Should Law Schools Refund Students if They Can’t Get a Job?

By on

In a move that may interest jobless British law graduates and the bigwigs on the panel of the ongoing legal education and training review (LETR), two Yale Law School professors are championing a controversial plan to refund law school tuition fees if students fail to secure a job.

Professors Akhil Amar and Ian Ayres want Yale to be the first law school to reimburse students’ tuition fee loans if the student realises the opportunity for a successful legal career is doubtful while enrolled on the course – a scenario that has affected large numbers of US law students since the onset of the recession.

The origin of the plan lies in an anonymous US law students’ letter posted online two years ago. In it, the student wrote: “I am willing to leave law school, without a degree, at the end of this semester. In return, I would like a full refund of the tuition I’ve paid over the last two and a half years.”

Could this idea gain traction in Britain?

Despite the severity of our legal education problems – LPC graduates far out-number trainee lawyer places, and only around one in five BPTC graduates secure pupillage – it’s unlikely; mainly because law school in this country is shorter and cheaper than in the US (where law is a postgraduate-only three-year course with fees in excess of £100,000). Because British law graduates have opportunities to defer their studies – between, say, the GDL and the LPC – and don’t carry the same level of debt as their Americans counterparts, the case for allowing them to claim back their fees is less compelling. However, the sentiment behind the idea – encouraging law schools to take more responsibility for the fate of their graduates – certainly has the potential to catch on to a greater extent on these shores.

Most agree that the only realistic way to get UK law schools to better look out for their students’ interests is by forcing them to restrict entry onto their LPC and BPTC courses – allowing either only students who have passed an aptitude test to enrol, or perhaps even limiting entry to students with training contracts or pupillages already lined up. However, such a restriction could fall foul of competition law; when a proposal was made in 2009 to limit BPTC places – via the introduction of a compulsory aptitude test –  it was blocked by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).

Since then, though, as the recession has dragged on and money has become tighter, the mood has changed. Following Kaplan law School’s initially controversial, yet successful, introduction of its own BPTC aptitude test – raising the percentage of its graduates securing a pupillage to 46% last year (well above the 25% average) – there is a renewed enthusiasm to consider some form of restriction on entry to postgraduate legal education.

Will this actually happen, though? So far, the LETR panel members have talked a good game, but amid law schools’ powerful lobbying in favour of maintaining the status quo, and the tendency of law students’ and recent graduates to stay silent on the matter, there’s a danger that the appetite for change will fade.

Yesterday a junior barrister summed up the problem on his blog, ForTheDefence:

“We weren’t brave at bar school. Again, we were outside moaning, we’d send the occasional clipped email, but we never wanted to rock the boat. The fear was, that by rocking the boat our BVC (now BPTC) provider could narrow those pupillage odds even further. I had vowed to email, or write to the powers that be when I got pupillage. But, I didn’t. There’s a lot wrong with our current system of legal education, in particular the BVC/BPTC course and some of the providers, ne’er shall it improve without the intervention of barristers.”

Happily, this barrister has decided to make his voice heard.

“I am going to write to Professor Andrew Sanders the Chair of the Education and Training Committee of the Bar Standards Board. I am going to make some suggestions to him about how we can improve the BPTC. In particular, I am going to suggest that each provider has local junior barristers who are available to be contacted about problems with courses. I am going to ask that those junior barristers visit the local provider and are accessible. I am going to ask what is being done about numbers of entrants compared to pupillages. I am going to ask that a junior barrister as well as a senior barrister is part of the team that does the annual provider visit. I am going to ask that real thought is given to having discussions with banks about their finance packages for BPTC students. Is there anything else you want me to write?”

Contact ForTheDefence with your comments on Twitter or via his blog.


Martyn Jarvis

I think it is too much to expect a refund for the course which you have completed, but i wholeheartedly agree with much stricter entry requirements to gain a place on the LPC/BVC. Having took the the LPC last year and passed first time i have been unable to get even a glimmer of employment out of it. To the contrary, i have found it has limited my opportunities as employers seem scared that i am using them for experience in order to secure a training contract. In all honesty this is not far from the truth, but i will not get a training contract without the experience employment gained from legal based employment and quite simply no one will hire me. I would strongly agree that you need to have a training contract or pupilage already agreed before you can take this course, an LPC adds literally nothing to your employment prospects unless you are heading down this route. I have been left feeling very disillusioned, fully aware that i am one of many floundering LPC students who cannot and probably never will be able to forge a successful career out of law. The near 10,000 student surplus has existed for a number of years now, and i blame myself for not researching the prospects of gaining a training contract after the course in enough detail before i opted to sit it, but i feel the universities cannot hide from this reality either. To allow you onto the course without making you fully aware of just how difficult a situation it is is tantamount to misrepresentation. The SRA and the Law Society are undoubtedly responsible also for allowing so many places to be offered. To keep quiet though allows for a major economic windfall as far they are all concerned.



Take a look at Northern Ireland: there are two legal education providers & you have to have your contract sorted before you can enrol. They do not have too many solicitors.

In this country, some bright spark bought the argument that CoL & Inns of Court School of Law had a monopoly and student “consumers” needed a choice. Now we have far too many providers – all blowing sunshine up our collective skirts that if we just work hard enough, we will dazzle with our brillance and get that contract. They know better but continue to rip off thousands every year.

Once again, wrongly applied consumer discourse manages to skew the market and plays into the hands of the legal assessment / quangocrat industry rather than lay-people and law students.

If course it’s a wheeze.


Comments are closed.