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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    I don't really agree that it is easier to get higher marks. Speaking for myself my LLB marks at a non-RG uni were slightly lower than my LLM marks at a RG-uni.

    At my undergrad uni the average mark was about 55%. At a RG uni the average mark will be low to mid 60s. I cannot right now find the site but a few years ago I saw some data with average marks and breakdown of degree by class for 30+ unis at a range of standards which showed that this was a general trend. Of course I am not saying that it is easier to get higher marks at a better university: the marks are higher on average because the students are better on average and do more work (and receive better teaching)

    It is hard to say that an exam comprised of essay questions is 'easier' than another in a meaningful way because the questions are open-ended and do not admit of a perfect answer. It may be that the syllabus is narrower at lower-ranked universities but even then one can always read beyond the confines of the reading list and do better in the exam.
    I'm not disagreeing, but how would you explain the very high marks that people get?

    Person A: 77% average degree mark
    Person B: no mark below 70% with 80 in Trusts, 78 in Company Law and Contract/many marks above 75

    I know of numerous people who have got no marks below 70% in three years of studying law.

    Those marks are simply not accessible at 'top' universities, at least at undergraduate level, what do you think is the reasoning behind this?

    (Original post by ORW)
    Sorry you two above just cant accept the reality of the situation and how it is for law... Funny thing is other people on this post share my views on universities for law too. Hannah, yes I am no careers adviser, but I think you should be here for advise, even if from someone else, as you have no TC despite your 1st and lots of EC. If someone with your profile was from a RG uni, they would very very likely have got a TC upon finishing university. You would have saved yourself all the prejudicial comments as to your university and situation if you never posted about it, as surely you know TSR is full of Oxbridge/Russell Group biased people. You lit the fire for criticism when you came in with your first post. You could see the consensus was that OP has very very little chance with an MMU and non RG degree for that matter, the profile of which you fit (non RG). You as a non RG grad also should not be surprised to come across these comments because as you should know, law is pretty much the most elitist profession you can enter aside from investment banking many would say. Even whenever you do get a TC you will come across it. These people, who Hannah has called belittling, are just saying it as it is, and they are being honest about the situation.
    To be brutally honest, you don't know as much as you seem to think you do. It's worrying, because there will be plenty of young and impressionable students who take your posts at face value. Most of your knowledge seems to be second hand, i.e from what you've read on 'forums' or gathered from your first year university friends. You and Conzy2010 make very similar points, however, he uses a level of tact and subtlety, that you don't seem capable of.

    You talk about someone with Hannah's profile, from a RG university, 'being very very likely to have got a TC upon finishing university' How exactly do you know this? - She said 'commercial awareness' is a flaw of hers. This is often a dealbreaker for the vast majority of city firms, regardless of where you're studying. There are a few firms that will take you for your academics, but those are in the minority. Also, just to add,'Russell Group' is a ridiculously broad term. In terms of recruitment, There's a difference between Oxford and Manchester, Warwick and Liverpool, etc. You don't quite seem to grasp that there will be people with firsts from places like Manchester who are struggling to secure a TC. Also universities like Kent, Reading, Brunel, Sussex are all solid/respectable universities, which are not part of the Russell Group. I know people from these universities who got multiple offers from MC and US firms.

    Most people would consider a wide representation of universities, in trainee intakes, as a good thing. However, it seems like you think there is no place for students from lower universities regardless of what they achieve. There's more to law than the big ticket city firms. Outside of the top 30-35, I would be surprised if university is as important, as you think.

    If you ever get on a vac scheme, try and conceal your surprise, if there are any non-RG students on the scheme. There was a guy from Lincoln on mine, at a 'top city firm'!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by erj2018)
    I'm not disagreeing, but how would you explain the very high marks that people get?

    Person A: 77% average degree mark
    Person B: no mark below 70% with 80 in Trusts, 78 in Company Law and Contract/many marks above 75

    I know of numerous people who have got no marks below 70% in three years of studying law.

    Those marks are simply not accessible at 'top' universities, what do you think is the reasoning behind this?



    To be brutally honest, you don't know as much as you seem to think you do. It's worrying, because there will be plenty of young and impressionable students who take your posts at face value. Most of your knowledge seems to be second hand, i.e from what you've read on 'forums' or gathered from your first year university friends. You and Conzy2010 make very similar points, however, he uses a level of tact and subtlety, that you don't seem capable of.

    You talk about someone with Hannah's profile, from a RG university, 'being very very likely to have got a TC upon finishing university' How exactly do you know this? - She said 'commercial awareness' is a flaw of hers. This is often a dealbreaker for the vast majority of city firms, regardless of where you're studying. There are a few firms that will take you for your academics, but those are in the minority. Also, just to add,'Russell Group' is a ridiculously broad term. In terms of recruitment, There's a difference between Oxford and Manchester, Warwick and Liverpool, etc. You don't quite seem to grasp that there will be people with firsts from places like Manchester who are struggling to secure a TC. Also universities like Kent, Reading, Brunel, Sussex are all solid/respectable universities, which are not part of the Russell Group. I know people from these universities who got multiple offers from MC and US firms.

