Law 2012: Nottingham or Warwick?

Hi everyone,

I currently hold offers from both Nottingham and Warwick for Law (LLB) starting in September 2012. However, I have no idea which one to chose, I liked them both equally.

Does one have a better reputation?

If anyone could comment it would be greatly appreciated.

Personally I think the Law course at Nottingham is better reputed, speaking from the knowledge of two parents involved in legal careers/education. However, the difference is not very great, and some would dispute me on this.

If I had to make a choice, it would be Nottingham, based on a slight prestige advantage and the fact that it isn't near Coventry.

Any chance of elaborating on this? do you mean the content or the age of the law course? I've said it before in the past, but when you're talking about two closely matched universities for Law, its likely to depend on the recruiter in question and if they have a bias towards either uni. I'm doubtful, that Nottingham's will be seen as 'better' than Warwick for Law, in the way in which LSE or UCL are. It's only on TSR, where I've seen this view of Nottingham Law..its weird since It always seemed like a Birmingham to me.

As I say, I am getting this view from my parents, who know rather a lot about the area (since my dad directed a well-reputed LPC course for many years). It isn't TSR league-table chasing. My parents agreed that Nottingham edges Warwick, in terms of Law, for graduate employability.

Please understand that neither I nor they are saying that the difference is like Warwick vs Cambridge, or Nottingham vs Crapton Poly. But when I discussed this issue in depth with my parents, the message was that, if schools were to be grouped, then things would go (in no particular order within each grouping):




[INDENT][INDENT]Oxbridge

LSE, UCL, KCL, Durham, Bristol, Nottingham

Warwick a little bit lower, followed by perhaps Birmingham.

Newcastle, Exeter, Manchester etc., plus some of the newer Law courses (e.g. York's which is said to be very good but is still a bit of an unknown quantity).[/INDENT][/INDENT]




In a rather non-TSR view, this assessment puts LSE etc. on the same level as Nottingham, Durham and Bristol. So I'm not just a league table whore.

It is important to stress that legal recruitment is not some kind of fixed process. Some employers and recruiters will put more emphasis on university than others, and within that some will rank universities in a different order, or more or less rigidly. It is also important to stress that there are a million and one other factors involved than university choice.

But on the other hand, legal recruitment is a very cut-throat world, especially at the top (MC etc.); therefore if somewhere does have an edge, that is a factor to consider. From what my dad said, he saw Nottingham leavers being slightly more successful than Warwick leavers over a number of years.

Is there a massive difference? No. Both are very good universities, and are of a similar reputation when it comes to Law. However, the OP said that they were torn, and they didn't seem particularly swayed one way or the other. Given this, I think reputation is something they may wish to consider, and my view is a hand-me-down from someone who knows a lot about this, and with whom I've talked about this in detail (when choosing which unis to apply to for Law).

That said, I think a more compelling reason to go to Nottingham is that you won't be near Coventry.

Very good post, I'm used to being meant by a barrage of insults for questioning someone..

Out of interest are you saying that the difference between Warwick and Cambridge is the same as Nottingham and an ex poly.. or was that just an example. I do largely agree with you. But, I also have family in the legal world at home and abroad and I'm slightly in disagreement about your rankings. The message I get it is that LSE is essentially in its own tier, and is almost seen as closer to Oxbridge than say Bristol for example LSE really is top dog outside Oxbridge for Law, I really wouldn't agree that its merely equal with the rest.

I do see your point about legal recruitment, but ceteris paribus a Nottingham grad won't make it into a MC firm over a Warwick grad simply due to their university name. The 'slight' advantage isn't enough to say that going to Nottingham gives you the edge when there are so many variables. It really does depends on who you talk to, My friend's dad is a MC circle partner and he studied Law at Warwick and unsuprisingly rates it above the usual suspects such as Bristol/Nottingham. The graduate recruitment is largely down by partners, so It would be inaccurate to assume that based on talking to your parents that there is a widespread grouping of universities, when what one partner at Allen & Overy says will differ to what is said by a partner at Linklaters. However, I acknowledge the validity of your father's claim, since that is hard evidence, but there is many things to take into account in regards to determining why one university gets more students to magic firms to another.

