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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LostInLaw)
    I've seen Kent be anywhere between about 15 and 35 depending on the year and the league table since I started uni. Everything moves around so much that choosing university #24 over university #29 because it's a few places higher is fairly ridiculous.

    Portsmouth was #63 for Law when I started and will be #47 when I graduate. In the same time it has gone from #76 up to #60 and dropped down to #90 overall. Couldn't possibly predict what it will be by the time I finish training.

    Most things stay within the same sort of band, London South Bank won't shoot past Durham any time soon, but attaching numerical values to any uni is a fairly pointless endeavour when the differences are actually so negligible and interchangeable.

    League tables are okay as a very basic indicator of quality but really, it doesn't matter if Warwick is a couple of places higher than Manchester if your idea of hell is being at a campus university. LSE's place in relation to Durham is irrelevant if you want to avoid living in London.
    Yeah I've give up on trying to suss out league tables, but didn't know they could change that dramatically! Well dramatically for a couple of places.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by violenti)
    Your opinion is noted . Firstly I do not have a chip on my shoulder.My knowledge is based on personal experience, and more importantly on my family members who are incolved in the recruitent process at a top chambers and IB. If non Oxbridge were so inferior as you imply, the big employers would and could just recruit from those establishments: theu do not and why not ask yourself that!? I have 2 assessed mini pupillages at top commercial sets and a paid internship at a top IB, that speaks volumes.

    Most undergrads from LSE, UCL,KINGS, Bristol have AAA, equal to Oxbridge, why are Oxbridge better? I have a friend of a friend who got ABC , he read Law at Oriel College, is he academically more sound than AAA from say LSE? Before you ask he had no mitigating circumstances!
    What's your friend of a friends name? I got to Oriel so it's quite likely I would know them...though it must have been a while ago as we're not allowed to accept anyone with below AAA anymore...and I don't doubt that there were no mitigating circumstances, I know the person who used to decide on who would be allowed in and he could spot talent beyond grades...I don't think A-Levels set people apart THAT much...and personally I feel Oxford takes account of a lot more, the interview process is actually the most important part of choosing candidates..

    RE your pupillages that's great but as you chose to ignore I didn't say the other top universities are SO inferior...I just said that Oxbridge are the best, which based on rankings and employer statistics, is true...I mean...I have pretty bad first year marks for personal reasons yet I have four vac schemes with top firms whereas people I know at the other top unis have struggled to get one with top marks in first year work...

    Essentially, you seem to be reading into my comments as being negative toward the other uni's or as if I think they are inferior, when I am simply stating the facts...we are ranked higher and employers DO prefer Oxbridge...now you may choose to believe otherwise and that's fine, but why try and discourage other students from the truth in the rankings and the statistics?

    This forum is for the top 30 unis to study law and Oxford is number one...it's pretty obvious really
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    I think it's fairly truistic to say that people who have gone to Oxford won't criticise the quality of teaching. For one thing it's something that unites most of its applicants, and for another most of them will have no frame of reference.

    I was interviewed at Oxford and, personally, I found the tutors at that particular college somewhat disagreeable. I don't mean just in the interview itself; they're obviously quite at leisure to be disagreeable there. Even in the welcome session I was a bit turned off by them! I think that's one downside to the tutorial system. If you dislike even just one of the tutors you're not going to have a great time of it. Elsewhere you have much more varied exposure. I'm aware colleges send tutees to other colleges for certain subjects, but I'm talking quite broadly here.

    When you say excellence of teaching, do you mean the tutorial system or the actual teaching? Because I think it's worth pointing out that many academics at law schools other than Oxford and Cambridge have studied and taught at Oxbridge previously. So I think that muddies the waters if you were referring to the quality of the teaching itself.

