Can't argue with you there. Law firm hiring isn't exactly the most meritocratic of processes.

Actually, putting aside law students who get hired based on family and relatives (e.g. uncle is a Partner or father is a major client of the firm), the legal industry trainee-level hiring is supposed to be the most meritocratic. Which industry aside from academia scrutinises applicants' grades and transcripts so closely? At least that's the spirit of things. But the lower standards of the UK unis heavily distorts this. Hence, a 2:1 UK grad is supposedly on paper equivalent to a Second Upper Honours NUS grad, but in reality, there is a considerable difference in the amount of effort required as between the two.

As Anon 08:27 rightly points out, hitherto the situation has been OK. But MinLaw has come to a very premature conclusion that an increase in commercial legal activity translates into an automatic need for more law graduates, which is certainly not the case. It MIGHT result in an uptake in lateral hiring, but I don't see law firms vastly increasing their trainee intakes in tandem with the supposed increase in business activity. Meanwhile, the number of A Level/Poly grads studying law in the UK will only increase year-on-year.

It is not merely about the prestige of the profession. It is about professional competence. Lower quality graduates will increase the likelihood of a larger number of less-competent practitioners. We may see an increase in professional negligence suits against lawyers.