Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Law scholars object to minister’s ‘selfish’ charge
30 September 2009
Justice Secretary says universities are putting their interests first by offering too many law places. Hannah Fearn reports
A claim made by Kenny MacAskill, Scotland’s Justice Secretary, that law schools north of the border are putting their interests above those of their students has been dismissed as “ill-informed” by Scottish academics.
Minutes from a meeting between Mr MacAskill and the Law Society of Scotland, released under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that just one in four law graduates in the country find a job in the profession.
The figures prompted the minister to attack universities for continuing to offer so many law places despite a dearth of jobs and training contracts in the sector. Last year, 700 LLB graduates with a diploma in legal practice fought for 592 training places in Scotland. This year, the number of contracts is expected to be lower still.
The minutes of the meeting say: “[Mr MacAskill] was unimpressed by the attitude of those involved in the training of new solicitors and felt that education was currently driven by the needs of the universities rather than the needs of the students.
“There was a discussion about how universities should be listening to the profession and shouldn’t be raising students’ hopes and dreams in the current economic climate.”
Academics have hit back at the minister, who is himself a lawyer, claiming that he has misunderstood the purpose of a law degree.
Ken Swinton, convenor of the Committee of Heads of Scottish Law Schools, said law degrees were never designed to be purely vocational, but taught students transferable skills.
“They offer a broad range of subjects in the liberal-arts tradition,” he said. “For many years, an increasing number of law graduates have gone on to pursue worthwhile jobs other than as solicitors or advocates.”
He rejected Mr MacAskill’s claims that universities are focusing on their own needs by recruiting more students than can reasonably find work post-graduation. As government funding for each student is the same across the social sciences, there is no incentive to lure students into law rather than another discipline, he said.
“There is no guarantee that any graduate will find work in a particular profession, and this is made clear to students from the time they enter the programmes offered by all institutions. We sympathise with those graduates who are presently unable to fulfil their aspirations, but this is a particularly difficult time for graduates of all disciplines.”
hannah.fearn@tsleducation.com
Readers' comments
In fact, Kenny MacAskill is right making his claim. As to so-called transferable skills... People did apply to law programmes mostly with intention to join the legal profession. Otherwise they would choose another major.
If Mr MacAskill is so concerned about this, why doesn't he present a motion to the Scottish Parliament to regulate the number of University places on offer such that they are correlated to positions available upon graduation? What's that? He won't do it because it's a bad idea? Well then he should stop whining about it!
The times of great uncertainty we live in dictate flexibility and transferable skills. I have no doubt that most law students apply to law programmes with intention to become lawyers. However, due to market conditions and other reasons this may not happen for some of the law students. It is frustrating to fail to get the job of you dreams but it is releaving to know that at the end of the day you will be able to get a decent job in another area. Possessing a law degree helps in this direction.
Mr. MacAskill’s concerns are entirely misdirected. The reality is that majority students do not necessarily go on to pursue a career that is printed on their degrees and law students are no exception. The legal profession is a competitive one and good law students compete with non-student law students for training contracts in equal measure. Law degrees must and do offer more than legal know-how. As a lawyer Mr. MacAskill should know better - the heart of the issue here is the cut on funding to cover the government debt after saving the banks and going to war. Are Mr. MacAskill’s comments a prelude to the (re)introduction tuition fees then?
Personally, I think it's good for as many non-lawyers as possible to know as much about the law as possible.