To say its pointless trying to become a barrister...

[TruthOnTrial]

....unless you studied at Oxford because you simply wont get a pupillage?

@Cloudtree

Agree completely. My friends daughter wants to be a solicitor and I told her about the realities of a career in law, none of which they are taught in school or at university. A 2:2 in my city wouldn’t get you a training contract anywhere.

Our firm is great and really invests in its people but they don’t take anyone for a training contract until they’ve done 12 months as a paralegal first. It was much easier when I started out 15 years ago but from 2008 onwards the profession has taken a huge dip. Yet universities keep churning out law graduates with nowhere to go!

There is money to be made in people gaining qualifications they have no hope of using!

I believe this could be said of most degree and college courses.

I read Law at LSE about 20 years ago. Did pretty well (2:1 - 1st in Criminal and only a couple of marks off a 1st overall). In our final year I remember being sat down (in a large group, not one-to-one) and told that the odds of being successful were massively against anyone who wasn’t prepared to put in long hours (I was) and who didn’t have a decent pot behind them to help them take the next steps as the next few years could be tough financially as well as academically. I came from the poorest background of anyone I knew there, so I stupidly decided to take a ‘safe’ public sector job. Biggest regret I have, though I do wish I had known this before I started studying as I often think what a waste those years were...

I’m a barrister and I went to an ex-poly. I got the top first in my year but they didn’t know that when I was interviewed as I didn’t have my finals results then. I had no connections but there was someone on the pupillage committee who was willing to take a chance on me. I was pretty lucky I guess.

I’m now on the pupillage committee in chambers and having an oxbridge degree gets you a few more points in the first round application sift, but that’s all. Once you’re through to interview we don’t look at your degree again, you are marked solely on your performance. The interviews are incredibly rigorous. We are very alert to oxbridge bias and try very hard to avoid it. So maybe once candidates would need an oxbridge degree but things are changing, for the better.

Come to Scotland!

I did a law degree, not at Oxbridge. I’m not from a well connected family, in fact I was highly pressurised to continue with the degree despite realising 2 lectures that it wasn’t for me.

So I had 3 miserable years at university reading a subject I took no joy from, though I graduated well, to not use it. I could have had 3 happy years, studying a subject I loved and maybe still not “used it”. I am so regretful of not standing up for myself then.

I look at sixth formers visiting my city’s local law school and feel desperately sorry for them. So many are wasting their time on a pipe dream. Not least because the preference for non law undergraduate degrees and a conversion course is so great these days, in both firms and chambers.

The legal profession has the highest drop out rate statistically, of women with children. That surprised me, I would have expected medicine. But I suppose clients don’t want solicitors who only work 3 days a week or, in firms doing international work, can’t work through the night to close a deal.

I realise I didn’t answer your question and have instead, just vented my spleen. Sorry!

Ha! I was looking literally specifically at a chambers in edinburgh last week! ...and researching.

This is research into work/opportunities realised. My qualifications are from regulatory bodies that accredit courses/exams (not in law).

I am deeply saddened to know from these comments the numbers of students who wouldn't have gone on to realise their career prospects despite the level of work/commitment and dedication, not to mention finance, involved.

Although therr are places the profession is trying to address to some degree, insome areas.

But, yes, very sorry for all those who feel they were sold an unachievable dream. Especially entering colleges offering courses not deemed adequate for pupillage!

@TruthOnTrial
Why should/would being overqualified help someone become a barrister? DH's PhD was not law-related, he did it when he thought he would become an academic. If having more qualifications than necessary helped you become a barrister then it really would become the preserve of the wealthy.

As other PPs have said the problem is absolutely the number of people being let on the vocational courses. During an xmas party I met a lot of DH's classmates - one could honestly barely speak English. He had no hope of being a barrister in England - but he paid his money so of course they happily let him on. Its a travesty because so many people think that they are therefore basically a barrister and they still have pupillage and tenancy to get over.

@merrymouse funnily enough I think the highest earning individual barristers are criminal barristers but they are rare - many criminal barristers don't earn very much. But other areas are pretty lucrative. Apart from banking I can't think of anything else where DH would earn what he does.

Semperidem it was good insight and thank you for taking the time to write it. Yes, i worry for the teens around me and their decisions,/directions. They are all working so hard.

What a shame, you worked all those years at something you immediately knew wasnt for you. More of a shame that you werent given some real options for something that inspired you and you could have enjoyed. What hard work!

My daughter is a Solicitor with a Law degree from Uni of Birmingham. There were only about 5% firsts in her year and of the ones who went on to be Barristers all had firsts. I don't think Oxbridge degree is necessary but our experience is a first from a reputable uni.

