Originally Posted by Unregistered

To be fair, I understand the future runs of the RHT part A prep course will be jointly conducted by SMU going forward.

The association with a SMU now gives some perception of assurance of standards and objectivity even though it still smacks of commercialism. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that any previous runs were substandard or non-objective in any way. But public perception is impt.

I don't care much for the RHT brand name on the course (as private education provider to law grads) - i still think it's a blatant commercial move that MinLaw and SMU shouldn't have approved, but I guess industry regulators smarter than me saw a pressing gap in the market? Who knows?