[gtfo]

(Original post by AnonCoconut)
Hi Jackasaurus,

I felt the exact same thing when I was browsing for unis to apply to. Oxford accepts AAA and King's A*AA. I applied for King's, though, with an AAA forecast and got an offer. Although I'm not sure if my offer will actually remain, cause my final results were A*AB only.. So I doubt I'll be going there ultimately. But yeah, I don't see the point of an A*AA requirement if it reduces the number of applicants for King's... *scratches head*

Reducing the number of applicants is precisely the purpose of the A*AA offer

If they have 10 A*AA applicants for every place, having to evaluate any more is unnecessary, additional work for admissions staff.

[gainsbourg]

Is there anywhere I could find average GCSE/A-level results of students at each of the better law schools? University websites, perhaps? Thanks

[Tsunami2011]

(Original post by gainsbourg)
Is there anywhere I could find average GCSE/A-level results of students at each of the better law schools? University websites, perhaps? Thanks

Probably not. Which were you thinking of? you might be able to find it for specific Oxbridge colleges and possibly LSE.. and I saw somewhere that Nottingham look for mainly A*/As on their site somewhere.

[sarah peacehope]

(Original post by theracinghammock)
As far as I know SOAS is considered to be one of the top universities for the LLB degree, not only for it's fancy Oriental and African modules. Though not ranking as high as UCL and LSE etc., it fares pretty well against the rest.

@Bekah:
Yeah, I will. My offer from QMUL came in pretty late, which gives me till June to decide which is gonna be my firm choice! I hope that will clear things up for me. Damn, last year I was debating whether to skip school for a day or not and now I'm choosing between two universities where I'll stay 3 years of my life. :/

just to point out, when looking at just University top lists for law, Queen Mary is right now the place to be noted being fourth right behind Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, which is firstly amazing, second, its nice to live, since accomodation is not the most expensive, and you are really close to the centre. And they have amazing internships with big law firms. and the legal advice centre. and I have now been there twice and the people are really nice, and it is a very stimulating environment. Also they are now part of the Russel Group, boosting its image

[Tsunami2011]

(Original post by sarah peacehope)
just to point out, when looking at just University top lists for law, Queen Mary is right now the place to be noted being fourth right behind Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, which is firstly amazing,

[tehforum]

(Original post by Tsunami2011)

looooooooooooooool

[NYU2012]

(Original post by sarah peacehope)
just to point out, when looking at just University top lists for law, Queen Mary is right now the place to be noted being fourth right behind Oxford, Cambridge and UCL, which is firstly amazing, second, its nice to live, since accomodation is not the most expensive, and you are really close to the centre. And they have amazing internships with big law firms. and the legal advice centre. and I have now been there twice and the people are really nice, and it is a very stimulating environment. Also they are now part of the Russel Group, boosting its image

While Queen Mary is improving its reputation, it's not in the same league as LSE, UCL, KCL, Durham, Nottingham and Bristol(?) which make up the tier right below Oxbridge. It's just a fluke of the rankings that QMUL is ranked that highly due to which criteria they use and how each criteria is weighted.

Yes! Let's neg me because I provided accurate information on current perceptions! The horror I provided accurate information!

[admbeatmaker]

(Original post by Tsunami2011)

hit the nail on the head

[michael321]

(Original post by NYU2012)
While Queen Mary is improving its reputation, it's not in the same league as LSE, UCL, KCL, Durham, Nottingham and Bristol(?) which make up the tier right below Oxbridge. It's just a fluke of the rankings that QMUL is ranked that highly due to which criteria they use and how each criteria is weighted.

Yes! Let's neg me because I provided accurate information on current perceptions! The horror I provided accurate information!

TSR does not like correct information...

QMUL is a good place, but I don't think it's in the same league as King's, Durham etc.

