First from top RG vs 2:1 from Oxbridge
What would you say looks more attractive to law firms, First class honours from a top RG (Durham, Bristol, LSE) or a 2:1 from Oxford or Cambridge
Law degree, applying for VC/TC
Law degree, applying for VC/TC
Scroll to see replies
Original post by oli19919
What would you say looks more attractive to law firms, First class honours from a top RG (Durham, Bristol, LSE) or a 2:1 from Oxford or Cambridge
Law degree, applying for VC/TC
Law degree, applying for VC/TC
Which one do you have?
Original post by 999tigger
Which one do you have?
Neither
Original post by oli19919
What would you say looks more attractive to law firms, First class honours from a top RG (Durham, Bristol, LSE) or a 2:1 from Oxford or Cambridge
Law degree, applying for VC/TC
Law degree, applying for VC/TC
The more well-rounded individual in terms of their experience, ECs, application writing skills and aptitude test scores would get the interview.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I agree a First from an RG university is better than a 2:1 from Oxbridge, but there's absolutely no way that employers, even as a whole rather than individually, prefer the former "by a country mile."
Employers will say the First, many TSR students who are still in year12/13 will say Oxbridge
Which companies, law firms and barristers' chambers, outside of those which have indicated an element of CV blindness in their recruitment processes, don't have regard to the university a candidate attended and rank on degree class only?
I do agree that a First from any university stands out, and if from an RG rather than say somewhere lower down the rankings, all the better. But a First from a university at the bottom of the league tables versus an Oxbridge 2:1 might flounder when the application form is fully read rather than having points awarded for degree class.
Your aggression about some post I didn't make but which you have imagined in your own mind I might is bizarre, by the way.
I do agree that a First from any university stands out, and if from an RG rather than say somewhere lower down the rankings, all the better. But a First from a university at the bottom of the league tables versus an Oxbridge 2:1 might flounder when the application form is fully read rather than having points awarded for degree class.
Your aggression about some post I didn't make but which you have imagined in your own mind I might is bizarre, by the way.
(edited 6 years ago)
I see you haven't named any.
Yes, firms filter based on degree and A-level grade. Many do actually look at the university though when deciding who to interview. Otherwise, there wouldn't be the discrepancies in numbers between graduates of certain universities versus others, that there is.
You assume incorrectly. I am in my late thirties. I am a solicitor of more than ten years' PQE and am involved in recruitment decisions at my current firm as I was at my previous firm. We do (and my previous firm did) pay quite close attention to the university studied at because of variances in marking between different institutions. Again, your aggressive tone is frankly weird.
Yes, firms filter based on degree and A-level grade. Many do actually look at the university though when deciding who to interview. Otherwise, there wouldn't be the discrepancies in numbers between graduates of certain universities versus others, that there is.
You assume incorrectly. I am in my late thirties. I am a solicitor of more than ten years' PQE and am involved in recruitment decisions at my current firm as I was at my previous firm. We do (and my previous firm did) pay quite close attention to the university studied at because of variances in marking between different institutions. Again, your aggressive tone is frankly weird.
Original post by J-SP
That discrepancy is rarely down to firms preferring universities. In the vast majority of cases it is down to number of applications and the quality of applications.
If your firm have selected based on university, then that’s a shame really.
If your firm have selected based on university, then that’s a shame really.
I disagree based on the number of Oxbridge grads and a select number of other universities represented in the main City firms, especially those with 2:1s rather than Firsts, but we can agree to disagree.
And they haven't really. They allowed for the fact that for a few years it seemed a couple of universities were a bit stingy handing out 2:1s, in not totally ruling out applications from people with 2:2s.
I trained at Herbert Smith (as was, now it has Freehills on the end) and still work in the City now, although for a much smaller firm. I don't particularly care whether you believe me.
In the firms I have worked in, HR narrow down applications in part based on instructions from up high which can vary as to what they involve. Whilst it doesn't happen all the time, it has happened that sometimes the head of department or someone else in the team will be asked to look at shortlisted CVs to pick people to interview. That does vary by firm and as you say, in some firms it is all down to HR, but not always. If you think that because you only interact with HR in the recruitment process that they MUST the only people who have any say, that isn't always the case.
I'll stop engaging now because you're a pretty belligerent person basing your posts on a rude and condescending tone rather than any valid points, and I don't believe for a second you know any more about the recruitment process than I do.
