Qmul vs nottingham vs york for law!?
Hi everyone!
Im an international applicant and have recieved offers from queen mary and nottingham as well as york while im waiting for a decision for kcl. Just wanted to know how these three colleges are for law ?
if there is some other advice regarding these three colleges.
Also is it viable to join a foundation course instead and apply again next year for other unis?
Im an international applicant and have recieved offers from queen mary and nottingham as well as york while im waiting for a decision for kcl. Just wanted to know how these three colleges are for law ?
if there is some other advice regarding these three colleges.
Also is it viable to join a foundation course instead and apply again next year for other unis?
Scroll to see replies
Go on unistats and look at the courses. Do your comparison.
- I might suggest to avoid Nottingham out of those three, because it awards the lowest degree grades of any Russell Group. However, QMUL awards the lowest module grades of any Russell Group by a very long way (qedlaw.co.uk), although the overall degree results are decent.
- Looking at unistats, York and QMUL are pretty even in terms of the degree results, but I'm sure York is a (much) easier course. Obviously this is a subjective thing, but I suspect Nottingham and QMUL are pretty much as rigorous as each other.
- In terms of coursework (related to the above point) 72% of the degree at York is assessed by coursework, not examination. At QMUL, it is 100% exam, at Nottingham 80%.
Just to nail the point here, and this is a subjective comment based on my experience of having studied and graduated from law degrees over 4 years, exams are tougher and harder to perform well in. When most people start out doing a law degree, they have no idea which way is up.
The exams I took at the end of my first year were the first law exams I had ever taken, and the first legal problem questions I had ever really answered under timed conditions. I performed quite poorly despite having received first class marks in all my untimed essays during the year. With my unassessed coursework, I *knew* the question, there was no uncertainty as to what it was, and all of the time I spent researching it would be relevant in my answer. With an exam, if you don't know what the questions will be and you don't know how you will answer them, you're asking for trouble.
- Also, I think it is much easier to have a balance of coursework and examination because then you have a limit to the amount you have to memorise, there is a limit to the amount of information your mind can absorb and process at a high level.
- Further, your first year marks are essential to secure vacation schemes at law firms, and your vacation schemes and second year marks and vital for securing training contracts. Therefore I think reducing the amount of uncertainty as to marks you will receive, is a smart move.
-- My conclusion from the all of the above is that York will allow many people to get better marks consistently throughout the degree with less effort.
I would point out again however, this is my opinion. I graduated with a first. My tactics included a) taking the modules which had people doing best in them, b) taking dissertation optional modules (unlike at York, all my compulsory modules were 100% exams). If you perform better at exams, and you hate coursework, then you should disagree with my conclusion. There are of course tactics to doing well at exams, e.g. question spotting, selective learning, practising exam papers.
- You should also look on the university websites and review the course information. In my *opinion*, York's course is very different to the other two. I think it looks like a walk in the park. There are two compulsory modules on Legal Skills for God's sake in the first two years of study. Another compulsory module on Ethics and Professionalism. Another one called Law and Society. With respect, I am sure most half-intelligent people could get firsts in these with their eyes closed and their hands tied behind their backs all the while listening to Metallica at full blast through their headphones.
That's not to say they are not interesting or useless modules, to the contrary! I think it looks more interesting and useful for employment in that respect to the others - that's of course just my opinion (for the avoidance of doubt though, I am not implying the modules will help you get a TC at all). Looking at the other two, I think QMUL has a more difficult course than Nottingham in terms of the split they have in the second year between EU and public law 2 - assessed as half modules, but in reality, they *will* involve the work of full modules.
- You also have to consider which city you would prefer to study in and which institution would make you happiest to study your chosen degree subject. Again my opinion, York has to lose out on this one as it is closer in size to a town, than a city.
-- If you do get KCL, I know the course quite well. In terms of the way it is assessed, they changed things up a few years ago so that 10% of the degree is calculated on the first year (the idea being to get people more firsts). Whilst a KCL law student might protest vehemently that this is not the case, I knew some of the people who were involved in determining how the degree would be assessed, their modus operandi has been to "ease" students into the course, thereby awarding high marks in first year (mostly 2:1s) and increasing the difficulty (in terms of marking) as the course progresses (so a 64% average in first year and last year is common, where you might expect a 58%, 64% disparity at other institutions). They have training contracts in mind with this assessment, I believe. As a result, I would conclude it is an easier course *in terms of assessment outcomes* than Nottingham and QMUL.
Hope that helps and I've given you some points to think about. My analysis is obviously very Machiavellian. Sometimes you do just need to go with your heart, rather than your head. I have to be honest with you, having studied law before, I would breeze a first at any institution without attending lectures or tutorials. I'm quite old enough to be teaching undergraduates. So I'd choose the cheap drinks and easy girls in Nottingham.
- I might suggest to avoid Nottingham out of those three, because it awards the lowest degree grades of any Russell Group. However, QMUL awards the lowest module grades of any Russell Group by a very long way (qedlaw.co.uk), although the overall degree results are decent.
- Looking at unistats, York and QMUL are pretty even in terms of the degree results, but I'm sure York is a (much) easier course. Obviously this is a subjective thing, but I suspect Nottingham and QMUL are pretty much as rigorous as each other.
- In terms of coursework (related to the above point) 72% of the degree at York is assessed by coursework, not examination. At QMUL, it is 100% exam, at Nottingham 80%.
Just to nail the point here, and this is a subjective comment based on my experience of having studied and graduated from law degrees over 4 years, exams are tougher and harder to perform well in. When most people start out doing a law degree, they have no idea which way is up.
The exams I took at the end of my first year were the first law exams I had ever taken, and the first legal problem questions I had ever really answered under timed conditions. I performed quite poorly despite having received first class marks in all my untimed essays during the year. With my unassessed coursework, I *knew* the question, there was no uncertainty as to what it was, and all of the time I spent researching it would be relevant in my answer. With an exam, if you don't know what the questions will be and you don't know how you will answer them, you're asking for trouble.
- Also, I think it is much easier to have a balance of coursework and examination because then you have a limit to the amount you have to memorise, there is a limit to the amount of information your mind can absorb and process at a high level.
- Further, your first year marks are essential to secure vacation schemes at law firms, and your vacation schemes and second year marks and vital for securing training contracts. Therefore I think reducing the amount of uncertainty as to marks you will receive, is a smart move.
