Top(30) universities to study law?
Scroll to see replies
You guys forgot Trinity...
Original post by Captain Skids
You guys forgot Trinity...
You forgot TCD is not in the UK.
Original post by Captain Skids
You guys forgot Trinity...
The list is for studying English Law (i.e. qualifying law degree in England & Wales). TCD doesn't give that, though QUB does which is why it's on the list. You'll note scottish universities are not included for that reason, though Dundee perhaps ought to be, since they offer both english law degrees and english/scots dual-qualifying ones.
Edit: If someone would care to disagree, feel free to respond, but negging doesn't seem necessary...!!!
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by cros
I'm assuming that isn't 34 in law but it merely proves my point that they normally only accept people with lower than AAA AFTER they've taken their exams...I imagine the people with AAB were predicted AAA and Oxford simply saw their potential beyond grades, something I think they do very well...anyone who has been through the application process will know that simply having good grades isn't enough
The 34 is across all subjects.
It neither proves nor disproves your point. These may have been people who missed their AAA offers and were admitted regardless or they may have been people who were given non-standard (i.e. lower) offers which they met. It is simply not possible to tell from the available information.
Original post by nulli tertius
Original post by nulli tertius
The 34 is across all subjects.
It neither proves nor disproves your point. These may have been people who missed their AAA offers and were admitted regardless or they may have been people who were given non-standard (i.e. lower) offers which they met. It is simply not possible to tell from the available information.
It neither proves nor disproves your point. These may have been people who missed their AAA offers and were admitted regardless or they may have been people who were given non-standard (i.e. lower) offers which they met. It is simply not possible to tell from the available information.
Logical deduction though...if they sat exams in Summer 2010 and were matriculated in Michaelmas 2010, you would wonder why Oxford would make lower offers BEFORE exams were taken...obviously we can't KNOW for sure but I would definitely assume that the majority were allowed to matriculate despite lower exam results...
Anyway, considering around 3000 students Matriculate each year, 34 isn't a large enough number to suggest it is easy to get into Oxford with grades below AAA. That is the general standard and considering there has been heavy discussion as to career prospects in law, AAA is the general standard to be admitted for a training contract. Indeed, most law firms won't admit anyone without at least AAB at A-Level without strong mitigating circumstances.
Original post by cros
Logical deduction though...if they sat exams in Summer 2010 and were matriculated in Michaelmas 2010, you would wonder why Oxford would make lower offers BEFORE exams were taken...obviously we can't KNOW for sure but I would definitely assume that the majority were allowed to matriculate despite lower exam results...
Anyway, considering around 3000 students Matriculate each year, 34 isn't a large enough number to suggest it is easy to get into Oxford with grades below AAA. That is the general standard and considering there has been heavy discussion as to career prospects in law, AAA is the general standard to be admitted for a training contract. Indeed, most law firms won't admit anyone without at least AAB at A-Level without strong mitigating circumstances.
Anyway, considering around 3000 students Matriculate each year, 34 isn't a large enough number to suggest it is easy to get into Oxford with grades below AAA. That is the general standard and considering there has been heavy discussion as to career prospects in law, AAA is the general standard to be admitted for a training contract. Indeed, most law firms won't admit anyone without at least AAB at A-Level without strong mitigating circumstances.
Most LARGE MC/SC law firms.
Original post by trollman
Original post by trollman
Most LARGE MC/SC law firms.
And american/international and even some regional e.g. Bristows, Osborne Clarke, BLP, Burges Salmon etc....
I guess if you want to work in a high street solicitor you could be ok with BBB...
Original post by cros
And american/international and even some regional e.g. Bristows, Osborne Clarke, BLP, Burges Salmon etc....
I guess if you want to work in a high street solicitor you could be ok with BBB...
I guess if you want to work in a high street solicitor you could be ok with BBB...
Yes of course. My point was that it is slightly misleading to state that to get a TC in most firms that you need AAB. This is only true if yu are aiming at the top firms.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by cros
And american/international and even some regional e.g. Bristows, Osborne Clarke, BLP, Burges Salmon etc....
I guess if you want to work in a high street solicitor you could be ok with BBB...
I guess if you want to work in a high street solicitor you could be ok with BBB...
