MA Law - Job opportunities etc.

Hi all, I'm thinking of applying for Bristol's MA in Law (I know a few that study it post here) and have some questions. If anyone has any answers that would be great.

-How is the MA perceived by Law firms in general?
-Do Law firms focus mainly on your undergraduate grades, or your MA grades when considering you for a TC? (I have a lowish 2:1 (63), can I 'make up' for this by doing well in an MA?
-How difficult is the MA? - What are you and your peers generally getting in exams?

Thanks for any help! - or just general advice about an MA in Law.

x

Hey!

I can help with your first two questions. I've talked about Master's qualifications with law firms on numerous occasions and the answer has been nearly unanimous. They couldn't care less about you having done an LLM/MA/BCL.

In my experience, people who're doing postgrad qualifications because (1) They think a strong Master's can overshadow less than stellar LLB grades, or (2) It will make them more employable somehow, are sorely disappointed because neither is true. By all means, do a Master's if you're genuinely interested in what you're studying and you want to engage yourself in legal academia for another year because of your love for it, but don't expect that to have any great bearing on your employment prospects.

In fact, I was watching a Lawyer2B webinar just last night where the Grad Recruitment Head of Herbert Smith explicitly said that doing a Master's does not impress him nor endear him to an applicant any more than an applicant without a Master's.

Hope that helps!

Hi, thanks for the response. I perhaps was not very clear in the OP - the MA in Law I was referring to is a 2 qualifying law degree for those who hold non-law undergraduate degrees.

Law firms are still not really bothered/impressed by it though. It's something that neither helps nor hinders your profile. After all, if it was truly a better option than the GDL, law firms would sponsor future conversion trainees doing the 2-year course instead of the GDL.

I agree with the fact that the GDL and MA are regarded in similar prestige. However, do you think that the MA can provide a better basis to 'make up' for an average BSc? Suppose that I get 63 in my BSc, and then, over two years, achieve an average of 67 in my MA (all abstract figures). Would I be in a better position to get a TC than if I had just done a GDL? Having demonstrated that I can do well in Law academically? - Or at least better academically than I did in my first degree.

My basic question is this; I feel that if I did a GDL my average undergrad grades would hold me back from getting a TC. Can I offset this by doing well in an MA?

Hi all, I'm thinking of applying for Bristol's MA in Law (I know a few that study it post here) and have some questions. If anyone has any answers that would be great. (By MA in Law, I mean a two year qualifying law degree for those who have completed a non-law undergraduate degree)

-How is the MA perceived by Law firms in general?
-Do Law firms focus mainly on your undergraduate grades, or your MA grades when considering you for a TC? (I have a lowish 2:1 (63), can I 'make up' for this by doing well in an MA?
-How difficult is the MA? - What are you and your peers generally getting in exams?

Thanks for any help! - or just general advice about an MA in Law.

x

Having gone through the MA myself, perhaps I will provide different insight than the previous posters. I chose to pursue law after having a career in the sciences, and I wanted a program that ticked all of my particular boxes (a law degree on the graduate level, outside of London but down South, a well respected university, a considerable amount of academic rigor), therefore I chose Bristol's MA, and I am very happy with my choice.

I agree with Arrowhead and Nulli to a degree, if you are looking for it to 'cure' previous academic deficiencies, then I would advise against it. Do the GDL get a distinction and then apply for TCs. The MA is starting to permeate within the firms (I don't have first hand knowledge of this as I chose the bar route) but my classmates have done reasonably well and most didn't struggle to get TCs but some have fared better than others.

However what is does (as Nulli touched upon) is allow you to study the seven core subjects in greater depth than they do on the GDL. Putting it a different way, the MA is an academic degree which is straight "black letter law" much like most LLBs or the BA in Jurisprudence at Oxbridge. The GDL (as I understand it) covers all the requisite knowledge fields but not to any great extent.

As far as difficulty, I didn't find it harder than my science degrees, but I did find it challenging, as I had to make arguments (analyze from multiple points of view, articulating the various avenues with no "answer' being correct or incorrect depending on your argument/premise ) rather than applying the scientific method and analyzing/testing whether the hypothesis is most likely to be true or false.

It is law school, so it is very competitive, but not cut throat. The tutors t take a laid back approach for the most part, but expect you to fully articulate your arguments etc and don't just give good scores away so you will have to work. In my year there were no Distinctions (1:1), but plenty of good Commendations and a smattering of Passes.

I just finished the bptc (passed the bar exam in October), applied for pupillage while taking the bptc and received numerous interviews, but alas the pupillage has escaped me this year. Do I think the MA was the key factor in getting interviews, not specifically, but I do believe it factored into the equation. But the Bar process (as I have been told) is very different than the TC route, but just as rigorous, if not a wee bit more.

Hope this helps

Good luck on whatever you decide.

Thanks for the reply. What sort of % did NOT get TC's? Any particular trend in the people who weren't successful?