Final Report to the Inner Temple on the Pegasus Access and Support Scheme

THE HONOURABLE SOCIETY OF

THE INNER TEMPLE

THE PEGASUS ACCESS SCHEME Final Report to The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple

Elaine Freer August 2015 1

2

Introduction This research project, funded jointly by Keele University and Inner Temple, explores the role of professional associations in promoting social mobility within an elite profession, evaluating of the outreach and social mobility activities undertaken

by Inner Temple and focusing, in particular, on the Pegasus Access Scheme (PASS). The broader PhD project addresses how professional associations are able to engage with, and promote, divisive issues such as social mobility. The project has therefore led to both the production of an academic thesis, and the evaluation that forms the basis of this report and the interim report that was presented to the Outreach Committee in March 2014.

1. The first stage of the research project considered Inner Temple’s involvement in the Pathways to Law programme and was informed by data collected by Inner Temple’s Education and Training Department and analysed by the author. Further data was collected from a focus group of nine students who had participated in a “Pathways to Law” session.

2. The second stage of the research project focussed on the introduction and operation of the Pegasus Access Scheme (PAS), renamed to the Pegasus Access and Support Scheme (PASS) (during the course of this research). Data came from questionnaires written and administered by the Education and Training Department; further questionnaires written by the researcher and administered by the E&T Department; one focus group conducted in person at Inner Temple by the researcher with four PASS participants; and one focus group conducted via conference call by the researcher with two PASS participants.

3. Further data was collected from 12 individual interviews (11 in person and one by telephone) conducted with a variety of stakeholders. These individuals included chambers’ representatives (including one from a set of chambers not participating in PASS); Benchers of Inner Temple, elected members of other professional organisations of the Bar, and salaried staff of Inner Temple and other professional organisations of the Bar. Some individuals fell into more than one category.

4. The rationale behind the research design of data collection from documentary sources, focus groups and interviews was to explore the issues from the perspectives of the main stakeholders; the students who had experienced the programme, and whom it was intended to benefit, and members of the profession who were involved in conceiving and implementing it.

5. This report does not address the data that was collected relating to the Pathways to Law programme that was presented to the Committee in both presentation and written form in March 2014 other than where it relates to findings concerning PASS. A full copy of that interim report is appended to this report for reference (Appendix A), and the findings presented in that report inform the conclusions reached in this final report.

Executive Summary Key Findings a) The overwhelming majority of students who had participated in PASS provided very positive feedback both about the organisation of the programme, and also their experiences of the mini-pupillages themselves. They were particularly positive about the approachability, and willingness to answer questions, of barristers whom they shadowed during the mini-pupillages. b) PASS is limited by some external constraints. Many factors operate on both the profession and aspirant entrants which Inner Temple cannot control. Prime examples in this research were the BPTC, and low educational attainment from an early age. This meant that by the time PASS occurred, some young people had already not secured grades that they needed to be in contention for pupillage. c) PASS is also subject to the constraints/tensions generated by a wide range of views as to the aims and objectives of this (and similar) programme(s). This can produce difficulties in managing expectations and in evaluating the success of such schemes. d) Overall, it is suggested that PASS functions very well as a programme which increases mutual exposure between nontraditional aspirant entrants and the Bar. This may lead to greater acceptance and understanding by both parties of the strengths of the other. However, its ability to alter the demographic of the profession may not be as pronounced as had been hoped.

Emerging broader themes Access to information Mini-pupillage is a very good way of accessing accurate information about the profession, as the students both see the day-today life of a barrister and can ask questions in an informal environment of those already in practice. This was valued highly by students both in Pathways (Interim Report, para 3.3) and PASS. They differentiated between ‘2D advice’ (that available on the internet), for example, and ‘3D advice’; (that obtained by direct engagement with practitioners).

Financial constraints A notable feature of PASS is that it requires participating chambers to pay the travel expenses of the participants, both from their home to chambers, and to any courts that they are expected to travel to during the mini-pupillage. For around 50% of those surveyed, this was crucial to them undertaking the mini-pupillage, and the knowledge that financial assistance was provided allowed them to engage fully in the mini-pupillage without worrying about funding.

3

Mutuality of benefit for chambers and students There was an acknowledgement from many practitioners that both diversity at the Bar more widely, and mini-pupillage more narrowly, were of benefit to both chambers and aspirant entrants. All stakeholder interviewees recognised a variety of reasons why diversity was important to the Bar as a profession, both for the good of the profession and society. Many also recognised that by having potential applicants in chambers on a mini-pupillage there was as much an opportunity for chambers to market itself to the candidate as there was for the candidate to market themselves to the chambers. This mutuality of benefit and exposure was a positive element of PASS upon which almost all participants of every category agreed.

Experiential challenges As PASS is organised centrally but delivered by individual chambers, there were predictably variations in the experiences of students on mini-pupillages. Often these were attributable to the size of chambers that they went to and the type of work that was most prevalent in those chambers, and had no negative effect on the students’ experience whatsoever. A small number, however, said that these variations had had a material effect on their experience of the programme. Variations were also raised to a lesser extent by Pathways’ students. When work was done in smaller groups led by individual barristers, variations in the type and accuracy of information given was noted by the participants (Interim Report, pg 2 at b)). Whilst students value the direct contact, it also introduces variation.

Operational challenges On the whole, PASS seemed to be running well. A future matter for consideration, however, will be whether its current efficiency can be maintained as numbers increase, and whether there is a realistic possibility of extending the scheme’s geographical reach.

Social/institutional constraints Many of the students had been discouraged from considering the Bar by staff at their universities, who felt that they were unlikely to succeed, even where they had very strong academic records, suggesting that some institutions still consider the Bar as only being ‘open’ to those from traditional backgrounds. Students also were unaware of certain social formalities that were expected of them at the Bar, and mini-pupillage gave them an opportunity to experience these. PASS students recognised many similar familial and friendship constraints operating on them as Pathways students did (Interim Report, paras 4.18-4.20).

By university stage, it appeared that some academic staff may experience difficulties in negotiating the line between providing balanced, realistic and informed careers advice and reinforcing perceived constraints upon the students.

Key Findings for development a) There was a lack of clarity surrounding the aims and objectives of the programme. This could lead to confusion if parties are unsure what others are hoping to achieve through the programme. It may also inhibit the programme from developing, as the direction in which it should evolve is unclear. Without clear aims and objectives it is difficult to measure the success of the programme, as it is unclear what would amount to a successful outcome. b) For those students who participate in PASS, it seems to be a largely positive experience. However, the overall numbers participating are low. These numbers need to be seen in a wider context to understand the optimal number of students to be participating in PASS. An articulation of the ‘optima numbers’ must be informed by an understanding of external factors such as the size and shape of the legal services marketplace, and a clear agreement as to the programme’s aims and objectives. Clarity on both points would assist the programme to be effectively delivered and to create a critical mass of participants. If the aim is exposure to the profession and access to information, then higher throughput may be desirable. If the scheme is designed to form part of a pathway to entry, then issues such as saturation of the market would also be valuable to consider. c) A key factor compromising the programme’s efficacy is that it maintains established frameworks which operate to the indirect disadvantage of non-traditional aspirant entrants. These frameworks are the importance of mini-pupillage and the ways in which it is secured. This means that it is not well-placed to disrupt current patterns of under-valuing different ways of gaining skills and exposure to the profession.

Preliminary recommendations a) Consider whether PASS is meant to be part of a longer-term interaction with students, starting with Pathways, extending through PASS and potentially onto continued mentoring or similar afterwards. Alternatively, is it meant to ‘stand-alone’, providing all the assistance students require? If it is decided that it should stand alone, then further consideration could be given to extending it into a more comprehensive programme. b) It is suggested that longer-term support would be a positive addition to PASS. It would provide non-traditional aspirant entrants with guidance in matters such as scholarship and pupillage applications, and interview technique, all areas in which participants and existing research suggests non-traditional aspirant entrants may experience challenges.

For those who do decide to pursue a career at the Bar, it will give them a network and sense of community within the profession, something identified by participants as key to the experience of the Bar. c) More informally, PASS could foster a network of students who could offer one another mutual support. This could be developed and directed by Inner Temple, or PASS participants who wished to be could simply be put in touch with one another by Inner Temple.

4

d) Address the scale of PASS, and particularly, if it is intended to further increase in size, consider whether further resources are available to sustain this. Similarly, consider whether priority is given to having fewer students but from a wider area, and accommodating them as well as paying travel expenses, or whether resources would be better used trying to roll out PASS on the circuits. This would address frustrations aimed at its London-centricity, without requiring the greater financial outlay of accommodating students in London. e) A ‘best practice’ document for chambers may be helpful to encourage parity across mini-pupillages. Whilst not a binding document, it may draw attention to matters that chambers were unaware of and could easily alter. Such a document may also be of use to chambers not participating in PASS, as an example of best practice in providing minipupillages. f) Guidance to chambers on how to make their own mini-pupillage application processes more equitable to nontraditional aspirant entrants would also assist in widening the provision of work experience by recognising skills and experience gained in non-traditional ways beyond PASS.

Future directions As highlighted in the main report and the recommendations above, PASS is largely working well in its current form, in the opinions of both students and stakeholders. In terms of future directions, the big questions are about the potential for expansion and the role of the programme in relation to the wider range of access activities undertaken by Inner Temple.

With these matters decided upon, PASS is likely to have an even more secure basis on which to flourish, whether or not the programme expands.

The rest of this report is set out in two parts. Firstly, the student questionnaire data is presented in summary form under the ‘Key Findings’ heading, before a more detailed exploration (under ‘Data in more detail’). The report then moves into a discussion which analyses the data’s potential implications for the future evolution of PASS, drawing on both questionnaire and interview data.

Key Findings – Student questionnaire data Overall, support for PASS was strong from students. Students felt that it had given them valuable experience that they would not otherwise have been able to access. The questionnaire data allowed not only an overall picture of satisfaction levels to be obtained, but also for those results to be broken down by cohort.

Data collected from the questionnaires and collated by the researcher can be seen in Appendix B of this report.

Pegasus Access Scheme overall • 100% of the participants rated the scheme as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ overall Mini-pupillage overall • 100% of participants rated their mini-pupillage through PASS as ‘very helpful’ or ‘helpful’.

Organisational • 90% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘PASS was easy to apply for’ • 92% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘Prior to my placement, I was provided with a sufficient amount of information’ • 98% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘The administrative team were friendly, accommodating and able to answer my questions’ • 51% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘Payment of expenses were essential in allowing me to undertake this placement’ • 86% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘I would not have been able to get this kind of placement without PASS’ Experiential • 94% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘Chambers’ practice areas were of interest to me’ •1 00% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘The barristers I shadowed were friendly, accommodating and able to answer my questions’ •7 2% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘My mini-pupillage has changed my perception of the Bar and of barristers’ • 100% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘Participating in PASS has given me a good insight into the profession’ • 95% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘Participating in PASS will help my careers aspirations’

5

1. Data in more detail The number of responses received to each questionnaire are given in Table 1:

Cohort

No. of students participating

Responses to Inner’s postplacement questionnaire

Responses to researcher’s pre-PASS questionnaire

Responses to researcher’s post-PASS questionnaire

Pilot

18 (13 actually undertook placements)

7

-

-

First

30

25

-

-

Second

48

17

31

16

1.1

Overall, support for PASS was strong from all stakeholders. Students felt that it had given them valuable experience that they would not otherwise have been able to access.

1.2

The feedback questionnaires produced by Inner Temple asked students to state to what extent they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements, to get a more detailed picture of their views on more specific aspects of the programme. These questions could crudely be split into those which concerned organisational and administrative matters, and those that concerned the students’ experience of participating in a PASS mini-pupillage.

Organisational matters – Inner Temple questionnaire 1.3

‘PASS was easy to apply for’ • 22 strongly agreed (46%) • 21 agreed (44%) • 3 neither agreed nor disagreed (6%) • 2 disagreed (4%) • 1 didn’t answer the question (2%)

1.4

‘Prior to my placement, I was provided with a sufficient amount of information’ • 35 strongly agreed (71%) • 10 agreed (21%) • 2 neither agreed nor disagreed (4%) • 2 disagreed (4%)

1.5

‘The administrative team were friendly, accommodating and able to answer my questions’ • 40 strongly agreed (81%) • 8 agreed (17%) • 1 neither agreed nor disagreed (2%)

1.6

‘Payment of expenses were essential in allowing me to undertake this placement’ • 18 strongly agreed (37%) • 7 agreed (14%) • 17 neither agreed nor disagreed (35%) • 5 disagreed (10%) • 2 strongly disagreed (4%)

1.7

‘I would not have been able to get this kind of placement without PASS’ • 26 strongly agreed (53%) • 16 agreed (33%) • 3 neither agreed nor disagreed (6%) • 3 disagreed (6%) • 1 strongly disagreed (2%)

6

Experiential matters – Inner Temple questionnaire 1.8

‘Chambers’ practice areas were of interest to me’ • 31 strongly agreed (63%) • 15 agreed (31%) • 2 neither agreed nor disagreed (4%) • 1 disagreed (2%)

1.9

‘The barristers I shadowed were friendly, accommodating and able to answer my questions’ • 42 strongly agreed (85%) • 7 agreed (15%)

1.10 ‘My mini-pupillage has changed my perception of the Bar and of barristers’ • 14 strongly agreed (29%) • 21 agreed (43%) • 10 neither agreed nor disagreed (20%) • 3 disagreed (6%) • 1 strongly disagreed (2%) 1.11 ‘Participating in PASS has given me a good insight into the profession’ • 42 strongly agreed (86%) • 7 agreed (14%) 1.12 ‘Participating in PASS will help my careers aspirations’ • 40 strongly agreed (81%) • 7 agreed (14%) • 2 neither agreed nor disagreed (4%) 1.13 ‘How strongly did you / do you now wish to pursue a career at the Bar?’ • 23 wished to pursue a career at the Bar more strongly after the placement than they had before (47%) • 23 had the same level of desire to go to the Bar (47%) • 1 wished to pursue a career at the Bar less strongly after their placement (2%) • 2 did not answer the question (4%)

Data analysed by cohort 1.14 One way in which the results can be analysed in more detail is by reviewing them by cohort. This reveals that on the basis of their overall rating of the programme, the first full cohort seem to have been the most pleased with their experience; they rated both their mini-pupillages and PASS overall more positively than either the pilot or the second cohorts. The second cohort was the next most satisfied overall, followed by the pilot cohort. The reasons for this can only be speculated upon and may be down to individual factors, although possible explanations are discussed below (para 1.17).

1.15 Overall rating of the mini-pupillage by cohort

o Pilot • 5 ‘very helpful’ (71%) • 2 ‘helpful’ (29%)

o First Cohort • 24 ‘very helpful’ (96%) • 1 ‘helpful’ (4%)

o Second cohort • 13 ‘very helpful’ (76%) • 4 ‘helpful’ (24%)

1.16 Rating of the Pegasus Access Scheme overall by cohort o Pilot • 5 ‘excellent’ (71%) • 2 ‘good’ (29%) 7

o First cohort • 25 ‘excellent’ (100%) o Second cohort • 14 ‘excellent’ (82%) • 3 ‘good’ (18%) 1.17 There will inevitably be some discrepancy between cohorts, as different students may have different expectations of the scheme. Furthermore, the numbers in the cohorts so far have been relatively small, making it inadvisable to try to draw sturdy conclusions from their responses. The pattern observed so far could, however, indicate that whilst the first cohort benefitted from teething problems noted in the pilot cohort having been addressed, in the second cohort increased numbers meant that different challenges were occurring.

1.18 If the number of students participating is to continue to increase, one challenge will be to ensure that the quality of student experience remains high. Inner Temple may want to consider keeping the throughput a little smaller (around the level of the second full cohort, for example) to allow for the quality of the experience to be sustained for those who participate.

Researcher questionnaires – attempting to measure attitudinal change 1.19 In addition to the feedback obtained through the questionnaires written and administered by Inner Temple, a further set of questionnaires was compiled by the researcher. These were designed with one to be administered before participation in the PASS mini-pupillage, and the other to be administered afterwards. A number of questions appeared on each questionnaire. The aim of this was to explore attitudinal change that could possibly be attributed to the scheme.

Due to the small numbers and lack of a control group involved, it cannot be proven that any changes resulted from participation in PASS. There was also a very disappointing response rate to the post-placement questionnaire (only half of those who had filled in the pre-placement questionnaire also filled in the post-placement questionnaire – n=31 as compared to n=16). However, such data is still instructive to gain a more general picture of how participants are responding to PASS. 1.20 How do you think PASS will/has benefitted you the most?

