The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 3900
I got my rejection from King's two days ago, so I suppose they're really going through applications from international students first. They have yet to update UCAS Track though, I wish they'd just hurry up and end my suffering quickly. :s-smilie: Perhaps I should just withdraw before they get to it? :P I obtained a LNAT score of 23, so I suppose it was that and my mediocre GCSE-equivalent grades.
Reply 3901
Original post by Adelaide123
Exactly!!!
I don't even want to go to Warwick!!!


Haha, oh bless you! But i suppose if you definitely know you don't wanna go to Warwick, you could just put your firm/insurance choices in now?
Wish i could decide- i keep chopping & changing from Birmingham to Warwick :tongue:
Reply 3902
Anyone going to the Birmingham open day tommorrow?
Is anybody following the 'Justice' season on BBC 4?

The lectures are thoroughly interesting... and an excellent excuse to procrastinate :biggrin:.

EDIT: What kind of a moron would neg this post? Evidently one with hyooge (that's a technical term) rep power as it deducted 5 rep points from me...
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by pp93
I just got a reply from the Admissions Secretary at Notts. She said that I had been rejected as their quota for that course was already full (don't see how, I sent my application off at the beginning of November). But the good news is she said I'd been given an offer for straight Law instead :biggrin: I'm so happy, althought now I'm in a bit of a dilemma between Nottingham and Warwick.


Yes I had the same thing as well, and was also a bit intrigued by this seeing as I sent off my application on October 1st. It seems as though they're using the LNAT to determine how good you would be at speaking Spanish, which I thought was a bit odd, but never mind.

Unfortunately, when I asked her what the grade requirements would be (as I was thinking about Notts as my insurance choice), she said AAA so that was no good to me really and I turned down their offer. Plus, I have my heart set on the year abroad so... :cool:

Well done though :biggrin:
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Citing league tables as evidence only misleads. The Guardian league table ranks Stirling above Durham for law; and that's just one instance of its stupidity.


Nottingham >>> QMUL in terms of prestige.
There's quite a large argument over QMUL a few pages back. I don't think anyone there contended, however - and this includes a QMUL attendee - that it rivals UCL , Nottingham et al in terms of prestige, employer desirability, competitiveness of entry etc.

It starts around here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=29805352#post29805352
Maybe a little before.


Yes, I have drawn attention to the arguably unreliability of league tables in a previous post, although there has to be a certain element of truth in them. Stirling's law department might well be very strong, and its overall reputation is just dampened by other not so strong departments. This is the same with QMUL, I believe. At an open day, the law department at QMUL had a lot more opportunities and resources than many of the departments I've seen at other universities. It also has the added advantage of being part of the University of London so shares libraries and lecturers with colleges like KCL and UCL.

I think perhaps the main issue with QMUL law and why people don't see it as in the same league as Notts, UCL etc is because it doesn't use the LNAT, which seems to determine how strong a university's law department is. I got the impression that QMUL were seriously considering this.

So, no, you're right in saying that QMUL overall is not as well respected as universities like UCL, and probably not Notts either, although that's more debatable. However, it seems that the law department is very strong (which is suggested by many league tables, not just the Guardian) and I think employers are beginning to become aware of this. When I did my work experience in the Temple at some of London's most prestigious chambers, a few of the barristers there had law degrees from QMUL, so clearly it won't hinder a competitive application to some of the top law firms in the world.
Original post by LornaSandison1
Yes, I have drawn attention to the arguably unreliability of league tables in a previous post, although there has to be a certain element of truth in them. Stirling's law department might well be very strong, and its overall reputation is just dampened by other not so strong departments. This is the same with QMUL, I believe. At an open day, the law department at QMUL had a lot more opportunities and resources than many of the departments I've seen at other universities. It also has the added advantage of being part of the University of London so shares libraries and lecturers with colleges like KCL and UCL.

I think perhaps the main issue with QMUL law and why people don't see it as in the same league as Notts, UCL etc is because it doesn't use the LNAT, which seems to determine how strong a university's law department is. I got the impression that QMUL were seriously considering this.

