Law career opportunities after graduating from a subpar university
For context, I decided to take an access to HE diploma (which took one year) instead of A levels (which would have taken me two years). I achieved all distinctions for my access course but still rejected from most of the universities I applied to. I ended up settling on a university that is a top 30. I have heard that, for law, it becomes more difficult to join a law career the further away from the top 10 universities you get.
My question is, even if I finish with a first, will I still be able to easily find a career in law (preferably as a barrister)? And how does the university prestige affect my future career prospects?
My question is, even if I finish with a first, will I still be able to easily find a career in law (preferably as a barrister)? And how does the university prestige affect my future career prospects?
Original post by spukhaft
For context, I decided to take an access to HE diploma (which took one year) instead of A levels (which would have taken me two years). I achieved all distinctions for my access course but still rejected from most of the universities I applied to. I ended up settling on a university that is a top 30. I have heard that, for law, it becomes more difficult to join a law career the further away from the top 10 universities you get.
My question is, even if I finish with a first, will I still be able to easily find a career in law (preferably as a barrister)? And how does the university prestige affect my future career prospects?
My question is, even if I finish with a first, will I still be able to easily find a career in law (preferably as a barrister)? And how does the university prestige affect my future career prospects?
I think based on what I have read here, becoming a barrister may be beyond you and also - it really isn't that great a career choice. But the best person to ask is @harrysbar. She knows a lot about the subject.
But don't let not being in the top 10 put you off - you have done phenomenally well to get where you are and that enthusiasm will help a lot.
I hate when people knock their degree/uni as being "substandard" and "lesser" than others.
Not only is that not the case but you bloody picked it!!!!
There's more to a strong application than the uni you went to.
There's a very very very small number of law firms that have ever said RG only. Like litro two or so.
I've seen one firm that literally only has Oxbridge people but that is a small practice where the guy... surprise surprise is an Oxbridge grad.
Not only is that not the case but you bloody picked it!!!!
There's more to a strong application than the uni you went to.
There's a very very very small number of law firms that have ever said RG only. Like litro two or so.
I've seen one firm that literally only has Oxbridge people but that is a small practice where the guy... surprise surprise is an Oxbridge grad.
Original post by FRS500
I hate when people knock their degree/uni as being "substandard" and "lesser" than others.
Not only is that not the case but you bloody picked it!!!!
There's more to a strong application than the uni you went to.
There's a very very very small number of law firms that have ever said RG only. Like litro two or so.
I've seen one firm that literally only has Oxbridge people but that is a small practice where the guy... surprise surprise is an Oxbridge grad.
Not only is that not the case but you bloody picked it!!!!
There's more to a strong application than the uni you went to.
There's a very very very small number of law firms that have ever said RG only. Like litro two or so.
I've seen one firm that literally only has Oxbridge people but that is a small practice where the guy... surprise surprise is an Oxbridge grad.
I understand totally! I was just worried as so many people I have spoken to emphasise the importance of University prestige when progressing further in their career. It is certainly good to hear, however, that my University ranking isn't the be-all and end-all of a good application.
Original post by spukhaft
For context, I decided to take an access to HE diploma (which took one year) instead of A levels (which would have taken me two years). I achieved all distinctions for my access course but still rejected from most of the universities I applied to. I ended up settling on a university that is a top 30. I have heard that, for law, it becomes more difficult to join a law career the further away from the top 10 universities you get.
My question is, even if I finish with a first, will I still be able to easily find a career in law (preferably as a barrister)? And how does the university prestige affect my future career prospects?
My question is, even if I finish with a first, will I still be able to easily find a career in law (preferably as a barrister)? And how does the university prestige affect my future career prospects?
Thank you for the nice compliment @squeakysquirrel but I am better at answering questions relating to getting onto Law degrees and the GDL- the best people to comment on working as a barrister are @Crazy Jamie and @Kessler`as they are practicing barristers.
For what it's worth @spukhaft I am a bit concerned that you got rejected from several unis, because most of them normally like mature students and do accept Access courses as equivalent to A levels. It doesn't sound like a problem with your Access course if you achieved all distinctions so I wonder if there was something else lacking in your application like GCSE English maybe? Even if there are no problems like that I still can't say you will "easily find a career in law" because unfortunately it is extremely competitive on both the solicitor and the barrister side (but more so for trainee barristers).
