Post grad law conversions - reality of the usefulness of this?

[BobtheFrog]

One of my DDs is looking to a post grad degree, law conversion in particular - looking for some mumsnet wisdom about this route. Good idea? Concerns / questions we should consider? Does it lead to meaningful work? What kind of work is down this route?

My university flatmate graduated in Law with a 2:2 in 1988 and got a TC in a very respectable London firm traditionally in shipping. She spoke French and Chinese fluently which may have offset her 2:2.

That’s almost 40 years ago and with grade inflation a 2.2 in 1988 was equivalent to a 2.1 now. Literally a handful of people would get a first when I was at uni over 30 yrs ago.
A 2.2 now when vast majority get 2.1 or 1st isn’t going to cut it.

Shipping has never been especially competitive though. As I say, my firm didn’t take on anyone with less than a 2.1, certainly not in my cohort. I assume it was a pretty universal requirement even back then, to have a minimum of a 2.1. This was the same sort of time, although I don’t wish to identify which year.

It evidently is easy for a reasonable sized group if my DCs’ peers are anything to go by. Indeed two close college friends of my very recently graduated DD had offers they turned down from Magic Circle firms because they preferred other options (non legal).

Yes I’m joining you on the being offended bench OhDear111.

I would say it’s far more boasty to say how a DC has triumphed against tremendous odds than to say the level of competition is vastly exaggerated. My DC did fine, but they’re not in the genius category either.

Again, no parental strategy and yes Ceramiq, all
attended the nearest state school to home, and they and the school between them did all the UCAS stuff.

I concede that I was pretty good at teaching the DC to read at primary school (I enjoyed it tbh), I took an interest in their education generally and I read their personal statements to pick up grammar errors but not to suggest anything substantive.

I do realise you have a product to sell but really, most DC do this stuff without buying in paid help. I don’t recall any of mine saying any friend had bought help. I think you must move in unusual circles, where parents panic and lack faith in the ability of their own DC. That’s not helpful to a DC I wouldn’t have thought.

@Milmington I move in the most normal of middle class circles where parents try their best for their children but have varying levels of awareness of the extent of parental educational strategies. However, since there is excellent published research on parental educational strategies it is quite easy to disabuse them of meritocratic propaganda ;)

A little bit harsh to imply that OhDear and I and literally millions of other parents don’t ‘try their best’ for their DC simply because we chose not to waste money on a careers consultant.

Anyhow, I’ll leave you to continue to trying to drum up trade.I’m quite happy with meritocracy which I see working well on the ground.

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking somewhat: I was not accusing you of not trying your best - I was accusing you of being disingenuous about doing so. Which is an extraordinarily well researched phenomenon so rather than protesting too much you might want to ask ChatGPT for help identifying the studies that have researched your comms (or perhaps you are still a Google person?).

My reading skills are excellent Ceramiq.

There can be no possible reason for me reading dull research which contradicts my own experience. It would serve no purpose whatsoever.

Ah yes, your own personal point of view which is very tightly closed shut on vast swathes of international scientific research 😂

I am a trainee at a London firm - they funded my PGDL and SQE. I have good academics and come from a normal background. Plenty of people on the PGDL whose parents funded it - and two years out they don’t even have paralegal jobs. It’s insanely competitive. If your daughter doesn’t have the wherewithal to look into TCs (there is SO much info online) or pull her finger out at uni then I’m afraid it’s likely not the profession for her…

@Milmington DD knew what she was aiming for and, as parents, we informed ourselves of the process but nothing else. Neither did we pre read her UCAS statement but I did read her a pulillage application to triple check grammar. No alterations needed in my view. It’s of course possible for highly motivated dc to get it right.

@HildegardVonBingham As dc aiming for the bar don’t have an employer to fund anything, it’s down to parents and scholarship money. It’s a huge lottery. Works for some but not others but I’m not sure of the % who don’t get anything.

Ceramiq could you give me one good reason why I would have been in the least bit interested in this ‘international scientific research’ which appears to bolster claims of ‘careers consultants’ that they play a key part in achieving the goals of young people when mine have done fine achieving highly at a minimal cost and without a stranger’s intervention. They had excellent teachers and were not in need of anything else. That’s entirely normal. Of course you have a vested interest in presenting traditionally sought after careers as almost impossible to achieve without ‘insider’ connections and support, but my DC and all of their friends have proved that, these days at least, this is a lot of nonsense.

I don't know why you think I am a careers consultant because I am not.

The London School of Economics, the Sutton Trust and Sciences Po (to name but three sources) have all researched the sociology of performative parental disingenuousness (to summarize) designed to put other parents off the scent in the educational arms race.

I’ve no idea what you call yourself specifically Ceramiq, but you certainly seem to peddle your intelligence in that broad field. Possibly for social rather than financial gain, no idea. I recall a post on a recent med school application thread where you said that schools and parents sought out your spreadsheets (on some very workaday stat - I don’t recall what it was, only that you’d trawled laboriously through websites to find certain info. And so if you do this purely for social kudos…. well, I certainly couldn’t be arsed).

Those are well known to be very reputable institutions, everyone would agree on that.

However, a) my own DC are past that stage (albeit only just) and so I have no skin in the game and b) - think for just a moment - how would encouraging other young people to apply and not be deterred by the narrative peddled here (that you need to be beyond the pale outstanding or alternatively have connections to land a vac scheme and offer). That doesn’t make sense. It does however make perfect sense that a certain type of parent, overly ambitious for a middling ability DC, might try to deter others by vastly exaggerating the difficulties. And so on the that basis, even without reading the research, I can quite see how it plays out. What beats me though is how such parents can think their propaganda makes a dent. Mostly these will be monied parents though, with cushioned DC, so sympathy is inevitably limited.

