Is a Universities reputation really as important as people make out?

I am inclined to agree with this. I'd rather go to Oxford and graduate with a 2.2, than go to London Met and graduate with a 2.1.

Two decades ago maybe, but nowadays most applications are done online and have as a rule at least a 2:1(top employers) degree, otherwise you application ends up in the bin.

Most applications are not done online. Probably even most vacancies for training contracts do not use online applications. Likewise 45% of barristers' chambers do not use Pupillage Portal.

Most applications are not done online. Probably even most vacancies for training contracts do not use online applications. Likewise 45% of barristers' chambers do not use Pupillage Portal.

Not always, but isn't sometimes enough for reputation to make a difference? My dad has a 2.2 from Oxford and has been explicitly told by interviewers that he got the interview because he went to oxford. Reaputation is worth more than you would like to think.

That could be from an example of taking advantage of the opportunities available, like I mentioned before if you go to Oxbridge you usually do get more work experience options. But then again, someone from University of Hull with a 1st could have got an interview as well. Though there is no denying that going to Oxbridge does help.

The senior lecturer in the criminal law at King's, who is also Law Commissioner for England and Wales graduated from Hull :P He's not ashamed of it either; I heard it's quite a good law school actually.

Depends on the course really. For law, any uni which is mid ranked or higher will give you equal experience and it won't make much of a difference. However, for the sciences reputation is important.

It is taken into consideration. But is overblown by the snobs here who think that because they're going to Oxford they will walk into any job.

If you go to a middling uni and get a first, you will have just as good a chance as anyone especially if the course you do offers a years work exp

I do think you have to apply online for internships and graduate/experienced jobs for most well-known firms. At least, this certainly seems true for the financial/consulting/professional services sector.

People on here will argue that reputation means nearly everything, but it really doesn't. At the end of the day, you're all getting near enough the same degree, but of course some universities will be seen as above some others (Such as Oxbridge). Universities which are "renown" for their department in, for example, history (Such as Oxford, Durham) might attract employers a bit more but if someone has a First from Teesside against someone with a 2:2 from Oxford, it's not always the case of "You went to Oxford, you obviously must be amazing."

Depends on how much work you put in. Take advantage of societies, groups, (To an extent people :P) and make the most of it. It all depends on where you think you'll flourish best, but if you'd feel more comfortable and as if you'd do better at a "high" university, then by all means go. If you get a First then you'll be pretty much equally regarded by employers compared to someone else with a First (unless, like I keep saying, it's Oxbridge.)

Personally, if you love Newcastle or Leeds and you choose Bristol because it's seen as "better" you'd be making a huge mistake in my opinion. University isn't all about getting a degree, go somewhere you'll enjoy.

Frankly, this is wrong and misleading.

If you get a 1st at, for example, Teeside you are NOT pretty much equally regarded by employers as someone wit ha 1st from Oxford. That is just rubbish!

Reputation matters.

There is a reason some employers visit some universities and not others.

There is a reason certain university grads make on average higher grad salary than other universities.

The thing their is there are blocks of reputation with a hierarchy:

- Oxbridge

- LSE and Imperial

- Warwick, UCL, Durham, KCL, Bristol, Nottingham, Edinburgh, St Andrews > Manchester, York, Bath and all other redbricks

- The rest of UK universities

That does not mean if one attends a university in one block and is very good they can not compete for any job, it will just be harder. Reputation makes it easier to be noticed, acknowledged and given a chance.

Reputation is important for law, although perhaps not as important as some people on TSR think. Still, a degree from Kings or LSE puts you in a better position than a degree from Hull or Leeds or Northumbria.



This depends on the job you're looking for--if you want to get a pupillage at a top-tier commercial or public law set, virtually every recent tenant has a first from Oxford or Cambridge. You will not see a single tenant from a "middling" university. Likewise, as a poster elsewhere noted, the vast majority of MC trainees went to top-10 unis. Getting a first at a middling uni will not give you as good a chance as someone with a first from a top uni. Perhaps it should, but it does not. A year's work experience in law doesn't really happen, at least not at the top tier unis. I don't think it makes a great deal of difference.

Like I said, going to a more reputable university might give you advantages as in work experience and things to put on a CV, but universities will have this available to them anyway. Like I said, lawyers from "the magic circle" are willing to turn down Oxbridge candidates for "lesser" university ones because they might be better.

I hate to say it, but if you think because you go to one of the reputable universities you'll be sailing above the rest, Oxbridge and probably LSE/Imperial are probably the only university in this day and age where you'll get an advantage (Strictly degree wise) than someone else. Sure, a 1st from Imperial and a 1st from Teesside straight off the board the Imperial looks better, but if the person from Teesside had, for example, more work experience law wise, took advantage of it all by being leader of the law society, had more experience in mooting and the likes, the person from LSE won't be picked over him just because "He went to LSE."

Employers want the best they can get, you can change dramatically over 3 years. Just because you screwed up exams when you're 18 and landed in an ex-polytech doesn't mean employers will automatically go "pfft, no way." A Levels are a horrible system for some places, if you got BBB in A Levels but never had a chance to study Law (I didn't at my school and I really wish I did) the person might have ended up with 100% in Law and went on to get a 1st and be amazing at mooting, never lose a debate, a real lawyer and all but at Teesside, employers will notice. It's their job to.

38% of the recruiting class in the MC is from Oxbridge
48% of the recruiting class at Slaughter was from Oxbridge
65% of the MC recruits from the top 10
11.7% of the MC recruits from below the top 20
(http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2010/07/magiccircle.html)

That's only 2 Law firms, like I said Oxbridge will get an advantage over someone else.


That's why IMO if someone has BBB they are much better off getting a degree in politics, geography, international affairs, a language, etc. at a top 20 uni and then taking up a GDL. As opposed to settling with a post 92.

38% of the recruiting class in the MC is from Oxbridge
48% of the recruiting class at Slaughter was from Oxbridge
65% of the MC recruits from the top 10
11.7% of the MC recruits from below the top 20
(http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2010/07/magiccircle.html)

That's why IMO if someone has BBB they are much better off getting a degree in politics, geography, international affairs, a language, etc. at a top 20 uni and then taking up a GDL. As opposed to settling with a post 92.

Reputation means a lot at the top, not so much at the middle and a lot at the bottom.

That's bit harsh if someone who has BBB has a passion to study Law they should be restricted to doing just a GDL for a year or two. What if someone with a BBB ends up with a first from a polytech then goes on to do a post-grad at a more reputable university if they desired to increase their employability?

Think of what you are saying.

One in nine magic circle trainees didn't go to a top 20 institution.

There are a lot of posters on TSR who wouldn't accept that one in 900 magic circle trainees didn't go to an arbitrary top 5 institutions.





It is a view, but look at the downside.

The student who follows your advice now has a degree with low graduate employment prospects (languages excepted). He or she might get funded by a large firm for the GDL but those A levels will count against him or her. As a result the bank of Mum and Dad will probably be funding the GDL and possibly the LPC. If the person then fails to get a training contact, he or she has a degree with low employment prospects and two useless post-graduate qualifications.