Pre-placement • 42% said ‘increase my understanding of the Bar’ • 26% said ‘experience a particular practice area’ • 13% said ‘to help me decide whether to be a solicitor or a barrister’ • 6% said ‘to meet barristers’ • 6% said ‘to see the sort of work barristers do’ • 6% did not answer Post-placement • 38% said ‘experienced a particular practice area’ • 25% said ‘increased understanding of the Bar’ • 19% said ‘saw the sort of work done by barristers’ • 12% said ‘met barristers’ • 6% said ‘helped me choose whether to be a barrister or a solicitor’ 1.21 Even from these figures it seems clear that it is an understanding of the profession generally, and of particular practice areas more specifically, that students are looking for when they seek work experience.

1.22 A further comparison can be drawn between the two sets of answers to the question Please RANK in order of importance the reasons you think chambers offer mini pupillages (in general) Pre-placement • 39% ranked ‘to give students a realistic insight into the profession’ as most important • 26% ranked as most important the opportunity to make initial assessments of applicants • 23% ranked ‘to attract the best applicants by highlighting the chambers’ positive qualities.

• 6% ranked ‘to encourage applications from non-traditional sectors of the community’ • 3% ranked ‘as part of a professional commitment to engage with the community at large’ • 3% did not answer

8

Post-placement • 38% ranked ‘to give students a realistic insight into the profession’ as most important • 25% ranked ‘to attract the best applicants by highlighting the chambers’ positive qualities.

• 19% ranked ‘as part of a professional commitment to engage with the community at large’ • 13% ranked ‘to encourage applications from non-traditional sectors of the community’ • 6% did not answer the question • None ranked as most important the opportunity to make initial assessments of applicants 1.23 Most notable here is the change between ‘before’ and ‘after’ as regards how many students thought that the purpose of a mini-pupillage was to allow chambers to make initial assessments of students. The responses to the pre-placement questionnaire may suggest that non-traditional aspirant entrants anticipate being explicitly assessed in a formal and potentially hostile or challenging manner, and when they do not encounter this they do not realise that such exposure is nonetheless a time of mutual appraisal. It does suggest, however, that students feel that they are being put at ease during the placement, thus not giving a feeling of being assessed. A potential downfall of this, however, is that students may lapse into less formal behaviour if they did not feel that they are in any way being assessed during mini-pupillages.

1.24 In this respect, however, there is a difference between mini-pupillages and vacation schemes in solicitors’ firms. Whilst vacation schemes are methods of formal assessment and are openly acknowledged as such, the short periods of minipupillages, combined with the limited possibility for a student to produce work which is assessed during the minipupillage, mean that mini-pupillages are not assessed. (An exception is in those circumstances where they are expressly advertised as such, usually as part of the process for securing full pupillage). Most chambers of which representatives were interviewed for this research stated that no record was kept of mini-pupils beyond their names and the dates they had attended. Although individual members of chambers who encountered them may therefore remember them were they to encounter them when interviewing for pupillage, for example, mini-pupils seemed not to be assessed in any way that could affect their recruitment chances at that chambers at large. Many interviewees emphasised that a mini-pupillage was mainly for the experience of the student, although others suggested that chambers also utilised the opportunity to ‘sell itself’ to students (see 2.4 below for discussion); 1.25 The open-ended response questions also generated similarly interesting responses, with the question ‘why do you think chambers offer mini-pupillages through PASS’ also being asked in both the pre- and post-placement questionnaires.

Why do you think chambers are offering mini-pupillages through PASS? Pre-placement • 12 referred to a desire to increase diversity, either of the profession as a whole or the specific chambers (39%) • 8 referred to a desire by chambers to show that they were open to applications from people of any background, and to encourage those people to apply (26%) • 3 suggested that it was to help disadvantaged students (10%) • 2 suggested that it was to encourage ‘unconventional talent’ (6%).

• 2 said that it was to improve the image of chambers, questioning the presence of an altruistic motive (6%) • One said that it was out of a sense of duty, although it was unclear whether this was said with negative or positive connotations (3%).

• Of the remaining two, one said that chambers ‘supported the ideology of PASS’ and another said it was to provide insight into the profession (6%).

• One did not answer the question (3%) Post-placement • 7 answers said to increase diversity (44%) • 3 said to attract/discover unconventional talent (19%) • 2 said to show openness and encouragement to NTAES to apply to the Bar (13%) • 2 answers mentioned that it may be commitment to an appearance as opposed to a genuine desire for change, and one suggested it was to meet a quota (13%).

• One participant was unsure (6%) • One did not answer the question (6%) 1.26 It is notable that even in such a small sample there were respondents questioning the altruism of the motivation behind the scheme. Such uncertainty was also seen in the responses to the question of ‘why do you think Inner Temple has set up PASS?’ which was asked in the pre-placement questionnaire. There are no recommendations specifically addressing the respondents’ cynicism regarding the motivation behind the programme. It is suggested that it may simply be the product of suspicion of a profession which previously has not been seen by the public to be making strides in inclusivity, and that as the Bar increases in its efforts to promote diversity, and this is known about more widely in society, such cynicism will be reduced.

1.27 On the basis of this data, the report now moves onto examining some of the strengths of the scheme, before considering some of the challenges facing it, and recommendations on how some of these challenges may be ameliorated.

9

Discussion 2. Strengths 2.1 Payment of expenses 2.1.1 This was identified by participants as key. In focus groups, a number of PASS students described having had to curtail previous non-PASS mini-pupillages as a result of the cost of travel, and felt reassured knowing that this was not going to be an issue in their PASS mini-pupillages. ‘you’ve got to be on peak as well, so a return, on peak, even with, like, my student railcard, was gonna be like, £30 for a day, and, like, I can’t afford £150 in a week just to get into London. So it’s a massive advantage to the scheme. Like, I cut one of my [non-PASS] mini-pupillages short by two days; I asked for it to be three as opposed to five because I couldn’t afford to come in every day.’ (PASS FG1 Participant 2, F) 2.1.2 Obtaining a mini-pupillage through PASS alleviated student worries of the financial pressure of mini-pupillages. For non-traditional students, financing work experience is a significant concern, as has been demonstrated in previous research (Francis and Sommerlad, 2009). The scheme requires that chambers pay all the travel expenses of the student, both from their home to chambers, and from chambers to courts. This allowed students to fully participate in their minipupillage without financial worries; ‘The fact that it had been said and that it wasn’t something that was going to be awkward was comforting.’ (PASS FG1 Participant 1, F) 2.1.3 Such provision not only allows for students to fully participate, but it also emphasises to them something identified by a Pathways participant; that the Bar understands that not everyone had significant financial means of their own, and that acknowledging this makes the profession seem more ‘in touch’ with the concerns of young people from non-traditional backgrounds, and thus represents a genuine effort to assist them (Interim Report, para 4.9). In this way, access programmes are not only about widening access, but are also symbolic of an ideology committed to opportunities for young people from all socio-economic backgrounds.

2.1.4 For the first full cohort who participated in PASS, 20 of the 49 students who completed Inner Temple’s post-placement questionnaire ‘strongly agreed’ that ‘payment of expenses was essential in allowing me to undertake this placement’. A further seven agreed and only five disagreed. For those five, expenses may not have been crucial as they already had a Travelcard as a result of their job (one example given in a focus group), or did not live far away and had only needed to travel to nearby courts. This means, however, that only 51% of respondents ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ that payment of expenses had been crucial to them undertaking the placement. Whilst this does not mean that it was not helpful for the remaining 49%, it does raise the matter of whether students should be given the choice to opt out of receiving expenses when they apply through PASS if they feel that they do not need them.

2.1.5 Although this is not offered as a key recommendation due to concerns about the operation of a ‘two-tier system’, it is suggested that this idea is considered further as a way of maximising the number of students who can benefit from PASS in the ways in which they need its assistance: There may be some students who can afford to pay their travel expenses, and are willing to do so, but need the assistance of PASS for other reasons, i.e. difficulty demonstrating traditional educational attainment. If unfunded places on PASS are offered by some chambers this may also allow more chambers to participate, for example those in areas where funding is more problematic and thus they may not be able to pay expenses for a student, but may be wholly committed to the ideology of PASS and wish to participate to show that support. Another possibility would be for Inner Temple to provide a set amount of expenses to students for them to undertake their mini-pupillage at any chambers that they choose, which need not be part of PASS. This, however, would require them to apply through that chambers’ usual application route, meaning that the student would not get the benefit of the specialist consideration given to application forms processed by Inner Temple through PASS. 2.1.6 It is accepted that such a suggestion would need to be carefully thought through, and may be deemed to be out of kilter with the ethos of PASS: A potential return to unfunded pupillages has been hailed as a retrograde step as it will allow those with financial support to ‘leapfrog’ the system (Neuberger, 2007: para 209). However, it is argued that this would not be the case under PASS – a student would still need to qualify for PASS under the same criteria as any other applicant. Therefore, they have still experienced disadvantage which their participation in PASS is aimed at ameliorating. If they indicated a willingness to undertake an unfunded mini-pupillage this would only come into play in allocating them to chambers, insofar as they may have a wider selection of chambers to whom they could be allocated, as they could be placed with a set that had indicated a willingness to take students, but an inability to fund their expenses. As nearly half of the responding students did not agree that expenses were crucial to them undertaking the mini-pupillage, a way to extend the number of students who can participate in the programme would be by offering the option of an unfunded mini-pupillage for those who need assistance within the eligibility criteria (e.g. non-standard educational path), but can meet the financial outlay of their mini-pupillages.

2.1.7

10

he requirement that chambers pay expenses may have a limiting effect on which chambers can participate. Those which T do mainly legal-aid funded work are lesslikely to be able to fund mini-pupils through the PASS as cuts to publicly-funded work have made their financial positions less secure. This may also be the case for smaller chambers. However, data shows that it is the publicly-funded areas of practice which are already the most diverse (Working Lives Report, 2013: 27, 105), so an argument may be made that PASS’s requirement for the payment of travel expenses does not exclude chambers in those areas of practice where both students and chambers are likely to benefit most from the mutual exposure of PASS.

2.2

Access to information from those already in practice

2.2.1 As was detailed in the Interim Report on Pathways (para 3.3), students particularly valued the opportunity to interact with practising barristers, as they felt that this afforded them the opportunity to access honest and realistic information about the profession. This was demonstrated again in the data from the PASS students, with many referring to how much they valued the opportunity to speak to barristers in informal settings, as well as to see their day-to-day working lives.

2.2.2 The value of work experience in later securing employment in that field seems to be largely related to the experiential element of having been within a workplace. Having done this, an aspirant entrant is better able to present themselves in the way that chambers expect of aspirant entrants (Francis and Sommerlad, 2009: 65). This makes them a more convincing candidate when they later apply for pupillage, and may mediate socio-economic background (Sommerlad, 2007: 206). Direct experience also allows aspirant entrants to talk more convincingly about their desire to be involved in a particular area of practice. In law, for those areas of practice where very little experience can be gained apart from within chambers, due to the nuances and practicalities of the subject not being taught at degree level, mini-pupillages are especially important for this reason; ‘You can’t come to the Chancery Bar without having done at least one mini-pupillage in Chancery work, you just can’t get there. […] I just don’t think you can talk meaningfully about the work of the Chancery Bar in a way that’s likely to get you through interview unless you have actually experienced some of it, so I thinks it’s absolutely vital.’ (Interviewee 2, nonInner, F, other prof assocs) 2.2.3 This was reinforced by a PASS student who admitted that he had selected ‘Chancery’ as the practise area on his form because he was not sure what it entailed, and that this opportunity to explore a wholly new area of law had been very valuable to him; ‘it does still give people a chance to say that this is something they’re not very familiar with, or something they want to investigate as I…I didn’t really know what the word ‘chancery’ meant when I applied for it, erm I think it still gives people that opportunity, and so yeah, it was very valuable.’ (PASS FG2 Participant 2, M) 2.2.4 As it is important to chambers that an aspirant entrant truly understands the area of law in which they are asserting a desire to practice, it is also important that they have experienced the realities of life at the Bar through the shadowing of a practising barrister; ‘I didn’t really, until gaining that experience, realise that a barrister’s schedule on any normal day is that hectic, requiring them to lope across London; various courts, various hearings, juggling a multitude of cases in just one single day, going from one case to have something totally different, perhaps a preliminary hearing to something completely different, erm and then returning back to chambers in order to write an opinion, for example.’ (PASS FG2 Participant 1, M) 2.2.5 When answering the pre-PASS questionnaire circulated to the 2014 PASS cohort (the second full cohort), many of the answers to the question ‘why do you think it might be important for you to gain work experience?’ not only focussed on this value of experiential engagement with the profession, but many students explicitly linked their lack of familiarity with the professions with the need to undertake work experience; ‘I believe it will allow me to experience the set of skills required to be a successful barrister. Also, it will give me an insight into a professional career that none of my family members currently hold.’ (PASS participant, 2014, pre-placement questionnaire) This was a sentiment echoed by other participants at both Pathways and PASS levels; all students emphasised how valuable they found the experience of meeting practising barristers who could answer their questions from personal experience; ‘…talking to actual barristers because there is no one better than them to sort of tell [aspirant entrants] what it’s really about.’ (PASS FG2 Participant 2, M).

2.2.6 Non-traditional students are unlikely to have had familial or social links to those within the legal profession, and many responses to the questionnaires explicitly referred to this being perceived as a barrier to entry by non-traditional aspirant entrants. The opportunity to ask these questions to those in practice within a relatively informal environment allowed the students to access information that was otherwise outside of their reach, regardless of the thoroughness of their own individual research (see Interim Report para 4.8).

2.2.7 Not only was there an opportunity to ask questions, but the PASS participants often emphasised how generous the barristers whom they had shadowed during their PASS mini-pupillage had been with their time, some spending long periods explaining complicated fact patterns or legal concepts to the student; ‘my supervisor was really, really lovely and he explained it all to me, and took me…spent a lot of time; a real surprising amount of time; I wouldn’t really expect anyone to spend so much…so many hours just explaining about how the particular trust arrangement worked and this kind of thing.’ (PASS FG2 Participant 2, M) 2.2.8 They also found that spending time with barristers exposed them to practices and social nuances that they could not have picked up elsewhere, but which might have inhibited them in gaining further opportunities. For non-traditional students with no experience of professions, there will have been little, if any, chance for them to accumulate ‘social capital’; the knowledge and language of these social fields and would thus allow them to ‘blend in’ within them. Minipupillages form an important opportunity for students to assimilate such information.

11

2.2.9 As Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2002: 23) note, every person has myriad different identities, each of which is engaged when they undertake a different activity. Students will have the identity that they use at school/university, the identity that they use with their friends, the identity that they use with family. Non-traditional students may not have had chance to develop a ‘professional’ identity that gives them the social tools they need to present themselves well in a professional environment. These tools include ways of addressing others and self-presentation. Through mini-pupillage, students have an opportunity to witness the ways in which those already in the profession present themselves, and to develop an identity suitable for interviews and other interactions with the profession. Students identified this as an important opportunity. Equally valued, however, was openness and honesty about the realities of life at the Bar, and the situations and challenges that the students were likely to encounter as they moved from their university education through the BPTC and then pupillage applications.

2.3

Perception of the profession

2.3.1 For some non-traditional students, there was also the realisation that, even for those who were already practising within the profession from very traditional backgrounds, there was an openness to those from non-traditional backgrounds, and a desire to help aspirant entrants regardless of how similar, or otherwise, their backgrounds were; ‘…even though they might be frightfully upper class and, erm, somebody who I will never have come across in my life before, it doesn’t mean that it’s not accessible or welcoming and they don’t want you to be there or they’re going to judge you because you’re not like them, erm, and I think that is what had changed for me in my perception of the Bar.’ (PASS FG1 Participant 1, F) 2.3.2 This individual openness to difference is key to building a perception of the profession as a whole as being open to anyone of merit. Many of the PASS participants expressly stated how helpful and friendly barristers from very traditional backgrounds had been towards them, although one stated that ‘background and schooling is still a focal point in conversation, especially with other barristers’, something likely to pose a challenge to some access efforts.

2.3.3 For the profession to increase in its socio-economic diversity, it needs to be perceived by aspirant entrants from nontraditional backgrounds as open to anybody of ability, regardless of their background. Young people are surrounded by advice that influences their perceptions of matters such as this; important sources are likely to be their family, their peers and their university lecturers and tutors. Therefore it is important that those people, as well as the students themselves, perceive the Bar as a profession that is purely merit-based, as otherwise their dissuasions may mean that some aspirant entrants do not seek entry to the Bar even where they are academically able. This challenge is addressed below, in section 3.1.

