With power comes responsibility. The College of Law and BPP Law School are the leading providers of vocational legal education in the United Kingdom. Between them they train the majority of students who study law at Graduate Diploma in Law level and who wish to qualify to practice law as a solicitor or barrister. Both institutions now have degree awarding powers, powers granted by the Privy Council recently.
Neither institution is subject to the Freedom of Information Act, unlike Universities. The College of Law is a registered charity and BPP Law School is part of a PLC – although they will soon, if the acquisition by Apollo goes through, be part of a successful american company.
Interestingly, in podcasts with both Nigel Savage of The College of Law and Peter Crisp, Chief Executive of BPP Law School, both CEOs have told me that they would be prepared to provide information equivalent to that available from universities under FOI requests if asked.
Well… I have asked. I have asked both The College of Law and BPP Law School if they are prepared to publish the assessors’s reports on their institution which were provided to the Privy Council by the QAA; reports which led to The College of Law and BPP Law School being given the power to and the privilege of awarding degrees; enabling them to compete with universities in the provision of law and, in fact, any other degrees they wish to provide a course for.
Are the College of Law and BPP prepared to publish?
Nigel Savage, Chief Executive of The College of Law, is quite happy to publish the assessor’s report and has suggested that he will ask the QAA to publish it on their website to ensure complete transparency.
Peter Crisp, CEO of BPP Law School, is NOT prepared to publish the assessor’s report on BPP. I wrote to Peter Crisp inviting him to publish and provided him with the QAA statement on publication of these reports which is, in fact, on the QAA website. I quote it in full: (I have highlighted the important words…”The organisation may grant access to this report before this time”)
Policy on the disclosure of records relating to applications for degree awarding powers and university title
Peter Crisp intimated to me in a phone call a few weeks ago that the assessor’s report was confidential but when I pointed to the QAA disclosure policy above (which is why I have quoted it in full) he wrote back to me to say that he would refer the matter to the BPP board.
I received a reply from Peter Crisp on 6th July 2009
We have considered this and I’m afraid you will have to make a FOI request to the QAA for the release of the report. It was released to us as confidential information and the Board was not minded to go behind that.
The terms of our grant are of course public knowledge.
The QAA is, of course, not subject to FOI and neither is BPP Law School. It would appear to me, therefore, that either BPP has misunderstood the meaning of the QAA policy on disclosure of the assessor’s report or are choosing not to reveal the report for public scrutiny for their own reasons which, of course, they are fully entitled to do as they are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
So, what is the state of play? – a rather different approach to transparency taken by the two leading providers.
The Freedom of Information Act issue: For my part, given that both The College of Law and BPP Law School enjoy all the powers and privileges of degree awarding universities, they should be subject to the The Freedom of Information Act in exactly the same way as public sector universities – particularly now that an american company has acquired BPP Holdings PLC and, thereby, has effectively acquired the degree awarding powers of a British university.
The College of Law has demonstrated that it is prepared to be open. Thus far, BPP Law School has not. I shall write to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills headed by Lord Mandelson to see what the Department’s view on this is. When I get a reply, I shall publish it on my blog.
I have to say that I am a little puzzled as to why BPP Law School has declined to make the assessor’s report available for public inspection. BPP has a good reputation, is well resourced, provides high quality courses and cannot, possibly, have anything to hide.
It seems inequitable that public sector universities should be subject to FOI requests and not BPP. It is not exactly a level playing field.
I would be interested in your thoughts and comments on this, as always. Please feel free to comment in the comments section below.
***
Acquisition of BPP by Apollo
You may be interested in listening to my podcasts with Peter Crisp and Nigel Savage on the acquisition of BPP by Apollo.
