72 Weeks

Daniel: Hello, and welcome to the ninth episode of 72 Weeks. My name is Daniel, and I�m the Head of Outreach and Communications at New College, which is part of the University of Oxford.
This Podcast is called 72 weeks as that is the average length of an Undergraduate Degree Course here at Oxford, and in each episode I�ll be talking to two people about how life can change, and indeed has changed, during that relatively short piece of time.
Each episode, the people interviewed will have a common thread, or indeed threads, that they share with the other person and this week, I�m delighted to be joined by current New College Undergraduate, Chen, and New College Graduate, Sue.
Chen is a fourth year Law with German Law student here at New College, and Sue studied Jurisprudence here in 1981, before working as a Barrister in Serjeants Inn Chambers, and is now working outside of the legal profession as a teacher. So, the field of Law unites my two guests which just leaves me to say welcome, and good morning, to Chen and Sue.
I�m going to ask you the same question, to both of you, but can you just tell me a little bit about your childhood, your upbringing, and what you were like in school.
Chen: So, I was born in the south east of mainland China, in a charming city called Hangzhou. It was a really wonderful place to spend my early childhood actually. It�s very scenic, and it�s very rich in history and culture. It has really good food, which is always good. When I was 8 years old, we moved to Cheshire. It wasn�t an easy time so my Mum and I joined my Dad in England but he had just lost his job as a traditional Chinese medicine practitioner in Liverpool because the practice in Liverpool closed down due to the economic recession. We lived above a shop and then in a flat in a tiny housing association block of flats so we didn�t know many of the neighbours at all, and there weren�t many neighbours with children. However, I did really love secondary school when I got to that stage.
Daniel: Fascinating. And Sue, what about you? What were you like in school?
Sue: Um, well, I first of all went to a grammar school. My parents had both been at grammar schools but nobody in either side of the family had ever been to University or indeed before my parents, I don�t believe anybody had been at a grammar school either. Um, so, it was very much an atmosphere of �you�re very lucky to have this sort of education�. I think everybody in the classes at the grammar school was of the same mind. We had a huge respect for our teachers. We would vie with each other to be the person to open the door for the teacher coming along the corridor. We would ask permission to unbutton a cardigan or take one off. And there was total silence whenever that was asked for. Um, so I then in fact went from the grammar school having done what we then called O levels, um, to a public, private public school as we call them, for A levels. And this was really an extraordinary eye-opener for me. I had never been in this sort of environment before. Um, I didn�t see, I think it�s fair to say, quite the same levels of discipline when I got to this school where I went for A levels. Um, but it�s interesting because of the enormous respect that my parents had for education, and they really valued it, and I think that�s almost just part of my DNA. I just have always had this ongoing respect for it. My mother and father, I don�t think either of them ever contemplated going to University. I don�t think it was ever discussed, even though they were at grammar schools, because of their, sort of, social background it wasn�t considered anything that they could do. Um, so I think I was a studious person having come from the grammar school. Um, in school I think I, by the time I got to the private public school, I was absolutely besotted with the opportunities that were opened up by it which I hadn�t honestly had at the grammar school although it was very very good in other ways.
Daniel: Is that when Oxford perhaps first came on to your radar then? When you got to sixth form?
Sue: Yes, it was funny because I could hear at my A level school people talking about Oxbridge which I assumed was a place called Oxbridge, because I�d never heard of it. And although at the grammar school they had very very high expectations for us, it was all really focused as I remember it London University and certainly nobody mentioned Oxford or Cambridge to me. Whether they didn�t think it was appropriate for me, I don�t know. But it wasn�t in the ether. Um, so having to Charterhouse, which is where I went for A levels, I could hear that other people were applying for this whatever it was. And that�s really when I first got to hear of it.
Daniel: So Chen, when did it first enter your head then? The idea of applying to Oxford?
Chen: Uh, I think, looking back, it was when I was looking at what A levels I should choose. And, I knew that I really liked thinking about society, what shapes society, how society shapes us, and how we can make society better. And, at school I was incredibly gobby so I liked arguing. I liked challenging things that I thought wasn�t done quite right. And then I just sort of looked on the internet and saw that Oxford offered this really excellent programme called BA Jurisprudence with Law Studies in Europe, where you get to do a qualifying Law degree, the three years of Law, and also you get to spend a year in Munich or Bonne. And I think that just sounded really really fantastic to me, really exciting. And I�m really grateful to my teachers as well. They did tell me from when I was maybe in Year 9 that I had potential. I�m really grateful that they never judged me for maybe when I first came to the school, I wasn�t even fluent in English. They looked at how hard I was working, and perhaps they thought I had potential as well. And they really encouraged me to aim as high as I could and that the sky was the limit, so I think that�s why I thought Oxford was possible and once I�d found this programme, I think there was no holding me back. I just kept researching what you needed to get into such a programme. And sort of took as many opportunities in sixth form as possible.
