Where do your earnings rank you?
Discussion
Zod said:
It won't surprise you to learn that the Law Society Finals course that I took in York was no better, with the same demographic of people "teaching". I had a great year in York though, funded by my firm.
York LSF ! Guildford LSF was the place to be.......everyone knows that...... God awful year and exams at end.
Zod, I think that there is a real problem with access to and quality of legal training. The professions should take back control of training from the commercial shysters who are charging kids 18K for crappy courses, especially when many of the kids have no chance of getting a gig at a good law firm or decent chambers, and are wasting their money. I think that there should be a six week Bar course to teach the kids civil and/or criminal procedure and professional ethics, and then the pupillage should last two (paid) years.
One radical line would be that you should have to secure a pupillage before you can take the Bar course, as otherwise you are just having your hopes raised and your money taken to no good end. Maybe ditto with training contracts and the LPC. Another radical line would be to abolish undergraduate law degrees and make law a postgraduate subject as it is in the US, and teach real life lawyering rather than academic law. The problem there is that academic lawyers have spun off into their own world of theory, and these days have rarely practised law. They used often to be active practitioners, and still are in some places (Dublin for example).
One radical line would be that you should have to secure a pupillage before you can take the Bar course, as otherwise you are just having your hopes raised and your money taken to no good end. Maybe ditto with training contracts and the LPC. Another radical line would be to abolish undergraduate law degrees and make law a postgraduate subject as it is in the US, and teach real life lawyering rather than academic law. The problem there is that academic lawyers have spun off into their own world of theory, and these days have rarely practised law. They used often to be active practitioners, and still are in some places (Dublin for example).
superlightr said:
Zod said:
It won't surprise you to learn that the Law Society Finals course that I took in York was no better, with the same demographic of people "teaching". I had a great year in York though, funded by my firm.
York LSF ! Guildford LSF was the place to be.......everyone knows that...... God awful year and exams at end.
Breadvan72 said:
Zod, I think that there is a real problem with access to and quality of legal training. The professions should take back control of training from the commercial shysters who are charging kids 18K for crappy courses, especially when many of the kids have no chance of getting a gig at a good law firm or decent chambers, and are wasting their money. I think that there should be a six week Bar course to teach the kids civil and/or criminal procedure and professional ethics, and then the pupillage should last two (paid) years.
One radical line would be that you should have to secure a pupillage before you can take the Bar course, as otherwise you are just having your hopes raised and your money taken to no good end. Maybe ditto with training contracts and the LPC. Another radical line would be to abolish undergraduate law degrees and make law a postgraduate subject as it is in the US, and teach real life lawyering rather than academic law. The problem there is that academic lawyers have spun off into their own world of theory, and these days have rarely practised law. They used often to be active practitioners, and still are in some places (Dublin for example).
You are, of course, right. The low quality of the provders is the reason the major firms have their own courses, collectively or individually at various places. That, of course, just makes things worse for the rest.One radical line would be that you should have to secure a pupillage before you can take the Bar course, as otherwise you are just having your hopes raised and your money taken to no good end. Maybe ditto with training contracts and the LPC. Another radical line would be to abolish undergraduate law degrees and make law a postgraduate subject as it is in the US, and teach real life lawyering rather than academic law. The problem there is that academic lawyers have spun off into their own world of theory, and these days have rarely practised law. They used often to be active practitioners, and still are in some places (Dublin for example).
I incline towards abolishing undergraduate law degrees. I was only persuaded to do one when I went for interview proposing to do languages and later switch to law, but was persuaded by the Law DoS to just do law. I was immature and not ready to knuckle down (languages would have required little or not knuckling down), but it's clear to me in retrospect that the teaching was not great. It certainly didn't inspire me. The problem with law as a second degree though is again funding.
nammynake said:
Some of the groups are bit odd, for example "Actuaries, economists and statisticians"
Why? I'd like to think Actuaries and Quants are a completely different breed from other city workers. The only models we get to deal with our mathematical ones. We're not like Cityboy and his ilk and paid for our numerical and technical skills. No time to quaff champagnes and indulge in coke & hookers sessions .. well at least not on weekdays.Breadvan72 said:
The problem there is that academic lawyers have spun off into their own world of theory, and these days have rarely practised law.
