Home » Posts tagged 'Bar Course Aptitude Test'
Tag Archives: Bar Course Aptitude Test
Will the new proposed Bar Course Aptitude Test be fair to aspiring barristers?
The completion of the training of barristers is a genuine regulatory concern of the Bar Standards Board (BSB). According to recent statistics, the number of students who want to become barristers shows little sign of diminishing with 3,100 applicants to the Bar Professional Training Course (BTPC) in 2010/2011 and 3,016 in 2011/2012. There is a growing level of concern at the Bar and amongst law students that the rising demand for the BPTC is not reflected by rising availability of pupillages, coupled with increasing fees for the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC). BPP Law School, one of the main providers of the BPTC, recently announced an increase in fees by five per cent for September 2012 to £16,540. It is hoped that introduction of the Bar Course Aptitude Test (BCAT) will introduce fairness, by decreasing the number of law students who fail the BPTC, and the public consultation until 29 February 2012 is encouraged to see if this will be the case.
The BSB proposes that, in addition to existing entry requirements as specified in the Bar Training Regulations, all BPTC students should attain a minimum pass threshold on the BCAT, which has been carefully developed and piloted specifically for this purpose. It is proposed that this implementation of the BCAT by Pearson Vue should commence with the cohort of candidates applying from November 2012 to start the course in September 2013. Whatever is proposed by the Bar Standards Board, it will be for the Legal Services Board to determine whether the proposal may be implemented.
The BCAT is based on the established and recognised Watson Glaser Critical Thinking Test which is used by some law firms in recruitment assessment days and by the Graduate Management Admissions Council. The Wood Review of the BPTC’s predecessor, the BVC, had been commissioned by the BSB with a Working Group chaired by Derek Wood QC, and published in July 2008. Learners will now be able to take the BCAT at any stage of their education or career, including after applying for the BPTC. The requirement will be that applicants must have scored the threshold pass before enrolling on the course, similar to the current English language rule and other entry requirements. It is staggering that, despite the fact that no socioeconomic data in the pilot were collected, the Bar Standards Board find that the test will not any effect, adverse or otherwise, on socioeconomic factors of enrolment on the BPTC.
Students in the UK are already prone to be most over-assessed in Europe, and it is an embarrassment to our educational system that academic competences will not have been identified by other means by the time a learner sits the test. The cost of taking the test will be a consideration for some learners at a time when some may in future be coping with university course fees. Unfortunately there is a slightly higher cost of taking the test for international students due to higher cost to Pearson Vue of testing and processing results overseas. The BSB has apparently explored the chance of a reduction with Pearson Vue but it has been confirmed that this cost is non-movable.
Certainly the equality and diversity impact assessment will have to be evaluated critically. For example, while no significant differences were found for age, or disability, statistically significant but small differences were found for gender and primary language. Indeed, Pearson Vue intend to mitigate against the effects of disability, indeed as they are obliged to under current equality legislation, through “reasonable adjustments” at test centres. The BSB will need to ensure that these are enforced rigorously, as anecdotal reports on the success of implementation by legal recruiters have been unimpressive for training contract applications.
A legal secretary commented on Twitter today that diversity would be ensured according to ‘how easy is it to pay for coaching to pass’. Formal education is currently expensive, and it is unlikely that educational providers might draw attention to the finding in the report that ‘coaching can have a small effect’, and indeed It is the view of the Bar Standards Board that it is more important to ensure fairness by allowing an unlimited number of re-sits, as the risk of applicants being coached sufficiently to achieve a pass is limited.
Views of current BPTC towards the proposed BCAT are mixed, but few current students are enthusiastic about what it will achieve. One current BPTC student ‘tweeted’, ‘I did LNAT and failed. According to that I shouldn’t have done law at uni, or anything further. So sceptical at aptitude tests.’
It is hugely impressive that the BSB have put produced such an excellent report into the development of the BCAT which is now open to consultation until 29 February 2012. It will be very interesting to see how the profession responds. The Law Society has already commenced investigations into a similar LPC aptitude test, and will undoubtedly follow the progress of the BSB BCAT with enormous interest.
