Law Applicants 2011 Offer Thread

Its important to note for US law schools that they are completely separate from the uni as a whole. For example, NYU isn't ranked high for UG, but for LS, it's ranked in the T10. Now that I cleared that up so other people reading this won't go into a frenzy, here's how it works...

The top law schools in the US are usually called the T14 (top 14). Most people don't focus on the specific ranking (i.e whether Cornell is number 9 or 10). Rather its done by grouping. HYS would be the top 3. Then comes CCN (Chicago, Columbia and NYU). Next is MVP (UMich, Virginia, Penn). Northwestern is in between CCN and MVP. Cornell, Georgetown, Berkeley, and Duke makeup the last bit. These 4 are rarely grouped, however.

Yale is accepted as the number one law school in the country, regardless of the yearly changes in newspaper rankings. Havard is second. Stanford is number three. This tends to be accepted as fact.

For the next tier. It ranges. Most people view it as Columbia->NYU->Chi. But its now becoming Columbia=NYU->Chi.

Next tier--this is the most debated. My personal view is, M=V=P. Although, I would buy the argument P->M->V

Comments on the ungrouped--Georgetown for law school is not nearly as good as it is UG. It has been having a ton of trouble placing kids. Cornell is ehh. The problem is NYU and Columbia will trump the Cornell kids everytime...so essentially Cornell is out-marketed. Duke--great if you want to stay in the south. Berkeley--similar situation to Cornell....UCLA and SLS often places better in LA law. Northwestern, similar situation to Cornell...they get out-marketed by the Chi kids.



Oh no! I'm just going to be starting uni.

"Are you even aware of the standard that Advanced Highers are?!"

"Yes."

"Pfft."

"Sorry, what's your UCAS ID number?"

"Recites it."

"Thanks, we just made the sorting pile a little lighter."
(Hangs up.)

"Up their own backside."Who are you?!

Durham are too up their own backside for their own good in my opinion. Phoned them up to check that their UCAS listed entrance requirements weren't a mistake and was told that they do expect 3 A's at Advanced Higher. Cue me asking the tutor if she was being serious and was she aware of the standard that Advanced Highers were. Obviously don't know what they're talking about and I'm expecting a rejection soon as my tracker hasn't moved from department. From there, they can expect a very sharp email to their admissions department.

I had thought "Damn, he's pretty much called me out right in front of everybody." But nah, we cool.

And I wouldn't say it could be anything but advantageous. They'll probably assign work experience on a first come first served basis, rather than make people apply competitively.

And even if they did the latter, early future Cambridge student surely beats late, future Cambridge student?

In short, I would (and have.)

Oh hey you mean you got an offer too and I might see ya there if I meet my requirements?

"Are you even aware of the standard that Advanced Highers are?!"

"Yes."

"Pfft."

"Sorry, what's your UCAS ID number?"

"Recites it."

"Thanks, we just made the sorting pile a little lighter."
(Hangs up.)

"Up their own backside." Who are you?!

"You have reached the limit of how many posts you can rate today!"



I'm fairly sure that they have probably had candidates with three As at Advanced Highers before, and have probably had people get in with those grades. They probably have a little experience of giving out offers, and probably do know what they're talking about.

I do wish you luck though.

Yeah cool, I shall go for it!
I hadn't even considered applying this early. Good job I'm on this site!

Did you just send emails? Did you talk about your offer?

Mhmmm. The sad thing is that the process you just described probably has more logic behind it than the rigmarole that Scottish applicants are enduring right now.

Who am I? Someone who obviously has more of a clue about entrance requirements than these "high-calibre" institutions. Christ, they talk about their standards or graduates and all the other self-indulgent crap that gets dribbled at open days but they are either too bone idle lazy or - dare I say it - stupid to some research into Scottish qualifications. Take your pick because, quite frankly, I don't know which one is more frightening.

Regards,

Troll/arrogant person.

Its important to note for US law schools that they are completely separate from the uni as a whole. For example, NYU isn't ranked high for UG, but for LS, it's ranked in the T10. Now that I cleared that up so other people reading this won't go into a frenzy, here's how it works...