Anyway, hopefully one of the people I have tagged will be able to offer you some advice about how the prestige of your uni might affect becoming a barrister. On the solicitor side, I wouldn't expect the prestige element to make much difference as they will be mainly looking for people with the right grades, attitude, extracurriculars and relevant work experience (not necessarily paid). A top 30 uni should not be a problem but it may be a different story for trainee barristers, I'm not sure.
Hi. First of all, noone can really say that they will 'easily' embark on a career at the Bar. The process is difficult for everyone. You only have to look at the statistics to see that there are far too many applicants for pupillage than there are places for them. Not only that, but the recent pandemic has had a terrible effect on many chambers. Significant numbers of pupillage places are being deferred and the competition for next year is likely to grow even greater with a large proportion of chambers deciding that they cannot support more pupils.
That being said, it is good to be aware of the mountain ahead so that you can focus on how best to climb it. The Bar is far more diverse nowadays in where the newest members hail from. A good application is not 'just' about academics, but academics are a significant tickbox which must be checked alongside other factors. Generally speaking, a first class degree is likely to satisfy that tickbox at most sets outside the top flight sets that practice commercial/specialist civil areas of law. The name of your university is not likely to be a significant issue unless it has an obvious reputation for low quality. You are usually required to set out your academic record at least to A-level (sometimes to GCSE), so that those making the decisions can check for a general academic pattern. If you have a very poor record prior to university and then a great degree you are likely to be questioned about that. You will need a convincing explanation that does not seek to simply shift the blame on something else. Some of the best candidates I have seen had poor academic records prior to university, but were able to explain - essentially - how they had 'grown up' and developed their full potential. Recognising your own weaknesses and improving/countering them are an important part of the advocate's toolset, so demonstrating it within your application is not a bad thing at all.
When looking through forms we are also concerned about people who are 'just' academic and do not have a rounded character. The point I make time and time again to hopefuls is that it is massively important to demonstrate you are an 'interesting' person. You should engage in activites and skills that demonstrate your ability to interact with different levels of society, your competitive streak, your love of life etc. I have seen forms rejected because a candidate, whilst having a solid academic record, simply did nothing else but study. There are too many candidates for places to afford not to catch your assessor's eye. In turn, the lower your academic record, the more you must compensate for it in other areas of your application - whether it be in legal work experience, activites, competitions etc.
A good idea is to look at the chambers that interest you, or a range of chambers that are in your chosen practice/geographical area, and read the profiles of their current pupils and recent tenants (up to about 5 years post-pupillage). Their profiles will usually give you a good indication of what their CV/application looked like. You should compare their acheivements and history to your own. Would you have been able to compete with them, had you applied alongside each other? That's a good starting point to assess your own application/background and see what you can do to improve.
That being said, it is good to be aware of the mountain ahead so that you can focus on how best to climb it. The Bar is far more diverse nowadays in where the newest members hail from. A good application is not 'just' about academics, but academics are a significant tickbox which must be checked alongside other factors. Generally speaking, a first class degree is likely to satisfy that tickbox at most sets outside the top flight sets that practice commercial/specialist civil areas of law. The name of your university is not likely to be a significant issue unless it has an obvious reputation for low quality. You are usually required to set out your academic record at least to A-level (sometimes to GCSE), so that those making the decisions can check for a general academic pattern. If you have a very poor record prior to university and then a great degree you are likely to be questioned about that. You will need a convincing explanation that does not seek to simply shift the blame on something else. Some of the best candidates I have seen had poor academic records prior to university, but were able to explain - essentially - how they had 'grown up' and developed their full potential. Recognising your own weaknesses and improving/countering them are an important part of the advocate's toolset, so demonstrating it within your application is not a bad thing at all.
When looking through forms we are also concerned about people who are 'just' academic and do not have a rounded character. The point I make time and time again to hopefuls is that it is massively important to demonstrate you are an 'interesting' person. You should engage in activites and skills that demonstrate your ability to interact with different levels of society, your competitive streak, your love of life etc. I have seen forms rejected because a candidate, whilst having a solid academic record, simply did nothing else but study. There are too many candidates for places to afford not to catch your assessor's eye. In turn, the lower your academic record, the more you must compensate for it in other areas of your application - whether it be in legal work experience, activites, competitions etc.
A good idea is to look at the chambers that interest you, or a range of chambers that are in your chosen practice/geographical area, and read the profiles of their current pupils and recent tenants (up to about 5 years post-pupillage). Their profiles will usually give you a good indication of what their CV/application looked like. You should compare their acheivements and history to your own. Would you have been able to compete with them, had you applied alongside each other? That's a good starting point to assess your own application/background and see what you can do to improve.
