3912 Shares

What Qualifications Would I Need?

What Qualifications Would I Need? Topic: Cambridge essays
June 20, 2019 / By Edmund
Question: I am only in yr10, but i was wondering what qualifications you need to be a barrister? All my GCSE's are predicted A/A*, and i'm planning to do English, Business Studies, Maths & Chemistry for my A levels, and then go on to do law at oxford university. I know about the LNAT, and the BVC, but i was wondering if there was any other qualifications you need, because i can't find an online guide with any information like that on... Thanks in advance :)
Best Answer

Best Answers: What Qualifications Would I Need?

Camden Camden | 4 days ago
You've got a long way to go yet. LNAT is loosing popularity, so may not be relevant by the time you come to making applications. Cambridge has already dropped it... If you get into Oxford (being clever isn't all that's required. You also need to have done extra curricula stuff and be rather lucky), then getting a First is rather helpful. A university prize and a scholarship/exhibitionership would probably help. Getting a 1st at Oxford is no small matter. The one obvious 1st I knew was on his second degree and tended towards seclusion and turning in essays late because there were "so many issues". During you're degree you also need to be grabbing mini-pupillages in chambers. If you're lucky you'll be able to get a pupillage before you take the BVC, and be able to draw down money to cover most of the BVC course fees. Otherwise you'll end up having to commit to about £12,000 of funding for the BVC plus living expenses, and a few hundred pounds for the arcane process of "dining" at your Inn of Court. The BVC is largely study of procedure and skills such as advocacy and negotiation. It is quite easy to fail the BVC and I know some quite clever people who have failed it on the first attempt. It's a fun course (compared to the LPC apparently), though afterwards you will be unable to watch any courtroom drama (*especially* law & order) without grumbling. After the BVC you need a pupillage in order to qualify. Pupillage is basically an apprenticeship that gradually eases you into the profession. They are also incredibly hard to find (have been ever since the Bar Council required chambers to pay their pupils). During the school holidays, if you're near a reasonably big court centre, then you should try to see some court proceedings. Most will be open to the public, and courts staff are often helpful if you ask nicely. Dress smartly or you may be mistaken for a defendant.
👍 116 | 👎 4
Did you like the answer? What Qualifications Would I Need? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Cambridge essays


Camden Originally Answered: What Qualifications Would I Need?
You've got a long way to go yet. LNAT is loosing popularity, so may not be relevant by the time you come to making applications. Cambridge has already dropped it... If you get into Oxford (being clever isn't all that's required. You also need to have done extra curricula stuff and be rather lucky), then getting a First is rather helpful. A university prize and a scholarship/exhibitionership would probably help. Getting a 1st at Oxford is no small matter. The one obvious 1st I knew was on his second degree and tended towards seclusion and turning in essays late because there were "so many issues". During you're degree you also need to be grabbing mini-pupillages in chambers. If you're lucky you'll be able to get a pupillage before you take the BVC, and be able to draw down money to cover most of the BVC course fees. Otherwise you'll end up having to commit to about £12,000 of funding for the BVC plus living expenses, and a few hundred pounds for the arcane process of "dining" at your Inn of Court. The BVC is largely study of procedure and skills such as advocacy and negotiation. It is quite easy to fail the BVC and I know some quite clever people who have failed it on the first attempt. It's a fun course (compared to the LPC apparently), though afterwards you will be unable to watch any courtroom drama (*especially* law & order) without grumbling. After the BVC you need a pupillage in order to qualify. Pupillage is basically an apprenticeship that gradually eases you into the profession. They are also incredibly hard to find (have been ever since the Bar Council required chambers to pay their pupils). During the school holidays, if you're near a reasonably big court centre, then you should try to see some court proceedings. Most will be open to the public, and courts staff are often helpful if you ask nicely. Dress smartly or you may be mistaken for a defendant.
Camden Originally Answered: What Qualifications Would I Need?
for your A levels i would drop chemistry and do law instead, most people drop out of chemistry before the end of the first year anyway.