2.4

Mutuality of benefit?

2.4.1 Inherent in the format of a mini-pupillage is that as well as the student experiencing a week in the life of a practising barrister, some members of chambers get an opportunity to form an opinion on the student. Thus, a mini-pupillage is not a one-way interaction; non-traditional students and chambers are exposed to one another. This allowed for preconceptions held by barristers and chambers of non-traditional students to be broken down, as it allowed nontraditional students’ preconceptions about barristers to be broken down. Across the practitioners interviewed, there were differences of opinion about the level to which a mini-pupillage was advantageous to chambers as well as to students, but most recognised at least some mutual benefit.

2.4.2 From a chambers’ perspective some of the gains to be made by participating in PASS were internally-focussed, directed at a desire to secure access to the very best candidates in the hope of providing an experience that would encourage them to apply for pupillage. A number of interviewees, however, said that mini-pupillages gave little, if any, value to chambers and were aimed purely at the benefit of the student, mainly through the provision of information and demystification of the Bar and its methods of operating; one chambers’ representative said ‘Literally it’s an experience for them, it’s not for us.’ (Interviewee 1, non-Inner, F, chambers’ rep). Other practitioner participants, however, felt that it was a balanced interaction from which both chambers and the student gained, and that having non-traditional students through a scheme such as PASS drew to the attention of barristers the potential of non-traditional candidates; ‘…members of chambers are being exposed to people from a completely different route and seeing how able they are and I think that helps to keep when you are recruiting people to keep in mind too actually.’ (Interviewee 1 – non-Inner, M, other prof assocs, chambers rep) 2.4.3 Another chambers’ representative identified a significant aim of PASS as being mutually beneficial. By ensuring that gifted non-traditional students are given the opportunities that they need to be competitive applicants for pupillage, the pool of aspirant entrants from which chambers selects pupils will, in the long term, be better; ‘I don’t think we get any immediate benefit but in the long term hopefully we can benefit from a more diverse pool of applicants.’ (Interviewee 2, non-Inner, F, other prof assocs) This often seemed to be recognised as a positive side effect as opposed to a main aim of the programme, however. All of the chambers representatives said that there was no follow-up with mini-pupils, and in most cases the only records kept of their mini-pupils were name and dates attended. Thus it seemed that mini-pupillages were construed by the profession as chiefly for the benefit of the student. If this is so, however, then it is unclear why selection for them has become so competitive, and not allocation on a ‘first come, first served’ basis. It is possible that a level of informal assessment that is either subconscious or not acknowledged does occur.

12

2.4.4 Those students who answered the pre-PASS questionnaire were asked to rank in order of importance six possible reasons why chambers gave mini-pupillages. The response selected by the greatest number of students as the most important was ‘to give students a realistic insight into the profession’. The answer ranked the second highest was ‘to attract the best applicants (for full pupillage) by highlighting chambers’ positive qualities’. Thus, aspirant entrants themselves perceive mini-pupillages as mutually beneficial, and also understand that chambers may use the process as a way of marketing itself to candidates, although this element seems to be less consistent amongst chambers. When the same question was repeated in the post-placement questionnaire, although the response rate was much lower (15 students) the same pattern was again repeated, with six students selecting the ‘realistic insight’ option, and four the ‘attract best applicants’ option.

2.4.5 Thus, there appears to be an element of mutual education through a scheme such as PASS, and this was mentioned by interviewees who were instrumental in establishing the scheme as one of its aims; ‘I think there is still quite a lot that could be done around best practice and informing chambers of issues around educational disadvantage and what to do exceptionally well at a low performing state school might mean for your progression more generally. I would say there is quite a lot of work to be done around dispelling myths about university type and the quality of students at different universities.’ (Interviewee 11, Inner, M, salaried) 2.4.6 Mini-pupillages are, however, increasingly hard to secure. Many interviewees told of increasing numbers of applicants for mini-pupillages places, making schemes such as PASS ever more important. The greater the number of applicants for mini-pupillages, the greater the risk of non-traditional students being sifted out early in the process by chambers who have not incorporated into their system any way of recognising achievement despite socio-economic or educational disadvantage.

2.4.7 Nonetheless, one interviewee admitted that one could also interpret non-altruistic aims behind the programme, with a hope that one effect would be ‘to see our profile increase as an institution that is aware of the situation for people trying to come to the Bar and be seen as trying to improve that.’. This was reinforced by a chambers’ representative; ‘I think from a chambers perspective the one thing for us obviously if people come here have a mini pupillage ,have a good experience, then you know, our reputation is enhanced in terms of taking candidates, students will say ‘I have had a really good experience’ [that] will mean that […] more candidates apply because they say, ‘Okay, you can go on the web and find out what we do, but actually we met the barristers and they are a really nice bunch of people’.’ (Interviewee 1 – non-Inner, M, other prof assocs, chambers rep) 2.4.8 Possible gain for chambers was perceived by interviewees to centre around the opportunity to show non-traditional aspirant entrants that they are inclusive. Some interviewees suggested potential reputational gain for chambers or the wider profession from such a programme, but others denied this; ‘I think it’s more student-centric. I actually don’t think there’s sort of value in kudos really in being involved, it’s our duty.

So I don’t think we get any immediate benefit but in the long term hopefully we can benefit from a more diverse pool of applicants.’ (Interviewee 2, non-Inner, F, other prof assocs) ‘I suppose another measure of success for us would be for…I suppose could be quite selfish, but to see our profile increase as an institution that is aware of the situation for people trying to come to the Bar, and be seen as trying to improve that.’

(Interviewee 8, F, Inner, salaried) 2.4.9 The clear conclusion to this section is that the mutuality of benefit is largely recognised by practitioners, but sometimes less so by aspirant entrants, the most cynical of whom assumed that chambers were participating out of a desire to ‘fill quotas’ or ‘(only) appear to be doing something’. Whilst some chambers may participate for these reasons, reinforcing to both parties the mutual benefits available through such interaction may help both to increase positivity towards minipupillages, and ensure that both parties get the most benefit from their participation in PASS.

2.5

Potential for development of chambers’ own practices

2.5.1 As PASS continues, a way to make its contribution more lasting could be to engage chambers in examining their own practices surrounding mini-pupillages. It was clear from many interviews that practitioners were aware that shorthand measures for success were often used when reviewing direct applications to chambers; ‘whilst [organisation] do(es) give a lot of guidance to chambers on fair recruitment and objective election, we have a fair recruitment guide for example, and all lead recruiters have to undergo a fair selection and recruitment training now, we know that a shorthand measure for ability or merit, is which university you went to.’ (Interviewee 6, non-Inner, M, salaried, other prof assoc) 2.5.2 It was also clear that when this shorthand was applied it was often done not out of malice or discrimination, but out of a lack of understanding around social mobility and educational disadvantage, and the time constraints on those receiving the mini-pupillage applications and selecting students. These people were often barristers, not administrative staff, and were trying to read and make decisions on applications alongside heavy workloads of their own. Therefore, although some tried to make rudimentary adjustments aimed at increasing the fairness of the system, they accepted that it was not ideal; ‘Academics are important. If somebody had got A levels that are C’s, B’s, D’s and they have got 2.2’s in [areas of chambers’ practice] that probably is almost certainly going to be a ‘no’. […] There is a margin to which I will play with what I think somebody should have and this maybe a little bit on my own illegitimate social engineering, but if somebody has gone to 13

whatever is the really, really good local private grammar school, and they have got A levels which are not bad but are not particularly stellar, and I think, ‘well I went to a state school and got far better than that’, they are going to get less credit than someone who went to [x] Comprehensive and did alright, kind of taking a broad view, and then at university they might be doing quite well.’ (Interviewee 5, non-Inner, M, chambers’ rep) 2.5.3 For many participating chambers, therefore, the administrative support that Inner Temple gave by receiving applications and selecting successful applicants was very important. However, if in the long term Inner Temple is hoping that PASS will make a wider impact on socio-economic diversity at the Bar, this could be facilitated by encouraging chambers to adopt application forms and sifting practices akin to those used by PASS. These aim to identify interest, motivation and skills, not simply academic excellence demonstrated in the traditional ways through achievement at secondary school level.

2.5.4 One chambers from which a representative was interviewed was already doing this, but this was a large chambers which had dedicated administrative staff in larger numbers than most chambers. This allowed them to put together a comprehensive mini-pupillage programme which included networking events and workshops on things such as filling in pupillage application forms and pupillage interviews. Although this scale of undertaking could not be provided by many chambers, it would be a one-off process for many to re-structure their mini-pupillage application forms to focus more on motivation and potential for a career at the Bar through skills gained, and less on traditional measures of academic achievement. This may be a more effective and long term way to open up mini-pupillages to a more diverse range of applicants. By incorporating best practice from PASS into the usual practice of more chambers, non-traditional aspirant entrants would be more likely to succeed through direct application processes.

2.5.5 In this way, ‘best practice’ could spread from chambers taking students through PASS to a greater number, further increasing the potential impact of the scheme in opening up the profession to those from non-traditional backgrounds.

As discussed above, it is therefore worthy of consideration whether the intention is that PASS continues long term, or winds down, having led on best practice and implanted more equitable practices within chambers’ own systems.

2.5.6 Despite the generally very strong positive reports on PASS, there were nonetheless some areas where possible improvements were identified by both students and stakeholders, as the next section considers. These challenges could be grouped into those that were within the sphere of PASS’s influence, and those things outside of the sphere of influence of either PASS or Inner Temple (see also Interim Report, paras 4.17-4.20).

3. General challenges 3.1

Institutional and social constraints

3.1.1 As highlighted in the Interim Report, the institutional and social backgrounds of students have a significant effect on their perceptions of themselves and the profession (Interim Report, Section 4). The influence of the activities and views of peers, educators and family members, as well as the students’ own perceptions of their future career prospects all join together to form constraints which may discourage students, especially those from non-traditional backgrounds, away from the Bar. 3.1.2 Students in the focus groups had had very different experiences at university of the levels of support that they were offered when they told staff members that they were considering the Bar as a career. Academic staff at some universities communicated strong views to students that they were ‘not the sort of people’ who would succeed at the Bar, even where they had achieved very highly academically, and this tended to compound the doubts students already had about whether they would fit in at the Bar; ‘I mean that’s the first thing I noticed when I walked into Bar School was that…I mean I went to a state comp in Essex, erm, I went to Surrey University; always worked hard, got As and Firsts and stuff across the board, but I never have been…I’ve never been surrounded by super posh and smart people and then you get there and everyone’s just got, they’ve got, they even talk in different languages sometimes, about like, they’ve gone to public schools and boarding schools and they talk about like the ‘boys maid’ and things like this and classes are called different things and events that I don’t even understand what they are and that’s quite intimidating.’ (PASS FG1 Participant 2, F) 3.1.3 Such advice may be well intentioned; it is impossible to deny that the Bar is a highly competitive profession, and that many young people who are very capable do not succeed in fully qualifying because of the low number of pupillages available. Advice to students to ‘have a back-up plan’ may be perceived by some higher education staff as simply prudent. It is key, however, that such warnings about the competitive nature of the Bar are not conflated with a perception that a certain student will not succeed at the Bar because of their socio-economic or class background.

Better information provision for those in higher education about the Bar, how it recruits, and what it is looking for in candidates would be one way of addressing misunderstandings about the nature of the Bar leading to advisers discouraging non-traditional aspirant entrants on non-academic grounds. This was also recommended by the Neuberger Report (2007: 36-7).

3.1.4 At some universities, there was knowledge within the teaching staff of the Bar (often through those who had practised before becoming academics) and in these institutions there seemed to be a greater awareness of the Bar, and a stronger dialogue between the profession and the institution, allowing access to better information for the students; ‘Inner’s quite prominent in my university though, so most members of the Bar who are now academics are all Inner […] because, how our dinners work, the barristers come from London are usually the people they network with quite often and so it’s through them that they then get on to the scholarship interviews and what not and pretty much all of them are Inner.’

(PASS FG1 Participant 3, M) 14

3.1.5 Some practitioner interviewees also were of the opinion that more general careers’ information being given to students by their educational establishments was not always accurate or helpful; with one saying that they felt that networking’s importance was a myth perpetuated by universities; ‘…and students now are fed the idea that it’s a lot about networking and it’s not open to them if they are not networking and I don’t think there is any truth in that at all.’ (Interviewee 2 – non-Inner, F) This is an example of a difference in perception of the profession internally versus externally. Whilst practitioners tended to attribute little weight to connections, students (both from Pathways and PASS) felt that they were important.

This disconnect with students and practitioners attaching weight to different issues highlights that an understanding not just of the challenges, but also of perceived challenges is important. This again illustrates the key role of information dissemination; even if a profession does not agree that a particular matter is at issue, if aspirant entrants and educational institutions believe that it is, the profession may nonetheless need to address it.

3.1.6 These experiences also illustrate that it is important for the Bar to build dialogue with universities which focuses on merit and not educational establishment or background. It is key to dismantling myths surrounding the Bar that information is given not just to the students, but also to those who have influence on young people through their position. One member of the PASS team suggested that every university should be open to the fact that it will have at least one young person who is a potential competitive applicant for the Bar academically, and that chambers need to recognise that talent can be found in every university; ‘I think we’re of the view there is at least one exceptional student at every single university and that is often very difficult for chambers necessarily to take account of. Especially when there is this level of competition and this many applications, some of the easiest things for them to do are to go back to those, ‘oh the student from here must be good because they must have had really high A levels to be able to get into this university’ and so on…’ (Interviewee 11, Inner, M, salaried) 3.1.7 More generally, examples of a lack of understanding within the higher education sector may be symptomatic of a wider lack of understanding of a profession that has historically ‘kept its counsel’. This was perceived as a further challenge to access that needed to be surmounted; first the general public needed an improved general understanding of the profession from which to advance the message of access based on ability. As some interviewees pointed out, the messages that the public are exposed to through the media about the Bar are improving from previous times; ‘I mean Judge John Deed is great TV but I am afraid it’s not the reality. I mean the recent programme with David Tennant, what was that? That at least had a character who, you know, wouldn’t have been perceived to be, you know, traditional establishment […] and Silk shows a diverse range of characters and very importantly successful female practitioners. But of course it gives a different view of the law but is good TV.’ (Interviewee 4, Inner, M, Bencher) 3.1.8 However, it still remains the case that whilst the media is relied on by many for their understanding of the profession, the perception that they form may be less than accurate. Participation in PASS had, for many of the students, significantly altered their perception of the profession for the better; ‘…it still is Oxbridge dominated and it can’t change that so I don’t think it changed my perception in that respect, but it certainly made me realise that they don’t sit there in their wigs, or in suits, and even though they might be frightfully upper class and, erm, somebody who I will never have come across in my life before, it doesn’t mean that it’s not accessible or welcoming and they don’t want you to be there or they’re going to judge you because you’re not like them, erm, and I think that is what had changed for me in my perception of the Bar.’ (PASS FG1 Participant 1, F) 3.1.9 However, effecting such a change as this more widely through society remains a challenge, and one which Inner Temple may wish to consider how to address, either within PASS or through their wider outreach activities (see below).

Educating the public about the role of barristers, and the qualities needed to be a successful one, is a significant task, and one which is likely to need the effort and resources of more than one organisation.

3.1.10 Whilst this section has illustrated the general challenges faced by a programme such as PASS, there are also more specific challenges relating to the programme itself; both those which arise in the students’ experience of the programme, and also those which relate to the organisation of the programme. Both of these will now be examined in turn.

4. Experiential challenges 4.1

Variations between chambers

4.1.1 As each chambers is autonomous, there will inevitably be variation between chambers. This is not in itself negative as it simply illustrates that chambers have different ‘feels’ to them. However variations that materially affect the experience of a PASS student may be a more significant issue, as highlighted below in the specific example of the integration of PASS students with direct applicants.

4.1.2 PASS students are explicitly required by Inner Temple to be placed within existing mini-pupillage availability and frameworks in chambers. For chambers, this was often an attraction of the scheme; ‘The administration is done by Inner which has its own resources and expertise and then chambers just need to provide the same as they do to their other mini pupils. I just think it’s really clever to have set it up like that.’ (Interviewee 2, non-Inner, F, other prof assocs) This, however, led to significant variance of experience which was chambers-dependent. Some chambers had well15

established and comprehensive mini-pupillage programmes which included additional activities such as advice on applications and mock interviews. Other chambers, often those that were smaller, had very little structure for minipupils, and their experience depended entirely on which barrister they were with, and the type and amount of work that barrister had. Similarly, different chambers offer mini-pupillages of differing lengths; those participating in PASS varied from two days to a working week. Generally, those students who undertook mini-pupillages at chambers where the mini-pupillages lasted for two days expressed a wish that they had been able to stay longer, or to have another mini-pupillage at another chambers so that their overall experience lasted five days. This was especially so where they undertook their mini-pupillage during a quiet time of year; one student on a two day mini-pupillage was sent home early on one of the two days as there was nothing else for them to do.

