Law Applicants 2011 Offer Thread

Right. So when you said 'a QM degree won't hold you back', what you meant to say was, 'a QM degree won't hold you back, so long as you aren't too ambitious'?

Of course I'm not making the claim that a QM degree won't stand you in good stead for most jobs; I said that one would disadvantage you for some competitive jobs with many applicants from Oxbridge, UCL et al. I believe I actually used the words 'top set/firm'.

Yes, it will. If you're going for jobs at top sets or firms, competing against Oxbridge, LSE, UCL, Durham and Nottingham grads, a degree from QM will disadvantage you. Note my use of 'disadvantage'; it won't make it impossible, which is why the 'one judge is a QM grad' comment is absolutely no argument.

Noone has said it's not a good school. 'Good' in this context encompasses many things, which are valued against each other with different weightings for each person's idea of 'good'. 'Good' does not equate to prestige or employer desirability.

'greed.

Although, I feel we should add that we literally are talking only from our perspective.

I met an Oxford Law Grad last night who works in London, but is moving up north shortly, and he made it sound as though with a 2:1 from anywhere, you'll have a shot anywhere except the magic circle (which he stressed even Oxbridge graduates cannot expect to get into.)

Nice guy, said it was probably the worst 3 years of his life, so yeah, I'm looking forward to it now.

I expect the amount of Oxford students who enjoy it far outweigh thsoe who don't.

What did he dislike so much, may I ask?

I just wrote an incredibly long paragraph and then my computer decided to crash on me.

Either way, if I summarise what I just wrote, a QM degree won't hold you back, so long as you're not too ambitious; a QM law degree won't hold you back. Full stop.

You cannot really deny that QM law school is recognised as one of the top 20 in the country. At this stage, future employers will recognise that you've had the opportunity of a really top-quality education and you're legal know-how has the potential to be just as good as that of someone who studied at Oxford, Cambridge, UCL or LSE. Thus, a 1st or 2:1 from QM would be sufficient to tick the "applicant has studied at a respectable university" box. The rest of your application, then, is entirely down to your ability, reasoning skills, team-work, interest in law, dedication to the job, reliability etc, and the institution at which you've studied becomes significantly less important.

As jimmyatemyworld has pointed out, there are many top lawyers in the country from universities such as QM and other insitutions like as Exeter, Manchester and Leeds, which you would not normally expect to produce Britain's best lawyers.

A lot of people who didn't study at a top uni initially almost universally did Oxford's BCL if they're considered "one of the best lawyers."

A lot of people who didn't study at a top uni initially almost universally did Oxford's BCL if they're considered "one of the best lawyers."

I wouldn't have applied anyway, not able to travel really just yet, but thanks for the thought I know what you mean about bar-y work exp, I'm just unsure if anyone would be willing to give anything worthwhile to non-uni students.

Hey, it's not spam if you're offering people a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to meet you, the next big thing. ("You" meaning you and or I.)

Let me know how you get on with pinset mason's thing.

Almost agree, though you neglect to point out that many also did a Cambridge LLM too But yes, your point is essentially correct! If you're from a very much less good university you often need to do a postgrad qualification from somewhere exceptional, after gaining a 1st in your undergrad degree, before you get that magic circle training contract/lucrative bar school & pupillage scholarship.

Which is hardly the same as saying that all that law firms are looking for is people with ok-ish qualifications and good aptitude test scores...they know that not only do universities rigorously select the best people, but that at the best universities people get by far the best teaching. If a big magic circle firm had a large pool of good Oxbridge graduate applicants, who've been taught by the world's best legal minds for 3 years in 1:2 sessions, why would they bother even properly going through all their applicants from places even in the middle of the tables, e.g. Sussex? It just wouldn't make for a sensible use of their valuable time...it may not be all that fair, or all that PC, but from my experience it's correct.

Will do! I mentioned my Cam offer on most pages of the online application that's got to count for something, right?

If snobs like you lot have got time to waste arguing about all this, I really, really envy you.

We do, and I don't blame you. I'd envy us.

edit: LOL deleted

Sorry, mistake on my part.
Many people around the world would view getting a place at QM as a great achievement; they should be rightly proud of it. Criticising and looking down on other people's choices seems a bit arrogant. You're going to be dealing with people from all walks of life in your future career - please remember that not everyone can get into Oxbridge.

That's not the way your argument comes across. Personally I'm more anxious about actually getting the right grades for university, rather than evaluating the finicky details of universities as though they are the only thing that matters.

Of course the attendees are mentioned; surely employment prospects cover the people who went there. How is any of this productive for applicants to the courses you are referring to, and what good do you think it will do?

That's not the way your argument comes across. Personally I'm more anxious about actually getting the right grades for university, rather than evaluating the finicky details of universities as though they are the only thing that matters.

Of course the attendees are mentioned; surely employment prospects cover the people who went there. How is any of this productive for applicants to the courses you are referring to, and what good do you think it will do?

I didn't say it was the only thing that matters. And no, nothing was said about the attendees. Talking about the employment prospects attendees will gain is different from talking about them as people. You need to work on your critical reasoning skills; you're reading what isn't there.

As to why we should have this debate - why have any debate? It came up in discussion, so we're having it. I guess if you're looking for practical advantages of having the debate, I could say that debate brings better understanding, allowing parties to it to better advise prospective law students.

p.p.s. you have no rep power. Negging me won't - and didn't - affect my rep. Not that I'm particularly bothered. Just FYI.

Quite obviously you are unable to see where I'm coming from. Maybe you need to work on viewing things from others' perspectives. All I can say is that your condescending tone shows me that you are certainly not here to bring about 'better understanding'. You're just being snobby. I don't really have anything else to say.

p.s. I didn't neg you - FYI.

Hey just wondering how many people are still waiting to hear from Warwick? They're the last uni i'm waiting to hear back from and they're taking forever!! Just wondered how many other people are still waiting too! I know there's been Warwick offers on this thread but they seem to be giving out offers only a handful at a time, any idea if they have a deadline to hand out offers by?
Sorry for all the questions but so many people at my 6th form have heard back from all 5 and are firming and insuring and I can't even start to make those decisions until I hear from Warwick.