Its based on some of the information and other experiences ive come across with applicants now having far in excess of requirements that are published (due to high volume of applicants to choose from)

essexcourt.com/barrister/claudia-renton/

This is the bio of a school friend who went into law, public school, Oxford, first class degree, succesful actress, prizewinning author/biographer etc etc

This is what you are up against!

I’m now on the pupillage committee in chambers and having an oxbridge degree gets you a few more points in the first round application sift, but that’s all. Once you’re through to interview we don’t look at your degree again, you are marked solely on your performance. The interviews are incredibly rigorous. We are very alert to oxbridge bias and try very hard to avoid it. So maybe once candidates would need an oxbridge degree but things are changing, for the better

This ^^ is so refreshing to hear.

Do you have insights on how widespread this is?

What stats are available on this? That could/perhaps should be presented to potential applicants?

I was looking up, just prior to this thread creation, a conversion rate of 25%. From the university guide online (from memory).

I think, having trawled through many career prospects conversion rates, that this data is not too difficult to find, or even just asking the question at university open days.

Careers advice however, in the gcse and a's stages has been severely limited ime.

OP I must admit I have rather lost track of exactly what the purpose of your thread is (now that the initial question has been dealt with).

Lemons is that a shameless plug for a friend !? Not sure whether that's allowable under MN TGs!

Ok George thanks for your input

recreationalcalpol
Sorry missed your name off my previous post.

...good username!

Speaking as a barrister (who went to a comprehensive and not Oxbridge and didn’t have any contacts and got pupillage in my first year of applying - and married to another barrister with same profile) - and sitting on our pupillage committee, you need:

(1) good academics - clear run of excellent GCSEs, A Levels (or equivalents) at least a 2:1 and a VC on the BPTC or a good reason why not and some further study to prove your academics.

(2) commitment - evidence of tirelessly pursuing the Bar, taking part (and being successful) in debating, mooting etc

(3) experience - either paid or unpaid, so marshalling, mini-pupillages, paralegaling, internships, death row project type work etc

(4) perform in interview- so evidence you can answer difficult questions, think on your feet, have charisma!

(5) have a good reason why your applying where you’re applying.

Outside London at least, there is absolutely no need whatsoever to have an Oxbridge degree - it needn’t even be Russell group. You certainly don’t need a leg up, but you do need tenacity and financial backing from parents helps. Apply to the Inns for a scholarship, study the Bar course part time while you work. It’s doable, you just have to want it and be good. Self-awareness is key.

Speaking as a barrister

One would assume that everyone on this thread, who has not declared themselves otherwise, either is or has been a barrister. Surely?

I'm not an Oxbridge graduate and I'd say 80% of my set aren't either.

For what it's worth, I went to Oxford (via a state comprehensive) and tried and failed to become a barrister.

I think it's just a seriously hard profession to get into and an Oxford degree is no more of a guarantee than anything else. There are simply far fewer places than there are people getting the necessary vocational/academic qualifications. Most chambers only take 1 or 2 people a year, and it's much harder to be the absolute best person who applied than it is to be in the top 50 or so that's necessary to get a job at a top bank/consultancy/city law firm. I like to think I've got a pretty decent CV, but some of the people I know who've succeeded have been very impressive.

That said recruitment is generally done by random barristers rather than a HR department, so I suspect it's easier for bias and snobbery to sneak in in some cases than it is in most other similarly prestigious professions.

More than anything else though, I think the main barrier is money. It costs an absolute fortune to qualify, pupillage "wages" at all but the best chambers are barely minimum wage, and in several branches of law, income stays surprisingly low. The vast majority of people I know who qualified had some form of parental support, whether that was monetary or simply letting them live at home while they studied and perhaps for the first year or two of work. I didn't, and despite working part-time and getting a scholarship, I had to take out a £30k high street loan which I've finally paid back ten years later - repayments were £800 per month, luckily I got a reasonably well paying job in a different, prestigious, but less insanely competitive field.

In hindsight, I honestly wouldn't recommend blowing money on the training unless you've got an absolutely stand out CV (ie. top first, maybe academic prizes, possibly a law masters, excellent work experience and serious extra-curriculars) or you can afford to fail. Preferably both.

My cousin is a barrister and didn't go to Oxbridge. He's up North, and definitely went to a Northern uni although I can't remember which one, not Durham, maybe Newcastle or York. He definitely got a first though, and his dad was a policeman who worked closely with quite a lot of barristers over the course of his career, so possibly the "who you know" came into play. He's now a prosecution barrister.

George I was just identifying that I was a barrister as it was relevant to how useful my response was...I didn’t assume everyone who responded was at the bar - others have identified themselves. Bizarre.