In the firms I have worked in, HR narrow down applications in part based on instructions from up high which can vary as to what they involve. Whilst it doesn't happen all the time, it has happened that sometimes the head of department or someone else in the team will be asked to look at shortlisted CVs to pick people to interview. That does vary by firm and as you say, in some firms it is all down to HR, but not always. If you think that because you only interact with HR in the recruitment process that they MUST the only people who have any say, that isn't always the case.
I'll stop engaging now because you're a pretty belligerent person basing your posts on a rude and condescending tone rather than any valid points, and I don't believe for a second you know any more about the recruitment process than I do.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by J-SP
If your firm is recruiting purely on academics then that’s even more worrying.
Oxbridge applicants benefit from lots of different factors that generally make their applications stronger beyond their academics - to me it isn’t surprising that they are “over represented” in graduate intakes.
I used to get nearly a quarter of my applications from Oxbridge alone, and generally they represented about 38-40% of the graduate intake. There was no preference though - they just generally had stronger evidence elsewhere and clearer motivations. That isn’t difficult when they are inundated with support, while those at lower ranked universities aren’t, and have an academic environment that strongly encourages extra curricular activities.
Oxbridge applicants benefit from lots of different factors that generally make their applications stronger beyond their academics - to me it isn’t surprising that they are “over represented” in graduate intakes.
I used to get nearly a quarter of my applications from Oxbridge alone, and generally they represented about 38-40% of the graduate intake. There was no preference though - they just generally had stronger evidence elsewhere and clearer motivations. That isn’t difficult when they are inundated with support, while those at lower ranked universities aren’t, and have an academic environment that strongly encourages extra curricular activities.
That isn't what I said (and baffled you got that from the post to be honest). In fact, it's the exact opposite. What I said was for some years, someone with a 2:2 from certain universities, not Oxbridge by the way but a couple of RGs that were being mean with the 2:1s, didn't get their app chucked in the bin for that 2:2 but were considered in the round.
I also disagree on the Oxbridge "other factors" really mattering more than the university itself and the name but again, just my view, not saying it's gospel. It's not a view I take in recruitment and I don't consider an Oxbridge 2:1, particularly from someone from a privileged background, to be better than a 2:1 from other places or particularly a First, but in my opinion, lots of firms do. If that's not your experience, then fine.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by J-SP
A firm taking into account Nottingham’s dodgy land law grades or the occasion when a university has had problems with a module due to changing staff or a badly worded exam paper is not the same as allowing 2.2s to get through.
I’ve screened 10,000s of applications for now a considerable amount of firms. The “other factors” has a huge influence in my view - people don’t really understand how big an impact it can have if your professor is an ex city alum, your peers are also all applying to the same firms, you have had several career events at your uni, and if your university/college alumni networks are exceptionally powerful/well connected.
People will always have their views and biases though. I’d have to go back to 2005 to the last time I saw a clear policy that gave Oxbridge applicants a direct advantage though.
I’ve screened 10,000s of applications for now a considerable amount of firms. The “other factors” has a huge influence in my view - people don’t really understand how big an impact it can have if your professor is an ex city alum, your peers are also all applying to the same firms, you have had several career events at your uni, and if your university/college alumni networks are exceptionally powerful/well connected.
People will always have their views and biases though. I’d have to go back to 2005 to the last time I saw a clear policy that gave Oxbridge applicants a direct advantage though.
It was indeed Nottingham!
I just don't agree that the institution a degree is obtained from is entirely irrelevant (in fairness, I am not sure you take that view).
I agree that Oxbridge degrees shouldn't necessarily be prioritised over any others, but the idea a 2:1 from one place is the same as exactly any other just isn't true. I respect your experience, but mine is different, and I fundamentally do not agree that the incongruous number of Oxbridge degrees (especially 2:1s) in big commercial firms can be entirely explained by any softer factors than the institution from which the degree has been obtained. There is no doubt that Oxbridge carries a cachet (not one I entirely agree with, but there we are). For sure, going to those universities provides information, advice and access that isn't necessarily available elsewhere. On the other hand, do I think those softer skills and experiences aren't in any way available to say, LSE grads? Durham grads? Bristol and Exeter grads? Nope, not really. So that, to my mind, still doesn't explain the level of stats we are talking about. That's because some employers (rightly or wrongly) like Oxbridge grads and rank an Oxbridge 2:1 the same as a First from some other places (in fairness, often, not RGs -- but other places? Maybe).
