Applying to Study Law 2016
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Glenda59
Well done! Would you mind me asking your GCSE's and predicted grades?
Thankyou
Thankyou
I got 3 A*s, 7As and 1 B at GCSE, I got AAABB at AS, and I'm predicted A*AA.
Original post by liviward36
well I got an email from them saying they had my application almost 4 weeks ago now! So I'm very scared! I REALLY hope I hear back soon cause I need a good LNAT score for Oxford!!
Same, which Oxford college have you applied to?
Original post by mitchriding
Congrats! How long did your offer take and what were your ASs/predicted grades if you don't mind me asking? applied for the same course on wednesday!
My offer took a week and my AS grades were AAAB and I am predicted A*A*A*
Just got rejected from King's.
I had been warned not to waste a choice due to their inflexibility as regards IB student predicted grades but thought I'd try it as my application was otherwise very good. I complained to them about their requirement pollicy for IB. which is 6,6,7 HL. I pointed out that consistently statistically only 2% of people taking IB history get a 7 and 3% for English literature, so any school prediction for a HL7 in these subjects can be taken with a pinch of salt. I also argue that these are the subjects most naturally aligned to law. Basically if you do not get predicted what they ask, however rediculous don't waste a choice.
"Thank you for your application to King's College London. Your application has now been carefully considered and unfortunately you do not meet or are not predicted to meet the academic entrance requirements for the programme. Therefore, I regret to inform you that you have been unsuccessful in obtaining a place on the programme.
May we take this opportunity to wish you every success with future applications."
I had been warned not to waste a choice due to their inflexibility as regards IB student predicted grades but thought I'd try it as my application was otherwise very good. I complained to them about their requirement pollicy for IB. which is 6,6,7 HL. I pointed out that consistently statistically only 2% of people taking IB history get a 7 and 3% for English literature, so any school prediction for a HL7 in these subjects can be taken with a pinch of salt. I also argue that these are the subjects most naturally aligned to law. Basically if you do not get predicted what they ask, however rediculous don't waste a choice.
"Thank you for your application to King's College London. Your application has now been carefully considered and unfortunately you do not meet or are not predicted to meet the academic entrance requirements for the programme. Therefore, I regret to inform you that you have been unsuccessful in obtaining a place on the programme.
May we take this opportunity to wish you every success with future applications."
Original post by crocface
Just got rejected from King's.
I had been warned not to waste a choice due to their inflexibility as regards IB student predicted grades but thought I'd try it as my application was otherwise very good. I complained to them about their requirement pollicy for IB. which is 6,6,7 HL. I pointed out that consistently statistically only 2% of people taking IB history get a 7 and 3% for English literature, so any school prediction for a HL7 in these subjects can be taken with a pinch of salt. I also argue that these are the subjects most naturally aligned to law. Basically if you do not get predicted what they ask, however ridiculous don't waste a choice.
"Thank you for your application to King's College London. Your application has now been carefully considered and unfortunately you do not meet or are not predicted to meet the academic entrance requirements for the programme. Therefore, I regret to inform you that you have been unsuccessful in obtaining a place on the programme.
May we take this opportunity to wish you every success with future applications."
I had been warned not to waste a choice due to their inflexibility as regards IB student predicted grades but thought I'd try it as my application was otherwise very good. I complained to them about their requirement pollicy for IB. which is 6,6,7 HL. I pointed out that consistently statistically only 2% of people taking IB history get a 7 and 3% for English literature, so any school prediction for a HL7 in these subjects can be taken with a pinch of salt. I also argue that these are the subjects most naturally aligned to law. Basically if you do not get predicted what they ask, however ridiculous don't waste a choice.
"Thank you for your application to King's College London. Your application has now been carefully considered and unfortunately you do not meet or are not predicted to meet the academic entrance requirements for the programme. Therefore, I regret to inform you that you have been unsuccessful in obtaining a place on the programme.
May we take this opportunity to wish you every success with future applications."
As a top university, with low points, of course they ask for good higher levels. It's a bit ridiculous to expect otherwise, or to challenge them on what they are asking for. It's not impossible, if it were, they wouldn't ask for it. They ask for 35 points, despite performing similarly to Unis like Queen Mary who ask for 37 with 18 points at HL. They want us to prove we can do well in the subjects we chose, rather than our SL subjects. Its perfectly understandable. I take similar subjects to you, and am predicted what they ask, and have been achieving these grades throughout, so its not impossible haha. It is clearly a risk to apply below what they ask for, as others will have what they want!
