Best universities to study Law! - Top 5
Scroll to see replies
Original post by MissFanatical
LMAO I love how you end a bitchy comment with 'Best Regards,' it's hysterical. It's like stabbing someone in the tit with a fork and then giving them an Asprin and a cuddle. Anyway, it's Lucy from group P 
Hope it's all going good! Only got the chance to say bye to Siddika, which was a shame, you were a lovely group 
Hope it's all going good! Only got the chance to say bye to Siddika, which was a shame, you were a lovely group Hah, Lucy. Well, how can I treat someone who can't comprehend a simple comment? Wasn't it simple and clear? Honestly... this guy is just beyond pathetic in his comments. They are such a palaver! Zero hard facts! A complete nuisance.
Btw, why did you leave? So early?! I've just done 2/4 of midsessionals today. I know they don't count to anything, but still... Nevertheless... criminal law was weird. Common - easier.
Tomorrow property and public! Then - X-mas time!
Original post by MarcvsAntonivs
I think you are just beeing hopelessly pathetic by stating "i don't want to hear from you on this topic anymore". How am I to treat that if not as a childish immaturity in leading a conversation? Simply because you think you are a witty clever-jack does not make your argument good, mate.
Just stick to what I say and you will have no doubts that with what I responded to you was entirely correct. Analyse it, again.
PS How convenient that the last bit of your comment now seems to sound extraordinarily clever now.
You are right. Let's finish it here.
Btw, following logic you may not have been taught ( one can hardly learn it, either you are intelligent or not ):
"People have simply pointed out the errors of using rankings as an absolute indicator of where Universities lie in regards to others due to the disparity between results and their tendency to change drastically year by year."
Did I say in any piece of my comment that "we should treat them as an absolute"?
One carefully reading my comment can notice no such bit.
How, then, can you ask me "should we treat them as an absolute then?"
Pardon my colloquialism, mate, ... use your brain! Assuming that what I have just written about is true, is it not just to call you "brainless"?
Honestly, if you are going to write any other comment trying to sound even less logical and consistent, please, drop it. At one point, I shall repeat, I do agree with you. Let's end it because you are just 'plunging'.
I have to give it to you, mate. You have potential:
"Of course we consider rankings when deciding universities, but to make claims such as 'UCL is a far better institute than the LSE and Durham' based on where they place in the Times list one year is absolutely ludicrous. "
This piece is rather clever.
As to my judgements concerning whether or not you are a good fabric for a lawyer. If you plan on being so senstivie and vulnerable to someone's opposing views - believe me, you have got nothing to look for in a court room. Have you ever been to any trial before? As a practice or internship? These will do you good. You will become impervious to criticism.
Law teaches you many things. Don't repel them.
PS2. I beg your pardon for my using so much space after PS.
Best regards, again.
Just stick to what I say and you will have no doubts that with what I responded to you was entirely correct. Analyse it, again.
PS How convenient that the last bit of your comment now seems to sound extraordinarily clever now.
You are right. Let's finish it here.
Btw, following logic you may not have been taught ( one can hardly learn it, either you are intelligent or not ):
"People have simply pointed out the errors of using rankings as an absolute indicator of where Universities lie in regards to others due to the disparity between results and their tendency to change drastically year by year."
Did I say in any piece of my comment that "we should treat them as an absolute"?
One carefully reading my comment can notice no such bit.
How, then, can you ask me "should we treat them as an absolute then?"
Pardon my colloquialism, mate, ... use your brain! Assuming that what I have just written about is true, is it not just to call you "brainless"?
Honestly, if you are going to write any other comment trying to sound even less logical and consistent, please, drop it. At one point, I shall repeat, I do agree with you. Let's end it because you are just 'plunging'.
I have to give it to you, mate. You have potential:
"Of course we consider rankings when deciding universities, but to make claims such as 'UCL is a far better institute than the LSE and Durham' based on where they place in the Times list one year is absolutely ludicrous. "
This piece is rather clever.
As to my judgements concerning whether or not you are a good fabric for a lawyer. If you plan on being so senstivie and vulnerable to someone's opposing views - believe me, you have got nothing to look for in a court room. Have you ever been to any trial before? As a practice or internship? These will do you good. You will become impervious to criticism.
Law teaches you many things. Don't repel them.
PS2. I beg your pardon for my using so much space after PS.
Best regards, again.
You're quite odd.
Original post by chalks
You're quite odd.
Was it just me or was his diatribe incomprehensible?
Original post by adam0311
Was it just me or was his diatribe incomprehensible?
The diatribe exemplified tl;dr.
