How reputable is Queen Mary for Law?

I seem to have done all the research I can on QM as I have got an offer there. Looking at university guide tables it seems to be number 3 in the country as the highest ranking - number 14 in the country at the lowest I've seen..with a few guides saying it is around number 6. These rankings seem extremely good but then I see people on here sort of disregarding it. It's clearly not on Oxford level, or even UCL/LSE kind of level, but would you agree that it's generally regarded as very good?
The chances of me going there are probably quite great as I have just been rejected from UCL on the grounds of my LNAT..

Opinions

How do you know you were rejected because of your LNAT?

In terms of Queen Mary being a "very good" uni. I would say its law school is one of the top, but as a whole the uni is generally not very good. Its hard to tell how employers will look upon someone who has a degree from queen mary, because it seems to have a better law school than the likes of UCL and LSE, but as a university it isnt very good. Personally i would say keep queen mary as your last choice, depending on who else youve applied to.

How did you find the LNAT when you completed it?

Surely they will realise that if it is very good for Law but not for other things, that I have studied Law and that's all that matters? I have definitely come across people who don't have any experience in Law disregard it like my form tutor telling me I was too good for it yet it's in the top ten for law?! And when I clicked on the 'unsuccessful' on my UCAS track it told me I did not have the required LNAT score. This makes it unlikely of getting into another LNAT uni! Although their standards will hopefully be less! Not holding my breathe. And I felt after my LNAT that my multiple choice was pretty bad! I ran out of time and was rushed through most! Have you done yours?

Surely they will realise that if it is very good for Law but not for other things, that I have studied Law and that's all that matters? I have definitely come across people who don't have any experience in Law disregard it like my form tutor telling me I was too good for it yet it's in the top ten for law?! And when I clicked on the 'unsuccessful' on my UCAS track it told me I did not have the required LNAT score. This makes it unlikely of getting into another LNAT uni! Although their standards will hopefully be less! Not holding my breathe. And I felt after my LNAT that my multiple choice was pretty bad! I ran out of time and was rushed through most! Have you done yours?

Thats what everyone would hope, but thats not how it works unfortunately. It depends where you are aiming I guess, if youre aiming for a top law firm, you can even check out the profiles of the people working there, the lowest uni that seems to be on their profiles has been birmingham, and I saw 1 leicester. Unfortunately thats the way it is.

I did mine on the 25th November, everyone seems to be feeling pretty awful after their LNAT, its normal, its hard to tell how well you have done on the MCQ's, almost impossible. Who gave you an unsuccessful?

Thats what everyone would hope, but thats not how it works unfortunately. It depends where you are aiming I guess, if youre aiming for a top law firm, you can even check out the profiles of the people working there, the lowest uni that seems to be on their profiles has been birmingham, and I saw 1 leicester. Unfortunately thats the way it is.

I did mine on the 25th November, everyone seems to be feeling pretty awful after their LNAT, its normal, its hard to tell how well you have done on the MCQ's, almost impossible. Who gave you an unsuccessful?

QMUL is definitely working its way up the league tables. However, firms are always going to err on the side of historical prestige and reputation. While their academic research is strong, QMUL isn't shooting out solicitors in the MC and barristers like other top law unis. QMUL is a good pick, but by no means is it better than UCL or LSE (like the guardian suggests). Without getting into a debate over it, and looking strictly at employment potential, I'd group unis like this (No particular order within each group).

Oxbridge

LSE/UCL

Warwick, Durham, KCL

Bristol, Nottingham

QMUL would probably go right behind Bristol/Nottingham, on par with something like Birmingham.

QMUL is definitely working its way up the league tables. However, firms are always going to err on the side of historical prestige and reputation. While their academic research is strong, QMUL isn't shooting out solicitors in the MC and barristers like other top law unis. QMUL is a good pick, but by no means is it better than UCL or LSE (like the guardian suggests). Without getting into a debate over it, and looking strictly at employment potential, I'd group unis like this (No particular order within each group).

Oxbridge

LSE/UCL

Warwick, Durham, KCL

Bristol, Nottingham

QMUL would probably go right behind Bristol/Nottingham, on par with something like Birmingham.

I would switch Notts with Warwick on your list personally.

How do you know you were rejected because of your LNAT?