Original post by Rhia Louise
As a top university, with low points, of course they ask for good higher levels. It's a bit ridiculous to expect otherwise, or to challenge them on what they are asking for. It's not impossible, if it were, they wouldn't ask for it. They ask for 35 points, despite performing similarly to Unis like Queen Mary who ask for 37 with 18 points at HL. They want us to prove we can do well in the subjects we chose, rather than our SL subjects. Its perfectly understandable. I take similar subjects to you, and am predicted what they ask, and have been achieving these grades throughout, so its not impossible haha. It is clearly a risk to apply below what they ask for, as others will have what they want!
My complaint is:
(1) That it is far more difficult to achieve a 7 in IB HL subjects most suitable for law i.e Engish and History than A* in A level for these subjects. Actually to achieve what they are asking in those subjects you would need to perform better than 97-98% of the global IB population.
(2) A reasonable school knowing the real statistics of success in these subjects could never (at least with any degree of credibility!) predict a 7 at HL.
(3) The 35 IB points is a red hearing, If you are expected to get 6/7 at HL then you would easily be getting an average of 5/6 at SL and an average of 2 for EE/CAS, so you would anyway meet that. The killer is the 7 at HL depending on subject. They changed this from last year where it was a more reasonable 6,6,6.
I was predicted IB 39 but only HL 6,6,6
(4) In my case I have chosen to do the hardest subjects, I have chosen to do 4 HL subjects instead of 3, I have chosen to do an extra IB subject in addition the 6 at Diploma, so I'd say I'm doing 20% more study than the aveage applicant. I'm tri-lingual with an international background. None of this gets concidered because of an il thought out admin criteria and a school that insists on being realistic in it's predictions.
Of course I could have done what a lot of people do for law. Choose the easist subjects and convince teachers of the importance of inflating predictions and not be filtered out for attempting the most difficult track. I'm not a sore looser just trying to tell other serious applicants to not to waste an application without having the prediction, however unrealistic.
The difference is clear. For QMUL for the same application I was given an offer 1 week after applying as I obviously got past the secretary filter and presume they actually read the content of the application.
I still have Oxford pending but would have no reason to complain about any rejection from them as it is clear that they really do concider the merit of each application hollistically.
Considering studying Law with us? Our next Open Day is on Saturday 14 November from 9am to 3pm. Visit www.bcu.ac.uk/od to register.
Original post by crocface
My complaint is:
(1) That it is far more difficult to achieve a 7 in IB HL subjects most suitable for law i.e Engish and History than A* in A level for these subjects. Actually to achieve what they are asking in those subjects you would need to perform better than 97-98% of the global IB population.
(2) A reasonable school knowing the real statistics of success in these subjects could never (at least with any degree of credibility!) predict a 7 at HL.
(3) The 35 IB points is a red hearing, If you are expected to get 6/7 at HL then you would easily be getting an average of 5/6 at SL and an average of 2 for EE/CAS, so you would anyway meet that. The killer is the 7 at HL depending on subject. They changed this from last year where it was a more reasonable 6,6,6.
I was predicted IB 39 but only HL 6,6,6
(4) In my case I have chosen to do the hardest subjects, I have chosen to do 4 HL subjects instead of 3, I have chosen to do an extra IB subject in addition the 6 at Diploma, so I'd say I'm doing 20% more study than the aveage applicant. I'm tri-lingual with an international background. None of this gets concidered because of an il thought out admin criteria and a school that insists on being realistic in it's predictions.
Of course I could have done what a lot of people do for law. Choose the easist subjects and convince teachers of the importance of inflating predictions and not be filtered out for attempting the most difficult track. I'm not a sore looser just trying to tell other serious applicants to not to waste an application without having the prediction, however unrealistic.
The difference is clear. For QMUL for the same application I was given an offer 1 week after applying as I obviously got past the secretary filter and presume they actually read the content of the application.
I still have Oxford pending but would have no reason to complain about any rejection from them as it is clear that they really do concider the merit of each application hollistically.
(1) That it is far more difficult to achieve a 7 in IB HL subjects most suitable for law i.e Engish and History than A* in A level for these subjects. Actually to achieve what they are asking in those subjects you would need to perform better than 97-98% of the global IB population.
(2) A reasonable school knowing the real statistics of success in these subjects could never (at least with any degree of credibility!) predict a 7 at HL.
(3) The 35 IB points is a red hearing, If you are expected to get 6/7 at HL then you would easily be getting an average of 5/6 at SL and an average of 2 for EE/CAS, so you would anyway meet that. The killer is the 7 at HL depending on subject. They changed this from last year where it was a more reasonable 6,6,6.