Original post by Ameyab123
Seeing that Warwick is a big law school. Does anyone know their requirements? How about Queen Mary?
Warwick Entry Requirements
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Ameyab123
Seeing that Warwick is a big law school. Does anyone know their requirements? How about Queen Mary?
QMUL is AAA (:
Original post by her
QMUL is AAA (:
How about their IB requirements?
Firstly, let me explain that I am a current trainee at one of the magic circle law firms.
Secondly, although what I say will be based on opinion, I will try to include as many facts as possible.
Having not only met the hundred or so people in my training intake, I have also met a large proportion of the intake for a couple of other magic circle firms. Mainly because we were all at the college of law together doing the LPC and partly because, having studied law at one of the main London universities, I have ended up with a lot of friends going to different firms.
My advice would be to take any recruitment website, prospectus, talk (or any HR promotion) with a pinch of salt. They will always do their best to show that their firm is the most diverse in terms of (i) class, (ii) race, (iii) academic background, etc.
That is not to say that some firms aren't any of the above, but when they all sing the same song - it's almost impossible to see the truth without actually spending time there (or knowing someone who has).
From what I have seen, magic circle firms (and mine in particular) mainly take from these universities:
Oxford / Cambridge / LSE / UCL / Durham / Bristol / Manchester / KCL
[no particular order at all].
On occasions you can find people coming from different universities (such as Southampton, Warwick, Nottingham), albeit by and large the lawyers come from the list above.
Ultimately, RANKINGS DO NOT MATTER. They fluctuate yearly and TBH I doubt that HR have time to consider the subtle nuances between universities from year to year.
Provided you graduate from a top university, then you have crossed the first hurdle (of many).
What is more important in getting a TC at a magic circle firm (or any firm for that matter) is that you:
1. write a coherent and impressionable vacation scheme/TC application,
2. gathered relevant work experience,
3. demonstrate enthusiasm and commitment in extra curricula activities,
4. are knowledgeable about the commercial factors which surround legal issues,
5. perform well in the interview,
6. (and above all) are passionate about whatever area of law in which you wish to practise,
If you have done all of the above, your university will be an important factor - but by no means will it be the determinative factor.
On a side note, I have done *a lot* of graduate recruitment events for my firm including opens days, talks etc. The BEST advice I can give you all is to do well in your degree - wherever you are. If you get a 2.2 or below then it's game over. Many of top 30 firms require a 2.1 as a minimum - and DO NOT think that a 2.2 with a Masters will save you. A Masters is not there to allow you to sweep a lower undergraduate degree under the carpet - HR are not stupid. Unless you have a good reason, a Masters cannot save you so please stop asking!
Also, though this is mainly my personal opinion (based on my experience), QM is not a strong university for law. There has been a lot of talk on this thread that it is equally as strong, or thereabouts, as the other London universities. It isn't. I have never met someone from a top firm from QM (though not to say there isn't). If you look at the special open days firms exclusively hold for particular universities - QM is not one of them. Furthermore, my firm did not even make an appearance at the QM law fair - and since I have a friend from another firm who did attend - I know that only one magic circle firm bothered to turn up, and in total there was only 15 firms in a small room. Not an impressive turn out, unfortunately that may be quite indicative of QM's status in the eyes of HR.
Secondly, although what I say will be based on opinion, I will try to include as many facts as possible.
Having not only met the hundred or so people in my training intake, I have also met a large proportion of the intake for a couple of other magic circle firms. Mainly because we were all at the college of law together doing the LPC and partly because, having studied law at one of the main London universities, I have ended up with a lot of friends going to different firms.
My advice would be to take any recruitment website, prospectus, talk (or any HR promotion) with a pinch of salt. They will always do their best to show that their firm is the most diverse in terms of (i) class, (ii) race, (iii) academic background, etc.
That is not to say that some firms aren't any of the above, but when they all sing the same song - it's almost impossible to see the truth without actually spending time there (or knowing someone who has).
From what I have seen, magic circle firms (and mine in particular) mainly take from these universities:
Oxford / Cambridge / LSE / UCL / Durham / Bristol / Manchester / KCL
[no particular order at all].
On occasions you can find people coming from different universities (such as Southampton, Warwick, Nottingham), albeit by and large the lawyers come from the list above.
Ultimately, RANKINGS DO NOT MATTER. They fluctuate yearly and TBH I doubt that HR have time to consider the subtle nuances between universities from year to year.
Provided you graduate from a top university, then you have crossed the first hurdle (of many).