Original post by harrysbar
Thank you for the nice compliment @squeakysquirrel but I am better at answering questions relating to getting onto Law degrees and the GDL- the best people to comment on working as a barrister are @Crazy Jamie and @Kessler`as they are practicing barristers.
For what it's worth @spukhaft I am a bit concerned that you got rejected from several unis, because most of them normally like mature students and do accept Access courses as equivalent to A levels. It doesn't sound like a problem with your Access course if you achieved all distinctions so I wonder if there was something else lacking in your application like GCSE English maybe? Even if there are no problems like that I still can't say you will "easily find a career in law" because unfortunately it is extremely competitive on both the solicitor and the barrister side (but more so for trainee barristers).
Anyway, hopefully one of the people I have tagged will be able to offer you some advice about how the prestige of your uni might affect becoming a barrister. On the solicitor side, I wouldn't expect the prestige element to make much difference as they will be mainly looking for people with the right grades, attitude, extracurriculars and relevant work experience (not necessarily paid). A top 30 uni should not be a problem but it may be a different story for trainee barristers, I'm not sure.
For what it's worth @spukhaft I am a bit concerned that you got rejected from several unis, because most of them normally like mature students and do accept Access courses as equivalent to A levels. It doesn't sound like a problem with your Access course if you achieved all distinctions so I wonder if there was something else lacking in your application like GCSE English maybe? Even if there are no problems like that I still can't say you will "easily find a career in law" because unfortunately it is extremely competitive on both the solicitor and the barrister side (but more so for trainee barristers).
Anyway, hopefully one of the people I have tagged will be able to offer you some advice about how the prestige of your uni might affect becoming a barrister. On the solicitor side, I wouldn't expect the prestige element to make much difference as they will be mainly looking for people with the right grades, attitude, extracurriculars and relevant work experience (not necessarily paid). A top 30 uni should not be a problem but it may be a different story for trainee barristers, I'm not sure.
Hi! Thank you for your reply. I think I know why I got rejected and it’s because I only have 5 GCSEs because I had to take them as evening classes and my local college only offered 5. I got a 9 for English, as well as an 8,7,6 and a 5 for math (I only took the foundation tier paper for some reason).
Additionally, I only got an average grade for the LNAT (although a friend of mine got into Durham - one of the Unis that rejected me - with only a score of 18).
Luckily I am not completely set on becoming a barrister over a solicitor yet, although it is still a preference. This means that if it really is much more difficult for me to become a barrister, I should still be relatively happy as a solicitor. Although I am hoping that my extracurriculars and attitude will help me!
Thanks again!
Original post by spukhaft
For context, I decided to take an access to HE diploma (which took one year) instead of A levels (which would have taken me two years). I achieved all distinctions for my access course but still rejected from most of the universities I applied to. I ended up settling on a university that is a top 30. I have heard that, for law, it becomes more difficult to join a law career the further away from the top 10 universities you get.
My question is, even if I finish with a first, will I still be able to easily find a career in law (preferably as a barrister)? And how does the university prestige affect my future career prospects?
My question is, even if I finish with a first, will I still be able to easily find a career in law (preferably as a barrister)? And how does the university prestige affect my future career prospects?
You need AAB or better in your A levels, plus a good 2.1 degree. Though preferably you would have AAA and a first class degree. Some relevant experience also helps.
Original post by Kessler`
Hi. First of all, noone can really say that they will 'easily' embark on a career at the Bar. The process is difficult for everyone. You only have to look at the statistics to see that there are far too many applicants for pupillage than there are places for them. Not only that, but the recent pandemic has had a terrible effect on many chambers. Significant numbers of pupillage places are being deferred and the competition for next year is likely to grow even greater with a large proportion of chambers deciding that they cannot support more pupils.
That being said, it is good to be aware of the mountain ahead so that you can focus on how best to climb it. The Bar is far more diverse nowadays in where the newest members hail from. A good application is not 'just' about academics, but academics are a significant tickbox which must be checked alongside other factors. Generally speaking, a first class degree is likely to satisfy that tickbox at most sets outside the top flight sets that practice commercial/specialist civil areas of law. The name of your university is not likely to be a significant issue unless it has an obvious reputation for low quality. You are usually required to set out your academic record at least to A-level (sometimes to GCSE), so that those making the decisions can check for a general academic pattern. If you have a very poor record prior to university and then a great degree you are likely to be questioned about that. You will need a convincing explanation that does not seek to simply shift the blame on something else. Some of the best candidates I have seen had poor academic records prior to university, but were able to explain - essentially - how they had 'grown up' and developed their full potential. Recognising your own weaknesses and improving/countering them are an important part of the advocate's toolset, so demonstrating it within your application is not a bad thing at all.