I honestly don't massively care what the experiences of others are in that regard -- I have seen it for myself, time and again, and know that's how it can work with some people. The numbers on how many City TCs are taken by Oxbridge candidates versus very good other institutions speak for themselves, is the view I take, and nothing you say about the applications you've personally screened is going to budge me on that.
(edited 6 years ago)
The numbers at big London firms speak for themselves.
http://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/law-firms-preferred-universities
Oxbridge graduates make up a quarter of London trainees. They make up a fifth of ALL trainees. They won't all have firsts. Sure, they represent high application numbers. So do the RG. Unless you're suggesting RG applicants apply in significantly smaller numbers. I haven't seen any evidence that is the case. So the skewing in favour of two particular universities just isn't explicable unless there is some bias towards those universities in that kind of market. Not a position I necessarily agree with, but very obvious. You might be rejecting those Oxford grads, But someone is taking them.
As above, the idea that Oxbridge and Cambridge necessarily have better advantages from a "softer skills" point of view than universities such as Bristol (i.e ones that take significantly high numbers of private school candidates, say -- applying a blunt instrument to who might have more natural advantages than others), just does not stand up. Why exactly would a state school Oxbridge candidate have a more rounded CV than a privileged Bristol grad? I do not see it. I went to state school myself btw -- it's an observation, not an attack.
Your experiences notwithstanding, the stats are what they are.
I have not seen anything to support the idea that a RG first is in any way massively ahead of an Oxbridge 2:1.
http://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/law-firms-preferred-universities
Oxbridge graduates make up a quarter of London trainees. They make up a fifth of ALL trainees. They won't all have firsts. Sure, they represent high application numbers. So do the RG. Unless you're suggesting RG applicants apply in significantly smaller numbers. I haven't seen any evidence that is the case. So the skewing in favour of two particular universities just isn't explicable unless there is some bias towards those universities in that kind of market. Not a position I necessarily agree with, but very obvious. You might be rejecting those Oxford grads, But someone is taking them.
As above, the idea that Oxbridge and Cambridge necessarily have better advantages from a "softer skills" point of view than universities such as Bristol (i.e ones that take significantly high numbers of private school candidates, say -- applying a blunt instrument to who might have more natural advantages than others), just does not stand up. Why exactly would a state school Oxbridge candidate have a more rounded CV than a privileged Bristol grad? I do not see it. I went to state school myself btw -- it's an observation, not an attack.
Your experiences notwithstanding, the stats are what they are.
I have not seen anything to support the idea that a RG first is in any way massively ahead of an Oxbridge 2:1.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by J-SP
I used to get nearly a quarter of applications from Oxbridge. If that went across firms, is the 25% really surprising?
Yes the stats are what they are, but even Chambers themselves point out all the flaws of the data and what conclusions can’t be drawn from it.
Yes the stats are what they are, but even Chambers themselves point out all the flaws of the data and what conclusions can’t be drawn from it.
I am not a statistician, but a fifth of ALL trainees being from Oxbridge is striking. It shows the legal profession likes those universities. Maybe it likes them for their soft skills rather than their academics, but it is what it is. As I have said several times, I personally wouldn't agree with the perspective that those two universities have any better undergraduate teaching anywhere else, but I haven't seen anything in this thread, including your posts, to counter the concept that Oxbridge carries some cachet for employers. Sure, you yourself get a lot of apps from there, you yourself reject a lot of apps from there (and I am guessing, with good reason). And stats can be qualified all day long.
Nevertheless, the market has spoken. As I noted above. a First from any university would stand out to me, but big firms like to hire Oxbridge grads.
(edited 6 years ago)
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this. You say there is nothing from me to suggest that Oxbridge is subject to favour, even though I cited numbers from Chambers. You may have your issues with Chambers numbers. I suggest they're more reliable than your anecdotal evidence.
There is also a college system at Durham, for example, but their numbers aren't over-represented in the stats. Bristol has a lot of private school undergrads, many of whom are coached with far more interview practice than a state school Oxbridge applicant would ever get simply going down there to be interviewed. And yet there aren't notable numbers of Bristol grads versus other places.