***
UPDATE FOLLOWING LEGAL WEEK STORY
10th July 5.20 pm
Legal Week has published a report this afternoon, (they kindly linked to my blog post of yesterday) reporting that Peter Crisp CEO of BPP has repeated his unwillingness to disclose the report. I quote from the Legal Week report
“The QAA report is marked ‘confidential: not for publication or disclosure’ and we’re not going behind that. In any case, the terms of our grant are public knowledge.”
Let me repeat the QAA policy on the disclosure of the assessor’s report which led to BPP being granted degree awarding powers because Peter Crisp seems to be relying on the fact that the document was marked confidential and not for disclosure as a reason for not disclosing – which, palpably, is not the case.
”The organisation may grant access to this report before this time”
I always check my position as carefully as I can, so before publishing yesterday I wrote to the Chief Executive of the QAA, Peter Williams, to check that I had interpreted the QAA disclosure policy correctly and that BPP was entitled to disclose the report if they wished to. I received an email from Peter Williams to confirm that I had interpreted the policy correctly. I also spoke to a senior person at the Department for Business, Skills and Innovation.
BPP is fully entitled to refuse to disclose the report if they wish to and cannot be compelled to disclose because BPP Law School is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. I would not wish prospective students when considering which institution to attend for the GDL, LPC BVC or indeed, a law degree, to be under the misapprehension that that the reason BPP cannot disclose is because the document is marked confidential and not for disclosure. Peter Crisp will have to justify refusal to disclose on other grounds. The QAA policy would appear to permit redaction of commercially sensitive information.
I feel strongly that BPP Law School and The College of Law should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act given that they both enjoy the same rights as publicly funded universities to award degrees. Public sector universities are subject to the FOI.
Perhaps the law should be changed to bring The College of Law and BPP within the Freedom of Information law? The College of Law would appear to have no difficulty with this proposition because they have stated that they are more than happy to disclose the assessor’s report on them which led to their being granted degree awarding powers.
Alex Aldridge, Editor of the Legal Week Student section reports:
However, College of Law CEO Nigel Savage suggested that it is important for prospective students to be able to see the report:
“Currently students have little information to go on to distinguish legal education providers. So the opportunity to see an independent review would clearly be beneficial to them.”
I think that maybe BPP has missed an opportunity here – but that is their right.
I didn’t read Law for three years at a good univeristy, to get an LLB only for the privy mysterious council to award LLB giving powers to commercial and souless bodies like CoL or BPP.
The point is that the LLB is more academic and you have time to think rather than the single year courses, where you are taught the minimum number of subjects, where as other universities you are taught the minimum and then 4 or 5 more optional subjects (still compulsory though to get your degree)
I don’t have a problem with students doing the GDL or CPE, but to award an LLB after they have completed a one year course is completly riduculous and mocks mine and others three year degrees.
and the bpp llb and llm are marketed as only taking a couple of months. how much does THAT piss off people in lost’s position!
as anyone who has attended bpp will know as soon as the money is paid you can bugger off! given that i am still waiting for feedback on an exam result from a couple of months ago, i can well imaine their attitude to a freedom of information request – maybe the word ‘free’ has rendered them comatose. if you have private institutions at this level that is what you are going to get. should be illegal, frankly. but it won’t be.
Simply, for the avoidance of doubt, can we take it then that you are not tempted by the brilliance of the BPP experience to part with another £4K to bump up your diploma to an LLM ?
If the CoL and BPP want to be like universities, they should behave like them and act in a manner that serves transparency. We academics teach our students to take inquiry seriously and to keep looking and researching until they get their answers. We also believe in academic freedom and we are against the suppression of knowledge and information.
If these institutions don’t want to subscribe to normal academic freedoms and conventions, they shouldn’t have the power to grant degrees.
They have relegated themselves to an inferior status. We can’t take them seriously anymore. Moreover since the QAA is using public money to assess these institutions, the QAA has a duty to the public to be open as well.
John…
I fully intend to press on the issue of disclosure of the reports and the issue of the Freedom of Information Act being applicable to all providers of legal education.
