Legal Week reports: It has also been confirmed that BPP Law School, which last month asked for volunteers among its BVC students to defer for a year, exceeded its allocated numbers of 456 by 80. This figure includes both the full-time and part-time BVC courses run by BPP in London and Leeds. It has since been reduced to 63 as a result of deferrals and withdrawals.
However, BPP Law School chief executive Peter Crisp told Legal Week that BPP has sufficient numbers and quality of staff to deliver the course to the extra students.
“We are a large, well-resourced law school and therefore able to cope with an additional 60 students on our BVC. Our reputation is built on the quality of our provision and we have the staffing and accommodation to teach the additional students in place. Although the over-recruitment is regrettable, the demand for places this year is testament to our reputation as the leading provider of the BVC.”
An additional 60 students on the BVC course brings in a fair bit of additional income – income straight to the bottom line and pure profit.
BPP fees for the BVC (Full-Time) are £14700 for London and £11,950 for Leeds. The part-time course fees are roughly half for each of the two years of the part-time course. Without knowing the precise mix between full-time and part-time fees the additional income could be anything between £0.5 million to £800,000.
Legal Week reports: A statement issued earlier today (2 October) by the BSB reads as follows: “The BSB takes this matter very seriously due to the quality assurance issues such over recruitment can cause. Both cases are currently being considered by the Bar professional training course subcommittee.
“Further meetings on this matter will be taking place with both providers to ensure that the quality of delivery of the course is not diminished and that the interests of the students currently on the course are not affected. The BSB is also seeking explanations from both providers as to why the current situation has arisen and the measures they will be putting into place to prevent or limit the possibility of it occurring again.”
This is, to use the vernacular…taking the ‘piss’… or to put it in rather more professional terms – a serious breach of the rules and, frankly, a breach of the principles of fair competition with other law schools which are able to get their administrative procedures right. Other providers, save for Northumbria, have not broken the rules. Other providers whose administrative procedures would seem to be far superior in terms of getting the numbers right are not enjoying the extra booty and income.
We shall have to wait and see whether the Bar Standards Board take this seriously enough to impose a sanction on BPP Law School in terms of additional quality assurance / resource provision – particularly as BPP now enjoys degree awarding powers granted by the Privy Council. If I was the CEO or Dean of a law school offering the BVC, – I know how these things work. I was the first and founding CEO of BPP Law School back in the 1990s – I would be extremely irritated that BPP Law School and Northumbria seem to be flouting the rules with impunity. An excess of 80 students (since reduced to 63) in the case of BPP Law School (30 for Northumbria) cannot, credibly, be put down to ‘simple’ administrative error – it is a ‘serious’ administrative error and it would not be unreasonable for the BSB to require a tightening of BPP’s internal administration. I cannot imagine that BPP would do this deliberately to ramp up the share price for the acquisition – a well known rumour which was going around – and which I discount entirely.
We shall, in time hopefully, learn the result of the BSB investigation into BPP and Northumbria if the BSB make their report and findings public – which is not unreasonable to expect given the ‘public interest’ on this this issue.
While Peter Crisp is confident of BPP Law School’s ability to resource the additional 60 students – and he certainly has in excess of £0.5 million to do so. His assertion that over-subscription (while ‘regrettable’) is testament to the quality of BPP’s position as the ‘leading provider’ of the BVC is little more than PR guff and bluster, may well be questioned by Deans of other law schools and, frankly, looks a bit lame in the context of this academic fiasco. No law school can support a claim, credibly, to be the leading provider of the Bar Vocational course (in my view) for the very simple reason that we do not get to see the detailed inspection reports on BVC providers. There is, therefore, no truly independent yardstick students can use to measure quality of provision other than a law school’s marketing and word of mouth. The SRA, by contrast, does publish inspection visit reports which are of some value to students in determining which law school they wish to attend. Perhaps the BSB may like to consider their position on inspection reports for the future?
When I spoke to the Bar Standards Board I asked if students would be prejudiced. The BSB made clear that no students would be forced to leave the course. This, effectively, puts the BSB in a very difficult position because they, quite rightly, will not prejudice students by requiring them to leave the BPP course. The BSB is acting in the interests of the students and the profession to ensure that Bar courses are run to high standards and should be commended for investigating both BPP and Northumbria thoroughly to ensure there is no repeat of this next year.