    Finally, and this is more just a point of curiosity, do you know whether the essays the law students at UCL you mentioned were worried about were assessed? If they were, it's not difficult to see why they might be a bit more stressed over them. Just sayin'.
    Just out of curiousity, where did you interview as there are definitely some MEAN tutors around...mine is absolutely mental and terrified me at interview but I think he's great now and you learn that they are just testing you because they want to bring out the best in you...where did you decide to go instead of Oxford? If you were offered a place and turned it down, that's a very brave decision! Not one I would risk but each to their own I suppose

    I refer to both the teaching and the tutorial system...personally, I would hate to only learn from lectures and large seminars and love having discussions with just my tutor, a friend and myself and think it pushes the boundaries of your own critique of the legal system...

    The tutors at Oxford are all experts in their field and because you get one on one time with them, I do feel the teaching is superior as you get real time to learn from them individually, whereas at other universities (not including Cambridge) you don't necessarily have 3-5 hours with the top person in the field tort or contract, for example, on top of the best lecturers (both internal and external)...I mean, how many people can boast having dinner with Sandra Day O'Connor...or being taught intellectual property by Lord Hoffman!

    RE the essays, yes they were assessed but they didn't count toward final grades or anything so no, I don't think stressing over 3000 words is particularly justifiable when compared to three essays a week on top of 45 hours of reading!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cros)
    we're not allowed to accept anyone with below AAA anymore
    This is purely a college decision. If you mean that your governing body won't let your tutors make below AAA offers, then that may well be the case. If you are suggesting that there is some higher order rule about it that is most definitely not the case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Where would you put Westminister? lol
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LostInLaw)
    No Nottingham...? :rolleyes:

    Anyway subjective list = subjective and we can all read league tables. It doesn't matter anyway as no university is the best if it's completely the wrong environment for you to learn in.
    Love your sig. Well done mate
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    This is purely a college decision. If you mean that your governing body won't let your tutors make below AAA offers, then that may well be the case. If you are suggesting that there is some higher order rule about it that is most definitely not the case.
    I know it's a college decision...I didn't think it was necessary to make that clear as they won't generally accept people without AAA and I wouldn't want people to think they could apply to Oxford with CCC and get in! Normally they only allow people in with lower grades AFTER they have already accepted them or if they have relevant work experience etc...no one I know has below 3 A's except one girl at Queens
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cros)
    I know it's a college decision...I didn't think it was necessary to make that clear as they won't generally accept people without AAA and I wouldn't want people to think they could apply to Oxford with CCC and get in! Normally they only allow people in with lower grades AFTER they have already accepted them or if they have relevant work experience etc...no one I know has below 3 A's except one girl at Queens
    34 students who sat A levels in summer 2010 and scored:

    A*/A
    A*/A
    B

    or worse were matriculated for undergraduate courses in Michaelmas 2010
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cros)
    Just out of curiousity, where did you interview as there are definitely some MEAN tutors around...mine is absolutely mental and terrified me at interview but I think he's great now and you learn that they are just testing you because they want to bring out the best in you...where did you decide to go instead of Oxford? If you were offered a place and turned it down, that's a very brave decision! Not one I would risk but each to their own I suppose

    I refer to both the teaching and the tutorial system...personally, I would hate to only learn from lectures and large seminars and love having discussions with just my tutor, a friend and myself and think it pushes the boundaries of your own critique of the legal system...

    The tutors at Oxford are all experts in their field and because you get one on one time with them, I do feel the teaching is superior as you get real time to learn from them individually, whereas at other universities (not including Cambridge) you don't necessarily have 3-5 hours with the top person in the field tort or contract, for example, on top of the best lecturers (both internal and external)...I mean, how many people can boast having dinner with Sandra Day O'Connor...or being taught intellectual property by Lord Hoffman!

    RE the essays, yes they were assessed but they didn't count toward final grades or anything so no, I don't think stressing over 3000 words is particularly justifiable when compared to three essays a week on top of 45 hours of reading!
    Firstly I just want to qualify my statements by saying that I don't want to sound like I'm knocking Oxford; the fact that it's stellar isn't a secret. I do think some healthy perspective is useful though.