What is more important in getting a TC at a magic circle firm (or any firm for that matter) is that you:
1. write a coherent and impressionable vacation scheme/TC application,
2. gathered relevant work experience,
3. demonstrate enthusiasm and commitment in extra curricula activities,
4. are knowledgeable about the commercial factors which surround legal issues,
5. perform well in the interview,
6. (and above all) are passionate about whatever area of law in which you wish to practise,
If you have done all of the above, your university will be an important factor - but by no means will it be the determinative factor.
On a side note, I have done *a lot* of graduate recruitment events for my firm including opens days, talks etc. The BEST advice I can give you all is to do well in your degree - wherever you are. If you get a 2.2 or below then it's game over. Many of top 30 firms require a 2.1 as a minimum - and DO NOT think that a 2.2 with a Masters will save you. A Masters is not there to allow you to sweep a lower undergraduate degree under the carpet - HR are not stupid. Unless you have a good reason, a Masters cannot save you so please stop asking!
Also, though this is mainly my personal opinion (based on my experience), QM is not a strong university for law. There has been a lot of talk on this thread that it is equally as strong, or thereabouts, as the other London universities. It isn't. I have never met someone from a top firm from QM (though not to say there isn't). If you look at the special open days firms exclusively hold for particular universities - QM is not one of them. Furthermore, my firm did not even make an appearance at the QM law fair - and since I have a friend from another firm who did attend - I know that only one magic circle firm bothered to turn up, and in total there was only 15 firms in a small room. Not an impressive turn out, unfortunately that may be quite indicative of QM's status in the eyes of HR.
Original post by willtang3000
My cousin is a Queen Mary law graduate and he has been so for 3 years whereby he took his LPC the year after graduation. He has been looking for a training contract for two years now and is currently working as a cashier in Marks and Spencer's...
Have any of his other friends been successful?
Original post by Kay :)
Have any of his other friends been successful?
I only know of one other friend who wants to be a barrister and he is failing to gain pupillage.
Original post by Kay :)
Have any of his other friends been successful?
I wouldn't use this guy's anecdote as a basis to make a decision. If you miss getting a TC the first time around, it becomes progressively more difficult. You don't know the guys situation either. Perhaps he had a 2.2, no work experience, minimum effort put forth into finding a job, etc.
Original post by willtang3000
I only know of one other friend who wants to be a barrister and he is failing to gain pupillage.
Ahh, interesting. Thats quite sad really, hopefully they'll find something.
Original post by adam0311
I wouldn't use this guy's anecdote as a basis to make a decision. If you miss getting a TC the first time around, it becomes progressively more difficult. You don't know the guys situation either. Perhaps he had a 2.2, no work experience, minimum effort put forth into finding a job, etc.
Thanks for your input
I was just asking generally, to get some more knowledge of his years graduates and their prospects. But I understand your point, which is nonetheless true 
Original post by Mr. Roxas
Oxford / Cambridge
LSE / UCL
Warwick / Durham
There's my top 6. lol
LSE / UCL
Warwick / Durham
There's my top 6. lol
Careful now, don't want to set off the KCL lovers.
Original post by INTJ
UCL law is by far better than LSE and Durham. It's higher in every ranking, world-revered and has he best graduate prospects. No idea why you'd put the other two above it.
Except it's, erm, not.
Both the Indepedent and Times rank Durham higher as far as I'm aware (don't remember about LSE). But to argue about the differnece in domestic tables is rather silly as there's usually only one to a handful of places between the three universities. Especially in recent years. So it's safe to say that's no difference.
The World Rankings always favour the larger universities so UCL will always have the upper hand there.
This isn't my argument that Durham or LSE are better than UCL, because they aren't, but neither do they have to be inferior. League tables are fatally flawed. and it would be silly to argue over the annual fluctuations in them. And that because Durham is fifth and UCL is eigth that must mean it's better. Because this would be *******s (as it would be vice versa).
The difference between all three in law is negligible. There will always be a gravitational pull of sorts when it comes to the London universities over the provinicial ones but, because of its history and strong departments, Durham can rival them. Places such as Bristol and Nottingham also. Warwick, depsite being a 1960s plate glass and lacking some of that traditional "superficial" presitge is highly thought of because of its strength and its commercial, erm, pimping
I really don't think it is possible to give a definitive top five. As I said, there will always be a London pull. So LSE, UCL and KCL will be in there. Oxford and Cambridge goes without saying. These, alongside Durham, Warwick, Bristol and Nottingham are certainly the most represented amongst major firms including the MC. The difference between most is slight. The redbricks, particularly somewhere the size of Manchester, will always have some presence.