-- My conclusion from the all of the above is that York will allow many people to get better marks consistently throughout the degree with less effort.
I would point out again however, this is my opinion. I graduated with a first. My tactics included a) taking the modules which had people doing best in them, b) taking dissertation optional modules (unlike at York, all my compulsory modules were 100% exams). If you perform better at exams, and you hate coursework, then you should disagree with my conclusion. There are of course tactics to doing well at exams, e.g. question spotting, selective learning, practising exam papers.
- You should also look on the university websites and review the course information. In my *opinion*, York's course is very different to the other two. I think it looks like a walk in the park. There are two compulsory modules on Legal Skills for God's sake in the first two years of study. Another compulsory module on Ethics and Professionalism. Another one called Law and Society. With respect, I am sure most half-intelligent people could get firsts in these with their eyes closed and their hands tied behind their backs all the while listening to Metallica at full blast through their headphones.
That's not to say they are not interesting or useless modules, to the contrary! I think it looks more interesting and useful for employment in that respect to the others - that's of course just my opinion (for the avoidance of doubt though, I am not implying the modules will help you get a TC at all). Looking at the other two, I think QMUL has a more difficult course than Nottingham in terms of the split they have in the second year between EU and public law 2 - assessed as half modules, but in reality, they *will* involve the work of full modules.
- You also have to consider which city you would prefer to study in and which institution would make you happiest to study your chosen degree subject. Again my opinion, York has to lose out on this one as it is closer in size to a town, than a city.
-- If you do get KCL, I know the course quite well. In terms of the way it is assessed, they changed things up a few years ago so that 10% of the degree is calculated on the first year (the idea being to get people more firsts). Whilst a KCL law student might protest vehemently that this is not the case, I knew some of the people who were involved in determining how the degree would be assessed, their modus operandi has been to "ease" students into the course, thereby awarding high marks in first year (mostly 2:1s) and increasing the difficulty (in terms of marking) as the course progresses (so a 64% average in first year and last year is common, where you might expect a 58%, 64% disparity at other institutions). They have training contracts in mind with this assessment, I believe. As a result, I would conclude it is an easier course *in terms of assessment outcomes* than Nottingham and QMUL.
Hope that helps and I've given you some points to think about. My analysis is obviously very Machiavellian. Sometimes you do just need to go with your heart, rather than your head. I have to be honest with you, having studied law before, I would breeze a first at any institution without attending lectures or tutorials. I'm quite old enough to be teaching undergraduates. So I'd choose the cheap drinks and easy girls in Nottingham.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by TheOneTrueEvian
Go on unistats and look at the courses. Do your comparison.
- I might suggest to avoid Nottingham out of those three, because it awards the lowest degree grades of any Russell Group. However, QMUL awards the lowest module grades of any Russell Group by a very long way (qedlaw.co.uk), although the overall degree results are decent.
- Looking at unistats, York and QMUL are pretty even in terms of the degree results, but I'm sure York is a (much) easier course. Obviously this is a subjective thing, but I suspect Nottingham and QMUL are pretty much as rigorous as each other.
- In terms of coursework (related to the above point) 72% of the degree at York is assessed by coursework, not examination. At QMUL, it is 100% exam, at Nottingham 80%.
Just to nail the point here, and this is a subjective comment based on my experience of having studied and graduated from law degrees over 4 years, exams are tougher and harder to perform well in. When most people start out doing a law degree, they have no idea which way is up.
The exams I took at the end of my first year were the first law exams I had ever taken, and the first legal problem questions I had ever really answered under timed conditions. I performed quite poorly despite having received first class marks in all my untimed essays during the year. With my unassessed coursework, I *knew* the question, there was no uncertainty as to what it was, and all of the time I spent researching it would be relevant in my answer. With an exam, if you don't know what the questions will be and you don't know how you will answer them, you're asking for trouble.
- Also, I think it is much easier to have a balance of coursework and examination because then you have a limit to the amount you have to memorise, there is a limit to the amount of information your mind can absorb and process at a high level.
- Further, your first year marks are essential to secure vacation schemes at law firms, and your vacation schemes and second year marks and vital for securing training contracts. Therefore I think reducing the amount of uncertainty as to marks you will receive, is a smart move.
-- My conclusion from the all of the above is that York will allow many people to get better marks consistently throughout the degree with less effort.
I would point out again however, this is my opinion. I graduated with a first. My tactics included a) taking the modules which had people doing best in them, b) taking dissertation optional modules (unlike at York, all my compulsory modules were 100% exams). If you perform better at exams, and you hate coursework, then you should disagree with my conclusion. There are of course tactics to doing well at exams, e.g. question spotting, selective learning, practising exam papers.
- You should also look on the university websites and review the course information. In my *opinion*, York's course is very different to the other two. I think it looks like a walk in the park. There are two compulsory modules on Legal Skills for God's sake in the first two years of study. Another compulsory module on Ethics and Professionalism. Another one called Law and Society. With respect, I am sure most half-intelligent people could get firsts in these with their eyes closed and their hands tied behind their backs all the while listening to Metallica at full blast through their headphones.
That's not to say they are not interesting or useless modules, to the contrary! I think it looks more interesting and useful for employment in that respect to the others - that's of course just my opinion (for the avoidance of doubt though, I am not implying the modules will help you get a TC at all). Looking at the other two, I think QMUL has a more difficult course than Nottingham in terms of the split they have in the second year between EU and public law 2 - assessed as half modules, but in reality, they *will* involve the work of full modules.
- You also have to consider which city you would prefer to study in and which institution would make you happiest to study your chosen degree subject. Again my opinion, York has to lose out on this one as it is closer in size to a town, than a city.
-- If you do get KCL, I know the course quite well. In terms of the way it is assessed, they changed things up a few years ago so that 10% of the degree is calculated on the first year (the idea being to get people more firsts). Whilst a KCL law student might protest vehemently that this is not the case, I knew some of the people who were involved in determining how the degree would be assessed, their modus operandi has been to "ease" students into the course, thereby awarding high marks in first year (mostly 2:1s) and increasing the difficulty (in terms of marking) as the course progresses (so a 64% average in first year and last year is common, where you might expect a 58%, 64% disparity at other institutions). They have training contracts in mind with this assessment, I believe. As a result, I would conclude it is an easier course *in terms of assessment outcomes* than Nottingham and QMUL.
