[NYU2012]

So, this week I received a letter from Nottingham letting me know that they would be offering me a place for Law. I'm still waiting on responses from LSE and Durham.

Basically, my questions are:
(1) How well respected is Nottingham for law?
(2) How well known is Nottingham for law (both in the UK and elsewhere)
(3) How would people rate the educational quality of the department?
(4) Any other input would be greatly appreciated

Thanks!

Off-hand, does anyone happen to know the success rate for Nottingham? I know for LSE, UCL, KCL it's supposed to be around 5%

[Tsunami2011]

(Original post by NYU2012)
So, this week I received a letter from Nottingham letting me know that they would be offering me a place for Law. I'm still waiting on responses from LSE and Durham.

Basically, my questions are:

(1) How well respected is Nottingham for law?

Nottingham is very respected for Law and consistently in the top 10, it's one of their most reputable courses. In the UK, it generally goes something like this.

Oxford
Cambridge

LSE
UCL
King's
Durham
Warwick
Nottingham
Bristol

The individual tiers aren't in any order, but there is often debate about LSE's position, and whether it's closer to Oxbridge, than those in the second tier. Anyway Nottingham is a top 10 UK law school and will set you up nicely for a career in law.

(2) How well known is Nottingham for law (both in the UK and elsewhere)

Nottingham is very well known in the UK. Its hard to answer your second question, seems like you're an American, so from your experience is Nottingham known for its law program?

(3) How would people rate the educational quality of the department?

The department seems excellent. One thing to be vary of is that in comparison to the other members of the top 10, Nottingham hands out an alarmingly low amounts of firsts and 2:1s roughly 5% of firsts and 56% of 2:1 in comparison to 11% of firsts at LSE, 14% Warwick, 14% Oxford. This may be down to substandard students or substandard teaching.

Off-hand, does anyone happen to know the success rate for Nottingham? I know for LSE, UCL, KCL it's supposed to be around 5%

It's hard to say, Nottingham have approx 170 places and more then 10 applicants per place, so is very competitive. I don't think the figures are that low for UCL and KCL.

[Black_Jack]

I think you’ll find questions about reputation and prestige of UK law schools frequently asked within the forum. It’s probably more useful if you look at several League tables, websites etc and compiling your own information and using your own judgment.

For the most part, the top non-Oxbridge law schools can all make strong arguments for who has the best faculty. If we use the most recent Times 2012 League tables you’ll see that the list is as follows;

1. Oxford
2. Cambridge
3. LSE
4. UCL
5. Nottingham
6. Durham
7. QML
8. Reading
9. Newcastle
10. Glasgow

A few of the Universities in there are questionable, but this is why we don’t bind ourselves to one source of information!

I know for one, that as a whole, Nottingham graduates are among the most employable graduates in the UK and having visited the Law dept last month – there is a huge emphasis put on career prospects and personal development. If you’re a member of any professional Social Media site such as Linkedin, you’ll see a VERY solid representation of Notts Law graduates working within Magic Circle firms.

In terms of the educational quality of the department – again Nottingham is ranked as one of the best Law schools in the country, and has partnerships with several top universities across Europe, South East Asia and North America i.e. University of Texas Law school (Austin), University of Hong Kong, University of Sydney etc

Also, to address Tsunami2011’s uninformed comment about substandard students/teaching – a similar question was asked at the Law school open day by a fellow TSR member, and the response was quite frank. The member of staff agreed that yes, the amount of students who passed with 1sts and 2:1s were lower than most universities, but it’s more telling of the high academic standard they have established within the Law dept than anything else. Please note that many Nottingham applicants will also be applying to the likes of Oxbridge, Durham, Warwick and Bristol so there is by no means a problem with substandard students. Furthermore, with Nottingham recently beating out Cambridge for their research quality – this, inadvertently, has an effect of teaching standards. At the end of it all, it begs the simple question of which 1st/2:1 is worth more?

Yes, my post is somewhat biased towards Nottingham, but considering the section you posted your question in, it’s expected

At the end of the day OP, it’s you visiting the various universities and speaking to members of staff which will ultimately shape your decision of where you go.

Good luck, and hopefully I’ll see you in September!

[aimlessinwonder]

In addition to what the wise and wonderful chaps above me have said, I feel the need to point out Nottingham have upped their requirements for Law to A*AA next year. Read that as you will.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by aimlessinwonder)
In addition to what the wise and wonderful chaps above me have said, I feel the need to point out Nottingham have upped their requirements for Law to A*AA next year. Read that as you will.

There is one way to read that: the top few hundred applicants have better A-levels than those of previous years.