I am surprised by the BPP stance – perhaps they will revise their stance when Apollo takes over?
The College of Law and BPP are going to be a force in education but it must be right that they both play on the same playing field as the universities in terms of disclosure, accountability and ‘mores’ (with all that this entails) when it comes to the awarding of degrees.
If they do not – then their degrees will have no long term value or currency – or perhaps value has changed?
The employers of lawyers may not give a damn – but I suspect this is not the case. The professional bodies have been very quiet on this issue – perhaps because there are far bigger issues at present than education, perhaps because no-one has asked them what their views are… or perhaps because they have not been able to publicise their view?
I have no problem with competition but I do think that we need to see the ‘private’ sector on a level playing field with the public sector.
We shall see what happens.
I am not surprised that the College of Law has been prepared to publish given their development over the past ten years or so. I am surprised that BPP has declined to do so.
BPP is not a major league university law school and is unlikely ever to develop into one because of its focus on teaching and lack of any semblance of scholarship and research work.
Yet they have been given power to award degrees; a power they will in all probability use to cram students through in well under the time taken at traditional law schools.
It is extraordinary that they have declined to be open. I draw a negative conclusion from this. If a major law school is not prepared to be subject to the responsibilities of open information required in traditional law schools they should not have the rights and powers of traditional law schools.
I listned to your podcast with Mr Crisp. If he had talked any more quickly he would have been able to read out his entire prospectus.
[…] Friday, July 10, 2009 by charonqc Legal Week covers BPP refusal to disclose QAA report… I have updated my original post of yeste… […]
no it is unlikely i will be coughing for the llm – tho the involvement of one prof barry rider who has an excellent background both academically and in practical law should say something positive about the course and its value.
however not only do bpp not have any of a university’s research function, they do not (in my experience) believe they are in the business of teaching people to think. they are there to teach people to qualify as lawyers. shame there is such a huge gap between the two concepts.
my limited experience of peter crisp wasn’t particularly positive. well done on the comedy dogs, tho.
In the interests of accuracy, Lost, to qualify for the College of Law’s LLB you must complete the GDL and the LPC or BVC. So it’s awarded after two years not one. Not that I expect you’ll be appeased on hearing that.
To be perfectly fair – I taught the GDL for many years. It is tough. The students I taught when I was at BPP worked long hours. They were graduates, of course – but the workload was demanding and the standard high.
I think a GDL + BVC or LPC merits an LLB – others may disagree.
The LPC and BVC are different from law degree programmes – but neither is a walk in the park.
If you want an LLB after your name, then you either should complete the standard 3 year programme, or you may do a senior status two year programme, in the event you already have another degree.
A small point but mentioned above, is that I have done 5 more taught causes, that were non-compulsory in order to have my degree given to me. If i did not pass those 5 optional courses then no degree would be given to me.
I specifically chose to get a LLB and not either a CPE or GDL, because I wanted it recognised that I studied it academically.
I don’t have a problem if these are hard working students admittedly they might even deserve it, however LLB status should only be granted by Universitys whom I understand pay a lot more attention to the growth of their students than the bodies mentioned above.
Should I expect to be awarded something extra after my three years of an LLB and then a BVC? No, and I don’t think the majority of people who have 3 or 2 year LLBs would agree either.
I don’t doubt that the GDL (with or without LPC/BVC) requires a very considerable amount of effort, but none of these courses demand much in the way of academic skills; they are, as Simply says, doing rather than thinking courses.
At a push, I can live with the LLB award as being OK because a 3 year, or 2 year senior, LLB has, through the influence of the professional bodies over the qualifying law degree syllabus, become less academic and more vocational in its nature. But as the holder of a proper LLM from a proper university, I find the idea of an LLM awarded as a bump up by CoL/BPP to be risible. I am undecided over the equivalent awards by City because, in contrast to the faux universities, City does have what appears to be a proper post grad research function.