The point about Coventry is strange in my opinion. I really don't think its a compelling reason, from what I gather it depends on your pre-university life. If you're a middle class/surburban kid then yeah Coventry may not be right for you. I'm from a inner city and in all honesty I've seen much worse than Coventry, its those who have lived a sheltered life who cry at the thought of setting thought there.

Very good post, I'm used to being meant by a barrage of insults for questioning someone..Out of interest are you saying that the difference between Warwick and Cambridge is the same as Nottingham and an ex poly.. or was that just an example. I do largely agree with you. But, I also have family in the legal world at home and abroad and I'm slightly in disagreement about your rankings. The message I get it is that LSE is essentially in its own tier, and is almost seen as closer to Oxbridge than say Bristol for example LSE really is top dog outside Oxbridge for Law, I really wouldn't agree that its merely equal with the rest.

I do see your point about legal recruitment, but ceteris paribus a Nottingham grad won't make it into a MC firm over a Warwick grad simply due to their university name. The 'slight' advantage isn't enough to say that going to Nottingham gives you the edge when there are so many variables. It really does depends on who you talk to, My friend's dad is a MC circle partner and he studied Law at Warwick and unsuprisingly rates it above the usual suspects such as Bristol/Nottingham. The graduate recruitment is largely down by partners, so It would be inaccurate to assume that based on talking to your parents that there is a widespread grouping of universities, when what one partner at Allen & Overy says will differ to what is said by a partner at Linklaters. However, I acknowledge the validity of your father's claim, since that is hard evidence, but there is many things to take into account in regards to determining why one university gets more students to magic firms to another.


The point about Coventry is strange in my opinion. I really don't think its a compelling reason, from what I gather it depends on your pre-university life. If you're a middle class/surburban kid then yeah Coventry may not be right for you. I'm from a inner city and in all honesty I've seen much worse than Coventry, its those who have lived a sheltered life who cry at the thought of setting thought there.

So so true.

No I am not saying that the difference is equivalent. I did posit this view to the parentals, but my dad says he thinks that is a misconception, and UCL is certainly just as good. However, LSE does in general, and increasingly, have a certain little halo of its own, so I guess we could see it edge away a bit in the future, as the better candidates choose it over similar quality institutions because of prestige. Reputation, wherever it comes from, often perpetuates itself.

There are indeed many other things to take into account. What I am saying is that, from what my dad has told me, Nottingham produces marginally more successful Law grads than Warwick. It might be that people see it as slightly better, for whatever reason, which attracts better candidates who then go through a similar course as Warwick's, but are still better candidates overall - another case of reputation furthering itself. Alternatively it might be that quite a lot of employers tend to have a better experience with Nottingham graduates for whatever reason, so are more favourably inclined towards them.

I take the general point that employers will not say "ZOMG Warwick not Nottingham?!?" and bin an application. But the problem with this way of looking at things is, where do you stop? Do you say "Nottingham is similar to Warwick in an employer's eyes - ceteris paribus, it will not affect things; Birmingham is similar to Warwick in an employer's eyes, so ceteris paribus, it won't affect things" and carry on like that forever? Logically, there has to be a disparity in each individual case if there is a gradual decline in success.

I suppose there are worse places. But I do find Coventry supremely depressing. The problem is, of course, that Coventry was a very nice city which made too much stuff during the War, hence the Germans bombed the **** out of it.Rather than do what the Germans subsequently managed with rather less money, and build a set of reasonably nice buildings over their destroyed cities, the Brits of the time decided that concrete was the way forward, and Coventry was a prime victim. I'm sure it has nice parts, but from what I've seen it's an architectural hell hole, and excessive concrete depresses me.

Ahh guys, if the choice was out of Warwick, Nottingham and Bristol, what would you choose then? I am completely stuck A good kind of stuck, but still stuck.

But when I discussed this issue in depth with my parents, the message was that, if schools were to be grouped, then things would go (in no particular order within each grouping):




[INDENT][INDENT]Oxbridge

LSE, UCL, KCL, Durham, Bristol, Nottingham

Warwick a little bit lower, followed by perhaps Birmingham.

