SQE without the PGDL?

[Helpme12345]

Hi everyone!

I’m hoping someone can make it a bit clearer for me…

So I have a TC offer from one US firm that will allow me to do the GDL/LPC route. I have completed a vac scheme at another US firm which will be doing the SQE route but not funding non-law grads to do the GDL, meaning future trainees essentially have a year off and then do a month of ‘GDL’ content and then a year of SQE prep and exams. I don’t have an offer for the second vac scheme at the moment but I just wanted to know people’s opinions.

It would make me a bit nervous to take these SQE exams with just one year of education, so my question is whether the GDL is actually necessary for the SQE exams? The firm in question are convinced that the GDL is unnecessary, but I can’t understand why the majority of other firms would still require it. Any advice would be appreciated !

 

[whisperingrock]

Hi everyone!

I’m hoping someone can make it a bit clearer for me…

So I have a TC offer from one US firm that will allow me to do the GDL/LPC route. I have completed a vac scheme at another US firm which will be doing the SQE route but not funding non-law grads to do the GDL, meaning future trainees essentially have a year off and then do a month of ‘GDL’ content and then a year of SQE prep and exams. I don’t have an offer for the second vac scheme at the moment but I just wanted to know people’s opinions.

It would make me a bit nervous to take these SQE exams with just one year of education, so my question is whether the GDL is actually necessary for the SQE exams? The firm in question are convinced that the GDL is unnecessary, but I can’t understand why the majority of other firms would still require it. Any advice would be appreciated !

Considering the current GDL + Accelerated LPC set-up would only take ~15 months total, I'm guessing the latter firm is convinced that you'll cover enough of what would be on the GDL as part of the SQE prep course and 'GDL month' (so ~13 months total?) that you wouldn't need to do the GDL course proper. In my opinion, learning and synthesizing the legal knowledge you need in a lesser (albeit only slightly) amount of time might be difficult and stressful, but I don't know enough about the SQE 1 to say with any certainty.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi everyone!

I’m hoping someone can make it a bit clearer for me…

So I have a TC offer from one US firm that will allow me to do the GDL/LPC route. I have completed a vac scheme at another US firm which will be doing the SQE route but not funding non-law grads to do the GDL, meaning future trainees essentially have a year off and then do a month of ‘GDL’ content and then a year of SQE prep and exams. I don’t have an offer for the second vac scheme at the moment but I just wanted to know people’s opinions.

It would make me a bit nervous to take these SQE exams with just one year of education, so my question is whether the GDL is actually necessary for the SQE exams? The firm in question are convinced that the GDL is unnecessary, but I can’t understand why the majority of other firms would still require it. Any advice would be appreciated !

Firms tend to be risk adverse and will put people through the GDL as a safety net more than anything, especially when there is little precedent set/evidence on whether you need the GDL to pass the SQE.

As soon as the stats prove that you don’t need the GDL to do well in the SQE, other firms will be quick to drop it too - it’s just that probably won’t happen for a few more years and when there is some data to prove it (or not).

Remember a lot of firms have put their trainees through an accelerated LPC in 7 months, and so it could easily be the case that you could cover this content in 12 months (especially if the firm only really cares about you pass the regulatory requirements, rather than actually requiring the knowledge).

 

[Helpme12345]

Firms tend to be risk adverse and will put people through the GDL as a safety net more than anything, especially when there is little precedent set/evidence on whether you need the GDL to pass the SQE.

As soon as the stats prove that you don’t need the GDL to do well in the SQE, other firms will be quick to drop it too - it’s just that probably won’t happen for a few more years and when there is some data to prove it (or not).

Remember a lot of firms have put their trainees through an accelerated LPC in 7 months, and so it could easily be the case that you could cover this content in 12 months (especially if the firm only really cares about you pass the regulatory requirements, rather than actually requiring the knowledge

Considering the current GDL + Accelerated LPC set-up would only take ~15 months total, I'm guessing the latter firm is convinced that you'll cover enough of what would be on the GDL as part of the SQE prep course and 'GDL month' (so ~13 months total?) that you wouldn't need to do the GDL course proper. In my opinion, learning and synthesizing the legal knowledge you need in a lesser (albeit only slightly) amount of time might be difficult and stressful, but I don't know enough about the SQE 1 to say with any certainty.

Thanks both! So I don’t think the SQE prep is one whole year, rather an academic year so would be 10 months in total. In your guys’ opinions, do you think it would be risky for me as a non-law grad to go down a route like this, especially when I’ll be marked against people with far more legal education than me? I’m not fussed about the any knowledge I don’t technically ‘need’ for the exams.

I think the issue is I’m quite risk averse as well haha and the thought of losing a TC because I don’t pass the SQE worries me quite a lot