Please rank the most highly respect law schools:

Can all HR staff, people please rank the schools considered to have the most desirable applicants?

I assume Oxbridge then ...??

Reply 1

happyinthehaze

I would just like to say to those who did not go to a 'prestige' school, there are opportunities in law where people don't give two hoots what school you went to.

I don't see the obsession with schools and universities myself; it is the person and the person's qualities that are important. Plenty in law know that; so if you are reading this and you did not go to a 'prestige' school, don't worry about it overly! You can find a firm that suits you.

Original post by Fmacca

Can all HR staff, people please rank the schools considered to have the most desirable applicants?

I assume Oxbridge then ...??

Reply 2

Alan Shore

Oxford
Cambridge
LSE
UCL
Durham
Warwick
Kings
Bristol
Exeter
Manchester
Nottingham
Queen Mary
Southampton
Cardiff
York

Roughly in that order.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 3

username738914

Original post by Alan Shore

Oxford
Cambridge
LSE
UCL
Durham
Warwick
Kings
Bristol
Exeter
Manchester
Nottingham
Queen Mary
Southampton
Cardiff
York

Roughly in that order.

This is just so wrong. Notts dominates after Bristol and Durham, and York is a lot more well-regarded than you're making it out to be.

The correct list is:
Oxbridge
London (LSE, KCL, UCL)
Durham
Bristol
Nottingham
Warwick
York
--- these are all much of a muchness
Birmingham
Exeter
Manchester
Queen Mary
SOAS
Sheffield
----
Southampton
Cardiff etc.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 4

MillieXYZ

You have Oxford and Cambridge, where the name is still enough to get you interviews, provided that you write half-decent applications and have a 2.1.

I would then go with LSE, Durham and UCL. Durham in particular seems to be a massive favourite with some of the MC in particular.

You then have Warwick, KCL, Bristol and Nottingham. All strong universities, but you can't ride off the university brand like you can do with the above. I think the latter two are more historically prestigious, in the sense that I've met/know many senior people who went to Bristol and Nottingham, yet they don't seem to be as well represented in the trainee intakes of the leading firms.

In a vacation scheme/trainee intake at one of the MC/SC/US firms, I would say that roughly 30-40% (at least) will be from Oxbridge, and then another 30 -40% from the next tier. You usually have 1/2 people from Warwick/KCL/Bristol/Nottingham, and the odd person from a solid university like Manchester, Birmingham, Exeter, York, or one of the scottish universities.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 5

callum_law

Original post by Princepieman

This is just so wrong. Notts dominates after Bristol and Durham, and York is a lot more well-regarded than you're making it out to be.

The correct list is

Close but nae cigar, kiddo. You're right and wrong about Nottingham; it's better than the other poster made it out to be, and it's better than you've made it out to be because it's actually more prestigious than Bristol (imo). Another mistake is your ranking of QMUL which is a course I am not a fan of but even I would have to admit it's ranked just around the Bristol level. You've ranked Birmingham when it's around the Manchester rank in reality. Exeter is on the same level of York, and both are just below Bristol. Newcastle is just below these, as well, which is something you and the other poster missed off. Then there's the rest, with Liverpool being decidedly the worst RG uni for law (and its ABB offers reflect that).

Reply 6

Alan Shore

Original post by Princepieman

I'm guessing you're a Nottingham student?

I was posting from my knowledge of the trainees at my MC firm and also from the universities that I chose to apply to.

From my experience, I haven't met all that many Nottingham students but have met more Warwick and Exeter ones. It doesn't really matter all that much though for these universities as, beyond Oxbridge, LSE, UCL and Durham, the universities have similar numbers in intakes. Those five really dominate numbers from my experience of the MC and the LPC.

Reply 7

callum_law

Original post by J-SP

And this is why it's a load of rubbish.

Because everyone has an opinion on it but can never have evidence really to back it up to say WHY the universities are "ranked" in this way apart from more opinion or because someone told them so.

This is why it's subjective, but not necessarily rubbish. There are clear groupings; there are universities like UCL and LSE right in the top group and Teesside and London Met in the bottom group. To have a clearly structured #1 and #2, and so on, is wrong. But that's not to say all stratification is always rubbish.

You might be not be bothered to lay out the different groupings, but that's a different story.

Reply 8

callum_law

Original post by J-SP

A Lambo will get you there faster than a Micra, though. Fewer people have access to the Lambo, it's more expensive, and so forth. I see your point in that it's not too useful, namely it might lead people from particular unis (such as my own) to believe they have no hope in hell of securing TCs if they don't attend a university in the uppermost stratum.

Reply 9

_Fergo

I think this survey is the only one that offers anything close to a quality answer. Don't forget that it's still a survey and can be subject to incorrect/non-representative data and whatnot.

What most people think (especially on TSR) is more often than not worthless.

Reply 10

_Fergo

Original post by J-SP

Even things like this can be seen as seriously flawed. It doesn't take into account the amount of people applying from these universities to the firms in question.

With one firm I worked at we hadn't recruited from a number of universities we "wanted" to because we received very low application numbers. Ironically that was because there was a perception that university want seen as "good enough" and that we wouldn't be interested in their students. When you are getting small numbers of applicants from one uni but 100s from Oxford, you will end up recruiting more Oxford students.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Indeed - it also doesn't factor the student population at different universities (ie LSE may have 9k while Notthingham may have 36k, which is a gigantic difference). Still, I think it's a much more solid source than most people around here!

I remember Freshfields explaining that fact thoroughly as well - they said Oxbridge candidates are much more confident and so make applications without fear, contrary to students at other universities. This means that Oxbridge students will obviously feature more.