[silence18]

(Original post by NYU2012)
While Queen Mary is improving its reputation, it's not in the same league as LSE, UCL, KCL, Durham, Nottingham and Bristol(?) which make up the tier right below Oxbridge. It's just a fluke of the rankings that QMUL is ranked that highly due to which criteria they use and how each criteria is weighted.

Yes! Let's neg me because I provided accurate information on current perceptions! The horror I provided accurate information!

Even though I agree with you and I understand that QM is not on par with others in terms of reputation you cannot deny that reputation is not the only thing that matters.
For Sarah maybe it's important that Queen Mary's law department is in top 3 for student satisfaction. I might find it important that students are satisfied with the feedback that they receive because it's crucial to have someone to guide you when studying law since it's not a soft subject. I wouldn't like having teachers that won't answer to your e-mails. Also, there are excellent teachers at QM and you cannot deny that, even though it would be strange to 'measure' which university has the best teachers. The important part is that you can understand what you study and develop skills that will help you latter.
What I want to put emphasis on is the fact that maybe you shouldn't rank a university the way the Guardian does but nor can you rank a university based solely by its reputation.

[GrahamRodney]

(Original post by NYU2012)
While Queen Mary is improving its reputation, it's not in the same league as LSE, UCL, KCL, Durham, Nottingham and Bristol(?) which make up the tier right below Oxbridge. It's just a fluke of the rankings that QMUL is ranked that highly due to which criteria they use and how each criteria is weighted.

Yes! Let's neg me because I provided accurate information on current perceptions! The horror I provided accurate information!

Just to be sure - you are talking about the microcosm of Law?

[Rancorous]

(Original post by NYU2012)
While Queen Mary is improving its reputation, it's not in the same league as LSE, UCL, KCL, Durham, Nottingham and Bristol(?) which make up the tier right below Oxbridge. It's just a fluke of the rankings that QMUL is ranked that highly due to which criteria they use and how each criteria is weighted.

Yes! Let's neg me because I provided accurate information on current perceptions! The horror I provided accurate information!

You didn't provide any factual information; you just provided your own opinion. In truth, the only thing that matters is how employers perceive you as a candidate as a result of going to a particular university. In the real world, as long as you go to an 'old university' you will be fine.

Employers will likely ask to see A-level results. Someone who got A*AA from KCL is not going to be favoured in any way to someone who got A*AA from QMUL by the vast, vast majority of employers. Many graduate employers look to see if you have high 2:1s and firsts in your degree marks. And a crucial thing many employers look for is experience. Law firms already filter out many applicants from 'new universities' tacitly by requiring AAB or better at A-level.

I've taken a degree and gone through the vacation scheme application process, and then went through the training contract process. I've spent this year doing the LPC. So speaking as someone who has done countless of these applications, and someone who has spoken to the HR and lawyers at these law firms who have told me what they were looking for, having gone through interviews and assessment days, I can tell you what you are talking about in terms of 'leagues', 'divisions' or 'tiers' is a GROSSLY inaccurate reflection of students are recruited from university.

The problem is - and I know this before you even respond - you will somehow try to backtrack or pretend you were just articulating some justified opinion, but the reality you're plain wrong, and there's no way you can justify yourself. I did open days way back when. When I was speaking to school students in person, I found them really humble and nice. But on a forum when we can't see each other, and you can't tell I'm 23, and it's more difficult to tell you about my experiences and other people's experiences with actual employers, and for you to actually digest it.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Rancorous)
You didn't provide any factual information; you just provided your own opinion. In truth, the only thing that matters is how employers perceive you as a candidate as a result of going to a particular university. In the real world, as long as you go to an 'old university' you will be fine.

Employers will likely ask to see A-level results. Someone who got A*AA from KCL is not going to be favoured in any way to someone who got A*AA from QMUL by the vast, vast majority of employers. Many graduate employers look to see if you have high 2:1s and firsts in your degree marks. And a crucial thing many employers look for is experience. Law firms already filter out many applicants from 'new universities' tacitly by requiring AAB or better at A-level.

