Why do some people on here lie about Law uni reputations?
Hi,
This has been bugging me for a while on this forum — why do people act like universities such as Exeter, York and Nottingham (unis which I’ve seen) are as good as, or give as many opportunities as, somewhere like UCL, Durham or LSE? Even seen Oxbridge thrown in there.
It’s crazy to me and simply wrong. They are not in the same tier and someone who goes to Durham with a 2:1 is going to have more opportunities and viewed as a better candidate to someone who went to Exeter with a 2:1 because it’s objectively a better uni.
If all these unis were as good as each other and going to Exeter over UCL would be fine, why is UCL so much harder to get into and has a better calibre of students?
I’m not saying Exeter, York, Notts, Bristol or wherever are bad unis at all as they’re not. Yet trying to claim they get you on the same level as a Durham or UCL is just wrong.
Just because some people from the MC went to Exeter, it’s an anomaly is it not? They’ll be people from the MC who went to Reading or Leicester - are we going to claim these would be fine over UCL because it doesn’t matter as long as you as a candidate are good?
It’s ludicrous and making people make incorrect and wrong decisions by saying “go to Exeter over UCL if you like the campus”.
This has been bugging me for a while on this forum — why do people act like universities such as Exeter, York and Nottingham (unis which I’ve seen) are as good as, or give as many opportunities as, somewhere like UCL, Durham or LSE? Even seen Oxbridge thrown in there.
It’s crazy to me and simply wrong. They are not in the same tier and someone who goes to Durham with a 2:1 is going to have more opportunities and viewed as a better candidate to someone who went to Exeter with a 2:1 because it’s objectively a better uni.
If all these unis were as good as each other and going to Exeter over UCL would be fine, why is UCL so much harder to get into and has a better calibre of students?
I’m not saying Exeter, York, Notts, Bristol or wherever are bad unis at all as they’re not. Yet trying to claim they get you on the same level as a Durham or UCL is just wrong.
Just because some people from the MC went to Exeter, it’s an anomaly is it not? They’ll be people from the MC who went to Reading or Leicester - are we going to claim these would be fine over UCL because it doesn’t matter as long as you as a candidate are good?
It’s ludicrous and making people make incorrect and wrong decisions by saying “go to Exeter over UCL if you like the campus”.
Scroll to see replies
Or maybe people can go where they want if they like the place.
Original post by bcop12345
have fun on ur boring as **** campus G
What’s that supposed to mean?
It’s just frustrating people on here pretend Exeter is as good for law or will open as many doors as one of the London unis when it won’t.
They accept BBBers for a reason.
It's because employers don't really care about all this nonsense, they care more about the actual degree you're doing.
Original post by phoebexoxo
Hi,
This has been bugging me for a while on this forum — why do people act like universities such as Exeter, York and Nottingham (unis which I’ve seen) are as good as, or give as many opportunities as, somewhere like UCL, Durham or LSE? Even seen Oxbridge thrown in there.
It’s crazy to me and simply wrong. They are not in the same tier and someone who goes to Durham with a 2:1 is going to have more opportunities and viewed as a better candidate to someone who went to Exeter with a 2:1 because it’s objectively a better uni.
If all these unis were as good as each other and going to Exeter over UCL would be fine, why is UCL so much harder to get into and has a better calibre of students?
I’m not saying Exeter, York, Notts, Bristol or wherever are bad unis at all as they’re not. Yet trying to claim they get you on the same level as a Durham or UCL is just wrong.
Just because some people from the MC went to Exeter, it’s an anomaly is it not? They’ll be people from the MC who went to Reading or Leicester - are we going to claim these would be fine over UCL because it doesn’t matter as long as you as a candidate are good?
It’s ludicrous and making people make incorrect and wrong decisions by saying “go to Exeter over UCL if you like the campus”.
This has been bugging me for a while on this forum — why do people act like universities such as Exeter, York and Nottingham (unis which I’ve seen) are as good as, or give as many opportunities as, somewhere like UCL, Durham or LSE? Even seen Oxbridge thrown in there.
It’s crazy to me and simply wrong. They are not in the same tier and someone who goes to Durham with a 2:1 is going to have more opportunities and viewed as a better candidate to someone who went to Exeter with a 2:1 because it’s objectively a better uni.
If all these unis were as good as each other and going to Exeter over UCL would be fine, why is UCL so much harder to get into and has a better calibre of students?
I’m not saying Exeter, York, Notts, Bristol or wherever are bad unis at all as they’re not. Yet trying to claim they get you on the same level as a Durham or UCL is just wrong.
