Best universities to study Law! - Top 5

I learnt from the TSR that a 2.1 LLB from QM should be okay for securing a TC. Is your cousin an asian?

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?

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.

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.

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.

I learnt from the TSR that a 2.1 LLB from QM should be okay for securing a TC

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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."

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?

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

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.