Foundation Year in Law (LLB+IFY) - is it worth it?
I’m an older student as I’ve struggled with some persona issues through my early 20’s so of course I’m rating to go with the rest of my life and getting back on track. I took two A levels and got CC and this qualifies me to do the LLB+integrated foundation year. (These in English Lit and Business, after 7 years out of school for private issues.)
The university I’m applying to (beginning study after a gap year for an operation I need to happen and heal from) is open to looking at applicants with alternative circumstances and backgrounds (I’m publishing a book this year also in the meantime which of course is accreditation to my CV, and I have real world experience in Law and by-laws having casually advised friends about legal proceedings, the law and precedents, etc.) but I’d only have to do the whole “extenuating applicant” thing if I wanted to simply do the LLB minus the foundation year - an extra year after a gap year which means I’d be 30 by the time I got my Bachelors...and still not even close to the Bar.
TLDR: So my query is, is the foundation for the LLB (101) worth it if you’ve never studied law before? Has anyone gone straight into the LLB without it and done well?
The university I’m applying to (beginning study after a gap year for an operation I need to happen and heal from) is open to looking at applicants with alternative circumstances and backgrounds (I’m publishing a book this year also in the meantime which of course is accreditation to my CV, and I have real world experience in Law and by-laws having casually advised friends about legal proceedings, the law and precedents, etc.) but I’d only have to do the whole “extenuating applicant” thing if I wanted to simply do the LLB minus the foundation year - an extra year after a gap year which means I’d be 30 by the time I got my Bachelors...and still not even close to the Bar.
TLDR: So my query is, is the foundation for the LLB (101) worth it if you’ve never studied law before? Has anyone gone straight into the LLB without it and done well?
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by Kloa
I’m an older student as I’ve struggled with some persona issues through my early 20’s so of course I’m rating to go with the rest of my life and getting back on track. I took two A levels and got CC and this qualifies me to do the LLB+integrated foundation year. (These in English Lit and Business, after 7 years out of school for private issues.)
The university I’m applying to (beginning study after a gap year for an operation I need to happen and heal from) is open to looking at applicants with alternative circumstances and backgrounds (I’m publishing a book this year also in the meantime which of course is accreditation to my CV, and I have real world experience in Law and by-laws having casually advised friends about legal proceedings, the law and precedents, etc.) but I’d only have to do the whole “extenuating applicant” thing if I wanted to simply do the LLB minus the foundation year - an extra year after a gap year which means I’d be 30 by the time I got my Bachelors...and still not even close to the Bar.
TLDR: So my query is, is the foundation for the LLB (101) worth it if you’ve never studied law before? Has anyone gone straight into the LLB without it and done well?
The university I’m applying to (beginning study after a gap year for an operation I need to happen and heal from) is open to looking at applicants with alternative circumstances and backgrounds (I’m publishing a book this year also in the meantime which of course is accreditation to my CV, and I have real world experience in Law and by-laws having casually advised friends about legal proceedings, the law and precedents, etc.) but I’d only have to do the whole “extenuating applicant” thing if I wanted to simply do the LLB minus the foundation year - an extra year after a gap year which means I’d be 30 by the time I got my Bachelors...and still not even close to the Bar.
TLDR: So my query is, is the foundation for the LLB (101) worth it if you’ve never studied law before? Has anyone gone straight into the LLB without it and done well?
Most people who join the LLB have no previous experience of studying Law since mostly they are 18 year old with non Law A levels. Unis are normally more lenient with mature applicants so it would definitely be worth phoning or emailing some unis to see if you could get straight onto the LLB without having to do a foundation year first.
My concern is not that you will be unable to get onto an LLB as I'm sure you will, but more about your job prospects at the end. You mention the Bar, and must know how competitive that career is, even for people with standard qualifications of AAA/AAB/ABB? I'm not that familiar with becoming a barrister, but would advise you to carefully research how realistic this career is for you before committing yourself to a 3 year degree course in Law
@Crazy Jamie?
