Career prospects Manchester vs Exeter.

Watch
Chillman1
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
I'm speaking specifically in regards to MC/SC London firms in terms of career prospects. I've seen that Manchester supplies more trainees to firms, but it is my understanding they also have a larger intake. Does anyone have anything quantitative to show which of these performs better? also, general opinions would also be appreciated

Edit: I thought it better to include the other universities that are RG but don't require the LNAT, ie Warwick and Leeds. which out of these 4 would you recommend for career prospects, completely irrespective of other factors
Last edited by Chillman1; 1 week ago
0
reply
Bona Cynara
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
In order, I would recommend Warwick, Exeter, then Manchester, then Leeds. I've seen students from the first two unis get a respectable number of TC offers at MC and SC firms but basically none from the latter two unis. Manchester may supply 'more trainees to firms' (doubtful) but have you looked at exactly what kind of firms they are? I would suspect they're most likely regional.

There isn't really anything quantitative when it comes to these things, but you can always read the Chambers Student article on uni breakdowns of trainees. A lot of people have conflicting opinions on these things - some will claim your uni doesn't matter whatsoever (false), others that Oxbridge is the be-all and end-all (also false but a little less so). I can only offer up the conclusions I've drawn from my own experience, which are that Oxbridge forms a significant proportion of London firms' cohorts, followed largely by Durham and the top London unis (UCL, LSE) and then the better RGs (Warwick etc).
0
reply
Chillman1
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#3
(Original post by Bona Cynara)
In order, I would recommend Warwick, Exeter, then Manchester, then Leeds. I've seen students from the first two unis get a respectable number of TC offers at MC and SC firms but basically none from the latter two unis. Manchester may supply 'more trainees to firms' (doubtful) but have you looked at exactly what kind of firms they are? I would suspect they're most likely regional.

There isn't really anything quantitative when it comes to these things, but you can always read the Chambers Student article on uni breakdowns of trainees. A lot of people have conflicting opinions on these things - some will claim your uni doesn't matter whatsoever (false), others that Oxbridge is the be-all and end-all (also false but a little less so). I can only offer up the conclusions I've drawn from my own experience, which are that Oxbridge forms a significant proportion of London firms' cohorts, followed largely by Durham and the top London unis (UCL, LSE) and then the better RGs (Warwick etc).
Thanks for the help. I have another question regarding this. KCL is one of my choices and has about a 30% offer rate for my grade of A*A*A, meanwhile, Durham has a 75% offer rate for these grades. Being that Durham graduates are much more successful in breaking into the Magic circle, would it be good to substitute KCL with Durham? UCAS allows me 14 days to do so. Also, these offer rates have come straight from the official UCAS offer rate calculator

Edit: I'm very career orientated so I'm speaking solely about career prospects here.
0
reply
Bona Cynara
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 week ago
#4
(Original post by Chillman1)
Thanks for the help. I have another question regarding this. KCL is one of my choices and has about a 30% offer rate for my grade of A*A*A, meanwhile, Durham has a 75% offer rate for these grades. Being that Durham graduates are much more successful in breaking into the Magic circle, would it be good to substitute KCL with Durham? UCAS allows me 14 days to do so. Also, these offer rates have come straight from the official UCAS offer rate calculator

Edit: I'm very career orientated so I'm speaking solely about career prospects here.
Looking solely at career prospects, I do think Durham is better. I had a vac scheme at an MC firm this summer and out of around 40 students, the majority (over half) were from Oxbridge, around 10 were from Durham, and only one person was from KCL. I know this is anecdotal, but even just looking at trainee profiles on LinkedIn, there are far more people from Durham than KCL. I'm not saying unequivocally that you should definitely exchange, but I can honestly say that I would do it if I were you. KCL also has a poorer reputation in terms of just 'prestige' than Durham, which often claims to be a rival to Oxbridge (it isn't really but there's a reason it can pretend to be).

Offer rates... not sure you should take those into account much. When I was applying to uni three years ago I don't think this calculator even existed and certainly nobody ever discussed them. It sounds very woolly and I wouldn't base any major decisions on it.
0
reply
Chillman1
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#5
(Original post by Bona Cynara)
Looking solely at career prospects, I do think Durham is better. I had a vac scheme at an MC firm this summer and out of around 40 students, the majority (over half) were from Oxbridge, around 10 were from Durham, and only one person was from KCL. I know this is anecdotal, but even just looking at trainee profiles on LinkedIn, there are far more people from Durham than KCL. I'm not saying unequivocally that you should definitely exchange, but I can honestly say that I would do it if I were you. KCL also has a poorer reputation in terms of just 'prestige' than Durham, which often claims to be a rival to Oxbridge (it isn't really but there's a reason it can pretend to be).