The top law schools in the US are usually called the T14 (top 14). Most people don't focus on the specific ranking (i.e whether Cornell is number 9 or 10). Rather its done by grouping. HYS would be the top 3. Then comes CCN (Chicago, Columbia and NYU). Next is MVP (UMich, Virginia, Penn). Northwestern is in between CCN and MVP. Cornell, Georgetown, Berkeley, and Duke makeup the last bit. These 4 are rarely grouped, however.

Yale is accepted as the number one law school in the country, regardless of the yearly changes in newspaper rankings. Havard is second. Stanford is number three. This tends to be accepted as fact.

For the next tier. It ranges. Most people view it as Columbia->NYU->Chi. But its now becoming Columbia=NYU->Chi.

Next tier--this is the most debated. My personal view is, M=V=P. Although, I would buy the argument P->M->V

Comments on the ungrouped--Georgetown for law school is not nearly as good as it is UG. It has been having a ton of trouble placing kids. Cornell is ehh. The problem is NYU and Columbia will trump the Cornell kids everytime...so essentially Cornell is out-marketed. Duke--great if you want to stay in the south. Berkeley--similar situation to Cornell....UCLA and SLS often places better in LA law. Northwestern, similar situation to Cornell...they get out-marketed by the Chi kids.

Fixed.

Fixed.

I did just send emails (I'm applying to regional chambers only, and if I don't get a reponse, I'll just write, and then the final stage is actually walking in and demanding a work placement )

I can't see how they would view it in any way as a bad thing. If anything, it should be good, "I know how busy you will be, hence my early application."

I did, but only on my CV, I didn't want it sound like I was bragging or anything. I was going to put it in huge font, underlined, in bright red, but I toned it down a notch
I think if you wanted to state something about it in the text of your cover sheet (which in hindsight, I perhaps should have done (and will do next time)) it'd be best saying something like: "the role of a barrister is obviously very demanding and competition for places is competitive, I feel however that I would be able to cope with the demands of the role well, demonstrated by an offer to read Law at "X."

Don't know if it actually flows too well, but it doesn't sound as... crass?

Haha. I see what you did there! If that's the standard they're letting into Oxford then maybe I, along with my 4 other colleagues, should interpret that as a funny stroke of luck. You have a nice night, sir.

That was very comprehensive, thank you.

Hmm, I had always assumed that Harvard was the top Law school, that must be my "I watched Legally Blonde one time!" brain cell. (For Reese Witherspoon and no other reason )

I have read that Yale reject people with 2400 on their SATS regularly, which makes the application process seem a little like a lottery (although, there is the LSAT of course.) I'm thinking of doing an LL.M after Oxford if I can get funding (hence my interest, I haven't really looked into too much obviously though )

I actually thought that what he was saying had some substance behind it. AH's are supposedly near degree level so achieving three As in AH's is pretty hard.

You sent a cv in an email? What should I include?
I'm not too experienced in applying for stuff I'm too lazy to work and take A levels. So I'm sorry if I'm using you to sort my applications out

x

x

US law school admissions is much more predictable than UG admissions. Admissions is based off of: 90 percent GPA and LSAT. The other 10 percent are softs like recommendations, experience, etc. If one can get within the median LSAT and GPA, they are essentially guaranteed admissions. Someone with a 4.0 GPA and 180 LSAT will get into any US LS.

The BCL at Oxford and LLM at Cambridge would be far more academic than an LLM at a US LS, bar Yale. The LLM's at US schools tend to be just the first year classes (torts, contracts, constitution, criminal, property and civil procedure), since these are the core classes in the US. Of course it depends on the LLM program. For example, some will specialize in international law, banking, etc. I'd like to go for the Cambridge LLM (it looks like they have a new corporate LLM coming out, that looks interesting as well), but will probably apply for 1 or 2 US LLM's in addition. Of course this is 4 years from now lol....

Thanks, yeah, I worked on that joke for about 4 hours (obviously I must have been inside an Inception-like dream world because my reply to your statement took less than four hours from your intial posting of it) but I'm really happy with the way it turned out.

Can I ask you a question though? I was concerned that the joke didn't really appeal to the 40+ demographic, and I'm really trying to branch out a little bit into the oldie market (cruise ship comedians get the BEST benefits!)