Algar Algar
for your A levels i would drop chemistry and do law instead, most people drop out of chemistry before the end of the first year anyway.
👍 40 | 👎 2

Algar Originally Answered: What are qualifications of a Supreme Court justice?
From wikipedia, "Nomination, confirmation and tenure of Justices Article II of the United States Constitution provides the power to appoint Justices belongs to the President of the United States, acting with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. As a general rule, Presidents nominate individuals who broadly share their ideological views. However, nominees whose views are perceived as extreme may be blocked by the Senate (see List of Failed Nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States). In many cases, a Justice's decisions may be contrary to what the nominating President anticipated. A famous instance was Chief Justice Earl Warren; President Eisenhower expected him to be a conservative judge, but his decisions are arguably among the most liberal in the Court's history. Eisenhower later called the appointment "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made"[2]. While the President may nominate anyone (there are no qualifications listed in the Constitution regarding prior legal or judicial experience, nor are there any exclusions of foreign-born nominees), the "advice and consent" of the Senate is required for appointment. The confirmation process often attracts considerable attention from special-interest groups, many of which lobby senators to confirm or to reject. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings, questioning nominees to determine their suitability. Thereafter, the whole Senate considers the nomination; a simple majority vote is required to confirm or to reject a nominee. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected only twelve Supreme Court nominees in its history. The most recent rejection of a nominee by vote of the full Senate came in 1987, when the Senate refused to confirm Robert Bork. In 1991, Clarence Thomas's nomination was hampered by allegations of sexual harassment, but the Senate eventually confirmed him by a vote of 52-48. Not everyone nominated by the President has received a floor vote in the Senate. For example, a nominee may be filibustered. A filibuster indefinitely prolongs debate thereby preventing a final vote on the nominee. It is also possible for the President to withdraw a nominee's name at any time before the actual confirmation vote occurs. This usually happens when the President feels that the nominee has little chance of being confirmed. Most recently, President George W. Bush granted a request by Harriet Miers to withdraw her 2005 nomination before even a committee hearing had been scheduled, citing her concerns about Senate requests for access to internal White House documents during the confirmation process. Prior to that, President Ronald Reagan in 1987 withdrew the name of Douglas H. Ginsburg soon after the announcement of his nomination because allegations of marijuana use had arisen concerning him. While senators may attempt to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee in an attempt to thwart confirmation, no nomination for Associate Justice has ever been filibustered. However, President Lyndon Johson's nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968. Until the 1980s, the approval process of Justices was frequently quick. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, Justices were typically approved within one month. From the Reagan administration through the current administration of George W. Bush, however, the process took much longer. Some speculate this is because of the increasingly political role Justices are said to play.[1] When the Senate is in recess, the President may make a temporary appointment without the Senate's advice and consent. Such a recess appointee to the Supreme Court holds office only until the end of the next Senate session (at most, less than two years). To continue to serve thereafter and be compensated for his or her service, the nominee must be confirmed by the Senate. Of the two Chief Justices and six Associate Justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed for a full term. No president since Dwight Eisenhower has made a recess appointment to the Supreme Court and the practice has become highly controversial even when applied to lower federal courts. The Constitution provides that Justices "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean life tenure. However, Justices may resign, retire, or be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote (the last has never occurred). On average, a vacancy arises every two years; however, long stretches without any vacancies occur from time to time. For instance, no vacancy arose for the eleven years between Stephen Breyer's appointment in 1994 and Chief Justice William Rehnquist's death in 2005. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence is often evaluated with respect to the service of a particular Chief Justice. Thus, for example, the Court between 1969 and 1986 is referred to as the "Burger Court" (for Chief Justice Warren E. Burger) and the Court between 1986 and 2005 is referred to as the "Rehnquist Court" (for Chief Justice Rehnquist)."
Algar Originally Answered: What are qualifications of a Supreme Court justice?
To be quailified you must be ashol buddies with Bush Sr.. G The whole House of Congress is Corrupt with College Nutz. Oh, and you must live in the City all your life too and Disrespect Natures Rules. Yeah, thats it. Why do I live in the Country and Breathe Pollution and Get acid rain damage? Because the COngress doesn't care bout woods and trees. Just Buildings and Economic Power. To quailify for this position you outta be from the Country and have a Common Sense Mind and learn the terminology and the want to save your kids from the acid and the cooking sensation. There are no chances of a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,q,r,s,t,... The US Government is Well Beyond Repair, and has been since Democracy and Rule Came into effect. I believe in the Ten Commandments as the Only rules needed. Christ now look what democracy has brought the world. MASS POPULATION in an UNCONTROLABLE STATE!

If you have your own answer to the question cambridge essays, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.