Just because some people from the MC went to Exeter, it’s an anomaly is it not? They’ll be people from the MC who went to Reading or Leicester - are we going to claim these would be fine over UCL because it doesn’t matter as long as you as a candidate are good?
It’s ludicrous and making people make incorrect and wrong decisions by saying “go to Exeter over UCL if you like the campus”.
I know you didn't intend for your question to sound like it, but from first glance your question seems rather naive.
Every person is different, and so is every uni. On uni tables you will see that top unis are at the top because of level of teaching; abundance of facilities; many opportunities for work placements; great alumni; etc.
However, there are other factors in a university that many students consider, such as student satisfaction; type of course; location to other places like town centres and city life. It's not lying, it's preference.
Original post by It's****ingWOODY
It's because employers don't really care about all this nonsense, they care more about the actual degree you're doing.
Well yes but all candidates would have studied law so then the next way to break it down is by what university they went to.
And Exeter/York et al don’t compare and people should stop trying to pretend they do.
Original post by phoebexoxo
Hi,
This has been bugging me for a while on this forum — why do people act like universities such as Exeter, York and Nottingham (unis which I’ve seen) are as good as, or give as many opportunities as, somewhere like UCL, Durham or LSE? Even seen Oxbridge thrown in there.
It’s crazy to me and simply wrong. They are not in the same tier and someone who goes to Durham with a 2:1 is going to have more opportunities and viewed as a better candidate to someone who went to Exeter with a 2:1 because it’s objectively a better uni.
If all these unis were as good as each other and going to Exeter over UCL would be fine, why is UCL so much harder to get into and has a better calibre of students?
I’m not saying Exeter, York, Notts, Bristol or wherever are bad unis at all as they’re not. Yet trying to claim they get you on the same level as a Durham or UCL is just wrong.
Just because some people from the MC went to Exeter, it’s an anomaly is it not? They’ll be people from the MC who went to Reading or Leicester - are we going to claim these would be fine over UCL because it doesn’t matter as long as you as a candidate are good?
It’s ludicrous and making people make incorrect and wrong decisions by saying “go to Exeter over UCL if you like the campus”.
This has been bugging me for a while on this forum — why do people act like universities such as Exeter, York and Nottingham (unis which I’ve seen) are as good as, or give as many opportunities as, somewhere like UCL, Durham or LSE? Even seen Oxbridge thrown in there.
It’s crazy to me and simply wrong. They are not in the same tier and someone who goes to Durham with a 2:1 is going to have more opportunities and viewed as a better candidate to someone who went to Exeter with a 2:1 because it’s objectively a better uni.
If all these unis were as good as each other and going to Exeter over UCL would be fine, why is UCL so much harder to get into and has a better calibre of students?
I’m not saying Exeter, York, Notts, Bristol or wherever are bad unis at all as they’re not. Yet trying to claim they get you on the same level as a Durham or UCL is just wrong.
Just because some people from the MC went to Exeter, it’s an anomaly is it not? They’ll be people from the MC who went to Reading or Leicester - are we going to claim these would be fine over UCL because it doesn’t matter as long as you as a candidate are good?
It’s ludicrous and making people make incorrect and wrong decisions by saying “go to Exeter over UCL if you like the campus”.
There have been lots of debates (and discussions) about university reputations. The consensus has been for people to go to the most challenging uni that they would be most happy at. So it is a balancing act.
For me, I think there are tiers of universities. This is not focused on Law but general.
Tier 1: Oxford and Cambridge
Tier 2: LSE, UCL, Imperial, Manchester, Durham
Tier 3: Edinburgh, Kings, St Andrews, Warwick, Bristol.
Then you have other tiers below. Please note that the above tiers are not fixed and can move up and down depending on the criteria, department or course. So it means that a uni like Nottingham can be as strong as or even stronger than Edinburgh for Law.
To your other points, I think people try to “hype” their uni to make it look like they are going to a decent overall university. This is often not the case, but maybe the case for their course.
For employers, i think uni reputation is rapidly becoming meaningless, except for particular courses or if you go to the cream of the unis like Oxbridge, Imperial etc.
(edited 5 years ago)
Nah Durham isn't up with LSE and UCL. They, along with Imperial and second only to Oxbridge. Durham has a slight amount more recognition than Bath, Bristol, Notts, etc, but any benefit is negated by it being so far away from anything that matters and the lack of opportunities that follow.
The differences aren't that huge, and the ranking tables are utter BS anyway. The Guardian puts Nottingham Trent and UEA above Bristol, and LSE at 15th. Only oxbridge are really noticeably better than the others.
Subject matters a lot of course. You can get into history at oxford with 3 As, but it'd take 3 A*s and STEP for maths. You'll find the same 'calibre' people at lower regarded unis because their subject is harder.
