Law Applicants 2011 Offer Thread

Wow I applied to city all the same unis as you except Leeds. I got an offer from city and a rejection from KCL so far. If you dont mind me asking, when did you hear back from LSE and UCL?

So I saw it from your profile that you received warwick's offer too
Which uni are u going to firm?

Those are the same unis as me! City, Queen Mary, Kings, UCL, LSE !

Wow I applied to city all the same unis as you except Leeds. I got an offer from city and a rejection from KCL so far. If you dont mind me asking, when did you hear back from LSE and UCL?

Haha really?
But you're lucky!
Im dying for an offer from LSE and you already have one!
I did really bad in my LNAT so I dont expect to get into UCL but Im really counting on LSE.
Where else do you have offers from?

Fingers crossed for you and LSE ! I have offers from city and qm, and a rejection from Kings lol. I haven't heard from UCL yet either! When did u apply?

Errrrrrrr, yes it is... Have u checked the guardian lately?... or other league tables?... its the 3rd best in law in the guardian, better than Kings or LSE, but for others, its in the top 5. So please, do your research better okay.

hi!

basically i just received an offer from QMUL and have an offer from Leeds already .
I got rejected from all my other universities.

Which one should I choose ? Or alternatively should I take a gap year and reapply next year ??

Advice very much apprechiated !!

xxx

btw: the unis I got rejected from were KCL, LSE and UCL

I also got an invite before my offer, so i reckon that if they invite you it means your going to get an offer

Just that UCL is better by a significant margin).

I just take issue with this comment. Can you offer me any reasons as to why you think this?

My property seminar leader actually teaches law at UCL, and he said there isn't much difference.

The mere fact that everyone - including (and especially) employers - thinks UCL is better makes it so, even if the teaching is no different.
The result of the above is that UCL job prospects are better, and competition for a place is fiercer, so admission to the course comes with more prestige.

I just take issue with this comment. Can you offer me any reasons as to why you think this?

My property seminar leader actually teaches law at UCL, and he said there isn't much difference.

Bro, look I'm not trying to debate this. But you shouldn't base an entire reputation off of the guardian. The guardian is there to sell newspapers and advertising space. When you read these things, you have to keep the publishers interests in mind. I think the guardian (compared to the times and complete university guide) has the most flawed method of ranking. For example, Robert Gordon is ranked number 17 and Durham is ranked number 22. I don't think anyone on TSR would argue Robert Gordon as the better uni. SOAS is ranked higher than Bristol? And Stirling is higher than Leicester? Sheffield is worse than Thames Valley?

Aside from understanding the publishers interest, you have to look at how the rankings are structured. You can pick any variable and make a uni rank well. Here's a quick example in a different context. A school called Thomas Cooley is arguably one of the worst law schools in the US. They publish their own rankings every year. They rank themselves number 2, only behind Harvard. They place themselves ahead of Yale, Columbia, Northwestern, etc. How do they justify it? They use the following variables--square footage of the library, enrollment size, library seating capacity, available computers, and number of librarians.

Newspaper rankings fluctuate every year. What I posted is probably the closest general reputation you're going to get. Do you really think hiring partners are going to the newsstand once a year, purchasing a copy of the Guardian and adjusting their hiring strategy based off of the fluctuations? No.

And I'd just like to reiterate my point. QMUL IS A GOOD UNI. I've defended QMUL countless times in other threads. But it isn't number 3. I don't even think Jakko would argue that.

I got rejected, 20 on the LNAT,
7A*'s, 3 A's at GCSE, AAAAA at AS and predicted A*A*A*A.
reason was my LNAT score

I couldn't agree with you more.

'KennyParis' must be smoking crack if he/she thinks that Queen Mary's is 3rd in the country for Law, based merely on the fact that the 'Guardian says so.' The Complete University Guide 2011 ranks Queen Mary's in 7th place- what a scandal! Will you now accuse the latter source of lying?

'KennyParis' exacerbates his/her position by claiming that UCL is terrible because his/her 'brother said so.'
The perception of something is SUBJECTIVE: to go as far as to claim that UCL is a terrible university, based on the view of one person, is quite frankly a pathetic argument.

Btw 'Kenny Paris,' I'm not attempting to justify the high status of red brick unis based on their league table positions- it's the fact that they are 'traditional' universities; they've acquired such a prestigious reputation over a number of years. For all I care, Birmingham could be ranked 79th in the Guardian league table- it still doesn't detract from the fact that it is a very prestigious university due to its redbrick status.

P.S. 'Kenny Paris', you should ring your brother and tell him to alert the Magic Circle firms that they should sack the great number of their lawyers that went to UCL! Apparently it's a terrible institution!

I hope you hear from Bristol soon then But it would be great to know another person going to Reading as well