Why is Law at A Level considered to be soft but at degree level considered amazing?

Some unis prefer you to have no prior knowledge so they can teach you it themselves.

I agree, it simply makes no sense. I suspect the reasons are historic, perhaps A-level law was a doss in the past. Thankfully this attitude is changing with more and more recruiters recognising that A-level law is a difficult and legitimate academic subject.

Some people cite reasons like "uni likes to teach you from fresh" and "degrees are more in-depth" - personally I find these reasons completely unconvincing and they could be applied to any other subject you care to name. It would be completely bizarre if an Economics or History degree accepted you without the relevant A-level.

I don't know what you mean by "the past", but it was a total doss when I took it a year ago.

Law A Level isn't particularly rated for the same reason that A Level 'Medicine' wouldn't be: the discipline is too vast, too far-ranging, to be able to represent on a small-scale. There are far too many different skills involved and far too much knowledge required in order to be able to do so; even if you could somehow create something that was intellectually rigourous and very challenging, it'd still contain lots of learning by rote, AND, even if you could somehow engineer it such that the course tested all the required skills, it wouldn't be in substantial or equal measure.

Admissions tutors and employers would likely much rather see you demonstrate the transferable skills in other, more in-depth, purer subjects. Same with Medicine.

I don't know what you mean by "the past", but it was a total doss when I took it a year ago.

In what way?

I didn't do A-level law so its difficult for me to comment, but very often I see people come on TSR who find the subject very difficult. The percentage of people getting an A or A* in Law is lower than the average for other subjects.

I don't think this is a good comparison. We are happy to let people practice law after only studying seven subjects for a year on the GDL. The amount of time spent on each subject on the GDL is similar to the amount of time spent studying for a module for an A-level. By contrast medics must study their subject for six years. I am discounting the LPC because it teaches very little substantive law.

You can't study the full range of legal subjects on an A-level but you can get a working knowledge of a few areas. I believe A-level courses choose between Criminal, Contract and Torts. Other subjects have to make the same decisions - obviously you can't study the whole of human History or all the classic texts in a History or English A-level, but you can study a particular period of history or a particular classic text.

1. You study the GDL a) having already spent 3+ years studying another relevant discipline to a high level and b) upwards of age 21. You're in a much better position to learn it than a 16 year old.

2. As I said, admissions tutors don't want you to gain 'working knowledge of a few areas'. They don't even necessarily want to see expert knowledge of any areas. They want to see skills that you've picked up and that you are well-equipped to think critically about and do things with legal knowledge.

Subjects such as History and English at A Level are far more skills-orientated than Law in terms of curriculum and are marked as such.