Original post by harrysbar
Most people who join the LLB have no previous experience of studying Law since mostly they are 18 year old with non Law A levels. Unis are normally more lenient with mature applicants so it would definitely be worth phoning or emailing some unis to see if you could get straight onto the LLB without having to do a foundation year first.
My concern is not that you will be unable to get onto an LLB as I'm sure you will, but more about your job prospects at the end. You mention the Bar, and must know how competitive that career is, even for people with standard qualifications of AAA/AAB/ABB? I'm not that familiar with becoming a barrister, but would advise you to carefully research how realistic this career is for you before committing yourself to a 3 year degree course in Law
@Crazy Jamie?
My concern is not that you will be unable to get onto an LLB as I'm sure you will, but more about your job prospects at the end. You mention the Bar, and must know how competitive that career is, even for people with standard qualifications of AAA/AAB/ABB? I'm not that familiar with becoming a barrister, but would advise you to carefully research how realistic this career is for you before committing yourself to a 3 year degree course in Law
@Crazy Jamie?
Thank you for your advice.
I’m aware of the competitiveness but I have some help in the form of two friends who’ve both made the bar before 25,
As well as having come from a private school before my “problems” which was incredibly and unnaturally competitive. I am used to the standard of competition.
The reason for the 2 Cs is mostly an initial year-and-a-half apathy, as I’ve been struggling with mental illness.
This coming gap year will be to finalise that therapy and have an operation. (yeah that’s all very complex and clearly shows in my grades — eek.)
My parents are my biggest critics and I have a group of friends who’ve always been very honest with ourselves. My friend is also acquaintances with a Miss Nelson who’s been called to the Bar at age 24.
My ramblings aside, thank you very much for your advice @harrysbar — I will take it into high consideration.
Original post by harrysbar
You mention the Bar, and must know how competitive that career is, even for people with standard qualifications of AAA/AAB/ABB? I'm not that familiar with becoming a barrister, but would advise you to carefully research how realistic this career is for you before committing yourself to a 3 year degree course in Law
@Crazy Jamie?
@Crazy Jamie?
This is a difficult one. There has been a drive in recent years (which is still ongoing and developing) to find ways for the Bar as an industry to become more inclusive when it comes to those with non typical backgrounds, which broadly means students who may have been deprived of the opportunity to achieve good GCSEs and A-Levels but who are showing sufficient ability at degree level, and those coming to the Bar later in life who may not have the typical profile when it comes to previous academics and experience. It comes from an acknowledgement that the Bar is still dominated by those who have the privilege of having had a good education and good opportunities when they were younger, and the desire really is to find those who may make very good barristers, but whose profile would see them excluded from a traditional sift.
That means that, in theory at least, having poor or no A-Levels either shouldn't be or will soon no longer be prohibitive in and of itself when it comes to obtaining pupillage for applicants with non typical backgrounds. However, there are two important factors to bear in mind on this.
The first is that the way that Chambers actually deal with this situation will vary from set to set. My Chambers, for example, has minimum requirements for A-Levels and Degree classification, but we have an exception for that in the case of 'exceptional circumstances', which can encompass a range of things including a candidate having a non typical background. I recall one candidate from a couple of pupillage rounds ago who got through to our second round despite having no A-Levels at all, and whilst they were not offered pupillage, they did get pupillage elsewhere in that round. But the reality is that your overall opportunities may be restricted depending on how individual sets deal with candidates from non typical backgrounds, and in practice a lot of those doors will simply be closed, which on any view will restrict your chances.
The second factor to bear in mind is that non of this is a free pass that excuses a poor or a lack of a previous academic record. Even if poor or no A-Levels, for example, will not immediately see you discounted from a process, you still have to show yourself to be an exceptional candidate to get anywhere, and that can be incredibly difficult. The point of the Bar broadening its horizons on this is not to give people pupillage out of pity; we're still looking for the best candidates. The candidate I've referred to above, for example, did not have A-Levels but had secured a degree later in life with a high classification, and had developed a career in another industry before coming to the Bar. Their written and oral advocacy was also very good, and frankly it would have been an injustice if their lack of A-Levels had blocked them from accessing a recruitment process that they could clearly be very competitive in (as demonstrates by the fact that they got pupillage). But that person and people like them are the exception. The vast majority of applications that I see from applicants from non traditional backgrounds are still poor (as indeed the majority of applications generally are), so as with general applicants, those with non traditional backgrounds really do need to ensure that the Bar is a realistic route for them.
