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
© 2024 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
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5Data-Driven Legal Strategies
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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