Daniel: Well, Sue, perhaps you can explain first, Law wasn�t your first choice was it?
Sue: No, I went through a kind of torturous route. I think it�s fair to say. And in fact I entered New College reading Chemistry. But I had been thinking about this profession, Law, which was a relatively new idea for me because, at that point, it wasn�t really a thing that women were directed to or was even suggested. I don�t think I�d ever met a Lawyer or seen a Lawyer. There�s nothing in the form of role model at all. And by the time I�d actually got to New College, I was thinking, I need to explore this. It�s something I can�t just leave. So I went to the Chemistry tutor, and said �look what should I do?� And Dr Dickens, as it then was, was extremely kind because I was quite worried about mentioning I might want this change to Law. And he said �well, go and talk to the Law tutors. Go and find x and y�. And it happened to be Peter Skegg and Harvey McGregor, um and Peter Skegg was particularly interested in the medical aspects of Law, all the sort of ethics, medical questions, which I hadn�t really realised but it was very lucky for me. And he sent me away and said �well if you really really want to do this, the odds are totally stacked against you, but if you really really want to, go away and write me a couple of essays, one hour each, you can do them where you like, in your room or wherever. And I will give you the titles and the titles were �Number 1. Does the degree of intoxication with drink or drugs, lesson or magnify the degree of guilt for an offence?� And Title 2, �How far do the arguments for the legalisation of abortion also apply to euthanasia?� Well, that was very lucky for me because it was just the sort of thing I was interested in. So I didn�t have much trouble in thinking of things to say. And took them back to him and he said �well you know, I�ll have to discuss this with Harvey McGregor and the Warden and then I got a little note, um, via the Porter as we got lots of little notes on bits of paper and postcards in those days and said �come back and see me� which I did, and he said it would all be fine and he would just double-check with the Warden and that was another couple of hours later. And then he said come back and see me, and that was fine, the Warden said it was OK but I couldn�t keep on changing subjects and I really had to stick with this one. To be that flexible and that kind, really, in listening to someone who obviously was in a bit of a state, and a bit muddled. I�m sure they�d seen it all before but I feel I probably was rather an extreme example and how great to have the time and inclination to encourage someone to try, just to try. Um, so that was my summary of my rather strange route.
Daniel: And going back to the Law course at Oxford, it is unusual, in that it�s called Jurisprudence isn�t it? Whereas you look in other University prospectuses, and it will just say BA Law or whatever it may be. Can you just explain to everybody, what is Jurisprudence? Why does the Oxford degree course have this name attached to it?
Chen: So I think the word Jurisprudence means the theory of Law or legal philosophy. Oxford law has a more theoretical perspective where even in, for example contract law or civil wrongs, or tort law, we look at �is the point of civil wrongs to punish or to compensate?� That, I think, makes the degree quite challenging but also really interesting and intellectually stimulating. What do you think Sue?
Sue: Yes, I totally agree, I think it gives a flavour, actually, of the arguments that you do have, in the best possible way, in a tutorial setting because a lot of it was, �well, this is the law, ought the law be like this? Should the law be like this? Why is it like this? Could it be like something else?� And, so a lot of this intersection between law and morality underly, I was exactly going to say what you were saying, not just in the topic of Jurisprudence but actually throughout the whole tutorial system, we were analysing whether this was a good thing, a bad thing, could we change it? If so, how would we change it? Why would we change it? All those sorts of moral questions. There was a lot of discussion about philosophical issues. So I think it is that emphasis on �why do we do this? Ought we to do this?� I think it�s very enriching; a very enriching approach to all those things.
Daniel: The law course at Oxford covers a Roman introduction to private law, constitutional law, criminal law, legal research and mooting skills, administrative law, contract law, European law, and land law, as well as Jurisprudence. So, Sue, how does that compare to your experience of studying law?
