Does your university truly make a huge difference when TC hunting at the top end?

I was chatting with a non-law friend of mine who's doing the GDL at the moment. She has a very high 2.1 from Exeter in English and History and loads of relevant extracurriculars to her name and some decent work experience. Yet she's been rejected from 5/5 Vac Schemes so far. I've read her applications (amongst other people who have) and she has some perfectly good, well thought-out and detailed answers.

Understandably, she was really upset but is soldiering on because the rejections are expected, but she is becoming more and more convinced that Exeter is playing part of the role in holding her back. It doesn't help that majority of the people in her GDL class with TCs already went to Oxbridge/LSE/UCL/King's/Durham.

While the sample of her class is not really indicative of how things are in the rest of the profession, I just wondered about the frank question that when it comes to the upper end of law firms (Magic Circle, Silver Circle, etc.) is it true that majority (90%+) of the future trainees come from a very select, 6-7 universities? Should people who don't go to one of those universities not apply to top firms altogether?

I was chatting with a non-law friend of mine who's doing the GDL at the moment. She has a very high 2.1 from Exeter in English and History and loads of relevant extracurriculars to her name and some decent work experience. Yet she's been rejected from 5/5 Vac Schemes so far. I've read her applications (amongst other people who have) and she has some perfectly good, well thought-out and detailed answers.

Understandably, she was really upset but is soldiering on because the rejections are expected, but she is becoming more and more convinced that Exeter is playing part of the role in holding her back. It doesn't help that majority of the people in her GDL class with TCs already went to Oxbridge/LSE/UCL/King's/Durham.

While the sample of her class is not really indicative of how things are in the rest of the profession, I just wondered about the frank question that when it comes to the upper end of law firms (Magic Circle, Silver Circle, etc.) is it true that majority (90%+) of the future trainees come from a very select, 6-7 universities? Should people who don't go to one of those universities not apply to top firms altogether?

In answer to your last proposition: as you said rightly, there does seem to be a targeted 7/8 universities that will be prevalent at the top firms. Perhaps students in the top bracket do not need to be as 'exceptional' as those from the middle because they already have an impressive name on their CV. Perhaps such students are naturally more confident in their abilities, or are more ambitious than students from 'lesser unis'. I imagine the list of factors is endless, but surely the former is most likely. As an employer with so many options, why waste your time interviewing a Sheffield, or Lpool grad when you can play it safe with an LSE or Durham grad who on average will likely to be stronger academically.

Would be interesting to hear what you have to say on the matter, as unfortunately there is very little evidence that qualifies anyone to give a hard-and-fast answer.

My thoughts on the matter usually boil down to the following question: What's more likely? That law firms (and more specifically, those that work in the HR/Grad Rec departments) have an inbuilt bias towards Oxbridge etc. candidates? Or, that students that go to these more prestigious universities also happen to be the better candidates? I wouldn't call myself naive, but I'm inclined to think the latter.

Also, I'm going to assume that your friend is applying for the Winter VS at various law firms. Just to put things into perspective, the MC firm I will be joining only had 12 Winter VS places last year. 12. How many people do you think that applied for the scheme had a first-class degree/on course for a first-class degree from a better university than Exeter? I bet you more than 12. This is not meant to be a slight on your friend's achievements whatsoever, but when you are competing for (possibly) less than 12 places on a Winter VS, your chances of success are very small. The fact is that it's not that your friend's achievements aren't to be lauded, it's just that there are people out there that are better (on paper, at least).

Understandably, she was really upset but is soldiering on because the rejections are expected, but she is becoming more and more convinced that Exeter is playing part of the role in holding her back. It doesn't help that majority of the people in her GDL class with TCs already went to Oxbridge/LSE/UCL/King's/Durham.

I see where you're coming from, that it's not the university name, but the qualities associated with the calibre of students that go to it. Something that is, in and of itself, not an unreasonable presumption, yet still unfair to those who don't go to them.

This makes me wonder though, who constitutes the "Other Top 10"? Surely that's very subjective? I mean I'm sure places like UCL, LSE, Durham, Bristol make it to the top 10, but arguably so do King's, Exeter, etc. What percent of the "Other Top 10" 29% at CC, for example, come from LSE/UCL/Durham/Manchester. What is the distribution like? I find it hard to believe that it is evenly divided between the Other Top 10.