[FDR]

(Original post by NYU2012)
(1) How well respected is Nottingham for law?

Law is certainly one of Nottingham's best courses, and Law at Notts is considered to be amongst the best in the country. In terms of Law, I believe Notts falls in the second group:

Oxbridge

LSE
UCL
Kings
Nottingham
Durham
Bristol
Warwick

So, Notts falls into a pretty elite group for law - just look at their Law society - it is sponsored by most of the prestigious 'Magic Circle' firms such as Freshfields and 'Slaughter and May', as well as a few of the rest who make up the 10 largest Law firms in the World. Most of these Universities are also seen as very traditional (with the exception of Warwick, which is a 'new' university, but also fantastic), which adds to their prestige.

(2) How well known is Nottingham for law (both in the UK and elsewhere)

Again, the fact that a lot of these prestigious Law firms sponsor the Law soc, and hold events at Nottingham proves that they see it as worthwhile visiting

(3) How would people rate the educational quality of the department?
(4) Any other input would be greatly appreciated

Regarding (3), I've heard that its very good.

[Tsunami2011]

(Original post by Black_Jack)

Also, to address Tsunami2011’s uninformed comment about substandard students/teaching – a similar question was asked at the Law school open day by a fellow TSR member, and the response was quite frank. The member of staff agreed that yes, the amount of students who passed with 1sts and 2:1s were lower than most universities, but it’s more telling of the high academic standard they have established within the Law dept than anything else. Please note that many Nottingham applicants will also be applying to the likes of Oxbridge, Durham, Warwick and Bristol so there is by no means a problem with substandard students. Furthermore, with Nottingham recently beating out Cambridge for their research quality – this, inadvertently, has an effect of teaching standards. At the end of it all, it begs the simple question of which 1st/2:1 is worth more?

I find this offensive to be honest.. How was my comment uninformed? I'm not sure how what that member of staff proves. Unless Nottingham has the hardest law degree in the land, then it must surely indicates that the students may not be as strong as their competitors, hence the low figures. The figures point to a higher calibre of students being present in the other members of the top 10 *generally speaking* because you would assume that the students at Nottingham are of a similar calibre to those at Durham, UCL,etc but the figures don't add up. Even if the academic standards are high, this doesn't explain the lowly amount of 1sts and 2:1s in comparion to Oxbridge/LSE/UCL,etc. This may well be the case, but I found it quite hard to believe.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
I find this offensive to be honest.. How was my comment uninformed? I'm not sure how what that member of staff proves. Unless Nottingham has the hardest law degree in the land, then it must surely indicates that the students may not be as strong as their competitors, hence the low figures. The figures point to a higher calibre of students being present in the other members of the top 10 *generally speaking* because you would assume that the students at Nottingham are of a similar calibre to those at Durham, UCL,etc but the figures don't add up. Even if the academic standards are high, this doesn't explain the lowly amount of 1sts and 2:1s in comparion to Oxbridge/LSE/UCL,etc. This may well be the case, but I found it quite hard to believe.

That's like saying the students at Cornell aren't as good as students as the other Ivies because Cornell has the lowest average GPA of all of the Ivies.

Clearly, that's a false assumption.

[Tsunami2011]

(Original post by NYU2012)
That's like saying the students at Cornell aren't as good as students as the other Ivies because Cornell has the lowest average GPA of all of the Ivies.

Clearly, that's a false assumption.

Obviously.

What are the possible explanations then? which are non-teacher or student related.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
Obviously.

What are the possible explanations then? which are non-teacher or student related.

Grade inflation

If you track the average GPA at all of the ivies over the past few decades, you'll see Cornell's average GPA rising the slowest - meaning they have the lowest average GPA.

Essentially, they grade a bit harder, when compared to the other ivies. But, that's not an accurate statement, because that's not actually what's happening.

[littlecreatures]

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
Obviously.

What are the possible explanations then? which are non-teacher or student related.

There is no one regulatory body that regulates the honours given out between universities in UK. It's not like the A Levels. If Nottingham wants to make their 1sts and 2:1s harder to achieve and hence rarer and more respectable in the market (large employers are well versed in how different schools grade their students), it can do so. If hypothetically Nottingham chooses to give all their students 1sts and lose its credibility with employers, it can. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the quality of students. Just look at the ave entry tariffs for law this year, Nottingham ranks higher (509) than Warwick (497) or Bristol (495) in this respect. Ave entry tariffs are what determine the quality of cohort.

Nottingham Law's grading policy is just far more stringent then many law schools in UK. Don't ask me why, ask the school what its strategy is for making the lives of Nottingham law students that much harder.