So, no, you're right in saying that QMUL overall is not as well respected as universities like UCL, and probably not Notts either, although that's more debatable. However, it seems that the law department is very strong (which is suggested by many league tables, not just the Guardian) and I think employers are beginning to become aware of this. When I did my work experience in the Temple at some of London's most prestigious chambers, a few of the barristers there had law degrees from QMUL, so clearly it won't hinder a competitive application to some of the top law firms in the world.


No. Just no. :nah:
Original post by Euphoria
I got my rejection from King's two days ago, so I suppose they're really going through applications from international students first. They have yet to update UCAS Track though, I wish they'd just hurry up and end my suffering quickly. :s-smilie: Perhaps I should just withdraw before they get to it? :P I obtained a LNAT score of 23, so I suppose it was that and my mediocre GCSE-equivalent grades.




Hey, so sorry to hear about your rejection. i'm still waiting for a reply from them as well. If you dont mind me asking, where are you from cause you mentioned that you're an international student.
Reply 3908
Original post by knb3
Kings are quite harsh with rejections....Where are your offers from?


birmingham: AAA
liverpool: BB

my lnat mark was the reason why they rejected me.....i got 18, and i understand actually.
but, kinda hopeless right now....:frown:
Reply 3909
Original post by Uneschka
So I might see you there - good luck with LSE though! Where are you from?


Canada, represent!!!!!

What about you?
Reply 3910
Has anybody heard from Warwick yet? I'm still waiting to hear from them - trying to decipher whether this is a good or a bad thing...
Original post by Doughnuts!!
No. Just no. :nah:


I think you need to justify that response a little more.
Allright, so Im new here and I want to say hello to everyone :tongue:
Ive just received the answers from all the five universities that I applied for and I concluded to Queen Mary and SOTON but havent really decided which one should I choose since I got unconditional offers from both of them, can anyone help me out ?
thanks :smile:
Original post by sarahcav
Has anybody heard from Warwick yet? I'm still waiting to hear from them - trying to decipher whether this is a good or a bad thing...


I'm still waiting too! It's my last decision to come through!
Original post by LornaSandison1
I think you need to justify that response a little more.


In response to the first bolded point: Have you seen the Guardian Law league table for 2011? It well and truly looks like the creators were on drugs. Besides, league tables take into account things that aren't important to most undergrads e.g. things such as research. Yes, you'd want to go somewhere at the forefront of legal research, but most undergrads care about the perceived reputation/employment opportunities.

In response to the second bolded point: That's just ridiculous. Saying that it's because of the LNAT is silly because there are highly rated Law schools such as LSE and Warwick that don't use the LNAT. People don't think of QM's Law department as highly as Notts/LSE/UCL etc because it's not as well established. It's certainly starting to become more reputable, but it still has quite a way to go. Also, the university itself doesn't seem to hold the "prestige" that other universities do because its other departments seemingly aren't very strong.
Original post by Doughnuts!!
In response to the first bolded point: Have you seen the Guardian Law league table for 2011? It well and truly looks like the creators were on drugs. Besides, league tables take into account things that aren't important to most undergrads e.g. things such as research. Yes, you'd want to go somewhere at the forefront of legal research, but most undergrads care about the perceived reputation/employment opportunities.

In response to the second bolded point: That's just ridiculous. Saying that it's because of the LNAT is silly because there are highly rated Law schools such as LSE and Warwick that don't use the LNAT. People don't think of QM's Law department as highly as Notts/LSE/UCL etc because it's not as well established. It's certainly starting to become more reputable, but it still has quite a way to go. Also, the university itself doesn't seem to hold the "prestige" that other universities do because its other departments seemingly aren't very strong.


Dude: I bequeath to you my argument. I cba. I've done the huge prestige argument on here too many times.
Anything you say from now has my pre emptive approval :pierre:
Original post by Doughnuts!!
In response to the first bolded point: Have you seen the Guardian Law league table for 2011? It well and truly looks like the creators were on drugs. Besides, league tables take into account things that aren't important to most undergrads e.g. things such as research. Yes, you'd want to go somewhere at the forefront of legal research, but most undergrads care about the perceived reputation/employment opportunities.