When looking through forms we are also concerned about people who are 'just' academic and do not have a rounded character. The point I make time and time again to hopefuls is that it is massively important to demonstrate you are an 'interesting' person. You should engage in activites and skills that demonstrate your ability to interact with different levels of society, your competitive streak, your love of life etc. I have seen forms rejected because a candidate, whilst having a solid academic record, simply did nothing else but study. There are too many candidates for places to afford not to catch your assessor's eye. In turn, the lower your academic record, the more you must compensate for it in other areas of your application - whether it be in legal work experience, activites, competitions etc.
A good idea is to look at the chambers that interest you, or a range of chambers that are in your chosen practice/geographical area, and read the profiles of their current pupils and recent tenants (up to about 5 years post-pupillage). Their profiles will usually give you a good indication of what their CV/application looked like. You should compare their acheivements and history to your own. Would you have been able to compete with them, had you applied alongside each other? That's a good starting point to assess your own application/background and see what you can do to improve.
That being said, it is good to be aware of the mountain ahead so that you can focus on how best to climb it. The Bar is far more diverse nowadays in where the newest members hail from. A good application is not 'just' about academics, but academics are a significant tickbox which must be checked alongside other factors. Generally speaking, a first class degree is likely to satisfy that tickbox at most sets outside the top flight sets that practice commercial/specialist civil areas of law. The name of your university is not likely to be a significant issue unless it has an obvious reputation for low quality. You are usually required to set out your academic record at least to A-level (sometimes to GCSE), so that those making the decisions can check for a general academic pattern. If you have a very poor record prior to university and then a great degree you are likely to be questioned about that. You will need a convincing explanation that does not seek to simply shift the blame on something else. Some of the best candidates I have seen had poor academic records prior to university, but were able to explain - essentially - how they had 'grown up' and developed their full potential. Recognising your own weaknesses and improving/countering them are an important part of the advocate's toolset, so demonstrating it within your application is not a bad thing at all.
When looking through forms we are also concerned about people who are 'just' academic and do not have a rounded character. The point I make time and time again to hopefuls is that it is massively important to demonstrate you are an 'interesting' person. You should engage in activites and skills that demonstrate your ability to interact with different levels of society, your competitive streak, your love of life etc. I have seen forms rejected because a candidate, whilst having a solid academic record, simply did nothing else but study. There are too many candidates for places to afford not to catch your assessor's eye. In turn, the lower your academic record, the more you must compensate for it in other areas of your application - whether it be in legal work experience, activites, competitions etc.
A good idea is to look at the chambers that interest you, or a range of chambers that are in your chosen practice/geographical area, and read the profiles of their current pupils and recent tenants (up to about 5 years post-pupillage). Their profiles will usually give you a good indication of what their CV/application looked like. You should compare their acheivements and history to your own. Would you have been able to compete with them, had you applied alongside each other? That's a good starting point to assess your own application/background and see what you can do to improve.
Wow, thank you so much for your advice!
The University I chose is Surrey, so I don’t believe it has a reputation for low quality. However, this was my insurance choice and my first pick was Durham.
I understand that the prestige of a University isnt everything and hopefully any extracurriculars and work experience that I do in the next few years will help to make my application stand out.
Your suggestion to look at the profiles of current pupils is fantastic and I will work on that now and hopefully it should give me an idea of what I need to do.
Thanks so much again!
Original post by spukhaft
Hi! Thank you for your reply. I think I know why I got rejected and it’s because I only have 5 GCSEs because I had to take them as evening classes and my local college only offered 5. I got a 9 for English, as well as an 8,7,6 and a 5 for math (I only took the foundation tier paper for some reason).
Additionally, I only got an average grade for the LNAT (although a friend of mine got into Durham - one of the Unis that rejected me - with only a score of 18).
Luckily I am not completely set on becoming a barrister over a solicitor yet, although it is still a preference. This means that if it really is much more difficult for me to become a barrister, I should still be relatively happy as a solicitor. Although I am hoping that my extracurriculars and attitude will help me!
Thanks again!
Additionally, I only got an average grade for the LNAT (although a friend of mine got into Durham - one of the Unis that rejected me - with only a score of 18).
