GDL vs LLB from low Uni Who is better? Magic Circle

Scroll to see replies

It's not just necessarily filters though, the smallest margins between candidates can mean an interview/no interview. You clearly tick the boxes in terms of a 1st from one of the best unis in the country and it would be stupid to filter you out based on 1 grade lower at A-level. As harsh as it is, York isn't UCL. MC firms get inundated with applications with people with flawless A-levels and firsts/high 2.1s from the 'next tier of RG' (Take that classification as a very broad generalisation - I mean non-Oxbridge/non-London unis) and my gut would say that A-levels would be one of the things they would use to distinguish people.*

That being said, people often forget that often recruiters look at your application as a whole, and don't break down individual elements too much. If you tick the boxes elsewhere but have one part which slightly drags you down, it may not be the end of the world.

One last thing - I'm a trainee at an MC firm. I got A*AA at a level and haven't spoken to anyone who got lower (admittedly, A-levels are barely ever talked about!) and I think the 'lowest' UK uni on our intake is probably Birmingham in terms of law rankings.

Are you pretty much saying that without A*AA you can't get into an MC regardless if the rest is all good on your application ?? I will be doing Law at a good RG uni and did well at A level but not A*AA. Want work for a city firm not necessarily MC

Reply 41

Dewsy

Original post by ORW

*

Didn't intend for my post to come across as saying that, so apologies if it did. A-Levels are nowhere near as important as your degree. They are never really discussed, so whilst I said I haven't heard of lower, that is only amongst my closer friends. My closer friends are largely non-Oxbridge and I only assume that the ~50% of my intake that were Oxbridge also got top A-Levels.

Ultimately at the end of the day, if your A-Levels are good enough to get you into one of the good RG unis, they won't hold you back applying for MC/Top City firms. My advice would be to stop worrying about your A-Levels now and just focus on getting a high 2.1/first, which at the end day is what matters. *

Reply 42

TurboCretin

Original post by Dewsy

It's not just necessarily filters though,

The only thing I disagreed with (categorically, anyway) in your prior post was what you had to say about automatic A-level filters - "no application possible". This isn't true, that's all.*

There is a widely held belief on here and elsewhere in what you said about filters. Judging by my (many) conversations with grad recruiters, filters are used by nowhere near as many firms as people think. They're certainly not used by those firms which people think are most likely to use them.

I like to say something when people mention A-level filters, especially when it's coming from trainees at competitive firms, as it's a damaging myth to perpetuate. I certainly wouldn't have spent my time on applications which I thought would be automatically rejected, and in some instances that might be as much the Magic Circle's loss as the applicant's.

Original post by Dewsy

the smallest margins between candidates can mean an interview/no interview. You clearly tick the boxes in terms of a 1st from one of the best unis in the country and it would be stupid to filter you out based on 1 grade lower at A-level. As harsh as it is, York isn't UCL. MC firms get inundated with applications with people with flawless A-levels and firsts/high 2.1s from the 'next tier of RG' (Take that classification as a very broad generalisation - I mean non-Oxbridge/non-London unis) and my gut would say that A-levels would be one of the things they would use to distinguish people.*

That being said, people often forget that often recruiters look at your application as a whole, and don't break down individual elements too much. If you tick the boxes elsewhere but have one part which slightly drags you down, it may not be the end of the world.

One last thing - I'm a trainee at an MC firm. I got A*AA at a level and haven't spoken to anyone who got lower (admittedly, A-levels are barely ever talked about!) and I think the 'lowest' UK uni on our intake is probably Birmingham in terms of law rankings.

A-levels are certainly important, especially if you are a second year law student and A-levels are some of the most recent academic results you have to offer.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 43

TurboCretin

Original post by ORW

If you did well enough to get into a Russell Group LLB programme you should be fine.

Try to get a 1st in your first year if you can, and engage with extra-curriculars / legal work experience (a week in a high street firm, a mini-pupillage, anything you can get your hands on). It is not difficult to be better than most other first year LLB students. It gets harder to distinguish yourself later on, once everyone else realises in second year that they need to get jobs.

Reply 44

Punkrockfan

Applicant two:York is a good uni, politics is quite a good course and a first would be brilliant!!Good luck with your decision and everything else!!

(i live in manchester and honestly, ANYONE can get into met (no offence to any met student who may read this))

Reply 45

ORW

Original post by Dewsy

Ah ok thanks for clearing that up and thanks for being down to earth on it all!

Reply 46

999tigger

Sire you have posted this again OP. Its applicant two obviously. Margins are close at trainee level. You can always move firms at a later date provided you get decent training and experience. You appear to have made your mind up on favour of Vancouver anyway.

Reply 47

ath_

Original post by billy_k

It is great for large firms in London which have branches in NYC as well. Having the ability to practice law in two different countries is unique and special. Big time lawyers Like Amal Clooney are also members.

Sorry, but this is absolutely not true at all. No London law firm will let someone which no actual NY experience practice NY law - in fact, you simply wouldn't be able to. The bar exam doesn't teach you how to be a lawyer, it simply tests your legal knowledge.

Any large firm in London with an NY office will have reams of lawyers in that NY office who will be given the NY law work. They won't ask someone in London to do it.

Seriously, the NY bar is of no help in London. I have it and have worked at two good US firms in the City, but even though I was qualified in NY I went in as a trainee. I have never been asked to do anything NY law related while I've been here. My current firm has a massive NY office - why would they need to ask me?

Reply 48

ath_

Original post by mereum

I think you're putting too much of an emphasis on the universities the applicants attended instead of their actual degree; as long you as you achieve a first in llb law then you should not be hampered when applying for firms.

True to an extent, but only when you have your first in law from what employers regard as a good law school. City firms will look very closely at your university at some point in the process.

Reply 49

ath_

Original post by billy_k

You are part of the 1% of people on here who actually know what they are talking about. I was just about to delete my account as I was shocked at the elitist people on here lol. I ended up ringing Freshfields and Allen and Overy, and they made it clear that they do not pay much attention to the uni attended. They look for good grades and experience.

As I've said elsewhere, this is simply not true. Yes, they say this, but look at the profiles of their current trainees or recent qualifiers.

Experience can offset poor academics, but only (if you'll excuse the pun) to a degree.

Reply 50

username738914

Original post by ORW

His experience is not indicative of all intakes at all top law firms..

I know people with BCD at A-level but firsts (from not your typical unis in that list you keep posting about) and very strong CVs who are trainees at the very same 'elite' MC firms you're talking about here.

Posted from TSR Mobile