    Most people would consider a wide representation of universities, in trainee intakes, as a good thing. However, it seems like you think there is no place for students from lower universities regardless of what they achieve. There's more to law than the big ticket city firms. Outside of the top 30-35, I would be surprised if university is as important, as you think.

    If you ever get on a vac scheme, try and conceal your surprise, if there are any non-RG students on the scheme. There was a guy from Lincoln on mine, at a 'top city firm'!
    Fair enough, I admit I a bit too forward with my opinion, I won't deny that. My main reason for such a preference for Oxbridge/RG is that including the legal profession, today's world is so competitive that people need to make more reasoned choices when picking a university and should go to the best ones. I know firms outside the city are less elitist as to Oxbridge/Russell Group, but a lot of people who go to non RG who post on TSR are expecting to end up MC etc hence why I often talk of city firms. It does happen as you say but you have to have an absolutely exceptional CV to do that. My now 2nd year RG friends have done a lot in the first year, and are not experts and nor am I. I don't proclaim to be. Yet it does not take an awful amount of research to know law firms' general preference in terms of education establishment, EC's and commercial awareness aside.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ORW)
    Fair enough, I admit I a bit too forward with my opinion, I won't deny that. My main reason for such a preference for Oxbridge/RG is that including the legal profession, today's world is so competitive that people need to make more reasoned choices when picking a university and should go to the best ones. What annoys me, is when people have gone to places which are significantly less reputable to the traditional unis believe they can go to the very top end just as easily as their RG counterparts when really it is so so rare. I know firms outside the city are less elitist as to Oxbridge/Russell Group, but a lot of people who go to non RG who post on TSR are expecting to end up MC etc hence why I often talk of city firms. It does happen as you say but you have to have an absolutely exceptional CV to do that. My now 2nd year RG friends have done a lot in the first year, and are not experts and nor am I. I don't proclaim to be. Yet it does not take an awful amount of research to know law firms' general preference in terms of education establishment, EC's and commercial awareness aside.
    If I'm honest, I don't really disagree with the (general) substance behind your point. It's more the brash way of almost putting people down that I disagree with. Yes, people should be realistic, but why not provide ideas as to how they can make the most of whatever situation they find themselves in?

    I'm not really sure I agree with the idea that people from non-Russell group universities expect to end up in the MC. Most of those posts tend to be from 16-18 year old, who know very little about city law, and are naturally blinded by the biggest names. Once you get to university, even at 'top' universities, people scale down their expectations, sometimes too much.

    The issue with just 'researching online' is that it assumes that recruitment is black and white. For example, so many people on this forum would say you need a first/high 2.1 to get a look in at the magic circle. Yet, I did a vac scheme at one with a 62% average, and was told by Grad Rec, that the cut off point is generally 62%.

    Another example, I think you may have said in the past that Bakers require all marks at 2.1 or above. I received a vac scheme offer, with two modules at the low 2.2 level, in first year.

    If I had came on this website, and asked people to chance me for either firm, they would have said no chance.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by erj2018)
    If I'm honest, I don't really disagree with the (general) substance behind your point. It's more the brash way of almost putting people down that I disagree with. Yes, people should be realistic, but why not provide ideas as to how they can make the most of whatever situation they find themselves in?

    I'm not really sure I agree with the idea that people from non-Russell group universities expect to end up in the MC. Most of those posts tend to be from 16-18 year old, who know very little about city law, and are naturally blinded by the biggest names. Once you get to university, even at 'top' universities, people scale down their expectations, sometimes too much.

    The issue with just 'researching online' is that it assumes that recruitment is black and white. For example, so many people on this forum would say you need a first/high 2.1 to get a look in at the magic circle. Yet, I did a vac scheme at one with a 62% average, and was told by Grad Rec, that the cut off point is generally 62%.

    Another example, I think you may have said in the past that Bakers require all marks at 2.1 or above. I received a vac scheme offer, with two modules at the low 2.2 level, in first year.

    If I had came on this website, and asked people to chance me for either firm, they would have said no chance.
    My RG law friends have visited the city firms etc including MC so until I do myself, if I do that is, I would not have the advice for the non RG to make up for their situation. They did not come across non RG in their visits, so to give advice to non RG regarding the city is harder because of the prevalent bias. I never said that point about Bakers from my own knowledge, but I did see the comment about it on another post hence why I may have mentioned it. I am blunt only because I would hate to see people make the wrong choice that could have a hampering impact on trying to get into city law. That is what I aspire to myself, hence my focus, and know law is cut throat, as I am sure you probably do from your experience of it. Just to point out, and I haven't spoken to grad rec like you so I don't have the full story, is that you never fully what some points they make are true. Without bragging on, their websites often say about not caring about uni attended if talented, but linkedin profiles of trainees and examples on firms websites would suggest otherwise. None of us except them know whether that behind the scenes they really discriminate on uni choice, given the vast number of applications they need to whittle down to a set amount for further consideration. I would imagine something like you said about the cut off for modules percentage to be true though as I am sure they likely agree more on whats a good one. Uni choice though, some are elitist, and some are more open and broad on their views but there is the obvious consensuses that exist.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by erj2018)
    I'm not disagreeing, but how would you explain the very high marks that people get?

