Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jivejak)
    I learnt from the TSR that a 2.1 LLB from QM should be okay for securing a TC. Is your cousin an asian?
    A 2.1 will get you the interview. But then its up to individual to perform well in the interview, stand out, posses some form of extracurricular activity, etc.


    (Original post by yahyahyahs)
    Edinburgh is a bit ehhh for Law, assuming the OP is English. I thought you have to take your LLB in the country you want to practice in?
    I definitely wouldn't call Edinburgh ehh for law. Yes, it's not popular for English applicants, but that's because its not a qualifying degree for England & Wales. To be able to practice law in England with an Edinburgh LLB one would need to take on an additional year of study. For this reason it is generally excluded from ranking discussions (although not from published rankings).

    Edinburgh is an excellent option for those wanting to go into academia. It's law school always scores high on research assessments and especially good for legal history.

    It is also a good option for those who want to work within an EU member state other than in the UK. This is because scotts law combines civil and common law. Its likely that as the EU continues to gain strength, the EU will choose to mirror scotts law because it is more reflective of the member states.

    Edinburgh also has very high graduate prospects in general. Yes, it isn't the best option if you're shooting for the MC (although Edinburgh grads do get TC's in the MC). But Edinburgh is far from "ehhh."
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    IMO

    Oxford / Cambridge
    LSE
    Durham
    UCL

    in that order. This will vary from employer to employer though - at the same firm, one person making recruitment decisions might prefer QMUL to KCL and another might think its the other way around - people making the decisions often don't research universities very much.
    UCL law is by far better than LSE and Durham. It's higher in every ranking, world-revered and has he best graduate prospects. No idea why you'd put the other two above it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by INTJ)
    UCL law is by far better than LSE and Durham. It's higher in every ranking, world-revered and has he best graduate prospects. No idea why you'd put the other two above it.
    Rankings are highly subjective and should be taken with a pinch of salt seeing as they change from year to year there is no definitive ranking. On a worldwide scale the LSE has far more prestige than UCL.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    O HAI 2011 APPLICANTS.

    unless someone pips me to the post, i believe i'm going to be the first to say this in this thread...

    IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER. it's all about the applicant. a keele applicant with great results, great experience and an excellent interview technique could blow a less qualified durham applicant out of the water.

    get into uni, work your arse off, get your foot in every door that pops up you can get anywhere

    obv more oxford/ucl/durham applicants work in the magic circle than people from elsewhere, but only cos generally, that's where the best go. just because someone doesn't make it there (bad lnat/farted during the interview/whatever) doesn't mean they're not the best. just means they need to shine a little brighter. i sound like my nan, but it's true.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by INTJ)
    UCL law is by far better than LSE and Durham. It's higher in every ranking, world-revered and has he best graduate prospects. No idea why you'd put the other two above it.
    LSE has a slightly better reputation than UCL from what I'm aware.

    What you say may well be true, but recruitment decisions are made by partners who are not recruitment specialists - they are not going to pore over league tables but will be influenced by the general reputation of places and their own preconceptions

    Not a lot in it though
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by INTJ)
    UCL law is by far better than LSE and Durham. It's higher in every ranking, world-revered and has he best graduate prospects. No idea why you'd put the other two above it.
    You're still going on with this rant? Look, come here and say UCL is slightly better. I'd at least agree to disagree. But to say far better is just false. UCL is far better than City. UCL is not far better then any uni in the recognized top 10 for law.

    And you give poor support to your arguments.

    "Higher in every ranking?" Okay, by one spot in some rankings and this is more of a recent trend. Plus the difference between spot 3 and spot 4/5 is highly subjective. Just because some editors at the Times decides to put UCL ahead one year does not make it the universal better uni.

    "World-revered?" LSE is more.

    "Has the best graduate prospects?" No.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jivejak)
    I learnt from the TSR that a 2.1 LLB from QM should be okay for securing a TC
    Yes but its still difficult and you need a lot more.

    When I applied I was on course for a strong 2:1 from Oxbridge, had a great range of ECs (dedicated part-time job with promotion, volunteering with children with special needs, on the committee of a university club etc. etc.) and had good interview technique and did a good deal of research. Still got only 2 interviews out of 12 applications. Admittedly these applications were to fairly top-end London commercial firms, but its still extremely difficult to get a TC. A 2:1 from QMUL (or anywhere) is certainly not a free-pass to interviews let alone a job.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellrosk)
    Rankings are highly subjective and should be taken with a pinch of salt seeing as they change from year to year there is no definitive ranking. On a worldwide scale the LSE has far more prestige than UCL.
    The level of prestige the LSE has in comparison to UCL is subjective. In my experience, people in the UK have heard of UCL more often, and people abroad have. The only place where the LSE irrefutably has more prestige (well, is more heard of) is the US.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam0311)
    You're still going on with this rant? Look, come here and say UCL is slightly better. I'd at least agree to disagree. But to say far better is just false. UCL is far better than City. UCL is not far better then any uni in the recognized top 10 for law.