4.1.3 Whilst such unpredictable work patterns are consistent with a career at the Bar, when the student only has a two day placement they do not have such a useful experience as those who have a full working week. Many benefits of the programme, as highlighted in this report, are experiential and come from spending time with, and conversing with, barristers. Therefore it is possible to see why students on short placements may feel that they have not benefitted from the programme as much as others.

4.1.4 The autonomous nature of chambers means that they cannot be made to change their own mini-pupillage set up in order to give standardisation across PASS chambers. Whilst chambers could be asked to comply with certain requests from Inner Temple about the experience PASS students have, the variety of sizes and types of chambers, as well as the ways in which they are run, would make this difficult. However, a ‘best practice’ document, as detailed below, may assist in reducing avoidable variations that impact on a student’s experience. A number of the matters that impacted on students’ experience concerned how they were presented within chambers and integrated into the chambers’ mini-pupillage framework.

4.2

Integration and presentation within chambers

4.2.1 As PASS is conducted within chambers, the experience that a participating student has will be of the chambers, not of the professional association itself (although a student may take their experience to be representative of the professional association or the profession at large). Therefore, the experience will vary between chambers. Such variation may not be material, or it may have a significant effect on non-traditional students’ perception of the Bar. It has the potential to cause a mini-pupillage to be a less positive experience than it could be, if a non-traditional entrant encounters practices or situations that make them feel like an ‘outsider’. An example of this was demonstrated through the case study. One PASS participant was in chambers alongside mini-pupils who had secured their placements directly with the chambers.

These other mini-pupils had different profiles to the PASS participant, and he felt that this made his status notable; ‘I undertook the mini alongside three others that had gained a mini at [PASS chambers] through the traditional route, so it was quite interesting to see the dynamic in that respect, ‘cause I mean the other three mini pupils were hugely qualified people […] and it definitely kind of gave me a somewhat uneasy feeling I suppose.’ (PASS FG 2, M, Cohort 1) 4.2.2 This was not the only set of chambers that had PASS mini-pupils at the same time as those who had applied directly.

Furthermore, some other participants mentioned awareness of their ‘outsider’ status, with a PASS questionnaire respondent stating that they could not see themselves at their placement chambers as ‘I would not meet their very high recruitment criteria’, and another stated ‘I am not sure I have the right background to get accepted’. These responses suggest that, for some PASS students, their ‘outsider’ status was reinforced by the programme, and thus the status quo of social closure was supported, instead of tackled, by the programme.

4.2.3 Whilst the candidate quoted above claimed that this did not cause him any concern or discomfort, there are two issues. The first is that, even if this participant was unperturbed, other less confident participants might have found this experience unpleasant. If this was so, it could have contributed to or created a view that the Bar is welcoming only to those who have a certain profile. Thus it could operate against one of the intentions of the programme held by the professional association to demonstrate that the profession is open to those of academic ability from all backgrounds.

Secondly, it must be considered as a possibility that the participant did feel uncomfortable about his status within the chambers, but did not feel able to say so to the researcher, knowing that they were evaluating the programme for the professional association which had provided it.

4.2.4 The way in which a participant is presented both by the professional association to the stakeholders, and within the stakeholder to external parties is important. It is argued that to ‘label’ someone as participating in a programme, especially one which has eligibility criteria clearly published, is to potentially exclude that person further from the profession by drawing attention to their ‘non-traditional’ status. In this respect, it is difficult for the professional association to control how candidates are presented within chambers, as many practitioners may see it as a simply factual introduction, as some of the students themselves claimed to; ‘so when I was introduced to people it was ‘Hi, this is X, he is on the Pegasus Scheme with us, he’s a mini-pupil’ […] it wasn’t, er, pejorative, it wasn’t negative in any way, it was just, sort of, a matter of information as to who I was…and it was exactly who I was!’ (PASS FG 2, M, Cohort 2) 4.2.5 Furthermore, some chambers may not see the difficulty in presenting candidates as such. The same PASS participant stated that he felt that being identified as such led to people within chambers taking a greater interest in his background and aspirations; ‘…they were more interested in me, I think. It was less, ‘oh you’ve got another one of these, y’know, quite wealthy public school people…another one’ I felt that they were more interested in how I found university and how’s it going and this kind of thing; slightly more, y’know, they were more engaged and more sort of aware…’ (PASS FG 2, M, Cohort 2) 16

4.2.6 For some participants, however, this would not be identified as a positive experience, and this highlights the inherent subjectivity in ‘doing good’; is PASS really making significant changes to the experiences of non-traditional aspirant entrants if it is allowing them access to work experience, but is not truly challenging the way in which the profession conceives of non-traditional applicants? Such issues are reinforced when participants refer to chambers as being ‘nice’ to take them (see 2.4.7); the use of such a word suggests a power imbalance. This may be through perceived feelings of pity towards the candidate or indebtedness on the part of the candidate towards chambers, when exposure of chambers to academically-strong, non-traditional applicants is actually likely to be a mutually beneficial interaction.

4.2.7 It seems that this is, perhaps, one of the biggest challenges that PASS faces. In allowing non-traditional aspirant entrants to tick the boxes that chambers are looking for, which often favour traditional entrants, without exploring whether those boxes represent necessary attributes for potential in the profession, is PASS unintentionally and indirectly contributing to the maintenance of social closure?1 Would a more radical and long-term change be effected instead by challenging the seeming current necessity of having work experience to succeed in obtaining pupillage? Might a re-appraisal of the importance of work experience in the profession be a more wide-reaching project?

4.2.8 On a lower level, however, within PASS, where a programme is administered by a central organisation, but is then delivered by autonomous bodies, there will inevitably be some unavoidable variation, but where this has the potential to negatively impact the experiences of the student it should be reduced as far as possible. Inner Temple may wish to consider whether it wishes to draw up a document setting out ‘best practice’ to provide guidance to chambers and to try to ensure parity across chambers as far as possible. Such a document could also highlight the need to be aware of the implications of matters such as having a PASS student in chambers simultaneously with direct applicants. There is a need to take care to balance guidance with chambers’ autonomy, but some may be open to receiving guidance on how seemingly very small details of interaction can include or alienate a non-traditional student. If produced sensitively, such a document may bring greater parity between the experiences of students without chambers feeling that Inner Temple is being overly directive.

4.2.9 As well as matters relating to the students’ experience of PASS, there is also the programme as an entity. A full evaluation of any entity examines not just its effects, but also its running and practicalities. This requires a consideration of matters such as aims, objectives and outcomes, as well as format, timing and location of the programme, which are addressed in the next section on the operational challenges arising from PASS.

5. Operational challenges 5.1 Aims of the programme 5.1.1 Those who had been involved in establishing PASS were not always in agreement regarding its aims and objectives.

There were a variety of objectives which interviewees suggested the programme was trying to meet, and these varied in their achievability, ranging from increased numerical representation of students from non-traditional backgrounds to demystifying the profession. There was also disagreement about the inter-relation of the Pathways and PASS programmes (see section 5.3 below).

5.1.2 This lack of clear agreement about the aims of the programme and its role in the wider structure of access initiatives being run by Inner Temple may compromise its efficacy. Therefore it is recommended that thought is given to the aims and objectives of PASS so that these can be clearly communicated both within Inner Temple, but also to chambers and to students participating in PASS. Managing expectations is key for all stakeholders, and the possibility that this had not been fully achieved was highlighted by both differences in opinions conveyed in interviews and also the implied perceptions of some student participants. For example, PASS students who applied for a scholarship and did not receive one refused to speak to the researcher having previously agreed, and in one case sent vitriolic emails to staff in the Education and Training Department. Whilst this was one (extreme) example, expectation management regarding the consequences of participating in PASS may be helpful to all involved.

5.1.3 If the aim of the programme is mutual exposure between non-traditional aspirant entrants and chambers then its success seems difficult to deny. If, on the basis of their encounters through PASS with able non-traditional aspirant entrants, chambers are more open-minded in their direct mini-pupillage and pupillage recruitment processes, then there is a clear improvement in potential to increase access to the Bar. Evidence of this on an individual level was seen in an interview with a chambers’ representative who went through their direct mini-pupillage application form with the researcher

‘I think this form is not going to do much to encourage people from non-traditional backgrounds because it’s long and a bit scary so, and I said I disagreed with it at the time. Make it shorter make it more simplistic. There are so many categories and sometimes, inevitably when you see a box on a form you feel that you have to put something down and if its asking for masses of details on qualifications and scholarships and membership of professional bodies, awards, goodness knows what, marshalling, more scholarship prizes and the fact that this is going to take a huge amount of time to fill in, I think it is going to put people off.’ (Interviewee 5, non-Inner, M, chambers’ rep) 5.1.4 If, however, PASS’s aim is to promote access to mini-pupillages for non-traditional aspirant entrants then its success may be a little less certain. Through placing a relatively small number of non-traditional aspirant entrants in chambers as mini-pupils, a large number of non-traditional aspirant entrants will nonetheless remain without work experience, something which research has shown to be key in succeeding in the legal profession (Young Legal Aid Lawyers, 2013: 22; Francis and Sommerlad, 2009). In this way, the programme’s benefits are potentially confined to a relatively small group of students who gain work experience through the programme.

1 The author presented a paper on this particular issue at the Socio-Legal Studies Association Conference in Warwick in April 2015.

17

5.1.5

Furthermore, information from some focus group participants suggested that participating in PASS simply allowed non-traditional aspirant entrants the opportunity to ‘play the game’, instead of challenging the rules of that game which disadvantaged them. For example, they met people who then offered them informal work experience opportunities in the way that traditional aspirant entrants may be able to access them through family or friends; ‘And the lady I was sitting next to was a Circuit Judge at Southwark Crown Court so I was sitting next to her, got talking to her and she offered me a marshalling experience for the week which was really good.’ (PASS FG1 Participant 4, F) ‘I came to the Dinner to the Universities in March, and through the person I was sat next to got another mini-pupillage, so, in that sense, as well as the experience of coming to that event and meeting loads of people; lots of law students, lots of barristers and being in this environment it was also making new contacts.’ (PASS FG1 Participant 1, F)

5.1.6 Therefore, instead of challenging the perception of chambers that students need to have undertaken mini-pupillages to be realistic candidates, and educating them as to the diverse other ways in which young people may have shown academic ability and the raw skills needed to practise at the Bar, PASS propagated the necessity of mini-pupillage.

However, due to constraints in resources, it can only provide mini-pupillages to a small number of non-traditional aspirant entrants. For this reason, it is suggested, as explained above, that PASS may not be as radical as it seeks to be in changing the approach of the Bar to non-traditional aspirant entrants.

5.1.7 The second quotation above also provides one illustration of the differences in perception experienced by students and practitioners. A practitioner (quoted at para 3.1.5) suggested that the need for networking was a myth propagated by universities. Nonetheless, it is clear that not only do students believe that networking is important, but then have this reinforced by experiences which demonstrate that to be true, such as the securing of a mini-pupillage informally through attending a dinner.

5.1.8

Less abstract matters were also in evidence, however, as possibly affecting the efficacy of the programme, and these will now be addressed.

5.2 Timing of the programme 5.2.1. A number of the students felt that they would have benefitted from participating in PASS earlier on in their academic careers. The general advice is that students apply for PASS in their second year of undergraduate study, although some of those who participated in focus groups had applied later (for instance, whilst doing the GDL) and one had applied earlier (in his first year at university). The student who had undertaken his placement at the end of his first year felt strongly that by doing this he still had time to capitalise on its benefits by applying for further mini-pupillages whilst he was still at university. A number of those who had participated at a later stage felt they would have gained greater benefit earlier in their university careers.

5.2.2

One challenge that Inner Temple meets here is that many chambers will not take mini pupils until they have completed two years of a Law degree, or three years of a non-Law degree. Whilst there was occasionally negotiation directly with chambers where a particularly strong candidate expressed a wish to go to chambers practising in a certain area, it will generally be the case that taking students before their second year will not be feasible, so small would be the number of chambers willing to accept them; ‘The problem is that about a quarter of the chambers on PASS will take first year students. And those are in specific practice areas as well so it can be quite difficult for us to do that [take students earlier] while all of them will take final year law students.’ (Interviewee 11, Inner, M, salaried)

5.2.3 There are a number of logistical issues that make legal work experience-based programmes difficult to introduce for younger students; interviewees pointed out that it was a particular issue in Family practice due to courts sitting ‘in camera’ and thus students having to be 18 to attend. Others talked about the difficulty of the subject matter and interpersonal skills needed in other areas making having a young person accompanying the barrister a potential problem.

5.2.4

An Inner Temple employee justified the stage at which PASS has been placed thus; ‘I think we were also mindful that we wanted something to sustain the relationship with our schools project students entering university stage and then hopefully thereafter, so it was, I think, it was a bit two-pronged insofar as we are missing those students that might not have been on the schools project but that would have fit in that category and I don’t mean ‘us’ as an Inn, but ‘us’ as a profession, and secondly that a lot of the students from our schools project would then have this issue going forward and we want to support them.’ (Interviewee 11, Inner, M, salaried) Nevertheless, a number of participants suggested that earlier intervention would be helpful; ‘…just talking to barristers; so barristers visiting schools and that kind of thing, perhaps at the earlier stage; year 9 or 10 maybe while their GCSE and A Levels are still in the future, or people who are about to start university.’ (PASS FG2 Participant 2, M)

5.2.5 Earlier intervention before young people sit public examinations such as GCSEs is also supported by general research on social mobility. Jerrim, Vignoles and Finnie (2012: 22) highlight the need for early intervention and encouragement for children from lower socio-economic backgrounds so that their attainment at a very young age does not bar their path to higher education. For the Bar, where academic achievement is important, there is an argument to be made for intervention before such examinations. However, to have profession-specific intervention at such an early age is likely to be contentious. For the Bar it would be practically extremely difficult if done in the form 18

of placements. However, there are other ways of the profession engaging with younger students, as demonstrated by the Pathways programme (Interim Report, paras 3.3-3.4). What is not possible in such engagement, however, is the experiential element so valued in PASS. 5.2.6

A chambers that did not participate in PASS but had instead created its own bespoke programme agreed to have a senior member interviewed as part of this research. This added a very interesting dimension to the research, as it offered a point of comparison – what was another organisation doing to challenge social closure at the Bar, and in what ways did it differ from PASS?

5.2.7

The chambers in question is known for its progressive approach within the profession. In this spirit, it had decided against the offering of mini-pupillages from its beginning; ‘We decided not to do it because they traditionally were […] whilst you were at university and you would know somebody and you would go along or there might be a more open system, but it was mostly through people that you knew and then you would go along and you would shadow a barrister and go to court and see what it was like and it seemed to us to be very unfair to people who didn’t have anyone that they knew and also that they were unpaid we thought was awful…’

(Interviewee 12, non-Inner, F, chambers rep) Instead, it offered work experience which was the same as mini-pupillage in many material ways, but at an earlier age and with expenses paid; ‘[It] is for people before they get to university so it’s for people through from GCSE’s to A Levels. Now that isn’t to say, we have had sometimes had people who are at university, but that is who it is meant to be for. […] So there is an application form that you have to fill in, your teachers have to fill in a bit you know or somebody has to fill in a bit, you know it’s not a CV it’s an actual application form about you and we read those quite carefully and then we allocate places against that.

We pay travel expenses and we pay expenses whilst you are here, so you make sure you get your lunch and pay for you to go to court if you go to court and that sort of thing.’ (Interviewee 12, non-Inner, F, chambers rep)

5.2.8

Thus, not only had these chambers rejected the traditional nomenclature, they had rejected the entire premise of unpaid work experience, instead offering two different alternative options. The first being that described above, and the second a broader programme of access activities targeted at a school local to the chambers (in central London).