Sue: So, for Mods, Moderations, end of the first year, I was doing Roman Law, criminal law, and constitutional law, which are at one with that. For finals, I personally did contract, jurisprudence, tort, trust, land, family, admin and labour. Family and labour were my choices, the others everybody did. I actually made a little note about my first jurisprudence lecture I went to, I think, a walk-in lecture, and I actually said �very interesting, yes, but difficult!� And I think that probably does sum up Jurisprudence; very interesting but difficult. So nothing like, we had nothing like legal research and mooting skills but having said that, I mean we were legally researching every topic we did. For mooting, I don�t think there was any such topic as mooting, but I mean we were going to two tutorials a week where the tutors were firing questions at us, and pulling, sometimes, one�s essays to pieces (well, mine anyway), sometimes saying they�re very good, but sometimes pulling them to pieces and you had to fight back and say something in response. So I feel that was, actually, a pretty intensive education.
Daniel: And just tell us a little bit about your course, because it�s Law with German Law.
Chen: Right, so the Jurisprudence with Law studies in Europe, is the standard three year course of Law, English Law, but also you get a year abroad where you go to the University of Munich or University of Bonn for the year. There you study some first year German Law courses and also one or two electives. I think in Germany, it�s quite daunting, or at least it was daunting for me, because for that year you read Law like the local students do, so in German, German law, and German language and German law lectures and seminars. I think, overall, it was such a wonderful experience. I did find it very challenging at first. I didn�t speak german that well, so it was really hard to know what was going on in the lectures and especially the smaller class seminars. I really struggled to make friends at first, but it was so eye-opening to see a civil law legal system with a lot of coded law. Especially the development of the german constitution. And eventually I did make so many friends. There were actually lots of Chinese students studying law because of the quite intimate historical connections between german law and Chinese law. The former had a really formative effect on the civil code in Chinese law, in particular.
Daniel: Sounds brilliant, and Sue, as somebody who�s practised as a barrister, who�s done a law degree in Oxford. What one piece of advice would you give a potential applicant for law? So perhaps somebody who�s 17, 18 years old now and thinking �I�d like to do a degree in law but I perhaps don�t know what it�s going to entail�.
Sue: Well, as discussed, I obviously found this quite a difficult thing. I mean, in my day, of course, I was relying, there was no internet, we didn�t have anybody in the family who knew anything about it, or did it, or family friends who did it, so it was all about talking to the people at school. And getting a, it�s almost like a sort of flavour, of what it might entail and then trying to follow it up. And trying to find out something from asking somebody else. It was all very very people-led, and that�s one great leveller isn�t it of the internet now? That it�s so accessible for anybody interested so now it would be �right, get on the internet and research what you can� and if you can, even at that stage, actually experience by maybe the odd visit to some office or some solicitor�s office, or I�m not quite sure, everything is very regulated now and most sets of chambers have quite strict and very transparent, as it should be, situations for making applications even for holiday experience work. But I would say if you can just find somebody and actually interface with what it really is. Because it�s very hard to convey what the job is actually like. I mean, when I try to think about how would I explain what being a Barrister for 20 years was like, it�s such a mixture of things. It�s a mixture of being totally, for me personally, finding the, because I did a lot of clinical negligence, finding the subject matter absolutely fascinating, very technical in some cases but I was very interested in medicine anyway so it was a great crossover for me. So being totally absorbed in the theory of what�s going on, and the factual scenario. But also really getting a lot out of, and finding very rewarding the interplay with a variety of experts because my work involved a lot of medical experts from many different disciplines, having conferences with them and deciding how the case would be run. And also, of course, more people involved and actually being part of a set of chambers. Because it was, and still is I believe, really a quasi-family. The support you get from chambers is, if you like, the sort of network underlying what you do. So, if you have a terrible day at court, you come back and you�ve got these marvellous people who really understand what you�ve been through and are there for you and to support you, although we�re all self-employed. Nonetheless, there�s this incredible bond between the members of chambers, and in a way that�s a carry on for me from New College because I must say I found the law tutors, Harvey McGregor and Peter Skegg, so helpful when I was going through this really difficult thing of trying to decide for me, whether to be a solicitor or barrister. Because although I knew my temperament was much more for the bar, in those days, it�s difficult now to imagine what the perceived situation of women was. And I was just going to read a little from the third edition of Henry Cecil�s �Brief to Council�, we�re talking about a 1982 edition, bearing in mind I was at New College 81 to 84. And the foreword, this is a book designed as a handbook for those about to start the bar. And the very first sentence in the foreword is �a young man, who wants to