[littlecreatures]

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
I find this offensive to be honest.. How was my comment uninformed? I'm not sure how what that member of staff proves. Unless Nottingham has the hardest law degree in the land, then it must surely indicates that the students may not be as strong as their competitors, hence the low figures. The figures point to a higher calibre of students being present in the other members of the top 10 *generally speaking* because you would assume that the students at Nottingham are of a similar calibre to those at Durham, UCL,etc but the figures don't add up. Even if the academic standards are high, this doesn't explain the lowly amount of 1sts and 2:1s in comparion to Oxbridge/LSE/UCL,etc. This may well be the case, but I found it quite hard to believe.

wow the conclusions drawn here are quite hilarious. you could have said nottingham law's value-add was poor, and the school's grading scheme was rotten, but instead you took it out on the students who managed to get into nottingham law with some of the best grades in the country. You ought to check out www.unistats.com.

[Tsunami2011]

(Original post by littlecreatures)
wow the conclusions drawn here are quite hilarious. you could have said nottingham law's value-add was poor, and the school's grading scheme was rotten, but instead you took it out on the students who managed to get into nottingham law with some of the best grades in the country. You ought to check out www.unistats.com.

(Original post by littlecreatures)

There is no one regulatory body that regulates the honours given out between universities in UK. It's not like the A Levels. If Nottingham wants to make their 1sts and 2:1s harder to achieve and hence rarer and more respectable in the market (large employers are well versed in how different schools grade their students), it can do so. If hypothetically Nottingham chooses to give all their students 1sts and lose its credibility with employers, it can. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the quality of students. Just look at the ave entry tariffs for law this year, Nottingham ranks higher (509) than Warwick (497) or Bristol (495) in this respect. Ave entry tariffs are what determine the quality of cohort.

Nottingham Law's grading policy is just far more stringent then many law schools in UK. Don't ask me why, ask the school what its strategy is for making the lives of Nottingham law students that much harder.

Fair enough, I apologise for my previous comment. All I will say is that it seems rather naive and optimistic to assume that city law firms in particular will care about how stringent Nottingham 2:1s are to achieve. Imagine the scenario, first question on your online application form, 'Do you expect to achieve a 2:1 at the end of this academic year? ' You're unable to answer this question or forced to send a pleading email to HR citing the fact that your law school marks your papers very harshly in comparison to other top law schools and this led to you being on a 2:2. I'm doubtful that such a tactic would go down well.

I'm not hitting on Nottingham I have no right to. I probably didn't articulate my point accurately enough. I do think that sub-standard students or teaching must play some part, but clearly a minimal part. Average entry tariff are useful, but are limited, many things change from the age of 18 to 21, a cohort can change considerably. You can't possibly think the ability of an intake remains static from A-level results day to the graduation ceremony. Also, in this case I would find it slightly misleading as Warwick offer joint honours in Law + Business/Sociology at AAB which will bring the average down, not sure about Bristol.

I started out my LL.B at a University of London campus, the grading was a lot harsher than it was at Nottingham, in fact I failed 2 modules there but got a 2:1 in it at Nottingham.

The main reason so few get 2:1s has nothing to do with harsh grading, the main reason to it is many just don't put in the hardwork or just slack off due to their other interest. Many slack in their 2nd year because they think they had good 1st year grades hence they start doing part time jobs and party as much as they did in their 1st year only to realize they didn't put in enough effort. Many also lose interest and passion in the subject come the 3rd year so they no longer do as well, there are also those that do quite badly because there are options you need to select, instead of doing something they have interest in they select those that are "fitting to their schedule" only to realize it isn't something for them.

Took this from a post in the law forum about Bristol vs Nottingham, seems to be at odds with what you say.

[littlecreatures]

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
Fair enough, I apologise for my previous comment. All I will say is that it seems rather naive and optimistic to assume that city law firms in particular will care about how stringent Nottingham 2:1s are to achieve. Imagine the scenario, first question on your online application form, 'Do you expect to achieve a 2:1 at the end of this academic year? ' You're unable to answer this question or forced to send a pleading email to HR citing the fact that your law school marks your papers very harshly in comparison to other top law schools and this led to you being on a 2:2. I'm doubtful that such a tactic would go down well.

I'm not hitting on Nottingham I have no right to. I probably didn't articulate my point accurately enough. I do think that sub-standard students or teaching must play some part, but clearly a minimal part. Average entry tariff are useful, but are limited, many things change from the age of 18 to 21, a cohort can change considerably. You can't possibly think the ability of an intake remains static from A-level results day to the graduation ceremony. Also, in this case I would find it slightly misleading as Warwick offer joint honours in Law + Business/Sociology at AAB which will bring the average down, not sure about Bristol.

