Chambers using blind recruitment less diverse, research claims

What’s the point of having a standard board who’s aim is to continually lower the standards? Universities and professional bodies should not be in the business of lower standards to make up for deficiencies in the schools system. That problem of equality of access to a good education needs to be addressed by the government and the schools. We’re going to end up with a poorly funded legal system, stuffed with poorly educated people, just so that right boxes can be ticked on a few forms. The system is not fairer is all in society suffer from lower standards.

I’m not really sure why they are surprised. The usefulness of “cv blind applications” are still going to be limited by the algorithms chosen. If those algorithms unintentionally have a white, male bias then that’s going to be reflected in the recruitment.

I am no intellectual snob, but I must say that the BSB has taken leave of its senses.

Any measures to improve access for members of talented but underrepresented demographics ought to be welcomed. But significant academic ability is required to practise as a barrister. A Third Class degree has (for many decades) been regarded as a proxy for a fail.

Given that the majority of students across most academic disciplines achieve Upper Seconds anyway (reflecting the general devaluing of exam results), those who are right at the bottom of their graduating class must have minimal (and, at best, unreliable) ability to research, analyse and evaluate large quantities of complex information.

I would not trust such a barrister to represent me.

In an ideal world the schooling system and the government would provide all with access to ‘good education’. If this was the case, it wouldn’t be of such a concern to factor in diversity because if all ethnicities and genders etc had the same level of education, by the law of averages, the pool of candidates would presumably reach the diversity ‘threshold’.

Of course this is not the case and providers are, some would say, artificially creating a diverse workplace by favouring diverse candidates. Many argue merit should still trump this, but others counter this saying white candidates statistically hold better grades.

This is where the fascination over academic achievement can cloud any ideal definition of ‘merit’. Simply put, ones ability to show logical reasoning, an ability to dissect facts and information accurately and the other necessary traits of being a barrister might be more closely aligned with what ‘merit’ entails. This is opposed to one achieving an A* in A-Level Biology.

If merit was to encompass one’s ability to carry out the aforementioned skills (of course evidenced by extracurricular or work experience), then this might be a way to fairly navigate the perceived unfairness in access to education than placing too great a weight on academic achievement.

Of course academic ‘excellence’ is a sound measurement of the candidate’s prospect at the bar, and in no way it’s this argument saying academic ‘excellence’ or results in general should be ignored. The requirement for a 2:1 minimum does seem lenient. But those with a 2:2 should not be judged solely on this (as someone in this thread did so) and other their achievements should be factored in. By the way, I achieved higher than a 2:2 but I still think there is credit in the above argument.