So applying that to this situation, the OP has mentioned that they got two Cs due to 'initial apathy'. I'm afraid that's not going to cut it. Even with those from non traditional backgrounds we need evidence of ability, and two Cs in isolation are going to cause issues. If the OP goes on to get a First in their LLB, for example, that will help greatly and potentially excuse the two Cs if there are other medical issues that are still live. I can see that the OP is getting advice from other barristers (though I question whether they've just been called to the Bar or are actually barristers, because the former doesn't equate to the latter), but even if their experience is comparable (it is highly unlikely to be in a way that helps significantly), that does not mitigate against the fact that the OP needs to demonstrate that they are an exceptional candidate on their own account. A high dose of realism is needed here, and whilst I do not know enough about the OP to comment definitively, the references to things such as having real world experience through casually advising friends in legal proceedings gives me concern that the level of realism is not high enough.
Original post by Crazy Jamie
This is a difficult one. There has been a drive in recent years (which is still ongoing and developing) to find ways for the Bar as an industry to become more inclusive when it comes to those with non typical backgrounds, which broadly means students who may have been deprived of the opportunity to achieve good GCSEs and A-Levels but who are showing sufficient ability at degree level, and those coming to the Bar later in life who may not have the typical profile when it comes to previous academics and experience. It comes from an acknowledgement that the Bar is still dominated by those who have the privilege of having had a good education and good opportunities when they were younger, and the desire really is to find those who may make very good barristers, but whose profile would see them excluded from a traditional sift.
That means that, in theory at least, having poor or no A-Levels either shouldn't be or will soon no longer be prohibitive in and of itself when it comes to obtaining pupillage for applicants with non typical backgrounds. However, there are two important factors to bear in mind on this.
The first is that the way that Chambers actually deal with this situation will vary from set to set. My Chambers, for example, has minimum requirements for A-Levels and Degree classification, but we have an exception for that in the case of 'exceptional circumstances', which can encompass a range of things including a candidate having a non typical background. I recall one candidate from a couple of pupillage rounds ago who got through to our second round despite having no A-Levels at all, and whilst they were not offered pupillage, they did get pupillage elsewhere in that round. But the reality is that your overall opportunities may be restricted depending on how individual sets deal with candidates from non typical backgrounds, and in practice a lot of those doors will simply be closed, which on any view will restrict your chances.
The second factor to bear in mind is that non of this is a free pass that excuses a poor or a lack of a previous academic record. Even if poor or no A-Levels, for example, will not immediately see you discounted from a process, you still have to show yourself to be an exceptional candidate to get anywhere, and that can be incredibly difficult. The point of the Bar broadening its horizons on this is not to give people pupillage out of pity; we're still looking for the best candidates. The candidate I've referred to above, for example, did not have A-Levels but had secured a degree later in life with a high classification, and had developed a career in another industry before coming to the Bar. Their written and oral advocacy was also very good, and frankly it would have been an injustice if their lack of A-Levels had blocked them from accessing a recruitment process that they could clearly be very competitive in (as demonstrates by the fact that they got pupillage). But that person and people like them are the exception. The vast majority of applications that I see from applicants from non traditional backgrounds are still poor (as indeed the majority of applications generally are), so as with general applicants, those with non traditional backgrounds really do need to ensure that the Bar is a realistic route for them.