Degree awarding powers re-visited
Given that BPP has been purchased by Apollo, an American education group – and through BPP has degree awarding powers in any subject – it is all the more important that BPP plays on the same level playing field as universities and should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act requirements.
While The College of Law is prepared to make public the report of the QAA to the Privy Council which led to The College of Law getting degree awarding powers – BPP continues to refuse to make their QAA report public. The only reason given to me by BPP for not releasing the report was that they received the report in confidence. The Chairman of the QAA confirmed to me that BPP were at liberty to release the report if they wished to do so.
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.
I’m astounded by the cost of the BVC; when I did it (almost a decade ago) it was almost half the price, but I didn’t go to BPP (aka Burglarize People’s Pounds)…. Instead I went to a place that is now called City Law School (aka Count Lots of Sterling)…. even then I thought the cost was exorbitant.
Another area of concern is that I do remember barristers saying to my year group that the Bar was on its way out and that we should all reconsider our vocations. That was nearly ten years ago. I wonder whether these colleges are even making their students aware that even if they pass the BVC, the likelihood of not just getting a tenancy but keeping it, is ever slimmer and what support they offer, if any, for alternative career paths where a law qualification can come in handy?
It seems as if these big schools are selling a dream, but are failing to tell these aspiring lawyers the truth. Fraud? Breach of duty of care? Negligence? Theft?
You decide……!
“I cannot imagine that BPP would do this deliberately to ramp up the share price for the acquisition – a well known rumour which was going around – and which I discount entirely”.
Reminds me of my fav:
“I have no doubt your client will be a credible witness….”
As for the situation generally – I was just speaking to the Head of Education at Gray’s Inn today. Turns out several alums are now qualfied as solicitor advocates, with applications in to return to the Bar as practitioners.
She then told me Mr Starmer QC is making written representations regarding the quality of solicitor advocates – which, on the face of it, seems a bit rich when CPS has unqualified “caseworkers” appearing in the Mags.
The wheels are coming off – and this insanity started the day unfunded pupillages were abolished.
I make no comment beyond what I have stated above – but it is a serious issue and when the BSB publish their findings the position will be clear.
As one of the many who may have inadvertently, oops, help to promulgate the rumour that BPP may have ramped their pre sale income streams, I am reassured that this possibility has now been discounted entirely.
Barboy…… the truth will out… and if BPP did act with deliberation .. the consequences will, as you know only too well… be appalling for them.
It was, however, a view widely held and expressed… so you may be proved to be correct in your surmise and thoughts.
I really do hope not – that wd be extremely bad for legal education.
BPP may, of course, at any time, comment for themselves on this blog post – that is their right.
It sounds more like a money making scam than anything else. And I suspect the BSB is going to be pretty toothless in this matter. Can it fine BPP? Could it make them reduce student numbers in the following year to compensate? Unlikely in both cases. Will it pull its accreditation of BPP? Unlikely and would be met with some kind of judicial review as well.
I wonder if someone somewhere got tipped a share of that half a mil? Would ease things a bit….
half a bar is a lot of dog biscuits. cherchez le(s) chien(s).
The answer is to fine BPP more than the fees paid by the student for every excess place offered.
Whether the contract between the BSB and BPP provides for such an eventuality I don’t know.
Simon….
As far as I know the BSB board has no power or contractual right to fine. I understand that do have a contractual right to require additional resourcing etc. The BSB does, of course, have the right to withdraw accreditation but, I suspect, it will not do so in this case.
I now plan to examine the position of over subscription by all providers (if any) on the LPC and shall be speaking to the SRA on Monday.
I do, however, feel that the BSB should re-visit the issue of powers if they are to have ‘teeth’ short of the nuclear option of withdrawal of accreditation.
It is, of course, open for all law schools and clients of BPP to reflect on this oversubscription by BPP – and the QAA is aware of the matter.
[…] See my post on BPP Law School’s over subscribing of their BVC […]
There is no power / right to “fine” under the current regs. When the BPTC regs come into force, the fine will be a measly £1000 per “excess” student ….
Anon: Hopefully, any law school tempted to over subscribe in future will bear in mind that the possibility of having their accreditation withdrawn is a power the BSB have. Whether the BSB will use it is another matter.