Hope that helps and I've given you some points to think about. My analysis is obviously very Machiavellian. Sometimes you do just need to go with your heart, rather than your head. I have to be honest with you, having studied law before, I would breeze a first at any institution without attending lectures or tutorials. I'm quite old enough to be teaching undergraduates. So I'd choose the cheap drinks and easy girls in Nottingham.
- I might suggest to avoid Nottingham out of those three, because it awards the lowest degree grades of any Russell Group. However, QMUL awards the lowest module grades of any Russell Group by a very long way (qedlaw.co.uk), although the overall degree results are decent.
- Looking at unistats, York and QMUL are pretty even in terms of the degree results, but I'm sure York is a (much) easier course. Obviously this is a subjective thing, but I suspect Nottingham and QMUL are pretty much as rigorous as each other.
- In terms of coursework (related to the above point) 72% of the degree at York is assessed by coursework, not examination. At QMUL, it is 100% exam, at Nottingham 80%.
Just to nail the point here, and this is a subjective comment based on my experience of having studied and graduated from law degrees over 4 years, exams are tougher and harder to perform well in. When most people start out doing a law degree, they have no idea which way is up.
The exams I took at the end of my first year were the first law exams I had ever taken, and the first legal problem questions I had ever really answered under timed conditions. I performed quite poorly despite having received first class marks in all my untimed essays during the year. With my unassessed coursework, I *knew* the question, there was no uncertainty as to what it was, and all of the time I spent researching it would be relevant in my answer. With an exam, if you don't know what the questions will be and you don't know how you will answer them, you're asking for trouble.
- Also, I think it is much easier to have a balance of coursework and examination because then you have a limit to the amount you have to memorise, there is a limit to the amount of information your mind can absorb and process at a high level.
- Further, your first year marks are essential to secure vacation schemes at law firms, and your vacation schemes and second year marks and vital for securing training contracts. Therefore I think reducing the amount of uncertainty as to marks you will receive, is a smart move.
-- My conclusion from the all of the above is that York will allow many people to get better marks consistently throughout the degree with less effort.
I would point out again however, this is my opinion. I graduated with a first. My tactics included a) taking the modules which had people doing best in them, b) taking dissertation optional modules (unlike at York, all my compulsory modules were 100% exams). If you perform better at exams, and you hate coursework, then you should disagree with my conclusion. There are of course tactics to doing well at exams, e.g. question spotting, selective learning, practising exam papers.
- You should also look on the university websites and review the course information. In my *opinion*, York's course is very different to the other two. I think it looks like a walk in the park. There are two compulsory modules on Legal Skills for God's sake in the first two years of study. Another compulsory module on Ethics and Professionalism. Another one called Law and Society. With respect, I am sure most half-intelligent people could get firsts in these with their eyes closed and their hands tied behind their backs all the while listening to Metallica at full blast through their headphones.
That's not to say they are not interesting or useless modules, to the contrary! I think it looks more interesting and useful for employment in that respect to the others - that's of course just my opinion (for the avoidance of doubt though, I am not implying the modules will help you get a TC at all). Looking at the other two, I think QMUL has a more difficult course than Nottingham in terms of the split they have in the second year between EU and public law 2 - assessed as half modules, but in reality, they *will* involve the work of full modules.
- You also have to consider which city you would prefer to study in and which institution would make you happiest to study your chosen degree subject. Again my opinion, York has to lose out on this one as it is closer in size to a town, than a city.
-- If you do get KCL, I know the course quite well. In terms of the way it is assessed, they changed things up a few years ago so that 10% of the degree is calculated on the first year (the idea being to get people more firsts). Whilst a KCL law student might protest vehemently that this is not the case, I knew some of the people who were involved in determining how the degree would be assessed, their modus operandi has been to "ease" students into the course, thereby awarding high marks in first year (mostly 2:1s) and increasing the difficulty (in terms of marking) as the course progresses (so a 64% average in first year and last year is common, where you might expect a 58%, 64% disparity at other institutions). They have training contracts in mind with this assessment, I believe. As a result, I would conclude it is an easier course *in terms of assessment outcomes* than Nottingham and QMUL.
Hope that helps and I've given you some points to think about. My analysis is obviously very Machiavellian. Sometimes you do just need to go with your heart, rather than your head. I have to be honest with you, having studied law before, I would breeze a first at any institution without attending lectures or tutorials. I'm quite old enough to be teaching undergraduates. So I'd choose the cheap drinks and easy girls in Nottingham.
Hey thanks!
Any one from these unis who could help me ?
Original post by TheOneTrueEvian
Go on unistats and look at the courses. Do your comparison.
- I might suggest to avoid Nottingham out of those three, because it awards the lowest degree grades of any Russell Group. However, QMUL awards the lowest module grades of any Russell Group by a very long way (qedlaw.co.uk), although the overall degree results are decent.
- Looking at unistats, York and QMUL are pretty even in terms of the degree results, but I'm sure York is a (much) easier course. Obviously this is a subjective thing, but I suspect Nottingham and QMUL are pretty much as rigorous as each other.
- In terms of coursework (related to the above point) 72% of the degree at York is assessed by coursework, not examination. At QMUL, it is 100% exam, at Nottingham 80%.
Just to nail the point here, and this is a subjective comment based on my experience of having studied and graduated from law degrees over 4 years, exams are tougher and harder to perform well in. When most people start out doing a law degree, they have no idea which way is up.
The exams I took at the end of my first year were the first law exams I had ever taken, and the first legal problem questions I had ever really answered under timed conditions. I performed quite poorly despite having received first class marks in all my untimed essays during the year. With my unassessed coursework, I *knew* the question, there was no uncertainty as to what it was, and all of the time I spent researching it would be relevant in my answer. With an exam, if you don't know what the questions will be and you don't know how you will answer them, you're asking for trouble.
- Also, I think it is much easier to have a balance of coursework and examination because then you have a limit to the amount you have to memorise, there is a limit to the amount of information your mind can absorb and process at a high level.
- Further, your first year marks are essential to secure vacation schemes at law firms, and your vacation schemes and second year marks and vital for securing training contracts. Therefore I think reducing the amount of uncertainty as to marks you will receive, is a smart move.
-- My conclusion from the all of the above is that York will allow many people to get better marks consistently throughout the degree with less effort.
I would point out again however, this is my opinion. I graduated with a first. My tactics included a) taking the modules which had people doing best in them, b) taking dissertation optional modules (unlike at York, all my compulsory modules were 100% exams). If you perform better at exams, and you hate coursework, then you should disagree with my conclusion. There are of course tactics to doing well at exams, e.g. question spotting, selective learning, practising exam papers.