    Well, I've voiced my views about the teaching. You get many ex-Oxbridge academics elsewhere, and the tutorial system is risky for reasons I've said. In the event you do get on with all your tutors though, I agree it's very advantageous. Hopefully you're aware that students at other universities get tutorials and seminars, but they're obviously not as student-orientated as those you'd get at Oxford or Cambridge. Out of interest, do you know much about Durham in this respect? It only came to my attention after I came to uni that their system is also collegiate.

    Regarding the UCL essays, when I said 'assessed' I meant counting toward a final grade. If your friends were stressing out about one essay a term which didn't even count for anything I agree that's pretty melodramatic. And pretty lean in terms of workload! I'm surprised.

    I was interviewed at Mansfield, though I applied to Lincoln. I liked the Lincoln tutor I met but they pooled me, the *******s. They said something about limitations on places. To be fair I've heard the senior status law degree at Oxford is the most competitive in the country. They ask for a 1st in your undergrad degree, which not even Cambridge do. No massive surprise I didn't get the offer in the end! I should add that I was in two minds about applying in the first place (and I wouldn't have been at Lincoln) so I'm not overly distraught about it.

    In the end I decided to do the MA Law course at Bristol. I didn't want to spend another whole three years at uni y'see, which limited me to unis offering senior status law degrees. In addition I didn't want to remain in London having been in/around it my whole life so far. So that whittled my top choices down to Oxford and Bristol. And potentially Cambridge, but I couldn't be arsed to do the Cambridge law test on top of the LNAT.

    So there you have it...my life story.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't read the entire thread so apologies if this is a silly question, but I presume you read law for your first degree? Why didn't you just apply for the Cambridge LLM or the Oxford BCL?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdamTJ)
    I haven't read the entire thread so apologies if this is a silly question, but I presume you read law for your first degree? Why didn't you just apply for the Cambridge LLM or the Oxford BCL?
    Turbocretin didn't read law for a first degree. The BCL is not a qualifying law degree. It very rarely admits non-law graduates and generally when it does, it admits philosophers studying the more jurisprudential options.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm well aware that the BCL isn't a qualifying degree, which is why I preceded that question with my first. I'm sure a man of your intelligence would have been able to work that one out. Now that I know TurboCretin studied philosophy his situation makes much more sense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doughnuts!!)
    Out of curiosity, do you actually study at UCL?

    I highly doubt that the workload at UCL is comparable to the workload at Oxford. I doubt that UCL undergrads have to write several essays a week whilst preparing for fortnightly supervisions.

    Grad prospects from Oxbridge will never be matched by grad prospects from anywhere else.
    Well, I agree to some point with you. I mean, it's Oxbridge! But I have a strong argument. I know a guy whose father is a famous lawyer and he paid a lot,lot of money to get his son into Oxford whilst his son was an average student. By that, I want to conclude that is not always the university that matters the most but also one's personality. I believe KCL and UCL are excellent schools for law and their graduates hold great positions either of solicitors or barristers etc. From the list of top 30 schools you named, I could make some changes too as Leicester seems to be an upcoming university, in 2009 was spotted at 9th place for law and it is characterised by excellent teaching and support. But unfortunately it's all because the reputation and the syndrome of complex many people have. Oh, and also I will put Manchester to a lot lower place, it is a generally prestigious and good university but for Law it may be rated at about 15th or something.

    Cheers! x
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChuckBass)
    Well, I agree to some point with you. I mean, it's Oxbridge! But I have a strong argument. I know a guy whose father is a famous lawyer and he paid a lot,lot of money to get his son into Oxford whilst his son was an average student. By that, I want to conclude that is not always the university that matters the most but also one's personality. I believe KCL and UCL are excellent schools for law and their graduates hold great positions either of solicitors or barristers etc. From the list of top 30 schools you named, I could make some changes too as Leicester seems to be an upcoming university, in 2009 was spotted at 9th place for law and it is characterised by excellent teaching and support. But unfortunately it's all because the reputation and the syndrome of complex many people have. Oh, and also I will put Manchester to a lot lower place, it is a generally prestigious and good university but for Law it may be rated at about 15th or something.

