[NYU2012]

I know that the law rankings are often along the lines of:

Group 1:
Oxford + Cambridge

Group 2:
LSE
UCL
KCL
Durham
Nottingham
Warwick

So, my question is, primarily are Durham, etc. graduates at a disadvantage compared to LSE, etc. grads? I.e. does going to LSE/UCL/KCL confer an advantage over going to Durham, etc.?

[Aspiringlawstudent]

One does hear of there being a certain advantage of studying in London in terms of it being a lot easier to make connections, atted open days and the like. I'm not sure about how finicky they are about the precise institution, though, at that sort of level. They're all good law schools.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
One does hear of there being a certain advantage of studying in London in terms of it being a lot easier to make connections, atted open days and the like. I'm not sure about how finicky they are about the precise institution, though, at that sort of level. They're all good law schools.

With the exception of the obvious point of geography, that it is easier to attend a term time open day in the City if you attend King's College, London rather than King's College, Aberdeen, this is a complete myth.

Firms have sophisticated recruitment procedures that do not depend on whose canapés you eat or on who you chat to at receptions.

The only clear advantage in getting a training contract is that you have a better chance of securing a TC from any firm, not just City firms, if you have worked there in any capacity, whether that is a vacation scheme or otherwise.

[Tsunami2011]

My personal feeling is that LSE may confer an advantage over the latter three in that group, but I don't think it's the same for UCL and King's. LSE is often seen to rival Oxbridge for Law, and seen as the next best thing after Oxbridge for Law, hence why I've occassionally heard that LSE is closer to Oxbridge than the rest of the elite law schools.

[Clip]

I've said this before, and anyone is free to throw me some pelters.

Graduate Recruitment, in the main, is about differentiating the undifferentiated.

Most graduates will have good grades, have attended good universities and will have the extra-curriculars that they think are novel and show commitment, but in actual fact are so jejune and banal that they might as well be tagged on to the LLB as an optional module.

I cannot believe that Dog, Cat & Parrot LLP find Student A with a 2.1 from LSE and A*AB any more attractive than Student B with a 2.1from Exeter with AAA.

All these differences are incredibly marginal. I believe what matters is that you meet the minimum requirements, and don't come across as a complete tool in your applications and interviews.

[flakepaint]

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
My personal feeling is that LSE may confer an advantage over the latter three in that group, but I don't think it's the same for UCL and King's. LSE is often seen to rival Oxbridge for Law, and seen as the next best thing after Oxbridge for Law, hence why I've occassionally heard that LSE is closer to Oxbridge than the rest of the elite law schools.

From where? People on this website?

[Tsunami2011]

(Original post by flakepaint)
From where? People on this website?

Nope. I know a few people who work in the magic circle/silver circle firms in senior roles and whilst it's not a big issue it still exists.I'm not saying that it gives them much of an advantage, but in terms of recruitment, it seems like LSE is only second to Oxbridge. I'm sure if you were to ask 10 people the best place to study Law aside from Oxbridge (without taking into consideration 'social life' LSE would come up more times then not. It just seems to me that LSE is in 3rd place and then it gets murky from there onwards.