I was predicted IB 39 but only HL 6,6,6
(4) In my case I have chosen to do the hardest subjects, I have chosen to do 4 HL subjects instead of 3, I have chosen to do an extra IB subject in addition the 6 at Diploma, so I'd say I'm doing 20% more study than the aveage applicant. I'm tri-lingual with an international background. None of this gets concidered because of an il thought out admin criteria and a school that insists on being realistic in it's predictions.
Of course I could have done what a lot of people do for law. Choose the easist subjects and convince teachers of the importance of inflating predictions and not be filtered out for attempting the most difficult track. I'm not a sore looser just trying to tell other serious applicants to not to waste an application without having the prediction, however unrealistic.
The difference is clear. For QMUL for the same application I was given an offer 1 week after applying as I obviously got past the secretary filter and presume they actually read the content of the application.
I still have Oxford pending but would have no reason to complain about any rejection from them as it is clear that they really do concider the merit of each application hollistically.
Can I ask when you applied? Including completing the LNAT as well
Original post by CJaneH
Can I ask when you applied? Including completing the LNAT as well
I applied by 15th Oct but had already taken LNAT 2 weeks before that
Original post by Rhia Louise
As a top university, with low points, of course they ask for good higher levels. It's a bit ridiculous to expect otherwise, or to challenge them on what they are asking for. It's not impossible, if it were, they wouldn't ask for it. They ask for 35 points, despite performing similarly to Unis like Queen Mary who ask for 37 with 18 points at HL. They want us to prove we can do well in the subjects we chose, rather than our SL subjects. Its perfectly understandable. I take similar subjects to you, and am predicted what they ask, and have been achieving these grades throughout, so its not impossible haha. It is clearly a risk to apply below what they ask for, as others will have what they want!
QMUL and KCL are in two different worlds. KCL smokes QMUL.
Original post by james3254
I've got one from Sheffield, equivalent of AAA (Im doing Access course)
What was your offer and where else have you applied?
I did Access and am now doing LLB.
Original post by callum_law
What was your offer and where else have you applied?
I did Access and am now doing LLB.
I did Access and am now doing LLB.
Its 30/45 graded credits at distinction and 15 at merit - the remaining 15 to make up the core units and the total of 60 are ungraded this year. I say equivalent of AAA as that is the typical A level offer indicated for Sheffield.
Its probably going to be my first choice too
I have applied to Nottingham, Oxford, KCL & UCL as well.
Are you at Sheffield?
Original post by crocface
My complaint is:
(1) That it is far more difficult to achieve a 7 in IB HL subjects most suitable for law i.e Engish and History than A* in A level for these subjects. Actually to achieve what they are asking in those subjects you would need to perform better than 97-98% of the global IB population.
(2) A reasonable school knowing the real statistics of success in these subjects could never (at least with any degree of credibility!) predict a 7 at HL.
(3) The 35 IB points is a red hearing, If you are expected to get 6/7 at HL then you would easily be getting an average of 5/6 at SL and an average of 2 for EE/CAS, so you would anyway meet that. The killer is the 7 at HL depending on subject. They changed this from last year where it was a more reasonable 6,6,6.
I was predicted IB 39 but only HL 6,6,6
(4) In my case I have chosen to do the hardest subjects, I have chosen to do 4 HL subjects instead of 3, I have chosen to do an extra IB subject in addition the 6 at Diploma, so I'd say I'm doing 20% more study than the aveage applicant. I'm tri-lingual with an international background. None of this gets concidered because of an il thought out admin criteria and a school that insists on being realistic in it's predictions.
Of course I could have done what a lot of people do for law. Choose the easist subjects and convince teachers of the importance of inflating predictions and not be filtered out for attempting the most difficult track. I'm not a sore looser just trying to tell other serious applicants to not to waste an application without having the prediction, however unrealistic.
The difference is clear. For QMUL for the same application I was given an offer 1 week after applying as I obviously got past the secretary filter and presume they actually read the content of the application.
I still have Oxford pending but would have no reason to complain about any rejection from them as it is clear that they really do concider the merit of each application hollistically.
(1) That it is far more difficult to achieve a 7 in IB HL subjects most suitable for law i.e Engish and History than A* in A level for these subjects. Actually to achieve what they are asking in those subjects you would need to perform better than 97-98% of the global IB population.
