The Student Room Group
Waterfront bar, King's College
King's College London
London

Scroll to see replies

Reply 80
FreshPrincess1
Then stop "repeating yourself" and posting. IT'S SIMPLE.


Ah yes, and leave the baseless assertions unchallenged? Yes, that's a terribly good idea.
Waterfront bar, King's College
King's College London
London
Ethereal
I'm not going to keep repeating myself over and over again. It is not obvious that in a recuiter's mind King's > QMUL. You are not able to make that comment on any objective basis whatsoever. Frankly, it is ******** assertions such as this that lead to plethoric "omg I got in to X in stead of Y is my career ruined??!!!" threads, and it is utter baseless ****.


I'd be prepared to bet that statistics of those in top chambers and firms would back it up. 30% of the bar is made up of Oxford/Cambridge - nothing to do with perceived reputation? No one is saying that attending QMUL rather than King's would ruin you career, just that attending King's would probably (in my opinion :p:) enhance it. Equally, at the same time, so would degree grade, extra curriculars and relevant experience.
Reply 82
simon12345
I'd be prepared to bet that statistics of those in top chambers and firms would back it up. 30% of the bar is made up of Oxford/Cambridge - nothing to do with perceived reputation? No one is saying that attending QMUL rather than King's would ruin you career, just that attending King's would probably (in my opinion ) enhance it. Equally, at the same time, so would degree grade, extra curriculars and relevant experience.


The make up of the bar is in flux. Don't forget that the percentages of recent calls won't begin to filter through until 20/30 years from now. Also, a lot of the statistics I've seen re bar make up concentrates on the london sets and ignores the provincial ones entirely.

I note you are posting your opinion, t'other poster however wasn't. I'm also glas you've brought up the other parts of the ap such as grade, extra corrics, experience (and I think you mentioned how you answer questions on your application form earlier). One vital element is missing though - personality. Doesn't matter what uni someone has been to if they act like a cock at interview.
Reply 83
Ethereal
I'm not going to keep repeating myself over and over again. It is not obvious that in a recuiter's mind King's > QMUL. You are not able to make that comment on any objective basis whatsoever. Frankly, it is ******** assertions such as this that lead to plethoric "omg I got in to X in stead of Y is my career ruined??!!!" threads, and it is utter baseless ****.


im gonna pay more attention to those people like Lawz, Prof John Gardner who really know about university reps, recruiters' views and etc.
Reply 84
jy9626
im gonna pay more attention to those people like Lawz, Prof John Gardner who really know about university reps, recruiters' views and etc.


You have no idea who lawz is. John Gardner (last time I checked) is not a recruiter in a law firm. This merely shows how little idea you actually have.
Reply 85
Ethereal
You have no idea who lawz is. John Gardner (last time I checked) is not a recruiter in a law firm. This merely shows how little idea you actually have.


John Gardner is a law professor. so he knows law school recruiters' views.
Lawz is a guy who's currently doing his BCL at Oxford and has talked to some law firm recruiters. so obviously, he knows recruiters' views.
Why should we listen to you and not those sort of people?
Yes, you might say. How do you know if they're not lying?
My answer is this. How would anyone be able to make such great lies? They just know so much and def don't appear to be faking.
Reply 86
jy9626
John Gardner is a law professor. so he knows law school recruiters' views.

And that gives him what knowledge of how the profession recruits?

Lawz is a guy who's currently doing his BCL at Oxford and has talked to some law firm recruiters. so obviously, he knows recruiters' views.


You have only his word for it, and in any event I have never heard a law fim stand at a law fair and say they have a hierarchy of universities.

Why should we listen to you and not those sort of people?
Yes, you might say. How do you know if they're not lying?
My answer is this. How would anyone be able to make such great lies? They just know so much and def don't appear to be faking.


This is the risk you run on forums. You think he knows a lot because it conincides with that you want it to do. The simple truth is that TSR has an unhealthy obsession with certain universities, and this is replacated across the subject posts on this website. They are largely unfounded assertions based on things people have been told. It self-perpetuates.
Reply 87
jy9626

Why should we listen to you and not those sort of people?
Yes, you might say. How do you know if they're not lying?
My answer is this. How would anyone be able to make such great lies? They just know so much and def don't appear to be faking.


Everything Ethereal has said is right!

It is not obvious KCL beats QM. Recruiters don't think like that. It is a self-perpetuating TSR myth.


John Gardner is a law professor. so he knows law school recruiters' views.


I've read his posts, he claims Hull is a top 10 university for law and KCL is the best in the country (he also happened to teach at KCL for years). They're opinions and he doesn't claim that these are job deciding choices. He doesn't make any claims of the sort.


Lawz is a guy who's currently doing his BCL at Oxford and has talked to some law firm recruiters. so obviously, he knows recruiters' views.