- You should also look on the university websites and review the course information. In my *opinion*, York's course is very different to the other two. I think it looks like a walk in the park. There are two compulsory modules on Legal Skills for God's sake in the first two years of study. Another compulsory module on Ethics and Professionalism. Another one called Law and Society. With respect, I am sure most half-intelligent people could get firsts in these with their eyes closed and their hands tied behind their backs all the while listening to Metallica at full blast through their headphones.
That's not to say they are not interesting or useless modules, to the contrary! I think it looks more interesting and useful for employment in that respect to the others - that's of course just my opinion (for the avoidance of doubt though, I am not implying the modules will help you get a TC at all). Looking at the other two, I think QMUL has a more difficult course than Nottingham in terms of the split they have in the second year between EU and public law 2 - assessed as half modules, but in reality, they *will* involve the work of full modules.
- You also have to consider which city you would prefer to study in and which institution would make you happiest to study your chosen degree subject. Again my opinion, York has to lose out on this one as it is closer in size to a town, than a city.
-- If you do get KCL, I know the course quite well. In terms of the way it is assessed, they changed things up a few years ago so that 10% of the degree is calculated on the first year (the idea being to get people more firsts). Whilst a KCL law student might protest vehemently that this is not the case, I knew some of the people who were involved in determining how the degree would be assessed, their modus operandi has been to "ease" students into the course, thereby awarding high marks in first year (mostly 2:1s) and increasing the difficulty (in terms of marking) as the course progresses (so a 64% average in first year and last year is common, where you might expect a 58%, 64% disparity at other institutions). They have training contracts in mind with this assessment, I believe. As a result, I would conclude it is an easier course *in terms of assessment outcomes* than Nottingham and QMUL.
Hope that helps and I've given you some points to think about. My analysis is obviously very Machiavellian. Sometimes you do just need to go with your heart, rather than your head. I have to be honest with you, having studied law before, I would breeze a first at any institution without attending lectures or tutorials. I'm quite old enough to be teaching undergraduates. So I'd choose the cheap drinks and easy girls in Nottingham.
- I might suggest to avoid Nottingham out of those three, because it awards the lowest degree grades of any Russell Group. However, QMUL awards the lowest module grades of any Russell Group by a very long way (qedlaw.co.uk), although the overall degree results are decent.
- Looking at unistats, York and QMUL are pretty even in terms of the degree results, but I'm sure York is a (much) easier course. Obviously this is a subjective thing, but I suspect Nottingham and QMUL are pretty much as rigorous as each other.
- In terms of coursework (related to the above point) 72% of the degree at York is assessed by coursework, not examination. At QMUL, it is 100% exam, at Nottingham 80%.
Just to nail the point here, and this is a subjective comment based on my experience of having studied and graduated from law degrees over 4 years, exams are tougher and harder to perform well in. When most people start out doing a law degree, they have no idea which way is up.
The exams I took at the end of my first year were the first law exams I had ever taken, and the first legal problem questions I had ever really answered under timed conditions. I performed quite poorly despite having received first class marks in all my untimed essays during the year. With my unassessed coursework, I *knew* the question, there was no uncertainty as to what it was, and all of the time I spent researching it would be relevant in my answer. With an exam, if you don't know what the questions will be and you don't know how you will answer them, you're asking for trouble.
- Also, I think it is much easier to have a balance of coursework and examination because then you have a limit to the amount you have to memorise, there is a limit to the amount of information your mind can absorb and process at a high level.
- Further, your first year marks are essential to secure vacation schemes at law firms, and your vacation schemes and second year marks and vital for securing training contracts. Therefore I think reducing the amount of uncertainty as to marks you will receive, is a smart move.
-- My conclusion from the all of the above is that York will allow many people to get better marks consistently throughout the degree with less effort.
I would point out again however, this is my opinion. I graduated with a first. My tactics included a) taking the modules which had people doing best in them, b) taking dissertation optional modules (unlike at York, all my compulsory modules were 100% exams). If you perform better at exams, and you hate coursework, then you should disagree with my conclusion. There are of course tactics to doing well at exams, e.g. question spotting, selective learning, practising exam papers.
- You should also look on the university websites and review the course information. In my *opinion*, York's course is very different to the other two. I think it looks like a walk in the park. There are two compulsory modules on Legal Skills for God's sake in the first two years of study. Another compulsory module on Ethics and Professionalism. Another one called Law and Society. With respect, I am sure most half-intelligent people could get firsts in these with their eyes closed and their hands tied behind their backs all the while listening to Metallica at full blast through their headphones.
That's not to say they are not interesting or useless modules, to the contrary! I think it looks more interesting and useful for employment in that respect to the others - that's of course just my opinion (for the avoidance of doubt though, I am not implying the modules will help you get a TC at all). Looking at the other two, I think QMUL has a more difficult course than Nottingham in terms of the split they have in the second year between EU and public law 2 - assessed as half modules, but in reality, they *will* involve the work of full modules.
- You also have to consider which city you would prefer to study in and which institution would make you happiest to study your chosen degree subject. Again my opinion, York has to lose out on this one as it is closer in size to a town, than a city.
-- If you do get KCL, I know the course quite well. In terms of the way it is assessed, they changed things up a few years ago so that 10% of the degree is calculated on the first year (the idea being to get people more firsts). Whilst a KCL law student might protest vehemently that this is not the case, I knew some of the people who were involved in determining how the degree would be assessed, their modus operandi has been to "ease" students into the course, thereby awarding high marks in first year (mostly 2:1s) and increasing the difficulty (in terms of marking) as the course progresses (so a 64% average in first year and last year is common, where you might expect a 58%, 64% disparity at other institutions). They have training contracts in mind with this assessment, I believe. As a result, I would conclude it is an easier course *in terms of assessment outcomes* than Nottingham and QMUL.
Hope that helps and I've given you some points to think about. My analysis is obviously very Machiavellian. Sometimes you do just need to go with your heart, rather than your head. I have to be honest with you, having studied law before, I would breeze a first at any institution without attending lectures or tutorials. I'm quite old enough to be teaching undergraduates. So I'd choose the cheap drinks and easy girls in Nottingham.
I don't agree with your opinion whatsoever. Law at York is not a "walk in the park" and it is not a "much easier" course.
