The Student Room Group

Law Applicants 2012

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ancienttt
Hey people. Just a question. SOAS or Exeter?


Exeter.

SOAS does some funny modules, see their law page.
Original post by tehforum
Exeter.

SOAS does some funny modules, see their law page.


True enough. Probably not as funny for me as I'm Asian? Intending to return there for work . Now what? :X
Reply 3642
LOL it took me almost six months after getting the first offer for the last. :O
Original post by ancienttt
True enough. Probably not as funny for me as I'm Asian? Intending to return there for work . Now what? :X


Exeter has marginally better rep, SOAS does modules which might be more applicable to your home country. I don't think not going to SOAS would be detrimental to you though, and in that sense I'd probably still go for Exeter.

Worth bearing in mind that London and Exeter are very different places to study.
Hey everyone, SOAS or Leicester? Both LLB
Original post by jointmeat
Hey everyone, SOAS or Leicester? Both LLB


I would say SOAS, just for the London (aka right-in-the-middle-of-the-law) aspect. Although that would be more expensive. I don't like Leicester as I live right nearby and just think eww a bit. (to the City) uni is apparently good. I always though it weird to go to SOAS and not study OAS, but there you go. I would rather be a student in London than Leicester. Visit them.
Original post by Crystalique
=( I guess we just have to wait till after Easter to know! Yep I want to sort accommodation out but luckily after going to my open day for offer holders at LSE I found out its not first come first serve so not too worried anymore =D!

Well if they've put you in the holding then they definitely like you and you stand a good chance I'm sure it'll be fine =) finger crossed for us all!!


Well we'll be able to check UCAS for offers starting tomorrow :smile: hopefully they won't drag this out past this week, this is ridiculously stressful! Lol back to checking my email every 5 minutes...
Original post by mathsmusicfrench
I would certainly say Durham over Bristol. I would suggest King's as the best but obviously you know all the disadvantages of the location (but there are some advantages!) but you should never go to a uni that you don't want to go to.

Bristol is a very nice city, Nice old uni has a good reputation. I've never been to Durham but its reputation and league table spots are top notch. Sounds a very academic place, people say it is quite small. Also its in the North, dunno if you're up for that... :P Think about your next steps too BPTC? LPC? and where you might do them. Only word of caution about Bristol, as I will repeat below, I have heard people who know things say it is on the decline somewhat. However its reputation will remain strong long after (if) it loses league table places. Visit them both.



I think graduating in 2012, Bristol certainly, but graduating in 2015/16 I'm not so sure. From what I've seen, Exeter is very up-and-coming (I've said this a number of times on TSR) (note recent promotion to Russell Group) From what I've heard Bristol is losing its edge somewhat. Visit both places, not necessarily on an open day. You can get a good feel for Exeter by walking around the campus and although Bristol is set within a city you can do the same kind of thing (Beware hills in both cases!!) You could probably do them both in one day if you live miles away - straight down the M5!


If by 'losing its edge' you mean occupying lower positions in the rankings, that is largely due to student satisfaction ratings. It would be wrong to think that Bristol is losing it academically, or with employers.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 3648
Original post by TurboCretin
If by 'losing its edge' you mean occupying lower positions in the rankings, that it is largely due to student satisfaction ratings. It would be wrong to think that Bristol is losing it academically, or with employers.


Still undecided between Bristol and Durham...my concern with Durham is the grades are A*AA which I am not sure I will definitely reach, whereas Bristol is AAA - on this practical front, Bristol is better. I am uncertain as to why Durham think they merit asking for A*AA though this year - is it that they are looking for a higher calibre of student which will in turn increase their reputation and quality in the future?
If I put Durham as my firm choice, I would most probably put Bristol as my second, insurance choice - and if there is a likelihood I don't achieve the A*, I will have missed out on picking my top choice of accommodation etc. for Bristol.

The college system at Durham appeals to me in terms of getting to know people/all accommodation is sorted as are all meals. But Bristol's location wins for me.

