Law in the U.S

There is a vast difference between a 21 year old who has graduated with an LLB and a 26 year old with a BA/JD. At most law schools in the US people take time off between BA and JD, so they are often 28 or 29 when they graduate! I had many law student friends at Stanford, a number of whom were married and had careers before going to law school. So there is a big difference, I'm sorry. Most GDL students have also taken time to work and realized later that they want to go into law, same thing.

Anyway I was trying to explain to the OP and others what the real situation is like in the US. You can preach all you want about how great the UK education system is, but at the end of the day, an LLB will almost never get you a good job at a top law firm in the US. Most of the applicants have JDs from Harvard, Stanford, NYU, Columbia, Yale, etc, plus work experience and BAs in a multitude of subjects. An LLB is not competitive in the US. End of story.

I think both points are valid. It's going to be tougher for an LLB graduate to get a job in the US both because they have a different qualification, and quite obviously less life experience.

This doesn't mean the JD is better than an LLB - its just what American employers prefer, especially top firms, and no amount of postgraduate study will change that perception (except perhaps in niche firms where specialisation is required). It's exactly the same here in the UK - law firms prefer to hire people with British qualifications.

In terms of life experience, its pretty logical that a 26 year old will have experienced more than a 21 year old (generally), so unless an LLB'er has something extraordinary on their CV, they will most likely always lose out to JD candidates.

That's life.

As I said, 6 years of uni is not 6 years of real life. Therefore, doing a JD gives you no more "life experience" than an LLB unless you go out and get some by extra corricular or by working your arse off in a bar to fund your way through.

Umm if you spend 10 minutes with a 18 year old working at a bar and a 30 year old Phd Student you will see a difference.

How old are you, Ethereal?

Wow well you've met some very immature postgrads then.

OK well I think I have made my point. I strongly believe that an older student with a bachelor's degree and a postgraduate qualification, be that JD, LLM, or GDL, is more desired by and attractive to employers, both in the US and in the UK, but especially in the US where that is the standard route into a career in law.

In the US a person with a JD is hired as a full lawyer, whereas in the UK they are hired as trainees, and still must do a 1 year BVC or LPC. So if you think about it, it's still 3 more years past LLB to reach the level that a JD graduate in the US does (BVC/LPC plus standard 2 year training contract).

Ie they can practice without ever proving they are competent in a practical setting, whereas, in the UK you are required to pass both an academic qualification and a vocational one.

As for your point about immature PhD students, not really - but having lived in the real world before I started my LLB I can tell you those who went from school to undergrad to postgrad without doing anything else have no concept of life in the real world at all.

2 words: summer placement
They are essential for jobs at the leading firms.

OK now I'm really really done. I've never said the UK is worse than the US in terms of legal education but you have said the opposite. I'm just trying to get you to see that there are pros and cons to both, but one is not inherently better.

As I said, 6 years of uni is not 6 years of real life. Therefore, doing a JD gives you no more "life experience" than an LLB unless you go out and get some by extra corricular or by working your arse off in a bar to fund your way through.

True university is not real life, but i think you will find that those who are older will have experienced more (that's quite logical), and whilst not having "real life" experience, will have a different level of maturity, and an outlook on life that US employers seem to favour. The evidence is in the system - if they wanted fresh undergrads, law wouldnt be a postgrad course. There is clearly an advantage to hiring postgrads, or they wouldn't do it. The most obvious advantage is the maturity gained from three years of extra study.