Is llb law a bad idea?

I was planning on doing llb Law at university however I've been told that it is highly competitive and in demand by a lot of students who are doing it. There are some people I know who have these law degrees and cannot find work at law firms easily . The other option is to do a conversion course after a literature or history degree, as it would give a variety of qualifications , but is it really worth the time and fees? A joint honours would be good but i don't think there are many with law.

I cannot agree more with ORW with regards to interest in the subject. Law has a high drop out rate. Many of those who drop out picked an LLB because they think it is an easy way to get a well paid job. Unless you really care about law then the qualifying modules can be very, very dry.

On the other hand, I DO NOT agree with the statement that a law degree is only respected from Oxbridge/other Russell Group. That is not true at all. Yes it is easier to get a training contract at a magic circle firm or pupillage at a top chambers with one of those degrees. However, last time I looked at the stats 90% of students who pass the LPC gets a training contract. I went to a post-92 and always worry I'll be judged when people ask me where I went to uni. I've offset it now by going to a higher up uni for my LLM. Sure some snobby people turn their nose up at my LLB but most don't. I'm going into academia and most of the academics I meet ask where I went to uni and are very complimentary of my old law school because they know the staff.

Although I respect your position of going into Law as an academic which is very commendable, you are not right about the respectability of certain LLBs in the legal profession which is different to academia. As you said an Oxbridge/Russell Group LLB makes it easier to get a Magic Circle TC, which is very true. However, it also makes it much easier to get a TC in other city law firms, which not all, but a lot of LLB graduates looking to become lawyers want to get. Only once you look at high street firms and smaller national firms does it not matter where your LLB is from e.g. Irwin Mitchell who did not take a single Oxbridge/Russell Group grad during one of their recent TC intakes. This type of recruitment does however reflect badly on firms who wish to keep up a high reputation, which is why many are elite in which universities they respect and recruit from. Some big firms are trying to appear diverse but in reality they are still elite in their recruitment.

I was planning on doing llb Law at university however I've been told that it is highly competitive and in demand by a lot of students who are doing it. There are some people I know who have these law degrees and cannot find work at law firms easily . The other option is to do a conversion course after a literature or history degree, as it would give a variety of qualifications , but is it really worth the time and fees? A joint honours would be good but i don't think there are many with law.

I cannot agree more with ORW with regards to interest in the subject. Law has a high drop out rate. Many of those who drop out picked an LLB because they think it is an easy way to get a well paid job. Unless you really care about law then the qualifying modules can be very, very dry.

On the other hand, I DO NOT agree with the statement that a law degree is only respected from Oxbridge/other Russell Group. That is not true at all. Yes it is easier to get a training contract at a magic circle firm or pupillage at a top chambers with one of those degrees. However, last time I looked at the stats 90% of students who pass the LPC gets a training contract. I went to a post-92 and always worry I'll be judged when people ask me where I went to uni. I've offset it now by going to a higher up uni for my LLM. Sure some snobby people turn their nose up at my LLB but most don't. I'm going into academia and most of the academics I meet ask where I went to uni and are very complimentary of my old law school because they know the staff.

There are two discussion points here. Firstly, studying law only if you have an interest in law. Secondly, value of non-RG LLBs.

The high dropout rate for LLB comes from people entering law, enamoured by the prospect of an easy path to a well-paying job, but also people who have seriously considered the LLB curriculum and decided they would very much enjoy it and then realise it doesn't match their expectations at all. I don't think it is particularly knowable whether or not you will UG law, even if you have investigated the subject rigorously before applying.

The other issue. As you identify, you have particular personal worries about university prejudice. An exceptional first from post-92 unis can counteract this, and somewhat open-minded employers too might disregard it, but I think you are biased in determining that there is no meaningful distinction currently in the legal profession. Naturally, you are affected by whether or not this is true, and you are therefore not the best for assessing the truth of this.

So you're saying my experience and opinion is irrelevant simply because I went to a post-92? Then by the same reasoning the opinion of RG graduates is biased too. I never once said there is no meaningful distinction, of course there is. What I don't like seeing is people declaring non-RG LLBs a waste of time because they're not. Someone with a first from a non-RG still has a good shot at many city TCs and pupillages. RG graduates just have a better shot. A non-RG graduate with a good amount of placements in London and great marks can still do as well as RG graduates. I've personally seen it on many occasions.

You said it is "only respected if you do it at a good university." That makes it sound like you're saying LLBs from non-RG universities are not respected at all and therefore worthless. That is not true. I'm living proof of that and so are many of my friends.