I do not think there is automatic favouring of Oxbridge grads at interview stage as such. I do think there is measurable favouring to a level that cannot be allowed for with factors that are explainable by other means. We can all get as unhappy about this as we like, we can say that the numbers don't say what they do, we can mention an Oxbridge candidate or seven we met who were utter idiots, but the numbers will out.
A First from anywhere is impressive. Is it guaranteed to get you a City law firm TC over an Oxbridge 2:1? Perhaps, but not necessarily. Big firms still like Oxbridge. I have met some utterly idiotic Oxbridge grads, but the stats are what they are.
For sure: the targeting of Oxbridge for recruitment has an impact. But why aren't a fifth of graduates from, say, LSE and Bristol? Why those two universities? As I say, big firms like to recruit disproportionate numbers of graduates from them. That's just how it is. I have been involved in university targeting and have not seen the skewing of sums that you mention in recruitment events. If anything, London universities were disproportionately advantaged rather than Oxbridge. But that doesn't prove anything. Year after year of stats does.
There is also a college system at Durham, for example, but their numbers aren't over-represented in the stats. Bristol has a lot of private school undergrads, many of whom are coached with far more interview practice than a state school Oxbridge applicant would ever get simply going down there to be interviewed. And yet there aren't notable numbers of Bristol grads versus other places.
I do not think there is automatic favouring of Oxbridge grads at interview stage as such. I do think there is measurable favouring to a level that cannot be allowed for with factors that are explainable by other means. We can all get as unhappy about this as we like, we can say that the numbers don't say what they do, we can mention an Oxbridge candidate or seven we met who were utter idiots, but the numbers will out.
A First from anywhere is impressive. Is it guaranteed to get you a City law firm TC over an Oxbridge 2:1? Perhaps, but not necessarily. Big firms still like Oxbridge. I have met some utterly idiotic Oxbridge grads, but the stats are what they are.
For sure: the targeting of Oxbridge for recruitment has an impact. But why aren't a fifth of graduates from, say, LSE and Bristol? Why those two universities? As I say, big firms like to recruit disproportionate numbers of graduates from them. That's just how it is. I have been involved in university targeting and have not seen the skewing of sums that you mention in recruitment events. If anything, London universities were disproportionately advantaged rather than Oxbridge. But that doesn't prove anything. Year after year of stats does.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by J-SP
Chambers themselves say the issues with the data and that the conclusions you are making cannot be made.
The college system at Durham is not like Oxford or Cambridge.
Bristol doesn’t overwhelmingly interview for its undergraduate courses. But the state school applicant who has had no coaching will still have experienced a stringent interview process if they get into Oxford.
Because a fifth of people don’t apply from LSE or Bristol!
And applications are not decided on grades alone. No one with a First would be guaranteed an interview, no matter which uni they went to.
The college system at Durham is not like Oxford or Cambridge.
Bristol doesn’t overwhelmingly interview for its undergraduate courses. But the state school applicant who has had no coaching will still have experienced a stringent interview process if they get into Oxford.
Because a fifth of people don’t apply from LSE or Bristol!
And applications are not decided on grades alone. No one with a First would be guaranteed an interview, no matter which uni they went to.
Like I say, we are going to have to agree to disagree. As limited as Chambers is (and I don't agree with your analysis of their stated limitations), it's more comprehensive than one person on a message board (that includes me as well as you).
The numbers lead to one clear conclusion for big City London firms, which isn't convincingly explained away by anything you have said. I totally accept that outside of London it is different, and I don't think Oxbridge is really all that impressive, having met lots of average candidates from Oxford and Cambridge myself. But where I started with this was the idea that an RG first was "a country mile ahead" of an Oxbridge 2:1. No, it isn't, not in the context of City firms or overall trainee numbers. Nothing that you or any other poster has said has countered that.
(edited 6 years ago)
J S-P, the point I was arguing with was a very specific one: namely, the idea that an RG First significantly outranks an Oxbridge 2:1. Flatlined made that point, not you.
The point is, it doesn’t. And neither you nor flatlined have provided any evidence that it does. I bet you don't have any information, client confidentiality or not, that says that it does. If you want to try to argue that you do... on the basis of everything I know and have seen, industry surveys, my experience, and the fact that I work in the City every day... I don't agree. And to be honest, I don't believe you, but I totally understand if you don't care what I say...! That's it, really!
