Although I always enjoy reading RollonFriday their story on the salaries being paid to The College of Law Chief Executive and others on the College Board does deserve a fair comment and reply on another medium.
Let me just say this – because of my past history founding BPP Law School with BPP Holdings years ago and having been asked by The Magic Circle firms in the early 2000s to do a report on the LPC and providers – I am surprised that the College of Law doesn’t pay them more.
I have no hesitation at all in saying this – that if Nigel Savage and the team that he put together had not gone into the College of Law those 12 or so years ago, I don’t think The College of Law would be the institution it is today – an innovative College which has the courage to try new ideas, admit errors, put them right and do their best for students – it would, quite possibly, have been a basket case.
* Disclosure.
I do podcasts for the College of Law. I am delighted to do so and I’m not even tempted to charge more than the very modest fee they pay to cover my time. Had it been another institution… I would now put in a deficit CUTS busting tender for my next series, if asked to do one! I won’t!
The podcasts I do for The College of Law – do listen – they are relevant to our profession!
***
And… another thing… RollonFriday reports…
And RollOnFriday can reveal he gets four times the pay of the chief executive of a certain leading private law school.
Excellent! All I can say – if this is true AND IF the certain leading private law school is BPP Law School – is that Peter Crisp needs to go on a Negotiation course and speak to the Americans who now own BPP. I can’t remember what Peter got when I took him on at BPP when I was CEO (It was not peanuts) – but if this report refers to Peter Crisp at BPP… I’m most terribly sorry that Peter wasn’t able to leverage his position to greater effect over the past 15 years given the fantastic fees BPP charges their students. I would also be very surprised if Carl Lygo, the Principal of The Law School et al, is struggling to get by on a salary less than that paid to the Prime Minister of The United Kingdom. BPP doesn’t do Freedom of Information requests – so we will never know. On the other hand, Peter Crisp is a very fair man – Carl Lygo also – so they may just refute this story, without revealing their private salaries, of their own accord!
Come on chaps….This is the legal profession we are talking about... Not many poor City Lawyers.
Let’s all celebrate Savage’s “pile em high and sell em cheap” charity ethos. Is this the only charity on the planet selling the dream to customer/students they know will never get a relevant job at the end of their training and expense?
I’ve always wondered why they opted for “charitable” status rather than operate as a Ltd or PLC. It’s suddenly all become self-explanatory.
Charity Customer – a different, but very relevant point. All the law schools have to answer that one – but, to be fair to the profession – the Law Society and Bar Council has issued warnings and those warnings have had a lot of publicity.
The trouble with law – it is a very competitive profession. I used to get students angrily demanding a right to have a go when I tried to dissuade them because of their pre-LPC/Bar qualifications. Some went on to do very well, despite their paper qualifications.
Difficult one – but understand the point you are making.
Informed consent is all?
The pay will come from the profits – unless of course people are tearing the arse out of a charity.
So the “sucker born every minute” (non)entry to the profession is acceptable?
Accountants do it differently. Indeed, one must have a job before pursuing the professional part of the education.
So why not limit LPC to those with training contracts? The Law Society can’t because they’re hamstrung by those, like the CoL, how have a vested interest in selling the dream.
It’s almost as shameful as CoL and others selling the New York Bar dream as alternative access to an English qualification.
Utter rubbish. There is a reason why Nigel and ors get a wad of cash. I happen to think it stinks.
As far as I know The College of Law makes a substantial charitable foundation with The Sutton Trust and pro-bono. You will have to ask them.
As for entry to the profession – I happen to take the view that students should be very carefully advised before they pursue (a) a law degree and (b) LPC / BPTC in relation to the ability of the profession to take them. (Not all people who read law, of course, wish to go into the profession)
I do think that some students are rather too eager to go into Law. I do feel that it is the responsibility of the profession and the law schools to provide proper advice to prospective members of the profession.
I do feel, however, that we should be very careful. I have known many instances of students with poor paper qualifications going on to to do well on the LPC/BVC and on to very effective careers in law. So long as students know the real risks, I am comfortable.
I feel that we should look at the practical reality behind the value of degrees from university law schools at the bottom of the league table. Therein lies serious controversy, but a controversial discussion which, frankly, is long overdue.
I think it is absurd that a student without either a law degree or the GDL should be be able to practice English Law on the basis of the New York Bar. I cannot imagine many employers wanting to take the insurance, let alone the commercial risk. I may be wrong!
One of the greatest responsibilities of those teaching undergraduates is to advise realistically about possible future careers. This is of particular importance in a field like law because so many of those who take a law degree do so with a view to working as a lawyer (in commerce or private practice) once they have their degree.
I can only speak about the Bar. It is swamped with applications for pupillage from people who have decent degrees and have “invested” a substantial sum in the BVC but do not have the slightest hope in Hades of being inflicted on the public as practising barristers.
Sensible and knowledgeable tutors have no difficulty in identifying those who will, those who might and those who will not cut it at the Bar. The problem today is that those with no chance appear not to be given the unwelcome but valuable advice they need.
Of course there is the occasional apparent no-hoper who turns out to be a star, but for every one of those there are hundreds if not thousands who delude themselves into false hope, and massive debt, because no one has the guts to tell them something they don’t want to hear.
maybe this explains why negotiation was so badly taught at bpp…
i chose not to go to college of law when they revealed that they offered places on the bvc based not on ability but on whether you had placed them first in your choices. i thought they were joking, but it seemed not.
i’m obviously naive, but it does seem quite a lot of money.
and i’m very sorry to disagree utterly with the ‘buyer beware’ approach, but, sensible though it seems, if you think for a moment you realise just how nonsensical it is. let us go slowly:
1) i am a keen young thing who worked fairly hard for my first from an ordinary uni or a top 2.1 from a good to v good uni, maybe even oxbridge. nicely spoken, middle class, look pretty decent in a suit and with some flattering reviews from uni amateur dramatics.
2) i am warned that the bar is competitive etc.
3) errr ok, so? either i punt the cash and back my goodish academics or realise the numbers are a bit scary and try something else.
charon – you know yer stuff – advise me.
no of course you can’t, because you just don’t know. there are hundreds of people fitting something like the above description who may or may not get a go at the bar. and factor in the complication that it isn’t some wise old dog like charon making the decision, it’s a 21yr old with 3 whole years studying law behind him/her and (s)he hasn’t a bloody clue just how bad the numbers may be. nor i suggest would research or further experience tell them much.
so you toss a coin like most people and hope daddy will cough if you get into serious debt. and i’m not even considering the human soul’s propensity to confuse what is desired with what is achievable.
i know my answer and i know it would never happen; but what is clear is that the current situation favours the able candidate who can afford to take the chance and be wrong over the able one who can’t.
JAMES STACY JUDGE STILL UNDECIDED…
I found your entry interesting thus I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog :)…