I've taken a degree and gone through the vacation scheme application process, and then went through the training contract process. I've spent this year doing the LPC. So speaking as someone who has done countless of these applications, and someone who has spoken to the HR and lawyers at these law firms who have told me what they were looking for, having gone through interviews and assessment days, I can tell you what you are talking about in terms of 'leagues', 'divisions' or 'tiers' is a GROSSLY inaccurate reflection of students are recruited from university.

The problem is - and I know this before you even respond - you will somehow try to backtrack or pretend you were just articulating some justified opinion, but the reality you're plain wrong, and there's no way you can justify yourself. I did open days way back when. When I was speaking to school students in person, I found them really humble and nice. But on a forum when we can't see each other, and you can't tell I'm 23, and it's more difficult to tell you about my experiences and other people's experiences with actual employers, and for you to actually digest it.

In the world of top law firms (Magic Circle as they're called in the UK; White Shoe as we refer to them here), your statements are not accurate. Taking a quick look at these, you'll see that I provided very accurate information.

http://graduates.hoganlovells.com/ap...campus_alumni/

Hogan Lovells took NO ONE from QMUL -- but Durham, Nottingham, KCL, UCL, LSE, Bristol are all represented.

http://www.legalweek.com/digital_ass...6/LWS_0410.pdf

Queen Mary has only recently started to be targeted, but is not targeted to the same extent as any of the above-mentioned.

http://cms.barcouncil.org.uk/assets/....01.12_web.pdf

Queen Mary isn't even included in this list.

Here's a more detailed thread about it:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...ntage+law+firm

And, of course, you can read this post by someone who has more experience than you do:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=88536


Fact of the matter is that there are tiers among the law schools and yes, certain law schools are selected for or recruited over others. QMUL is not in the same league as Durham, Nottingham, KCL, UCL, LSE, Bristol at least no yet. Might it be eventually? Sure. Is it currently? No. And you need only look at not just my statements, but the statements of other people who have experience in the field as well as look at simple statistics. For example, referring back to the above, Lovells didn't take a single person from QMUL but did take more than a good number from the schools I mentioned.


Remind me, how am I wrong?


Finally, I would like to point out that you criticized me for only stating, as you called it, my opinion. Well, now I've provided sources that indicate such ranking differences exist and that they do matter. You've stated merely your opinion and did not provide any sources. Kind of ironic that you can state your opinion as fact without any sources while simultaneously criticizing, as you called it, my opinion. Good job with the whole being hypocritical there -- since you attempted to state your opinion as truth, without having any evidentiary basis for doing so, while also claiming, as you put it, my opinion as false because it didn't have any evidentiary support.

[Tsunami2011]

(Original post by NYU2012)
http://graduates.hoganlovells.com/ap...campus_alumni/

Hogan Lovells took NO ONE from QMUL -- but Durham, Nottingham, KCL, UCL, LSE, Bristol are all represented.

Your evidence is pretty shoddy to be honest. In this link, Sheffield has more representation that UCL, LSE,and King's. Does this mean that Sheffield produce more attractive graduates than the aforementioned universities?. There are too many variables, for you to jump to the conclusion that Hogan Lovells doesn't favour QMUL, i.e how many applicants from QMUL were on course for a strong 2:1 or first, and had strong work exp/extra curricular.

http://cms.barcouncil.org.uk/assets/....01.12_web.pdf

Queen Mary isn't even included in this list.

LSE isn't in this list either. I guess LSE isn't one of the most targeted law schools in the country.

And, of course, you can read this post by someone who has more experience than you do:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=88536

That post is seven years old.. alot can change in that time. QMUL has improved in that time.

