LLB vs BCL?

md99 · 12-01-2007 7:38pm #1

(any more suitable forum for this threat??? I don't know, I've looked)

I'm starting third level education next year and plan on studying law.

My question is how do the various titles put on law degrees compare with each other, ie

LLB (eg Griffith College Irish Law)
BCL (eg Law at UCC)
BL (eg BL in Law & European Studies at UL)
BA (I know this is a bachelor of arts... but does that make it in any wayinferior to the others?)

I am unable to decide on what course to choose but would prefer one in Cork, Dublin or Limerick, points depending as I should be able to achieve these if the points for the law courses do not increase (at least by a lot)

I would REALLY appreciate any help on the matter.

UrbanFox · 12-01-2007 8:05pm

The answer probably depends on what you want to do post grad.

The main thing to check is that your intended degree will actually satisfy the requirements of the next institution you intend to attend after your primary degree e.g. Kings Inns or the Law Society.

Best of luck.

md99 · 12-01-2007 8:16pm

Actually I'm interested in both solicitry and barrestry, I've heard that a barrister can convert to a solicitor rather quickly, however my parents are leaning towards me becoming a solicitor as they *think* it will be much more reliable to secure an income..

Overheal · 12-01-2007 9:15pm

you mean their pensions

EdgarAllenPoo · 12-01-2007 10:02pm

Being a solicitor is the more secure job for your bank balance. All the courses you listed are suitable methods of entry for the Inns, Blackhall place take graduates with any honours degree.

Would you consider the law and taxation course run by Limerick IT?

Have a look at Qualifax.ie.

md99 · 12-01-2007 11:22pm

GDM wrote:

Being a solicitor is the more secure job for your bank balance. All the courses you listed are suitable methods of entry for the Inns, Blackhall place take graduates with any honours degree.

Would you consider the law and taxation course run by Limerick IT?

Have a look at Qualifax.ie.

Not really, it's very broad and although a good course, not very specific for someone interested in practicing law

walrusgumble · 12-01-2007 11:28pm

or BA (HONS) LEGAL STUDIES WITH TAXATION IN LETTERKENNY IT. WATERFORD HAVE IT TOO.

AS FAR AS LYIT IS CONCERNED PRO: TAUGHT ALL 8 law SUBJECTS REQUIRED IN LAW SOCIETY'S FE1 and family law. LOW POINTS REQUIRED. DESPITE BEING AN IT YOU WILL STILL BE TAUGHT BY SOLICITORS/BARRISTERS. many including myself go on to be legal executives and sit the fe1 (have not done that yet not sure if i will, but sill young ...). i believe at least 4 have gone on to be barristers. also taxation is handy to have in areas such as wills/probate/estates when discussing matters such as CGT and CAT

CON: NOT BEST OPTION IF YOU WISH TO PURSUE TO KING'S INN AS YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO THE LEGAL STUDES DIP WHICH TAKES 2 YEARS BEFORE DOING ENTRANCE. ALSO FAR DISTANCE, its value kind of gets snubbed by people who should know better.

LIMERICK IT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED, AT LEAST PUT IT DOWN ON CAO, IN CASE YOU DONT GET THE PIONTS FOR PLACE YOU WANT. ALSO, UNLESS ITS YOUR PARENTS PAYING YOUR FEES, YOU SHOUL TRY AND DO WANT YOU WISH TO DO, UNLESS THEY KNOW WHAT THERE TALKING ABOUT/HAVE EXPERIENCE PAY HEED. BUT IT IS TRUE BARRISTER REALLY DO HAVE A TOUGHER TIME AND THEY ONLY GET A PORTION OF WHAT SOLICITORS GET FROM CLIENTS.

md99 · 12-01-2007 11:32pm

walrusgumble wrote:

or BA (HONS) LEGAL STUDIES WITH TAXATION IN LETTERKENNY IT. WATERFORD HAVE IT TOO.

AS FAR AS LYIT IS CONCERNED PRO: TAUGHT ALL 8 SUBJECTS REQUIRED IN LAW SOCIETY'S FE1. LOW POINTS REQUIRED. DESPITE BEING AN IT YOU WILL STILL BE TAUGHT BY SOLICITORS/BARRISTERS

CON: NOT BEST OPTION IF YOU WISH TO PURSUE TO KING'S INN AS YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO THE LEGAL STUDES DIP WHICH TAKES 2 YEARS BEFORE DOING ENTRANCE. ALSO FAR DISTANCE.

LIMERICK IT SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED, AT LEAST PUT IT DOWN ON CAO, IN CASE YOU DONT GET THE PIONTS FOR PLACE YOU WANT. ALSO, UNLESS ITS YOUR PARENTS PAYING YOUR FEES, YOU SHOUL TRY AND DO WANT YOU WISH TO DO, UNLESS THEY KNOW WHAT THERE TALKING ABOUT/HAVE EXPERIENCE PAY HEED. BUT IT IS TRUE BARRISTER REALLY DO HAVE A TOUGHER TIME AND THEY ONLY GET A PORTION OF WHAT SOLICITORS GET FROM CLIENTS.

Thank you, I'll take this into account.

Anyone know about the two degrees offered by UL,

BL in Law & European Studies (445 pts)
and
BA in Law & Accounting (485 pts)?

yournamehere · 13-01-2007 1:47am

a couple of my friends did law and accounting in ul. its a pretty tough course - as its rare to have both qualitative and quantitative abilities. it is a fantastic course. most of the class end up in top5 firms for their apprenticeship.

i wouldn't rate the law and euro course at all. you dont do enough of either subject. generally havent heard anything good about it.

i would rate law courses in the following order

1. LLB Trinity
2. Law/ACC UL
3. BCL UCD
4. BA LLB - Galway

For some reason BCL in UCD seems to be rated way higher than its cork counterpart.

also would recommend B&L in UCD as alternative to law/acc in UL.

hope that helps. speak to graduates of any of the above for more info, also HR depts in solicitors and barristers

g'luck hope that helps somewhat

md99 · 13-01-2007 9:24am

Interesting, do you know anything of the LLB offered by Griffith College in Cork and Dublin?