Burges Salmon ask for 300 UCAS points. There's certainly quite a few decent regionals that won't filter you out with BBB. Sure, you'll be up against people with better A Levels but the opportunity is most definitely still there.
Original post by lionboy
just to point out leicester is not an up and coming law school, they consistantly do worse on final grades than many other AAA uni's, they do not have the links with Law firms (i have emailed many firms to get a good grasp of grad prospects...like it or not there is a 'prefered list' of universities..leicester is not one of them.) The law school itself is not sustainable...its program structure is based on having 45% of its intake at international level who pay vastly greater fees, also there was a top QC and a few top soliciotors who taught there and have now left...they were one of the main attributes as to why teaching was so go. Your viewpoint of leicester seems to be stuck from a report that is two years old and alot has changed
Could you elaborate more on the preferred list please? And the grasp of graduate prospects you gained.
Original post by lionboy
just to point out leicester is not an up and coming law school
Agreed.
Original post by lionboy
they consistantly do worse on final grades than many other AAA uni's
Average UCAS was 400--10 points below QMUL and Exeter, on par with SOAS.
Original post by lionboy
they do not have the links with Law firms (i have emailed many firms to get a good grasp of grad prospects...like it or not there is a 'prefered list' of universities..leicester is not one of them.)
Perhaps not as strong as some of the top schools, but they do pull their own weight. A&O actively recruits there as well as quite a substantial number of mid-sized firms. Judging from their law society it also looks like quite a few firms sponsor various events (debating, etc.).
Original post by lionboy
The law school itself is not sustainable...its program structure is based on having 45% of its intake at international level who pay vastly greater fees
Correction--37% of Leicester's intake is int'l. How is this not sustainable? 38% of UCL's law school is int'l and LSE's law schools is 48% int'l--both seem to be doing perfectly fine.
Original post by lionboy
also there was a top QC and a few top soliciotors who taught there and have now left...they were one of the main attributes as to why teaching was so go. Your viewpoint of leicester seems to be stuck from a report that is two years old and alot has changed
Can't comment too much on this, but looks like a decent lineup if you ask me:
www.le.ac.uk/la/staff/
I will say Leicester is pretty low on the RAE.
Original post by candii
Could you elaborate more on the preferred list please? And the grasp of graduate prospects you gained.
Doubt he got much of anything. These firms aren't sending out their entire recruiting strategy to 18 yr olds.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by lionboy
to address this, im not sure your thinking broadly enough i have taken into account teaching, resources available to students, places to live(marginally) for example being in London arguably has a marginal advantage over nottingham. bare in mind UCL's world rankings in an international law level, personally i believe UCL wins over LSE again
UCL's higher world ranking in comparison to LSE comes from the fact that it is a much larger University than LSE, with a department in almost every speciality. Whilst LSE is a social science university, and therefore is ranked accordingly. And so your point that this makes UCL better in terms of international law is flawed as LSE is a more internationally renowned University than UCL.
Original post by candii
UCL's higher world ranking in comparison to LSE comes from the fact that it is a much larger University than LSE, with a department in almost every speciality. Whilst LSE is a social science university, and therefore is ranked accordingly. And so your point that this makes UCL better in terms of international law is flawed as LSE is a more internationally renowned University than UCL.
To be fair, his point is moot since there is no such thing as "world rankings in an international law level."
Original post by adam0311
Agreed.
Average UCAS was 400--10 points below QMUL and Exeter, on par with SOAS.
Perhaps not as strong as some of the top schools, but they do pull their own weight. A&O actively recruits there as well as quite a substantial number of mid-sized firms. Judging from their law society it also looks like quite a few firms sponsor various events (debating, etc.).
Correction--37% of Leicester's intake is int'l. How is this not sustainable? 38% of UCL's law school is int'l and LSE's law schools is 48% int'l--both seem to be doing perfectly fine.
Can't comment too much on this, but looks like a decent lineup if you ask me:
www.le.ac.uk/la/staff/
I will say Leicester is pretty low on the RAE.
Doubt he got much of anything. These firms aren't sending out their entire recruiting strategy to 18 yr olds.
Average UCAS was 400--10 points below QMUL and Exeter, on par with SOAS.