I think you have arrived at this conclusion on the basis that YLS students are assessed heavily on coursework. My personal view, and the view of my circle of friends, is that coursework provides a better opportunity at actually learning the subject. I can recall a lot of knowledge where I have completed a piece of coursework on it. For exams, I can barely recall exactly what even came up. You'll have realised that exams are all about cramming knowledge whereas coursework requires you to seriously understand and be critical of the topic at hand.
You'll probably read this and conclude that I have this view because I have perhaps gotten better grades in coursework. However, that is not the reality of it. For the amount of revision I did for each exam in first year (just 2 days) I got better grades compared to spending 3 weeks straight reading a mountain of journal articles and books for a piece of coursework. As a comparison, my Obligations I module has at its core two pieces of assessment. An exam and an essay. I spent over 3 weeks reading and writing the essay, receiving a grade of 64%, whereas I spent 2 days reading and summarising principles and cases for the exam, receiving a grade of 68%. I maintain my point that I have walked away from the essay with far more recallable and useful knowledge than I did from the exam for the same subject.
Original post by admbeatmaker
I don't agree with your opinion whatsoever. Law at York is not a "walk in the park" and it is not a "much easier" course.
I think you have arrived at this conclusion on the basis that YLS students are assessed heavily on coursework. My personal view, and the view of my circle of friends, is that coursework provides a better opportunity at actually learning the subject. I can recall a lot of knowledge where I have completed a piece of coursework on it. For exams, I can barely recall exactly what even came up. You'll have realised that exams are all about cramming knowledge whereas coursework requires you to seriously understand and be critical of the topic at hand.
You'll probably read this and conclude that I have this view because I have perhaps gotten better grades in coursework. However, that is not the reality of it. For the amount of revision I did for each exam in first year (just 2 days) I got better grades compared to spending 3 weeks straight reading a mountain of journal articles and books for a piece of coursework. As a comparison, my Obligations I module has at its core two pieces of assessment. An exam and an essay. I spent over 3 weeks reading and writing the essay, receiving a grade of 64%, whereas I spent 2 days reading and summarising principles and cases for the exam, receiving a grade of 68%. I maintain my point that I have walked away from the essay with far more recallable and useful knowledge than I did from the exam for the same subject.
I think you have arrived at this conclusion on the basis that YLS students are assessed heavily on coursework. My personal view, and the view of my circle of friends, is that coursework provides a better opportunity at actually learning the subject. I can recall a lot of knowledge where I have completed a piece of coursework on it. For exams, I can barely recall exactly what even came up. You'll have realised that exams are all about cramming knowledge whereas coursework requires you to seriously understand and be critical of the topic at hand.
You'll probably read this and conclude that I have this view because I have perhaps gotten better grades in coursework. However, that is not the reality of it. For the amount of revision I did for each exam in first year (just 2 days) I got better grades compared to spending 3 weeks straight reading a mountain of journal articles and books for a piece of coursework. As a comparison, my Obligations I module has at its core two pieces of assessment. An exam and an essay. I spent over 3 weeks reading and writing the essay, receiving a grade of 64%, whereas I spent 2 days reading and summarising principles and cases for the exam, receiving a grade of 68%. I maintain my point that I have walked away from the essay with far more recallable and useful knowledge than I did from the exam for the same subject.
Original post by admbeatmaker
I don't agree with your opinion whatsoever. Law at York is not a "walk in the park" and it is not a "much easier" course.
I think you have arrived at this conclusion on the basis that YLS students are assessed heavily on coursework. My personal view, and the view of my circle of friends, is that coursework provides a better opportunity at actually learning the subject. I can recall a lot of knowledge where I have completed a piece of coursework on it. For exams, I can barely recall exactly what even came up. You'll have realised that exams are all about cramming knowledge whereas coursework requires you to seriously understand and be critical of the topic at hand.
You'll probably read this and conclude that I have this view because I have perhaps gotten better grades in coursework. However, that is not the reality of it. For the amount of revision I did for each exam in first year (just 2 days) I got better grades compared to spending 3 weeks straight reading a mountain of journal articles and books for a piece of coursework. As a comparison, my Obligations I module has at its core two pieces of assessment. An exam and an essay. I spent over 3 weeks reading and writing the essay, receiving a grade of 64%, whereas I spent 2 days reading and summarising principles and cases for the exam, receiving a grade of 68%. I maintain my point that I have walked away from the essay with far more recallable and useful knowledge than I did from the exam for the same subject.
I think you have arrived at this conclusion on the basis that YLS students are assessed heavily on coursework. My personal view, and the view of my circle of friends, is that coursework provides a better opportunity at actually learning the subject. I can recall a lot of knowledge where I have completed a piece of coursework on it. For exams, I can barely recall exactly what even came up. You'll have realised that exams are all about cramming knowledge whereas coursework requires you to seriously understand and be critical of the topic at hand.
You'll probably read this and conclude that I have this view because I have perhaps gotten better grades in coursework. However, that is not the reality of it. For the amount of revision I did for each exam in first year (just 2 days) I got better grades compared to spending 3 weeks straight reading a mountain of journal articles and books for a piece of coursework. As a comparison, my Obligations I module has at its core two pieces of assessment. An exam and an essay. I spent over 3 weeks reading and writing the essay, receiving a grade of 64%, whereas I spent 2 days reading and summarising principles and cases for the exam, receiving a grade of 68%. I maintain my point that I have walked away from the essay with far more recallable and useful knowledge than I did from the exam for the same subject.
Whether a student spends 2 days/ 2 months in preparing an exam is entirely a matter of his own. Whether doing extensive research in preparing for every examinable topic prior to exam is also up to you. If you really spend two days in reading and making notes for one law subject and successfully achieve 68%, I'm a bit worry about the standard of your school. Please dun take it as an offence. But honestly speaking, unless students are told which topics will exactly appear in the exam script and that each question focuses on only one single area without cross referencing to other topics, I really dun believe one can finish everything with a high 2:1 within 2 days. At least, I dun have this luxury.
Statistically, coursework and dissertation modules have the highest % of firsts and high 2:1s at universities across the board. The average % for coursework can be 5-10% higher than exam modules. This is independently verifiable and you can put in freedom of information requests to universities to prove it (I actually did years ago, obviously with most interest on my own).
