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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I seem to have done all the research I can on QM as I have got an offer there. Looking at university guide tables it seems to be number 3 in the country as the highest ranking - number 14 in the country at the lowest I've seen..with a few guides saying it is around number 6. These rankings seem extremely good but then I see people on here sort of disregarding it. It's clearly not on Oxford level, or even UCL/LSE kind of level, but would you agree that it's generally regarded as very good?
    The chances of me going there are probably quite great as I have just been rejected from UCL on the grounds of my LNAT..

    Opinions
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimmyatemyworld)
    I seem to have done all the research I can on QM as I have got an offer there. Looking at university guide tables it seems to be number 3 in the country as the highest ranking - number 14 in the country at the lowest I've seen..with a few guides saying it is around number 6. These rankings seem extremely good but then I see people on here sort of disregarding it. It's clearly not on Oxford level, or even UCL/LSE kind of level, but would you agree that it's generally regarded as very good?
    The chances of me going there are probably quite great as I have just been rejected from UCL on the grounds of my LNAT..

    Opinions
    How do you know you were rejected because of your LNAT?

    In terms of Queen Mary being a "very good" uni. I would say its law school is one of the top, but as a whole the uni is generally not very good. Its hard to tell how employers will look upon someone who has a degree from queen mary, because it seems to have a better law school than the likes of UCL and LSE, but as a university it isnt very good. Personally i would say keep queen mary as your last choice, depending on who else youve applied to.

    How did you find the LNAT when you completed it?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by krishanchopra)
    How do you know you were rejected because of your LNAT?

    In terms of Queen Mary being a "very good" uni. I would say its law school is one of the top, but as a whole the uni is generally not very good. Its hard to tell how employers will look upon someone who has a degree from queen mary, because it seems to have a better law school than the likes of UCL and LSE, but as a university it isnt very good. Personally i would say keep queen mary as your last choice, depending on who else youve applied to.

    How did you find the LNAT when you completed it?
    Surely they will realise that if it is very good for Law but not for other things, that I have studied Law and that's all that matters? I have definitely come across people who don't have any experience in Law disregard it like my form tutor telling me I was too good for it yet it's in the top ten for law?! And when I clicked on the 'unsuccessful' on my UCAS track it told me I did not have the required LNAT score. This makes it unlikely of getting into another LNAT uni! Although their standards will hopefully be less! Not holding my breathe. And I felt after my LNAT that my multiple choice was pretty bad! I ran out of time and was rushed through most! Have you done yours?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimmyatemyworld)
    Surely they will realise that if it is very good for Law but not for other things, that I have studied Law and that's all that matters? I have definitely come across people who don't have any experience in Law disregard it like my form tutor telling me I was too good for it yet it's in the top ten for law?! And when I clicked on the 'unsuccessful' on my UCAS track it told me I did not have the required LNAT score. This makes it unlikely of getting into another LNAT uni! Although their standards will hopefully be less! Not holding my breathe. And I felt after my LNAT that my multiple choice was pretty bad! I ran out of time and was rushed through most! Have you done yours?
    Thats what everyone would hope, but thats not how it works unfortunately. It depends where you are aiming I guess, if youre aiming for a top law firm, you can even check out the profiles of the people working there, the lowest uni that seems to be on their profiles has been birmingham, and I saw 1 leicester. Unfortunately thats the way it is.

    I did mine on the 25th November, everyone seems to be feeling pretty awful after their LNAT, its normal, its hard to tell how well you have done on the MCQ's, almost impossible. Who gave you an unsuccessful?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimmyatemyworld)
    Surely they will realise that if it is very good for Law but not for other things, that I have studied Law and that's all that matters? I have definitely come across people who don't have any experience in Law disregard it like my form tutor telling me I was too good for it yet it's in the top ten for law?! And when I clicked on the 'unsuccessful' on my UCAS track it told me I did not have the required LNAT score. This makes it unlikely of getting into another LNAT uni! Although their standards will hopefully be less! Not holding my breathe. And I felt after my LNAT that my multiple choice was pretty bad! I ran out of time and was rushed through most! Have you done yours?
    QMUL is definitely working its way up the league tables. However, firms are always going to err on the side of historical prestige and reputation. While their academic research is strong, QMUL isn't shooting out solicitors in the MC and barristers like other top law unis. QMUL is a good pick, but by no means is it better than UCL or LSE (like the guardian suggests). Without getting into a debate over it, and looking strictly at employment potential, I'd group unis like this (No particular order within each group).

