Law Applicants 2011 Offer Thread

Original post by adam0311

Don't forget Oxford and Cambridge are part of the top 10. That's why it wouldn't make sense to add them up.

http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202464090914

Pfft, what a stupid article.
I fail to see how anyone could complain about recruitment focusing on the higher ranked schools - it's entirely logical - and, to be honest, I don't see anything about recruiting from Fordham law school as somehow in itself noble.
What's more, the article commits cum hoc in spectacular fashion. '

But what's really amusing to me is that Slaughter and May's executive partner Graham White insists that the firm is not exclusionary. Here's what he tells Legal Week: "We aim to recruit the best graduates on merit regardless of educational background and are committed to eliminating irrelevant barriers. As part of this we are working to make sure that no students feel they are excluded because of their schooling or university."'

Lolwut? Did you even consider that perhaps the applicants with the most merit come from those schools? The implication that Graham White's claim is somehow ridiculous based on the ratios of oxbridge/ top 10 grads there is in itself absurd.

/rant.

BTW I realise you were only posting the article for statistics. I'm not attacking you, it just pissed me off.

Reply 1806

adam0311

12

Original post by TimmonaPortella

Pfft, what a stupid article.
I fail to see how anyone could complain about recruitment focusing on the higher ranked schools - it's entirely logical - and, to be honest, I don't see anything about recruiting from Fordham law school as somehow in itself noble.
What's more, the article commits cum hoc in spectacular fashion. ' Lolwut? Did you even consider that perhaps the applicants with the most merit come from those schools? The implication that Graham White's claim is somehow ridiculous based on the ratios of oxbridge/ top 10 grads there is in itself absurd.

/rant.

BTW I realise you were only posting the article for statistics. I'm not attacking you, it just pissed me off.

Agreed.

It is written from the American perspective. American legal recruiting is a little less prestige whore based, which probably explains the misunderstanding.

Reply 1807

Original post by High As A Kite

hey, thanks for getting back to me

I understand your personal preference favours Exeter (and Sheffield) over UEA. However, are you also thinking about career prospects and how well regarded it is by employers? (which is something i must bear in mind).

Exeter is probably the best Law school on there, you don't graduate with a "Streatham Campus" degree.
I said Sheffield because it's close to me (hence the personal preference) and there isn't much difference between Exeter and Sheffield (in my opinion.)
But you should definitely check the requirements of what you want to do, and check which universities you've applied to match up.

Original post by adam0311

I would take Northumbria for law over City any day. Plus, from what I understand City's law school looks like a dump.

On a side note, I think City really needs to sit down and restrategize their law school. Cass would be an excellent model to follow. If I were part of the law school's administration, I would:

1. Cut the entry requirement to BBB. This would attract more candidates who a) might be more qualified or b)use it as an insurance choice. This would likely raise the quality of student (no joke, some of the BBB law schools have higher UCAS averages than City...this would be a way to change that)
2. Double student intake to raise capital.
3. Invest new found capital into research, facilities, etc.
4. Wait a few years for the LS to grow in reputation/quality. Slowly raising entry requirements to ABB, then AAB and eventually AAA. Heck, Cass is A*AA for some course now.
5. Cut intake since money can now be raised through the strengthened alumni network.
6. Sit back and watch as City becomes a real AAA uni.

Aside from the fact that it would become a legit LS, it would rise in rankings significantly--research output increased, higher UCAS averages, more expenditure per student, better facilities, etc.

I like how you've effectively fixed City (in our opinion anyway.)
I agree that it seems as though they haven't earned their AAA demands, and should have staggered the requirements in order to raise it's reputation a little more amongst the newer Law Schools.

I say newer, because apart from arguably Warwick, no "elite" Law School was founded semi-recently, although I don't know when they were all founded, (QMUL is probably another one) it seems to correlate that age=prestige.

Reply 1808

Original post by TimmonaPortella

To be fair, you're hardly the voice of impartiality either.
None of us here really are.

Except me.

I can honestly say everything I've ever said (and will say) regarding Law Schools was totally factual and impartial.

:colonhash:

Reply 1809

Original post by Mann18

I say newer, because apart from arguably Warwick, no "elite" Law School was founded semi-recently, although I don't know when they were all founded, (QMUL is probably another one) it seems to correlate that age=prestige.

I hear the 13th century was a better year for law schools than the 11th though.

Reply 1810

Original post by TimmonaPortella

Pfft, what a stupid article.
I fail to see how anyone could complain about recruitment focusing on the higher ranked schools - it's entirely logical - and, to be honest, I don't see anything about recruiting from Fordham law school as somehow in itself noble.
What's more, the article commits cum hoc in spectacular fashion. ' Lolwut? Did you even consider that perhaps the applicants with the most merit come from those schools? The implication that Graham White's claim is somehow ridiculous based on the ratios of oxbridge/ top 10 grads there is in itself absurd.

/rant.

BTW I realise you were only posting the article for statistics. I'm not attacking you, it just pissed me off.

Saying that though, I can understand their thoughts.

In the US, it costs a lot more to go to the better universities, and I believe getting financial aid isn't easy (I may be wrong.)

So the author may think that we have a similar system here, where only the more affluent can afford to go to the top 10, and by not accepting many people from the lower ranked universities, they're effectively picking from only the privileged.

There is also the argument that our system (even with it's perceived parity) is highly skewed to the affluent, so the article is right (even though it reached it's answer via flawed logic, or at least apparently flawed logic.) If we consider the proportion of privately educated students that attend top 10 universities, they are greatly over-reperesented, suggesting that affulence indeed dictates which type of university one attends (to a certain extent,) and to only pick from the top, you pick from a predominantly privileged group.

Quite an interesting topic I think, and one that will surely grow to have greater relevance once the tuition fee hike establishes itself. I personally don't think it's fair to pick purely from the top 10, but that it's something firms have limited choice over, they can't afford to risk employing someone who doesn't fit what they're looking for from an academic standpoint, and the problem doesn't lie with the firms (they can't be expected to lead the charge for social mobility) but with the early education system itself, and until every child is given the same opportunities, the vicious circle is set to continue on.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 1811

Original post by TimmonaPortella

I hear the 13th century was a better year for law schools than the 11th though.

Lmao, nice.

(What are you doing up at this time? :ninja:

)

Reply 1812

Original post by Mann18

Lmao, nice.

(What are you doing up at this time? :ninja:

)

I was revising until not many minutes ago. Since the words started to blur on the page I've been watching Fresh Prince, and in not many minutes I shall be asleep.

So I'll reply to your big complicated looking reply to the uni article thing in the morning, I can't face it now :colonhash:

What about you? What you doing up?

Reply 1813

Original post by TimmonaPortella

I was revising until not many minutes ago. Since the words started to blur on the page I've been watching Fresh Prince, and in not many minutes I shall be asleep.

So I'll reply to your big complicated looking reply to the uni article thing in the morning, I can't face it now :colonhash:

What about you? What you doing up?

Fresh Prince is badass.

Ah, that's OK, no worries.

I'm up because I came back from work and fell asleep immediately because I stayed up all last night watching American Football. Now I'm up, and there is literally nothing to do, so I turned on iTunes, grabbed '1984' and started reading, came on here when that got old.

Reply 1814