Is there any point applying for law with ABB?

If, by 'local', you mean high street firms, you might also want to consider the impact that the emergence of ABSs will have on firms of that type. My prediction is that many of them will disappear.

kent, reading, hull, bournemouth, oxford brookes, surrey these are all ABB unis, not so sure how "good" they are but kent and reading are definitely top 30 in the times league tables

Oxford ILP offers it, but that's part of Brookes with just some access to Oxford's careers service and sports facilities. Ditto Nottingham Law School, but that's part of Trent.

Most law firms have around a 50:50 split (according to their websites)

I would like to nail this 50:50 myth.

Of those who didn't switch from another legal profession in 2008/9 72.7% of new solicitors were law graduates. That is almost three in four.

I want to pick up on a number of points.







I would like to nail this 50:50 myth.

Of those who didn't switch from another legal profession in 2008/9 72.7% of new solicitors were law graduates. That is almost three in four.

You're getting overly hung up on this. The conversion course is a simple vocational qualification. When potential employers evaluate you as a candidate, they will look at the classification/university of your original degree. The GDL/LPC is just an add-on. For instance, Nottingham Law School for years had the best ranking out of all the GDL providers, despite being an ex-poly, and had a very high turnover of Oxbridge graduates. The major training providers now, like BPP and CoL, equally see an awful lot of Russell Group/Oxbridge grads pass through on their way to MC firms, even though BPP and CoL offer limited undergraduate degrees of dubious respectability.

In fact, if you're lucky enough to get a training contract with a city firm, they'll probably specify where you go anyway, so the point is moot. But league tables have almost no bearing on the GDL/LPC/BPTC.

Of course, a senior status LLB is a different matter.

Ah OK, I have just been going on the FAQs of larger firms in the 'do I need to have a law degree?' bit which often say 'around half our trainees in year suchansuch came via the conversion course', I didn't know there were official statistics. Do you think this would be mainly influenced by smaller practices taking a greater proportion of law grads or do you think large firms are doing some rounding up of their figures?

With the Oxford ILP thing I was just going by their current website, are Oxford Uni still involved in spite of not actually owning a stake?

There is definitely an element of this. I think there is a marketing element as well. I suspect there is some rounding, and I am sure those larger firms that don't rule out non-law grads but take a significantly smaller percentage of them, simply say nothing.

One major issue is gender. These are 2008/9 stats. Firms with 81 or more partners took 56.1% female and 43.9% male trainees but they took 39.6% of all males with training contracts whilst they only took 31.9% of all females with training contracts.

If we look at admissions (obviously these figures aren't directly comparable because these would be the trainees of two years previously), 67.8% of males entering following a training contract had a law degree but 75.4% of females did so.

I think one of the things at play is the relative invisibility of that gender imbalance. Law firms tend to put two men and two women on their trainee case studies. I think there is also an element of inadvertent sexism. Men are the real deal so we tend to look only at their background. Moreover the fact that transfers in to the profession have a much more equal gender balance at 49.6%/50.4% male/female obscures the gender imbalance amongst those doing training contracts. Of those admitted following TCs 36.3% were male and 63.7% female.

If you don't mind clarifying, what do you mean by 'real deal' and what enters into the enquiry over women beyond 'only background'?

I think there is still an element of gender stereotyping, certainly amongst men but possibly amongst women too. I think men (possibly women as well) implicitly regard law as a male profession and so when thinking about the backgrounds of trainees at a firm, they think of the backgrounds of the male trainees at the firm and do not consider the female trainees at all even if they are numerically greater.

It is the same point that if someone is asked the name of the last American to win the singles at Wimbledon, there is a very good chance the answer will be Sampras rather than Serena Williams.

Therefore nothing enters the enquiry over women beyond background. Women simply don't enter the enquiry.

As there does then tend to be a difference in background between men and women, a statement that may be true only for the male trainees (such as that half are non-law) gets attributed to trainees as a whole; or no American has won the Wimbledon singles in the last decade.

That's interesting. I don't regard, and never have regarded, law as a "male profession". I'm not of your vintage, but I've been in the profession for a little over 12 years and it's never the impression I've had.

I'm not sure I follow your stats. Are you saying that they evidence more men enter the profession from a non-law background, than women? I'm not across the numbers.

I may be a bit behind with this reply (I couldn't be bothered to read ALL of the other responses... but:

I got ABB at A-level (2011 leavers) and didn't get into my firm or insurance (SOAS- AAA, Bristol- AAB). I had to go through clearing and ended up at University of Westminster. Now, as silly as it sounds, it really depends how much you value prestige and reputation. At the time, I was mortified at the thought of attending a 'crap uni' having blown the 'I'm a top student who's too good to even consider anything but a top uni' trumpet, and dreaded going there. It turns out that I'm very happy here. Now since you said you're not all that interested in working for a big city firm, I don't suppose the opportunities available to us as students who are studying slap bang in the centre of the legal world would be a consideration... but if there's even the slightest chance you'd want to work in a city firm but aren't applying to a RG uni, I'd definitely recommend Westminster. In fact, I'd recommend it regardless, as you'll find that many people outside of London will be impressed if you say you study Law at 'the University of Westminster'. Sounds prestigious, you see? That's not to say that the legal practitioners outside the capital are stupid- far from it. But they're certainly less picky than city firms, whilst at the same time, you're background at a uni in the centre of all things law and politics is more likely to count for something.

ON THE OTHER HAND.... where's the harm in applying maybe to one RG uni? It really isn't all about the grades. Now, as it happens, I've been suffering from severe health problems whilst studying at uni. I already suffered from my condition prior to moving away, but it has worsened since. For that reason, I'm planning on moving back home permanently when I return this summer. I went down the UCAS route once more, this time applying for local universities that were, on paper, as good as or better than Westminster. I applied to University Of Birmingham, College Of Law Birmingham, and Staffordshire University (the latter merely because they offer a two year LLB). I had offers from all three- yes, Birmingham too. Despite my only having achieved ABB, they still saw fit to offer me a place, because at the end of the day, its not all about the grades. In addition to my personal statement, I also sent a letter direct to the LLB admissions tutor emphasising my extra-curricular activities, academic potential, and reasons for wanting to attend Birmingham. I doubt I would've got in had I not gone that extra mile. Don't assume that you'll get rejected so easily. Write to RG unis, ask them if they'll consider students who don't meet the entrance criteria. Or simply risk it with one or two options on your UCAS form and send a letter like I did, to be considered alongside your personal statement. There really is no harm in trying, it's worked for me twice (the first time was with SOAS). Its hard for them not to at least consider someone who makes that little bit extra effort...

Now that was an essay and a half! :| If you're still awake... sorry! :P

I do Law, Psychology History and will probably end up with ABB. I don't want to work in some big city firm or anything like that- I'd much rather work in a small, local firm. Bearing this in mind, is it still worth applying with ABB?

But how come overall. The % graduate of jobs is really low? Even in good unis such as manchester, sheffield, the % of graduate jobs in these are around 55% despite being a top uni.

And if you were reading linguistics at Manchester, it would be 36%. Things are tough out there.

Thank you so much. After reading through most of these posts I was beginning to lose hope and just felt completely useless but this post has made me feel so much better
Thanks for your advice and the motivation