Fact of the matter is that there are tiers among the law schools and yes, certain law schools are selected for or recruited over there. QMUL is not in the same league as Durham, Nottingham, KCL, UCL, LSE, Bristol at least no yet. Might it be eventually? Sure. Is it currently? No. And you need only look at not just my statements, but the statements of other people who have experience in the field as well as look at simple statistics. For example, Lovells didn't take a single person from QMUL but did take more than a good number from the schools I mentioned.

You seem to just regurgitate what you've read on TSR, since I recall you making numerous threads about the top UK law schools, so a word to the wise, don't take TSR as gospel.

[NYU2012]

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
Your evidence is pretty shoddy to be honest. In this link, Sheffield has more representation that UCL, LSE,and King's. Does this mean that Sheffield produce more attractive graduates than the aforementioned universities?. There are too many variables, for you to jump to the conclusion that Hogan Lovells doesn't favour QMUL, i.e how many applicants from QMUL were on course for a strong 2:1 or first, and had strong work exp/extra curricular.

If QMUL is a peer of these schools, then it should be producing roughly the same number of strong applicants as Durham, Bristol, Nottingham, UCL, etc.

My 'shoddy', as you put it, evidence is better than a merely stated opinion without any evidence.

Take a look at the League Tables -- QMUL has lower entry standards (and yes, there is a general correlation between selectivity of a school and the caliber of student which goes to/graduate from said school); they have lower % of employment post-graduation.

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
LSE isn't in this list either. I guess LSE isn't one of the most targeted law schools in the country.

No, it's common knowledge that LSE is one of the top law schools, but they haven't been included -- maybe they opted out.

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
That post is seven years old.. alot can change in that time. QMUL has improved in that time.

I never stated that they haven't improved.

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
You seem to just regurgitate what you've read on TSR, since I recall you making numerous threads about the top UK law schools, so a word to the wise, don't take TSR as gospel.

I'm not taking TSR as gospel -- I'm taking what I've found through research and talking to a great number of people who are currently in law school or working in the legal field.

[Tsunami2011]

(Original post by NYU2012)
If QMUL is a peer of these schools, then it should be producing roughly the same number of strong applicants as Durham, Bristol, Nottingham, UCL, etc.

As I said before, would you accept that Sheffield is a peer to these schools then, considering that it produces more Hogan Lovells trainees then the ones you listed?

Take a look at the League Tables -- QMUL has lower entry standards (and yes, there is a general correlation between selectivity of a school and the caliber of student which goes to/graduate from said school); they have lower % of employment post-graduation.

QMUL is at 437 for entry standards approx A*AAc at A-level, which is hardly terrible. I don't even really think QMUL is as good as people think, but your reasoning does not suffice. QMUL probably isn't as selective, as a few of the listed schools, but ultimately this is down to prestige rather than the quality of its Law dept.

No, it's common knowledge that LSE is one of the top law schools, but they haven't been included -- maybe they opted out.

That strikes me as very far fetched, the collection of the data would have nothing to do with LSE, all that would be done is recording where pupils have studied.

I'm not taking TSR as gospel -- I'm taking what I've found through research and talking to a great number of people who are currently in law school or working in the legal field.

About QMUL in particular or in general?

[Rancorous]

(Original post by NYU2012)
In the world of top law firms (Magic Circle as they're called in the UK; White Shoe as we refer to them here), your statements are not accurate. Taking a quick look at these, you'll see that I provided very accurate information.

http://graduates.hoganlovells.com/ap...campus_alumni/

Hogan Lovells took NO ONE from QMUL -- but Durham, Nottingham, KCL, UCL, LSE, Bristol are all represented.

http://www.legalweek.com/digital_ass...6/LWS_0410.pdf

Queen Mary has only recently started to be targeted, but is not targeted to the same extent as any of the above-mentioned.

http://cms.barcouncil.org.uk/assets/....01.12_web.pdf

Queen Mary isn't even included in this list.

