History OR Law???

First off i know you guys are going to be slightly biased but hey here goes..

Most of the unis that are good for law seem also to be good for history and i'm looking at UCL, KCL, Durham, Warwick, Nottingham...

I know i definetly want to go into law after uni and i have been told going from a history degree into the law conversion course is pretty straight forward..BUT surely spending 3 years in the subject gives you a wider knowledge...

But at the same time i love history SO much and can't imagine giving it up after year 13, some of the modules sound amazing and much more interesting than some of the law modules.

Sorry to blether just need some advice! Thanks!

Reply 1

*River

Side point, but Durham for History might be an issue with your GCSEs, especially because you don't have an A* in History :frown:

.

If I were you, I'd take History because I think I'm really enjoying the chance to learn something that I'm interested in, even though I intend to go into primary teaching after my degree and I could have taken a BA without the need to do a PGCE when I graduate.

Reply 2

SarahhhD

Do history, lots of extra reading ariound lawaround law at uni then do a conversion course.

Reply 3

Faery_Lights

I was going to law but I opted to do History instead. I felt that whilst I found the idea of doing law interesting that I wanted to do something which had greater relevance to a wide range of careers, in case I changed my mind (which consequently, I have). :smile:

Reply 4

mdhey89

You don't need a Law degree to pursue a legal career, and you should definitely go for History if it's what you're passionate about. Law in academia is completely different to that in practice, and so you wouldn't be giving yourself a more 'narrow' perspective of law by converting your History degree after university.

Reply 5

vi_26

i actually applied to do Law and then changed to History by going through Extra and i'm so glad i did. Do history in short.

Here's the explaination: Law is a really dry subject and by the end of the 3 years you might want to chop your own head off (have a look at the course and then go read an introduction on Tort or whatever and you'll see what i mean). More and more employers want people with a wide range of skills and not just those coming out with a straight law degree. If you enjoy history then you are likely to do better in it because you'll put the effort in. I know i would end up missing most Law lectures simply because they wouldn't interest me. History is a well respected subject but less competitive than law- marginally. So if you do 3 years of history and get a decent degree a first or something then your options are better than if you came out with a 2.2 or something.

Also i know this is a side note but looking at your GCSEs you seem to be aiming a bit high with Durham and maybe even UCL and KCL unless of course you are predicted straigh As at AS in which case its fine and go for it. Only telling you this because i applied to similar places with similar GCSEs n got rejected by a couple. Don't underestimate how competitive law is.

Reply 6

musicismylife

Thanks for all your replies :biggrin:

Yep i know about the whole durham a* thing so law's the only option if i want to go there.
I am predicted 3As and i feel i'm working much harder for a-levels than GCSE's so hopefully for UCL/KCL they won't mind to much about my lack of A*s