Also, according to my career guidance councillor I am to stay away from LLB's as they are more barrister-geared whereas I'm looking to be a solicitor. Is there an overlap?

irlsurreal · 13-01-2007 10:58am

Just finishing a law degree myself. Tbh at the end of the day I don't think it matters hugely which of any of the already mentioned courses you choose since eventually there's exams for both the Inns and Blackhall. Most people I know in the same position as me(i.e. finishing with a law degree) are looking to do the FE1 revision courses in Griffith and the like so regardless of where or what your degree there's a good chance you could end up doing one of these courses. From my talk with solicitors (and I've been speaking with a good few at this stage!) where you got your degree is not generally a swinging factor when looking for training contracts etc.

One option which hasn't been mentioned yet though and which gives a lot more opportunity IMO is the LLB in Queens Belfast. I know people automatically think of it as the North and that a degree from there would be no use. In fact, not only does it qualify you to sit the exams in Belfast(which most southern degrees do actually) it also qualifies you to apply to England where there is NO entrance exams and a place in their training course is GUARANTEED with a 2:2 degree. Again don't shove off the England idea either. Granted it involves a 3 year committment to England and/or Wales(1 yr training course + 2 yr teaining contract). However after this you are free to work anywhere in England, Wales, the Republic or the North. And again the word from the employers is that someone who has worked in England is well regarded.
Anyway its just another option and remember most applicants in recent times, if going for the FE1s(solicitors) do revison courses so any worries that are raised by the old argument that the constitutional law is different are put to rest by this.
Belfast is very accessible these days but the only thing I would say is that if things haven't changed 2 much in the past couple of years then the closing date is 15th January so you'd need to apply by eh...... Monday?!:o (think you can apply online at www.ucas.co.uk though!)

Hope its of some help anyway and best of luck in the leavin!

yournamehere · 13-01-2007 12:04pm

no to the LLB in griffith. while their revision courses are the only way to go as an undergrad degree you won't be taken seriously. the only ppl who tell you not to do an llb if going blackhall route are the ones who know nothing about law - both degrees cover all the core areas.
at the end of the day your biggest challenge will be getting an apprenticeship, and if you have a 1st/high 2:1 from LLB Trin, B&ACC Ul or BCL Ucd it'll be a whole lot easier. they're simply more highly regarded than the others - FACT

Johnee · 13-01-2007 12:13pm

md99 wrote:

Interesting, do you know anything of the LLB offered by Griffith College in Cork and Dublin?

Also, according to my career guidance councillor I am to stay away from LLB's as they are more barrister-geared whereas I'm looking to be a solicitor. Is there an overlap?

Well, your counsellor is talking out of their ***.

Essentially, the letters are no more than what the institution themselves decides to award. Employers aren't going to say, well you seem like a good candidate but you've a BCL whereas someone else has an LLB.

There used to be a rough breakdown based on the years they took - an LL.B being four, and a BCL three. That's not a fixed rule though.

The main thing is to go to the best rated course you can. Forget about the letters.

Although of course, everyone will have different views on which course is best (largely based on where they went

).

From a knowledge of law point of view, however, I think the top three courses are UCD, TCD and UCC. They have the best lecturers, and generally the students with higher points. Which doesnt reflect intelligence but does mean classes normally go at a faster pace and cover more.

Other colleges have good courses and good lecturers (and good students graduating every year) but they're the top three (pure law) in my book.

Rosita · 14-01-2007 5:22pm

yournamehere wrote:

no to the LLB in griffith. while their revision courses are the only way to go as an undergrad degree you won't be taken seriously. the only ppl who tell you not to do an llb if going blackhall route are the ones who know nothing about law - both degrees cover all the core areas.
at the end of the day your biggest challenge will be getting an apprenticeship, and if you have a 1st/high 2:1 from LLB Trin, B&ACC Ul or BCL Ucd it'll be a whole lot easier. they're simply more highly regarded than the others - FACT

I am always dubious about comments which are ended by the word "fact" as if we are being forced to swallow all that has been said.

Who exactly will not take you seriously with the LLB from Griffith? And why not? If the Bar Council regards it as sufficiently thorough to preclude the need for any other study prior to sitting the Bar entrance exams what are the reasons for not taking it seriously? Does the Bar Council not know their business?

From what I can make out from the Law Society's website, a law degree is not even necessary in order to sit that society's exams. Obviously it would be difficult/impossible to acquire sufficient knowledge to pass their law exams not having studied for a law degree, but the fact that it is not even a stated pre-requisite in all cases, suggests to me that your initial law degree is not anywhere near as important as people who don't know the difference actually think.

Maybe you are making your comments on the basis that qualifications from the old traditional state colleges are somehow more prestigious than those from an English University (Griffith degree is awarded by Nottingham University which is ranked in the top 200 universities in the world, and which knocks the socks off the likes of UCD in the 'Times' - or any others - rankings) or not-very-well-known private college.

I am also interested as to how you compiled the "rankings" of the four degrees you mention in your post. I would be astonished if anybody could have enough knowledge of all these courses/colleges to give a reasonable comparison.

Rosita · 14-01-2007 5:29pm

Johnee wrote:

From a knowledge of law point of view, however, I think the top three courses are UCD, TCD and UCC. They have the best lecturers, and generally the students with higher points. Which doesnt reflect intelligence but does mean classes normally go at a faster pace and cover more.

Other colleges have good courses and good lecturers (and good students graduating every year) but they're the top three (pure law) in my book.

How could you possibly know the standard of lecturers in so many colleges?

How could you possibly know the pace of classes in three different universities' law courses?

Jo King · 14-01-2007 6:03pm

People without Law degrees have passed the FE1 exams. People without Law degrees have passed the Kings Inns Entrance Exam and subsequent professional course. No law degree prepares people for work as a solicitor or barrister or is specifically tailored to one profession or the other.
At the Bar there is a situation where some people starting off are helped by their former lecturers.
There is a certain amount of snobbery in some solicitors offices with regard to the qualifications which they expect apprentices to have.
Once in either of the professions no-one is too concerned with qualifications. Reputation is based on the work actually done by the person and their achievements in practice.
Some degrees are regarded as more prestigious than others however many people in both branches have qualified in disciplines other than law before enter the legal profession.
The question in reality is not how good the degree is intrinsically, but how it might give an edge.
Trinity and UCD are ahead of the game on that score at the moment.

dats_right · 15-01-2007 9:09am

First of all, I am an apprentice solicitor myself and also a law graduate so I know enough to realise that some of the discussion so far has been a little misleading and uninformed.