Does the proposed Bar Course Aptitude Test examine the right skills?
On 24 February 2011, Catherine Baksi from the Law Gazette reported that the Chair of the Bar’s Regulator, Baroness Ruth Deech, had said that too many people on the Bar Professional Training Course (“BPTC”) are ‘wasting their money’ because they are ‘not up to it’.
Baroness Deech said the Bar Standards Board (BSB) would press ahead with its plans to introduce aptitude tests for students before they can undertake the BPTC.
This week they indeed proposed a new aptitude test, the Bar Course Aptitude Test (“BCAT”), and are welcoming feedback on their public consultation before 29 February 2012. This test is designed to measure an aptitude to complete the BPTC, though we are specifically not told whether this is the same for aptitude for a successful career at the Bar. The BSB perceives the main problem to be the current high failure rates of the BPTC.
Currently the admissions requirement for the BPTC at both the College of Law and BPP, as well as an arbitrary good standard of English, is a II.2, whereas the usual minimum requirement for a corporate training contract is a II.1. Currently, at Cambridge, approximately 80% of students achieve in Part II of the Tripos (Finals) a I, II.1 or II.2 in some subjects. The most parsiminious explanation therefore for a high failure rate on the BPTC is actually that its academic requirements are simply not high enough. However, many teachers feel that a simplistic judgement based on academic qualifications is not that fair in determining success in this profession.
Most curiously, the latest initiative from the Bar Standards Board seems to be in a ‘parallel universe’ to the excellent initiative, including eminent academics, teachers and lawyers, called the ‘Legal Education and Training Board‘. Part of the problem for the high failure rate of the BPTC, according to the BSB, may be students not succeeding in small, interactive sessions such as involving role-play.
It is now consistently acknowledged that people have different skills in general cognitive (thinking) intelligence and social/emotional intelligence. In the current management and leadership literature, as well as in experimental psychology, the role-plays found in the BPTC would in fact be considered to tapping domains of emotional intelligence, as framed latterly by Daniel Goleman, not traditional cognitive intelligence. The BCAT is based on the Watson-Glaser Test, and this test does not test emotional intelligence at all. For anybody to ignore knowingly the recent decades of intelligence in the last decades is rather perplexing. The BCAT does not test either how law students would react in well-validated ‘real life’ scenarios they might experience as a law student, or ultimately a trainee. This would be a ‘situational judgement test’.
The main potential fault with the solution proposed within the proposed BCAT is that there exist no published data about the reliability of the Watson-Glaser Test in predicting success on a BPTC course. To my knowledge, one magic circle firm is thought to use the Watson-Glaser Test in selection of future solicitors, and the most of the rest use the SHL online verbal reasoning test. It has previously been argued that psychometric testing should not a sole criterion for job suitability. There is no compulsory regulatory requirement of these psychometric tests, but the British Psychological Society has been calling for best practice standards in this field for a longtime along with their European counterparts. There are few published studies about the correlation between psychometric tests and performance in a any professional legal service environment, let alone formal studies comprising barristers or solicitors in training.
The BSB consultation provides a description of the features of the ideal psychometric aptitude test, and this indeed useful; it is a list of characteristics which few people in this field would disagree with. However, even if you are testing cognitive intelligence rather than emotional intelligence, there are many different cognitive skills you can choose. For example, it is possible to perform poorly at the SHL online verbal reasoning test due to cognitive deficits in learning, memory, attention, strategy and language, so therefore most reasonable cognitive neuropsychologists would find drawing conclusions from such tests difficult. However, these tests determine the future of intelligent students wishing with all the best will to enter the learned profession. Morale of my student colleagues is poor – managing strategic change like this new test will need the goodwill of the profession, including all its stakeholders such as students. The Bar Standards Board will then have to listen carefully to the expert views of academics, not just psychological test suppliers.
However, the Bar Standards Board have to be congratulated for producing and recommending such a comprehensive proposal for a practical aptitude test for the BPTC, the success of which is pivotal for regulating overall standards at the Bar from an early stage. The proposal, if students can afford it, seems eminently practical with an industry-respected test supplier. The views of the open public consultation are bound to be interesting.
