Senior Status LLB - Decision Help
Hi,
I received offers of admission into the senior status LLB program at University of Birmingham, Queen Mary , Leicester and City University. The first two have the same entrance requirements while the other two how lower requirements. As I am an international student and don't know much about the unis apart from what is published on the website/brochures, I wanted an opinion regarding which one I would be better off choosing. So far, I'm deciding between QMUL versus Birmingham as my firm; Leicester versus City as my insurance. Any insight would be appreciated.
Thanks
I received offers of admission into the senior status LLB program at University of Birmingham, Queen Mary , Leicester and City University. The first two have the same entrance requirements while the other two how lower requirements. As I am an international student and don't know much about the unis apart from what is published on the website/brochures, I wanted an opinion regarding which one I would be better off choosing. So far, I'm deciding between QMUL versus Birmingham as my firm; Leicester versus City as my insurance. Any insight would be appreciated.
Thanks
You have chosen two universities in London, one in a large Midlands city and one in a smaller Midlands city.
What attracted you to those cities, those universities and those courses?
We need more information to be able to assist. If you say that you really want to live in a small seaside town where people speak Welsh, we would say that you should have applied to Aberystwyth.
What attracted you to those cities, those universities and those courses?
We need more information to be able to assist. If you say that you really want to live in a small seaside town where people speak Welsh, we would say that you should have applied to Aberystwyth.
I chose those universities as they were the universities that had the Senior Status LLB course option and I felt that I could meet their entrance requirements given my current GPA. I'm Canadian and these universities were among the few that conducted information sessions in my city and some had courses on Canadian Constitutional law - an option that would be beneficial for me if I am not successful in securing a training contract in the UK. I am leaning towards London but in terms of the second choice of Leicester versus City, I don't want to forgo any opportunities a "better" university would provide me (I was told Leicester is more well recognised than City - correct me if I'm wrong). I want advise on what would place me in a better position in terms of training contracts/job opportunities.
Original post by gal007
I chose those universities as they were the universities that had the Senior Status LLB course option and I felt that I could meet their entrance requirements given my current GPA. I'm Canadian and these universities were among the few that conducted information sessions in my city and some had courses on Canadian Constitutional law - an option that would be beneficial for me if I am not successful in securing a training contract in the UK. I am leaning towards London but in terms of the second choice of Leicester versus City, I don't want to forgo any opportunities a "better" university would provide me (I was told Leicester is more well recognised than City - correct me if I'm wrong). I want advise on what would place me in a better position in terms of training contracts/job opportunities.
B-ham vs. QMUL will create a massive debate on this issue, I promise you - there really isn't all that much between them. That choice ought to be more down to personal preference than anything...however, Leicester is (in my opinion) more respected than City university, and I am sure that job opportunities will be much better there. Also, living in Leicester would be much cheaper than in London, and it has a really nice campus, great accomodation and a friendly Students' Union and generally I'd go there every time over City.
Look at the criteria on tables like this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2010/jun/04/university-guide-law
Establish which of those criteria matter most to you, and how the relevant universities score in those areas. That should help a bit. I would add that placing QMUL above the main three law providing universities in London (LSE, UCL, KCL) seems odd. Hence the importance of establishing the criteria. If your criteria match those of the Guardian, QMUL is likely the best choice for you. As it happens, I have heard many good things about Queen Mary. The order in the table of the unis you mention matches my intuitions about the reputations of each, though I do not think the difference between QMUL and Birmingham is anything like that table makes it appear.
For many people deciding on where to study law, the only significant column in the above table will be the one furthest right.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2010/jun/04/university-guide-law
Establish which of those criteria matter most to you, and how the relevant universities score in those areas. That should help a bit. I would add that placing QMUL above the main three law providing universities in London (LSE, UCL, KCL) seems odd. Hence the importance of establishing the criteria. If your criteria match those of the Guardian, QMUL is likely the best choice for you. As it happens, I have heard many good things about Queen Mary. The order in the table of the unis you mention matches my intuitions about the reputations of each, though I do not think the difference between QMUL and Birmingham is anything like that table makes it appear.
For many people deciding on where to study law, the only significant column in the above table will be the one furthest right.