I will only address a few things, Griffith's degree is NOT awarded by Nottingham University, it is awarded by Nottingham Trent University. In England, in the early 1990's a lot of the old Polytechnics (similar to IT's over here) were upgraded to University status. Not surprisingly, in the UK there is also a lot of snobbery about educational institutions, the most prestigous being 1) the oxbridge colleges 2) the 'redbrick uni's' i.e. older more established uni's 3) the better ranking new uni's such as Griffith's Nottingham Trent. Whereas, Portobello's degree is awarded jointly by HETAC and the Uni of Wales (ie similar federal university as the NUI over here). It has very close ties with one such very highly regarded redbrick uni i.e Cardiff Uni.

Secondly, a BL is a degree awarded by the King's Inns on completion of a barrister's vocational training i.e. Barrister-at-Law. It is not a degree awarded by UL. A bachelor of Law degree is in its abbreviated form LL.B or LLB not BL.

Thirdly, there is absolutely no practical difference in whether your degree is an LL.B or BCL. The content is more or less the same in the various institutions. That is not to say that the instituiton that you attend is not important just that the actual designation of your degree is not important.

Fourthly, as regards training in the UK it is true to say that it is highly regarded and somebody who went down that route would probably not have any major difficulties coming back to Ireland. Although, it is as difficult if not even more difficult to find a training contract. see www.traineesolicitor.co.uk or any one of a multitude of websites. The LPC i.e. the vocational training post degree does not require you to have secured a job (unlike Ireland where the opposite is true) but it does cost an awful lot of money probably tuition fees of about £8-10k stg. alone and that without any guarantee of a job at the end of it!

OP you need to get busy researching your options as soon as possible. Luckily the internet is lot better than even 7-8 years ago so you'll find a lot of info on there. Also try get some work experience in a law firm, many people think that they will like the law but when they get down to practising it- they hate it! Keep an open mind don't just think about a course as a means to a job, do a course that you will really enjoy. I often wish I had done a general degree such as an Arts degree first and then pursued law afterwards.

dats_right · 15-01-2007 9:09am

First things first, I am an apprentice solicitor myself and also a law graduate so I know enough to realise that some of the discussion so far has been a little misleading and uninformed.

I will only address a few things, Griffith's degree is NOT awarded by Nottingham University, it is awarded by Nottingham Trent University. In England, in the early 1990's a lot of the old Polytechnics (similar to IT's over here) were upgraded to University status. Not surprisingly, in the UK there is also a lot of snobbery about educational institutions, the most prestigous being 1) the oxbridge colleges 2) the 'redbrick uni's' i.e. older more established uni's 3) the better ranking new uni's such as Griffith's Nottingham Trent. Whereas, Portobello's degree is awarded jointly by HETAC and the Uni of Wales (ie similar federal university as the NUI over here). It has very close ties with one such very highly regarded redbrick uni i.e Cardiff Uni.

Secondly, a BL is a degree awarded by the King's Inns on completion of a barrister's vocational training i.e. Barrister-at-Law. It is not a degree awarded by UL. A bachelor of Law degree is in its abbreviated form LL.B or LLB not BL.

Thirdly, there is absolutely no practical difference in whether your degree is an LL.B or BCL. The content is more or less the same in the various institutions. That is not to say that the instituiton that you attend is not important just that the actual designation of your degree is not important.

Fourthly, as regards training in the UK it is true to say that it is highly regarded and somebody who went down that route would probably not have any major difficulties coming back to Ireland. Although, it is as difficult if not even more difficult to find a training contract. see www.traineesolicitor.co.uk or any one of a multitude of websites. The LPC i.e. the vocational training post degree does not require you to have secured a job (unlike Ireland where the opposite is true) but it does cost an awful lot of money probably tuition fees of about £8-10k stg. alone and that without any guarantee of a job at the end of it!

OP you need to get busy researching your options as soon as possible. Luckily the internet is lot better than even 7-8 years ago so you'll find a lot of info on there. Also try get some work experience in a law firm, many people think that they will like the law but when they get down to practising it- they hate it! Keep an open mind don't just think about a course as a means to a job, do a course that you will really enjoy. I often wish I had done a general degree such as an Arts degree first and then pursued law afterwards.

Rosita · 15-01-2007 11:09am

dats_right wrote:

First things first, I am an apprentice solicitor myself and also a law graduate so I know enough to realise that some of the discussion so far has been a little misleading and uninformed.

I will only address a few things, Griffith's degree is NOT awarded by Nottingham University, it is awarded by Nottingham Trent University. In England, in the early 1990's a lot of the old Polytechnics (similar to IT's over here) were upgraded to University status. Not surprisingly, in the UK there is also a lot of snobbery about educational institutions, the most prestigous being 1) the oxbridge colleges 2) the 'redbrick uni's' i.e. older more established uni's 3) the better ranking new uni's such as Griffith's Nottingham Trent. Whereas, Portobello's degree is awarded jointly by HETAC and the Uni of Wales (ie similar federal university as the NUI over here). It has very close ties with one such very highly regarded redbrick uni i.e Cardiff Uni.

Secondly, a BL is a degree awarded by the King's Inns on completion of a barrister's vocational training i.e. Barrister-at-Law. It is not a degree awarded by UL. A bachelor of Law degree is in its abbreviated form LL.B or LLB not BL.

Thirdly, there is absolutely no practical difference in whether your degree is an LL.B or BCL. The content is more or less the same in the various institutions. That is not to say that the instituiton that you attend is not important just that the actual designation of your degree is not important.

Fourthly, as regards training in the UK it is true to say that it is highly regarded and somebody who went down that route would probably not have any major difficulties coming back to Ireland. Although, it is as difficult if not even more difficult to find a training contract. see www.traineesolicitor.co.uk or any one of a multitude of websites. The LPC i.e. the vocational training post degree does not require you to have secured a job (unlike Ireland where the opposite is true) but it does cost an awful lot of money probably tuition fees of about £8-10k stg. alone and that without any guarantee of a job at the end of it!