In response to the second bolded point: That's just ridiculous. Saying that it's because of the LNAT is silly because there are highly rated Law schools such as LSE and Warwick that don't use the LNAT. People don't think of QM's Law department as highly as Notts/LSE/UCL etc because it's not as well established. It's certainly starting to become more reputable, but it still has quite a way to go. Also, the university itself doesn't seem to hold the "prestige" that other universities do because its other departments seemingly aren't very strong.


Yes, I have seen The Guardian League Table for this year, and I admit there are some surprises in it, but perhaps they are justified. Yes, it's true that research quality etc aren't particularly relevant to undergraduate students, but surely they are important in determining how strong a university is? Obviously, if there are good research levels, then there are [hopefully] good professors, intelligent students and good resources as well. These are what determines a good university. Besides, the Sunday Times also ranks QMUL very highly for Law.

With regards to your second point, I'm not saying that all good universities shoudl require the LNAT - the examples of LSE and Warwick being perfectly valid. My point was that if QMUL did ask for the LNAT, as I believe they plan to do, then they will automatically become a more respected university because there is a common opinion amongst law students that the LNAT universities are [some of] the top universities for law in the UK.

I agree with what you said about QMUL not being as well established as other universities, because it has only started to come into the foreground recently. However, I hope that it will continue to do so in the future as I think it, and especially its law department, has a lot of potential.
Original post by alexismagician
Allright, so Im new here and I want to say hello to everyone :tongue:
Ive just received the answers from all the five universities that I applied for and I concluded to Queen Mary and SOTON but havent really decided which one should I choose since I got unconditional offers from both of them, can anyone help me out ?
thanks :smile:


Congrats on all your offers. You should go to the university where you feel happiest, because, in terms of reputation, QMUL and Southampton are fairly equal. They're both excellent law schools and will set you in good stead for getting a well-respected degree and all the opportunities that opens up for you.

However, Southampton and London are quite different places to live and study, so you should definitely take that into account when making your decision.

I'd suggest, go visit both and then make your decision. :smile:
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Dude: I bequeath to you my argument. I cba. I've done the huge prestige argument on here too many times.
Anything you say from now has my pre emptive approval :pierre:


Don't worry, I don't plan on getting into a huge argument about it. My only point is that QMUL shouldn't be knocked as much as it often is, and just because the Guardian League tables are a little shocking, doesn't necessarily mean they're that far from the truth.

As I have mentioned previously, a degree from QMUL, Nottingham, LSE, UCL, Bristol etc will set you in very good stead for future training contract/BVC applications so really this debate is rather puerile.
Original post by Doughnuts!!
In response to the second bolded point: That's just ridiculous. Saying that it's because of the LNAT is silly because there are highly rated Law schools such as LSE and Warwick that don't use the LNAT. People don't think of QM's Law department as highly as Notts/LSE/UCL etc because it's not as well established. It's certainly starting to become more reputable, but it still has quite a way to go. Also, the university itself doesn't seem to hold the "prestige" that other universities do because its other departments seemingly aren't very strong.


And Cambridge :cool:.

Original post by TimmonaPortella
Dude: I bequeath to you my argument. I cba. I've done the huge prestige argument on here too many times.
Anything you say from now has my pre emptive approval :pierre:


Indeed :pierre:

Original post by LornaSandison1
Don't worry, I don't plan on getting into a huge argument about it. My only point is that QMUL shouldn't be knocked as much as it often is, and just because the Guardian League tables are a little shocking, doesn't necessarily mean they're that far from the truth.


Take a look around this sub-forum some more, it is pretty much the domain of a horde of QMUL Nazis. Just the other week, I had to content with some nutter who was claiming that QMUL is better than Durham :confused:.

Trust me, QMUL's Law Department has plenty of support on TSR.