Here's a more detailed thread about it:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...ntage+law+firm

And, of course, you can read this post by someone who has more experience than you do:
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=88536


Fact of the matter is that there are tiers among the law schools and yes, certain law schools are selected for or recruited over others. QMUL is not in the same league as Durham, Nottingham, KCL, UCL, LSE, Bristol at least no yet. Might it be eventually? Sure. Is it currently? No. And you need only look at not just my statements, but the statements of other people who have experience in the field as well as look at simple statistics. For example, referring back to the above, Lovells didn't take a single person from QMUL but did take more than a good number from the schools I mentioned.


Remind me, how am I wrong?


Finally, I would like to point out that you criticized me for only stating, as you called it, my opinion. Well, now I've provided sources that indicate such ranking differences exist and that they do matter. You've stated merely your opinion and did not provide any sources. Kind of ironic that you can state your opinion as fact without any sources while simultaneously criticizing, as you called it, my opinion. Good job with the whole being hypocritical there -- since you attempted to state your opinion as truth, without having any evidentiary basis for doing so, while also claiming, as you put it, my opinion as false because it didn't have any evidentiary support.

Mine isn't opinion. It's a fact how law firms recruit. I've spoken to people in HR and lawyers. Been to presentations. Done the applications. They want a minimum of AAB, and a 2:1 degree. Most applicants have AAA at this point. Even that isn't cast in stone; I know someone with ABB who got a training contract with an MC firm. It's illogical to discriminate based off university alone. Someone who got AAA at KCL isn't better on those facts than someone better at Exeter, or Newcastle, or Dundee with AAA. Employers/HR aren't as stupid as you think they are.

You are suggesting that there is a tier system which employers use to filter out graduates. This just isn't true. There is no secret chart. You are American. You have not spoken, I presume, to HR in this country at major law firms. I don't even know if you've been to the country before. You may have read threads, but I'm telling you what happens with most employers all round the country. Because your suggestion is illogical and stupid.

As far as Hogan Lovells goes, it says these are 'some of their trainees', not all. I'm sure there are trainees, associates and partners who have gone to QM. I don't need to look it up. I know there will be. But even if they didn't it doesn't make a difference; it depends on how many people in each year want to go into law, who they are, where they apply, how many applications they make...people in my graduating year ended up at MC firms, US firms, other top law firms. Many did masters with the intention of going to the bar or law firms. Lots of people didn't want to do law at all. The same problem goes for the bar statistic. You'll see great unis like Warwick aren't recorded. It's a snapshot from a particular year; some might be taking masters. Remember also 50% of a law firm's recruitment comes from non-law students, so it also depends on whether students in other departments in the uni want to go into law too.

[AnonCoconut]

(Original post by gtfo)
Reducing the number of applicants is precisely the purpose of the A*AA offer

If they have 10 A*AA applicants for every place, having to evaluate any more is unnecessary, additional work for admissions staff.

Makes sense! 8D I'm pretty sure I don't have a chance anymore (results A*NearlyAB-A* Literature, NearlyA Maths and B Econs) so I'm banking on Bristol.

Where are you hoping to go?

[mathsmusicfrench]

(Original post by Rancorous)
You didn't provide any factual information; you just provided your own opinion

I'm not looking to start an angry barfight, but surely that's the business plan of TSR? If you want factual information then HEAP, league tables, prospectuses, and statements from those in the industry are your friend. If you want the opinion of hundreds of thousands of anonymous, faceless internet users then TSR is your friend.

That's my opinion anyway!

[Panayiotis]

(Original post by mathsmusicfrench)
Just read that. Had negative reviews of the UCL Law/French Law course. (Which is why I applied straight Law at UCL and then picked a French Law course elsewhere. Don't know if thats the same for German though.

Dear mathsmusicfrench I would appreciate it a lot if you could provide me with some information on the UCL Law/French Law course. You say that you had negative reviews of this particular course. What exactly do you know about it because I have been trying to contact someone that may have some information about it for a really long time. I would be grateful if you could tell me anything you know about it... Thank you in advance!!!