Sussex VS Kent Law schools?

At the level of employment (which i assume you are referring to) there is little difference - to reiterate: an employer would not chose one graduate over the other, ceteris paribus.

Go with the uni you prefer!!!

AN employer might not, care to break that down to training contracts? Plus if this is one of the six months after graduation things then that's a bad sign as people who are going to be solicitors will still be in university.

(I am actually assuming you have all this at your fingertips. I'm just like that irritating little Mexican raccoon that taught us all maths)

Hear, hear. I am all for statistical justification (however futile this may be when attempting to draw conclusions on 'employability' of law schools) however, for this situation there really is no need; and that is said with sincerity and practicality and not 'I can't be bothered to use any'.

Apologies, I made the mistake of referring to law firms as 'employers' - i will clarify in the future. Again, another assumption (which i stated in my previous post) that if the OP is referring to reputation there is little in it. Neither a magic or a high-street firm are likely to view either 'better' than the other; After oxbridge and then the top 10 this is when distinctions become blurred and one merely recognises universities as a solid RG/1994 group uni (if that)... If you can provide any statistics showing otherwise, or even another interpretation I will be happy consider it.

Glasgow
Robert Gordon
London School of Economics
Cambridge
Aberdeen
Reading
UCL
Oxford
Strathclyde
Edinburgh
Southampton
Warwick
Durham
Manchester
Birmingham

You've made a pretty major assumption, that employability and legal employability map onto each other almost exactly. It might be the case that Kent so massively puts people off practicing law that they take other employment, but the statistics you would be relying on would not show that.

Here, for example is the Guardian's top 15 universities for graduate level employment or further study after six months:



One of the most noticeable things there is the overrepresentation of Scottish universities, why would that be? I have no idea, but I would be hard pressed to suggest that table is a good reason for someone to pick Strathclyde over Edinburgh or Reading over UCL.

I think you've also made a big assumption that the OP wanted to know about employability, rather than student experience or the joys of going to a campus university etc.

AN employer might not, care to break that down to training contracts? Plus if this is one of the six months after graduation things then that's a bad sign as people who are going to be solicitors will still be in university.

(I am actually assuming you have all this at your fingertips. I'm just like that irritating little Mexican raccoon that taught us all maths)

Hear, hear. I am all for statistical justification (however futile this may be when attempting to draw conclusions on 'employability' of law schools) however, for this situation there really is no need; and that is said with sincerity and practicality and not 'I can't be bothered to use any'.

Apologies, I made the mistake of referring to law firms as 'employers' - i will clarify in the future. Again, another assumption (which i stated in my previous post) that if the OP is referring to reputation there is little in it. Neither a magic or a high-street firm are likely to view either 'better' than the other; After oxbridge and then the top 10 this is when distinctions become blurred and one merely recognises universities as a solid RG/1994 group uni (if that)... If you can provide any statistics showing otherwise, or even another interpretation I will be happy consider it.