By doing this they fostered a longitudinal relationship with the young people which began in the school, and then extended to work experience; ‘… our access scheme which we have been running for about 3 or 4 years, 4 years now and we do that with a local school and one of the reasons why it’s so empty downstairs is because some of the staff have gone this morning, they have got, I can’t remember what they call it, but it’s like a skills morning, it’s some kind of careers morning for the kids in school and they have gone and they are all having to fill in application forms, they have had to do that in advance, send them to us in advance, we sifted them as we would sift the usual, and then we are interviewing them so they are getting interview practice.’ (Interviewee 12, non-Inner, F, chambers rep)

5.2.9

These chambers felt that their work experience programme addressed the need for earlier intervention to give students information about the academic qualifications needed to optimise their chances for entry to the profession before sitting public exams; ‘we thought we needed to start at a much earlier point […] you have (a) to know that it is available and then (b) you have to know what kind of grades you need […] I think it’s important that people know it is a role that they could do but that you do have to work hard for it.’ (Interviewee 12, non-Inner, F, chambers’ rep)

5.2.10 This chambers did a lot of Criminal work, and found that taking younger students into the criminal courts had not posed a problem (criminal trials are ordinarily open to the public, so provided a younger student is suitably behaved, this is unlikely to be problematic). As stated above, however, this may not be so in all areas of practice. This provided an interesting model for comparison with PASS. It addresses concerns over PASS intervening too late to make a substantial difference, and also takes the focus away from mini-pupillages in the traditional sense. Instead it focuses on engaging young people with the profession before they have taken important educational choices and public examinations. It thus prioritises the provision of information which many participants felt strongly was lacking for many non-traditional aspirant entrants. It also uses a model of work experience which does not favour pre-existing links to the profession, and again, targets it at younger students as part of the tools used to provide them with information.

5.3 Inter-relation of programmes 5.3.1

Both of the above sections on aims and timing are also related to whether PASS is intended to be part of a coherent series of programmes, with students participating in both programmes at the relevant educational stages, or whether each programme is intended as a stand-alone, with the intention that any student should only ‘need’ to participate in one of the programmes to receive the assistance that they seek. This was a notable point of tension with some interviewees. Many had differing opinions as to whether seeing a Pathways student appear on a PASS application form denoted a lack of necessary help from Pathways or whether it denoted a success as it had brought that young person within the network of programmes that could offer them assistance; Researcher: ‘Do you think they form a cohesive path; the Pathways and then the Pegasus?’

Interviewee: ‘No, because I very much hope that by the time someone has been through the Pathways programme they wouldn’t need the Pegasus programme.’ (Interviewee 4, Inner, M, Bencher) 19

5.3.2

It is worth noting here that PASS is to some extent reliant on other programmes to precede it due to the problems caused by low attainment at an earlier age. In this way there is a complementarity between the two programmes.

However, even Pathways does not engage with students until after they have sat GCSEs. A recommendation stemming from this research, therefore, is that a decision needs to be made about the inter-relation of the programmes to one another. Of the students interviewed in PASS focus groups, only one had undertaken Pathways, and he had found it to be quite simplistic; not going beyond knowledge he had already acquired through his own research. Thus, for him, PASS was crucial, providing assistance that Pathways had not; ‘I did the Pathways to Law scheme based at the University of Southampton which is near where I live, and, I’m going to be very honest, I didn’t find it very useful at all. It was quite simple; it was really an introduction. I think that for me, as someone who had done quite a lot of research already, it told me what I already knew.’ (PASS FG2 Participant 2, M)

5.3.3

Therefore it is not suggested that having participated in an earlier scheme should disqualify a student from PASS. However it is recommended that a decision is made as to whether these programmes form a structure of support, or whether each is intended to stand alone. Is encouragement given to those who have completed earlier programmes to then apply for PASS, or is PASS intended to ‘catch’ those who have got to university level without having previously benefitted from participating in such a programme?

5.3.4

Similarly this disagreement made it unclear what approach would be taken to extending the support offered through PASS into a longitudinal programme with follow-up activities such as application form advice and mentoring for students who had participated, as addressed in the next section. Therefore, this is advanced as one of the strongest recommendations arising from the research; that for aims and objectives to be most efficiently formed and for all parties to understand more fully the role of the programmes, their relationship to one another should be determined.

5.4 Extension of support a) Longitudinal 5.4.1

All interviewees, stakeholders and students were asked what they would institute as an access initiative if money was no object, or how they would develop PASS further on those terms. The idea behind this was to explore what elements of an access initiative they thought were most important, and those directions that PASS may take in the future. Many stated that Pathways and PASS were working well, but they would like to see their reach expanded, particularly geographically. This quotation is representative of many interviewees’ views; ‘I am very conscious of the fact that Pathways is London-centric and limited in the number of people it can help, but that’s no excuse for doing nothing, and I am also conscious of the fact that the Pegasus Access Scheme is very important for some, but I would like to have more people applying through it. But I think as people become aware of that, the academics we talk to become aware of that and recommend it to their students, then it will do that.’ (Interviewee 4, Inner, M, Bencher)

5.4.2

This highlights a significant issue for access programmes both at the Bar and more widely; that the organisation administering such a programme cannot control other elements of the profession. Similarly, they cannot control the contexts which non-traditional aspirant entrants experience in their family, peer or school environments. There is some possibility, however, of the Bar adapting or re-presenting its own environment differently, to increase the ease with which non-traditional aspirant entrants feel included.

5.4.3

A particular notion that was mentioned frequently both by interviewees and students in focus groups and questionnaires was that they wanted the programme to continue in some guise after the provision of the minipupillage. Commonly, suggestions for such a continuation were networking events, individual mentoring, or workshops on completing application forms, for example.

5.4.4

The main hurdle to such provisions was finite financial and human resources; ‘I think a lot more can be done with PASS. We are looking at how we can make it a more [indistinguishable] scheme as well, so CV workshops, or networking or quite practical apart from just the mini pupillage, but capacity wise we are incredibly stretched and while you don’t think those things might take too much effort, actually they do. So it’s less what we want to do but more whether we will be able to do it at this stage and it always means if we do change things which almost invariably requires resources in terms of time, that we have to let something else go. Right now we don’t know what that would involve.’ (Interviewee 11, Inner, M, salaried)

5.4.5

This quotation, however, demonstrates that both Inner Temple and the student participants envisaged similar activities as being of use to students in extension of PASS. Although the scheme has officially been renamed PASS (the Pegasus Access and Support Scheme) during the course of this research, the content of it has not changed markedly. Students were aware that, even after they had secured mini-pupillages through PASS they still had to meet the hurdles of further mini-pupillages, scholarships, the BPTC and ultimately applying for and securing pupillage. These were all perceived as difficult things to achieve, and especially so without specialist support from those who understood how the system worked.

5.4.6

Therefore, a further recommendation from this research is that consideration is given to the extension of PASS to include factors of the natures mentioned; for example, mentoring, workshops on applications, or informal events where students can mix with barristers. As discussed below, this may raise a difficult question as to whether more support is given over a longer period for fewer students, or whether the current support level is maintained but with the numbers currently involved (para 5.4.9).

20

5.4.7

Another discussion about the extension of the programme focussed on its geographical reach, and the possibility and desirability of involving more chambers that were out on circuit through England and Wales.

b) Geographical 5.4.8

PASS currently focuses on London chambers. Enterprise Chambers’ Leeds annex also participates, as does 37 Park Square, another Leeds-based chambers. However, such a narrow geographical spread will limit the number of students who can participate. Although travel expenses are paid (and the importance of this has been highlighted above) there will still remain large areas of the country from which it is not feasible to travel to London every day.

There are two possible approaches to this situation. The first would be to try to engage with more chambers outside of the London area. This would prima facie solve the problem. However, administering the programme with chambers further away may pose greater challenges to those based at Inner Temple, as it may be more difficult for them to give assistance if problems were encountered during the mini-pupillage, for example.

5.4.9

A second solution, which has been employed to some extent with the current cohort under the direction of Struan, has been to provide accommodation in the City for those students who are not London-based. This seems to have worked well to the extent that it has been used so far, but the clear issue here is cost. Where students are having accommodation funded, especially for the longer mini-pupillages, this will be costly. Using funds for accommodation may mean that fewer students can have mini-pupillages funded through PASS as less money is available to fund travel expenses. The question therefore arises of whether more financial support should be given to fewer students, so that it is possible for students from anywhere in the country to participate, or whether less support should be given to more students, with a focus on travel expenses, restricting the geographical reach of the programme.

5.4.10 This relatively narrow geographic reach was a source of disappointment to many stakeholders. They felt that the programme was beneficial, and therefore it was a shame to restrict its reach to those within a certain geographical area. When it was suggested that the programme could be extended to regional sets, however, some interviewees suggested that the quality of out-of-London sets was more variable, and therefore it would be more advantageous to the students on the programme if they were accommodated in London (which has since begun to occur); ‘I mean there is, there are very good sets on circuit, but again, that would be better than nothing and I don’t mean that pejoratively….I agree with you, but ideally these people should be exposed to the very top sets in London.’ (Interviewee 7, Inner, M, other prof assocs) 5.4.11 Another matter relevant to expanding the reach of the programme, however, is ensuring that students do hear about the programme, and with the costs of advertising potentially taking money away from the programme, careful thought needs to be applied to decisions to advertise more in a formal sense, or whether to rely on word of mouth assisting with the spread of information about the programme.

5.5 Advertising 5.5.1

PASS currently has a relatively small throughput. However, the students who were aware of it seemed to largely have heard about it through good luck. They happened to have been at an event at the Inn where it was mentioned to them (such as a Dinner to the Universities), or had a member of academic staff at their university who had links to Inner Temple and had made the effort to advertise the programme to the students at that Law school.

5.5.2

Some interviewees were aware of the current lack of advertising, and the effect this may have on the programme; ‘publicise it more, again it’s getting out, people are beginning, we have got more applicants now because it’s the second year, people have heard about it and word of mouth.’ (Interviewee 7, Inner, M, other prof assocs)

5.5.3

It is suggested that in increasing links with and demystifying the profession to universities, such advertising may become more effective. Whilst some universities’ staff hold the view that no-one from that institution is capable of succeeding at the Bar, advertising the programme effectively through Careers’ Services, for example, will continue to be a challenge.

5.6

Consolidation of resources

5.6.1

A strong influence on the comparison (non-PASS) chambers’ decision to initiate their own programmes was that they felt that they were ‘stretching themselves too thinly’ by committing to a number of external programmes, and that by creating their own they would both increase cohesiveness within the chambers and also, through focussing resources, have one effective programme that they controlled, instead of different members committing to other programmes and efforts potentially being diluted; ‘…we were very keen to help out where we could but a lot of our clients, law firms would have projects […] and we would help out on all of these, we were always keen to help out, but it was usually very last minute, it was quite reactive rather than being proactive, you couldn’t measure how successful you had been, you do one one year, you might not do it the next year and we weren’t big enough to be able to take an active part in all the schemes, so we decided to stop all of those schemes and let other chambers, you know, take those on and just do our own scheme. And there were internal reasons for that as well so we were growing larger as a set of chambers […], so everyone got involved in the one project so that helped internally, people get to know each other better so it really made it our project rather than somebody else’s project and it really empowered us so we have one project which just gets stronger and stronger and stronger every year.’

(Interviewee 12, non-Inner, F, chambers’ rep) 21

5.6.2

Such feelings were reflected by another interviewee who highlighted that often there was a lot of enthusiasm for social mobility projects at the Bar, but channelling such enthusiasm into an effective project was difficult; ‘I think the one really striking thing is there is a huge amount of goodwill in my experience right across the Bar for social mobility programmes. The problem is harnessing that effectively and that’s the really difficult thing, given the way the Bar is structured […] there is quite a lot of enthusiasm out there and every time we put a plea out for support for one of our schemes we get a huge amount of volunteers. So it’s harnessing it that’s the difficulty.’ (Interviewee 2, non-Inner, F, other prof assocs)

5.6.3

PASS was widely regarded as meeting this challenge; by centralising the application process chambers did not need to worry about its ability to commit administrative resources to the project. Chambers and barristers could assist in the general social mobility effort by agreeing to have PASS students and then making the effort to give them an enlightening experience during their mini-pupillage. Many of the student feedback forms mentioned specific barristers who had been supportive towards them during their mini-pupillage; there were clearly members in most chambers who were taking very seriously the chambers’ role in PASS.

5.6.4

In a self-employed profession, the support that Inner Temple, as a trusted professional association, was able to provide to chambers in co-ordinating the programme was viewed as vital by all those chambers’ representatives interviewed.

5.7

An ethical conundrum?

5.7.1

Careers-based interventions on access raise additional tensions in a profession as competitive as the Bar. Is a programme such as PASS aimed solely at ‘recruiting’ those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds to the Bar, or is it aimed at a more widespread audience with the intention of generally increasing access by raising awareness and disseminating information about the professions? This issue had caused tensions more widely than simply amongst participants, with current Supreme Court Justice Lady Hale speaking on the matter at least twice in the few months prior to the interviews being carried out. She had given an interview in which she had stated that legal aid cuts would lead to the Bar returning to being ‘white, male and Oxbridge’.2 This had been preceded by her keynote speech in October 2013 at the launch of the Young Legal Aid Lawyers’ report into social mobility; ‘One Step Forwards, Two Steps Back’, in which she stated,3 ‘What is the point of all our outreach work with schools, of the Sutton Trust’s splendid Pathways to Law programme, and similar initiatives by the professions, if we tempt more and more young people to aspire to a legal career that most of them can never have?’

5.7.2

This logic, however, was hotly disputed by a key figure in PASS at Inner Temple; ‘I mean I have always seen outreach as providing good careers advice and hopefully aspiration raising more generally to students who might not otherwise have it, and careers advice includes realistic expectations of what the profession’s gonna be like.You don’t get that by closing the doors, you know by lifting the bridge you will not get a more informed prospective group of students,’ (Interviewee 11, Inner, M, salaried) Much of the data collected for this research suggests, with all due respect, that Lady Hale had misconstrued the effect that such programmes are having on the students who participate in them. Most of the responses, both in focus group settings and on the online questionnaires filled in by Pathways students and PASS participants, suggested that students were under no illusion as to the challenges that they faced in pursuing a career at the Bar. Akin to Sommerlad’s cohort of LPC students (2007: 200), many student participants acknowledged lack of understanding before participating in the programme, with one describing his knowledge of the Bar as ‘quite insubstantial up until [PASS]’, and a Pathways’ student not understanding how self-employment worked, thinking that it meant not getting paid at all. However, generally lack of knowledge and misunderstandings seemed to have been corrected by the programmes, to the extent that this could be judged in the written responses and was stated by the students themselves.

5.7.3

A number of questionnaire answers showed that, even for those students who had come to the conclusion as a result of participating in Inner Temple’s access programmes that the Bar was not their desired career, participating had nonetheless raised their aspirations by making them feel that a professional career was an achievable goal for them.

This was also recognised by practitioners whose chambers participated in PASS, identifying that non-traditional students gained something more fundamental from mini-pupillages than simply a knowledge of the law or an understanding of the daily realities of being a barrister; ‘…you see these kids on the Monday morning and they look terrified. By the time you see them on the Friday afternoon and they have completed their week, they are walking two foot taller, they say they have confidence and you can see it in them and they say things like, ‘Even if I don’t come to the Bar there are things that I have learnt this week that I will always carry with me.’ […] we are not trying to turn them all into barristers, we are trying to give them a look into a world that maybe they think is not for them.’ (Interviewee 10, Inner, F, other prof assocs, SBA)

2 ‘Legal aid cuts will help public school boys get to the top’, says top female judge’, The Telegraph, 18th April, 2014 [accessed 19th September 2014] 3 Keynote speech, Young Legal Aid Lawyers Conference, London Southbank University, 30th October 2013

22

5.7.4

This illustrates that the most important factor in the content of interventions such as this is not the information given that is specific to the profession (although for some participants that will be of the most interest) but the more general information about occupational success, and raising aspirations to professions more generally by allowing nontraditional students to see that the professions are open to anyone with strong academic achievement, and guidance on how to achieve this; ‘And the most important things I took away were not at all connected to the Bar, it was just about useful life skills; how to do well at university, this kind of things; they were the most important things that I actually learnt on the way back from this thing in Kent at Chatham County Court, on the train talking to my supervisor, that was the most useful conversation and that’s really the gold….’ (PASS FG2 Participant 2, M)

5.7.5

Thus, whilst the legal knowledge content of access interventions is useful and interesting for many students, if the programme is viewed as an aspiration-raising exercise, as well as a method of gaining work experience with the intention of applying for a job within the legal profession, then the more general content which comes through close contact with professionals is as crucial. For the specific information relevant to the Bar to be conveyed in this way it is necessary that practitioners are engaged in these programmes, and that it is the Bar itself telling its story. This gives it both accuracy and an appearance of greater willingness to engage with aspirant entrants. This is particularly important due to the sometimes misleading (albeit well-intentioned) information that students may access through peers, the media and sometimes staff in educational settings.