    Oxbridge

    LSE/UCL

    Warwick, Durham, KCL

    Bristol, Nottingham

    QMUL would probably go right behind Bristol/Nottingham, on par with something like Birmingham.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by krishanchopra)
    Thats what everyone would hope, but thats not how it works unfortunately. It depends where you are aiming I guess, if youre aiming for a top law firm, you can even check out the profiles of the people working there, the lowest uni that seems to be on their profiles has been birmingham, and I saw 1 leicester. Unfortunately thats the way it is.

    I did mine on the 25th November, everyone seems to be feeling pretty awful after their LNAT, its normal, its hard to tell how well you have done on the MCQ's, almost impossible. Who gave you an unsuccessful?
    UCL.. I know they have very high standards for the LNAT but it could just as well mean I've done **** regardless
    And you say that, but in my mind, I regard Queen Mary higher than Birmingham and Leicester for law?
    Besides, I'm not hell bent on earning £500,000 in a top firm. I do have realistic standards but I am just curious to see what people think as when I applied I applied thinking it was a top 10 uni for law..and it's interesting people don't seem to feel the same way haha! One good thing about career prospects is it does seem to have great connections and is quite career based with links with a lot of firms and it holds evenings to meet barristers etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by krishanchopra)
    Thats what everyone would hope, but thats not how it works unfortunately. It depends where you are aiming I guess, if youre aiming for a top law firm, you can even check out the profiles of the people working there, the lowest uni that seems to be on their profiles has been birmingham, and I saw 1 leicester. Unfortunately thats the way it is.

    I did mine on the 25th November, everyone seems to be feeling pretty awful after their LNAT, its normal, its hard to tell how well you have done on the MCQ's, almost impossible. Who gave you an unsuccessful?
    This is a good method. Pick 5 firms where you'd think you'd like to work and go through their employee profiles. Another good method is looking at their recruiting schedule and alumni events.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam0311)
    QMUL is definitely working its way up the league tables. However, firms are always going to err on the side of historical prestige and reputation. While their academic research is strong, QMUL isn't shooting out solicitors in the MC and barristers like other top law unis. QMUL is a good pick, but by no means is it better than UCL or LSE (like the guardian suggests). Without getting into a debate over it, and looking strictly at employment potential, I'd group unis like this (No particular order within each group).

    Oxbridge

    LSE/UCL

    Warwick, Durham, KCL

    Bristol, Nottingham

    QMUL would probably go right behind Bristol/Nottingham, on par with something like Birmingham.
    I would agree with that! That's about the place I hold it in my mind.. but as I keep saying.. people seem to regard it as lower than that and it seems from what I've researched it really isn't. Maybe because it's in the East End and they think of that as scummy? Ha
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam0311)
    QMUL is definitely working its way up the league tables. However, firms are always going to err on the side of historical prestige and reputation. While their academic research is strong, QMUL isn't shooting out solicitors in the MC and barristers like other top law unis. QMUL is a good pick, but by no means is it better than UCL or LSE (like the guardian suggests). Without getting into a debate over it, and looking strictly at employment potential, I'd group unis like this (No particular order within each group).

    Oxbridge

    LSE/UCL

    Warwick, Durham, KCL

    Bristol, Nottingham

    QMUL would probably go right behind Bristol/Nottingham, on par with something like Birmingham.
    I would switch Notts with Warwick on your list personally.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    First off, thinking you are "too good" for a university before you even have full A-Levels is a dangerous game to play.

    Secondly, QM cannot be said to not be a good university for Law. I see it as the place where people kicked into gear in their AS year rather than their GCSE year head off, don't know why, just do.