    Those marks are simply not accessible at 'top' universities, at least at undergraduate level, what do you think is the reasoning behind this?
    I only have some kind of experience at one 'top' university, and those kind of marks are accessible at UCL on both the LLB and the LLM. Examiners were told to use the entire range of marks (I sat on the faculty board as student rep). Whether in practice anyone did get those marks on the LLB unfortunately I do not know.

    I can't really say anything about your two acquaintances - I have no idea whether they deserved those kind of marks or they attended universities where they give out 80s with the induction pack. I am willing to believe there is the odd university that is a complete outlier and marks ludicrously generously, but in general I do not think that poor universities do so (or there would be many more 1st / 2:1s than there are at those universities).
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Your future clients will not care where you did your degree, and with the exception of some big London firms, employers wont give a monkeys where you went to Uni either. All LLB degrees are accredited by the Law Society and therefore a consistent standard is maintained. The RG fixation is just school-leaver snobbery - ignore it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by returnmigrant)
    Your future clients will not care where you did your degree, and with the exception of some big London firms, employers wont give a monkeys where you went to Uni either. All LLB degrees are accredited by the Law Society and therefore a consistent standard is maintained. The RG fixation is just school-leaver snobbery - ignore it.
    So wrong.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mizzsnazzter)
    So wrong.
    Please explain what you mean, and your evidence for an alternative opinion.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by returnmigrant)
    Your future clients will not care where you did your degree, and with the exception of some big London firms, employers wont give a monkeys where you went to Uni either. All LLB degrees are accredited by the Law Society and therefore a consistent standard is maintained. The RG fixation is just school-leaver snobbery - ignore it.
    This is indeed, as the above poster states, "so wrong".

    You're probably right however when you say that clients won't care where you did your law degree (since they won't know), but it is simply not correct to say that only the big London firms care about where you go to university. There is massive competition for legal jobs throughout the top-200 law firms and beyond - your university will be a factor. Only this week I saw a comment from a recruitment partner from a top-100 in the Law Society Gazette (perhaps I'm one of the few solicitors who actually reads it!) stating that doing law at a non-RG university would be a negative. That view is widespread.

    On to your second comment - it is a ludicrous to say that all law degrees have a "consistent standard". They vary and they vary widely. If by "consistent standard" you mean "minimum standard" I simply don't believe that the Law Society does this beyond taking a look at the subjects offered to ensure that the degree ticks the boxes to be a qualifying law degree.

    You should be very careful before you offer such misguided and incorrect advice.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ath_)
    This is indeed, as the above poster states, "so wrong".

    You're probably right however when you say that clients won't care where you did your law degree (since they won't know), but it is simply not correct to say that only the big London firms care about where you go to university. There is massive competition for legal jobs throughout the top-200 law firms and beyond - your university will be a factor. Only this week I saw a comment from a recruitment partner from a top-100 in the Law Society Gazette (perhaps I'm one of the few solicitors who actually reads it!) stating that doing law at a non-RG university would be a negative. That view is widespread.

    On to your second comment - it is a ludicrous to say that all law degrees have a "consistent standard". They vary and they vary widely. If by "consistent standard" you mean "minimum standard" I simply don't believe that the Law Society does this beyond taking a look at the subjects offered to ensure that the degree ticks the boxes to be a qualifying law degree.

    You should be very careful before you offer such misguided and incorrect advice.
    returnmigrant is right, you guys are severely overestimating the importance of a uni. As long as it's not a poor one, all the rest apart from like elite 5-10 would be considered the same. As if an employer would just take a graduate because they went to a Kent, Reading or Sussex for example over De Montfort, Keele or Brunel is virtually ludicrous; they're all respected . No one even knows the difference in this margin from around 20th-55th ranked Unis and they constantly change. I do agree though that the very top ones would be an advantage and the **** ones a disadvantage but everything in the middle is the same.

    PS: it's really not hard getting into a RG so there is a reason many people choose not to... Liverpool asked for BBC in clearing ffs 😂😭
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexp98)
    returnmigrant is right ...
    Well, what you go on to say in your post is not what returnmigrant said so I'm not sure why you say that they are "right". If you look up the chain, they said that:

    "... with the exception of some big London firms, employers wont give a monkeys where you went to Uni either. All LLB degrees are accredited by the Law Society and therefore a consistent standard is maintained."

    Their statement is not, factually, correct. Employers do "give a monkeys" and it's not true to say that "a consistent standard is maintained" by the Law Society (indeed, if anyone was going to do this it would probably be the SRA).

    Yes, as you say, there are good universities outside of the RG - lots of them. But there is evidence to suggest that doing a law degree at a RG university will improve your chances of getting a TC.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
  • 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.