Talk:Bar Professional Training Course

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2015
Entry requirements for the course are listed as 2.1 or a 1st with a GDL. This is wrong as it's 2.2 for both LLB and GDL, and the citation backs this up. Obviously, this makes the article incredibly misleading and could misinform people desperate for information to inform their career paths. It must therefore be amended immediately.

Law student1993 (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done The source does indeed say 2:2. Stickee (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

BPTC placement in English legal studies:

The BPTC is not the first stage, but the second stage (vocational) stage. Needs amending.

The BPTC + Pupillage is not required to be called to the English Bar

Up for getting a third opinion?
We're clearly in disagreement on the issue of the photos I think that photos of any of the specific course providers, promotes them above the rest, and is therefore advertising. You think images are necessary for the page. Would you be ok with us asking for third opinion? Thanks Brustopher (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just realised I spelt your username wrong so you didn't get the ping... Sorry. Brustopher (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's alright. You've studied LPC, isn'it?--Aduclehomo (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't taken the LPC. I was looking into doing the GDL and other legal training courses which is how I found this article, as well as the mountain of criticism this course has received. Now that I've explained my back story, can you explain yours and why you are so keen on portraying the course providers in a sympathetic light? Brustopher (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Less than a third of students who take the course manage to get a pupillage.* This sentence isn't true and doesn't make any sense. Hoe can readers see something like this. There is no reason to remove the section *see also*. Uol has campuses on all of these cities.

As for private life, GDL is a good course if you haven't taken any law degree. You could work as a counsellor or lawyer. Thanks--Aduclehomo (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, read WP:SEEALSO, if something is already linked in the article it shouldn't be in the see also section. Also while UoL does have campuses in those cities according to Bar Standards Board not all of their campuses run the course. It's factually innaccurate to keep those in. Also there are tonnes of sources detailing the low percentage of BPTC students who get pupillages, why are you saying it isn't true and makes no sense? Brustopher (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not true and is wp:peacock. Aduclehomo (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is true, and peacock has nothing to do with it. See this article|: About 1,700 students take the Bar course every year but only 455 people are offered much coveted pupillages I'm going to go for a third opinionBrustopher (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: Your request for a 3O has been removed (i.e. declined) because 3O, like all other forms of moderated content dispute resolution at Wikipedia, requires thorough discussion before asking for assistance. A round of "it is" / "is not" does not constitute thorough discussion. There's the beginning of a discussion here, but it needs to move forward with Aduclehomo arguing why "About 1,700 students take the Bar course every year but only 455 people are offered much coveted pupillages" in the cited source should not be represented in the article as "Less than a third of students who take the course manage to get a pupillage." If it's not true, why isn't it true (remembering that we do not generally analyze reliable sources but only repeat, without close paraphrasing or copying, what they say); if it's PEACOCK, how is it peacock, if there are other problem how, why, and what are they exactly. The same is true for the other issues raised here: discussion requires the use of "why" and "how." Finally let me strongly recommend that you both avoid discussing one another personally, but only discuss edits; here at Wikipedia we only discuss edits, not editors. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC) (3O Volunteer) (Not watching this page)