Birmingham is a very well established well regarded university. It has a nice campus in one of the best bits of Birmingham. Birmingham has a vibrant night-life and cultural activities. Although in no way comparable with London on that score, it will hold its own with large Canadian cities (Toronto perhaps excepted).
Queen Mary is something of a rising star. As the best of the London University schools that doesn't require the very highest school results for admission, it is able to pick the brightest and the best of the rest. It also has an excellent teaching staff as London attracts academics as well as students. The drawback to Queen Mary is that it is not in the nicest part of London.
Leicester is a former industrial city with a very large Asian (mostly Indian sub-continent) population which has shaped the character of the city over the last 50 years. Whilst London is in many senses more multicultural than Leicester and Birmingham also has a diverse ethnic mix, the ethnic make up of Leicester shapes the city to a greater extent. The university has a nice campus in a decent area. The nightlife and cultural attractions are not as good as Birmingham but you will be closer to the country and Leicester sits in quintessentially English countryside. Leicester's university is not as good as Birmingham but perfectly acceptable for a career in law in England.
City University is less well regarded than Queen Mary. However, it has taken over the Inns of Court School of Law which traditionally ran the only professional training course for the bar. As a result, somewhat artificially City claims a very long alumni list. It is not clear that this had any impact on the LLB course. Rather like Leicester, City is an often overlooked university.
Queen Mary is something of a rising star. As the best of the London University schools that doesn't require the very highest school results for admission, it is able to pick the brightest and the best of the rest. It also has an excellent teaching staff as London attracts academics as well as students. The drawback to Queen Mary is that it is not in the nicest part of London.
Leicester is a former industrial city with a very large Asian (mostly Indian sub-continent) population which has shaped the character of the city over the last 50 years. Whilst London is in many senses more multicultural than Leicester and Birmingham also has a diverse ethnic mix, the ethnic make up of Leicester shapes the city to a greater extent. The university has a nice campus in a decent area. The nightlife and cultural attractions are not as good as Birmingham but you will be closer to the country and Leicester sits in quintessentially English countryside. Leicester's university is not as good as Birmingham but perfectly acceptable for a career in law in England.
City University is less well regarded than Queen Mary. However, it has taken over the Inns of Court School of Law which traditionally ran the only professional training course for the bar. As a result, somewhat artificially City claims a very long alumni list. It is not clear that this had any impact on the LLB course. Rather like Leicester, City is an often overlooked university.
Original post by nulli tertius
Queen Mary is something of a rising star. As the best of the London University schools that doesn't require the very highest school results for admission, it is able to pick the brightest and the best of the rest. It also has an excellent teaching staff as London attracts academics as well as students. The drawback to Queen Mary is that it is not in the nicest part of London.
Can I ask what you mean by this?
Currently, QMUL require AAA, which is the same as UCL and KCL.
They are increasing the entrance requirements for law next year to A*AA, which will place the entrance requirements above that of UCL and KCL.
There are more than 20 universities nationwide recruiting on the basis of AAA most of which interview none or a tiny proportion of candidates.
Whilst clearly the personal statement plays a part in recruitment and for some the LNAT pays a bigger part, for the most part what these universities are doing is turning the AAA predictions, actual AS and GCSE scores, school reference and contextual information into an overall pattern of school achievement. In doing that they are not all interpreting the same information in the same way.
It is naive to believe that all of these universities are taking a similar mix of academic strength.
In practice this means that some places will only be taking the stronger AAA candidates. Others will be taking a mix of stronger and weaker AAA candidates. That means it is possible to get in to the second institution with less stellar academics.
What it boils down to is this:- Would most candidates with a QMC offer get a UCL offer? Would most candidates with a UCL offer get a QMC offer?
A few years ago the answer would have been obviously no, many of the QMC candidates would not have been good enough for UCL. As I explained that perception of being slightly less daunting generates applications and that in turn allows the university to become more selective. At some point the penny will drop that it is no longer an easier option and at that moment the beauties of Egham will become more apparent. It is also possible that this penny will drop a year or two after it has actually become equally hard to gain admission.
Whether that moment has been reached by adding an A* to the offers, who yet knows, though I suspect not. I think the perception is still that the A* isn't quite a real grade and that is likely to remain so long as Oxford doesn't require it for all courses.
