Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am trying to convince my parents SOAS is a good university for law.... I have read of quite a few successful SOAS applicants on this forum can anyone shed some light as to why SOAS is a good uni?

    Is SOAS a well known uni for law???

    Please help, and please do not take parts from the SOAS website.

    Thanks in advance.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    SOAS is excellent for law. However, I've yet to meet anyone, at any major firm, who went there.

    Bizarre.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vitriol)
    SOAS is excellent for law. However, I've yet to meet anyone, at any major firm, who went there.

    Bizarre.
    I know this isn't really appropriate, but David Lammy studied Law there, and then went to Harvard Law School. He's now MP for Tottenham.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well i'm putting Soas as my firm so i might be a bit biased...

    *But what I do know for a fact is u'll get a course completely unique to all other law courses, due to its emphasis on world interest rather than just uk/eu/us like most courses are. In this respect u'll be better prepared for law abroad i assume.

    *There's also the floater options which you are unlikely to find at other unis, such as african languages,

    *The law department is always ranked highly, usually about 5/6 in the UK i think.

    *Also i think i read somewhere on this forum that the law course was very well respected in a particular country - not sure which one though - try searching the archives!

    Hope this helps!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    While SOAC may have ranked highly in league tables such as those in the times, employers look straight through this. They have a preference for universities with long established academic reputations: Oxbridge and some select redbricks. Although it is common to see many 'magic circle' and other large city firms recruiting from the 'new universities', the vast majority of trainees will have been educated at these older institutions with firmer reputations. The law profession as a whole is rather traditionalist in this respect and it is clear that the 'old boys network' has not been entirely dismantled and replaced with a meritorous approach to recruitment.

    Ask yourself this: will you be in a better position having obtained a higher quality education at SOAC, or having achieved an inferior one elsewhere while nevertheless being perceived as better qualified?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gnostic)
    LLB with Zulu Studies - smashing!
    Well actually a floater (obviously you are not aware about what exactly this is, even though your sarcastic comments are directed at it), is comparable to a module, which means that it does not appear in your pre-designated degree title. Although I believe you can in fact take a floater in Zulu, it is to learn the language, particularly helpful if you ever want to practise in South Africa ... or do they not have lawyers outside of Europe


    (Original post by Gnostic)
    Perhaps the Republic of Mumbo-Jumboland?
    That I must say is one of the most ridiculous comments I have read on this forum. Just really shows you that narrow-minded people do still exist in this country. Can't actually think of what else to say in response. Just pathetic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by muncrun)
    While SOAC may have ranked highly in league tables such as those in the times, employers look straight through this. They have a preference for universities with long established academic reputations: Oxbridge and some select redbricks. Although it is common to see many 'magic circle' and other large city firms recruiting from the 'new universities', the vast majority of trainees will have been educated at these older institutions with firmer reputations. The law profession as a whole is rather traditionalist in this respect and it is clear that the 'old boys network' has not been entirely dismantled and replaced with a meritorous approach to recruitment.

    Ask yourself this: will you be in a better position having obtained a higher quality education at SOAC, or having achieved an inferior one elsewhere while nevertheless being perceived as better qualified?

    Just to clarify, it is called SOAS: The School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I know quite a few people who do law at uni. Seems like a good uni for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by muncrun)
    While SOAC may have ranked highly in league tables such as those in the times, employers look straight through this. They have a preference for universities with long established academic reputations: Oxbridge and some select redbricks.
    Which are these select redbricks...?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BossLady)
    Which are these select redbricks...?
    Get out your Chambers and Partners Student Guide to Law and see where the top firms (i.e. MC + Lovells, Herbies, Ashursts, Norton Rose) recruit. As far as I know:

    Oxbridge
    Kings
    UCL
    LSE
    Imperial
    Durham
    Nottingham
    Birmingham - No Slaughter & May
    Newcastle - No Slaughter & May
    Bristol
    Manchester
    Sheffield - No Slaughter & May
    Leeds - No Slaughter & May
    Warwick

    Quite a few also go to York and Bath, despite them not having a law school. Slaughters are quite anal. They require a top law school before they'll even consider attending.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gnostic)
    Save your liberal babel for another time. I'm sorry I'm not up-to-date with the latest fetishes of fascist political correctness. I'm soooo sorry I don’t know what the latest names of these looser countries are. I hear, for example that Rhodesia is called something else now.
    It's funny, it seems like you're trying to be clever, and yet it comes across as though you don't really know what you're talking about Loser countries? Evidently, you are a narrow minded prick who needs to get his head out of his eurocentric ass
    I don't think any more words need to be wasted on an imbecile such as yourself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's well respected Uni for Law but is quite small.. with the feel of a college rather than a Uni. I guess that can work to your advantage though..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vitriol)
    Get out your Chambers and Partners Student Guide to Law and see where the top firms (i.e. MC + Lovells, Herbies, Ashursts, Norton Rose) recruit. As far as I know:

