Are GDL converters "inferior" to law graduates? Erm, no.

Last week, online indignation was sparked among LLB graduates (well, a few prolific below-the-line commenters) by an article on postgraduate routes into the legal profession in The Guardian. The sniping centred on the widely accepted notion that employers do not see the postgraduate conversion path as in any way a disadvantage in comparison to a law degree. "I think I would feel slightly inferior to my peers who had [taken the LLB]," sniffed one law graduate, who went on: "For better or worse, the law is a client facing business where you must sell yourself and trade on the public's perception of your qualifications. A lay client's first choice when shopping around for a legal advisor will naturally be an LLB grad from a top university, and who can blame them? Students need to think about how clients and firms will perceive the GDL and not assume that the GDL is just a shortcut to qualification which will have no long-term consequences."

The thinking behind this argument is misguided, at best, but it does make it worthwhile to reinforce that both the LLB and conversion routes are perfectly valid in the eyes of recruiters assessing training contract and pupillage applications. There really is no value in denigrating one or the other; the three years over which the LLB is spread allow more time for pursuing individual avenues of interest outside of the core content (as well as the fun that undergraduates should be having at university), but the GDL packs all the compulsory elements of a law degree that are essential for practice into one, gruelling year that is just as good preparation for practice, while added to that is the fact that converters to law also have other degrees which arguably, in many cases, make them more well-rounded candidates. 

A degree in history can hone a candidate’s analytical and argument-making skills just as well as a law degree, while a sciences degree can provide a distinct knowledge advantage for someone wanting to practise intellectual property and patent law. We speak regularly to graduate recruiters in the course of our work at LC.N and it is quite apparent that law firm recruitment departments are increasingly appreciative of the qualities and skills that non-law graduates offer.

Finally, it’s worth restating what the solicitors, barristers and recruiters - whose advice you can find all over this site - tell us time and again; the reality of practising is very different from academic study. Contrary to what the LLB graduate with a chip on her or his shoulder commented below the Guardian article, clients - either private or commercial - are not going to be impressed either by a law degree or by a GDL qualification; what they want is for their lawyers to be able to apply their expertise to give practical advice that prioritises the client’s aims and takes into account the personal or business context in which the advice is being sought. This is not an academic skill and cannot be learnt through traditional study, and it is this that sets candidates apart at the application stage and wins clients post qualification. As far as academics go, it’s important to secure a good classification (at least a 2.1, for the vast majority of people) in your degree subject, whether law or non-law, but beyond that, it’s the ability to apply your knowledge on a vacation scheme or mini-pupillage, and in practise, that will take you forward.