it definitely provided me with a sound grounding in legal principles and the ability to analyse and apply practically the law.

I don't know how much is crammed into the conversion course in England, but being honest, I think the Scottish system is better.

City lawyer here - I did a law degree. It was most definitely academic. I seriously doubt, from the calibre of trainees we get today, that law degrees have changed to become more vocational - or if they have, they need to revisit it!

City lawyer here too.

Many (maybe 50%) of my colleagues did non law degrees and then the GDL. This trend doesn't appear to be changing. Same applies to most City lawyers I meet. Indeed, a non law degree can sometimes be a positive advantage - for instance if you want to do IP law then a science degree is very helpful. So Chelsy I disagree.

Conversely, many (maybe 50% again) of my fellow law students at university did not become lawyers. I doubt that's the case for, say, nursing or pharmacy students.

My advice to any prospective law student is that they shouldn't do a law degree because they want to be a lawyer - there are other equally valid ways to become a lawyer so if you prefer the look of another degree, do that instead. Do a law degree if and because you think you'll find it interesting as a degree.

So I'd definitely say it's more an academic than a vocational degree.

Rooner, the GDL is the 7 compulsory subjects which you need do in order to have a qualifying law degree plus English Legal Method.

Toughest year of my life, that one. The LPC was a total breeze in comparison!

It is academic but still necessary to becoming a barrister or solicitor as you need the basic understanding of the core modules (criminal, tort, contract, trust ext) and the legal reasoning that you learn. Do you consider the GDL to be academic?

So basically you cram everything you need to know about legal theory, including the whole of private law, contract law, law of tort, criminal law, evidence, statutory interpretation, equity, EU law and history of law (why the law developed the way it did) plus all the standards of citation which you use, plus case reading skills and legal terminology, court heirachy, concepts such as legal basis, into one year?

And then you do one practical year before people complain about the quality of trainees coming through? And yes, I know it is their practical not their academic skills you will complain about, but seriously, with one year of studying basic legal knowledge, how many of them would have large gaps in their legal education? Sounds like some sort of college crammer course. Perhaps only the best and most capable students are picked for it. Or something.

I'm actually shocked that this is seen as a good thing, and that there is almost a disdain shown on here for respect for the law and legal thinking. This is something that is very unique to England and Wales and I can assure you that law ie the LLB is certainly regarded as a vocational degree elsewhere.

Nymeria01 I get your point, but equally it doesn't make sense to classify a one year course of the same thing vocational when a longer more detailed study of it is not.

This is an issue of letting too many students into a university course, rather than whether or not a course is vocational.

Chelsy, I guess in a way you can see the GDL as crammer course style but all that really means is it is more intense. The fact is it does cover substantially the same information and skills as a law degree. GDL students don't need as many sessions about research skills, citations etc as they will all have already gained plenty of study skills during their previous degrees and pick it up very quickly. The GDL year has a much heavier workload than a year of an LLB and it is more intense. Most undergrad degrees could probably be condensed into a shorter time as tbh undergrads do have a lot of free time!

The non-law degree + post grad conversation is not actually that different to the American system. They do 3 years of law school after a probably unrelated undergrad, then go straight in to firms as qualified associates. We do 2 years of law school (GDL + LPC) then 2 years training on the job.

It's vocational if you follow it right through, academic if not in my mind. However when I did mine I'd have called it vocational but reality (lovely DSs) means it has become academic.

I was told by various careers advice people that lots of firms preferred non-law graduates

The GDL is definitely academic, no two ways about it.

But, those people who do it are more likely to do the LPC, as it isn't a course that you choose for something to study, you choose to do it because you want to be a lawyer / barrister. Or you do at the time of application, at least!