okay soo ... if any of you have read my other thread (which I doubt) I hold offers from both Birmingham and Bristol for law next year ....
Its a really tough decision for me as I feel like I wont fit in at Bristol (asian /working class)
but everywhere ive looked (on tsr) in threads from other people in similar positions it seems that it is really really drilled in here that Bristol is miles better? My ambition is to work in an MC firm and everyone (every thread) keeps telling me that Bristol would be miles better and that I would be 'advancing' my career if I were to choose Bristol, and that Bristol would give me the Edge
So forgive me for being naive but why is that? What sets Bristol apart from the likes of Birmingham, i mean all the magic circle firms visit both + hold regular presentations, theyre both RG, and there not that much between them according to league tables (which are rubbish I know), the entry standards for both are the same and I got a pretty shoddy LNAT and still got an offer from both so its not like Bristol are sooooo strict when it comes to the LNAT
I just dont understand I thought it was oxbridge - London - Everybody else or would an equal applicant from the 'second teir' ie bristol/notts/durham really be favoured over an equal candidate from Bham?
So I was just wondering why people think would Bristol help me in my career so much, from looking around at trainee profile on Linkedin I noticed that obvs the vast majority came from oxbridge and London, but then Bristols numbers werent thaaat much higher than Bhams, higher yes but I mean there were still people from Bham who got training contracts in their last year :/ I saw a couple in Allen and Overy/linkalters and some in the big American firms aswell - and obviously this isnt that much of a accurate picture because alot of trainees wouldnt even have linkedin
any thoughts
this decision really is killing me