go to the bar, usually starts thinking about it when he�s coming towards the end of his school days etc�. So in that first sentence it encapsulates the mood of the moment, that women weren�t really included in the cohort of people considering going to the bar. And I�m just going to quote a few words from this. To be fair, one should really be reading the whole thing, to get the whole thing in context, but anybody can do that if they find the 1982 edition, but I�ll just read a few words if I may. �It�s only fair to warn prospective women barristers that there is probably no profession where it is harder for them to make headway than at the bar. And then going over the page, a little further on the page, we have �unless she has quite outstanding qualities, and luck as well, it is almost impossible for a woman to succeed, unless she can find a vacancy in really good chambers. And many chambers will not accept women. And then further down the page, we have �the object of this chapter is certainly not to criticise women, nor is it intended to criticise those chambers who will not accept women pupils or women members. There are intelligible reasons for this, whether a person agrees with them or not, the object is not to criticise but to set down the cold, cruel facts�. So this is the atmosphere in which I was trying to decide whether to go to the bar. I was badgering Harvey McGregor and Peter Skegg and saying �please can I discuss this again, I still don�t know what to do�. And they would say, come round at six o clock, and then we wouldn�t have finished a conversation and they�d say, right come round at 10 o clock tomorrow morning, and then once I think I found Harvey McGregor playing tennis on the tennis courts, because I was so worried about what to do and he stopped his tennis game and said �right, come and see me tomorrow at whatever it was�, and just to give listeners an idea of the, really amazing, actually, help that we were given, as a sort of welfare exercise as well as obviously all the cut and thrust of the tutorials, because as listeners might or might not know, Harvey McGregor edited a booked called �McGregor on damages� and so our tort, for example, our tort sessions, were very, you know, we were very lucky to have him teaching us about damages! That�s all I can say. So it was inspirational, not just for me wobbling around about what I should do, and I should just say that it did remind me when I looked at my diary that on one occasion, I think I�d been to him many times that week or something, he said to me �go away and write on a piece of white paper, �Harvey says, I�ll live to regret it if I don�t go for the bar�. And so, I�m sure I would have done that actually. I can�t find the piece of paper but I�m sure I would have�.
Daniel: Oh, I was going to ask have you still got the piece of paper?
Sue: No, but that was on the 8th October 1983 so that was at the beginning of my third year. I�m absolutely sure, in my particular case, I would never have got to the bar without the combination of learning the independence of self-study, self-research, self-analysis, because we were left for a week to do this essay, and scrawling out my 10 or 12or 14 or even in one case for Ruth Deech, 16 sides of fountain pen essays. If we hadn�t had that discipline, together with the discussions in the tutorial and defending your position. With all the welfare that was going on, and the �yes, you can do it, Sue� going on, I would never have got there. So, for me, personally, a Law degree was vital.
Daniel: And Sue, I just want to come back to your time as a barrister. So you mentioned the odds almost seemed to be stacked against women who wanted to go and pursue a career as a barrister at that time, so what was your experience?
Sue: My experience at the bar was that it was very much particular chambers that stood out to me as being very, when I say �pro women�, I don�t mean putting women above men, but treating them as equal. And I did get a tenancy in a set like that, so I luckily got a tenancy in a clinical negligence, we called it medical negligence then, set. So that was marvellous for me. Although I did a lot of general common law at the beginning, because everybody did. It was regarded as that�s how you cut your teeth, to do that. So I was doing family law, land law, licensing, I did quite a lot of work for the civil aviation authority at one point, prosecuting. And so, a huge range of things. But after about five years, we could specialise in clinical negligence, which is what I did. So I ended up going through a lot of, a lot of it was actually misdiagnosed or delayed diagnosed cancer cases and very, very sad things. And I ended up doing a lot of brain damaged babies, problems at birth, with huge emphasis at that time on foetal monitoring. It was very very technical, it was all about type two, type whatever it was, dips, and it was all looking at traces and what should the midwife have done, and what should have happened here, and when should this have done two minutes earlier, twenty minutes earlier, one hour earlier. Lots of very technical things. So that was marvellous because the emphasis in that chambers, in my chambers in Six Pump Court which is where I was for most of the time, although I then went to Sergeant�s Inn which has the same specialisation and in fact I�m still a door tenant at Sergeant�s Inn. So that was very good, we were treated totally equally but before I got to Six Pump Court, when I was trying to go through my pupilages, I did encounter such expressions as �we really don�t want a woman in these chambers, over my dead body� sort of thing from a Clerk. Which I found shocking actually. Even then, even though I knew there was the anti-woman feeling, I was shocked that someone would actually voice it. But as I�m saying, at the same time, there were many chambers where it really was not an issue. So it was a mixed bag but luckily I ended up in the right bag.