Also, for some reason people on here seem to perceive Bristol quite negatively saying the law department/departments in general are not as good as they once were, and that Durham is on the up whilst Bristol maybe declined somewhat - perhaps based on the fact it is lower down in the ratings for law currently? But overall, the general consensus by teachers/general people's opinions and employers all point to Bristol being considered on an equal footing with Durham? Should I take this view of Bristol rather than the largely negative one portrayed by some people here/what the league tables show about Bristol being much lower?

And of course, I suppose it would be better to get a first at Bristol than a 2:1 from Durham i.e. the quality of your degree is more important than the university itself, seeing as they are both traditional good universities.

I think, putting aside academics and reputation/league tables, my decision boils down to how much I value the collegiate system and small feel of Durham over it's far northern location/higher entrance grades? And whether Bristol's lower grade and pleasant city outweighs accommodation further from the university itself and less cohesion with everything more dispersed/on a larger scale.

Nice to have the choice of such good unis and I think essentially, whatever the decision, you live by it and will be happy at whichever. But, any other thoughts?
Hi all! Looking for a little bit of advice from anyone in the know...

I'm currently sitting on offers from Durham, KCL and Newcastle. If I was to take them, Newcastle would be my insurance, with one of the other two as my first choice. Unfortunately I was rejected by Oxford, probably on the account of relatively mediocre GCSEs.

So, the big question! KCL or Durham? Or even reapply to Cambridge, who apparently interview more (which I've been told plays to my strengths) and look at GCSEs less? And if I did this, would I have any chance of regaining the offers I already have next year?

Anyone who could give any advice would be greatly appreciated! And generously paid in positive rep :biggrin:
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by georget1
Still undecided between Bristol and Durham...my concern with Durham is the grades are A*AA which I am not sure I will definitely reach, whereas Bristol is AAA - on this practical front, Bristol is better. I am uncertain as to why Durham think they merit asking for A*AA though this year - is it that they are looking for a higher calibre of student which will in turn increase their reputation and quality in the future?
If I put Durham as my firm choice, I would most probably put Bristol as my second, insurance choice - and if there is a likelihood I don't achieve the A*, I will have missed out on picking my top choice of accommodation etc. for Bristol.

The college system at Durham appeals to me in terms of getting to know people/all accommodation is sorted as are all meals. But Bristol's location wins for me.

Also, for some reason people on here seem to perceive Bristol quite negatively saying the law department/departments in general are not as good as they once were, and that Durham is on the up whilst Bristol maybe declined somewhat - perhaps based on the fact it is lower down in the ratings for law currently? But overall, the general consensus by teachers/general people's opinions and employers all point to Bristol being considered on an equal footing with Durham? Should I take this view of Bristol rather than the largely negative one portrayed by some people here/what the league tables show about Bristol being much lower?

And of course, I suppose it would be better to get a first at Bristol than a 2:1 from Durham i.e. the quality of your degree is more important than the university itself, seeing as they are both traditional good universities.

I think, putting aside academics and reputation/league tables, my decision boils down to how much I value the collegiate system and small feel of Durham over it's far northern location/higher entrance grades? And whether Bristol's lower grade and pleasant city outweighs accommodation further from the university itself and less cohesion with everything more dispersed/on a larger scale.

Nice to have the choice of such good unis and I think essentially, whatever the decision, you live by it and will be happy at whichever. But, any other thoughts?


First off, I don't think that self-carering and living further from university is necessarily a bad thing. I did my undergrad degree in London, where I never lived closer than a fifteen minute walk from uni and had to cook for myself and run my own errands. I didn't like the idea much at the time, but in retrospect I think that this was good life experience. The fact that I was not tied down to a meal schedule was also a massive bonus, meaning I could eat what I wanted when I wanted.

It would certainly be better to get a 1st from Bristol than a 2.1 from Durham. To get a 2.1 comparable to a Bristol 1st you would probably need to attend Oxford or Cambridge.

I don't know wherher Durham is on the up. I do get the impression that neither Bristol nor Durham are as prestigious as they were 30 years ago, when they were the natural and immediate secondary choices for Oxford and Cambridge applicants.

A friend of mine at Bristol did his undergrad in law at Durham, and told me early on that he wishes he had gone to Bristol instead. He found Durham too provincial and quiet, and believe me as a law student you will need to let some steam off.
Original post by FrogInABog
Hi all! Looking for a little bit of advice from anyone in the know...