I may have something of a bias towards QMC because I know a number of the faculty. The London effect is such that if one looks down the list, it is clearly stronger than most of the top provincial universities which certainly wouldn't have been the case a few years ago.
Whilst clearly the personal statement plays a part in recruitment and for some the LNAT pays a bigger part, for the most part what these universities are doing is turning the AAA predictions, actual AS and GCSE scores, school reference and contextual information into an overall pattern of school achievement. In doing that they are not all interpreting the same information in the same way.
It is naive to believe that all of these universities are taking a similar mix of academic strength.
In practice this means that some places will only be taking the stronger AAA candidates. Others will be taking a mix of stronger and weaker AAA candidates. That means it is possible to get in to the second institution with less stellar academics.
What it boils down to is this:- Would most candidates with a QMC offer get a UCL offer? Would most candidates with a UCL offer get a QMC offer?
A few years ago the answer would have been obviously no, many of the QMC candidates would not have been good enough for UCL. As I explained that perception of being slightly less daunting generates applications and that in turn allows the university to become more selective. At some point the penny will drop that it is no longer an easier option and at that moment the beauties of Egham will become more apparent. It is also possible that this penny will drop a year or two after it has actually become equally hard to gain admission.
Whether that moment has been reached by adding an A* to the offers, who yet knows, though I suspect not. I think the perception is still that the A* isn't quite a real grade and that is likely to remain so long as Oxford doesn't require it for all courses.
I may have something of a bias towards QMC because I know a number of the faculty. The London effect is such that if one looks down the list, it is clearly stronger than most of the top provincial universities which certainly wouldn't have been the case a few years ago.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
There are more than 20 universities nationwide recruiting on the basis of AAA most of which interview none or a tiny proportion of candidates.
Whilst clearly the personal statement plays a part in recruitment and for some the LNAT pays a bigger part, for the most part what these universities are doing is turning the AAA predictions, actual AS and GCSE scores, school reference and contextual information into an overall pattern of school achievement. In doing that they are not all interpreting the same information in the same way.
It is naive to believe that all of these universities are taking a similar mix of academic strength.
In practice this means that some places will only be taking the stronger AAA candidates. Others will be taking a mix of stronger and weaker AAA candidates. That means it is possible to get in to the second institution with less stellar academics.
What it boils down to is this:- Would most candidates with a QMC offer get a UCL offer? Would most candidates with a UCL offer get a QMC offer?
A few years ago the answer would have been obviously no, many of the QMC candidates would not have been good enough for UCL. As I explained that perception of being slightly less daunting generates applications and that in turn allows the university to become more selective. At some point the penny will drop that it is no longer an easier option and at that moment the beauties of Egham will become more apparent. It is also possible that this penny will drop a year or two after it has actually become equally hard to gain admission.
Whether that moment has been reached by adding an A* to the offers, who yet knows, though I suspect not. I think the perception is still that the A* isn't quite a real grade and that is likely to remain so long as Oxford doesn't require it for all courses.
I may have something of a bias towards QMC because I know a number of the faculty. The London effect is such that if one looks down the list, it is clearly stronger than most of the top provincial universities which certainly wouldn't have been the case a few years ago.
Whilst clearly the personal statement plays a part in recruitment and for some the LNAT pays a bigger part, for the most part what these universities are doing is turning the AAA predictions, actual AS and GCSE scores, school reference and contextual information into an overall pattern of school achievement. In doing that they are not all interpreting the same information in the same way.
It is naive to believe that all of these universities are taking a similar mix of academic strength.
In practice this means that some places will only be taking the stronger AAA candidates. Others will be taking a mix of stronger and weaker AAA candidates. That means it is possible to get in to the second institution with less stellar academics.
What it boils down to is this:- Would most candidates with a QMC offer get a UCL offer? Would most candidates with a UCL offer get a QMC offer?
A few years ago the answer would have been obviously no, many of the QMC candidates would not have been good enough for UCL. As I explained that perception of being slightly less daunting generates applications and that in turn allows the university to become more selective. At some point the penny will drop that it is no longer an easier option and at that moment the beauties of Egham will become more apparent. It is also possible that this penny will drop a year or two after it has actually become equally hard to gain admission.
Whether that moment has been reached by adding an A* to the offers, who yet knows, though I suspect not. I think the perception is still that the A* isn't quite a real grade and that is likely to remain so long as Oxford doesn't require it for all courses.