Daniel: And in your opinion, have things, I hope things have improved?
Sue: Yes. I�m absolutely sure they have improved, absolutely sure. I mean I think it�s been a one way direction. Up and up and up and up. I suspect you would still find people who felt the odd woman who felt that in some way there�d been a bit of a glass ceiling. In fact, maybe, I don�t know. I�d be interested. I mean I haven�t been in chambers. It�d be quite interesting to go in and ask maybe some of the older women, some of the middle-aged women, and just see how it was all going. But I would hope that no student would feel as I did that this really wasn�t the thing for women. I would hope that that was totally dead and buried. That attitude, by now. And certainly the attitude of the New College tutors at the time, was probably very progressive actually. And having a real live barrister. Harvey McGregor was a practising silk. Obviously he then became Warden just after I�d left, but he would be rushing up and down on the train, or from London to Oxford, and fitting in tutorials here and cases there, so we had a real sense of almost, it sort of oozed around the room. A sort of sense of the hustle and bustle and the excitement of it and I think a much larger proportion than normal of the New College lawyers in my year did read for the bar. I think it was three out of eight, I could be wrong about that. But, certainly a number of us did and in many colleges absolutely nobody did. So that�s a quite interesting thing. It was a vocation. We did put in the hours and if it mean staying up until 3 to finish something, you stayed up until 3 to finish it and you still got up at 5 because you had to get to whatever court it was. And you actually didn�t mind. I don�t feel I minded, I don�t remember, it was just you�re on this huge sort of conveyor belt towards a, and it was fast and a lot had to be done but it was quite, I don�t know what the word is a sort of �project�. It was a project.
Chen: Very hands on actually
Sue: Very hands on. Yes.
Chen: You�re always working towards a real goal, which is really exciting.
Sue: A real goal.
Daniel: And then, in some ways, you�ve moved from one vocation to another. So, you then became a teacher, which is totally different again.
Sue: I don�t think it�s totally different. Because I think all the communication skills are very much number one. And I mean, what I�ve actually loved about the teaching, as well as all the talking, I like talking quite a lot, is the sort of learning something up. So, the sort of teaching I like best is not the sort of thing I did last year and the year before and the year before, but actually learning up a new or devising a new brief, if you like. Which is why I�ve really enjoyed in my current enrichment coordinator job, developing the critical thinking course really. And these sorts of things excite me because they�re new and interesting, and it�s something I didn�t know before which is very like preparing for a trial on popliteal nerve injury or something you don�t know how the operation is done, but you get a surgeon in and they tell you how it�s done, and you learn it all up, and you really study it, how you put that clamp on there and what you should do, and how many mm, and then after that it�s all gone, and you�re on the next one. So I think that whole thing of learning something up, almost like a frenzy because the time limits are so short. But it�s that getting into that absolute detail that I think quite sort of suited me. Learning something new and the interface actually between law and medicine I found really really interesting.
Daniel: And Chen, I suppose there�s another connection here because you volunteer with our partnered Primary school in the local area. So, we�ve recently established a formal partnership with Wood Farm Primary School which is in Headington. Can you just tell me a little bit about what sorts of things you�re getting up to there?
Chen: Wood Farm is really such a wonderful primary school. Like my teachers at school, the teachers at Wood Farm really seem to think the sky is the limit for what the children can achieve. And I think what we do is just completing and supplementing this framework and this approach.
Daniel: And Sue, my final question for you today, is just if you could offer Chen one piece of advice as she embarks on her final weeks in Oxford before embarking on a career in Law, what would that one piece of advice be?
Sue: Take care to take steps so that you don�t have anything to regret in later life, even if people say off-putting things to you. And Harvey McGregor once said to me, �get a piece of white paper Sue, and write on it �Harvey says, I�ll regret it if I don�t go for the bar. That was in my third year, 8th of October 1983. And I did exactly that, and it was one of the best bits of advice I�ve ever had.
Daniel: I think we should have some good New College merchandise with �Harvey says� on the back of it; I think that�d be pretty cool. So, just a big thankyou for joining me this afternoon Chen, and to Sue, and thank you all for listening to another episode of New College�s 72 weeks.