6. Conclusion 6.1

This report has sought to set out the main strengths of PASS, as well as those areas in which changes could be considered which may allow the programme to be more effective. There is no doubt that the programme is helping young people to understand more about a career at the Bar, and that many would otherwise struggle to access this information. Those who had participated were, overall, extremely positive about their experiences, which is to the advantage of both the students themselves and the profession.

6.2

Structurally the programme is restricted to some extent by the nature of the profession. Self-employment in autonomous chambers and the consequent lack of consistency in the provision of work experience means that PASS has to take into account these variations to include as many chambers as possible. As the professional association in a self-employed profession, it also lacks coercive powers (and it is not suggested that, even if coercive powers were held, their exercise would be appropriate in these circumstances).

6.3

Action could be taken, however, to surmount variations in the expectations of participating students by communicating clearly to them what mini-pupillage at those chambers will involve, and by setting out a document of ‘best practice’.

This could reduce variations whilst recognising that all chambers have their own established mini-pupillage programmes, as this is a requirement of them joining PASS. The possibility of extending the geographical reach, advertising and longitudinal support all seem to be directions that stakeholders and students feel strongly should be considered in order to increase the number of students who may benefit from it and the degree of that benefit.

6.4

However, questions persist over whether the provision of work experience is the best way of improving social mobility at the Bar, or whether it subtly reinforces mechanisms that act to the detriment of non-traditional students. In this way, whilst PASS is greatly preferable to no action, future programmes may be helpfully focused on emphasising to the profession the transferable skills which non-traditional aspirant entrants may have learnt in other settings which demonstrate their capability for the Bar. Similarly, educational establishments need to be encouraged to support students who are capable and wish to aim for a career at the Bar, and not to dismiss them on the basis of myths about the class or educational contexts of barristers. This could build upon the strong work that Pathways and PASS are already doing in demystifying the profession to non-traditional aspirant entrants.

References Bar Council (2014) Barrister’s Working Lives: A second biennial survey of the Bar 2013, London: The General Council of the Bar Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2001) Individualization: Institutionalized Individualism and its Social and Political Consequences, London: SAGE Francis, A.M. and Sommerlad H. (2009) ‘Access to legal work experience and its role in the (re)production of legal professional identity’, International Journal of the Legal Profession, 16(1), 63-86 Jerrim, J., Vignoles, A. and Finnie, R. (2012) University access for disadvantaged children: A comparison across English speaking countries, Department of Quantitative Social Sciences Working Paper 12-11, University of London: Institute of Education Neuberger, Rt Hon Lord (2007) Entry to the Bar Working Party: Final Report, London: The General Council of the Bar Sommerlad, H. (2007) ‘Researching and Theorising the Processes of Professional Identity Formation’, Journal of Law and Society 34(2), 190-217 Young Legal Aid Lawyers (2013) Social mobility and diversity in the legal aid sector: One Step Forwards, Two Steps Back, London: YLAL

23

Appendix A Interim Report to Inner Temple – Pathways (February 2014) Introduction 1.

This research project, funded jointly by Keele University and Inner Temple, explores the role of professional associations in promoting social mobility within an elite profession, through an evaluation of the outreach and social mobility activities undertaken by Inner Temple and focusing, in particular, on the Pegasus Access Scheme (PAS). This is combined with the wider academic aim to contribute to the understanding of how professional associations are able to engage with, and promote, divisive issues such as social mobility.

2. The first stage of the research project considered Inner’s involvement in the Pathways to Law programme and was informed by data collected by Inner Temple’s Education and Training Department and analysed by the author. Further data was collected from a focus group of nine students who had participated in a “Pathways to Law” session that day. Stakeholder interviews with Benchers, representatives of chambers involved in PAS, and others involved in promoting social mobility at the Bar are also being undertaken. At the time of writing, these have not yet been completed.

3. The rationale behind the research design of data collection from documentary sources, a focus group and interviews was to explore the issues from the perspectives of the main stakeholders; the students who had experienced the programme, and whom it was intended to benefit, and members of the profession who were involved in conceiving and implementing it.

4. This report presents a summary and short analysis of this data.

Executive Summary Key findings The overwhelming majority of participants provided extremely positive feedback about the day, and indicated a strong move towards considering a career at the Bar as a result of their experiences at the event.

Emerging/broader themes a) Dispelling myths of the Bar Many participants admitted that they had had preconceived ideas about the Bar, some negative, but that these had been largely dispelled by Pathways as they had seen a diverse range of people who practised, and had been able to hear about their personal experiences. They also felt that the Bar was more meritocratic than they had previously realised. However, variation between the type of information provided by different barristers leading the small group sessions, and the fact that some students were only able to speak to barristers from one practice area that did not reflect their own interests were matters highlighted as possible areas for improvement. b) Future Uncertainty Financial concerns weighed heavily on the minds of the participants, especially as they felt uncertain about their chances of success at the Bar. This was exacerbated by the significant financial outlay of the BPTC, and concerns that it was not a ‘transferable’ qualification. Furthermore, they worried about how their professional aspirations would impact on or be compatible with their future families and relationships. c) Institutional and social constraints The students participating in Pathways showed significant awareness of the tensions between their current social and institutional situations (peers leaving school and not going into employment) and their own career aspirations.

Preliminary recommendations a) Consider where and when it might be appropriate to include a little more detail/discussion about options open to students who do not gain pupillage or tenancy, and explore ways in which the BPTC is useful to a greater extent than just for the Bar. b) Ensure that members who participate are conveying up-to-date information. Although some students recognised that some information given related to historic recruitment patterns (in this case, in terms of attitudes to academic achievement) there is a risk of misunderstanding - the avoidance of which is key in a programme seeking to inform. c) Aim for the widest possible spread of practice areas to be represented at the day in order that participants can build an understanding of the differences between practice areas.

Background to the Pathways Project 2.1

24

Prior to this research project, Inner Temple had collected data by distributing questionnaires to students who had attended Pathways to Law days at the Inn. The Pathways programme was set up in 2006 by The Sutton Trust and The Legal Education Foundation (formerly The College of Law) with support from major law firms, to inspire and support academically able students from under-privileged backgrounds interested in a career in law. The programme is targeted at 17 and 18 year-olds in Years 12 and 13 whose parents have not been to university or who have been eligible for free school meals. Preference is given to those in lower performing schools and poorer areas. Pathways to Law is currently run through a network of universities across the UK, with support from over 30 law firms.

2.2

There have been ten Pathways to Law days which the Inner Temple has hosted, offering students an opportunity to see the Inn, meet barristers, and participate in legal exercises. At the end of these days, evaluation questionnaires were distributed to the students. The data from them was entered into the SurveyMonkey website, from which Inner Temple was able to generate spreadsheets which were provided to the researcher. The table below details each day’s attendance. It also shows the response rates to the evaluation questionnaires which were analysed for this report.

Event

Location of students

School year group of students

Number of participating students

Number of responses to survey

Response rate

April 2010 (Pilot)

All institutions

Year 13

41

41

100%

January 2011

London

Year 12

114

110

96%

April 2011

Out of London

Year 13

78

73

94%

June 2011

London

Year 13

105

68

65%

December 2011

London

Year 12

140

139

99%

April 2012

Out of London

Year 13

62

62

100%

November 2012

London

Year 12

139

128

92%

February 2013

London

Year 13

28

25

89%

April 2013

Out of London

Year 13

77

56

73%

November 2013

London

Year 12

(data to come)

(data to come)

(data to come)

Key Findings 3.1 The data collected from students through evaluation questionnaires was collated by the researcher and can be seen in Appendix A of this report.

Pathways Day Overall • 99% of those who attended rated the day as ‘excellent’, ‘very good’ or ‘good’.

Content of the day • 99% agreed or strongly agreed that barristers on the panel were informative and engaging.

• 94% agreed or strongly agreed that the information provided was relevant to them at their stage of education •9 9% agreed or strongly agreed that the barristers leading the group exercise were friendly and approachable and able to answer questions •9 7% agreed or strongly agreed that they had a better understanding of the Bar, and how to improve their chances of a career at it, as a result of the event.

Activities •T he questionnaires asked the students to choose which part or parts of the day they found the most helpful. Some of the cohorts were asked to select just one option, whilst other cohorts had no limit to the number of answers which students could select, and some selected multiple answers. There was some variation between cohorts in the format of the day and the options offered, so the numbers of students who selected that option, and the total number who could have, are shown.

Presentation/speeches from panel members

312 (611 responses) – 51.1%

Group exercises

296 (704 responses) – 42.0%

Opportunity to speak to practising barristers

216 (636 responses) – 34.0%

Visit to chambers

87 (263 responses) – 33.1%

Opportunity to see Inner Temple

81 (555 responses) – 14.6%

Information in the folders provided

57 (611 responses) – 9.3%

25

A note about ‘group exercises’ 3.2

The variation between the group activities provided shows some interesting results (see Appendix A for full data).

Where the title is simply ‘group exercises’ it was not recorded on the feedback forms exactly what activities had been done within the context. The other categories shown, however, display the variety of the group exercises. Some were much more popular than others. For example, whilst 44% stated that they had found the mock trial the most, or one of the most, helpful parts of the day, only 20% felt this about the sentencing exercise. Although each of those activities was only carried out with one cohort, giving small sample sizes, the result may be indicative of the sort of exercise that is most accessible and most enjoyable to students of this age and stage.

Preferred activities 3.3

A large majority of students found the most useful aspects of the days were those in which they could meet and engage with those in practice (presentation/speeches from members of the panel, the opportunity to speak to practising barristers, and the visit to chambers) and those which allowed them to experience ‘real’ practice and the skills it required. For such students, these are the sorts of activities and opportunities to which they are unlikely to have had prior access, in contrast with students from more traditional ‘Bar backgrounds’ who may be able to secure such opportunities through school or family contacts.

3.4

The focus group participants similarly enjoyed activities which required them to use relevant skills, within a recreation of the environment in which a barrister would use them; ‘…our group was amazing; our barrister, he was quite funny and it was really interactive and we got a chance to like get into a role, and then it was really good; we got to…so three people had to be judges and one person had to be a barrister, representing a client, and he just sort of like, you know, he wasn’t rude to us but he was challenging us on what to say, like it would be if this were a real case. It was really, really interesting.’ (FG Participant 5, F)

3.5

Although there seems to be little support for the paper resources provided, the day is structured such that the students do not have time to read through the literature during the day, before filling in the evaluations. Therefore, the relatively low level of positivity about them in the evaluation questionnaires may have a contextual explanation, and they may have a longer term use not reflected in this survey.

Career Aspirations 3.6

‘Which of the following statements do you most closely identify with?’ (704 responses) • 203 selected ‘attending this event has confirmed my ambition to pursue a career at the Bar’ (28.8%) • 343 selected ‘attending this event has made me seriously consider a career at the Bar for the first time’ (48.7%) • 93 selected ‘attending this event has not influenced me in terms of my ambitions to become a barrister’ (13.2%) • 18 were considering other legal careers (such as a barristers’ clerk) (2.6%) (this option was not available on all forms).

• 37 selected ‘attending this event has made me realise I do not wish to pursue a career at the Bar’ (5.3%) • 10 did not answer the question (1.4%)

3.7

The high percentage of students who were considering going to the Bar for the first time as a result of their attendance suggests that the information disseminated can encourage consideration of the Bar as a career option by aspirant entrants from non-traditional backgrounds. Many who selected this option made express mention in their responses to open ended questions to having found out at the event that the Bar was a more meritocratic profession than they had realised, and that they had been surprised to meet barristers from varying educational backgrounds and ethnicities.

3.8

This suggests that some students had previously felt dissuaded from considering the Bar as a career option due to traditions, practices and behaviours with which they were not familiar, and thus made them uncomfortable (Bourdieu, 1990). This mirrored the findings of Sommerlad (2007) which demonstrated that aspirant entrants may hold stereotypical views of legal professionals. This was reinforced by the views of the focus group participants; ‘Because even judges, like for example, in politics, they teach us in order to be in politics you have to be white and British. (…) But then coming here, the first thing I see is the Judge, he was from like an Asian background.

So that just shows that if you think about it, you can actually achieve what you want.’ (FG Participant 9, M)

3.9

In many cases, students who stated that the day had made them realise that they definitely did not want to pursue a career at the Bar nonetheless made positive comments about the programme in the open-ended response questions (see below, para 3.11). This was supported by a focus group participant, who stated; ‘…my personal set of skills I think maybe lend better to being a solicitor, so when I did work experience with an in-house lawyer it was really useful, and it made me think that this is where I want to be, and though I felt like that partially today, it enforced that I think solicitor is the way I want to go really, erm, just because it uses my set of skills, really.’ (FG Participant 2, F)

3.10

26

This suggests that the programme is disseminating information to facilitate informed decision-making by aspirant entrants. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds may have particular problems accessing such information, as they are less likely to have personal contacts in the profession whom they can consult for advice (Francis, 2011). This lack of availability of information is one issue that programmes such as Pathways and the Pegasus Access Scheme are seeking to address.

3.11

The questionnaires also contained two open ended questions, which asked students about their perceptions of the Bar beforehand and whether these had changed as a result of the day, and what they had learnt during the programme.

These open-ended questions prompted varying levels of response. The majority of cohorts, however, wrote quite detailed responses about what they had learnt during the course of the day.

3.12

These responses were then coded to distinguish those that made reference specifically to either a) social mobility issues, or b) the respondent feeling better informed as a result of information given during the day. For some cohorts there were two opportunities within the evaluation forms for respondents to mention these issues, and some used both opportunities.

3.13

Although a detailed collation here is precluded, in summary, under the question ‘Was there anything you learnt from this event that you did not know beforehand?’, which was asked of every cohort except one, 172 students made express reference to having learnt that the Bar is more ‘normal’, diverse or accessible than they had previously thought. A substantial number of those made express mention of social mobility matters. Very few students (indeed, none in most of the cohorts) said that they had learned nothing, and a small minority did not answer the question.

3.14

In answer to the same question, 318 also made reference to an (increased) understanding of the routes to the Bar, for example, the existence of the conversion course (GDL), how the process from pupillage to tenancy worked, and the differences between barristers and solicitors.

3.15

A number of the cohorts were also asked ‘How did you feel about the Inn and barristers before attending the seminar?

Has this changed since attending? If so, how?’ In the responses to this question, mention of social mobility and diversity issues was even more prevalent, with many stating that the Bar was much more accessible to those from disadvantaged or ethnic minority backgrounds, and women, than they had believed. Many responses also showed that students had gained knowledge of the process of becoming a barrister, whether they stated so explicitly, or it was conveyed implicitly.

Themes 4.

A number of themes have emerged from the questionnaires and focus groups. Strikingly, there are strong connections between these themes and existing literature. Furthermore, the small sample of interviews done so far has revealed some themes common to both students and those involved in conceiving and running the programmes.

1. Dispelling myths of the Bar 4.1

The dispelling of myths surrounding the Bar is an important role of access programmes. Students are unlikely to seek to enter professions where they feel that they will be conspicuous by their difference in some way, and for those who have had very little experience of the profession, they may have made erroneous assumptions about those within the profession, and the ways in which they are different to them. A number of these myths were explored during the focus group, and then raised by the researcher in stakeholder interviews to gain an internal viewpoint.

4.2

One student in the focus group felt strongly that contacts were important; he believed that they were crucial for obtaining work experience, itself crucial when applying for scholarships and, eventually, pupillage; ‘…contacts as well; everything seems to…my Dad’s always saying ‘make sure you get contacts, because that’s how everything…’ I don’t know if that’s true, but today hasn’t changed my opinion, because if I hadn’t been on this course I wouldn’t’ve met the people I’ve met and I wouldn’t’ve got the contacts I’ve got. Then I wouldn’t be able to ask questions that I wanted to. So I still think that you still need contacts in this area of work.’ (FG Participant 7, M)

4.3

Only one other participant attributed any weight to this. This low importance was reflected by the interviewees, with one saying that they felt that networking’s importance was a myth perpetuated by universities; ‘…and students now are fed the idea that it’s a lot about networking and it’s not open to them if they are not networking and I don’t think there is any truth in that at all.’ (Interviewee 2 – non-Inner, F)

4.4 Another vehemently agreed, stating that the idea contacts were important was a modern-day misperception which could be added to many others which had been held over the years; ‘I really don’t think it makes the blindest bit of difference. I mean, when I came to the law I was told, (…) when I decided I wanted to be a barrister: well you have to be able to speak Latin, which is of course rubbish; you had to know French (because of legal French) which is of course rubbish, and you had to have family in the law; rubbish, we have none.’ (Interviewee 4 – Inner, M) 4.5

These differences in opinion and perception between the students and the stakeholders illustrate that the dissemination of information, and crucially accurate information, must be a key aim in programmes aiming to encourage participation by students from non-traditional backgrounds. Although it is easier for those within the profession to feel that these barriers do not exist, the key to social mobility is successfully communicating that to aspirant entrants, and their experiences then reflecting that.