Also, when it comes to the "Top 10-20" too, how many of those students get in immediately after their law/non-law degrees? How many of them spent a year or two applying and reapplying until they finally hit gold? How many of them did went on to do Master's degrees at Oxbridge/Top 5 universities?

Surely that represents a different kind of bias in and of itself that the numbers don't reflect?

I see where you're coming from, that it's not the university name, but the qualities associated with the calibre of students that go to it. Something that is, in and of itself, not an unreasonable presumption, yet still unfair to those who don't go to them.

This makes me wonder though, who constitutes the "Other Top 10"? Surely that's very subjective? I mean I'm sure places like UCL, LSE, Durham, Bristol make it to the top 10, but arguably so do King's, Exeter, etc. What percent of the "Other Top 10" 29% at CC, for example, come from LSE/UCL/Durham/Manchester. What is the distribution like? I find it hard to believe that it is evenly divided between the Other Top 10.

Also, when it comes to the "Top 10-20" too, how many of those students get in immediately after their law/non-law degrees? How many of them spent a year or two applying and reapplying until they finally hit gold? How many of them did went on to do Master's degrees at Oxbridge/Top 5 universities?

Surely that represents a different kind of bias in and of itself that the numbers don't reflect?

This is a very good point and I am going to copy-paste it and send it to my friend, if you don't mind. I think it might help put things into perspective and have her focus on training contract apps, which are much more important at present.

Interesting point raised. I happened to be speaking to a friend recently, currently studying Law at Birmingham; having only just recovered from his freshers, he is already beginning to doubt his prospects of gaining a TC altogether, never mind from a top City firm. Unfortunately, I didn't ask for his reasons, but it says a lot about the competitiveness of law, and students' perspectives. It is interesting to see how the common advice of: 'study a rigorous degree from a Russell Group' seems to be flawed in his eyes (if it was ever good advice to give in the first place, mind you). Admittedly, his whimsical doubts are unrepresentative of all Bham students, but it's true that he doesn't have the re-assurance that an Oxbridge, or even a student from a 'very select' group of universities has, as you say above.

In answer to your last proposition: as you said rightly, there does seem to be a targeted 7/8 universities that will be prevalent at the top firms. Perhaps students in the top bracket do not need to be as 'exceptional' as those from the middle because they already have an impressive name on their CV. Perhaps such students are naturally more confident in their abilities, or are more ambitious than students from 'lesser unis'. I imagine the list of factors is endless, but surely the former is most likely. As an employer with so many options, why waste your time interviewing a Sheffield, or Lpool grad when you can play it safe with an LSE or Durham grad who on average will likely to be stronger academically.

Would be interesting to hear what you have to say on the matter, as unfortunately there is very little evidence that qualifies anyone to give a hard-and-fast answer.

I think the primary situation in which people cry favouritism is when the following situation occurs:

Student A - attends a RG university - has a high 2.1 - lots of ECs - good work exp.
Student B - attends Oxbridge - has a high 2.1 - lots of ECs - good work exp.

Student B is then invited to interview/offered the TC or whatever and Student A is rejected. Assuming that both applications are well-written and ticks the boxes, the only real noticeable difference is the university that they attend and the preconceptions that people have about the calibre of students each institution produces. Is it truly unfair that Student B is chosen over Student A?

The fact is that human beings (including me and you) have preconceptions about most things. If someone puts two footballers in front of me, same position, mostly the same attributes, but one plays for Manchester United and the other, Newcastle United, most people would choose the Manchester United player over the Newcastle United player. Why? Reasons will probably include: 1) it was harder to get into the Manchester United academy/team in the first place, thus shows a competitive edge; 2) exposed to a higher level of coaching; 3) trains and plays at some of the best facilities in the world, so on and so forth.

The point is that, in reality, the Newcastle United player might actually, if given the chance, turn out better than the Manchester United player. However, because there is no exact science to picking a footballer and to make it relevant, a law candidate, all we can go by are our preconceptions and general factors. Law firms aren't going to spend a lot of money interviewing every similar candidate - they have to make judgements and, unfortunately, sometimes they have to go on hearsay and presumptions, rather than actual knowledge.

So, Manchester or Exeter for City training contracts?

Either. Neither of them will automatically get you thrown in the reject pile ... the key to getting through to interview will be what else you've done academically and legally, and whether you have sufficient commercial focus and eye for detail.

Queen Mary is well-regarded for law, though it's a bit hit and miss for other subjects. Just go with whichever university you actually want to attend for the next 3 years :-)

Great, thanks a lot! Manchester it is!