OP you need to get busy researching your options as soon as possible. Luckily the internet is lot better than even 7-8 years ago so you'll find a lot of info on there. Also try get some work experience in a law firm, many people think that they will like the law but when they get down to practising it- they hate it! Keep an open mind don't just think about a course as a means to a job, do a course that you will really enjoy. I often wish I had done a general degree such as an Arts degree first and then pursued law afterwards.

A question you might be in a position to answer is the question regarding the significance of the institution from which you receive a primary law degree. You acknowledge that there is snobbery but is there anything other than snobbery separating these degrees. For example, the ones from private colleges which are approved by the Bar Council - why are they "not as good" as the time-honoured qualifications from the old universities according to some people even thoughthe Bar Council think they are? Is there a substantive difference in reality? And does a solicitor's practice give a hoot where the primary degree comes from once the solicitor's exams are passed? I doubt either if qualified barristers have difficulty getting work because people are searching back through their CVs to see where their primary degree came from. Do you have any thoughts on this?

Jo King · 15-01-2007 8:00pm

Approval of a degree by the Kings Inns for entry is simply an expression by them 0of a view that the degree meets a minimum standard. It does not mean that every degree they approve has equal status or quality. One of the reasons they began setting a common entrance exam in 2002 is because of the variation in the quality of the various degrees. Qualified barristers, if they go into practice are all self employed. If and when they do get any work, instructing solicitors do not look at their CVs. Some pupil masters have a preference for graduates of a particular college and this may have an influence on the training one receives at the bar.

Rosita · 16-01-2007 1:28pm

yournamehere wrote:

i would rate law courses in the following order

1. LLB Trinity
2. Law/ACC UL
3. BCL UCD
4. BA LLB - Galway

Somebody (who actually did the course) in another thread had this to say about the LLB in Galway, yet you appear to rate it highly:

"Just my opinion but the Llb in Galway is a waste of time, especially if you'll have to do it over a few years. when I did it, it was badly organised and a bit of a shambles".

Rosita · 16-01-2007 2:46pm

Jo King wrote:

Approval of a degree by the Kings Inns for entry is simply an expression by them 0of a view that the degree meets a minimum standard. It does not mean that every degree they approve has equal status or quality. One of the reasons they began setting a common entrance exam in 2002 is because of the variation in the quality of the various degrees. Qualified barristers, if they go into practice are all self employed. If and when they do get any work, instructing solicitors do not look at their CVs. Some pupil masters have a preference for graduates of a particular college and this may have an influence on the training one receives at the bar.

But surely by definition all the degrees are in effect of equal status with the Bar Council as having adequately covered the subject matter required if they are willing to give them "approved degree" status? What other measure is there?

What nobody seems to be able to clarify is, objectively speaking, if there is any (other) criterion on which to base comparisons of degrees and their content when you strip away the "red-brick" element that some people bizarrely look at. For example, somebody in an earlier post ranked their "top four" law degrees but gave absolutely no justification for such a ranking. It continues to baffle me too how people could possibly claim to have a broad knowledge of courses in so many different colleges.

Jo King · 16-01-2007 7:37pm

The Bar Council do not approve of any degrees. The Benchers of the Kings Inns approve of some degrees for entry purposes. Thsi does not deem them to be equal. If the garda set a minimum height limit of 5'8" for recruits does that mean that all garda recruits are of equal height? There is no objective standard by which degrees can be measured. One looks to reputation.
A degree is after all only a starting point. Some degrees may open more doors than others but once in the door other attributes of the lawyer come to prominence.

Rosita · 16-01-2007 11:12pm

Jo King wrote:

The Bar Council do not approve of any degrees. The Benchers of the Kings Inns approve of some degrees for entry purposes. Thsi does not deem them to be equal. If the garda set a minimum height limit of 5'8" for recruits does that mean that all garda recruits are of equal height? There is no objective standard by which degrees can be measured. One looks to reputation.
A degree is after all only a starting point. Some degrees may open more doors than others but once in the door other attributes of the lawyer come to prominence.

I don't see why you seek to differentiate in this context between the "Benchers of the King's Inns" and the "Bar Council"? The King's Inns is simply the governing body of the Bar Council is it not? For our purposes are they not in effect one and the same? I think such hair-splitting misses the point. These approved degrees are listed on the Bar Council's governing body's website - it hardly matters who specifically within the barrister profession makes this decision. One presumes they all stand over it.

Your Garda height analogy doesn't hold water not least because the height of Gardaí can be objectively measured, not that this presumably (any more than with the degrees) matters once the requirement is reached - is a Garda of 5'11 'superior' to one of 5'8?

As you concede yourself and as I suspected, there is no such objective measure in relation to measuring the standard of degrees, (at least not one that has been suggested here) though our friends, the Benchers of the King's Inns, may differ since they must have some objective criteria for assessing degrees, or otherwise they would presumably not have a list of "approved" (which implies that there are unapproved ones) ones.

Rosita · 17-01-2007 10:02am

According to the UCC website, in that college a BCL is an undergraduate course while a LLB is a post-graduate course. Just goes to show how meaningless and misleading the course names can be.

dats_right · 17-01-2007 4:59pm

Rossita, ultimately one can have attended all the right schools, universities, got the qualifications and grades but not make it to the upper echelons or even indeed the lower echelons of the profession. Personally, I know of Oxon BCL graduates and Harvard LLM graduates who whilst making perhaps making a decent enough living at the law are by no means at the top or even in sight of the top of the profession. Equally, often the best and most able barristers and solicitors never studied law at university or perhaps never even studied at university at all. The reason is simple, qualifications whilst important especially at the outset of your career [probably because there is little else to differentiate between candidates, etc.] are not what you will be judged by 2,3,4,5 years into your career. Ultimately, you will sink or swim by your reputation and work as a practitioner not by the letters after your name.

Therefore, don't loose too much sleep about where you went to college or the likes. If you are good at what you do that will matter infinitely more than where you went to college. However, there is no denying that at the early stages of your career, unfortunately, there is still a form of academic snobbery out there. That is to say that to some firms it does matter where you went to college, etc. There is probably no objective basis for such recruitment practices but sure there you go!