Original post by tony_ron
Some people on here seriously need to chill. Whether you go to LSE rather than Durham or UCL or vice versa is unlikely to make any impact on whether you get offered a job in reality. When universities are in the same general category other factors start becoming more important.
As Jacket Potato says, once you've actually got a job in law you'll all realise that league tables don't matter so much, especially individual fluctuations. Recruitment partners and HR staff have a vague idea of where they're looking at based on perceived reputation, not by how league tables change. These might be wrong, or outdated, or both, but it doesn't stop it being the case at the majority of firms.
As Jacket Potato says, once you've actually got a job in law you'll all realise that league tables don't matter so much, especially individual fluctuations. Recruitment partners and HR staff have a vague idea of where they're looking at based on perceived reputation, not by how league tables change. These might be wrong, or outdated, or both, but it doesn't stop it being the case at the majority of firms.
Many recruitment partners attended university before league tables came into existence. Even those who did attend university in this "league tables age" most would've attended in the earliest years (1992 onwards). So they won't be looking at league tables to form their opinions. Even if they did then they'd most likely to out of step. Although many of the "top ten" universities of the early 1990s have still, but for the odd fluctuation, remained in the present top ten (Oxford, Cambidge, LSE, Durham, UCL, Warwick e.t.c.) other univerisites like Exeter and St Andrews weren't as highly ranked.
Top firms may look at this "perceived repuation". This is based on things like how represented a university's graduates have been in the past and their judgement of how strong the department is. This can still match to what the league tables say more or less.
But it's not strictly based on league tables and they certainly don't sit there every year studying each new annual league table. Even perceived reputation is of no greater importance than the strength of the candidate being considered.
I'm a bit late on this but haven't been around much lately...
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by River85
Except it's, erm, not.
Both the Indepedent and Times rank Durham higher as far as I'm aware (don't remember about LSE). But to argue about the differnece in domestic tables is rather silly as there's usually only one to a handful of places between the three universities. Especially in recent years. So it's safe to say that's no difference.
The World Rankings always favour the larger universities so UCL will always have the upper hand there.
This isn't my argument that Durham or LSE are better than UCL, because they aren't, but neither do they have to be inferior. League tables are fatally flawed. and it would be silly to argue over the annual fluctuations in them. And that because Durham is fifth and UCL is eigth that must mean it's better. Because this would be *******s (as it would be vice versa).
The difference between all three in law is negligible. There will always be a gravitational pull of sorts when it comes to the London universities over the provinicial ones but, because of its history and strong departments, Durham can rival them. Places such as Bristol and Nottingham also. Warwick, depsite being a 1960s plate glass and lacking some of that traditional "superficial" presitge is highly thought of because of its strength and its commercial, erm, pimping
I really don't think it is possible to give a definitive top five. As I said, there will always be a London pull. So LSE, UCL and KCL will be in there. Oxford and Cambridge goes without saying. These, alongside Durham, Warwick, Bristol and Nottingham are certainly the most represented amongst major firms including the MC. The difference between most is slight. The redbricks, particularly somewhere the size of Manchester, will always have some presence.
Many recruitment partners attended university before league tables came into existence. Even those who did attend university in this "league tables age" most would've attended in the earliest years (1992 onwards). So they won't be looking at league tables to form their opinions. Even if they did then they'd most likely to out of step. Although many of the "top ten" universities of the early 1990s have still, but for the odd fluctuation, remained in the present top ten (Oxford, Cambidge, LSE, Durham, UCL, Warwick e.t.c.) other univerisites like Exeter and St Andrews weren't as highly ranked.
Top firms may look at this "perceived repuation". This is based on things like how represented a university's graduates have been in the past and their judgement of how strong the department is. This can still match to what the league tables say more or less.
But it's not strictly based on league tables and they certainly don't sit there every year studying each new annual league table. Even perceived reputation is of no greater importance than the strength of the candidate being considered.
I'm a bit late on this but haven't been around much lately...
Both the Indepedent and Times rank Durham higher as far as I'm aware (don't remember about LSE). But to argue about the differnece in domestic tables is rather silly as there's usually only one to a handful of places between the three universities. Especially in recent years. So it's safe to say that's no difference.
The World Rankings always favour the larger universities so UCL will always have the upper hand there.
This isn't my argument that Durham or LSE are better than UCL, because they aren't, but neither do they have to be inferior. League tables are fatally flawed. and it would be silly to argue over the annual fluctuations in them. And that because Durham is fifth and UCL is eigth that must mean it's better. Because this would be *******s (as it would be vice versa).