This notwithstanding, I would concur with Matthew. The assumption most law schools operate under is that a 70% is a 70%, and it should be roughly comparable in every module. That is, a coursework module written in 8 months, should be under the same level of scrutiny as a written answer sat in 45 minutes. The quality of that 70% should be the same. That is, regardless of length, your 68% taken in your exams should be of a higher standard than the 64% you received in coursework. Should you have replicated your coursework answer in an exam, it should have received the same/similar mark. This is the reason for the above (re higher average marks).
This notwithstanding, I would concur with Matthew. The assumption most law schools operate under is that a 70% is a 70%, and it should be roughly comparable in every module. That is, a coursework module written in 8 months, should be under the same level of scrutiny as a written answer sat in 45 minutes. The quality of that 70% should be the same. That is, regardless of length, your 68% taken in your exams should be of a higher standard than the 64% you received in coursework. Should you have replicated your coursework answer in an exam, it should have received the same/similar mark. This is the reason for the above (re higher average marks).
Original post by admbeatmaker
I don't agree with your opinion whatsoever. Law at York is not a "walk in the park" and it is not a "much easier" course.
I think you have arrived at this conclusion on the basis that YLS students are assessed heavily on coursework. My personal view, and the view of my circle of friends, is that coursework provides a better opportunity at actually learning the subject. I can recall a lot of knowledge where I have completed a piece of coursework on it. For exams, I can barely recall exactly what even came up. You'll have realised that exams are all about cramming knowledge whereas coursework requires you to seriously understand and be critical of the topic at hand.
You'll probably read this and conclude that I have this view because I have perhaps gotten better grades in coursework. However, that is not the reality of it. For the amount of revision I did for each exam in first year (just 2 days) I got better grades compared to spending 3 weeks straight reading a mountain of journal articles and books for a piece of coursework. As a comparison, my Obligations I module has at its core two pieces of assessment. An exam and an essay. I spent over 3 weeks reading and writing the essay, receiving a grade of 64%, whereas I spent 2 days reading and summarising principles and cases for the exam, receiving a grade of 68%. I maintain my point that I have walked away from the essay with far more recallable and useful knowledge than I did from the exam for the same subject.
I think you have arrived at this conclusion on the basis that YLS students are assessed heavily on coursework. My personal view, and the view of my circle of friends, is that coursework provides a better opportunity at actually learning the subject. I can recall a lot of knowledge where I have completed a piece of coursework on it. For exams, I can barely recall exactly what even came up. You'll have realised that exams are all about cramming knowledge whereas coursework requires you to seriously understand and be critical of the topic at hand.
You'll probably read this and conclude that I have this view because I have perhaps gotten better grades in coursework. However, that is not the reality of it. For the amount of revision I did for each exam in first year (just 2 days) I got better grades compared to spending 3 weeks straight reading a mountain of journal articles and books for a piece of coursework. As a comparison, my Obligations I module has at its core two pieces of assessment. An exam and an essay. I spent over 3 weeks reading and writing the essay, receiving a grade of 64%, whereas I spent 2 days reading and summarising principles and cases for the exam, receiving a grade of 68%. I maintain my point that I have walked away from the essay with far more recallable and useful knowledge than I did from the exam for the same subject.
Having seen a bit of practice I'd disagree that the essay knowledge is more useful. When it comes to it by the time any case reaches a stage where the level depth you go into on an essay is required you'll have handed over to some silk with a brain the size of a planet and 20 years' plus call whose similarly prodigious junior does the research for half the fee you charge. I had a file on the area of my dissertation topic recently and 90% plus of what I knew was totally useless. Exams give you decent knowledge of a broad overview and, for obvious reasons of having to, you'll have remembered more of the information.
(edited 10 years ago)
York Law School and "easy" (or its synonyms) don't really go together - they're mutually exclusive. From talking to friends at other (top) law schools it's clear that York will challenge you no less, but what I do notice is that some of those friends often don't seem as motivated and enthralled by their course. I think that's because law is taught so differently here, and you're part of a community (as a result of the PBL system) rather than a collective that fleetingly sees each others' faces at lectures. I don't believe that by studying the figures of unistats or through debating the benefits (or otherwise) of exams you will be best placed to make a decision. What I can certainly confirm for you is that law here is by no means a "walk in the park."
Rather than pitching an ad for your law school, why don't you support your contention that it isn't easy with some evidence? e.g. what marks have you been receiving, how hard have you been working, how much reading do you have to do - that's anecdotal. And then objectively how much coursework do you have, how is it assessed, what are the word limits. e.g. 80% of x module is assessed by a x word essay. Give an example of a question.
Original post by TheOneTrueEvian
Rather than pitching an ad for your law school, why don't you support your contention that it isn't easy with some evidence? e.g. what marks have you been receiving, how hard have you been working, how much reading do you have to do - that's anecdotal. And then objectively how much coursework do you have, how is it assessed, what are the word limits. e.g. 80% of x module is assessed by a x word essay. Give an example of a question.
I will try and quell my enthusiasm (I suspect you aren't subjected to the YLS positivism I described above - excuse my play on words
) and provide something more empirical! However I should point out that I pay them rather than the other way round.1st year:
Obligations (Contract/Tort) - Exam 60 CW 40
Property - 60/40
Public - 60/40
Criminal - 60/40
Introduction to Law and Society - 100% CW
Legal Skills - 80% Portfolio (25 pages) 20% moot
2nd year:
2 option modules of your choice, for example Clinic, Law and the Business Environment, Key Themes in Criminal Justice, Counter Terrorism, Family law etc - assessment ranging from 100% CW (portfolio or essays) to examination format
Obligations 2 - 60/40
Property 2 - 60/40
Advanced Legal Skills - 100% portfolio
Professionalism and Ethics - Essays
3rd Year -
EU - Exam/ CW
Dissertation (credits of 2 modules)
Public Law - Exam/CW
Option modules - Exam/CW depending on what you choose
See https://www.york.ac.uk/law/undergraduate/law-at-york/#course-content for further.
There is a significant amount of contact time - PBL sessions run each week in addition to lectures. ILS in first year will have "round tables" for discussion, similar to PBL. In year two this time is still absorbed by "academic exercises" on key topic areas. Legal skills sessions require a lot of input from the group. Avoid these sessions at your peril - a 25 page portfolio is not an easy feat when you have not been to anything, and the same applies to PBL: each problem often takes me the full week to plod through, and the reading, like any law degree, is a small mountain which, to climb successfully, you need to pace yourself throughout the year.