As regards life at the bar, as I said I am training to be a solicitor so I am not talking from first hand experience, but it's not so much where you went to college it is who you knew in college, school, etc. I would certainly consider it far more cliquey than the solicitor side of the profession. But, if you have the resources, perseverance and of course the requisite ability then you will eventually overcome these hurdles also.

Jo King · 17-01-2007 8:10pm

The Kings Inns is not the governing body of the Bar Council. They are separate bodies with different roles.The Kings runs an entrance exam and specifies that prospective entrants have studied particular subjects. This does not imply that they regard all previous studies completed by students as of equal value. Some candidates have Masters and PHDs, many have qualifications in disciplines other than law. Some candidates have completed their undergraduate degree many years ago. One student called in 2005 had been awarded an LLB in 1985! The value of a degree relative to another arises insofar as it prepares a student to completing the entrance exam, the Bar course and helps them in practice at the Bar. In the case of the first two, the original degree makes little difference. In the final one the original degree can be significant. It can be a big help if your former lecturers in college have a big practice at the Bar. This is where Trinity and UCD graduates score.

Rosita · 17-01-2007 9:02pm

Jo King wrote:

The Kings Inns is not the governing body of the Bar Council. They are separate bodies with different roles.The Kings runs an entrance exam and specifies that prospective entrants have studied particular subjects. This does not imply that they regard all previous studies completed by students as of equal value. Some candidates have Masters and PHDs, many have qualifications in disciplines other than law. Some candidates have completed their undergraduate degree many years ago. One student called in 2005 had been awarded an LLB in 1985! The value of a degree relative to another arises insofar as it prepares a student to completing the entrance exam, the Bar course and helps them in practice at the Bar. In the case of the first two, the original degree makes little difference. In the final one the original degree can be significant. It can be a big help if your former lecturers in college have a big practice at the Bar. This is where Trinity and UCD graduates score.

This is taken from the Bar Council website:

"The Honorable Society of King's Inns is the governing body of the Bar of Ireland".

Perhaps the Bar Council is a different entity from the "Bar of Ireland" (of which the Kings Inns is the governing body according to the Bar Council website) though it does not appear to have a different website from the Bar Council.

Your post dances around my core point rather than addressing it, and perhaps in doing so tell its own tale. Naturally some people will have done post-graduate study - that's the same in all areas presumably. But if the information on the website is to be believed this is irrelevant as a qualifying primary degree is all that is required. It's a bit like our hypothetical Garda being 6'6 if the required height is 5'8 - he enjoys no obvious advantage in respect of entry requirements over the guy who is 5'8 on the button.

As for TCD/UCD graduates scoring big because their lecturers might have a practice at the bar..............well that is quite a different thing from their primary degree being intrinsically better than another. That's just plain old-fashioned 'pull'.

One thing that is not so clear to me from your post though is how people qualified in other disciplines can sit for Bar entrance exams? According to the website (sorry for constantly mentioning the website but I know nothing else of this business) you either have an approved law degree or degree with the relevant law content (which presumably requires a significant law content to be approved), or you must study for the Kings Inns Diploma. How would someone from another discipline, say an Arts or Science graduate, get around this requirement?

Jo King · 18-01-2007 8:41pm

Graduates in other disciplines complete either a Law degree or the Kings Inns diploma in order to sit the entrance exam. There is no question but that the diploma is not as good a qualification as a law degree. just becasue they accept the diploma does not mean it is as good as a law degree. The core issue is that you have tried to claim that because the griffith degree is accepted for the purpose of stiitinng the entrance exam it is as good as any other degree. Acceptance of a qualification is no proof of its merit.

Rosita · 19-01-2007 8:32pm

Jo King wrote:

Graduates in other disciplines complete either a Law degree or the Kings Inns diploma in order to sit the entrance exam. There is no question but that the diploma is not as good a qualification as a law degree. just becasue they accept the diploma does not mean it is as good as a law degree. The core issue is that you have tried to claim that because the griffith degree is accepted for the purpose of stiitinng the entrance exam it is as good as any other degree. Acceptance of a qualification is no proof of its merit.

I have never claimed that the Griffith qualification is as good as any other degree in any broad sense. As I have no experience of any or all the various degrees, I would be in no position to make an objective case for or against any specific degree, not to mind consider their relative merits or demerits as some people seem prepared to do. What I am trying to tease out is why people say that some degrees are better than others. You have suggested that you'll have a bit of 'pull' at the Bar if you do your degree in TCD/UCD, but that does not make their qualifications intrinsically better than any other one. That is an external factor which is beside the point.

What I have said is that for the purposes of qualifying for the entrance exams for the Barrister of Law degree, the Kings Inns sees all these degrees as being on a par in terms of reaching the standard required for their purposes. This is demonstrably the case beyond argument. You may be construing this as me saying that these qualifications are of equal standard, but I don't know whether this is the case outside the Kings Inns context. All I know is that within the Kings Inns context - and presumably they know a thing or two about law degrees - all the "approved degrees" are to all intents and purposes of equal value. But your talk of a "minimum" standard is misleading as it implies that there is a spectrum across which the standard of qualification can fall. There is no evidence of this spectrum in the Kings Inns. It seems to me you either reach the standard or you don't. There may be a spectrum across which qualifications can be judged but nobody seems to be able to suggest objectively what might be used to measure this spectrum. But acceptance of a qualification is indeed proof of its merit, and acceptance of a law degree by such experts as Kings Inns must be considered very strong evidence of the merit of a course - what better measure could there be? The relative merits of different courses is, of course, a different matter.

Nobody has been able to suggest any other objective means of comparing the intrinsic value of degrees from different institutions - an observation that is also beyond argument so far anyway. At least in mentioning the Kings Inns angle, I have pointed out one - perhaps unsatisfactory and limited - starting point on this process.

As for the Diploma in Law from the Kings Inns, it may well be true that this is of less broad value that the average degree as it may not - as a mere diploma - allow access to post-graduate law courses in various colleges offering this option. That may be the case, but I simply don't know that. But it would also be true that in the context of the Kings Inns the diploma is in effect equivalent to a Law degree. However, the fact that this course is not accorded degree status and yet is accepted by Kings Inns does not reflect in any way on any other course approved by NUI or HETAC and accepted by Kings Inns, if that is what you are trying to get at.

The fact is that various courses achieve the standard required by Kings Inns including those provided by private colleges as well as the old university sector. This, as I alluded to earlier, is beyond debate. It suggests to me that if the Kings Inns recognises it, that Griffith College probably provides a fine and worthy course and qualification. What I am unable to understand is why people come to the conclusion that one qualification is inherently better than another without an apparent objective means of measuring this. I would even suspend disbelief on the unlikeliness of someone being intimately familiar with all the courses in all colleges if we could find some objective and water-tight means of comparison not based on "old school tie" snobbery or the likelihood of "nod and wink" career advancement, and which focuses more on consideration of course content, and deliverable requirements from students.

arac · 20-01-2007 1:05pm

There is also a bcl degree in Galway of which I am a graduate..
to be honest there is zero difference a llb and a bcl, you do the same subjects and prospective employers dont really know about the difference...
if I was advising a young person embarking on your third level education..choose something that will earn you a tangible qualification straight away and enable you to start earning a decent living straight away, with the possibilty of working abroad..law does not allow you this at all:eek:
as a trainee solicitor I am sorry I wasn't wise before the event!!

Jo King · 20-01-2007 3:26pm

So the Kings Inns are experts on law degrees! They did not accept the Griffith or Portobello law degrees until 2005 for purposes of entry to the entrance examination. They only changed from this under pressure from the competition authority and a threat of legal action form a prospective candidate. What has changed in the context of the course in the mean time? The Kings Inns diploma has been accepted by some colleges for postgraduate courses eg by the Universtity of London. However, it is not recognised by the New York State Bar. ( Griffith is recognised by the New York Bar.) Recognition of qualification has as must to do with bodies trying to mind their own patch and indulging in their own fetishes as it has with the intrinsic value of the course. Incidentally the Kings Inns has employed a number of lectures who also lecture in Griffith.

Rosita · 20-01-2007 5:38pm

Jo King wrote:

So the Kings Inns are experts on law degrees! They did not accept the Griffith or Portobello law degrees until 2005 for purposes of entry to the entrance examination. They only changed from this under pressure from the competition authority and a threat of legal action form a prospective candidate. What has changed in the context of the course in the mean time? The Kings Inns diploma has been accepted by some colleges for postgraduate courses eg by the Universtity of London. However, it is not recognised by the New York State Bar. ( Griffith is recognised by the New York Bar.) Recognition of qualification has as must to do with bodies trying to mind their own patch and indulging in their own fetishes as it has with the intrinsic value of the course. Incidentally the Kings Inns has employed a number of lectures who also lecture in Griffith.

I never said that the Kings Inns are experts on law degrees - those are your words. What I said was "presumably they know a thing or two about law degrees". Now maybe the Kings Inns know nothing about law or law courses of what would be required of a law degree course, but as a lay-person on these matters I would expect that an entity which has as at least part of its brief the job of providing a Barrister at Law degree course that they may have some knowledge in the area. Maybe that is quite wrong of course. While it might be unreasonable to expect people who train barristers and lecture across various collges in law (apparently) to be "experts" their "area of expertise", it would be surprising if they didn't have some vague idea. If they have a vague idea of the merits of certain law course, it seems to me that they are way ahead of the people on this board who are long on opinion but short on detail to back up that opinion in relation to the respective merits of law degrees.

The question regarding the prospective candidate who challenged the Kings Inns should not be "what has changed in the meantime?", but why did Kings Inns not have the confidence to defend their position legally if the felt the Griffith/Portobello course was genuinely not up to scratch. Even if they are not experts on law degrees they would surely find someone up there with some legal knowledge who could help them out? Maybe it was that they too had suffered from the snobbery problem of doffing their caps only to qualifications from the alma mater, and when they were challenged on this they knew enough to know that they could not defend the indefensible?

Jo King · 20-01-2007 7:55pm

So now we are assuming that the Kings Inns know a thing or two. The Kings Inns does not train barristers across different colleges. The Kings Inns offers two courses using part-time lecturers, all of whom also practice at the Bar. The full time staff at the Kings Inns are not qualified in law at all. The lecturers have no input into what courses are approved for entry. The Kings Inns do not conduct objective assessments of the courses they approve for entry. They have been challenged in the courts and lost or conceded and they have also been challenged in the courts and won eg Leahy-Grimshaw and Byrne in recent years. Until recent times they forced people who had been called to the english bar to do the entrance exam and then do the full BL course. This position changed as a result of litigation (not involving the Kings Inns). The fact is that the Kings Inns attitudes to courses has been found time and again not to be founded on a rational basis and has had to change. To seek to extol the merits of any course because they approve of it for entry is taking things too far.

Jo King · 20-01-2007 8:05pm

md99 wrote:

Actually I'm interested in both solicitry and barrestry, I've heard that a barrister can convert to a solicitor rather quickly, however my parents are leaning towards me becoming a solicitor as they *think* it will be much more reliable to secure an income..

A barrister must be three years in practice before converting to solicitor. The first year at the Bar involves compulsory devilling. This means paying an entry fee and a subscription to the Law Library plus professional indemnity insurance (currently a total of EUR 3000) and then working without pay for the year. While the devil is free to take work on his own account most get little or none. Many barristers also devil for the second year. Again this is likely to be loss making financially. Most barristers will not break even until the fifth year in practice.

EdgarAllenPoo · 20-01-2007 8:15pm

Jo King wrote:

Until recent times they forced people who had been called to the english bar to do the entrance exam and then do the full BL course. QUOTE]

This happened to my uncle, he's english and had been a QC for ten years, he met my aunt here and because she was still in college they stayed here rather than go back to England, he wasn't allowed to practice here and ended up working as a manager in McDonalds until my aunt finished college. This was in 1990.

Rosita · 20-01-2007 9:28pm

Jo King wrote:

So now we are assuming that the Kings Inns know a thing or two. The Kings Inns does not train barristers across different colleges. The Kings Inns offers two courses using part-time lecturers, all of whom also practice at the Bar. The full time staff at the Kings Inns are not qualified in law at all. The lecturers have no input into what courses are approved for entry. The Kings Inns do not conduct objective assessments of the courses they approve for entry. They have been challenged in the courts and lost or conceded and they have also been challenged in the courts and won eg Leahy-Grimshaw and Byrne in recent years. Until recent times they forced people who had been called to the english bar to do the entrance exam and then do the full BL course. This position changed as a result of litigation (not involving the Kings Inns). The fact is that the Kings Inns attitudes to courses has been found time and again not to be founded on a rational basis and has had to change. To seek to extol the merits of any course because they approve of it for entry is taking things too far.