The differences aren't that huge, and the ranking tables are utter BS anyway. The Guardian puts Nottingham Trent and UEA above Bristol, and LSE at 15th. Only oxbridge are really noticeably better than the others.
Subject matters a lot of course. You can get into history at oxford with 3 As, but it'd take 3 A*s and STEP for maths. You'll find the same 'calibre' people at lower regarded unis because their subject is harder.
Original post by Wired_1800
Tier 1: Oxford and Cambridge
Tier 2: LSE, UCL, Imperial
Tier 3: Manchester, Durham, Edinburgh, Kings, St Andrews, Warwick, Bristol.
Tier 2: LSE, UCL, Imperial
Tier 3: Manchester, Durham, Edinburgh, Kings, St Andrews, Warwick, Bristol.
Fixed. I don't get why some people think so highly of Manchester. Also Durham is cool and all but not all that hot.
Original post by DarthRoar
Fixed. I don't get why some people think so highly of Manchester. Also Durham is cool and all but not all that hot.
Manchester is wired's thing. He's been doing it for years now.
We concluded he went there, considering he spoke extensively about Manchester accom.
Original post by Notoriety
How would you know that they're lying? Do you have any professional experience in law, law recruitment?
If no, you're just flapping your gums as any other annoying pre-applicant/applicant.
If no, you're just flapping your gums as any other annoying pre-applicant/applicant.
No need to be personal when I’ve made an observation that is taken by the supposedly “senior” people on here.
So you’re implying that someone who goes to Exeter (which accepts BBBers), will be just as good and give as many opportunities for law as LSE?
You’re wrong.
Original post by phoebexoxo
No need to be personal when I’ve made an observation that is taken by the supposedly “senior” people on here.
So you’re implying that someone who goes to Exeter (which accepts BBBers), will be just as good and give as many opportunities for law as LSE?
You’re wrong.
So you’re implying that someone who goes to Exeter (which accepts BBBers), will be just as good and give as many opportunities for law as LSE?
You’re wrong.
You better hope Exeter accepts BBBers
Original post by Wired_1800
There have been lots of debates (and discussions) about university reputations. The consensus has been for people to go to the most challenging uni that they would be most happy at. So it is a balancing act.
For me, I think there are tiers of universities. This is not focused on Law but general.
Tier 1: Oxford and Cambridge
Tier 2: LSE, UCL, Imperial, Manchester, Durham
Tier 3: Edinburgh, Kings, St Andrews, Warwick, Bristol.
Then you have other tiers below. Please note that the above tiers are not fixed and can move up and down depending on the criteria, department or course. So it means that a uni like Nottingham can be as strong as or even stronger than Edinburgh for Law.
To your other points, I think people try to “hype” their uni to make it look like they are going to a decent overall university. This is often not the case, but maybe the case for their course.
For employers, i think uni reputation is rapidly becoming meaningless, except for particular courses or if you go to the cream of the unis like Oxbridge, Imperial etc.
For me, I think there are tiers of universities. This is not focused on Law but general.
Tier 1: Oxford and Cambridge
Tier 2: LSE, UCL, Imperial, Manchester, Durham
Tier 3: Edinburgh, Kings, St Andrews, Warwick, Bristol.
Then you have other tiers below. Please note that the above tiers are not fixed and can move up and down depending on the criteria, department or course. So it means that a uni like Nottingham can be as strong as or even stronger than Edinburgh for Law.
To your other points, I think people try to “hype” their uni to make it look like they are going to a decent overall university. This is often not the case, but maybe the case for their course.
For employers, i think uni reputation is rapidly becoming meaningless, except for particular courses or if you go to the cream of the unis like Oxbridge, Imperial etc.
Is Manchester second tier? It’s a big city that’s got international recognition but probably in Tier 3, if not 4.
Original post by phoebexoxo
No need to be personal when I’ve made an observation that is taken by the supposedly “senior” people on here.
So you’re implying that someone who goes to Exeter (which accepts BBBers), will be just as good and give as many opportunities for law as LSE?
You’re wrong.
So you’re implying that someone who goes to Exeter (which accepts BBBers), will be just as good and give as many opportunities for law as LSE?
You’re wrong.
Couldn't give a ****, mate.
Not getting into this troll BS.
Original post by phoebexoxo
Hi,
This has been bugging me for a while on this forum — why do people act like universities such as Exeter, York and Nottingham (unis which I’ve seen) are as good as, or give as many opportunities as, somewhere like UCL, Durham or LSE? Even seen Oxbridge thrown in there.
It’s crazy to me and simply wrong. They are not in the same tier and someone who goes to Durham with a 2:1 is going to have more opportunities and viewed as a better candidate to someone who went to Exeter with a 2:1 because it’s objectively a better uni.
