Doing law not at a russell group.

I don't really agree that it is easier to get higher marks. Speaking for myself my LLB marks at a non-RG uni were slightly lower than my LLM marks at a RG-uni.

At my undergrad uni the average mark was about 55%. At a RG uni the average mark will be low to mid 60s. I cannot right now find the site but a few years ago I saw some data with average marks and breakdown of degree by class for 30+ unis at a range of standards which showed that this was a general trend. Of course I am not saying that it is easier to get higher marks at a better university: the marks are higher on average because the students are better on average and do more work (and receive better teaching)

It is hard to say that an exam comprised of essay questions is 'easier' than another in a meaningful way because the questions are open-ended and do not admit of a perfect answer. It may be that the syllabus is narrower at lower-ranked universities but even then one can always read beyond the confines of the reading list and do better in the exam.

Sorry you two above just cant accept the reality of the situation and how it is for law... Funny thing is other people on this post share my views on universities for law too. Hannah, yes I am no careers adviser, but I think you should be here for advise, even if from someone else, as you have no TC despite your 1st and lots of EC. If someone with your profile was from a RG uni, they would very very likely have got a TC upon finishing university. You would have saved yourself all the prejudicial comments as to your university and situation if you never posted about it, as surely you know TSR is full of Oxbridge/Russell Group biased people. You lit the fire for criticism when you came in with your first post. You could see the consensus was that OP has very very little chance with an MMU and non RG degree for that matter, the profile of which you fit (non RG). You as a non RG grad also should not be surprised to come across these comments because as you should know, law is pretty much the most elitist profession you can enter aside from investment banking many would say. Even whenever you do get a TC you will come across it. These people, who Hannah has called belittling, are just saying it as it is, and they are being honest about the situation.

I'm not disagreeing, but how would you explain the very high marks that people get?

Person A: 77% average degree mark
Person B: no mark below 70% with 80 in Trusts, 78 in Company Law and Contract/many marks above 75

I know of numerous people who have got no marks below 70% in three years of studying law.

Those marks are simply not accessible at 'top' universities, what do you think is the reasoning behind this?



To be brutally honest, you don't know as much as you seem to think you do. It's worrying, because there will be plenty of young and impressionable students who take your posts at face value. Most of your knowledge seems to be second hand, i.e from what you've read on 'forums' or gathered from your first year university friends. You and Conzy2010 make very similar points, however, he uses a level of tact and subtlety, that you don't seem capable of.

You talk about someone with Hannah's profile, from a RG university, 'being very very likely to have got a TC upon finishing university' How exactly do you know this? - She said 'commercial awareness' is a flaw of hers. This is often a dealbreaker for the vast majority of city firms, regardless of where you're studying. There are a few firms that will take you for your academics, but those are in the minority. Also, just to add,'Russell Group' is a ridiculously broad term. In terms of recruitment, There's a difference between Oxford and Manchester, Warwick and Liverpool, etc. You don't quite seem to grasp that there will be people with firsts from places like Manchester who are struggling to secure a TC. Also universities like Kent, Reading, Brunel, Sussex are all solid/respectable universities, which are not part of the Russell Group. I know people from these universities who got multiple offers from MC and US firms.

Most people would consider a wide representation of universities, in trainee intakes, as a good thing. However, it seems like you think there is no place for students from lower universities regardless of what they achieve. There's more to law than the big ticket city firms. Outside of the top 30-35, I would be surprised if university is as important, as you think.

If you ever get on a vac scheme, try and conceal your surprise, if there are any non-RG students on the scheme. There was a guy from Lincoln on mine, at a 'top city firm'!

Fair enough, I admit I a bit too forward with my opinion, I won't deny that. My main reason for such a preference for Oxbridge/RG is that including the legal profession, today's world is so competitive that people need to make more reasoned choices when picking a university and should go to the best ones. What annoys me, is when people have gone to places which are significantly less reputable to the traditional unis believe they can go to the very top end just as easily as their RG counterparts when really it is so so rare. I know firms outside the city are less elitist as to Oxbridge/Russell Group, but a lot of people who go to non RG who post on TSR are expecting to end up MC etc hence why I often talk of city firms. It does happen as you say but you have to have an absolutely exceptional CV to do that. My now 2nd year RG friends have done a lot in the first year, and are not experts and nor am I. I don't proclaim to be. Yet it does not take an awful amount of research to know law firms' general preference in terms of education establishment, EC's and commercial awareness aside.

If I'm honest, I don't really disagree with the (general) substance behind your point. It's more the brash way of almost putting people down that I disagree with. Yes, people should be realistic, but why not provide ideas as to how they can make the most of whatever situation they find themselves in?

I'm not really sure I agree with the idea that people from non-Russell group universities expect to end up in the MC. Most of those posts tend to be from 16-18 year old, who know very little about city law, and are naturally blinded by the biggest names. Once you get to university, even at 'top' universities, people scale down their expectations, sometimes too much.

The issue with just 'researching online' is that it assumes that recruitment is black and white. For example, so many people on this forum would say you need a first/high 2.1 to get a look in at the magic circle. Yet, I did a vac scheme at one with a 62% average, and was told by Grad Rec, that the cut off point is generally 62%.

Another example, I think you may have said in the past that Bakers require all marks at 2.1 or above. I received a vac scheme offer, with two modules at the low 2.2 level, in first year.

If I had came on this website, and asked people to chance me for either firm, they would have said no chance.

I'm not disagreeing, but how would you explain the very high marks that people get?

Those marks are simply not accessible at 'top' universities, at least at undergraduate level, what do you think is the reasoning behind this?

Your future clients will not care where you did your degree, and with the exception of some big London firms, employers wont give a monkeys where you went to Uni either. All LLB degrees are accredited by the Law Society and therefore a consistent standard is maintained. The RG fixation is just school-leaver snobbery - ignore it.

So wrong.

Your future clients will not care where you did your degree, and with the exception of some big London firms, employers wont give a monkeys where you went to Uni either. All LLB degrees are accredited by the Law Society and therefore a consistent standard is maintained. The RG fixation is just school-leaver snobbery - ignore it.

This is indeed, as the above poster states, "so wrong".

You're probably right however when you say that clients won't care where you did your law degree (since they won't know), but it is simply not correct to say that only the big London firms care about where you go to university. There is massive competition for legal jobs throughout the top-200 law firms and beyond - your university will be a factor. Only this week I saw a comment from a recruitment partner from a top-100 in the Law Society Gazette (perhaps I'm one of the few solicitors who actually reads it!) stating that doing law at a non-RG university would be a negative. That view is widespread.

On to your second comment - it is a ludicrous to say that all law degrees have a "consistent standard". They vary and they vary widely. If by "consistent standard" you mean "minimum standard" I simply don't believe that the Law Society does this beyond taking a look at the subjects offered to ensure that the degree ticks the boxes to be a qualifying law degree.

You should be very careful before you offer such misguided and incorrect advice.

@returnmigrant is right ...