4.6

Thus, the answers regarding the approachability of barristers running the programme, and increasing understanding of qualifying and practising at the Bar, are of particular interest, as the perceptions by aspirant entrants of those already within the profession may influence their opinions on the accessibility of the profession (as in Sommerlad’s (2007) research regarding aspirant solicitors), and an understanding of the processes and qualifications involved in 27

training for the Bar is crucial in informed decision-making for careers.

4.7

This was further reinforced by the comments of the focus group; ‘I always wanted to become a barrister but I wasn’t sure where to start. But on this experience it made me realise that.’ (FG Participant 3, M) ‘I wasn’t aware that they did scholarships…[sounds of concurrence]. There’s always that like thing; you hear Law, you just think it’s a difficult profession and you need to be rich to get into it, erm, so that there are scholarships, gives me hope…’ (FG Participant 2, F)

4.8

Even those students who had carried out their own comprehensive research found that there was information they had not discovered; ‘I’ve always wanted to be a barrister and I’ve done so much research; I’ve watched like every video there is on YouTube about being a barrister, and I’ve looked at every website possible. And then I came today and I found out stuff that I didn’t actually know.’ (FG Participant 7, M)

4.9

They had also been told (and persuaded) that some of their negative assumptions about barristers were erroneous; ‘I think it makes them seem a lot more approachable and attainable to people who are from less privileged backgrounds. Money is, I think, one of the biggest [indecipherable] that they have, you know, you think of Law and you just think, it’s impossible to get into; you need to be the son of a Lord and have twelve million in your bank and stuff like that; you know, it’s just…it’s silly but it has somewhat a degree of truth to it, and I think today was quite good at…it shows that they are trying to build bridges to avoid that.’ (FG Participant 2, F) ‘I think that one of the most important things that a programme like Pathways does is just discard wholly the idea of minorities. And it’s all about talent, because, realistically, talent is what you have that determines where you will end up, and, as the Judges and barristers and people you mentioned, what they’re looking for is talent rather than where you’re from or what your status is; bit by bit that idea is being banished and it’s not…it’s all about ability.’

(FG Participant 4, F)

4.10

Some students showed a mature awareness, however, of the fact that those at the event were portraying the most positive scenario for someone who had trained for the Bar; ‘…that’s one aspect that could be possibly improved: ‘cause although they were talking about their experiences, they’re all successful barristers (…) these are people who have been successful for the past 10 or 20 years, so what if you get to that stage and you’re not successful? You don’t win your cases? So maybe something like that?

Cos obviously like the…every step is a test and what if you fail that test? You go in there for your client and you lose cases and you lose your reputation?’ (FG Participant 9, M) ‘I wouldn’t say it was too positive; it was just optimistic.’ (FG Participant 5, F)

4.11

The majority of participants were acutely aware of the cost of training, and harboured concerns about the ‘transferability’ of the BPTC qualification, expressing fear that if one did not succeed in gaining pupillage, the BPTC itself was worthless, unlike a Law degree, which was a useful qualification for numerous career paths.

4.12

Financial concerns are just one of a range of matters affecting these students’ perceptions of the Bar. It must be remembered in evaluation of such schemes that there are elements of the students’ lives, and the social and institutional circles in which they operate, that such schemes cannot change. In order for programmes to have the greatest effect, it is necessary to acknowledge these constraints, and consider how the advice given can be acted upon within these students’ own contexts.

2. Matters of tradition 4.13

Another contextual factor is the considerable tradition found in the very being and workings of the Bar. It has been thought that this may discourage non-traditional entrants as these unfamiliar practices will make them feel uncomfortable. Indeed, the Bar was once described as ‘an alien environment for those who are not used to Chapel, Grace and dining’ (Dame Jocelyn Barrow, quoted by Abel, 2003: 183), but the focus group participants did not see the matter so simplistically; ‘I think it makes it look professional. I think tradition is a good thing that should be admired […] How I see it is I don’t think tradition puts people off anything.’ (FG Participant 5, F) Others disagreed; ‘what she (FGP 5) said about that; it differentiates you from other professions; I think what you wear doesn’t really matter; what you do and your actions, matters more than what you wear. Like that wig you need to wear.You’re here to argue. And like, you’re wearing a wig and that differentiates you from other people, other professions, but if you look at, there is…there is better things that can differentiate you from other professions than the wig.’ (FG Participant 6, M)

28

4.14

All agreed, however, that the reasoning behind many of the customs was identity, and forming a community, something they identified as important, especially as ‘membership’ had to be earned; ‘take a football team, yeah? why don’t they all just turn up in white shorts and white tops?...Or turn up in bibs?

It’s because they embrace it; if you support Liverpool, you wear that red shirt. So if you’re a barrister, it’s the community; it’s part of the fact that when they’re sitting down or whatever and they’re wearing wigs, like, this is who they are. It’s who you’ve become.’ (FG Participant 9, M) ‘It’s a good thing.You have to work for it to get it. It’s not something you can just go and buy if you have money.You have to earn that.’ (FG Participant 5, F)

4.15

Others, however, felt conflicted about the value and maintenance of traditions, and observed that they may portray something other than the internal truth; ‘I would never ever say it was a bad thing, but the tradition, the idea of going in and wearing a wig and…I don’t know…it’s by no means a bad thing but it gives off the impression that you have to be a Lord’s son or something to go into it, or have God-knows-how-many connections within the actual area and that’s just the way it is; it’s the prestige it has, and as I say, that’s not a bad thing at all and I think it’s just one of those things that, if you are interested in becoming a barrister you will realise that that’s not always the case. If you’re not, you’re just on the sidelines then, you think about, well that’s alright because you’re not interested in going into it, but if you’re genuinely interested in becoming a lawyer then you’ll realise that the barriers drop away as time progresses.’

(FG Participant 2, F)

4.16

These uncertainties about the traditional aspect of the Bar may result, in part, from the students’ own doubts about their abilities to ‘fit in’ with such a traditional community. This brings in the concept of ‘future selves’ explored in sociological literature.

3.

Unknown Futures

4.17

A number of the focus group students displayed uncertainty about their future selves; specifically, whether or not they would succeed in getting to the Bar, and how their personal and professional lives would work if they were.

These considerations are regarded as ‘future selves’ (Markus and Nurius, 1986:954). Research has shown that students who are positive about their future selves are more likely to achieve their goals, as the ‘future self’ concept provides motivation (Markus and Ruvolo, 1989). However, it has also been shown that those who do not receive encouragement and support in their schooling from family, peers and schools are much less likely to have positive occupational future selves (Leondari, 2007). This was reinforced by the comments of the focus group that the educational and occupational choices made by their peers influenced their hopes about a career at the Bar (see quotation below; para 4.18). Doubts about their future selves motivated concerns about ‘investing’ in the BPTC, and an awareness that Pathways promoted a ‘best case’ scenario (para 4.10).

4.

Institutional and social constraints.

4.18

An important factor outside of the control of such programmes are constraints which come from peer groups and education. These are constraints on the effectiveness of the programmes which come from patterns of behaviour and influences from social, educational and employment contexts of the participants, and cannot be controlled by programme providers. However, providers need to be aware of them and their operation if they are to maximise the effectiveness of their outreach programmes.

‘Obviously some are influenced easier than others, but generally it’s your peers, because if your peers are saying, ‘personally, I don’t wanna do this anymore, school’s not for me, I’m just gonna drop out and probably just live off Job Seekers Allowance or something then, and they’re doing pretty good at it, you’ll think, I don’t see why not I can’t do the same thing.’ (FG Participant 5, F)

4.19

A body of academic work has explored the difficulties of bringing into a new setting the practices and habits of a previously occupied setting, especially when the new setting has particularly rooted practices. These practices and habits are referred to as ‘institutional logics’. For Pathways participants, there is likely to be a clash between the practices and habits of their schools and peer groups, and the Bar. Academic literature on these matters has highlighted the difficulties faced by those moving from one setting to another, especially if these settings are very different.

‘People who come from non-traditional backgrounds; there may be a chance that the only interaction they’ve had with the legal system is not a positive one, and the representation of the legal system within these communities will be, not blacklisted, but they’re not going to have that positive outlook towards how they operate…’ (FG Participant 4, F)

4.20

Most of the students were not concerned about matters of race, stating that they no longer felt racial discrimination hindered their career opportunities (the group was ethnically diverse). However, this was in contradiction with the weight that seemed to be placed on the presence of the ethnic minority judge at the event, which had clearly had a significant impact on the students, suggesting that they still subscribed to a very ‘traditional’ stereotype of legal professionals.

29

5.

Improving the Pathways experience

4.21

It was clear that one element that had significantly impacted on the information the students obtained was which barrister led their small group. This is a variation best reduced as far as possible so that all groups get equal benefit; whilst some barristers used this time to discuss the Bar more generally and answer students’ questions, others had focussed exclusively on the exercise: ‘It would’ve been better to have more variety. And I was also thinking our group session with barristers when we split up could have been more personal. We just concentrated on the cases the whole time.’ (FG Participant 7, M)

4.22

It seemed particularly that male barristers had been unlikely to discuss the interplay between their personal and professional lives, something that the male focus group participants wanted; ‘I wanted to actually know, like, what’s it like? The more social aspect. Not just the everyday day to day working life, but their families, how that profession actually impacts, I don’t know, on their relationship with their wife (...) I just wanted to know, on a more social note, how being a barrister will affect your social life.’ (FG Participant 1, M)

4.23

Female participants who had been with a different small group leader, however, felt differently; ‘I beg to differ. The woman from the GLS, she spoke and she said that, oh that there are perks to it like (indecipherable) she’s independent cos if she, for example, if there’s a case and it comes to her, she can say okay, I’m going to do this today, I’m going to take my daughter to see this tomorrow. Obviously she can’t tell us about it in too much depth cos that’s her personal information, but, like, she was good I think, she gave enough information like, personally, I understood.’ (FG Participant 5, F)

4.24

One participant suggested a possible solution; ‘…what would be quite good would be for maybe the girls to have a female barrister who’s experienced it and the guys with a male, cos it’s quite irrelevant that stuff about maternity leave, for example.’ (FG Participant 7, M)

4.25 This suggested some disconnect between what barristers participating thought was important information, and what the students thought was important. Similarly, students expressed a wish to hear from barristers from more diverse practice areas, as they felt that there was an over-emphasis on criminal practitioners, which may be unintentional, or reflect a subconscious belief that non-traditional entrants are more likely to practise at the criminal Bar (where they are, indeed, disproportionately represented; Bar Barometer, 2011). They also felt that there was not enough attention given to how one’s professional and personal lives might differ depending upon practice area; ‘All the barristers that I talked to were all in like the criminal work, and if you’re not really into that, maybe you want to do something like environmental law or corporate law, how does being a barrister in that field differ from being a barrister in criminal law? What are the differences in your everyday life?’ (FG Participant 1, M) 4.26

Obviously the attendance of barristers at these events is dependent on those barristers giving their time for free.

Unlike a salaried employee who may be paid for attending such events, self-employed barristers will get no such remuneration. Thus, these events are reliant on goodwill and availability of barristers; another difficulty for those who are self-employed. However, it is likely to be beneficial to invite barristers from as diverse an array of practice areas as possible. Any assumptions about which areas student participants may be interested in are best avoided.

4.27

Furthermore, assumptions about which practice areas are most likely to engage in access schemes are best avoided, with one Chancery practitioner stating that they felt that there was much more willingness to participate than was realised in their practice area; ‘…with social mobility it’s actually harnessing a view, an enthusiasm, that’s already there. It’s a question of structuring it and the big problem is actually ‘initiative-itus’, with everybody doing different things.’ (Interviewee 2 – non-Inner, F)

4.28

It is also observed that the title ‘Debating Society workshop’ may seem to display a certain cultural context; ‘debating societies’ may be common at some types of educational establishments, but not at others. The nomenclature used may cause students to generate ideas about the accessibility of an activity, and affect their engagement with it. On one day the activity was called ‘debating’; a neutral term for a similar activity. However, 44% of participants said that the ‘Debating Society Workshop’ was helpful, compared to 28% and 20% when it was described as a ‘debate’ or ‘debating workshop’. There is thus no proof that the title negatively affected the participants’ perceptions of the usefulness of the session.

Interim Recommendations to Consider On the basis of data collected so far, below follow some suggestions of issues that may bear consideration.

Content of the day • As far as possible, describe activities neutrally and factually; e.g. ‘debating’ instead of ‘Debating Society Workshop’, to avoid ambiguity and the unnecessary use of language that may be unfamiliar to non-traditional entrants (para 4.28).

30

• Continue to use ‘interactive’ role-playing activities such as mock trials as more students felt more engaged by the mock trial than any of the other activities offered (para 3.2) • Reflect upon the value of encouraging all barristers participating to engage in discussion of how they have balanced their professional and personal lives. Male students felt that this was an important area in which they would benefit from hearing about the experiences of male barristers, in addition to those experiences shared by participating female barristers (para 4.22) • Consider where and when it might be appropriate to include some detail/discussion about options open to students who do not succeed at each hurdle, and explore ways in which the BPTC is useful to a greater extent than just for the Bar. This was important as the students weighed up whether it was worthwhile to ‘take a risk’ by completing the BPTC when the cost is so high, and such a small percentage of those completing the BPTC obtain pupillage (para 4.11).

• Ensure that members who participate are conveying up-to-date information. Although some students recognised that some information given was ‘out of date’ (in this case, in terms of attitudes to academic achievement) there is a risk of misunderstanding, the avoidance of which is key in a programme seeking to inform.

• Aim for the widest possible spread of practice areas to be represented at the day in order that participants can build an understanding of the differences between practice areas, e.g. commercial barristers may spend the majority of their time written advice and submissions, whereas a criminal barrister will do much more oral advocacy. Such understanding is necessary for informed decision-making (para 4.25).

• Incorporate the hard copy materials provided into the sessions to maximise their usefulness and draw students’ attention to the information within them. This may help to address their low ‘helpfulness’ score, and ensure that participants realise that they have access to information after the day has ended (para 3.5).

Programme structure • Consider whether Pathways is meant to be the first stage of a longer ‘journey’ of access schemes: for example, is it hoped that students will participate in Pathways and then in PAS, or is it hoped that those students who have participated in Pathways, by virtue of its help, will not need the assistance of PAS? o If the latter: a) It may be helpful to include a ‘mini-pupillage application workshop’ on the Pathways events to assist those students in securing mini-pupillages outside of PAS. b) It may be helpful to examine the eligibility criteria of PAS – currently one criterion is that the student participated in, or was eligible for, Pathways.

Wider research aims The Pathways to Law programme is one of a number of initiatives being supported by Inner Temple as part of its commitment to increasing social mobility at the Bar. The support it lends to these initiatives, and its decision to set up PAS in its own right, are driven by its position as a professional association. It is therefore of academic interest how its position affects the running and implementation of these schemes. There exists a body of sociological literature surrounding the behaviour of professional associations examining especially how they effect change, and the mechanisms used on those matters which are contentious, such as social mobility.

The wider context of this PhD is to explore how a professional association which is so inherently embedded, both physically and ideologically, within its profession can make a difference on a matter important to the profession as a whole; in this case, social mobility. It is hoped that this understanding, when synthesised with existing literature on professional associations, will provide better understanding of how professional associations can facilitate change in contentious areas. By evaluating the Pathways and Pegasus Schemes, it is intended that not only will the potential impact of those programmes become clearer, but analysis of how they have been moulded and implemented by Inner Temple will contribute to wider academic understanding of the operation of embedded professional associations.

Appendix A The data collected varied between events, and where the wording of a question was different for some cohorts, this is highlighted. The number of responses to the question is also given for reference.

The format of the questionnaire was such that the students either had to rate the day in terms of concepts such as helpfulness and the day as a whole, or were asked to rate the strength of their agreement with a number of statements about aspects of the day. So, for example, there would be a statement about an aspect of the day, to which the students would be able to reply ‘strongly agree, ‘agree’, ‘neither agree nor disagree’, ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’. Where percentages given do not total 100, this is due to rounding to the nearest whole number.

