Gary Shandling, you said:

"The problem is that there are undoubtedly a number of plainly better barristers (black/white/male/female/all of the above) who should be rightfully annoyed at not making this list because places are taken up by, e.g. people wearing veils - doesn't make you a better barrister"

No wearing a veil doesn't make you a better barrister - but I don't think anyone is claiming it does. In fact it would only be commented on by someone suffering from a bad touch of sour grapes. Get yourself a life and an education and maybe you'll progress as well instead of worrying about how people choose to dress.

Stuart Payne, London,

I am a lawyer, with friends at the bar. I come from an average background, went to state school & studied law at Oxbridge. At college most of us were from state schools, from various backgrounds, cultures, races & religions, bright, hard-working & ambitious. We were encouraged to aim for top jobs, given excellent careers advice, & told not to settle for 2nd best. We studied hard, were and pushed academically. We now have great jobs - not because of who we know but what we know. Employers know that Oxbridge select the brightest students. Other universities are also highly regarded but there's a certainly shortlist of 'decent' law degrees. Isn't the point of slogging away at Oxbridge that you're paving the way for a good career? Many of my 'legal' friends weren't Oxbridge educated. It just so happens that when looking at a CV often the brightest most able candidates have overachieved throughout life. Because of that, many of them were intelligent enough to be selected for Oxbridge.

Oxbridge graduate, London,

The Bar is elitist where ever you go...tried any other commonwealth country? You'll be shocked. The barriers are coming down and one has to play to their strengths. No point applying to a leading commercial set if you come from an inner city comprehensive, and achieved a 2.1 or above from a poly turned uni! On to better things, am I the only one that thinks that Shaheed Fatima is absolutely gorgeous...The hijab is doing it for me....

Foster Pistorious, London, England

Commenting as somebody who has met more than one or two on this list, the problem with this article is not Oxbridge at all - fair enough for the best students to attend, graduate and go on to become successful barristers. The problem is that there are undoubtedly a number of plainly better barristers (black/white/male/female/all of the above) who should be rightfully annoyed at not making this list because places are taken up by, e.g. people wearing veils - doesn't make you a better barrister.

Gary Shandling, London,

Having been a lecturer at a "new university" which has equality and accessibility written all over its banners, I can assure you all that a first from one university does not necessarily equate to a first from another - the rules at marking are bent to the extent that half-literate workshy twits can still obtain a pass - and amongst the blind the one-eyed man is indeed king. Any critical thought, irrespective of quality will merit at least a 2.1. That's tough on the good students my university churned out, which now find themselved unable to obtain pupillage. One of the many reasons I returned to practice as a Barrister....where those whinging "yeah, I've got a first from toy town uni" people would sink very fast indeed - as ability, hard work and intellect are required, unlike at some universities.

Jules, Stanley, Falkland Islands

Agreed to a certain extent. Academically Oxbridge usually rates higher. However, to call other Universities lesser is not only extremely close minded and ignorant but also ignores the fact that a First class honours from one institution is just as good as a First class honours from any other institution. Unfortunately employers in all fields, although most particularly law, can't seem to get past that.

Roman, Nottingham,

Furthermore coming from an ethnic minority single-parent background the thought of going to Oxbridge with a bunch of toffs who have no grasp of the real world or hardship is not a very appealing prospect, and thus will dissuade certain groups from even applying to Oxbridge. My friend who is from a similar background and currently at Cambridge has found that they are totally excluded by their peers. Also now it is impossible for me to fund the BVC and I will need to work for at least 2 years before this even becomes a possibility. So, to say that the bar is completely open to anyone is totally misguided and those who suggest it is are out of touch and live in a middle-class ‘bubble’.

Realist, London,

Jack

I'm afraid this really is an out of date (and perhaps slightly bitter) opinion. Too many people confuse excellence in the true sense of the word with elitism.

Oxbridge does tend to attract many (though not all) of the finest minds in this country. That these people should then proceed to make it to the top of their professions is a natural consequence of that. Life is a hierarchy - get used to it.

As for your "rich snob" comment, since when has everyone who has got into Oxford been rich?

Sorry you did not make it on this side of the pond dear boy. Glad it's going swimmingly well for you over there.

Josh, London,

It's poor that Jack cannot appreciate our system of excellence in the UK. The reason these agile minds went to Oxbridge is because that is where they can best be developed. Your brand of inverse snobbery should be shunned and a preference instead established for rewarding excellence.

You also complain about the lack of black barristers in this limited snapshot yet fail to point out that the snapshot contains more women than men. You strike me as one of these libertarian do-gooders that hates one of the few aspects left of British society that makes it great. Shame on you - you should be celebrating our up and coming talent not attempting to impose your own social morals upon them.

Michael, Bangor, UK

Maybe they mainly went to Oxbridge because that's where the best students go.. Oxbridge has an uncanny knack of finding the brightest and the best from any and all backgrounds. It therefore stands to reason that the Bar is then keen to admit these people. Why should it take on those with qualifications from lesser universities? Should it lower the standard simply to be politically correct vis-a-vis those who didn't make the grade at a younger age?