Yes of course a first in an RG LLB will open doors easier to top firms/chambers and some doors only open to those with with an RG LLB (Maitland Chambers only takes Oxbridge). For the most part though it is not impossible for a non-RG graduate to get a good training contract or pupillage in the city or at a good set. The right work experience and a first then anything could happen. People underestimate personal skills too. If you get on a shortlist with a post-92 degree and they like you as a person then you could easily get the position over an RG graduate who didn't have any interpersonal skills and just wasn't likeable.

In essence I think you should reconsider your use of the word respected. Perhaps just keep it to saying you think it is easier to get a top TC or pupillage with an RG LLB which is obviously true. I think it is hilarious you 'respect' my choice of going into academia and say I'm wrong when you haven't even started your LLB.

ORW, I've done mini-pupillages, spoken to barristers at all different levels of sets, I have friends at Allen & Overy, Freshfields, Shearman & Sterling etc. from a range of universities. I have a friend from a post-92 who got a great pupillage and a friend who went to Cambridge and didn't get pupillage. What matters the most are your marks. There are some people who think they can get a 2:1 at an RG and breeze through life. Don't be one of those people. Prejudice is lessening these days and non-RG graduates with higher marks can and regularly do beat out RG law graduates. I hope in a few years when you're on the LPC or a TC and you are around non-RG graduates you don't go around telling them their degrees weren't worth it because I guarantee you will encounter them in the City/Temple.

Someone with an 82% from Northumbria is not necessarily superior to someone with a 65% from Bristol. The assessments, and marking arrangements, at universities are not exact equivalences and this is where university name really does come into play.

Someone with an 82% from Northumbria is not necessarily superior to someone with a 65% from Bristol. The assessments, and marking arrangements, at universities are not exact equivalences and this is where university name really does come into play.

I agree fully. You can't compare the 2 due to the differences in teaching, modules and assessment methods. I saw a University of Law LLB paper versus as a RG uni one and The Uni of Law one was so much easier and not as stringent academically. A 1st from place X can be a lot easier to obtain than from place Y. A 1st from UWE for example is probably a lot easier than one from Bristol or UCL. A top 2:1 a prestigious uni wins over a 1st from sub standard institutions.

I implore you to ask some law school academic staff about that because they'll tell you you're wrong. I know a lot of academic staff and they don't look at marks like that and think someone with a first from a non-RG might not be as good as an RG with a 65. I literally had a head of school say, "a first is a first and is treated as such."

My first from Lincoln got me into an LLM programme at a world top 50 alongside Cambridge, Durham, and Berkeley graduates. That same first plus my LLM got me a funded PhD position (of which the UK has around 20 per year in law). Some of my fellow Lincoln graduates are doing LLMs at KCL, Nottingham, Warwick and Berkeley. If our high 2:1s and firsts were not superior to RG mid-2:1s then we probably wouldn't be on our current programmes.

In all frankness, I do not think you have a real understanding of the nature of PG apps. They are, with a few exceptions, extremely less competitive than UG apps. Your high 2:1s and firsts would only be superior if people with mid-2:1s from RG unis were not on the same courses alongside you and your pals. Unless you're studying at Oxbridge, and a couple others, the mid-2:1s will be right alongside you. In fact. I know several people with low 60s, from post-92 unis, who have completed their LLMs at top 50 unis in the world and now have commenced their PhDs.

Your argument is simply soft; and once again we must return to your own personal bias to understand why. However, I am impressed by your first and your friends' firsts and high 2:1s, and wish you the best of luck in the future.

LLMs yes can be less competitive but it depends where. Some specific LLM programmes are cut throat.

PhDs are a whole different kettle of fish. Unfunded, if you can get a supervisor to agree and you have a 2:1 and a good proposal then yes you can get a place at most universities. The difference is funding. The studentships and graduate teaching assistantships (research council bursary rate + tuition fee waiver) are highly competitive and there are very few each year. We are talking less than 20 spots nationwide that god knows how many people compete for. Everyone going for those spots has a first and a distinction. I will be teaching on an LLB shortly so the fact I'm being told I don't understand X and am wrong about Y is really making me chuckle.

I'm not saying all non-RG LLBs are as good as LLBs from higher up the league tables. All I'm trying to get you two to realise is that non-RG law graduates are not sub-par, their degrees are respected, and they can reach the same heights that RG graduates get to. Non-RG graduates are not strapped for opportunities like ORW makes them out to be. Stop perpetuating the bias against them.