(2) A reasonable school knowing the real statistics of success in these subjects could never (at least with any degree of credibility!) predict a 7 at HL.
(3) The 35 IB points is a red hearing, If you are expected to get 6/7 at HL then you would easily be getting an average of 5/6 at SL and an average of 2 for EE/CAS, so you would anyway meet that. The killer is the 7 at HL depending on subject. They changed this from last year where it was a more reasonable 6,6,6.
I was predicted IB 39 but only HL 6,6,6
(4) In my case I have chosen to do the hardest subjects, I have chosen to do 4 HL subjects instead of 3, I have chosen to do an extra IB subject in addition the 6 at Diploma, so I'd say I'm doing 20% more study than the aveage applicant. I'm tri-lingual with an international background. None of this gets concidered because of an il thought out admin criteria and a school that insists on being realistic in it's predictions.
Of course I could have done what a lot of people do for law. Choose the easist subjects and convince teachers of the importance of inflating predictions and not be filtered out for attempting the most difficult track. I'm not a sore looser just trying to tell other serious applicants to not to waste an application without having the prediction, however unrealistic.
The difference is clear. For QMUL for the same application I was given an offer 1 week after applying as I obviously got past the secretary filter and presume they actually read the content of the application.
I still have Oxford pending but would have no reason to complain about any rejection from them as it is clear that they really do concider the merit of each application hollistically.
The difference between 6% achieving an A* at A-level and 3% achieving a 7 isn't that large imo, especially given the greater variation of students in IB than in students in the UK taking A-levels.
Just because entry reqs are lower does not, in any way, mean they expect you to ONLY get that. Case in point, Edinburgh gave out a lot of BBB offers for first year entry (of a four year course) before, but the only people who got offers were those who were predicted to get at least AAA.
Most people applying to KCL will have excellent grades, they don't need to do people favours when they have more than enough applicants (being a top tier law school) to fill their places.
You just need to move on from this I think, it might seem like a huge shock to you right now but you WILL be faced with many more rejections than this in all aspects of life: relationships, jobs etc. It's just a part of being human. Don't take it personally - focus on your other choices right now.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by callum_law
QMUL and KCL are in two different worlds. KCL smokes QMUL.
I would have also said KCL for historic reasons should take top place, but QMUL have been claiming number 3 spot for law in UK for the last couple of years:
http://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2015/may/25/university-league-tables-2016#S300
If they keep hoovering up KCL's well qualified rejects, it can only be a matter of time until there brand value increases.
Original post by Princepieman
The difference between 6% achieving an A* at A-level and 3% achieving a 7 isn't that large imo, especially given the greater variation of students in IB than in students in the UK taking A-levels.
Just because entry reqs are lower does not, in any way, mean they expect you to ONLY get that. Case in point, Edinburgh gave out a lot of BBB offers for first year entry (of a four year course) before, but the only people who got offers were those who were predicted to get at least AAA.
Most people applying to KCL will have excellent grades, they don't need to do people favours when they have more than enough applicants (being a top tier law school) to fill their places.
You just need to move on from this I think, it might seem like a huge shock to you right now but you WILL be faced with many more rejections than this in all aspects of life: relationships, jobs etc. It's just a part of being human. Don't take it personally - focus on your other choices right now.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Just because entry reqs are lower does not, in any way, mean they expect you to ONLY get that. Case in point, Edinburgh gave out a lot of BBB offers for first year entry (of a four year course) before, but the only people who got offers were those who were predicted to get at least AAA.
Most people applying to KCL will have excellent grades, they don't need to do people favours when they have more than enough applicants (being a top tier law school) to fill their places.
You just need to move on from this I think, it might seem like a huge shock to you right now but you WILL be faced with many more rejections than this in all aspects of life: relationships, jobs etc. It's just a part of being human. Don't take it personally - focus on your other choices right now.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I think we can summarize that even if you are a high achieving student, by that I mean consistently 90-95% in all subjects throughout last 4 years, if your school realistically doesn't think you will get 98% instead of 95% in that particular subject then you dont get the required prediction and therefore don't get concidered by Kings full stop. It's a purely administrative selection. Others equally can be far less that academic and get predicted and concidered.
The interesting thing is what King's do when people don't achieve what is predicted. I'm sure if you get HL,6,6,6 instead of HL 7,6,6 you will be quietly accepted but then to reject you would by more admin for them, which they seem to have an aversion to.