When asked to rate the day overall (656 responses); • 345 (53%) rated it as ‘excellent’ • 299 (46%) rated it as ‘very good’ or ‘good’ (the wording varied from questionnaire to questionnaire, but it had the same value, being between a neutral response and the most favourable response) 31

• 11 (2%) rated it ‘average’ • 1 (0.2%) did not answer the question The questions relating to the content of the programme, and the students’ feelings about it were answered thus; ‘Barristers on the panel were engaging and informative’ (611 responses) • 453 (74%) strongly agreed • 155 (25%) agreed • 2 (0.3%) neither agreed nor disagreed • 1 (0.2%) did not answer ‘Information provided was relevant to me at my stage of education’ (433 responses) • 221 (51%) strongly agreed • 188 (43%) agreed • 23 (5%) neither agreed nor disagreed • 1 (0.2%) disagreed ‘Barristers leading the group exercises were friendly and approachable and able to answer my questions’ (or, in the February 2013 cohort, ‘barristers at the Meet the Barristers’ session were approachable’) (704 responses) • 539 (77%) strongly agreed • 157 (22%) agreed • 6 (0.9%) neither agreed nor disagreed • 1 (0.1%) disagreed • 1 (0.1%) did not answer the question ‘Having attended the event, I have a greater understanding of the Bar, and how to improve my chances of a career at the Bar’ (623 responses) • 404 (65%) strongly agreed • 199 (32%) agreed • 18 (3%) neither agreed nor disagreed • 1 (0.2%) disagreed • 1 (0.2%) did not answer In the evaluation questionnaires the students were asked to choose which part or parts of the day they found the most helpful.

Some of the cohorts were asked to select just one option, whilst other cohorts had no limit to the number of answers which students could select, and some selected multiple answers. There was some variation between cohorts in the format of the day and the options offered, so the numbers of students who selected that option, and the total number who could have, are shown beside each answer.

Presentation/speeches from panel members

312 (611 responses) – 51.1%

• This option was unavailable to the June 2011 and February 2013 cohorts Group exercises (The type of group exercise varied between cohorts, and some of the data was more specific as to what they had entailed, so these figures are broken down according to the activities offered) • Sentencing exercise (February 2013) • Case law exercise (April 2011 and April 2012 – different cases used at each) • Plea in mitigation exercise (April 2010) • Debate/Debating Society Workshop (April 2010, June 2011 and February 2013) • Plea in mitigation and case law exercise (January 2011 and November 2012)

32

5 (25) 20% 38 (137) 27.7% 12 (41) 29.3% 45 (134) 33.6% 90 (238) 37.8%

• ‘Group exercises’

76 (195)

(April 2013 and December 2011)

39.0%

• Mock trial

30 (68)

(June 2011)

44.1%

Overall 296 (704 responses) – 42.0% Opportunity to speak to practising barristers

216 (636 responses) – 34.0%

• This option was unavailable to the June 2011 cohort Visit to chambers 87 (263 responses) – 33.1% • This option was unavailable to the January and December 2011 cohorts, which were both so big (over 100 students) as to render it impracticable.

• The April 2010 cohort visited the RCJ instead, which 4 of the 41 participants said they found useful.

• Of the 68 students in the June 2011 cohort, only 45 had the opportunity to visit chambers (of whom 8 found it useful), so the response figure above includes a figure of 45 for the June 2011 cohort, as opposed to the full cohort figure of 68).

Opportunity to see Inner Temple

81 (555 responses) – 14.6%

• This option was unavailable to the June 2011, February 2013 and April 2013 cohorts Information in the folders provided

57 (611 responses) – 9.3%

• This option was unavailable to the June 2011 and February 2013 cohorts

References Abel, R. (2003), English Lawyers Between Market and State: The Politics of Professionalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press Bar Council (2011) Bar Barometer: Trends in the Profile of the Bar, London: The Research Department of the General Council of the Bar of England and Wales.

Bourdieu, P. (1990) ‘Structures, habitus, practices’, in The Logic of Practice, Cambridge: Polity, pp. 52-65 Francis, A. (2011) At the Edge of Law, Aldershot: Ashgate Leondari, A. (2007) ‘Future time perspective, possible selves, and academic achievement’, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 114, 17-26 Markus, H. and Nurius, P. (1986) ‘Possible selves’, American Psychologist, 41, 954-969 Markus, H., & Ruvolo, A. (1989) ‘Possible selves: Personalized representations of goals’, in L. A. Pervin (ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 211–241), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Sommerlad, H. (2007) ‘Researching and Theorizing the Processes of Professional Identity Formation’, Journal of Law and Society, 34(2), 190-217

Appendix B PASS Data summaries 1.

Pre-PAS – 2013/2014 cohort – Researcher questionnaire

31 of the students who participated in PAS in the 2013/14 academic year returned the pre-PAS questionnaire written and administered by Inner Temple. This document summarises their responses to the questions, and is constructed similarly to the data summaries of Pathways data.

Familial experience of higher education • 19 were the only member of their family to have attended university • 7 were in the first generation of their family to attend university • 4 had had a few family members in their parents’/carers’ generation go to university • 1 was from a family where it was very common for people in their parents’ generation to have gone to university.

Contacts within the legal profession • 24 were from families that did not know anyone in a profession • 5 did not know anyone in the legal profession, but their family had links to other professions • 2 had family friends or relatives in the legal profession

33

Education • 3 were from state selective schools (e.g. L.E.A. Grammar) • 1 had been schooled outside the UK • The remaining 27 had been state-schooled Prior legal work experience • 4 had not been able to secure any work experience • 12 had done so through a programme such as the Social Mobility Foundation or Pathways to Law • 3 had had it arranged through school or college.

Those four who had not undertaken work experience were asked to rank the 7 potential reasons why not in order of the severity of their effect.

• 3 ranked ‘applied but was unsuccessful’ as the main reason, and the fourth ranked ‘couldn’t afford to work voluntarily’ as the main reason.

• The two least important reasons were ‘I hadn’t been told it was useful’ and ‘I didn’t think of it’.

• Other options on the list were ‘too nervous to approach firms/chambers’, ‘didn’t know how to apply’ and ‘didn’t have time to do the applications and/or the work experience’.

How do you think participating in PAS will benefit you the most?

• 13 said ‘increase my understanding of the Bar’ • 8 said ‘experience a particular practice area’ • 4 said ‘to help me decide whether to be a solicitor or a barrister’ • 2 said ‘to meet barristers’ • 2 said ‘to see the sort of work barristers do’ • 2 did not answer Please RANK in order of importance the reasons you think chambers offer mini pupillages • 12 ranked ‘to give students a realistic insight into the profession’ as most important • 7 ranked ‘to attract the best applicants by highlighting the chambers’ positive qualities.

• 1 ranked ‘as part of a professional commitment to engage with the community at large’ • 2 ranked ‘to encourage applications from non-traditional sectors of the community’ • 8 ranked as most important the opportunity to make initial assessments of applicants • 1 did not answer There were then a number of open-ended response questions which elicited prose responses from most respondents. These responses were categorised for the purposes of the summary below according to the predominant and most explicitly stated theme in the response.

Why do you think chambers are offering mini-pupillages through PAS? • 12 referred to a desire to increase diversity, either of the profession as a whole or the specific chambers • 8 referred to a desire by chambers to show that they were open to applications from people of any background, and to encourage those people to apply.

• 3 suggested that it was to help disadvantaged students • 2 suggested that it was to encourage ‘unconventional talent’ (my favourite terminology).

• 2 said that it was to improve the image of chambers, questioning the presence of an altruistic motive, • One said that it was out of a sense of duty, although it was unclear whether this was said with negative or positive connotations.

• Of the remaining two, one said that chambers ‘supported the ideology of PAS’ and another said it was to provide insight into the profession.

• One did not answer the question Why do you think Inner Temple has established PAS? • 8 said a recognition of the lack of diversity at the Bar • 6 said to provide help to NTAEs, and 5 said because it understood the barriers facing NTAES, and 4 said to promote wider access (grouped together as similar) • 2 said a commitment to securing the best individuals or a commitment to the community more widely • 1 said for self-serving reasons, though they added that they believed that the Outreach team had a genuine commitment to widening access).

34

• One said that it was out of a sense of duty, although it was unclear whether this was said with negative or positive connotations.

• Of the remaining three, one said the success of previous NT students at Inner, one said because it was the most welcoming Inn, and another because as an Inn with funding and resources it was best placed to provide the programme.

• One did not answer

2. Post-PAS – 2013/2014 cohort – Researcher questionnaire 16 of the students who participated in PAS in the 2013/14 academic year also returned the post-PAS questionnaire written by the researcher and administered by Inner Temple. This document summarises their responses to the questions that were not open-ended, and is constructed similarly to the data summaries of Pathways data. Percentages are given to the nearest whole number, meaning that not all categories have a total of 100%.

Feelings towards a career at the Bar • 8 knew that they wanted to go to the Bar before and PAS has not altered this • 4 thought they did before, and were now more certain • 5 were not sure before and still weren’t after the MP Could you see yourself as a barrister at the Chambers where you did PAS? • 9 made specific reference to how friendly the chambers they’d been at was • 1 referred to chambers as a ‘diverse bunch’, but another stated that they had been at a chambers that was maledominated, not very diverse, and had an unwelcoming feel to it, although they did state that the individuals were friendly and welcoming. Ø I would find it hard to picture myself at Quadrant Chambers because I would not meet their very high recruitment criteria. Ø I don’t because I’m not sure I have the right background to get accepted.

Overall impression of Bar? • 4 mentioned friendly/camaraderie • 2 referred to it changing/becoming more diverse How do you think participating in PAS benefitted you?

• Ranked as most important: • 6 – ‘experienced a particular practice area’ • 4 - ‘increased understanding’ • 3 – ‘saw work done’ • 2 – ‘ met barristers’ • 1 – ‘choice barrister vs solicitor’ Why do chambers participate in PAS? • 7 answers said to increase diversity • 3 said to attract/discover unconventional talent • 2 said to show openness and encouragement to NTAES to apply to the Bar. • Two answers mentioned that it may be commitment to an appearance as opposed to a genuine desire for change, and one suggested it was to meet a quota.

• One participant was unsure.

Additionally: 4 wanted follow-up, 1 suggested more advertising.

Those that had placements shorter than a week felt that they were not long enough.

Please RANK in order of importance the reasons you think chambers offer mini pupillages • 6 ranked ‘to give students a realistic insight into the profession’ as most important • 4 ranked ‘to attract the best applicants by highlighting the chambers’ positive qualities.

• 3 ranked ‘as part of a professional commitment to engage with the community at large’ • 2 ranked ‘to encourage applications from non-traditional sectors of the community’ • None ranked as most important the opportunity to make initial assessments of applicants • This may suggest that NTAEs do not realise that such exposure is a time of mutual appraisal – this may mean they do not adapt to the field as they would if knew being assessed.

35

Why do you think chambers are offering mini-pupillages through PASS? • 7 answers said to increase diversity (44%) • 3 said to attract/discover unconventional talent (19%) • 2 said to show openness and encouragement to NTAES to apply to the Bar (13%) • 2 answers mentioned that it may be commitment to an appearance as opposed to a genuine desire for change, and one suggested it was to meet a quota (13%).

• One participant was unsure (6%) • One did not answer the question (6%)

3. Post-PAS – 2013/2014 cohort – Inner Temple questionnaire 49 of the students who participated in PAS in the 2013/14 academic year also returned the post-PAS questionnaire written and administered by Inner Temple. This document summarises their responses to the questions, and is constructed similarly to the data summaries of Pathways data. Percentages are given to the nearest whole number, meaning that not all categories have a total of 100%.

Overall rating of the mini-pupillage • 42 students rated them ‘very helpful’ (85%) • 7 rated them ‘helpful’ (15%) By cohort this was o Pilot • 5 ‘very helpful’ (71%) • 2 ‘helpful’ (29%) o First Cohort • 24 ‘very helpful’ (96%) • 1 ‘helpful’ (4%) o Second cohort • 13 ‘very helpful’ (76%) • 4 ‘helpful’ (24%) Overall rating of the Pegasus Access Scheme more generally • 44 rated it as ‘excellent’ (90%) • 5 rated it as ‘good’ (10%) By cohort this was o Pilot • 5 ‘excellent’ (71%) • 2 ‘good’ (29%) o First cohort • 25 ‘excellent’ (100%) o Second cohort • 14 ‘excellent’ (82%) • 3 ‘good’ (18%) The questionnaire then asked the students to indicate to what extent they agreed with a series of statements about PAS: ‘PAS was easy to apply for’ • 22 strongly agreed (46%) • 21 agreed (44%) • 3 neither agreed nor disagreed (6%) • 2 disagreed (4%) • 1 didn’t answer the question (2%)

36

‘Chambers’ practice areas were of interest to me’ • 31 strongly agreed (63%) • 15 agreed (31%) • 2 neither agreed nor disagreed (4%) • 1 disagreed (2%) ‘Prior to my placement, I was provided with a sufficient amount of information’ • 35 strongly agreed (71%) • 10 agreed (21%) • 2 neither agreed nor disagreed (4%) • 2 disagreed (4%) ‘The barristers I shadowed were friendly, accommodating and able to answer my questions’ • 42 strongly agreed (85%) • 7 agreed (15%) ‘The administrative team were friendly, accommodating and able to answer my questions’ • 40 strongly agreed (81%) • 8 agreed (17%) • 1 neither agreed nor disagreed (2%) ‘My mini-pupillage has changed my perception of the Bar and of barristers’ • 14 strongly agreed (29%) • 21 agreed (43%) • 10 neither agree nor disagree (20%) • 3 disagreed (6%) • 1 strongly disagreed (2%) ‘Participating in PAS has given me a good insight into the profession’ • 42 strongly agreed (86%) • 7 agreed (14%) ‘Participating in PAS will help my careers aspirations’ • 40 strongly agreed (81%) • 7 agreed (14%) • 2 neither agreed nor disagreed (4%) ‘Payment of expenses were essential in allowing me to undertake this placement’ • 18 strongly agreed (37%) • 7 agreed (14%) • 17 neither agreed nor disagreed (35%) • 5 disagreed (10%) • 2 strongly disagreed (4%) ‘I would not have been able to get this kind of placement without PAS’ • 26 strongly agreed (53%) • 16 agreed (33%) • 3 neither agreed nor disagreed (6%) • 3 disagreed (6%) • 1 strongly disagreed (2%) ‘How strongly did you / do you now wish to pursue a career at the Bar?’ • 23 wished more strongly after the placement than they had before to pursue a career at the Bar (47%) • 23 had the same level of desire to go to the Bar (47%) • 1 wished to pursue a career at the Bar less strongly after their placement (2%) • 2 did not answer the question (4%) 37

There were then open-ended questions which invited participants to write longer answers, which many did: ‘Has PAS changed your perception of the Bar and barristers? If so, how?’

Many students gave multiple sentence answers to this question, but two themes predominated; mentions of the Bar being more diverse or friendly than the participant had anticipated (18 participants expressly discussed these issues), and the participants identifying that they had learnt more about life at the Bar, or about specific practice areas, than they had known before (a further 18 mentioned this). A number of responses mentioned matters from both categories.

‘If you decide to pursue a career at the Bar, which Inn of Court will you be joining?’

• 29 Inner Temple (59%) • 5 Lincoln’s Inn (10%) • 1 Middle Temple (2%) • 1 Gray’s Inn (2%) • 13 were undecided (27%)

Of those who gave reasons in the open-ended response option, those who had selected an Inn other than Inner tended to have met a barrister from another Inn with whom they got along particularly well; had already joined another Inn before participating in PAS, or believed that they had a better chance of a scholarship at a different Inn due a greater overall scholarship amount, or the application of eligibility criteria. Of those who stated that they would join Inner, almost all made express mention of feeling that PAS had been very helpful to them, and that Inner was making a significant effort to help nontraditional entrants gain access.

‘Other than work experience (which we are trying to address through this scheme) and funding the BPTC (addressed through Inns of Court scholarships), do you perceive any other barriers to you pursuing a career at the Bar?’ Answers to this question divided into responses concerning three main topics; financial, educational, and a lack of pupillages/ difficulties of getting tenancy. Not all respondents answered this question.

7 respondents stated that they had concerns about financial issues; the cost of the BPTC, the low pupillage awards in some practice areas, and the uncertainty of income even once an established practitioner.

12 participants felt that they were at a disadvantage for educational reasons; these ranged from not going to Oxbridge, not having a First or a postgraduate qualification, to going to a University that didn’t offer much mooting or careers advice.

3 students expressly stated that they felt the high application to pupillage ratio was a concern for them, as they felt that the competition was so high that applying was a big risk. A further 3 respondents expressed concerns that were a mixture of financial, educational and supply/demand issues.

Only one participant seemed to have misunderstood the challenges, stating that they were concerned about getting a place on the BPTC, and felt that there should be more providers and more places available.

38

39

The Honourable Society of the Inner Temple Treasury Building London EC4Y 7HL outreach@innertemple.org.uk @TheInnerTemple