    And you give poor support to your arguments.

    "Higher in every ranking?" Okay, by one spot in some rankings and this is more of a recent trend. Plus the difference between spot 3 and spot 4/5 is highly subjective. Just because some editors at the Times decides to put UCL ahead one year does not make it the universal better uni.

    "World-revered?" LSE is more.

    "Has the best graduate prospects?" No.
    Okay, fair enough. UCL is a bit better than the LSE for Law. Also, it DOES have better graduate prospects (for Law). As for 'just' the times ranking UCL ahead, it is not 'just' the Times who ranked UCL ahead.

    I have never heard of the LSE being more revered across the globe. In the US, perhaps, because it is more well recognised. In the UK? They are both, overall, equal; abroad (excluding America), they are equal (even though, in my experience, and the people I know, UCL has been much more well recognised).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by INTJ)
    The level of prestige the LSE has in comparison to UCL is subjective. In my experience, people in the UK have heard of UCL more often, and people abroad have. The only place where the LSE irrefutably has more prestige (well, is more heard of) is the US.
    'Worldwide' consists of more than Europe and the US, but regardless it is hard to measure the level of prestige a certain institute has against another in global terms so I'm not going to fret it out. It's meaningless anyway seeing as the majority of Lawyers at these unis will be looking to work within the UK (providing they wish to follow the typical solicitor/barrister route).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by INTJ)
    Okay, fair enough. UCL is a bit better than the LSE for Law. Also, it DOES have better graduate prospects (for Law). As for 'just' the times ranking UCL ahead, it is not 'just' the Times who ranked UCL ahead.

    I have never heard of the LSE being more revered across the globe. In the US, perhaps, because it is more well recognised. In the UK? They are both, overall, equal; abroad (excluding America), they are equal (even though, in my experience, and the people I know, UCL has been much more well recognised).
    Source?

    Since you said international reputation is equal (I disagree, but I'm giving it to you), your only rationale right now is graduate prospects.

    And on your argument about rankings. If we go with jacketpotato's logic that subject specific rankings aren't as relevant as uni whole rankings then:
    -Durham and LSE beat out UCL in the Complete University Guide
    -Durham and LSE beat out UCL in the Times
    -UCL only beats out Durham and LSE in the Sunday Times
    -Leaving out Guardian, because those rankings are a joke
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam0311)
    Source?

    Since you said international reputation is equal (I disagree, but I'm giving it to you), your only rationale right now is graduate prospects.
    "University College London
    The University College London (UCL) is ranked number one in The Complete University Guide 2010. It scores 92 percent in graduate prospects and receives an overall score of 100 percent. The Sunday Times calls the University of College London "an intellectual powerhouse with a world class reputation." UCL's Faculty of Law is ranked joint first in the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise. UCL has 55 faculty members and approximately 840 students comprising of undergraduate, graduate and research students."
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by INTJ)
    "University College London
    The University College London (UCL) is ranked number one in The Complete University Guide 2010.
    We're in 2011.

    (Original post by INTJ)
    It scores 92 percent in graduate prospects
    Statistical graduate prospects IMO are a weak indicator. They could be taking up any type of grad job. And its tough to get a number for who goes into the MC and chambers. If UCL had a higher number for MC and chambers, I'd give you this argument. Here's a quick example. Go to the complete university guide. Sort by graduate prospects. Buckingham has the second highest graduate prospect of unis as a whole. Attributed to the fact that they'd be willing to take up any grad job. Buckingham even beat out Oxbridge. Heck, even Robert Gordon beat out Oxbridge. Its not quantity it quality.

    (Original post by INTJ)
    The Sunday Times calls the University of College London "an intellectual powerhouse with a world class reputation."
    Too lazy to find quotes for LSE and Durham.

    (Original post by INTJ)
    UCL's Faculty of Law is ranked joint first in the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise.
    LSE was tied with it. LSE had 10 more 4* and avg grade point was .05 higher. Durham was right behind Oxford for joint 4th and 3rd based on the percentage graded 2* or 3* or 4*.