Sarah, London, UK

In response to Pupils comments - WHY should aspirants to the bar from non oxbridge have to work harder than oxbridge students to secure a pupillage - and, further to that ,WHY should they have to "rule out certain chambers"?? All apsirants should be able to apply to any chambers they choose and get a fair crack of the whip; the fact that some chambers have to be "ruled out" is completely ludicrous. So much for improved theaccess, diversity and the equality of opportunity that the Bar Standards Board persists in trumpeting on about.
I agree with Hannah - the bar is indeed a closed shop.

boo, Bristol,

There appears to be no balance to this article in that the majority of the Barristers are Oxbridge graduates. Surely there must be some worthy characters who stem from other backgrounds. That is not to discredit Oxbridge, because that has traditionally been the cream and remains to be academically. However, there is still evidence that people from deprived socio economic backgrounds are less likely to attend the Oxbridge institutions, and furthermore, that the majority of intake here emanate from private schools. So class aside for a minute, that in itself demarcates a difference between SOME aspiring Barristers say from 'other universities' and Oxbridge graduates. These kind of preconceptions are not based on compelling evidence but a prevailing norm which seems to have lasted for years in your English system. Face facts, the bar is still an elitist domain because even the costs to train are excessively high and rent to chambers and general lifestyle once tenancy commences.

Spaniard , Manchester, Spain/Turkey/England

The much bigger number of jobs in the American job market masks the stench of nepotism well. Whereas Oxbridge have regularly turned away heirs and heiresses based on *ahem* merit, the likes of Harvard and Yale have some of the most dubious characters amongst their alumni. Don't the Bushes et. al. enjoy preferential entry into schools befitting Daddy's 'base'?

Singaporean in Britain, London,

In response to Jack, LA: Your assertion that all of the above were born with golden spoons in their mouths simply because they went to Oxbridge and other top universities is unsupported. Aside from James Goldsmith and Joanne Clement, there are few details of social or "class" (your word, not mine) background of each individual. Rather, the prejudice is all in your own mind - that because these individuals went to Oxbridge, they must have been born with golden spoons in their mouths. It is attitudes like yours which perpetuate the myth that Oxbridge and the English bar is a social elite, rather than what it really is - an intellectual one.

alr54321, London,

There is no getting away from the fact that if you have studied at Oxbridge you have a better chance of getting pupillage than someone with similar qualifications from a non-Oxbridge university.

A friend on the BVC had the same qualifications as me, except he went to Oxbridge. On OLPAS (the online application system where you apply to a max. of 12 chambers) he got 10 interviews whilst I got 4: the reality is that you have to work harder (and rule out certain chambers) if you haven't studied at Oxbridge.

That said, I have pupillage now and my friend is still looking. I certainly am not a 'rich snob born with a goldon spoon in my mouth'; I worked hard to get pupillage and I know that my friend also worked hard (and still is).

Pupil, London, UK

Contrary to Edward Nugee's post the fact that those chosen by the Times are from Oxbridge is hardly surprising given that 82% of barristers from a survey of leading sets are Oxbridge graduates (The Sutton Trust - 2004); it is therefore no comment on the judgment of Oxbridge tutors, be it good or bad.
Whilst Oxbridge may be 'bending over backwards' to ensure fair entry requriements, that is no guarantee that its entrants, and more importantly its graduates, are representative (or for that matter the most suitable candidate). As such care must be taken to ensure that a Oxbridge preference does not lead to indirect discrimination.
Whilst Jack fails to give credit to the Bar for the genuine attempts it is making to rectify its problems, FB and Edward Nugee seek to sweep them under the carpet.
What both have failed to do is congratulate the ten for achievements that do not come easy, regardless of background.

Marc, London,

Furious Barrister,your comments are both outrageous, and naive. The Bar is not, and has never been a meritocracy ; just how many barristers at YOUR chambers are from non oxbridge universities? My guess is very few.If barristers such as you had your way, no one BUT oxbridge graduates would EVER get to the bar.

boo, Bristol,

We should be pleased that so many of the highly rated young members of the Bar have been educated at Oxbridge. Oxbridge aims to attract people of outstanding ability. It is gratifying that The Times believes that it has succeeded in doing so, in that its selection of barristers of less than ten years call who are considered to be outstanding includes so many whom Oxbridge also considered to be of outstanding ability when it selected them. Oxbridge is picking winners. The Bar is recruiting winners. We need people of outstanding ability at the Bar. It is good that the judgment of Oxbridge tutors has been borne out by the success of some of those they have selected. Which is not to say, of course, that other universities may not also produce people of outstanding ability; but the kind of inverted snobbery displayed by Jack above is boorish and out of date in the 21st century.

Edward Nugee, London, UK

'Jack' has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. I am a barrister working in London, and I can tell you categorically that there is probably no profession more dedicated to ensuring that everyone who gets in does so on merit alone. There is nothing here to suggest what the school background of any of these people is. As for university, if they did all go to Oxbridge, then given that Oxbridge is bending over backwards to ensure fair entry requirements, would it be so unreasonable to imagine that they received the degrees they have because they are very bright indeed and worked extremely hard? 'Jack' clearly has an enormous chip on his shoulder. Perhaps if he had applied himself more at university, where he had exactly the same teaching and opportunities as his fellow students, he might at least have a first from his 'standard uni'. The Bar is elistist only insofar as it demands the best. These people clearly are the best - good luck to them.

FuriousBarrister, London,

And almost every single one of them is private schooled or Oxbridge educated. Not to mention one being the son of a former Attorney General. There are a few asians, but interestingly, no blacks. So much for diversity. So much for egalitarianism. With very few exceptions, the English Bar is a self perpetuating club of rich snobs who were born with a golden spoon in their mouths. Fortunately, I work as an advocate in the American court system, and do very well based on a standard British state school education and a 2.1 from a standard British uni. Things are so much more progressive on this side of the pond. I fear Britain will never break free of its rigid class structure.

Jack, Los Angeles, Cal, USA

9/10 up and coming barristers spent time in oxbridge.

did they all attend public school?

it certainly seems that shop remains closed

hannah, london,