If all these unis were as good as each other and going to Exeter over UCL would be fine, why is UCL so much harder to get into and has a better calibre of students?
I’m not saying Exeter, York, Notts, Bristol or wherever are bad unis at all as they’re not. Yet trying to claim they get you on the same level as a Durham or UCL is just wrong.
Just because some people from the MC went to Exeter, it’s an anomaly is it not? They’ll be people from the MC who went to Reading or Leicester - are we going to claim these would be fine over UCL because it doesn’t matter as long as you as a candidate are good?
It’s ludicrous and making people make incorrect and wrong decisions by saying “go to Exeter over UCL if you like the campus”.
This has been bugging me for a while on this forum — why do people act like universities such as Exeter, York and Nottingham (unis which I’ve seen) are as good as, or give as many opportunities as, somewhere like UCL, Durham or LSE? Even seen Oxbridge thrown in there.
It’s crazy to me and simply wrong. They are not in the same tier and someone who goes to Durham with a 2:1 is going to have more opportunities and viewed as a better candidate to someone who went to Exeter with a 2:1 because it’s objectively a better uni.
If all these unis were as good as each other and going to Exeter over UCL would be fine, why is UCL so much harder to get into and has a better calibre of students?
I’m not saying Exeter, York, Notts, Bristol or wherever are bad unis at all as they’re not. Yet trying to claim they get you on the same level as a Durham or UCL is just wrong.
Just because some people from the MC went to Exeter, it’s an anomaly is it not? They’ll be people from the MC who went to Reading or Leicester - are we going to claim these would be fine over UCL because it doesn’t matter as long as you as a candidate are good?
It’s ludicrous and making people make incorrect and wrong decisions by saying “go to Exeter over UCL if you like the campus”.
Would you like to point out some examples?
You do realise that at a certain level then once you have the interview other factors come into play?
It isnt as clear cut as you say.
Its also possible that in choosing a degree and university people have different priorities than the ones you have.
You seem very worked up about this.
Has your university been slighted?
Original post by harrysbar
You better hope Exeter accepts BBBers
I’m not applying to Exeter as it’s not somewhere I want to go as it’s not as good as the others people say.
And I’ve read on here that they do and have even given out BBB offers so explain that one.
Original post by DarthRoar
Fixed. I don't get why some people think so highly of Manchester. Also Durham is cool and all but not all that hot.
Fair, but it is not static. Manchester is one of the top overall universities, but tends to receive bad rep.
For Durham, I think it is really good but has a really bad rep, as a uni for oxbridge rejects.
Original post by KJEKJE Says Hi
I know you didn't intend for your question to sound like it, but from first glance your question seems rather naive.
Every person is different, and so is every uni. On uni tables you will see that top unis are at the top because of level of teaching; abundance of facilities; many opportunities for work placements; great alumni; etc.
However, there are other factors in a university that many students consider, such as student satisfaction; type of course; location to other places like town centres and city life. It's not lying, it's preference.
Every person is different, and so is every uni. On uni tables you will see that top unis are at the top because of level of teaching; abundance of facilities; many opportunities for work placements; great alumni; etc.
However, there are other factors in a university that many students consider, such as student satisfaction; type of course; location to other places like town centres and city life. It's not lying, it's preference.
I know it’s but preference but some universities are objectively better than others.
People on here seem to act as if York and Exeter are just as good unis as LSE and UCL and it’s just farcical.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- QMUL Law Offer Holders
- QMUL for Law or try again next year?
- Do top employers look down on foundation years?
- Any singaporeans studying in leeds?
- Firm Choice
- Uni of Nottingham vs. Nottingham Trent
- Exeter Penryn, Lancaster, or Royal Holloway?
- Glasgow or Edinburgh?
- UCL, LSE OR KCL for law?
- UWE Bristol vs Oxford Brookes
- UCL VS LSE employability
- Nottingham trent! Actually a good university?!
- Does anyone feel contextual offers at bristol are unfair?
- Bristol vs Warwick vs Glasgow
- Most overrated Uni in general in the uk
- Warwick or Bristol for law
- Opinions on Sheffield Law
- Is SOAS any good?
- Five SAS soldiers arrested for alleged war crimes in Syria
- MA in Law vs LLB
Latest
Last reply 6 minutes ago
University of Oxford 2025 Undergraduate Applicants Official ThreadLast reply 20 minutes ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 24 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 24 minutes ago
ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024Last reply 28 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadPosted 1 hour ago
Failed 2 out of 3 exams semester 1 and scared about the 3 I have left in semester 2.Last reply 1 hour ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2927