    (Original post by INTJ)
    UCL has 55 faculty members and approximately 840 students comprising of undergraduate, graduate and research students."
    Too lazy to look for numbers at LSE and Durham, but don't think that its too relevant anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To be fair right every degree is a degree and is very good. Obviously we hear countless stories of a particular university is better than the other-it is only their reputation that is better-and of course their entry requirements are higher based on popularity and demand. I live in the north- east of England and I can say Durham seems to be good, Newcastle and Northumbria offers a unique course. Sunderland is jumping 10 each year for law! and Teeside are respected. So I think yes, it matters where you want to study-so you can enjoy the course there-but getting any 1st in a law degree from any uni should place you in good stead. At the end of the day-its your life and your decision, don't be pressured from people by aiming for the top 10-yes of course aim high but don't be stressed about it!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Love the way people parrot thoughtlessly, now what we could justly call a maxim, that "everyone should consider university rankings with a pinch of salt as they are subjective". Excuse me, dear future law students, who should be able to use their logic extensively, how in the first place did you get your subjective overall concept of the line-up of the best universities, in any subject? Out of the blue? No. You either have heard what others say what they think the ranking should look like or you have personally formed your opinion on the basis of numerous rankings. Yet, how did those from whom you heard of it get their idea from? Obviously, random rankings! The logic of this concept is undeniable. And, pardon me, if you think otherwise, I am not sure you even deserve to do law in the first place. The extent, to which some people are ridiculously brainless, amuses me and other people with common sense that see your posts.
    To think about the quality of anything, you have got to be provided with material evidence, the essence of any reasonable opinion. That is what most of the university rankings plan to do, and finally do. Obviously, rankings change from year to year. But those changes are not very drastic, as well, which again proves the legitimiacy of most of the rankings.
    Apart from rankings, the best thing to do is also to get a second-hand opinion, possibly from the wide rande of academics. Moreover, it is useful to visit the universities you shortlisted yourself. That's the best possible thing one can do.
    While being interviewed at one of the Oxford colleges, I was told that the most appropriate way to deal with your future plans is to 1) check the academic rankings of universities for the past few years, 2) ask those who graduated from them or other universities you are interested in what they think about them, 3) finally visit each of the universities for yourself. Sounds reasonable, and so all of you should do.
    Any academic ranking is supposed to give you a general view on each of the universities and their approximate positions within a given country, or internationally. Of course it is subjective, but in order to decrease the level of subjectivity, you follow the steps 2) and 3), and additionally compare various rankings.
    That is why I, finally, decided to choose Queen Mary instead of King's as my insurance choice once my interview at Oxford did not go well for me. And that is what happened to me. I, personally, checked UCL, KCL and QM. I ticked out UCL: I visited it and simply did not like it. KCL was tremendous, so was QM. Finally, I decided to pick QM. Now, I cannot say I regret that. I am even happier with any ranking coming through, which affirms me in the belief that I made a right choice.
    That is all I can tell you. Please, do not underestimate the legitimacy of either academic rankings, academic opinion, or personal experience. Each one of these elements is equally important.

    With kindest regards
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MarcvsAntonivs)
    Love the way people parrot thoughtlessly, now what we could justly call a maxim, that "everyone should consider university rankings with a pinch of salt as they are subjective". Excuse me, dear future law students, who should be able to use their logic extensively, how in the first place did you get your subjective overall concept of the line-up of the best universities, in any subject? Out of the blue? No. You either have heard what others say what they think the ranking should look like or you have personally formed your opinion on the basis of numerous rankings. Yet, how did those from whom you heard of it get their idea from? Obviously, random rankings! The logic of this concept is undeniable. And, pardon me, if you think otherwise, I am not sure you even deserve to do law in the first place. The extent, to which some people are ridiculously brainless, amuses me and other people with common sense that see your posts.
    To think about the quality of anything, you have got to be provided with material evidence, the essence of any reasonable opinion. That is what most of the university rankings plan to do, and finally do. Obviously, rankings change from year to year. But those changes are not very drastic, as well, which again proves the legitimiacy of most of the rankings.
    Apart from rankings, the best thing to do is also to get a second-hand opinion, possibly from the wide rande of academics. Moreover, it is useful to visit the universities you shortlisted yourself. That's the best possible thing one can do.
    While being interviewed at one of the Oxford colleges, I was told that the most appropriate way to deal with your future plans is to 1) check the academic rankings of universities for the past few years, 2) ask those who graduated from them or other universities you are interested in what they think about them, 3) finally visit each of the universities for yourself. Sounds reasonable, and so all of you should do.
    Any academic ranking is supposed to give you a general view on each of the universities and their approximate positions within a given country, or internationally. Of course it is subjective, but in order to decrease the level of subjectivity, you follow the steps 2) and 3), and additionally compare various rankings.
    That is why I, finally, decided to choose Queen Mary instead of King's as my insurance choice once my interview at Oxford did not go well for me. And that is what happened to me. I, personally, checked UCL, KCL and QM. I ticked out UCL: I visited it and simply did not like it. KCL was tremendous, so was QM. Finally, I decided to pick QM. Now, I cannot say I regret that. I am even happier with any ranking coming through, which affirms me in the belief that I made a right choice.
    That is all I can tell you. Please, do not underestimate the legitimacy of either academic rankings, academic opinion, or personal experience. Each one of these elements is equally important.