The difference between all three in law is negligible. There will always be a gravitational pull of sorts when it comes to the London universities over the provinicial ones but, because of its history and strong departments, Durham can rival them. Places such as Bristol and Nottingham also. Warwick, depsite being a 1960s plate glass and lacking some of that traditional "superficial" presitge is highly thought of because of its strength and its commercial, erm, pimping
I really don't think it is possible to give a definitive top five. As I said, there will always be a London pull. So LSE, UCL and KCL will be in there. Oxford and Cambridge goes without saying. These, alongside Durham, Warwick, Bristol and Nottingham are certainly the most represented amongst major firms including the MC. The difference between most is slight. The redbricks, particularly somewhere the size of Manchester, will always have some presence.
Many recruitment partners attended university before league tables came into existence. Even those who did attend university in this "league tables age" most would've attended in the earliest years (1992 onwards). So they won't be looking at league tables to form their opinions. Even if they did then they'd most likely to out of step. Although many of the "top ten" universities of the early 1990s have still, but for the odd fluctuation, remained in the present top ten (Oxford, Cambidge, LSE, Durham, UCL, Warwick e.t.c.) other univerisites like Exeter and St Andrews weren't as highly ranked.
Top firms may look at this "perceived repuation". This is based on things like how represented a university's graduates have been in the past and their judgement of how strong the department is. This can still match to what the league tables say more or less.
But it's not strictly based on league tables and they certainly don't sit there every year studying each new annual league table. Even perceived reputation is of no greater importance than the strength of the candidate being considered.
I'm a bit late on this but haven't been around much lately...
While I agree with a lot of that, it's just not what I've heard/seen. I would say that the difference between the LSE and UCL for Law might be negligible, but - based on people I know who have gone into Law - the two top London universities are usually favoured over Durham/Warwick.
This whole thread was a mixture of insane, weird, level headed and plain stupid.
But, I loved reading through.
My award for MVTC goes to 'MarcvsAntonivs.' The thread was losing steam until you came along and revitalised it, with your quirky charm, can-do attitude, and best of all, your abilty to use 4000 words to say what could have been said in 400.
But, I loved reading through.
My award for MVTC goes to 'MarcvsAntonivs.' The thread was losing steam until you came along and revitalised it, with your quirky charm, can-do attitude, and best of all, your abilty to use 4000 words to say what could have been said in 400.
Original post by Snowballed
Ultimately, RANKINGS DO NOT MATTER. They fluctuate yearly and TBH I doubt that HR have time to consider the subtle nuances between universities from year to year.
Provided you graduate from a top university, then you have crossed the first hurdle (of many).
Provided you graduate from a top university, then you have crossed the first hurdle (of many).
Original post by River85
Many recruitment partners attended university before league tables came into existence. Even those who did attend university in this "league tables age" most would've attended in the earliest years (1992 onwards). So they won't be looking at league tables to form their opinions. Even if they did then they'd most likely to out of step. Although many of the "top ten" universities of the early 1990s have still, but for the odd fluctuation, remained in the present top ten (Oxford, Cambidge, LSE, Durham, UCL, Warwick e.t.c.) other univerisites like Exeter and St Andrews weren't as highly ranked.
Top firms may look at this "perceived repuation". This is based on things like how represented a university's graduates have been in the past and their judgement of how strong the department is. This can still match to what the league tables say more or less.
But it's not strictly based on league tables and they certainly don't sit there every year studying each new annual league table. Even perceived reputation is of no greater importance than the strength of the candidate being considered.
I'm a bit late on this but haven't been around much lately...
Top firms may look at this "perceived repuation". This is based on things like how represented a university's graduates have been in the past and their judgement of how strong the department is. This can still match to what the league tables say more or less.
But it's not strictly based on league tables and they certainly don't sit there every year studying each new annual league table. Even perceived reputation is of no greater importance than the strength of the candidate being considered.
I'm a bit late on this but haven't been around much lately...
This is the point I have been trying to make for a while.
Historical Reputation triumphs over league tables with those that matter.
Hardly do recruiters look at league tables, they just have a perception of which universities are top.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Law
- Durham Law Job Prospects
- Best universities for magic circle law firms
- Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
- Is it worth applying to an AAB uni for Law?
- Is my a levels good?
- what unis can i get into
- What university degree is best for my A-Levels?
- Which universities to apply to?
- Is City University good for Law
- What are my chances of getting into Oxford Law?
- Should I do law? Would I be overwhelmed?
- Is there is chance?
- Which ULAW Campus Should I Study At?
- Russel Group Uni with Bad GCSEs ?
- Ranking UK Law Schools
- Uni options
- MSc Finance Profile Evaluation
- Gsce grades - oxbridge
- Is it worth applying to three Russel groups for law?