Perfect creds for the role of Judge at ECHR 
To quote from media coverage:
"Many of the ‘best’ judges at the European Court of Human Rights have no judicial experience, its president admitted yesterday. In a rare appearance at Westminster, Sir Nicolas Bratza came under fire from MPs...Sir Nicolas is a British lawyer of Serbian descent whose own judicial experience was limited to a brief stint as a Crown Court Recorder...(etc)"
"He (Bratza)...added that some of the court’s best judges were former academics who had been parachuted into the role."
"The (ECHR) President may not be fussed that we have a bunch of academics making the law up as they go along, but elected law-makers and the public in Britain certainly are" (comment from Conservative politician Dominic Raab)
According to The Guardian, ECHR Appointees enjoy a tax-free annual salary of £150,000 - not in the ONS table for obvious reasons
There are much better criticisms of the Strasbourg Court than that, tb. It has too many Judges, is too political and compromised, and has Judges from countries with no strong tradition of civil rights. I don't particularly care to take lectures on freedom of the press from a Russian Judge, thanks all the same! Nick Bratza, who is in fact quite a good Judge, did at least practise law for quite a while before taking the judicial job.
The European legal systems tend to appoint people as Judges in their twenties or early thirties, as in Civil Code countries being a Judge is a career separate to that of being a lawyer.
I don't think that appointing academics to judicial posts is always a bad idea, at least not if the court in question deals with high level stuff rather than with who punched whom in the pub, but on balance it's probably better for even Judges in constitutional courts to have done some argy bargy stuff. Over here, Jonathan Sumption went straight from the Bar to the Supreme Court, but he had done a stint of part time Judging in some trial Courts first. Not all academics are permanently on a cloud. There was a solicitor called Laurence Collins who was mostly an academic dealing with public international law. He was appointed to the High Court without having done much basic stuff, but he turned out to be a very practically minded and sensible Judge.
In another context, ISTR that Woodrow Wilson was an academic at Princeton before he became President of the US, and I can think of a few ex academics who have become very successful business types, so they are not always super fluffy, although some, of course, are.
As for making up the law as you go along, that is what all Judges do in any system based on the common law (and the ECHR is, contrary to what many people think, based on the common law). They have been doing it for ages, but the Mail et al pretend that they have only just found this out, shock horror probe.
The European legal systems tend to appoint people as Judges in their twenties or early thirties, as in Civil Code countries being a Judge is a career separate to that of being a lawyer.
I don't think that appointing academics to judicial posts is always a bad idea, at least not if the court in question deals with high level stuff rather than with who punched whom in the pub, but on balance it's probably better for even Judges in constitutional courts to have done some argy bargy stuff. Over here, Jonathan Sumption went straight from the Bar to the Supreme Court, but he had done a stint of part time Judging in some trial Courts first. Not all academics are permanently on a cloud. There was a solicitor called Laurence Collins who was mostly an academic dealing with public international law. He was appointed to the High Court without having done much basic stuff, but he turned out to be a very practically minded and sensible Judge.
In another context, ISTR that Woodrow Wilson was an academic at Princeton before he became President of the US, and I can think of a few ex academics who have become very successful business types, so they are not always super fluffy, although some, of course, are.
As for making up the law as you go along, that is what all Judges do in any system based on the common law (and the ECHR is, contrary to what many people think, based on the common law). They have been doing it for ages, but the Mail et al pretend that they have only just found this out, shock horror probe.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 30th November 16:19
fido said:
Why? I'd like to think Actuaries and Quants are a completely different breed from other city workers. The only models we get to deal with our mathematical ones. We're not like Cityboy and his ilk and paid for our numerical and technical skills. No time to quaff champagnes and indulge in coke & hookers sessions .. well at least not on weekdays.