Module options can require significant input, such as the Clinic (30 page portfolio post-participation) which requires a professional commitment to real clients under the supervision of a practicing solicitor; it may feel like a full time job at some points.
To put time commitment in perspective, a portfolio is a great challenge, and you often feel like you've published a dissertation after it's been handed in. I suspect you would like me to chart the input necessary, but it's difficult to be precise - you cannot "produce" or "churn out" any academic work. The variables (your pace of working, understanding, writing etc) will always be a factor, however my second year portfolios have taken my roughly 5 to 7 weeks to write (in addition to that contact time/module participation) and they have received first results. My exam results have not differed from my coursework results, however we are often more confident with one or the other.
Essay lengths are highly disparate. They range from 1500 and far beyond that.
In terms of reading - cut yourself a piece of string and ask yourself whether it is long enough for the task, i.e. to get you the result you want; like any law degree you can read for England and never reach the exact answer - there often never is one.
I suspect I won't be able to satisfy you completely, however I received 72,72,70,70,67,61 in first year, and all of my results are firsts so far this second year. The effort is sustained, generally 6 days a week on average, but all work and no play doesn't make Jack an interest person! I explained how difficult it is to put a time scale on things; I think the approach is well summarised by you cutting that string. In relation to coursework it is, as I said, disparate. Take Professionalism and Ethics, 2nd year, for example - it is split 2000/3000. I can only dream of your optimism regarding magnified fonts and white space - my Clinic submission was 20,000 words and the reading/effort it required was sustained. Legal Skills is not a diluted experience. My experience of the marking system is that it is rigorous, dispassionate (for want of a better word) and strict, whether it be exams or coursework.
That all sounds so dull. We have fun too, I promise.
Original post by TheOneTrueEvian
Rather than pitching an ad for your law school, why don't you support your contention that it isn't easy with some evidence? e.g. what marks have you been receiving, how hard have you been working, how much reading do you have to do - that's anecdotal. And then objectively how much coursework do you have, how is it assessed, what are the word limits. e.g. 80% of x module is assessed by a x word essay. Give an example of a question.
The marks achieved and the effort put in by one individual is hardly representative and therefore would not be reliable evidence. As with any LL.B, the LL.B atYork Law School is a Qualifying Law Degree, and it is illogical to presume it as being easier than the LL.B taught at another institution. If it was, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Bar Standards Board would not approve it as being such. I imagine before approving a course as a Qualifying Law Degree, these institutions would spend a lot of time comparing the course against others before making a decision for that exact purpose. In relation to Assessed Coursework tasks, details of how they are assessed and the weight of the marks can be found on the York Law School website. Looking there may be a better use of your time.
(edited 10 years ago)
Well it seems you won't answer then.
However you have given me enough. I am absolutely shocked by what you are indicating.
Firstly, your marks are exorbitant. You would be the highest scoring student in the year at any other institution for law.
To put this into context:
http://www.qedlaw.co.uk/category/queen-mary-london/
Using one of the above universities, you can see the average there is in the low 50s, even in the 40s if you scroll down to previous years.
You haven't been clear on the word limits, and you say you can't be because it is so varied. I'm sorry, what a load of nonsense. You surely must remember what the 40% constituted, and it seems to have constituted a paltry 1500 words.
To put this into context, where universities assess by examination, they usually set 10 questions per module, 4 of which the student has to answer in 45 minutes. Therefore the student is expected to prepare for at least 6/7 questions prior to the exam. Most universities demand 2/3 unassessed 2500 word unassessed essays per module - just as they require tutorial attendance. Most students can get firsts in these sorts of essays (if they bother to put in the time), particularly if they're problems, from just pulling an all nighter. Including the students who come out with 2:2s.
The way your system works means that someone can write a 1500 word answer, get a first and then get a low 2:2 in the exam and still have a 2:1 for the module overall! With problem question essays especially, the main challenge is always time because most of the marks are picked up on application to facts, very little is given to evaluation of the law.
It also seems one dissertation module didn't have a word limit? Word limits are important: one reason is because they assess your ability to be concise and relevant. A normal module would be 16500 words, but it usually requires many hours cutting down to size.
All I can judge is your experience, whilst anecdotal, reflective of students at other universities? No, it is not.
Is the amount of work that you have to undertake comparable to other universities? It really seems less than even I had previously imagined.
However you have given me enough. I am absolutely shocked by what you are indicating.
Firstly, your marks are exorbitant. You would be the highest scoring student in the year at any other institution for law.
To put this into context:
http://www.qedlaw.co.uk/category/queen-mary-london/
Using one of the above universities, you can see the average there is in the low 50s, even in the 40s if you scroll down to previous years.
You haven't been clear on the word limits, and you say you can't be because it is so varied. I'm sorry, what a load of nonsense. You surely must remember what the 40% constituted, and it seems to have constituted a paltry 1500 words.
To put this into context, where universities assess by examination, they usually set 10 questions per module, 4 of which the student has to answer in 45 minutes. Therefore the student is expected to prepare for at least 6/7 questions prior to the exam. Most universities demand 2/3 unassessed 2500 word unassessed essays per module - just as they require tutorial attendance. Most students can get firsts in these sorts of essays (if they bother to put in the time), particularly if they're problems, from just pulling an all nighter. Including the students who come out with 2:2s.
The way your system works means that someone can write a 1500 word answer, get a first and then get a low 2:2 in the exam and still have a 2:1 for the module overall! With problem question essays especially, the main challenge is always time because most of the marks are picked up on application to facts, very little is given to evaluation of the law.
It also seems one dissertation module didn't have a word limit? Word limits are important: one reason is because they assess your ability to be concise and relevant. A normal module would be 16500 words, but it usually requires many hours cutting down to size.
All I can judge is your experience, whilst anecdotal, reflective of students at other universities? No, it is not.
Is the amount of work that you have to undertake comparable to other universities? It really seems less than even I had previously imagined.
Original post by TheOneTrueEvian
For fear that I am flaring a conspiracy theory within you I don't think I can contribute much more. I am not sure whether you have worked the average out correctly as it's 69% for first year, which doesn't seem exorbitant? It's good yes, and it's attainable with (quite a lot of) effort.
Don't shoot the messenger!
Original post by TheOneTrueEvian
Absolutely not. Universities can do whatever they like with module marks. They are completely autonomous. The SRA makes very limited stipulations. The idea Birmingham City's course is as rigorous as Oxford's is laughable.
Would you care to give me an impression of your results as well?