    Cheers! x
    just to point out leicester is not an up and coming law school, they consistantly do worse on final grades than many other AAA uni's, they do not have the links with Law firms (i have emailed many firms to get a good grasp of grad prospects...like it or not there is a 'prefered list' of universities..leicester is not one of them.) The law school itself is not sustainable...its program structure is based on having 45% of its intake at international level who pay vastly greater fees, also there was a top QC and a few top soliciotors who taught there and have now left...they were one of the main attributes as to why teaching was so go. Your viewpoint of leicester seems to be stuck from a report that is two years old and alot has changed
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lionboy)
    just to point out leicester is not an up and coming law school, they consistantly do worse on final grades than many other AAA uni's, they do not have the links with Law firms (i have emailed many firms to get a good grasp of grad prospects...like it or not there is a 'prefered list' of universities..leicester is not one of them.) The law school itself is not sustainable...its program structure is based on having 45% of its intake at international level who pay vastly greater fees, also there was a top QC and a few top soliciotors who taught there and have now left...they were one of the main attributes as to why teaching was so go. Your viewpoint of leicester seems to be stuck from a report that is two years old and alot has changed
    First of all, how do YOU know all those things about Leicester? And what is your complex with it? I know a lot of people who are asked to have AAA to get into Leicester 1st year Law. I mean AAA it's not something easy, you know. And as I mentioned, university is not the only thing that matters, personality does. Anyhow, I myself support top universities if you can go then why not? But there are some other great universities which are being scorned by some ignorant people that all they know is the name of the university that have heard in their local news station. I also disagree with people who think that whoever goes to Oxbridge can't be compared with others.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChuckBass)
    First of all, how do YOU know all those things about Leicester? And what is your complex with it? I know a lot of people who are asked to have AAA to get into Leicester 1st year Law. I mean AAA it's not something easy, you know. And as I mentioned, university is not the only thing that matters, personality does. Anyhow, I myself support top universities if you can go then why not? But there are some other great universities which are being scorned by some ignorant people that all they know is the name of the university that have heard in their local news station. I also disagree with people who think that whoever goes to Oxbridge can't be compared with others.
    one of my parents works in the law department at leicester, and as is so close to where i live it was one of my choices back when i was applying so i know the ins and outs of the uni quite well, the only good thing the school has is a nice library but its not enough to carry it as a law school, im going to exeter for law not oxbridge so there is no prejudice there but then again exeter is on the list of preferred universities, leicester often accept AAB as well just as a heads up as they include general studies they understand that applicants with more academiclly rigourous subjects deserve some lenience on offers...this is similar to liverpool interestingly...im not to sure what point your making about supporting top institutions??? but on the point of oxford it sounds you have 'complex' about people who go there...they generally do better than people at leicester if that was what you were arguing...???
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lionboy)
    one of my parents works in the law department at leicester, and as is so close to where i live it was one of my choices back when i was applying so i know the ins and outs of the uni quite well, the only good thing the school has is a nice library but its not enough to carry it as a law school, im going to exeter for law not oxbridge so there is no prejudice there but then again exeter is on the list of preferred universities, leicester often accept AAB as well just as a heads up as they include general studies they understand that applicants with more academiclly rigourous subjects deserve some lenience on offers...this is similar to liverpool interestingly...im not to sure what point your making about supporting top institutions??? but on the point of oxford it sounds you have 'complex' about people who go there...they generally do better than people at leicester if that was what you were arguing...???
    No, I don't have any complex with Oxford as my cousin studies there and I get to know in the first place how difficult it is to get in and subsequently continue your studies there and for god's sake I didn't compare Oxford with Leicester. It's just some of the other users who commented in this thread especially the one who I quoted later, who stated: " people who go to oxbridge cannot be compared with people who go somewhere else." I mean it's like he underestimates great schools such as KCL, UCL, Durham etc. That's what I'm arguing for. Anyhow, if your parents work there I cannot argue.....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    34 students who sat A levels in summer 2010 and scored:

    A*/A
    A*/A
    B

    or worse were matriculated for undergraduate courses in Michaelmas 2010
    I'm assuming that isn't 34 in law but it merely proves my point that they normally only accept people with lower than AAA AFTER they've taken their exams...I imagine the people with AAB were predicted AAA and Oxford simply saw their potential beyond grades, something I think they do very well...anyone who has been through the application process will know that simply having good grades isn't enough
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Firstly I just want to qualify my statements by saying that I don't want to sound like I'm knocking Oxford; the fact that it's stellar isn't a secret. I do think some healthy perspective is useful though.