The quants have run many of the big trading floors for years now. My last boss has a well known equation named after him from one of his papers on forward volatility arbitrage...Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 30th November 16:43
Derek Chevalier said:
vonuber said:
I'm not sure I believe those civil engineering statistics. According to that I am well over the top bracket, and I know plenty who earn more (and jobs going for a lot more).
Although it doesn't say what level of qualification it is (I.e chartered, incorporated etc).
Not sure why you don't believe it - Engineering pay in the country is, on average, rubbish considering the calibre of people that work in it. Every single one of my Engineering coursemates left to go into IT, banking, sales or accountancy.Although it doesn't say what level of qualification it is (I.e chartered, incorporated etc).
Like an idiot. Still, we get by.
crofty1984 said:
Derek Chevalier said:
vonuber said:
I'm not sure I believe those civil engineering statistics. According to that I am well over the top bracket, and I know plenty who earn more (and jobs going for a lot more).
Although it doesn't say what level of qualification it is (I.e chartered, incorporated etc).
Not sure why you don't believe it - Engineering pay in the country is, on average, rubbish considering the calibre of people that work in it. Every single one of my Engineering coursemates left to go into IT, banking, sales or accountancy.Although it doesn't say what level of qualification it is (I.e chartered, incorporated etc).
Like an idiot. Still, we get by.
There is also that peculiar sackcloth habit amongst British engineers; almost a pride in being underpaid.
Breadvan72 said:
There are much better criticisms of the Strasbourg Court than that, tb...
OK there may well be but the posts of mine in this context arose today from a mention of lack of actual experience within the atmosphere of academic lawyers. These contributions weren't intended as a comprehensive critique.When I was last looking into the Judges appointed to ECHR a few years ago, of 47 Judges only 23 had any prior experience whatsoever as Judges, a clear majority had nothing to offer by way of judgeness.
fblm said:
fido said:
Why? I'd like to think Actuaries and Quants are a completely different breed from other city workers. The only models we get to deal with our mathematical ones. We're not like Cityboy and his ilk and paid for our numerical and technical skills. No time to quaff champagnes and indulge in coke & hookers sessions .. well at least not on weekdays.
The quants have run many of the big trading floors for years now. My last boss has a well known equation named after him from one of his papers on forward volatility arbitrage...Edited by fblm on Monday 30th November 16:43
fblm said:
fido said:
Why? I'd like to think Actuaries and Quants are a completely different breed from other city workers. The only models we get to deal with our mathematical ones. We're not like Cityboy and his ilk and paid for our numerical and technical skills. No time to quaff champagnes and indulge in coke & hookers sessions .. well at least not on weekdays.
The quants have run many of the big trading floors for years now. My last boss has a well known equation named after him from one of his papers on forward volatility arbitrage...Edited by fblm on Monday 30th November 16:43
turbobloke said:
Breadvan72 said:
There are much better criticisms of the Strasbourg Court than that, tb...
OK there may well be but the posts of mine in this context arose today from a mention of lack of actual experience within the atmosphere of academic lawyers. These contributions weren't intended as a comprehensive critique.When I was last looking into the Judges appointed to ECHR a few years ago, of 47 Judges only 23 had any prior experience whatsoever as Judges, a clear majority had nothing to offer by way of judgeness.
The ECtHr is not quite as bad as the ECJ in one respect, as it allows dissenting judgments. All ECJ decisions have to be unanimous, which means that they are all negotiated, and the Court usually just says "we say whatever it was we said last time". Brit Judges have stopped sending cases to the ECJ because the reference takes five years and the Court almost always fails to answer the question put to it.
Breadvan72 said:
I met a dude recently who worked in highly techy engineering to do with heat exchangers at power stations. He had a doctorate and years of experience and was pretty much at the top of his particular tree, but his earned just £60,000.
Like everyone else, he would or should know the score and make his decisions accordingly. If income was of more importance than (say) job satisfaction then there were and probably still are alternatives available. There may be shortages in various scientific, engineering and mathematical disciplines but even if just enough people take the relevant shilling then to earn more will mean looking elsewhere when promotion opps are exhausted.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff