Queen Mary's or SOAS?

Hiya everyone!

Which would you all regard as being 'better' for law, in terms of prestige, facilities and (perhaps most importantly) employment prospects for law?

Just in case you are all wondering, I'm just trying to gauge opinions for my insurance choice, which I am sure everyone would say should be KCL, but I'm just trying to consider all options!!

I'd say SOAS, though they more or less come in the same league in my mind.

Neither will be competing with KCL/UCL/LSE for the city firms any time soon.

Perhaps but the time it takes for law students to become qualified lawyers, there may well be a change of opinion by then.

Perhaps but the time it takes for law students to become qualified lawyers, there may well be a change of opinion by then.

If anything, the next tenyears will- I think- see a sharp increase in snobbery regarding university attended. The last standard criteria- AAA at A Level- means so little now it is unbelievable, and in four years MC firms very realistically could have thousands more applicants with AAA. Hence, the university attended will invariably become a deselection tool.

I really don't feel that will be the case; the top MC firms aren't as snobbish to plainly ignore talent simply on the basis of which university someone attended. They will be aware that the volumes of AAA applicants dictate that university admissions will become clogged and ineffective; and increasingly down to luck and that admissions tutors really don't have enough information to effectively select.

On the other hand, I personally believe that degree performance will become the primary factor in determining selection; I predict there will be a day where the top MC firms will only interview those with firsts; simply because they have that luxury and only want the best applicants.

Ditto, though SOAS generally comes considerably higher in the rankings overall and (i think) for Law specifically. Neither will be competing with KCL/UCL/LSE for the city firms any time soon.

If anything, the next tenyears will- I think- see a sharp increase in snobbery regarding university attended. The last standard criteria- AAA at A Level- means so little now it is unbelievable, and in four years MC firms very realistically could have thousands more applicants with AAA. Hence, the university attended will invariably become a deselection tool.

So much for the government's anti-elitist image

So much for the government's anti-elitist image

Perhaps but the time it takes for law students to become qualified lawyers, there may well be a change of opinion by then.

You see that's the hilarious thing- the inaction of 'anti-elists' actually stimulates a rise in elitism. Take Oxbridge, where academic qualifications on their own are rarely enough to secure admission. This instantly favours those from backgrounds where money is available for such activities. Take music: it is practically impossible to reach top level instremental standard without private tuition, which is of course fairly expensive.

And people might think I'm wrong with what I'm saying, but having spoke to many corporate lawyers they think it is almost certainly going to happen- many firms have online application sifting processes which eliminate those applicants from particular universities. As access initiatives have become more and more prominent, the chances of 'hidden gems' being found at lower ranked univeristies is declining all the time.

I'm afraid that must be rubbish. Even at the top chamber sets (which are even more competitive than the big city firms), and any solicitor firm worth working for, there is always an example of someone who has come from a crappy uni to working in a lucrative seat. If firms have this supposed screening test, there'd be no chance whatsoever of this happening as their application wouldn't see the light of day.

I'm afraid that must be rubbish. Even at the top chamber sets (which are even more competitive than the big city firms), and any solicitor firm worth working for, there is always an example of someone who has come from a crappy uni to working in a lucrative seat. If firms have this supposed screening test, there'd be no chance whatsoever of this happening as their application wouldn't see the light of day.

It takes decades to forge or lose reputations so a fair bit longer than that i think.

Perhaps. Apparently Warwick never used to be such a great university as it is portrayed today.