Lawz finished the BCL years ago, he now works for Cleary. He went to KCL which he considered to be as good as UCL and LSE. But everything else is worse according to the gospel (written quite a few years ago now, 04?). He was a still a student when he gave his opinions and is probably the reason the TSR drips with this myth. I also study at Oxford; is that a predicate for a reliable answer? There is no accepted university hierarchy.

I don't blame you for thinking this because of the forum but Ethereal is 100% right. I'm aware few people have the tendency to back down when wrong here. I hope you will be gracious and break the trend.
Reply 88
TerryTerry

I've read his posts, he claims Hull is a top 10 university for law and KCL is the best in the country (he also happened to teach at KCL for years). They're opinions and he doesn't claim that these are job deciding choices. He doesn't make any claims of the sort.


I understand what you're saying generally.
But it was when the university of Hull was being bashed too much in a thread, Gardner said some good things about the university. Plus, he has never said that Hull is 'a top 10 university for law', as far as i've read.

Although it doesn't probably apply nowadays, KCL used to rank 1st in the country, on law league tables a few times, for instance in 1997. So who knows? KCL might have been the best law uni for undergrads at his time.

And I've never said there's any sort of 'hierarchy' among law schools. Any first degree students with great confidence would probably make it into excellent law firms. individuals' ability would be the prime factor of course. But im sure the law firm recruiters would rate in general, a king's law grad higher than a QMUL grad.

"As an employer of law students I have found Cambridge, KCL and City to be top students over the long term. It does however come down to the individual and not the Uni." - http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4170528.ece
Reply 89
jy9626
I understand what you're saying generally.
But it was when the university of Hull was being bashed too much in a thread, Gardner said some good things about the university. Plus, he has never said that Hull is 'a top 10 university for law', as far as i've read.


He does:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=316924&page=4&highlight=hull

If you read the thread you will see Lawz, saviour of the TSR, is shown to be wrong on a few occasions. If you are intelligent to see through his backtracking.


Although it doesn't probably apply nowadays, KCL used to rank 1st in the country, on law league tables a few times, for instance in 1997. So who knows? KCL might have been the best law uni for undergrads at his time.


I don't think it did even in the 90s. Unless you know for sure - there's no record that I can find on the net. And as unreliable as league tables are anyway, data has changed completely.


And I've never said there's any sort of 'hierarchy' among law schools. Any first degree students with great confidence would probably make it into excellent law firms. individuals' ability would be the prime factor of course. But im sure the law firm recruiters would rate in general, a king's law grad higher than a QMUL grad.


Why are you sure?


"As an employer of law students I have found Cambridge, KCL and City to be top students over the long term. It does however come down to the individual and not the Uni." - http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article4170528.ece


Because of a public comment written on the 'Have your say' under a Times article, from an anonymous person?! Even if it's true, it undermines your point that employers are predictable!
Reply 90
TerryTerry

I don't think it did even in the 90s. Unless you know for sure - there's no record that I can find on the net. And as unreliable as league tables are anyway, data has changed completely.


i don't think anyone lied that kcl was ranked 1st by times in 1997. I mean, why 1997? in 1999, it was ranked 3rd. this year it is ranked 4th. it surely was and is one of the best. It never ranked outside the top 10. Come on. i know UCL and LSE people always want to attack KCL for no particular reasons, but i know KCL is generally perceived as a better law school than QMUL.

Lawz is not a 'savior' of TSR or anything like that. I just think he's a fairly reliable source.

http://www.qedlaw.co.uk/just-another-llb-league-table/
KCL is generally better than QMUL.

Im sure if anyone said UCL or LSE is better for law than QMUL is, no argument would've been initiated. KCL gets bashed so much and unfairly. i don't know why.
Reply 91
jy9626
i don't think anyone lied that kcl was ranked 1st by times in 1997. I mean, why 1997? in 1999, it was ranked 3rd. this year it is ranked 4th. it surely was and is one of the best. It never ranked outside the top 10.


I'm not suggesting anyone is lying (nor I am particularly fixated on league tables!). But why 1997? What multiple years has it come first? I just don't know where you got that from.



Come on. i know UCL and LSE people always want to attack KCL for no particular reasons, but i know KCL is generally perceived as a better law school than QMUL.


King's is great for law. Why should anyone attack it? Ethereal and I have just said the perception is a self-perpetuating TSR myth.


Lawz is not a 'savior' of TSR or anything like that. I just think he's a fairly reliable source.


You may not but many take his thread as gospel.
Reply 92
TerryTerry
I'm not suggesting anyone is lying (nor I am particularly fixated on league tables!). But why 1997? What multiple years has it come first? I just don't know where you got that from.


mmhm.. http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=2512641959
people who went to UCL, LSE in 1997 would've complained to the group admin, if it wasn't true. So i suppose it's true. why would anyone lie about it? especially someone who went to kcl postgrad law.