    Well, I've voiced my views about the teaching. You get many ex-Oxbridge academics elsewhere, and the tutorial system is risky for reasons I've said. In the event you do get on with all your tutors though, I agree it's very advantageous. Hopefully you're aware that students at other universities get tutorials and seminars, but they're obviously not as student-orientated as those you'd get at Oxford or Cambridge. Out of interest, do you know much about Durham in this respect? It only came to my attention after I came to uni that their system is also collegiate.

    Regarding the UCL essays, when I said 'assessed' I meant counting toward a final grade. If your friends were stressing out about one essay a term which didn't even count for anything I agree that's pretty melodramatic. And pretty lean in terms of workload! I'm surprised.

    I was interviewed at Mansfield, though I applied to Lincoln. I liked the Lincoln tutor I met but they pooled me, the *******s. They said something about limitations on places. To be fair I've heard the senior status law degree at Oxford is the most competitive in the country. They ask for a 1st in your undergrad degree, which not even Cambridge do. No massive surprise I didn't get the offer in the end! I should add that I was in two minds about applying in the first place (and I wouldn't have been at Lincoln) so I'm not overly distraught about it.

    In the end I decided to do the MA Law course at Bristol. I didn't want to spend another whole three years at uni y'see, which limited me to unis offering senior status law degrees. In addition I didn't want to remain in London having been in/around it my whole life so far. So that whittled my top choices down to Oxford and Bristol. And potentially Cambridge, but I couldn't be arsed to do the Cambridge law test on top of the LNAT.

    So there you have it...my life story.
    Lol, well not much to argue with there! RE durham I do know a bit about the collegiate system, as it was one of the other unis I applied to, but not enough to make much of a judgement...everyone I've met from there seem nice enough though and I know it has a high standard of teaching...

    Good luck with the rest of your MA!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by violenti)
    Curiously, I agree with much of what you say here. However if you believe that Oxford is " best /No 1" period as your post implies, then you will without doubt have a most pleasureable time at your Vac scheme and beyond when there will be many non Oxford vac scheme people there. In addition to which you will be shadowing Assistants, Associates, and Partners , most of which will have graduated in no more than the last ten years, and as little as two years ago. I am sure they will enjoy your telling them that you attended the best law faculty in the UK. It is bound to get you far I am sure!

    The point I was making is that my experience of Law , and as to which Universities are considered the elite are based on personal experience, and family members of some truly prestigious organisations on any view. My first from KCL, and my MPhil (pending) from Bristol, appears to be doing me no harm at all. I personally as have people I know, never felt disadvantaged by not going to Oxford. I chose not to apply, and dont feel the worse for not having done so. Can I ask what year of study are you in, and secondly where you educated in the "state/comprehensive" system at secondary school?
    I do believe Oxford is the best law school, as does every other way of ranking the universities in England... I did have a fabulous time on my vac scheme, with people who don't go to Oxford (though my supervisor and the partner I shadowed both did)...just because I believe Oxford is the best uni in England doesn't mean I am snobby toward people who didn't go there! I'm not going to waste my time trying to make the same point over and over again, because you are simply choosing to believe that I think I am superior to everyone else, when I'm simply making a comment on the quality of teaching and graduate prospects!

    RE your last question, I'm in my second year (hence the vac schemes) and I studied at a school in central London (I won't say where for obvious stalker internet reasons) but our pass rate at GCSE was 36% of 5 A*-C grades, our teachers were shocking and the only reason I managed to do well (along with my friends) was that we had a strong support network of families who worked really hard to ensure we had a chance (along with a select few great teachers)...
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

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.