The point is, it doesn’t. And neither you nor flatlined have provided any evidence that it does. I bet you don't have any information, client confidentiality or not, that says that it does. If you want to try to argue that you do... on the basis of everything I know and have seen, industry surveys, my experience, and the fact that I work in the City every day... I don't agree. And to be honest, I don't believe you, but I totally understand if you don't care what I say...! That's it, really!
Original post by J-SP
Why would I provide evidence for something I don't believe in. I have not been arguing that point. I have been trying to disprove your theory of there being a direct preference for Oxbridge.
What exactly don't you believe?
What exactly don't you believe?
OK. It's time to leave this one.
You jumped in on a thread where flatlined had (incorrectly, IMO) opined that a First from an RG is (essentially, always) massively preferred over an Oxbridge 2:1 by employers. I argued with that point, and it's one I still don't agree with.
In conclusion, nope it isn't. Perhaps it's slightly preferred. But, IMO, just from an academic perspective and not considering the broader nuances of any application, they are often considered equal (whether I agree with that as an approach or not isn't really the point).
Sure, a low Oxbridge 2:1 versus a high First from a top RG will probably be considered superior, and rightly so. Any First from any RG versus a very solid Oxbridge 2:1 will not always be miles ahead. Might be a bit ahead. Might not, really, because employers do know universities differ.
That's it really!
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Best universities for magic circle law firms
- Law degree from a RG uni
- Do I need FM to get into computer science?
- I only want to take 3 a levels, but I’m stuck between 2 for my third?!
- Do subject combinations or grades matter more?
- Scared to apply for uni because of my GCSEs.
- Which universities are targeted by employers?
- Advice on which uni to apply
- Will Law firms pay for my LLB if I secure a training contract from the second year?
- Is the Russell Group still relevant?
- How does a Non- RG uni for economics affect me
- Does Uni matter if you go to a top 20 uni?
- Computer science, does the universities matter?
- applying to Russel group unis if my undergrad is from a non Russel group
- Not taking Physics for a level but want to pursue computer science degree
- Can I study maths without further maths at a top 10 uni?
- Postgrad at a Russel group or resit? (Need advice ASAP)
- Which degree path is better
- Surrey vs Exeter for Law.
- Help me pick my GCSE subjects: Medicine, Economics, PPE, CompSci
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 3 minutes ago
Help - QMUL (PWC Flying Start) vs Bath (Accounting &Finance) vs UCL (IMB)Last reply 4 minutes ago
Official UCL 2023 Undergraduate Applicants ThreadLast reply 5 minutes ago
Choosing Subjects for S5 to study Software engineering in the UkLast reply 5 minutes ago
HSBC Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 8 minutes ago
Official University of Bristol Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 9 minutes ago
Should I reapply to Cambridge if I get good results?Last reply 13 minutes ago
The Official King's College London Applicants for 2024 Entry ThreadLast reply 13 minutes ago
Official: King's College London A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 13 minutes ago
Is paying 29,000 worth for University Of Leeds Masters degree?Last reply 19 minutes ago
Sevenoaks School sixth form entranceLast reply 19 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 22 minutes ago
British Airways Graduate Programme 2024Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
The Pupillage Interview/Acceptance/Rejection Thread 2024 WatchLast reply 1 day ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme 2024 (2025 Start)Last reply 6 days ago
How necessary is a first in order to become a barrister?Last reply 3 weeks ago
can i get a job at a top law firm as a barrister with sh*t grades??Last reply 1 month ago
Training Contract with 2:2 undergrad and distinction in postgradLast reply 1 month ago
Crown prosecutor / career after CPS pupillage / legal trainee schemeLast reply 3 months ago
How difficult is it to secure a city training contract in a prestigious law firm?Last reply 3 months ago
2.2 with dreams of working at a magic circle law firmTrending
Last reply 14 hours ago
The Pupillage Interview/Acceptance/Rejection Thread 2024 WatchLast reply 1 day ago
CPS Pupillage/Legal Trainee Scheme 2024 (2025 Start)Last reply 6 days ago
How necessary is a first in order to become a barrister?Last reply 3 weeks ago
can i get a job at a top law firm as a barrister with sh*t grades??Last reply 1 month ago
Training Contract with 2:2 undergrad and distinction in postgradLast reply 1 month ago
Crown prosecutor / career after CPS pupillage / legal trainee schemeLast reply 3 months ago
How difficult is it to secure a city training contract in a prestigious law firm?Last reply 3 months ago
2.2 with dreams of working at a magic circle law firm
