Law degrees and being a lawyer is 100% overrated

Computer Science != ICT.

Shows how much you know.

I didn't go to a "top 5" uni- although it was a Red Brick/Russell Group uni and lots of my friends now have TC's at Magic Circle Law Firms and a couple even have pupillage! So I disagree with your comment. Also it's subjective- even if you aren't a "top top student" (whatever that means) if you want to work in a highstreet firm, study law to get into the police/politics/other careers or simply just do it because its prestigious then no, law isn't overrated- even at some lesser unis.

It's on your profile: 'internet computing and systems administration'. Doesn't sound like computer science and a little research justifies that suspicion.

Yes, but, as many people go into law without the intention of being a lawyer, regardless of the uni a 2.1 or better in law looks brilliant on any CV, whatever you decide to go into. (Generally.)

People watch too much Suits

You clearly know very little about the world today if you believe that where you went to university does not have great influence over your chances in many industries. Nowhere is this more true than in the legal world, in fact it is becoming more important. Twenty years ago Kent and Newcastle law grads had no problem getting pupillage with 2:1s; the Bar was expanding. Today, the Bar is shrinking and the only thing fast expanding is the number of people going to university. Since there are so many hopefuls and so few interview spaces, a large number are rejected before having the opportunity to get to the interview in the first place, and with all of the serious applicants of this annual deluge of wannabe barristers and solicitors having 2:1s and 1sts, one of the most useful differentiating factors is where they obtained their degree: a 2:1 from UCL or Bristol is more impressive than a 2:1 from BPP or London Met. It doesn't take more than common sense to appreciate all this, but you're more than welcome to look at the Alma maters of recent recruits at firms and chambers to see the patterns. I do not believe for a minute that this friend graduating from London Met now works for one of the biggest financial firms in the world; if he did he possessed impressive qualifications or achievements that you are conveniently omitting.

University prestige does matter in many areas; it certainly does in law and is becoming more of a factor by the day. Those that say otherwise are either badly misinformed or in denial of the fact that their university will not open as andy doors as others.

Im guessing you or your friends graduated near the top of your class?

We all got at least a 2.1, so we didn't do badly. Top of the class I'm not so sure, some got 1sts but others got low 2.1s which is fairly average. Truth is, if you're really poor; poor A levels, low tier university and then a 3rd/2.2 then you probably won't be successful. Is that really a shock though? You can however, afford to go to a low tier university if you can then obtain a first. (Clifford Chance for instance have a CV blind policy and consequently a student from Bath Spa obtained a TC with the firm.) Things are changing. Although it goes without saying that the more successful you are academically, the better your chances. That goes for all jobs, so maybe the working world as, you'd like to put it, is "overrated."

First 2 years I was studying straight Computer Science. Third year was when I chose my specialism which was a web based programming project for my dissertation. It is in the Computer Science department and my degree certificate states this so a little research does not justify that suspicion at all.

There is no need for you to lie to try and justify your argument. You clearly have no idea what you are on about. To even suggest anything that involves computing is like IT just proves quite unequivocally how out of your depth you are on this matter.

Contrary to popular uneducated belief, IT and Computing/Computer Science are nothing alike.

What are you talking about? The topic of this thread is totally unrelated to IT and computer science. Ignorance of IT/computing in no way denotes ignorance of the hiring policies of law firms.

The guy works at the huge financial bank (As a cleaner)

You clearly know very little about the world today if you believe that where you went to university does not have great influence over your chances in many industries. Nowhere is this more true than in the legal world, in fact it is becoming more important. Twenty years ago Kent and Newcastle law grads had no problem getting pupillage with 2:1s; the Bar was expanding. Today, the Bar is shrinking and the only thing fast expanding is the number of people going to university. Since there are so many hopefuls and so few interview spaces, a large number are rejected before having the opportunity to get to the interview in the first place, and with all of the serious applicants of this annual deluge of wannabe barristers and solicitors having 2:1s and 1sts, one of the most useful differentiating factors is where they obtained their degree: a 2:1 from UCL or Bristol is more impressive than a 2:1 from BPP or London Met. It doesn't take more than common sense to appreciate all this, but you're more than welcome to look at the Alma maters of recent recruits at firms and chambers to see the patterns. I do not believe for a minute that this friend graduating from London Met now works for one of the biggest financial firms in the world; if he did he possessed impressive qualifications or achievements that you are conveniently omitting.

University prestige does matter in many areas; it certainly does in law and is becoming more of a factor by the day. Those that say otherwise are either badly misinformed or in denial of the fact that their university will not open as andy doors as others.

In defence of Sanctimonious (only slightly, as the rest of what she's said is *******s), there is one Barrister at 42 Bedford Row, a Chambers & Partners 2014 Leading Set, Hamed Zovidavi, who has a degree from London Met in Law, arguably one of the worst providers in the UK. Albeit with highest first in the year, but shows it can be done.

I didn't say it can't be done, I said it can't be done without additional distinctions. Not only did he get the highest mark in his year but he 'managed his own business for many years before coming to the Bar' and I expect that helped him along.

I appreciate that, however, I would say that usually such EC's are expected anyway and, on the whole, are one of many possible reasons as to why those students are accepted into the best Institutions and will in turn become the best Barristers.

Running your own business is not an EC that is 'expected'. Mini-pupillages, shadowing judges and volunteering abroad are more on that level.

Yes, managing your own business is one of many possible achievements that could help you into the Bar. In this case, and with nothing as impressive mentioned in his profile, I imagine it helped him a lot. The idea that this man is evidence of those from lower ranked unis making it at the Bar is somewhat undermined by the fact that he almost certainly wouldn't have been hired without this special achievment when there is a surplus of 1sts applicants alone from top RG+.

Truth is, a lot of people see a law degree like a medicine/dentistry degree.
Where they think the job/salary is 'guaranteed' when in reality, in law, it really isn't.

Do they though? I think people view law as being equally prestigious as medicine/dentistry etc and it does have a similar cache (rightly or wrongly) but any well informed student knows of the prospects- legal aid cuts, fierce competition for TCs and pupillage- I don't know that what you claim is true? Perhaps the lay man in the street may think law students have jobs lined up for them and high pay etc but I doubt very much that any well read student would!