BSB confirms introduction of mandatory £150 Bar aptitude test
All aspiring barristers will have to pass a £150 aptitude test from April this year, with the Bar Standards Board (BSB) yesterday (20 February) confirming its formal introduction following a lengthy consultation. The Bar Course Aptitude Test (BCAT) will now be a mandatory requirement for all students looking to qualify as a barrister, with students applying for the bar able to register for the BCAT from 1 March 2013, and take the test from 3 April 2013.
February 21, 2013 at 06:52 AM
3 minute read
All aspiring barristers will have to pass a £150 aptitude test from April this year, with the Bar Standards Board (BSB) yesterday (20 February) confirming its formal introduction following a lengthy consultation.
The Bar Course Aptitude Test (BCAT) will now be a mandatory requirement for all students looking to qualify as a barrister, with students applying for the bar able to register for the BCAT from 1 March 2013, and take the test from 3 April 2013.
Students hoping to start the BPTC in 2013 will have until the end of July 2013 to pass the test.
At £150 for UK and EU students, the cost of the test is double the initially mooted price of around £70 – Legal Week reported in October that, while the price was still being debated it would be in between £50 and £100, probably £67. Overseas students will be charged £170.
The BSB has also drawn criticism for the fact that the test can be sat an unlimited number of times.
A mandatory entrance test was first considered to raise the standards of students joining the course, which has increased steadily since the monopoly of the Inns of Court School of Law in delivering the bar course ended.
A review group chaired by Derek Wood QC, which found that nearly half of BPTC students considered that the presence of weak students had affected their learning experience on the course.
During a two year pilot of the aptitude test, involving 1800 students, trials showed students with high BCAT scores were much more likely to pass the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) with a high grade, whereas lower scorers were more likely to fail.
BCAT does not test students' knowledge so it should not require studying for; however the BSB says practice questions will be available.
Baroness Ruth Deech (pictured), chair of the BSB, said: "Most students who fail the BPTC do so because they struggle with the critical thinking and reasoning required for practical elements of the course. Students role-play court room and client interactions and if someone on the course finds this difficult, it impacts on the learning of all students.
"The BPTC is a unique course that moulds future barristers, so it is right that we only allow those who can demonstrate key fundamental skills to sign up. The BCAT is a significant intervention to improve the quality of learning for all students on the BPTC."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWickard AI Partners With Law School to Bring Legal AI Training to Ethiopia
What Firms in Australia Are Doing to Attract and Retain Lawyers in a Competitive Market
7 minute readReport: Toronto Law Students Did Not Breach School's Code of Conduct With Pro-Palestinian Letter
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250