Perhaps not as strong as some of the top schools, but they do pull their own weight. A&O actively recruits there as well as quite a substantial number of mid-sized firms. Judging from their law society it also looks like quite a few firms sponsor various events (debating, etc.).
Correction--37% of Leicester's intake is int'l. How is this not sustainable? 38% of UCL's law school is int'l and LSE's law schools is 48% int'l--both seem to be doing perfectly fine.
Can't comment too much on this, but looks like a decent lineup if you ask me:
www.le.ac.uk/la/staff/
I will say Leicester is pretty low on the RAE.
Doubt he got much of anything. These firms aren't sending out their entire recruiting strategy to 18 yr olds.
you are right in saying they did not give me much but out of ten well performing MC firms i.e slaugheter, allen, hogan lov's ect all gave me a preferred list but they highlighted they will recruit beyond this as not to discriminate but it is less likely you will get an interview...my age does not really become an issue when asking a question about universities??
Average UCAS was 400--10 points below QMUL and Exeter, on par with SOAS. - you have the wrong idea, i meant what people finish with i.e 1sts, 2:1's...leicester is fairly low on both year on year.
the high take of international students is not sustainable because they are lowering the entrance requirements this could possibly be some evidence towards the lower grade achievements too?? but this will inevitably bring the law school down
looks like quite a few firms sponsor various events (debating, etc.). -sponsorship is not recruitment
Doubt he got much of anything. These firms aren't sending out their entire recruiting strategy to 18 yr olds.- they are not but the question i asked was if would be dissadvantaged at a particular uni(hence being given a preffered list) and being a potential applicant one cannot imagine being given the wrong advice
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by adam0311
To be fair, his point is moot since there is no such thing as "world rankings in an international law level."
Agreed. Laughable really.
Original post by candii
UCL's higher world ranking in comparison to LSE comes from the fact that it is a much larger University than LSE, with a department in almost every speciality. Whilst LSE is a social science university, and therefore is ranked accordingly. And so your point that this makes UCL better in terms of international law is flawed as LSE is a more internationally renowned University than UCL.
flawed how?? point of view that UCL's extremely wide range of masters that exceeds LSE's topped with a marginal difference of quality of both instutions in my mind gives UCL slightly better department. I did not give ranking that much weight otherwise manchester allegedly would have been 33rd
Original post by lionboy
the high take of international students is not sustainable because they are lowering the entrance requirements this could possibly be some evidence towards the lower grade achievements too?? but this will inevitably bring the law school down
the high take of international students is not sustainable because they are lowering the entrance requirements this could possibly be some evidence towards the lower grade achievements too?? but this will inevitably bring the law school down
I don't understand your point. How does lowering entry requirements mean that a higher intake of international students is unsustainable?
they are not but the question i asked was if would be dissadvantaged at a particular uni(hence being given a preffered list) and being a potential applicant one cannot imagine being given the wrong advice
What was the preferred list?
Original post by lionboy
flawed how?? point of view that UCL's extremely wide range of masters that exceeds LSE's topped with a marginal difference of quality of both instutions in my mind gives UCL slightly better department. I did not give ranking that much weight otherwise manchester allegedly would have been 33rd
The reason I mentioned ranking is because you mentioned it in a previous post as the reason why you had placed UCL higher than LSE. What ranking are you referring to that would lead to you placing Manchester 33rd? If it's the Guardian, bare in mind that it included Scottish Universities in its ranking, which you didn't. In addition, it is not a highly regarded league table either.
However, my issue is with you placing UCL not only higher than LSE but in another tier. Which I feel you still have not truly justified.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- help me choose universities please
- Has anyone got into a top university with an Access to HE Diploma?
- Rejected from 4/5 Uni’s, feeling very disheartened.
- Help me in deciding universties for LLB
- Nottingham law prestige?
- Mature Students - USA Ivy League universities?
- How hard is engineering at a top 15 university?
- Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
- What are my chances of getting into Oxford Law?
- Teaching at Brighton Uni?
- Is City University good for Law
- Manchester Uni via Access Route?
- UCAS!!!!
- Feel like I made the wrong decision... :(
- KCL Law
- Law Course uni
- what uni should i firm for law
- Uni of leicester for Law
- ..
- UCL, LSE OR KCL for law?