You are inclined towards making claims about the Kings Inns which I have no way of verifying within reason, and that is assuming that these criticisms are actually relevant to the core matter being discussed here. I have no real interest in the Kings Inns position on the New York Bar or the English Bar to be honest. Other than it being an obvious attempt to undermine the only objective system suggested for measuring the merits of different degrees I see no relevance in what you are saying. Some of what you write defies belief. For example, the point about none of the full-time staff in the Kings Inns not being qualified in Law is risibly irrelevant since you say in the next breath that they conduct no objective assessment on courses they approve anyway. The lack of legal expertise of the people in administration there hardly matters if they are not in the business of adjudicating on qualifications. One might have thought that if they employ people with some legal knowledge to deliver their courses that they might get their view on the matter of "approved degrees" but extraordinarily they choose no to do so.
I am suprised that you did not broach this matter when you said in a previous post that the Kings Inns approved list was merely a statement that a course had achieved a minimum standard. Clearly it is not even that if they do not assess them at all.

Considering this I am not surprised that the Kings Inns is threatened with legal action so often then, as surely any degree, e.g. an Arts degree in, say, French and German should be as acceptable as a Law degree for entry to the BL degree exams if there is no objective assessment of courses they approve for entry. Why on earth is there a list at all I wonder when it would just save them any possibility of litigation to allow all-comers to take their chances at the entrance exams. It certainly seems to be true that they have no idea about the law in there if what you say is to be taken a face value. Quite extraordinary.

Of course, none of this guided tour around the inner workings of the Kings Inns brings us any closer to knowing if you are any different to the Kings Inns itself whose "attitudes to courses have been found time and again not to be founded on a rational basis."

The core question remains unanswered; is there any objective rational basis -taking into consideration the intrinsic value of the course, student requirements etc. - that can be used to compare Law degrees from different institutions? The answer appears to be an emphatic "No".

Jo King · 20-01-2007 11:18pm

Until the 1980s the Kings Inns allowed any graduate of any discipline to sit an entrance exam. The top 40 were admitted to the degree course. There were crammer schools set up to cater for prospective students. The Kings Inns then saw a business opportunity and set up their own diploma thus leaving the crammer schools to focus on Blackhall. The top 40 graduates of the diploma were admitted to the degree course. That situation obtained until they set up an entrance exam for all candidates for the degree course in 2002.
The Kings Inns do not have a brief to train and educate barristers. They just took it on themselves to award the degree of barrister at law.
the real question asked is which law degree to do. Most people want and education and some help getting on with their careers. The merits of a degree are the quality of the teaching, the calibre of the other students and the marketability of the qualification.

Rosita · 21-01-2007 2:38pm

Jo King wrote:

Until the 1980s the Kings Inns allowed any graduate of any discipline to sit an entrance exam. The top 40 were admitted to the degree course. There were crammer schools set up to cater for prospective students. The Kings Inns then saw a business opportunity and set up their own diploma thus leaving the crammer schools to focus on Blackhall. The top 40 graduates of the diploma were admitted to the degree course. That situation obtained until they set up an entrance exam for all candidates for the degree course in 2002.
The Kings Inns do not have a brief to train and educate barristers. They just took it on themselves to award the degree of barrister at law.
the real question asked is which law degree to do. Most people want and education and some help getting on with their careers. The merits of a degree are the quality of the teaching, the calibre of the other students and the marketability of the qualification.

To be honest I think the Kings Inns has been discussed more than enough, to the point where I am sorry I mentioned it as it provided a few days of completely off the point dicussion. As you say the real question is "which law degree to do?" Whether one accepts the criteria as defined by yourself is another argument (for example I have no idea why one's quality of degree should be affected by what the other students in the class are at). But in any event I doubt if anyone here has the broad experience of the college scene to reasonably compare the merits of different law degrees. At least if they have they are keeping it to themselves.

Jo King · 21-01-2007 6:06pm

You tried to imply that the Kings Inns acceptance of a degree for entry purposes was a mark of quality of some kind. It turns out that you knew absolutely nothing about the process by which the Kings Inns has come to recognise certain degree for entry purposes. Griffith College and Portobello College use the fact of acceptance by the Kings inns as a marketing tool. Nothing wrong witgh that but people should not read too much into it. The calibre of one's fellow students means a lot in a law degree. Much of what is learned is by discussion. Having intelligent well movitated classmates increases the likelihood of high quality debating and discussion. If on the other hand one's classmates are not bringing anything to the table in terms of insight or research then one's education will be so much poorer.
Doubts about what other people may or may not know are not a reasonable basis for advocating any particular course of action.

md99 · 21-01-2007 8:46pm

heh... you'd know this is a forum for lawyers

Rosita · 21-01-2007 9:41pm

Jo King wrote:

You tried to imply that the Kings Inns acceptance of a degree for entry purposes was a mark of quality of some kind. It turns out that you knew absolutely nothing about the process by which the Kings Inns has come to recognise certain degree for entry purposes. Griffith College and Portobello College use the fact of acceptance by the Kings inns as a marketing tool. Nothing wrong witgh that but people should not read too much into it. The calibre of one's fellow students means a lot in a law degree. Much of what is learned is by discussion. Having intelligent well movitated classmates increases the likelihood of high quality debating and discussion. If on the other hand one's classmates are not bringing anything to the table in terms of insight or research then one's education will be so much poorer.
Doubts about what other people may or may not know are not a reasonable basis for advocating any particular course of action.

Why on earth are you still writing about the Kings Inns? I thought we had established (for the purposes of this discussion I am accepting your bona fides - you could be making all this up for all I know or care) that the Kings Inns acceptance is an utterely meaningless measure of anything to do with legal education? What I asked was if there was any objective means of assessing the relative merits of various law degrees, and the answer appears to be getting more emphatically "no" with every post that dodges this question.

As it happens I am not "advocating any particular course of action" (assuming this refers to me). I am simply asking a question.

