Exeter or QMUL for LAW

Top 100 - both. MC - both. They're both great tbh. However, QMUL is in a crap part of London, whilst Exeter is fairly nice but in the country, though the city isn't too bad When applying to MC firms, either will do, but work experience and ECs will count for a hell of a lot more than either brand.

Go for the one you personally prefer rather than tables. As said, both great, with similar entry requirements.

U seem very confident, may I ask how do You know that both will do?

Hey guys, I am interested in law career at a MC law firm or at least top 100 law firm, and would like to know which of these is the better stepping stone towards such goal. THANKS!

There has already been a similar thread
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1911015

But here you will only find biased opinions. I'm going to QM this September and I didn't apply to Exeter. In that case, of course I would say QM. From what I've seen on your other thread, you're leaning towards it as well. Go for it, then!
But!Do some research and find more about the teachers,the extracurricular activties that you can get involved in at both universities, look at the optional modules taken in the third year and see if that's what you're interested in. AT QM for example, if you are interested in a course that is not offered at your university, you could attend it at King's, UCL or LSE in case one of them offers it. Of course that the environment in which you study will also matter. In that case, if you totally hate London there's no point in living there. Also, if you are interested in meeting people from different countries, QM has a larger proportion of international students.
All in all,it's not the university that matters, it's what the university can do for you so that you can study, enjoy your course, gain work experience and in this way reach your goal.

Attend courses at King's, UCL or LSE? How is that possible? And then what, You get a double degree?

Four options from the following list:


Access to Justice and Community Engagement
Commercial Law
Company Law
Competition Law
Conflict of Laws
Crime and Criminal Justice
Criminology
Employment Law
Environmental Law
Family Law
History of English Law
Intellectual Property Law
Law of Evidence
Law of Taxation
Public International Law
Research Essay
Roman Law

The list of options available may vary from year to year but normally includes most or all of the above. Students may (with permission) replace one of these options with a subject in another UCL department (such as philosophy, history, geography, and economics) or a law course in another college or school of the University of London.

Queen Mary students have the opportunity of taking courses at other institutions within the University of London.

A full list of intercollegiate courses available across the University of London can be found on the IHR website: http://www.history.ac.uk/syllabus/intercollegiate-courses.

If you wish to apply for a place on any of the courses listed you must email the details to the Student Support Manager, Matt Latham at [email protected]. He will then check availability. Once your application has been approved, you must complete the Queen Mary Intercollegiate Registration Form and return this to [email protected]. You will also need to complete the relevant registration form at the institution you wish to study at.

All I will say is, don't let the glamorous lure of London drag you into going to QM. Also, don't listen to arguments about being "around" law. London is a lonely, impersonal place and you'll get just as much chance at extra-curricular activities at Exeter because it is a great law school.

Biggest thing to consider for me would be overall reputation. Exeter is far better than QM, so that in the event you don't want to go into law after you graduate, an Exeter degree will be held in better regard to a QM degree. Whereas QM's law school is (I believe) one of QM's highest ranking departments, leaving law to be one of the only career options where you degree will be respected.

Overall, though, it's all about where you think you will be more comfortable and in turn, get better grades. You can't go wrong with either decision you make.

I may have missed this being mentioned, but there's a very god piece by Alex Aldridge on 18th April in LegalCheek at the following link about why Queen Mary is so much better than Durham for law - and I suppose he thinks the same thing about Exeter

http://www.legalcheek.com/2012/04/the-prestige-factor-queen-mary-or-durham-for-law/

Alex Aldridge did not once in that article say that QM is better than Durham.

Referring to the article, in reality, barristers are not so progressively thinking as Aldridge asserts. The bar is full of traditions, those traditions include traditional universities to recruit from and Durham would be one of those.

Exeter has a more traditional reputation than QM, probably putting it higher on a barrister's recruiting list.

But he makes it quite plain where the advantage lies.

All I will say is, don't let the glamorous lure of London drag you into going to QM. Also, don't listen to arguments about being "around" law. London is a lonely, impersonal place and you'll get just as much chance at extra-curricular activities at Exeter because it is a great law school.

Biggest thing to consider for me would be overall reputation. Exeter is far better than QM, so that in the event you don't want to go into law after you graduate, an Exeter degree will be held in better regard to a QM degree. Whereas QM's law school is (I believe) one of QM's highest ranking departments, leaving law to be one of the only career options where you degree will be respected.

Overall, though, it's all about where you think you will be more comfortable and in turn, get better grades. You can't go wrong with either decision you make.

This just isn't true. None of it.
1 QM does offer things which Exeter does not. The legal advice centre, for instance. There are also pro bono opportunities with London law firms; some law firms have their sole pro bono initiatives with QM, i.e BLP in Somali Gardens. The LAC offers around 15 vac schemes at City firms through internal essay competitions, and through performance.
2. Exeter has about the same overall reputation as QM. Nonsense what you are saying here. QM is part of the University of London. It has one of the best medical schools in the country and is very strong in arts/humanities subjects like history, drama and english. Not to say Exeter is bad, it's just not that good either.
3. Even if you disregard 2., in the real world the vast majority of employers don't give a **** about university reputation, as long as it's an 'old university'. When most employers look at academics they want to see that you've got a good degree. Then they interview you. The grades are what matters, and although you said this at the end of your post, the gist of what you say above totally undermines that.

I only intended to level the playing field between the universities because the majority of TSR law applicants seem to believe that being in London as a law student affords them amazing opportunities unmatched by other universities situated elsewhere outside of the capital.

The federal organisation of the University of London is largely irrelevant today. All the big boys (UCL, KCL and LSE) now award their own degrees (not UoL stamped).

You'll also find that being a traditional university, Exeter is very well regarded in arts/humanities subjects. Overall, the university is more reputable than QM. The medical school is irrelevant, not even the Barts students want to attach themselves to QM (what then does that say for QM?).

At the end of the day, it's the grade and your personality that gets the job. However, I attempted to remove any bias towards QM because of its London location. I said that OP should go to the university that they, in their heart, will truly enjoy and most likely perform best at. This would include the location of the university and the social side of things.

No it's not more reputable. See how pointless this game is?

If you understand that it's the grades and your overall application that gets you a job, you must see that any subjective talk of reputation is meaningless?

Judging by this post and others (where you said you got rejected from QM? and where you wrongly stated bolded how QMUL has quotas in how it awards particularly degree marks - it doesn't) you are misguided.

As a side note, the University of London is a brand name which is largely meaningless. But it is still a brand name which hasn't faltered much. There are very prestigious institutions involved such as the LSHTM as well. Secondly, Barts and the London were two completely separate institutions which underwent a merger with QMUL. They were among the oldest institutions in the country. You don't understand this. Some medics call it 'Bart's', some call it 'The London'. It's not a meaningless distinction. There are centuries of history associated with each college. They only merged with QMUL in 1989. In all medical schools, there is a separation and competition with the main university; they have their own bars, own rowing teams etc.

I'm not a troll generally. I just lose my temper at people like you who change their tack remarkably. 'Biggest thing for me to consider would be overall reputation - exter is far better than qm'...but now you say they're on 'equal footing'. Quite frankly, aside from the fact you're wrong on the former, I can't stand people that make me point out the blooming obvious.

I've said everything I've got to say. I'll let people reading this judge who's right.