Good points Sarah - I'm away this weekend, but from next week i'm looking forward to working with some of you to draft a letter to the Law Society which covers our main issues (extension of the five years, ways of opening up trainee ship places and the Law Society making an effort to give some status to the fe1s abroad - are they the main three?). We can also formulate template letters for people to send their TDs and other interested parties. I'm delighted there are others, like me, who are willing, to put a structure on how we put these points across - i think we've definitely more to gain by making this a movement of many - thus far we've nobody to represent us, but from the posts above i reckon we'll do a good job of representing ourselves and get our issues taken seriously. We'll form a small committee - we've definitely a better chance of all this if we get consistency in our campaign.
On Feb 19, 7:13 pm, SarahMcC <[email protected]> wrote: > I know there are a lot of issues regarding entry to the profession > (the result of which the FE1s were adopted) but I think there should > be some proportionality to the amount of students who can > sit the exams and the no. of apprentice positions and to put a limit > to the amt of students sitting the exams would seem like the only > viable solution. Unless the Law Soc could make it more appealing for > firms to take on apprentices (i.e. reduce the fees : ) ) which seems > unlikely given that money seems to be the crux of the issue. > > I'd prefer to be the wrong end of a cut off point than to have wasted > the last two years, with nothing to show for it. I know having a > limit > doesn't seem very appealing but i think its better that reality hits > sooner rather than later. > > On 19 Feb, 15:46, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > "It doesnt make sense that there is no limit > > to the amountt of students that can sit the exams with no regard to > > the future of those students." > > > I certainly agree with all the sentiments herein. However, just > > imagine if there were such limits and you found yourself on the wrong > > end of a cut-off point? I think its just the way everything has been > > going that regulatory bodies can't just limit access to professions. > > The logic is that markets should do that - if the job is unattractive, > > no-one will do it. If people are trying to do, it must be > > attractive. But I think that works best on assumptions of perfect > > information. Our real gripe, I think, is that people still have, as > > you rightly say, the over-glamourised view of the job. I would hate > > to see, however, any introduction of caps or limits.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FE-1 Study Group" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.ie/group/FE-1-Study-Group?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