Original post by crocface
I would have also said KCL for historic reasons should take top place, but QMUL have been claiming number 3 spot for law in UK for the last couple of years:
http://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2015/may/25/university-league-tables-2016#S300
If they keep hoovering up KCL's well qualified rejects, it can only be a matter of time until there brand value increases.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/ng-interactive/2015/may/25/university-league-tables-2016#S300
If they keep hoovering up KCL's well qualified rejects, it can only be a matter of time until there brand value increases.
The Guardian rankings should not be taken seriously by any sane man, for the same reason no sane man would elect to go to UEA over Edinburgh. CUG are a much more reliable ranking system and QMUL is outside the top 10.
Original post by james3254
Its 30/45 graded credits at distinction and 15 at merit - the remaining 15 to make up the core units and the total of 60 are ungraded this year. I say equivalent of AAA as that is the typical A level offer indicated for Sheffield.
Its probably going to be my first choice too
I have applied to Nottingham, Oxford, KCL & UCL as well.
Are you at Sheffield?
Its probably going to be my first choice too
I have applied to Nottingham, Oxford, KCL & UCL as well.
Are you at Sheffield?
30 is the standard, aye. I don't go to Sheffield; I got into somewhere which required 12 credits at distinction (it would not take long to work out where).
Original post by callum_law
The Guardian rankings should not be taken seriously by any sane man, for the same reason no sane man would elect to go to UEA over Edinburgh. CUG are a much more reliable ranking system and QMUL is outside the top 10.
Yes rankings are a bit unreliabl,e like statistics. For CUG rankings its a bit of a joke that they have Aberdeen, Newcastle and Strathclyde ahead of Warwick
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?s=Law
Original post by crocface
Yes rankings are a bit unreliabl,e like statistics. For CUG rankings its a bit of a joke that they have Aberdeen, Newcastle and Strathclyde ahead of Warwick
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?s=Law
http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings?s=Law
That's true that CUG is not perfect—Strathclyde is so high because of the excessive UCAS points Highers gets and Newcastle for high employment and student satisfaction, though it's a very good university for law
Compare this with the Guardian. Warwick is 26th just ahead of Brighton ... with Kent at 17th, Edinburgh Napier 14th, and UEA 8th. When CUG gets it wrong, the uni is 4-5 places off where it should be. When the Guardian gets it wrong, the uni is 40 places off.
I'm a bit stuck on which unis to apply for and how many LNAT unis to apply to..
I took my LNAT last week and although I found the MCQ's challenging I think that that section went okay. My essay, on the other hand, was not good. I'm on a gap year so I already have my A Level grades which were A*A*A in English, History and Biology. I got 8A* and 2As at GCSE. I was hoping this would put me in an okay position but after my LNAT essay disaster I'm not sure whether to even bother applying to LNAT unis? I really love Bristol as a uni so I may apply there anyway.
Other unis I was considering were Warwick, Durham and Nottingham.
Any thoughts on how important the LNAT essay is and whether the more competitive unis are worth a shot? I'm really interested in law so would be gutted not to receive any offers at all - maybe aiming low is a better bet?
Any advice would be brill Merci xx
I took my LNAT last week and although I found the MCQ's challenging I think that that section went okay. My essay, on the other hand, was not good. I'm on a gap year so I already have my A Level grades which were A*A*A in English, History and Biology. I got 8A* and 2As at GCSE. I was hoping this would put me in an okay position but after my LNAT essay disaster I'm not sure whether to even bother applying to LNAT unis? I really love Bristol as a uni so I may apply there anyway.
Other unis I was considering were Warwick, Durham and Nottingham.
Any thoughts on how important the LNAT essay is and whether the more competitive unis are worth a shot? I'm really interested in law so would be gutted not to receive any offers at all - maybe aiming low is a better bet?
Any advice would be brill
Merci xx(edited 8 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- LLB degree stale? Becoming a barrister
- Police Officer to Solicitor…
- How lenient is leicester on grades/offers?
- AMA: I only got 1A* at GCSE and I got into Law and Anthropology at LSE
- What's a good LNAT score?
- Qualified Lawyers Assessment
- Is King's College London Lenient ?
- LNAT Preparation Help
- Ranking UK Law Schools
- Funding for a second masters degree
- Law / Human, Social and Political Sciences
- The University Of Buckingham Medicine 2016 Entry
- Official Ask Anglia Ruskin Thread
- I got A*A*A and universities are just rejecting me left and right
- Law or PPE?
- Can I get into law with a social science degree?
- When to apply for ULaw SQE/ BPP?
- studying law with science a levels
- applying for history and politics to two unis and law to the three other unis
- International Mature students going to join university
