Law Applicants 2011 Offer Thread

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.

Hey, when did you send off your application?

I sent mine towards the end of November and got an offer on 1st March, so they do take a very long time to get back to people.

According to UCAS the unis aim to make their decisions by the 31st March, but the final deadline in the 6th May, so there is still loads of time left - try not to get too worried!

Good luck!

I applied on the 13th October for European Law and I haven't had a decision either.

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.

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."

People who go to Oxbridge are ugly. They are jealous of us for being superfluously attractive. Well, me at least.

In short, workload.

(Actually, when I went for my interview there were some very attractive people there.) But, for the purpose of this debate (and given the fact I didn't get in!) we'll say they're all ugly.

People who go to Oxbridge are ugly. They are jealous of us for being superfluously attractive. Well, me at least.

Granted, but that doesn't hide the fact that they studied at another university initially. And if that isn't a good university in the first place then you're not likely to be intelligent enough to get a place on Oxford's BCL anyway.

Edit: That also seems a little unfair on those who simply cannot afford to pursue further study. I would love to do the Oxford BCL but I could never afford £10k+ to do it, plus college fees.

birmingham: AAA
liverpool: BB

my lnat mark was the reason why they rejected me.....i got 18, and i understand actually.
but, kinda hopeless right now....

That seems a little harsh, notts gave me an offer for only 19 in the lnat.

True, but it can't be said they "only" went to Leeds or wherever.

There are bursaries for the BCL, I want one
There are also grants for students wanting to go to the bar from Oxbridge too I think, pretty nice of them.

I bet the attractive ones didn't get in!

Anyone hear from Edinburgh yet?

I completely agree with you here, but that's not my point.
I just find it strange that people will spend hours on here discussing universities that they haven't even applied to, let alone visited.
If this is only a "discussion", then what is the point in having it unless you're planning on attending these universities?

Well, no. But then you can't say that places like Leeds aren't excellent places to study law, otherwise they wouldn't produce Oxford-calibre students.

Well, largely to help people who are applying I suppose! But also because not only things that directly affect me are worth discussing - the current debate on removing public sector unions' right to collective bargaining in Wisconsin will not, at any stage of my life, directly affect me (I should think) and it is highly unlikely even to indirectly affect me. Yet it is an issue which I think is fairly important, and I have had some discussions about it with some american friends of mine. Taking an interest in things, discussing them with other people...what on earth is wrong with that?

In fact, the relative merits of law schools will actually directly affect me in terms of employment, even if I'm not applying to the certain one we're talking about, since I'll be competing for jobs against people who did and knowing how mine measures up is highly important, but I find the other part of your argument equally illogical.

Yes, I have drawn attention to the arguably unreliability of league tables in a previous post, although there has to be a certain element of truth in them. Stirling's law department might well be very strong, and its overall reputation is just dampened by other not so strong departments. This is the same with QMUL, I believe. At an open day, the law department at QMUL had a lot more opportunities and resources than many of the departments I've seen at other universities. It also has the added advantage of being part of the University of London so shares libraries and lecturers with colleges like KCL and UCL.

I think perhaps the main issue with QMUL law and why people don't see it as in the same league as Notts, UCL etc is because it doesn't use the LNAT, which seems to determine how strong a university's law department is. I got the impression that QMUL were seriously considering this.

So, no, you're right in saying that QMUL overall is not as well respected as universities like UCL, and probably not Notts either, although that's more debatable. However, it seems that the law department is very strong (which is suggested by many league tables, not just the Guardian) and I think employers are beginning to become aware of this. When I did my work experience in the Temple at some of London's most prestigious chambers, a few of the barristers there had law degrees from QMUL, so clearly it won't hinder a competitive application to some of the top law firms in the world.

People who go to Oxbridge are ugly. They are jealous of us for being superfluously attractive. Well, me at least.