    As for rankings of universities, you probably won't get better than "Lawz's" ranking a few years back. IIRC, it went something like:

    Oxford
    Cambridge

    LSE
    UCL
    KCL
    Durham
    Nottingham

    Bristol
    Warwick
    Manchester

    Exeter
    QMUL
    ect

    That's how I remember it anyway. I'd personally swap with Manchester with QMUL though. Those who go to LSE will assert they're in their own little tier, but they're not, and UCL certainly is not in it's own (tiers have equal worth, i.e. UCL=Nottingham.) A first from Nottingham would be viewed better than a 2:1 from LSE for example. Now, clearly, things aren't quite as black and white as that, but I'd recommend trying to find the thread I'm talking of. QMUL is mentioned on the second page.

    I should add so that you can appreciate my comments in context, that I have an offer from QMUL. An offer I'm unsure I would take if all my other choices reject me in favour of York. I have heard that some firms take the overall prestige of a place to be a more reliable qualifier than how well a department is viewed for Law (which may well explain QMUL's curious predicament.)

    EDIT: Not the reason I'd think of going to York instead though, I want to be a barrister.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cast.Iron)
    I would switch Notts with Warwick on your list personally.
    Agreed.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by krishanchopra)
    How do you know you were rejected because of your LNAT?

    In terms of Queen Mary being a "very good" uni. I would say its law school is one of the top, but as a whole the uni is generally not very good. Its hard to tell how employers will look upon someone who has a degree from queen mary, because it seems to have a better law school than the likes of UCL and LSE, but as a university it isnt very good. Personally i would say keep queen mary as your last choice, depending on who else youve applied to.

    How did you find the LNAT when you completed it?
    No.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    First off, thinking you are "too good" for a university before you even have full A-Levels is a dangerous game to play.

    Secondly, QM cannot be said to not be a good university for Law. I see it as the place where people kicked into gear in their AS year rather than their GCSE year head off, don't know why, just do.

    As for rankings of universities, you probably won't get better than "Lawz's" ranking a few years back. IIRC, it went something like:

    Oxford
    Cambridge

    LSE
    UCL
    KCL
    Durham
    Nottingham

    Bristol
    Warwick
    Manchester

    Exeter
    QMUL
    ect

    That's how I remember it anyway. I'd personally swap with Manchester with QMUL though. Those who go to LSE will assert they're in their own little tier, but they're not, and UCL certainly is not in it's own (tiers have equal worth, i.e. UCL=Nottingham.) A first from Nottingham would be viewed better than a 2:1 from LSE for example. Now, clearly, things aren't quite as black and white as that, but I'd recommend trying to find the thread I'm talking of. QMUL is mentioned on the second page.

    I should add so that you can appreciate my comments in context, that I have an offer from QMUL. An offer I'm unsure I would take if all my other choices reject me in favour of York. I have heard that some firms take the overall prestige of a place to be a more reliable qualifier than how well a department is viewed for Law (which may well explain QMUL's curious predicament.)

    EDIT: Not the reason I'd think of going to York instead though, I want to be a barrister.
    Definitely do not think I'm too good for Queen Mary first and foremost!
    It is, however, interesting the differences in opinions people seem to have. For example, I wouldn't exactly regard Exeter for Law at the same level. I applied to all my university choices knowing that Law is more competitive than ever this year and under the impression that as long as I got one I would be happy with that choice because I had carefully considered all options and decided that (aside from UCL) they were all good unis but not unrealistic. And now I feel like what I have read on here and comments from people I know and the lack of enthusiasm from people (apart from my parents ha), maybe I regarded it at as better than it is in my head? Although I suppose ALL league tables put together can't be totally wrong.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    QM is good.
    QM won't hold you back from any firm.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam0311)
    QMUL is definitely working its way up the league tables. However, firms are always going to err on the side of historical prestige and reputation. While their academic research is strong, QMUL isn't shooting out solicitors in the MC and barristers like other top law unis. QMUL is a good pick, but by no means is it better than UCL or LSE (like the guardian suggests). Without getting into a debate over it, and looking strictly at employment potential, I'd group unis like this (No particular order within each group).