I'm currently sitting on offers from Durham, KCL and Newcastle. If I was to take them, Newcastle would be my insurance, with one of the other two as my first choice. Unfortunately I was rejected by Oxford, probably on the account of relatively mediocre GCSEs.

So, the big question! KCL or Durham? Or even reapply to Cambridge, who apparently interview more (which I've been told plays to my strengths) and look at GCSEs less? And if I did this, would I have any chance of regaining the offers I already have next year?

Anyone who could give any advice would be greatly appreciated! And generously paid in positive rep :biggrin:


King's and Durham are set in radically different environments. I think that is much more significant than any academic distinction that might exist between them.
Original post by georget1
Still undecided between Bristol and Durham...my concern with Durham is the grades are A*AA which I am not sure I will definitely reach, whereas Bristol is AAA - on this practical front, Bristol is better. I am uncertain as to why Durham think they merit asking for A*AA though this year - is it that they are looking for a higher calibre of student which will in turn increase their reputation and quality in the future?
If I put Durham as my firm choice, I would most probably put Bristol as my second, insurance choice - and if there is a likelihood I don't achieve the A*, I will have missed out on picking my top choice of accommodation etc. for Bristol.

The college system at Durham appeals to me in terms of getting to know people/all accommodation is sorted as are all meals. But Bristol's location wins for me.

Also, for some reason people on here seem to perceive Bristol quite negatively saying the law department/departments in general are not as good as they once were, and that Durham is on the up whilst Bristol maybe declined somewhat - perhaps based on the fact it is lower down in the ratings for law currently? But overall, the general consensus by teachers/general people's opinions and employers all point to Bristol being considered on an equal footing with Durham? Should I take this view of Bristol rather than the largely negative one portrayed by some people here/what the league tables show about Bristol being much lower?

And of course, I suppose it would be better to get a first at Bristol than a 2:1 from Durham i.e. the quality of your degree is more important than the university itself, seeing as they are both traditional good universities.

I think, putting aside academics and reputation/league tables, my decision boils down to how much I value the collegiate system and small feel of Durham over it's far northern location/higher entrance grades? And whether Bristol's lower grade and pleasant city outweighs accommodation further from the university itself and less cohesion with everything more dispersed/on a larger scale.

Nice to have the choice of such good unis and I think essentially, whatever the decision, you live by it and will be happy at whichever. But, any other thoughts?


This is a really good problem to have!

I agree with you that what I think it boils down to is which of the two you prefer - essentially they are extremely different universities.

I've noticed a lot of TSR users talking down on Bristol, saying that it isn't the University that it used to be. I'm not really sure how true that is, because a lot of it seems to be based on either a) opinions that they've read on tsr b) it has a lower amount of applicants this year c) it's place in the league tables. I think what you have to remember is that the league tables change year-on-year, based on a number of factors and the ranking of the University you attend could be pretty different by the time you graduate, same with how many people apply each year.

No matter what anyone says, Durham and Bristol are both prestigious and I dont think going to either would harm your chances of a career. This year, the percentage of graduates getting a career after six months for Durham was 79% and 76% for Bristol, so it's not really that much difference if that's what you're worried about. I think this choice is solely down to personal preference - I guess you'll have to decide which one you like best.

Have you visited both the unis?
Original post by georget1
Still undecided between Bristol and Durham...[etc]


I would hate you to think my comments on Bristol above, and in other places are designed to be negative. In no way could I or anyone else justify a view that Bristol is not a fantastic city and university, with a solid reputation as a leading UK institution. Some of the comments made are being hyper-critical, in order to attempt to distinguish between two very good unis.

All of your arguments are sound, grades, 2.1 v 1st etc. Don't therefore be put off by people (me) saying that Bristol is perhaps slightly less good, if anything there's nanometres in it and everything I've mentioned is not significant enough to outweigh other factors, like those you mention. Because the decision is yours to make, and I might be wrong, or I might even be a 10 year old Swedish kid who's never been to the UK, or heard of its universities, who knows?