I may have something of a bias towards QMC because I know a number of the faculty. The London effect is such that if one looks down the list, it is clearly stronger than most of the top provincial universities which certainly wouldn't have been the case a few years ago.
While it's true to say we have some of the leading academics, I don't think it's fair to come to the conclusion that UCL, KCL and LSE undergraduates are better qualified or more academic. They will probably just have the criteria UCL, LSE and KCL traditionally recruit on. That could be a musical grade, positions of responsibility, fluent in several languages, travelled the world building homes in Africa; the provinces of the upper class applicants whom are moulded in this way by their graduate parents....
I know many people on my course who achieved all A*s at A-level, which requires at least a 90% pass rate in the A2 modules. I don't see how you can call it a non-grade as it were, as it's just, if anything, a signal of a really high scoring A-level.
*EDIT*
I should perhaps add that my property law tutor (whom teaches at both UCL and QM) has remarked that there is no difference in UCL and QM candidates, although in the same breath he added that there used to be over 10 years ago, a stark difference.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Jakko247
While it's true to say we have some of the leading academics, I don't think it's fair to come to the conclusion that UCL, KCL and LSE undergraduates are better qualified or more academic. They will probably just have the criteria UCL, LSE and KCL traditionally recruit on. That could be a musical grade, positions of responsibility, fluent in several languages, travelled the world building homes in Africa; the provinces of the upper class applicants whom are moulded in this way by their graduate parents....
miaow
I know many people on my course who achieved all A*s at A-level, which requires at least a 90% pass rate in the A2 modules. I don't see how you can call it a non-grade as it were, as it's just, if anything, a signal of a really high scoring A-level.
Qualifications only really count to the extent someone cares about them for any purpose.
Only when, if, universities are routinely using the A* grade or predicted grade to distinguish between those candidates and candidates with an A does it come into into own.
You have already passed the last time in your life when anyone will care about your GCSE grades. Henceforward, the only thing anyone will ever ask about is did you pass maths and English and possibly do you have five?
Another thought. Have you noticed certain universities don't raise their admission requirements despite increases in the number of applicants?
They are bottom fishing for insurance places. If I am the admissions tutor of the University of Surbiton offering AAB for law and I am deluged with applications, I could put my offers up to AAA and choke off the numbers. However I know that UCL and QMC are more attractive than Surbiton. I am only going to get the people predicted AAA whom UCL, QMC and the like don't want. Anyone in their right mind who gets AAA offers both from QMC and Surbiton, will go to QMC and short of persuading the VC to build a better campus with better accommodation in a better town with better nightlife, there is nothing I can do about it.
So, I make AAB offers to a lot of people of the same calibre as QMC and the like are making AAA offers to. I know that if I do that, applicants will put QMC as firm and Surbiton as insurance. I also know that not everyone's A levels will go perfectly and that really it makes not a jot of difference to a law degree whether someone got an A or a B in geography. Come A level results day, I know that I have got a better student body amongst people who have missed their A levels by a single grade than I would have done if I had increased my offer grades.
The downside is that my staff and I have to wade through hundreds of applications from candidates who will only get AAB on their best day.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Senior Status Jurisprudence (Oxbridge) after RG LLB
- MA in Law vs LLB
- GDL vs 'LLM' ... or GDL + LLM vs 'MA' Law
- MSc Law and Professional Practice - KCL - AVOID THIS COURSE
- Can a law graduate at SOAS apply to MSc Politics and International Relations at soas?
- I'm a current law student at Uni of Kent - ask me anything!
- Help-International Mature student (Law applications)
- Going into GDL after one year of undergraduate
- LLB Senior Status as International student
- GDL or Senior Status LLB..? Help!
- For realistic prospects at the civil Bar, should I do a second BA degree/LLB?
- LLB degree stale? Becoming a barrister
- What is the difference between the GDL/PGDL and the LLM?
- LLB for Graduates: Qualifying Law Degree in Pakistan?
- MA Law at the University of Bristol
- HKU-UCL, KCL-CUHK, Exeter-CUHK Law interviews
- Please can you help me
- SC Clearance
- Exeter M127 Dual LLB with CUHK
- foundation year