Would you care to give me an impression of your results as well?
I study at Bristol Law School. York LawSchool was my insurance choice however, and I have two friends studying thereso I occasionally get to hear their thoughts. I achieved 71% overall for myfirst year, but as I aforementioned, that figure is not representative of mycolleagues. From my understanding, around 40% of students achieve a 2:2 atYork, which seems pretty consistent with other institutions. I am sure you willbe able to give a more exact figure however, based on your knowledge of theaverage marks achieved by students at Nottingham and so. I think it isimportant to understand, and I am sure you will agree, that you cannot be trulycertain with the statistics available today, and it would not be sensible to basedecisions only on them. For instance, the statistics you provided in the abovelink are totally inconsistent. 63% of students achieved a 2:1in 2011, but 74% achievedthe same in 2012 for example. You cannot really base anything on thesestatistics. That is why I feel it is unfair to label coursework as being easieras it is heavily dependent on the person. I feel more confident in exams forexample, and have often struggled with assessed coursework for example. Thatsaid, I have always found coursework exceptionally useful in terms of gaining agreater understanding. It allows you to look at a great range of sources forexample which you may not necessarily need to access for exams. It could beargued that a mixture of the two, regardless of whether is easier or harder,creates a better-rounded lawyer. There are an awful lot of factors surroundingthe issue, and that is why I think it is unfair to label something as you havedone. That said, you may be right, but I have no intention of doing a greatdeal of research to find an exact answer. Also, the online applications processesI have come across do not ask you to specify percentages in relation tocoursework and examinations, and I would not feel it necessary to specify on aCV either, so if your argument is true, I cannot see it being frowned upon.Regardless of your views and mine however, York appears to be doing well in therankings, this must count for something. On a final point, try not to put yourviews across as facts as you have done repeatedly as it is not helpful. It islike me saying that you are so argumentative simply because you are online andthat you would not be as rude in person, or that you are asserting York iseasier to justify your low 2:2 to yourself. Just an example of course, Iclearly do not hold these views, but rather that you are divine. I feelincredibly sad for writing all this, especially when I am revising for my LandLaw exam, so please do not be offended if I do not reply to future posts, thatsaid I may.
Original post by LorraineChux
I study at Bristol Law School...
Really positive to hear someone focus on the better rounded lawyer aspect - it will be interesting to look back with hindsight and judge how well we were prepared (well I hope!) Best of luck with your Land exam
Original post by LorraineChux
I study at Bristol Law School. York LawSchool was my insurance choice however, and I have two friends studying thereso I occasionally get to hear their thoughts. I achieved 71% overall for myfirst year, but as I aforementioned, that figure is not representative of mycolleagues. From my understanding, around 40% of students achieve a 2:2 atYork, which seems pretty consistent with other institutions. I am sure you willbe able to give a more exact figure however, based on your knowledge of theaverage marks achieved by students at Nottingham and so. I think it isimportant to understand, and I am sure you will agree, that you cannot be trulycertain with the statistics available today, and it would not be sensible to basedecisions only on them. For instance, the statistics you provided in the abovelink are totally inconsistent. 63% of students achieved a 2:1in 2011, but 74% achievedthe same in 2012 for example. You cannot really base anything on thesestatistics. That is why I feel it is unfair to label coursework as being easieras it is heavily dependent on the person. I feel more confident in exams forexample, and have often struggled with assessed coursework for example. Thatsaid, I have always found coursework exceptionally useful in terms of gaining agreater understanding. It allows you to look at a great range of sources forexample which you may not necessarily need to access for exams. It could beargued that a mixture of the two, regardless of whether is easier or harder,creates a better-rounded lawyer. There are an awful lot of factors surroundingthe issue, and that is why I think it is unfair to label something as you havedone. That said, you may be right, but I have no intention of doing a greatdeal of research to find an exact answer. Also, the online applications processesI have come across do not ask you to specify percentages in relation tocoursework and examinations, and I would not feel it necessary to specify on aCV either, so if your argument is true, I cannot see it being frowned upon.Regardless of your views and mine however, York appears to be doing well in therankings, this must count for something. On a final point, try not to put yourviews across as facts as you have done repeatedly as it is not helpful. It islike me saying that you are so argumentative simply because you are online andthat you would not be as rude in person, or that you are asserting York iseasier to justify your low 2:2 to yourself. Just an example of course, Iclearly do not hold these views, but rather that you are divine. I feelincredibly sad for writing all this, especially when I am revising for my LandLaw exam, so please do not be offended if I do not reply to future posts, thatsaid I may.
I posted previously that I believed you as much as I believe "aforementioned" is not a verb.
It seems as though moderation has removed this post because you quoted it saying something offensive. And you seem to have acknowledged this by private messaging me apologising. I'm not sure in any case.
It is very curious indeed you would have gone to such lengths to create an account, make a couple of inane posts about a university you don't even go to...
Something very fishy is going on here. Needless to say university module marks are relatively consistent between different years, as you can see from the link. Whether it fluctuates makes no difference to the fact that no one averages a first in the first year, bar one or two select people.
I will reiterate that the quality of your writing says everything I think most people need to know.
(edited 10 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Warwick vs Nottingham? Law 2023/24
- University of Manchester vs University of Birmingham
- Durham vs Manchester for LLB
- Would you rather attend...?
- Nottingham vs QMUL vs Loughborough
- York vs Leeds; Manchester vs Sheffield
- Nottingham vs. York for LLB
- Uni of York vs Uni of Manchester vs Uni of Nottingham
- Play the forum game that's playing 3 threads below this one
- the best university for studying law
- Uni of York vs. Uni of Nottingham
- Cardiff University for modern languages or Nottingham for history
- Law predicted A*AA 2023 entry
- Law offers - 2024 entry
- Lancaster vs Essex
- What are the best law uni's for 2024
- Bath vs Glasgow
- Help choosing which university to firm and insure LLB Law
- law 2024 offer
- Uni of Birmingham vs Uni of York
Latest
Last reply 5 minutes ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 10 minutes ago
ATAS (Academic, Technology, Approval Scheme) Certificate 2023/2024Last reply 14 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 25 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 29 minutes ago
Official Dental Hygiene and Therapy (Oral Health Science) 2024 Entry ThreadDentistry
2927
Last reply 44 minutes ago
University of Oxford 2025 Undergraduate Applicants Official ThreadLast reply 2 hours ago
Official University of Edinburgh Applicant Thread for 2024
