Urgent 2 days left: Bristol vs Kings.

Scroll to see replies

Hi, I've got offers from both for law, and I'm really confused as to what to choose. Is there a difference in career prospects if I go to Kings, as I've heard that the US firms mainly choose oxbridge and london grads. Also, I'm worried about the expense and lack of community feel in london :frown:

Any help would be appreciated!

I personally feel you should go to Kings. Its ranked very highly and I'm sure US firms accept graduates from Kings. Who doesn't? Its such a prestigious school. Oxbridge is an entirely different story. Both Kings and Bristol are excellent, but I don't think you can go wrong with Kings. :smile:

Also, London is a massive place, so you might want to take into account expenses other than tuition. And you will get used to the crowd soon! Hope this helps! :smile:

Reply 21

redferry

Your quality of life in Bristol will be much better due to the vast difference in living costs. Bristol is expensive but London is frankly painful.

Reply 22

returnmigrant

Guide to Firm/Insurance decisions here - http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki/Firm_and_insurance_choices

Reasons to choose Bristol here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzMxTHksVT4

Reply 23

Georgie_M

Original post by merrrrr

Any help would be appreciated!

Reason one employability: no real difference between the two, US firms also visit bristol uni btw. So this is a moot point.
Reason two prestige: the difference is insignificant another moot point.
Reason three cost of living: Bristol wins hands down although the impact of this will be dependant on how much your parents are able to subsidise London life.
Reason four sense of community: hands down bristol, there is much more community in bristol and it still has most of the same opportunities as a large city.
Reason five the wrath of the mother: highly subjective.

So looking at all the reasons Bristol obviously wins except of course reason five, how important is that to you? Does your mothers opinion over-ride your choice?

(I am biased as a Bristolian and Bristol MSc offer holder :tongue:

)

Reply 24

Crumpet1

Original post by Georgie_M

)

I am not biased, but I'm very happy to second everything you've said!

OP I think you need to show this thread to your mum.

Reply 25

merrrrr

thanks for your responses guys. Just to clarify, if I went to Bristol there would be no difference in my career prospects? I just feel bad about turning down Kings as I felt really lucky to receive an offer from there as its so competitive, but I know I will be happier at Bristol so idk :./

Reply 26

Crumpet1

Original post by merrrrr

Absolutely correct.

It's really not sounding like you have looked at the link I posted in reply 12, otherwise you would know this.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 27

merrrrr

Original post by Crumpet1

Absolutely correct.

It's really not sounding like you have looked at the link I posted in reply 12, otherwise you would know this.

I definitely have, but I was just wondering how do you know this for certain?

Reply 28

Crumpet1

Original post by merrrrr

I definitely have, but I was just wondering how do you know this for certain?

Well, besides the carefully researched statistics shown in that article, which tell you clearly that Bristol grads have more of the TC jobs than KCL grads, here are my thoughts, for what they're worth.

There quickly comes a point where university attended isn't a distinguishing factor for recruiters. It will always be easy to say that students who attend old universities have an advantage over those who attend former polys. But that is, in good part, down to the fact that academic excellence correlates closely with those two groups. Those attending old universities generally needed better A level grades than those attending new ones.

But once you narrow it down that far, you have thousands of students, all at excellent universities, and all with top A level grades. The way that law firms distinguish who they want to recruit after that stage isn't by which university you are at - they're not recruiting the university after all.

They look for:

- Academic performance at university. If you got 2:2s, you'll be rejected for someone with 2:1s. 2:2s at KCL are no more or less valuable than 2:2s at Reading - they're still 2:2s and your application goes in the bin.

- Commercial acumen. You might be the brainiest academic lawyer ever, but if you can't advise a client logically then you are not going to be a good lawyer. The university you attended won't affect this, and especially not the difference between Bristol and KCL.

- Whether you can write, spell and use grammar correctly. Law is all about writing and interpreting the written word; if your application is full of errors it will go in the bin.

- Whether you understand what law entails. Have you researched the firm you're applying to, do you know what they do, what they're renowned for, and what major cases they've recently been involved in?

- Whether you seem to be a nice person to have around (the 'would I rather kill myself than spend 10 hours with you in a completion meeting' test).

Clearly none of the above will be influenced by your choice of university. It will, however, be influenced by what you do during your three years at university and in your holidays. So the key is to attend an excellent university (Bristol and KCL are both that), then work hard, alongside doing interesting stuff that will make people want to interview you.

If everything between two applicants were equal, and the only difference was that one went to KCL and the other went to Bristol, they would be impossible to split and no grad recruiter would use university choice as the final decider. That would be about as scientific as using rock, paper, scissors. Do you seriously think that would be how world-class law firms recruit their future lawyers?!