Ok so apologies for terrible grammar there. Typing on a train and the swerving around bends along with the tunnels did me no favours at all. Gist should be there.

@Milmington Do you think parents really seek to put other dc off applying though? In the bizarre belief a place is then easier for their dc to get? It’s a bit ott. However we have people on these threads coaching all sorts of uni applications and associated job “grooming” so maybe there’s a whole world out there that’s passed me by. Thankfully I know better adjusted people.

I don’t think it’s the case that many people nowadays get much of an advantage by virtue of their connections. Some do though and it’s naive to think this doesn’t happen at all.

DH is constantly being asked to arrange informal work experience for kids of contacts. It’s really hard to do this unless you’re very senior (he is) but it certainly happens for kids of important clients. I should say that in many cases it backfires since if they’re not excellent (and most are not) then their later application to that firm would fail since the firm already knows they are not good enough. He can’t influence the formal process other than potentially at the very final stage where his recommendation would have influence but would not be determinative.

This does not change the fact that the process has gone crazy and is now insanely competitive. It simply isn’t true to say if they’re are good enough they can just do a couple of applications and they will get a place. Unless your child has been in the last couple of rounds or you’re currently in the profession, you wouldn’t know this. Pointing out that they have a less than one percent chance when applying for VS places (even lower when applying for DTC places because most firms now only consider a DTC place to fill the spaces they didn’t fill on the VS or for overseas applicants) isn’t trying to put them off. It’s telling them the reality of the situation. Giving kids false hope is just mean, wastes their money and time and loops back to the OPs question.

1. You’re extremely unlikely to get a training contract with a 2.2
2. You’re far less likely to even pass the SQE with a 2.2.
3. You’re less likely to pass the SQE if you are not excellent at intense exams.
4. Youre less likely to get a training contract if you went to a new post 92 university or anything outside of the top 20 in the university rankings or if you got lower than AAA at ALevel. You’re also less likely to get a training contract if you did a BTec.
5. You are unlikely to get a Training contract if you’ve ever had to resit an exam (this has to be declared)
6. Youre less likely to get a training contract if you haven’t done that firm’s vacation placement in that round (year)
7. You’re less likely to get a training contract if you haven’t had any legal work experience (and you’ll struggle to get legal work experience without a contact in the profession who is prepared to stick their neck out for you) - note here I am referring to informal work experience rather than a formal vacation scheme with a competitive application process where who you know isn’t likely to be a factor.

source - 30 years in law, mainly at top international firm with significant experience in junior recruitment. Now self employed but also do another legal role alongside private practice. DH with 35 years in law and senior office partner for his large regional firm. BF current recruitment partner for top international firm. Other friend recruitment partner for US firm (in London). Regularly host senior members of the judiciary for social events. One DC (non law) in this round for the first time, one DC currently doing a law degree who has literally just switched degree to include a placement year in law for the very reasons we are discussing (insanely competitive now so needs an edge). I’m also currently off work and bored so obsessing slightly over the law forum boards where the kids report on the progress of their applications and discuss the feedback they’re given in ACs regarding application numbers this round.

Of course I might be unemployed and be trying to put off five applicants whose mums are on MN so that DS only has 4994 competitors for his next application rather than 4999..

I think that if they think it makes a jot of difference then more fool them OhDear111!

Fortunately I don’t move in such circles.

Serafee it’s a terrible idea to go on student forums!

It would be good if you could please stop insisting that what I’m saying about the very strong applicants isn’t based on current experience. Numbers aren’t the critical factor in determining true competition.

Thanks but I can go onto student forums if I like

I can and will also refute your assertion that if you are good enough you will get a training contract with a few applications. It just isn't true. It might be the case for a few applicants - quite possibly your own DC included, but there are many hundreds of excellent candidates out there who won't get a training contract just by making a couple of applications. Its very much the exception rather than the rule.

Do you realise that by making this assertion you are in fact potentially putting off excellent candidates who, upon getting PFOd (please fuck off'd) will then think they're not cut out for law when that isn't the case. IMO you are actually the one trying to put people off applying.

and quite frankly your story doesn't add up. You talk about wealthy families in a negative way whilst at the same time asserting you are a magic circle lawyer (presumably one who works for free and not the exceptionally high salary) whilst at the same time not seeming to know which firms are magic circle firms..

Incidentally Serafee, your #7 is in no way borne out by recent offerees of my immediate acquaintance. Parents and ‘consultants’ may want to delude themselves but it’s nonsense, and utterly unnecessary.

It isn't.

@Vinvertebrate But how many studied law in your day? 50% of those studying now? We have universities coming out of our ears offering law. Thousands of students getting firsts. Then many more with non law degrees who also have vac schemes for them. The competition is fierce and then you have to factor in targets for employers in terms of under represented groups.

There is no answer really but a first in law from Oxbridge is usually a boost to chances. I don’t remotely think any of these positions are easy to get but some dc are still more likely to get jobs than others. Sheer numbers applying doesn’t make all applicants suitable. Essentially it’s a product of the over supply of grads.

@Serafee Obviously it’s foolhardy for the OP’s DD to go down the conversion route. I do think we all agree on this.