    Oxbridge
    Kings
    UCL
    LSE
    Imperial
    Durham
    Nottingham
    Birmingham - No Slaughter & May
    Newcastle - No Slaughter & May
    Bristol
    Manchester
    Sheffield - No Slaughter & May
    Leeds - No Slaughter & May
    Warwick

    Quite a few also go to York and Bath, despite them not having a law school. Slaughters are quite anal. They require a top law school before they'll even consider attending.
    what about Queens in Belfast...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hades)
    It's funny, it seems like you're trying to be clever, and yet it comes across as though you don't really know what you're talking about Loser countries? Evidently, you are a narrow minded prick who needs to get his head out of his eurocentric ass
    I don't think any more words need to be wasted on an imbecile such as yourself.
    Well said.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gnostic)
    Look, these African countries are simply not important. Granted, the orient has a very high and beautiful culture and civilisation - Japan, China, South Korea: these countries matter. But Africa? Apart from the arabicised north and the colonised south, Africa is a complete wasteland, not one iota of culture to be found. It's the most backwards and embarrassing part of the planet, inhabited by a people that mother nature seems hell bent on eradicating by disease and famine. Call it "eurocentric" if you want, but I'll call it the reality of the situation.
    I don't BELIEVE it. How can you say things like this? It's disgusting, it really is. Countries that matter? How do you distinguish between countries that matter and countries that don't? Oh yes, I forgot, to people like you it's all about the economy! Worth is dependent on wealth, isn't it? Spare me. Africa is a country with one of the richest cultures in the world- how you fail to recognise this is beyond me.
    Also, that comment you made about mother nature eradicating them through disease and famine- that is OUTRAGEOUS. Are you saying that people who starve and suffer deserve their misfortune? That nature, evolution, or whatever else is is wiping them out because they are too much of an 'embarassment' to live on?
    I think your attitude is appalling, and your version of reality is a seriously warped one.

    Thanks TickityBoo, I'm glad somebody agrees !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gnostic)
    Countries that have centuries of high culture, have a structured society, developed or fast-developing economies, and have contributed to human civilisation matter; countries that depend upon their existence upon subsidies from others, who have no form of structured society, who are going backwards, who are poor in spirit and material wealth, who have contributed not one iota to the pool of human genius – these countries are irrelevant.



    I never suggested that. I simply said that Mother Nature is hell bent on destroying those living in Sub-Saharan Africa. I made no comment whatsoever on whether this was deserved at all.



    Nature destroys the weak. One doesn’t have to perceive such natural behaviour as “evil” – one can interpret it as “mercy”.
    Words fail me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gnostic)
    Countries that have centuries of high culture, have a structured society, developed or fast-developing economies, and have contributed to human civilisation matter; countries that depend upon their existence upon subsidies from others, who have no form of structured society, who are going backwards, who are poor in spirit and material wealth, who have contributed not one iota to the pool of human genius – these countries are irrelevant.
    High culture? Contribution to human civilisation? That is all subjective, dear. Last time I checked, there was no way to objectively measure levels of culture! The same applies to valuable contributions- some value the Egyptian pyramids over the Nuclear bomb


    (Original post by Gnostic)
    I never suggested that. I simply said that Mother Nature is hell bent on destroying those living in Sub-Saharan Africa. I made no comment whatsoever on whether this was deserved at all.
    You actually do assert this, in your next stupid statement...

    (Original post by Gnostic)
    Nature destroys the weak. One doesn’t have to perceive such natural behaviour as “evil” – one can interpret it as “mercy”.
    AIDS killing off Africans is an act of mercy. Of course. You are quite possibly one of the vilest people I have EVER come across.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gnostic)
    The pyramids are Egyptian, not "African". As I said, I'm not talking about the Arabic north or the colonised south.
    I never said they were African, did I? Now who is making assupmtions? All I was doing was providing an example to illustrate my point- I value the Pyramids over the Nuclear bomb. I value the ancient work of a 'lesser' civilisation, over the technological advances of the Western world. What constitutes a valuable contribution depends on perspective, as I have said.


    (Original post by Gnostic)
    I simply said that X was happening. You cannot logically infer that just because X happens that it is "deserved". You are allowing your emotions to blur your judgement..
    The way in which you phrased it led to me believe you thought it was a good thing Re-read your words, and my assumption may not seem so implausible.


    (Original post by Gnostic)
    Again, I did not say that I hold that view, only that such a view can be construed. I shall quote, for example, from Nietzsche:

    "The weak and the failures shall perish: first principle of our love of man. And they shall be given every possible assistance. What is more harmful than any vice? Active pity for all the failures and all the weak..."
    - Nietzsche, The Antichrist
    No wonder you sound so Hitler-like. You get your inspiration from Nietzsche. Big surprise there!
    If you do not agree with that view, what is the point of bringing it up?!

    (Original post by Gnostic)
    If you would calm down you would be able to see clearly that much of what you are attacking is simply a straw man conjured up by your animal emotions.
    Oh please. Getting all high and mighty is one thing, but spare me the ridiculous metaphors.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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