Luckily I am not completely set on becoming a barrister over a solicitor yet, although it is still a preference. This means that if it really is much more difficult for me to become a barrister, I should still be relatively happy as a solicitor. Although I am hoping that my extracurriculars and attitude will help me!
Thanks again!
I think you did really well to get 5 GCSEs at such good grades at evening classes - the unis who rejected you missed out on a good candidate! The achievements you have made in difficult circumstances at GCSE and during your Access course do you credit and it sounds like you are also doing well at uni. I would carry on aiming for the highest grades and doing everything you can to demonstrate your interest in law. You are not a standard applicant (and becoming a barrister is extremely difficult for anyone) but while it won't be easy to enter a career in law, you do have many postitive things about your application. It may be that the route to becoming a solicitor would be both easier and cheaper however, so that is worth thinking about very seriously.
(edited 3 years ago)
Just to expand a little on what Kessler has said, but the Bar is slowly becoming a little better at dealing with applicants from non traditional backgrounds, and in particular at remaining open minded when it comes to applicants who might not have taken many or any GCSEs or A-Levels due to adverse circumstances when they were younger. That's not to say that such applicants get a free pass to interview; the point is that when assessing academic ability it's traditionally been a matter of ensuring that certain boxes are ticked, and if you don't tick those boxes your chances of securing interview can become vanishingly small. But sets are now becoming increasingly more aware that applicants from non traditional backgrounds may well still have (and be able to show) that academic ability even if, for example, they didn't take A-Levels.
That's not to say that the application process is still anything other than very difficult, very competitive, and very challenging in terms of the persistence and endurance that it requires. If anything, it surely is still more difficult for applicants from non traditional backgrounds to secure interview and pupillage. But that door is now at least open, if only slightly, whereas previously it was closed. An example from a few years ago (which I gave recently in another thread) is that there was an applicant for pupillage at my set who didn't have A-Levels, joined the police and worked their way up from there. Their background was very much non traditional, but equally they were clearly also very capable. They got to the second round at my set and went on to get pupillage elsewhere in the same round. So it can be done, albeit you really do still have to be aware of how competitive the process is and of the need to build a strong application in the areas that you can now influence.
I would very much echo what harrysbar has said, and I agree that you seem to have done very well to gain the qualifications that you have given the circumstances in which you studied for them. That really is commendable, but being honest it doesn't mean either that you have the skills to be barrister, or that you will be able to demonstrate those skills on paper (which you must be able to do, because that's how you get interviews). The key to this is to make well informed decisions as to your realistic prospects of securing pupillage, and whether or not you're willing to take that risk. If you do decide to go for it, I obviously wish you the very best of luck.
That's not to say that the application process is still anything other than very difficult, very competitive, and very challenging in terms of the persistence and endurance that it requires. If anything, it surely is still more difficult for applicants from non traditional backgrounds to secure interview and pupillage. But that door is now at least open, if only slightly, whereas previously it was closed. An example from a few years ago (which I gave recently in another thread) is that there was an applicant for pupillage at my set who didn't have A-Levels, joined the police and worked their way up from there. Their background was very much non traditional, but equally they were clearly also very capable. They got to the second round at my set and went on to get pupillage elsewhere in the same round. So it can be done, albeit you really do still have to be aware of how competitive the process is and of the need to build a strong application in the areas that you can now influence.
I would very much echo what harrysbar has said, and I agree that you seem to have done very well to gain the qualifications that you have given the circumstances in which you studied for them. That really is commendable, but being honest it doesn't mean either that you have the skills to be barrister, or that you will be able to demonstrate those skills on paper (which you must be able to do, because that's how you get interviews). The key to this is to make well informed decisions as to your realistic prospects of securing pupillage, and whether or not you're willing to take that risk. If you do decide to go for it, I obviously wish you the very best of luck.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Cattolica vs. San Raffaele
- Law degree
- Law graduate courses that dont require RG unis?
- Surrey vs Exeter for Law.
- Law degree
- Ucas Uni choices
- Nottingham law prestige?
- 2.2 with dreams of working at a magic circle law firm
- Kent or Hertfordshire for MS in CS
- law experience as non-law undergrad
- Wanting to study law but have some questions please help!!
- University decision
- Help with finding work experience for law
- Bristol or Exeter?
- People who study geography, what are your plans?
- law after biomedical science
- University of Surrey for Law
- Durham Law Job Prospects
- Is law an in demand degree?
- I've messed up