So applying that to this situation, the OP has mentioned that they got two Cs due to 'initial apathy'. I'm afraid that's not going to cut it. Even with those from non traditional backgrounds we need evidence of ability, and two Cs in isolation are going to cause issues. If the OP goes on to get a First in their LLB, for example, that will help greatly and potentially excuse the two Cs if there are other medical issues that are still live. I can see that the OP is getting advice from other barristers (though I question whether they've just been called to the Bar or are actually barristers, because the former doesn't equate to the latter), but even if their experience is comparable (it is highly unlikely to be in a way that helps significantly), that does not mitigate against the fact that the OP needs to demonstrate that they are an exceptional candidate on their own account. A high dose of realism is needed here, and whilst I do not know enough about the OP to comment definitively, the references to things such as having real world experience through casually advising friends in legal proceedings gives me concern that the level of realism is not high enough.
That means that, in theory at least, having poor or no A-Levels either shouldn't be or will soon no longer be prohibitive in and of itself when it comes to obtaining pupillage for applicants with non typical backgrounds. However, there are two important factors to bear in mind on this.
The first is that the way that Chambers actually deal with this situation will vary from set to set. My Chambers, for example, has minimum requirements for A-Levels and Degree classification, but we have an exception for that in the case of 'exceptional circumstances', which can encompass a range of things including a candidate having a non typical background. I recall one candidate from a couple of pupillage rounds ago who got through to our second round despite having no A-Levels at all, and whilst they were not offered pupillage, they did get pupillage elsewhere in that round. But the reality is that your overall opportunities may be restricted depending on how individual sets deal with candidates from non typical backgrounds, and in practice a lot of those doors will simply be closed, which on any view will restrict your chances.
The second factor to bear in mind is that non of this is a free pass that excuses a poor or a lack of a previous academic record. Even if poor or no A-Levels, for example, will not immediately see you discounted from a process, you still have to show yourself to be an exceptional candidate to get anywhere, and that can be incredibly difficult. The point of the Bar broadening its horizons on this is not to give people pupillage out of pity; we're still looking for the best candidates. The candidate I've referred to above, for example, did not have A-Levels but had secured a degree later in life with a high classification, and had developed a career in another industry before coming to the Bar. Their written and oral advocacy was also very good, and frankly it would have been an injustice if their lack of A-Levels had blocked them from accessing a recruitment process that they could clearly be very competitive in (as demonstrates by the fact that they got pupillage). But that person and people like them are the exception. The vast majority of applications that I see from applicants from non traditional backgrounds are still poor (as indeed the majority of applications generally are), so as with general applicants, those with non traditional backgrounds really do need to ensure that the Bar is a realistic route for them.
So applying that to this situation, the OP has mentioned that they got two Cs due to 'initial apathy'. I'm afraid that's not going to cut it. Even with those from non traditional backgrounds we need evidence of ability, and two Cs in isolation are going to cause issues. If the OP goes on to get a First in their LLB, for example, that will help greatly and potentially excuse the two Cs if there are other medical issues that are still live. I can see that the OP is getting advice from other barristers (though I question whether they've just been called to the Bar or are actually barristers, because the former doesn't equate to the latter), but even if their experience is comparable (it is highly unlikely to be in a way that helps significantly), that does not mitigate against the fact that the OP needs to demonstrate that they are an exceptional candidate on their own account. A high dose of realism is needed here, and whilst I do not know enough about the OP to comment definitively, the references to things such as having real world experience through casually advising friends in legal proceedings gives me concern that the level of realism is not high enough.
Doubting my friends are actual Barristers called to the Bar is outrageously unfair because they for one are these things, and secondly, you are right: you don’t know me.
I am exceptional. When I have decided upon something I must have it; I must achieve it. My school was Dubai College and I recommend looking them up for reference of my abilities BEFORE I went through what I did.
I am am being defensive because I believe your assumptions of me, whilst perhaps based on an average human being are fair, are also incorrect.
You quote my “initial apathy” as if it’s still current and my frame of mind after years of therapy (7+ years) and the phrasing should’ve indicated to you that it is not still the case.
My tutors actually abandoned me in English Literature for the final two terms and did not once help with my coursework; that C came from half a year of self-study.
You’re also falling into the trap of seeing 2 C’s and assuming everything off that, when in actual fact if you go to my profile and ‘“about me”//sub: Education; Interests’ you’ll see my pre-problem performance as outstandingly broad, intelligent, skilled and good.