Newcastle, Exeter, Manchester etc., plus some of the newer Law courses (e.g. York's which is said to be very good but is still a bit of an unknown quantity).[/INDENT][/INDENT]

With due all respect to your parents, tell them they are wrong on this. Nottingham isn't in the level of LSE for law, and, at best, it is just as good as Warwick. It isn't generally better than Warwick for law. Maybe in the olden times it was. But now, it isn't anymore. Many law grads of Warwick join banking and that explains the low number of Warwick law grads practicing as lawyers.

Nottingham is excellent for law. I'd rank it in the level of Warwick, Birmingham, Manchester, Bristol, Durham and King's. UCL is in a little notch above them.

I'd go for Warwick for law or for any program for that matter as Warwick has a better overall reputation, and reputation matters to some employers.

Fair enough, If we get down to the core of it LSE is still 3rd, which is a fair bit above 5th or 6th unless you're a believer that unless its Oxbridge, then the rankings are redundant and 3rd to 8th (or whichever arbitary ranking) placed universities are equals.

When you say marginally, what numbers are we talking about?

My main point was that many factors will determine the figures presented to your father, since we have to account for some students doing their LPC in London or choosing to do entry another field, i.e banking, which is particularly popular amongst Warwick law grads. My point is that statistics aren't always the best indicator. It would hold more weight if we presented with data which included the amount of training contracts made/interviews/acceptance rate. for Warwick students in comparison to Nottingham students

I see your point, I never knew Nottingham was so highly ranked for Law prior to TSR. I applied with it as my 4th choice and saw it as being of a similar calibre to Birmingham and other universities of a similar ilk. My personal opinion is that only Oxbridge, LSE and UCL can give you an edge on paper and clinch it for you. I just don't think that Nottingham or other top ten members will give you an advantage unless we account for partner bias. I do think that the university name does have a considerable amount of weight, but I'm scepticial about how far it is scrutinised. On the whole, I do agree with you.

It's not about picking up a certain number of ranks and saying "these ones are all the same"; university league tables in general are full of crap. The Times' 2012 Law table put Newcastle at the top, ffs - I haven't anything against it, and it's pretty good for Law, but it doesn't top Oxbridge, London etc. It's about making a judgement about what employers tend to favour. I think LSE attendees like to believe this myth that they are superior to those at UCL, Durham etc. but I don't think it's true, and a lot of it originates on sites like TSR.

My dad is not suggesting that Warwick is not a very good place. He's merely saying that, since legal careers are increasingly competitive, anything that gives you an edge is advantageous. He said that he thought Warwick would confer a slight advantage over Nottingham, though not a massive one. For instance, he is suggesting that a First from Warwick would of course be seen as much better than a 2:1 from Nottingham, but if both were 2:1s the Nottingham grad would have a slightly higher success rate ceteris paribus. I shall quiz him on this again today and see whether he thinks this can be quantified.

I think the thing to bear in mind is that TSR's view of the university world is very different from employers'. Frankly I think the smaller regional firms will go quite a lot on the basis of interview and so on, and won't be that fussed about uni at all. If you are talking big firms though, I do think it's a factor, and the LLPs will have their own views on what is good based on their own experiences with different graduates and links with different universities. As hard work and academic intelligence are very important at a Magic Circle law firm, it makes sense that the universities which churn out the most grads with these attributes will do best.

You could argue about this forever I guess. Nottingham, Warwick, wherever; I think it's more important to get a first, a good selection of EC's and some social activities to prove you're not just a robot. No one wants their colleagues to be inflexible bores, I wouldn't discount personality in the whole selection process- if they don't like you, they won't want to work with you.
I'm sick of worrying about reputation now, I'm going to go to the one I feel most at home at. I know they are both great law schools and no one is going to turn me down purely because I went to one uni over the other. Of course, Oxford would have given me an advantage and I would have forever dined out on the raised eyebrows. But I can't wallow in self pity over that rejection forever.
Any way, I hope everyone is happy with their choices and has success when it comes to TC's, no matter where you went to Uni!

This is true, but lol it pains me that I will not have that string to my bow.