There seems to be a rumour on this forum that if one takes the BCL and does not achieve a 1st or distinction but merely a pass or 2:1 that there was little point in taking the BCL in the first place. It is obvious that one is better then the other but is not a pass also worthy of merit and recognition?

What is the percieved difference between the two classifications? After all for the cost of the course one would not want to end up in a 2/3 majority for which there was little point in taking the course. Perhaps that is to take the rumour to far. It seems to me that the candidates chosen to undertake the programme must inevitably, according to the law board, have the potential to achieve a 1st class or distinction given that the ratio for both distinctions and passes is much higher than say for the undergrad law programmes. That said therefore, isnt it somewhat reasonable to argue that there is in, in terms of any individual candidate, only a difference of degree between the two classifactions and not a difference that renders one pointless over the other or renders one without merit?

What are your thoughts?

To say that 'there is little point in taking the BCL' if one does not achieve a first is clearly going too far.

The proposition that achieving a BCL pass only is as good as not graduating with any BCL degree at all is to take the classification distinction completely out of context. If this were true, the degree would only require two classifications - Distinction and Fail.

Damn straight!

hey irishgouy.
glad to see that you're still fiesty and that the LLM hasn't destroyed your soul.
Quick question, old chap: For various, complicated reasons I have deferred the cantab llm; but i wonder, should i apply to the bcl? I don't mean to reignite the whole cantab oxon debate, just a simple question to you in light of the fact that you've now completed the llm.
as for special;ization, im thinking more of a generalist apporaoch; the only sure things for me are at leat one international law course and restitution...
what are your thoughts?

This 'no distinction no point' question is perhaps the most ridiculous question I have heard. And it would never, ever be asked (as Irishguy pointed out) by someone who has done, or is doing, one of these LLMs! People who get in don't get in to get a distinction! They are people who have already proven themselves at an undergraduate level and want an enriching and challenging experience. If you are seriously wondering whether you should do the BCL if you won't be able to get a distinction, you shouldn't come here. You will find yourself surrounded by very intelligent people and will find a distinction very hard to achieve and may find yourself putting so much pressure on yourself that the year will not be enjoyable. The marking is acknowledged to be subjective and strange (which is why no one asks your marks and no one cares). So if marks are what you care about, don't bother.

If that's the case, I had better get my head around the fact that I wasted a year of my life, my sanity and my savings on a worthless degree!

To a large extent the answer to this question depends upon what you want to occupy your life with after the BCL.

If you want to become an Oxford academic - the answer is probably "no distinction, no point".

If you want to go to the Bar in the UK "no distinction, not the end of the world".

If you want to join a law firm "no distinction, no matter".