    With kindest regards
    Are you suggesting we take rankings as an absolute?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bellrosk)
    Are you suggesting we take rankings as an absolute?
    Which part of "Any academic ranking is supposed to give you a general view on each of the universities and their approximate positions within a given country, or internationally. Of course it is subjective, but in order to decrease the level of subjectivity, you follow the steps 2) and 3), and additionally compare various rankings" is unclear to you?

    Please, read any comments carefully in order to not reach such false conclusions, unsupported by evidence. I will paraphrase myself, especially for you and the others who cannot understand what they read: "Academic rankings should not be rashly excluded from the process of forming a decision as to what universities to apply to."

    Best regards
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MarcvsAntonivs)
    Which part of "Any academic ranking is supposed to give you a general view on each of the universities and their approximate positions within a given country, or internationally. Of course it is subjective, but in order to decrease the level of subjectivity, you follow the steps 2) and 3), and additionally compare various rankings" is unclear to you?

    Please, read any comments carefully in order to not reach such false conclusions, unsupported by evidence. I will paraphrase myself, especially for you and the others who cannot understand what they read: "Academic rankings should not be rashly excluded from the process of forming a decision as to what universities to apply to."

    Best regards
    It's ironic how you rather aggressively and with the aid of frankly unnecessary and childish personal insults accuse others of 'not reading' when you have completely misunderstood what people have said in this thread. At absolutely no point whatsoever has anybody stated or insinuated that rankings should be excluded from 'the process of forming a decision as to what universities to apply to'. People have simply pointed out the errors of using rankings as an absolute indicator of where Universities lie in regards to others due to the disparity between results and their tendency to change drastically year by year.

    Of course we consider rankings when deciding universities, but to make claims such as 'UCL is a far better institute than the LSE and Durham' based on where they place in the Times list one year is absolutely ludicrous.

    I'm afraid that's all I have to say on the subject now. Your idiotic statements about how people are 'brainless' and don't 'deserve' to be studying Law simply because they differ (or don't differ as the case may be) in opinion to you is incredibly childish and I have no interest whatsoever in hearing your opinion on the subject anymore. Franky the whole argument about which university is better is irrelevant, people will secure training contracts with MC firms from a wide array of universities and I fail to see how a debatable marginal difference between schools will make any difference.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Some people on here seriously need to chill. Whether you go to LSE rather than Durham or UCL or vice versa is unlikely to make any impact on whether you get offered a job in reality. When universities are in the same general category other factors start becoming more important.

    As Jacket Potato says, once you've actually got a job in law you'll all realise that league tables don't matter so much, especially individual fluctuations. Recruitment partners and HR staff have a vague idea of where they're looking at based on perceived reputation, not by how league tables change. These might be wrong, or outdated, or both, but it doesn't stop it being the case at the majority of firms.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missfanatical)
    o hai 2011 applicants.

    Unless someone pips me to the post, i believe i'm going to be the first to say this in this thread...

    It really doesn't matter. It's all about the applicant. A keele applicant with great results, great experience and an excellent interview technique could blow a less qualified durham applicant out of the water.

    Get into uni, work your arse off, get your foot in every door that pops up you can get anywhere

    obv more oxford/ucl/durham applicants work in the magic circle than people from elsewhere, but only cos generally, that's where the best go. Just because someone doesn't make it there (bad lnat/farted during the interview/whatever) doesn't mean they're not the best. Just means they need to shine a little brighter. I sound like my nan, but it's true.
    oh finally someone who speaks sense!

 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.