(Original post by silence)
unfortunately, no undergraduate degrees can offer an insight into check UKLA Listing Rules, or complying definitions for facility agreements etc ad nauseam.
out of all the degrees available (and although non-law degrees are just as valid a passport into the city firms), law is obviously the most suitable course to take for studying at a law firm. a "love for the law" is the only thing undergraduates can have and although much more is necessary for a career in law, these other qualities and interests are picked up on the job, or even during vac schemes and training.
i love studying english. i don't particularly enjoy making sure that my essays are set out correctly in the documentation preferred by my university's english department, or searching through the online library catalogues for rare periodicals, or sitting in an exam room for three hours etc. nevertheless, my "love for english" is the most appropriate backbone i could have to what i am currently doing at university. likewise, a "love for the law", although obviously not the sole requirement, is one of the most useful things an student can have. to say that they will be 'disappointed' is a pessimistic generalisation.
The contention is not that people who love academic law are ill equipped to join City law firms. Since academic law and the role of a City solicitor require many of the same skill sets, people who enjoy and are good at undergraduate law clearly have the potential to do well in the big wide world of corporate finance and the like. However, very similar skill sets are also developed through history, philosophy, economics, geography, chemistry, and French – nay even English – degrees. If you think that "law is obviously the most suitable course to take for studying [sic]" at a City law firm, you probably don't quite realize either what City lawyers actually do, or what an academic law degree involves.
However, this is all a bit tangential. The point against which I actually took issue was that a "love for the law" is somehow attractive – or even required – for applicants to be successful in training contract interviews with City law firms.
This is absolute nonsense.
For the vast majority of future fee earners in City firms, a love for academic law is no more relevant than a love for history or philosophy or economics or geography or chemistry or French. The tasks I listed "ad nauseam" above are a small sample of the kind of the work which trainees and junior associates undertake. For none of them is a love – or even an interest in – the law necessary, since they each engage with academic law in pretty much the same way that writing a letter to your Aunt engages with academic English.
If an interviewer at a City firm is impressed by a love of academic law, he is almost certainly taking notice of what this reveals about the nature of the candidate's mind. It shows that they enjoy critical analysis and are probably able to absorb and assimilate large quantities of dense, complex information. But equally, this would be illustrated by a love of any almost challenging academic subject.
Stating that your "love for English" is "the most appropriate backbone" for studying English is tautology. You love academic English and you study academic English.
Stating that a love for law is the most appropriate backbone for working in a City firm is fallacy. If you expect City law firms to satisfy a love of academic law per se, you will indeed be disappointed.