I agree with CharonQC that the CPE/GDL is a demanding course. But that’s because it has to cram a lot into a short time. At best it creates a good legal technician. It doesn’t teach anyone to appreciate legal studies or the law in anything but the most instrumental of manners.
I therefore disagree with CharonQC that the combination of the GDL & LPC/BVC constitutes an equivalent to the LLB. It’s a pretty good boot camp and that’s as far as it goes.
If I were to make a comparison it would be with medicine. I’m sure a good technical medical education would create a doctor with a good knowledge of anatomy and diagnosis, perhaps. I suspect that kind of doctor would soon reach an end without some idea of medical imagination. When I read Oliver Sacks neurological tales I see a good doctor and also one who thinks and reflects on what he’s doing.
Lawyers need to reflect also otherwise they will lack imagination. Some may think this is too wishy washy. However, we credit professionals with skills that go beyond the merely technical or else we could all be good paralegals with a bit extra.
I think the New York state bar has the right idea when it refuses entry to English lawyers who have only done the GDL and don’t have a 3 year degree in law. From that perspective one year even with an extra of LPC is too insubstantial.
John
I do take your point about the three year law degree. I suspect, however , that you have come across students in your time who have done the minimum needed to ‘satisfy the examiners’. It was ever thus and they cannot really be said to have applied themselves to the rigour of study or the subtleties of a liberal legal education.
That being said – senior status degrees of two years are very demanding and the graduate studensts I have taught on the London programme have been every good – particularly mature part-timers.
The LPC has improved in recent years but there is still, inevitably, an element of covering a lot ground at the expense of depth. I’m not sure that this is a bad thing because, inevitably, with good training a young lawyer will develop the necessary analytical and judgmental skills to build their knowledge and experience.
I have some experience of the structure and design of LPC and BVC courses and while these are not perfect yet, credit does have to be given to both the Law Society and The Bar for developing these programmesover the years and there is, of course, much more to come on the Bar side to re-structure the focus.
Good students on an academic law degree programme (if they put the time and effort in) will learn a great deal because they have time to research, to read, to think. The numbers game brigade will simply play the percentage game, cram and still satisfy the examiners.
An aside….. Perhaps we should encourage more students to do gap years so that university first years are not written off as a drinking version of facebook
With degree inflation in British universities rampant (and we both know this to be a problem) some of these percentage numbers game players are getting Upper Seconds – and this must be frustrating for students who work extremely hard. That’s life… the difficulty comes when these numbers game people start to believe in their own brilliance because they have a 2.1 or First.!
I’m orf for a glass of Rioja to improve my thinking…. bibo ergo cogito, as I never tire of saying.
[…] hasten the breakup of some of its ethnically diverse member states. Charon QC decides to find out how easy it is to pry information out of private British law schools. And proving that the U.S. is not always in the forefront of colorful litigation, a Polish mother […]
Rumours of more redundancies at BPP despite (because of) the US takeover. Is there another story here?
[…] do so, citing the restriction that the document was given to BPP in confidence. See my blog post: A tale of two tribes: Transparency in legal education where I pointed out to Peter Crisp that the QAA allowed organisations to release reports if they […]
[…] I have written to Peter Crisp, the CEO of BPP Law School, to ask him again if he is prepared to release the QAA report on degree awarding powers. BPP Law School is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act and despite Peter Crisp saying to me in two podcasts that BPP would be happy to provide information in the same way as universities subject to the FOI are required to – BPP made it very clear to me that they would not do so for the reasons set out in this blog post I wrote earlier in the year. […]
[…] 1. I have asked BPP Law School several times if they are prepared to make public the QAA report on them which led to The Privy Council granting degree awarding powers. I shall not rehearse the matter here again. BPP is not prepared to do so and, indeed, does not even bother to respond to my emails on the issue any longer. The College of Law has been prepared to make their QAA report on their degree awarding accreditation public. Here is my earlier Transparency in Legal Education post […]