Jo King · 23-01-2007 8:38pm

I think the only thing that has been established is how little you know about the topic. If you did a good law degree you would not offer opinions based on conjecture but would do some basic research before commenting. Insisting that other people know as little as you now admit to doing is not the mark of an intelligent debater. Can you instance an objective test of the merits of any degree? How do you compare medical degrees from two instutitions, arts degrees, science degrees? For someone choosing what degree to do it will allmost inevitably come down to reputation. Any more than a pub or restaurant can have a reputation so can a degree. Anybody is entitled to say what they have experienced and seen in the marketplace.

Rosita · 24-01-2007 11:03pm

Jo King wrote:

I think the only thing that has been established is how little you know about the topic. If you did a good law degree you would not offer opinions based on conjecture but would do some basic research before commenting. Insisting that other people know as little as you now admit to doing is not the mark of an intelligent debater. Can you instance an objective test of the merits of any degree? How do you compare medical degrees from two instutitions, arts degrees, science degrees? For someone choosing what degree to do it will allmost inevitably come down to reputation. Any more than a pub or restaurant can have a reputation so can a degree. Anybody is entitled to say what they have experienced and seen in the marketplace.

Oh I think we have established quite a bit more than that. I never claimed to know anything about specific law degrees. On the contrary actually - if I did I would not ask so many questions.

How do you compare courses? Strange you ask that since you seem to have no problem doing so. I have no idea, which is why I have been asking you that question all along. Presumably it is something along the lines of examining the material covered in detail. Then getting the views of students and lecturers involved in each course/college in relation to the time/output involved/expected and then making or having made an educated evaluation made based on that information. I simply don't know which is why I kept asking you and others who appeared to be doing this. I did one degree course in one university and would be in no position to comment even on another course in that same university, never mind to claim the level of knowledge you appeared to be claiming.

But I do know one thing - reputation has nothing to do with objective assessment. Reputation is just a fancy name for pub-talk used by people whose determination to give an opinion significantly outweighs their ability to back that opinion up. They always resort to vague things about what they heard and what some (invariably) anonymous third-party thinks. The second thing we have established that you are a prime example of this school of empty rhetoric.

To compare a degree to a restaurant in terms of reputation is laughable, and shows how much you are struggling when it comes to detail. Instead of asking me if I can instance tests of the merits of any degree, why not just admit that you can't yourself? You've been asked time and again and have failed so miserably to do so that you now have to ask me to spoon-feed you? But if someone is entitled to say what they have seen and experienced in the market-place then the flip side of that entitlement is the entitlement of others to question what appears to be superficial, cursory and perhaps self-serving conclusions.

I do not have a law degree, good, bad or indifferent, and have no interest in acquiring one, good, bad or indifferent. I simply realised reading through this thread that there were people here making claims to have levels of knowledge in respect of comparing courses which they could not reasonably be expected to have. I asked the questions simply to expose this. Obviously this has not gone down well.

As it happens I never claimed to know anything except what I read on a specific (stated) website and I made that abundantly clear at all times. I never (unlike you) made any claim to have information that I could not reference. In fact I specifically ensured that I cited the website consistently lest the impression be given that I was claiming any special knowledge. In contrast, the source of your asserted knowledge remains undeclared, and frankly I was prepared to suspend disbelief on some of your views which defy belief e.g. the notion that the Kings Inns would not be able to employ - even temporarily - somebody with sufficient obnjective knowledge of law courses to make an informed decision on approval of law course - notwithstanding legal threats.

I find it bemusing that you now claim to know the mark of an intelligent debater while yourself harbouring the illusion that I, at any stage, claimed to know anything about various law degrees other than the fact that they were listed as being "approved" on a their website. You are so bankrupt of any broad knowledge in the area of the various courses that you were forced to post over and over about the Kings Inns and how my information was erroneous - i.e. spotting what you saw as a weakness in an opposing "argument", going for it and ignoring (or possibly lacking the analytical skills to spot) the irrelevance.

I was wondering why you kept doing that even as I said I accepted your bona fides - which must now be considered dubious - for the sake of the discussion, (as I said you could have been making it up for all I knew) but in the end it all becomes clear. You are not interested in dissemination of information. You are, like something from the "Lit & Hist", interested in sounding off and appearing to be an "intelligent debater". You have all the hallmarks of those marbles-in-their-mouth muppets who have an opinion that they want to share on every single matter and think that the mere desire to hear their own voices equates to "intelligent debating". I didn't realise that this was about presenting opposing arguments and being right at all costs. But since it is I'll leave you to it so you can defend the honour of "this house" without interruption. I'd hate you to become any more rattled than you were in your last post.

Jo King · 26-01-2007 7:29pm

Here we go again. The original question on this thread was which law degree to do. As I pointed out earlier the Kings inns have an entrance exam plus requirements that candidates have studied particular subjects in order to avoid doing what you are demanding everybody on this thread do. You made and repeated some comments about the Kings Inns which are not correct. The comments I have made can be verified by checking the Law reports of the two cases won by the Kings Inns. Other cases involved settlements by the Kings Inns. There would not be material available publicly to verify them but they would be known to many barristers. I am not going to put their names on this thread. Changes in the kings Inns entry requirements and the staffing on their courses can be verified by barristers however there is no website material showing them. I am far from rattled. people considering doing a law degree need to do some research and not just jump tpo conclusions based on what they see on websites.

maidhc · 27-01-2007 12:08pm

Do people feel so stongly about this?

EdgarAllenPoo · 28-01-2007 9:27pm

^My guess would be no, but everyone wants to have the last word.

risingsun · 03-02-2007 2:35pm

Thank heaven for people like Rosita. Why must others presume so much about courses and experiences of which they are ignorant? I hope I'm not overstating the case, but it's the same sort of generalisations that promote xenophobia and racism. Just because you have no experience of private colleges does not mean it is legitimate to presume their courses are in some way sub-standard. Having lectured in one such institution, I can compare it with my own alma mater. The private college was streets ahead because lecturer performance was measured, and the college's continued existence was dependant on meeting objectives set by external validating bodies. In my opinion, this engenders a certain humility which means the privates don't (usually) forget about the obligations owed to students.

Private Colleges are just like the Universities and ITs. Some are exceptional, others are not.

LLB vs BCL?

Comments