I would maintain though (and this applies to anybody) that the best way to choose is by visiting each uni, however costly and time-consuming and unnecessary that seems.
Reply 3654
Could really do with some help/advice.. Have offers from Sheffield, Birmingham, Nottingham, Warwick and UCL. Really liked both Warwick and UCL but I'm very unsure as to what to firm. My heart says Warwick, but would it be stupid to reject the opportunity to study at UCL?
Original post by farrar
Could really do with some help/advice.. Have offers from Sheffield, Birmingham, Nottingham, Warwick and UCL. Really liked both Warwick and UCL but I'm very unsure as to what to firm. My heart says Warwick, but would it be stupid to reject the opportunity to study at UCL?


If you like both almost equally, I would probably say go with UCL. Depending on your preferences and bank balance for uni, London is probably a better place to be then Coventry, and UCL probably does have the edge on Warwick in terms of academic reputation and prestige for Law. As a side note, I wouldn't bother insuring either of the two, since without AAA the chances of getting in to either are second to none. The same probably applies with Nottingham. Also, I wouldn't really say it'd be stupid to turn down the opportunity to study at UCL, I personally think that could only be applicable to Oxford or Cambridge (within reason)
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 3656
Original post by Tsunami2011
If you like both almost equally....


Thanks a lot for the advice!
Reply 3657
Original post by farrar
Could really do with some help/advice.. Have offers from Sheffield, Birmingham, Nottingham, Warwick and UCL. Really liked both Warwick and UCL but I'm very unsure as to what to firm. My heart says Warwick, but would it be stupid to reject the opportunity to study at UCL?


What do you want in a university? Why is it you leaned towards Warwick and what aspects did you like about both? To answer your question, no, it would not be stupid to reject UCL but I think they are quite different so you're right to be puzzled.

On a pure academic/department basis, from what I've gleaned, UCL Laws is a very tight knit department as they have a building, dedicated library, cafe etc in Bentham where the Law Faculty is housed. I've heard that can make things gossipy but overall the law faculty feels like a community within a larger, more impersonal, school. (Other schools also have law libraries and buildings so I'm not sure why the UCL lawyers I met seem to have more of a community). Also, the law society is incredibly active and they are courted by lots of firms. I'm sure you've received the emails about the Freshfields-UCL scholarships and the internships both they and Pinsent Masons are creating specifically for UCL law students.

However, UCL's course is restrictive and you really only have options in your final year. London can be a pro or con depending on you. Warwick's law course seems to have a unique bent to it which you might feel you are more suited to. In terms of facilities, it sounds like Warwick has an edge. I think they both have great recruiting if you want to do something other than law - at this level, the applicant has to be good enough, not the school. In law itself, UCL is probably more prestigious which you might consider if you want to go to the bar or something. I'm not as well versed on the pros for Warwick but Tsunami and a ton of others on here know more about it so they will be able to give you the more balanced view points.

Basically, my inclination would be to go for UCL but you haven't really substantiated why you're inclined to go to Warwick, which is important. Ultimately, you are the one who has to bear the consequences of the decision so it's important to note your feelings, even if it's just gut instinct.
Original post by ratio

I think they both have great recruiting if you want to do something other than law - at this level, the applicant has to be good enough, not the school. In law itself, UCL is probably more prestigious which you might consider if you want to go to the bar or something.

I think this is the most important point which should be taken into consideration. Numerous factors are likely to take priority over which university you went to, especially if both are in the top 10. Whether or not you got 60 or 66+, whether or not you have some solid extra curricular/ work experience, and how you perform in any ACs/Interviews. I think people often just assume that getting into law school is a case of job done, and assume that they will be able to get a 1st or a very strong 2:1 in one of the most academically rigorous subjects at one of the UK's top institutions.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 3659
Original post by ratio
What do you want in a university....


Thanks a lot for your help ratio. You are incredibly well informed, have you been in my email inbox? :wink: haha. I think what makes me feel like I would be particularly more at home at Warwick is the accessibility of the sporting facilities and opportunities, for when I am not working! Also, I have applied for Law with German Law (falls under the name European Legal Studies at Warwick for some reason) if this changes anything. I have noticed that at Warwick they tend to offer some language support (I am not a native speaker) whereas at UCL it's more of a DIY task to maintain your German until the year abroad (3rd yr).

Thanks again

Quick Reply