(Original post by Rancorous)
I stand by what I have said. I didn't comment on the quality of the students. A first at Reading may well be the same quality as a first from Warwick.
I said it wasn't good. My perception of good is limited to a certain number of universities which are particularly targeted by law firms, and which have done well in the law league tables consistently over some years. Reading places 8th for one year in one table. In the previous year in the same table it was 26th. It places 17th in another table this year. That's not 'good' as any sensible person would care to define it. 'Good' as I would define it would be limited to the top 10/15 universities for law, if you want me to be more specific. Reading does not extend to that category. The tables have tended to place it between 15-30 for law. Maybe you should write a letter to the newspapers to complain?
It's a small law school, it isn't that well known, doesn't tend to be well ranked. The only academic I've heard of from Reading is Carl Stychin who has written some first class articles. I don't think it's got any/many 'big names' or prolific textbook/article writers simply because it's so small.
As far as I'm aware it used to take ABB, and recently moved to AAB. If that is the case, it should be known that City law firms filter out applicants with less than AAB - and have done so for many years - which is the bare minimum they will accept of applicants. So the graduating class this year/in recent years, have probably been filtered out by City law firms in the main.
Law firms do tend to have a recruitment net. There is no coincidence that better universities have graduates with more training contracts. Reading is not always in that net. If a law firm takes a good bunch of applications, maybe some successful applicants from a university, then they tend to recruit from them again.
Training contracts are enormously difficult to secure if you have no contacts. The competition is ridiculous. As in, if you don't have one, you have no idea how competitive. There is so much students get assessed on. Unless you can show me that x% of Reading law graduates are securing training contracts, I'm going to withhold my judgement on that. You generally need a high 2:1/1st everywhere nowadays. I am distinctly unimpressed with you receiving two As and a B. The minimum law firms ask for is AAB, and that will probably rise in time. I'm sure the average successful applicant has statistically much higher grades than that. Law is so competitive nowadays that I really think there's an argument to be had for applying to a less competitive course with AAB at a more competitive university like UCL or Newcastle, where you will probably have a lot more fun as well!
In short, if you think with a low 2:1 from any university you are in good stead for a training contract, you are just not simply living in the real world. From Reading of all places, you will probably need a first. Checking on UniStats it appears 3% of Reading students gained a first in the last year. 3% have a good shot at a training contract at a City firm. I'm sure more than 3% of students will become lawyers, but just not at City firms. I'm sure a few students with high 2:1s/connections will get City training contracts too. Many will go to low rate high street firms. Some will go to regional firms. Many won't go into law at all. This isn't a reflection on Reading; it's a reflection on how competitive it is to secure a training contract at a City law firm.
You also seem insecure because of your choice of university.