These 2 Cs are the lowest I’ve ever come. And if that’s the lowest...? Get ready because I’m on my way back up and I have a goal. No matter how long it takes, I’ve learned to pick myself back up after the worst things that can happen to a person. And I don’t appreciate your mockery of my legal advisory in real issues; an actual corporate attorney agreed with an angle I came up with for his defendant and is currently running with it.
I wrote and debated my way through my final year after the tutors tried to drop me — and set a new precedent in bylaws at my college, where they’d initially actually tried to indict me! (I acquitted myself using law and set a new precedent.) I’ve also assisted friends with slander (Defamation Act violations) and employment law, informing and researching but not at all representing (so yes it’s all fine and legal and I’m not pretending to be anyone’s solicitor etc.)
Also: I’m getting a freakin’ book published!!!
I’m good at this. It’s the one thing people with my problem excel in. Do not act as gatekeeper because that’s not what I asked. You try to tear me down when I simply asked if the foundation year is worth it. I’m going to show you what success looks like.
I couldn’t take more than 2 A-levels because of circumstances in life—The government simply wouldn’t allow it whilst I was undergoing therapy. I’m finishing this year with my therapist who is recommending an operation for my physical problems to take place this year or early next year, and such letters can be provided with ease and clarity.
I’ve represented myself and done research to acquit myself in college over a dispute and enact a new precedent at that college to help future students.
I’ve researched employment law to assist a friend’s case to his boss over an unfair attempt at dismissal — which was won. He still has his job because of what I demonstrated.
I was also slandered at work once and used my research to demonstrate as such, and acquit myself of the slanderous remark though I did leave the job.
I have also had a sneaky chat (by which I mean recently spoken at lengths) with somebody being prosecuted in criminal proceedings. He knew of my interest in law and though he does have corporate representation he actually asked me to find an angle to help. I know this is of course anecdotal as I couldn’t possibly give “advice to be taken without the advisory of a qualified solicitor or barrister” but they did use one of my angles, so I hear.
Thank you for your advice — I will ask of course at the university open days but I appreciate your help too!
I’ve represented myself and done research to acquit myself in college over a dispute and enact a new precedent at that college to help future students.
I’ve researched employment law to assist a friend’s case to his boss over an unfair attempt at dismissal — which was won. He still has his job because of what I demonstrated.
I was also slandered at work once and used my research to demonstrate as such, and acquit myself of the slanderous remark though I did leave the job.
I have also had a sneaky chat (by which I mean recently spoken at lengths) with somebody being prosecuted in criminal proceedings. He knew of my interest in law and though he does have corporate representation he actually asked me to find an angle to help. I know this is of course anecdotal as I couldn’t possibly give “advice to be taken without the advisory of a qualified solicitor or barrister” but they did use one of my angles, so I hear.
Thank you for your advice — I will ask of course at the university open days but I appreciate your help too!
People are only trying to be helpful and are informing you as to the ‘real world’ situation. If you are so talented then just do the LLB most people studying it will not have any formal study in Law so knowledge wise you will be on a par.
I hope your illness is getting better but if you feel so sure of your talent why ask for advice? Just go for it, you will either rocket to the stars or burn up on re-entry...
I hope your illness is getting better but if you feel so sure of your talent why ask for advice? Just go for it, you will either rocket to the stars or burn up on re-entry...
Original post by Bluedanube
People are only trying to be helpful and are informing you as to the ‘real world’ situation. If you are so talented then just do the LLB most people studying it will not have any formal study in Law so knowledge wise you will be on a par.
I hope your illness is getting better but if you feel so sure of your talent why ask for advice? Just go for it, you will either rocket to the stars or burn up on re-entry...
I hope your illness is getting better but if you feel so sure of your talent why ask for advice? Just go for it, you will either rocket to the stars or burn up on re-entry...
I may be confident but I’m actually not arrogant: that’s why I’m asking for advice
But thank you for yours.
I am not arrogant or I’d not be asking for advice on whether the foundation year is worth taking or not. I’m good at things.
And I never said I had “work experience” either though I am applying.