    Oxbridge

    LSE/UCL

    Warwick, Durham, KCL

    Bristol, Nottingham

    QMUL would probably go right behind Bristol/Nottingham, on par with something like Birmingham.
    You talk about historical prestige then say warwick is more renowned than bristol and nottingham. You do realise Warwick was founded in 1965, not exactly an old university...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimmyatemyworld)
    I seem to have done all the research I can on QM as I have got an offer there. Looking at university guide tables it seems to be number 3 in the country as the highest ranking - number 14 in the country at the lowest I've seen..with a few guides saying it is around number 6. These rankings seem extremely good but then I see people on here sort of disregarding it. It's clearly not on Oxford level, or even UCL/LSE kind of level, but would you agree that it's generally regarded as very good?
    The chances of me going there are probably quite great as I have just been rejected from UCL on the grounds of my LNAT..

    Opinions
    From my limited experience of studying at QM (1st year) you realise a lot of things about the law and the legal practices. The most important thing, which may shock some people on here, is the individual themself. A lot of the firms that you look at you will find people from places like UWE, keele etc etc this is in know way meant to disregard those unis but they are not LSe and UCL. What you need to ask yourself is why do those people make it?

    It is because they are the people who have a drive to succeed. The people who go to the top unis have the drive to do well at GCSE and A levels. They are committed people, they are not necessarily the most clever people studying law but you can bet that they are incrediably hard working. QM is a top 12, maybe a top 10 university. If your going to a univeristy which is highly regarded, then you should be more concerned about making yourself employable. Do as many extra curricular activites as you can. Moot, join the LAC, find work experience, join pro bono etc etc, make yourself interesting and different.

    TSR believes it is all about the uni and it simply isn't. QM is a very good uni for Law, it is also well respected uni as a whole. It has some very good departments and some not so good but it is certainly a decent univeristy on the whole and its law department is probably its strongest department. As Jingers has said, it won't hold you back.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jmat)
    From my limited experience of studying at QM (1st year) you realise a lot of things about the law and the legal practices. The most important thing, which may shock some people on here, is the individual themself. A lot of the firms that you look at you will find people from places like UWE, keele etc etc this is in know way meant to disregard those unis but they are not LSe and UCL. What you need to ask yourself is why do those people make it?

    It is because they are the people who have a drive to succeed. The people who go to the top unis have the drive to do well at GCSE and A levels. They are committed people, they are not necessarily the most clever people studying law but you can bet that they are incrediably hard working. QM is a top 12, maybe a top 10 university. If your going to a univeristy which is highly regarded, then you should be more concerned about making yourself employable. Do as many extra curricular activites as you can. Moot, join the LAC, find work experience, join pro bono etc etc, make yourself interesting and different.

    TSR believes it is all about the uni and it simply isn't. QM is a very good uni for Law, it is also well respected uni as a whole. It has some very good departments and some not so good but it is certainly a decent univeristy on the whole and its law department is probably its strongest department. As Jingers has said, it won't hold you back.
    Well said!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jimmyatemyworld)
    I seem to have done all the research I can on QM as I have got an offer there. Looking at university guide tables it seems to be number 3 in the country as the highest ranking - number 14 in the country at the lowest I've seen..with a few guides saying it is around number 6. These rankings seem extremely good but then I see people on here sort of disregarding it. It's clearly not on Oxford level, or even UCL/LSE kind of level, but would you agree that it's generally regarded as very good?
    The chances of me going there are probably quite great as I have just been rejected from UCL on the grounds of my LNAT..

    Opinions
    They're all fairly similar. The University of London colleges have very similar courses often sharing tutors/markers for the subject; the exams are fairly similar - there's no difference in difficulty between QM, LSE, UCL and there won't be much difference in terms of overall teaching quality.

    In terms of the future, you're 18 and you have no idea what you want. Most law students don't even end up in law at all - although the vast majority have a mind to when they enter. Anyway, QM is respected, especially for law, and there are far more important things on application forms than the name of your university.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.