I started out my LL.B at a University of London campus, the grading was a lot harsher than it was at Nottingham, in fact I failed 2 modules there but got a 2:1 in it at Nottingham.



Took this from a post in the law forum about Bristol vs Nottingham, seems to be at odds with what you say.

Tsunami2011, are you currently studying law at Nottingham? Or have you graduated from Nottingham law?

All in all, I'm sure we can agree that most of us on TSR are unsure of what's going on at Nottingham law. Why such a big percentage of students graduate below the 2:1 at Nottingham is still very much a big question mark. Some say harsh grading; some say students' lack of interest (well then the teaching must really suck? which is quite impossible since Nottingham is well-regarded for its teaching and faculty).

We have about 10 or more other top schools held in similar regard to Nottingham law. They attract a similar standard of students, and similar teaching staff. Why is it that ONLY Nottingham law faces this problem? Why is it that not ONE other school face the same problem? No one has been able to give us a definite answer.

So we shouldn't go around presenting our guesses as facts, that's my point. Ask... seek for better reasons. If you are from Nottingham, talk to the staff, talk to the Law Society, demand answer from the faculty. You are paying fees aren't you, and they're not cheap, ask them! Why such a disparity with other schools!

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by littlecreatures)

There is no one regulatory body that regulates the honours given out between universities in UK. It's not like the A Levels. If Nottingham wants to make their 1sts and 2:1s harder to achieve and hence rarer and more respectable in the market (large employers are well versed in how different schools grade their students), it can do so. If hypothetically Nottingham chooses to give all their students 1sts and lose its credibility with employers, it can. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the quality of students. Just look at the ave entry tariffs for law this year, Nottingham ranks higher (509) than Warwick (497) or Bristol (495) in this respect. Ave entry tariffs are what determine the quality of cohort.

Nottingham Law's grading policy is just far more stringent then many law schools in UK. Don't ask me why, ask the school what its strategy is for making the lives of Nottingham law students that much harder.

There is a third possibility, which is that its teaching isn't brilliant. I'm in no position to comment on whether or not that's the case, though.

EDIT: Oh no, someone doesn't like possibility no. 3. Grow up.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by NYU2012)
Off-hand, does anyone happen to know the success rate for Nottingham? I know for LSE, UCL, KCL it's supposed to be around 5%

Hahaha, by 'success rate', do you mean the proportion of 1st class honours?

I think for those universities it is actually higher than that for law. Somewhere around 8-12% all in all. Bristol and Nottingham tend to award lower proportions of 1sts.

[littlecreatures]

(Original post by TurboCretin)
There is a third possibility, which is that its teaching isn't brilliant. I'm in no position to comment on whether or not that's the case, though.

EDIT: Oh no, someone doesn't like possibility no. 3. Grow up.

Haha I swear whoever it was that negged you, it wasn't me. It is by all means a possibility.

Still I don't quite understand, aren't teaching staff the same people that mark students? Surely they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot. Even if teaching is terrible, teachers can decide to cover it up by choosing to mark more leniently. I'm pretty sure in UOL unis for example, they let postgraduate students tutor the undergraduates, because as it is they spend alot on research staff. The teaching can't be brilliant, but UOL unis are known for awarding good honours.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by littlecreatures)
Haha I swear whoever it was that negged you, it wasn't me. It is by all means a possibility.

Still I don't quite understand, aren't teaching staff the same people that mark students? Surely they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot. Even if teaching is terrible, teachers can decide to cover it up by choosing to mark more leniently. I'm pretty sure in UOL unis for example, they let postgraduate students tutor the undergraduates, because as it is they spend alot on research staff. The teaching can't be brilliant, but UOL unis are known for awarding good honours.

Oh no, I knew it wasn't you don't worry haha.

And you'd be surprised, my worst (well, in my opinion) teacher is my harshest marker. The average mark in his class historically is in the 50's. Here's the back story though. He has three doctorates, edits two major commercial law journals as well as the Blackstone's statute book on contract, tort and restitution, writes maritime practitioners' texts which cost £300 a hit (two coming out next year), and so it goes on. He obviously knows what he's talking about, he just doesn't like teaching, doesn't care how well we do or how badly we're taught, and has virtual academic immunity due to his status.

I'm not at uni in London anymore, by the way. I was at UCL (non-law) before, now Bristol.

I should stress to any prospective students reading this, he doesn't teach undergrads and won't be teaching at all next year.