And I will justify myself when people attack me for no reason.
And I’m NOT SELF-PUBLISHING AN E-BOOK like a pleb, I’ve been picked up by an agency for a NOVEL I’ve written and refined for ten years. Don’t be patronising, you jealous little whelp.
And in short: if you’re going to be nasty, get lost.
And I never said I had “work experience” either though I am applying.
And I will justify myself when people attack me for no reason.
And I’m NOT SELF-PUBLISHING AN E-BOOK like a pleb, I’ve been picked up by an agency for a NOVEL I’ve written and refined for ten years. Don’t be patronising, you jealous little whelp.
And in short: if you’re going to be nasty, get lost.
Original post by Kloa
Doubting my friends are actual Barristers called to the Bar is outrageously unfair because they for one are these things, and secondly, you are right: you don’t know me.
I am exceptional. When I have decided upon something I must have it; I must achieve it. My school was Dubai College and I recommend looking them up for reference of my abilities BEFORE I went through what I did.
I am am being defensive because I believe your assumptions of me, whilst perhaps based on an average human being are fair, are also incorrect.
You quote my “initial apathy” as if it’s still current and my frame of mind after years of therapy (7+ years) and the phrasing should’ve indicated to you that it is not still the case.
My tutors actually abandoned me in English Literature for the final two terms and did not once help with my coursework; that C came from half a year of self-study.
You’re also falling into the trap of seeing 2 C’s and assuming everything off that, when in actual fact if you go to my profile and ‘“about me”//sub: Education; Interests’ you’ll see my pre-problem performance as outstandingly broad, intelligent, skilled and good.
These 2 Cs are the lowest I’ve ever come. And if that’s the lowest...? Get ready because I’m on my way back up and I have a goal. No matter how long it takes, I’ve learned to pick myself back up after the worst things that can happen to a person. And I don’t appreciate your mockery of my legal advisory in real issues; an actual corporate attorney agreed with an angle I came up with for his defendant and is currently running with it.
I wrote and debated my way through my final year after the tutors tried to drop me — and set a new precedent in bylaws at my college, where they’d initially actually tried to indict me! (I acquitted myself using law and set a new precedent.) I’ve also assisted friends with slander (Defamation Act violations) and employment law, informing and researching but not at all representing (so yes it’s all fine and legal and I’m not pretending to be anyone’s solicitor etc.)
Also: I’m getting a freakin’ book published!!!
I’m good at this. It’s the one thing people with my problem excel in. Do not act as gatekeeper because that’s not what I asked. You try to tear me down when I simply asked if the foundation year is worth it. I’m going to show you what success looks like.
I am exceptional. When I have decided upon something I must have it; I must achieve it. My school was Dubai College and I recommend looking them up for reference of my abilities BEFORE I went through what I did.
I am am being defensive because I believe your assumptions of me, whilst perhaps based on an average human being are fair, are also incorrect.
You quote my “initial apathy” as if it’s still current and my frame of mind after years of therapy (7+ years) and the phrasing should’ve indicated to you that it is not still the case.
My tutors actually abandoned me in English Literature for the final two terms and did not once help with my coursework; that C came from half a year of self-study.
You’re also falling into the trap of seeing 2 C’s and assuming everything off that, when in actual fact if you go to my profile and ‘“about me”//sub: Education; Interests’ you’ll see my pre-problem performance as outstandingly broad, intelligent, skilled and good.
These 2 Cs are the lowest I’ve ever come. And if that’s the lowest...? Get ready because I’m on my way back up and I have a goal. No matter how long it takes, I’ve learned to pick myself back up after the worst things that can happen to a person. And I don’t appreciate your mockery of my legal advisory in real issues; an actual corporate attorney agreed with an angle I came up with for his defendant and is currently running with it.
I wrote and debated my way through my final year after the tutors tried to drop me — and set a new precedent in bylaws at my college, where they’d initially actually tried to indict me! (I acquitted myself using law and set a new precedent.) I’ve also assisted friends with slander (Defamation Act violations) and employment law, informing and researching but not at all representing (so yes it’s all fine and legal and I’m not pretending to be anyone’s solicitor etc.)