In terms of Queen Mary being a "very good" uni. I would say its law school is one of the top, but as a whole the uni is generally not very good. Its hard to tell how employers will look upon someone who has a degree from queen mary, because it seems to have a better law school than the likes of UCL and LSE, but as a university it isnt very good. Personally i would say keep queen mary as your last choice, depending on who else youve applied to.

How did you find the LNAT when you completed it?

First off, thinking you are "too good" for a university before you even have full A-Levels is a dangerous game to play.

Secondly, QM cannot be said to not be a good university for Law. I see it as the place where people kicked into gear in their AS year rather than their GCSE year head off, don't know why, just do.

As for rankings of universities, you probably won't get better than "Lawz's" ranking a few years back. IIRC, it went something like:

Oxford
Cambridge

LSE
UCL
KCL
Durham
Nottingham

Bristol
Warwick
Manchester

Exeter
QMUL
ect

That's how I remember it anyway. I'd personally swap with Manchester with QMUL though. Those who go to LSE will assert they're in their own little tier, but they're not, and UCL certainly is not in it's own (tiers have equal worth, i.e. UCL=Nottingham.) A first from Nottingham would be viewed better than a 2:1 from LSE for example. Now, clearly, things aren't quite as black and white as that, but I'd recommend trying to find the thread I'm talking of. QMUL is mentioned on the second page.

I should add so that you can appreciate my comments in context, that I have an offer from QMUL. An offer I'm unsure I would take if all my other choices reject me in favour of York. I have heard that some firms take the overall prestige of a place to be a more reliable qualifier than how well a department is viewed for Law (which may well explain QMUL's curious predicament.)

EDIT: Not the reason I'd think of going to York instead though, I want to be a barrister.

QMUL is definitely working its way up the league tables. However, firms are always going to err on the side of historical prestige and reputation. While their academic research is strong, QMUL isn't shooting out solicitors in the MC and barristers like other top law unis. QMUL is a good pick, but by no means is it better than UCL or LSE (like the guardian suggests). Without getting into a debate over it, and looking strictly at employment potential, I'd group unis like this (No particular order within each group).

Oxbridge

LSE/UCL

Warwick, Durham, KCL

Bristol, Nottingham

QMUL would probably go right behind Bristol/Nottingham, on par with something like Birmingham.

I seem to have done all the research I can on QM as I have got an offer there. Looking at university guide tables it seems to be number 3 in the country as the highest ranking - number 14 in the country at the lowest I've seen..with a few guides saying it is around number 6. These rankings seem extremely good but then I see people on here sort of disregarding it. It's clearly not on Oxford level, or even UCL/LSE kind of level, but would you agree that it's generally regarded as very good?
The chances of me going there are probably quite great as I have just been rejected from UCL on the grounds of my LNAT..

Opinions

From my limited experience of studying at QM (1st year) you realise a lot of things about the law and the legal practices. The most important thing, which may shock some people on here, is the individual themself. A lot of the firms that you look at you will find people from places like UWE, keele etc etc this is in know way meant to disregard those unis but they are not LSe and UCL. What you need to ask yourself is why do those people make it?

It is because they are the people who have a drive to succeed. The people who go to the top unis have the drive to do well at GCSE and A levels. They are committed people, they are not necessarily the most clever people studying law but you can bet that they are incrediably hard working. QM is a top 12, maybe a top 10 university. If your going to a univeristy which is highly regarded, then you should be more concerned about making yourself employable. Do as many extra curricular activites as you can. Moot, join the LAC, find work experience, join pro bono etc etc, make yourself interesting and different.

TSR believes it is all about the uni and it simply isn't. QM is a very good uni for Law, it is also well respected uni as a whole. It has some very good departments and some not so good but it is certainly a decent univeristy on the whole and its law department is probably its strongest department. As Jingers has said, it won't hold you back.

I seem to have done all the research I can on QM as I have got an offer there. Looking at university guide tables it seems to be number 3 in the country as the highest ranking - number 14 in the country at the lowest I've seen..with a few guides saying it is around number 6. These rankings seem extremely good but then I see people on here sort of disregarding it. It's clearly not on Oxford level, or even UCL/LSE kind of level, but would you agree that it's generally regarded as very good?
The chances of me going there are probably quite great as I have just been rejected from UCL on the grounds of my LNAT..

Opinions