Also: I’m getting a freakin’ book published!!!
I’m good at this. It’s the one thing people with my problem excel in. Do not act as gatekeeper because that’s not what I asked. You try to tear me down when I simply asked if the foundation year is worth it. I’m going to show you what success looks like.
I suggest you read what I wrote again, because you have misinterpreted almost all of it and your defensiveness is not warranted. I was not tearing you down, but I was noting aspects of your post that gave me concern that you may not be as realistic about this career path as you need to be. I'm afraid this reply has only heightened those concerns. But I don't express those concerns to discourage you. I mention them so as to encourage you to take a step back and realistically assess whether or not the Bar is a viable career path for you, and if it is (because it may be), to consider what it is you need to do to give yourself the best chance of securing pupillage. You may well have endless belief in your own ability, but that is exactly the sort of thing that stops a person from being realistic about their prospects of success with a career path like the Bar, and it is something that can result in you wasting a lot of time and money on something that is either not a realistic goal for you, or which you do not adequately prepare for.
I had started to type out some more guidance, but then your post above popped up where you referred to Johan as a "jealous little whelp" after he gave you eminently realistic and practical advice, including giving you specific examples of the sort of experience you could look at gain, and I've decided not to waste my time. I have no problem in principle with my advice on here going to waste on the person that it's directed at, because there's every chance that someone else will read it further down the line and get some sort of benefit from it. But equally I will move on when any further attempts at giving advice would clearly be a hopeless endeavour, and we have most certainly reached that point in this thread.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by username4893646
I’m an older student as I’ve struggled with some persona issues through my early 20’s so of course I’m rating to go with the rest of my life and getting back on track. I took two A levels and got CC and this qualifies me to do the LLB+integrated foundation year. (These in English Lit and Business, after 7 years out of school for private issues.)
The university I’m applying to (beginning study after a gap year for an operation I need to happen and heal from) is open to looking at applicants with alternative circumstances and backgrounds (I’m publishing a book this year also in the meantime which of course is accreditation to my CV, and I have real world experience in Law and by-laws having casually advised friends about legal proceedings, the law and precedents, etc.) but I’d only have to do the whole “extenuating applicant” thing if I wanted to simply do the LLB minus the foundation year - an extra year after a gap year which means I’d be 30 by the time I got my Bachelors...and still not even close to the Bar.
TLDR: So my query is, is the foundation for the LLB (101) worth it if you’ve never studied law before? Has anyone gone straight into the LLB without it and done well?
The university I’m applying to (beginning study after a gap year for an operation I need to happen and heal from) is open to looking at applicants with alternative circumstances and backgrounds (I’m publishing a book this year also in the meantime which of course is accreditation to my CV, and I have real world experience in Law and by-laws having casually advised friends about legal proceedings, the law and precedents, etc.) but I’d only have to do the whole “extenuating applicant” thing if I wanted to simply do the LLB minus the foundation year - an extra year after a gap year which means I’d be 30 by the time I got my Bachelors...and still not even close to the Bar.
TLDR: So my query is, is the foundation for the LLB (101) worth it if you’ve never studied law before? Has anyone gone straight into the LLB without it and done well?
how is it going for you?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Law at bristol or leeds?
- Law after completing one year at university
- International Foundation Year
- Durham International Foundation Year (Busi, Eco, Account, Finance)
- Which university for better career prospects
- International Foundation Program
- foundation year
- Foundation year at SOAS? Will I be guaranteed a place on the LLB?
- univeristy of hertfordshire
- Can a law graduate at SOAS apply to MSc Politics and International Relations at soas?
- Foundation year or not?
- Foundation year at SOAS
- About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UK
- Any Students Attending the Bath International Foundation Year?
- International Foundation Law or Simply Foundation in Law
- Resitting A Levels while in university
- University Choices for LLB law
- Qualifying Law Degree / Non qualifying law degree for External student
- BA Law and Sociology Offer
- Royal Holloway Law foundation year