Offer rates... not sure you should take those into account much. When I was applying to uni three years ago I don't think this calculator even existed and certainly nobody ever discussed them. It sounds very woolly and I wouldn't base any major decisions on it.
I've actually chosen to swap Nottingham for Durham, I've just done it on UCAS, because of your recommendation. How does it feel knowing some words you typed on the internet may very well of just changed where I live for the next 3 years?

On a serious note, don't you think its odd KCL has a much lower acceptance rate yet is regarded much more poorly? acceptance rate and prestige normally go hand in hand. But I've seen many graphs that support the fact KCL graduates are much less represented at MC and even SC firms. Thanks for the input
Last edited by Chillman1; 1 week ago
0
reply
Bona Cynara
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 week ago
#6
(Original post by Chillman1)
I've actually chosen to swap Nottingham for Durham, I've just done it on UCAS, because of your recommendation. How does it feel knowing some words you typed on the internet may very well of just changed where I live for the next 3 years?

On a serious note, don't you think its odd KCL has a much lower acceptance rate yet is regarded much more poorly? acceptance rate and prestige normally go hand in hand. But I've seen many graphs that support the fact KCL graduates are much less represented at MC and even SC firms. Thanks for the input
Haha well I typed them earnestly in the full intention of helping you so I hope it works out okay! I think swapping Nottingham for Durham is a great choice. Do let me know how you get on!

This acceptance rate stuff seems relatively untrustworthy. I just went on the calculator myself and typed in my predicted grades from three years ago. It told me I had a 71% chance of being accepted at Cambridge to read the course I actually do read.* That's rubbish, the odds are much lower than that. The uni gives out 20% chances as a baseline but it varies by college/year/etc and in my year the offer rate at my college was 15%.

*I may be totally misunderstanding this calculator, please correct me if that's the case.

I think the case with Kings may be that it gives out a lot of contextual offers, I have a friend studying medicine there whose offer grades were lowered because she went to a comprehensive. That kind of thing massively limits prestige and could mean that when it's time to apply to law firms, the student isn't actually of the calibre they're wanting.
0
reply
Chillman1
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#7
(Original post by Bona Cynara)
Haha well I typed them earnestly in the full intention of helping you so I hope it works out okay! I think swapping Nottingham for Durham is a great choice. Do let me know how you get on!

This acceptance rate stuff seems relatively untrustworthy. I just went on the calculator myself and typed in my predicted grades from three years ago. It told me I had a 71% chance of being accepted at Cambridge to read the course I actually do read.* That's rubbish, the odds are much lower than that. The uni gives out 20% chances as a baseline but it varies by college/year/etc and in my year the offer rate at my college was 15%.

*I may be totally misunderstanding this calculator, please correct me if that's the case.

I think the case with Kings may be that it gives out a lot of contextual offers, I have a friend studying medicine there whose offer grades were lowered because she went to a comprehensive. That kind of thing massively limits prestige and could mean that when it's time to apply to law firms, the student isn't actually of the calibre they're wanting.
It certainly gives some questionable rates sometimes :P. Yeah, kings claim to assess holistically, ie they take into account your school and thus if you go to a poor performing school, allow poorer grades. Although being that I got to an underperforming school, I may actually be beneficiary to this.
0
reply
HarvestingSeason
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 week ago
#8
With all due respect, Bona Cynara, this is very much anecdotal. I've been tracking the numbers on LinkedIn for quite a while. The pattern is generally similar across cohorts and really does not match what you are saying here. Attached below are the numbers you get when you enter "trainee" into the search box for each individual firm on LinkedIn. The figures here are specifically for the five firms generally considered to constitute the "Magic Circle".

The notion of "prestige" is really getting quite tiresome and as I've learnt, it doesn't mean much. Even in industries where your undergraduate institution plays a part in the selection process (corporate finance and investment banking), the question isn't "prestige", but rather past patterns of recruitment.

As for the acceptance rate, I believe what OP was referring to is the percentage of applicants who are given offers. In this regard, OP is correct in that Durham's offer rate is twice that of KCL (Durham has a considerably larger cohort as I recall). This is not the same as the likelihood of acceptance as you referred to.
Attached files
Last edited by HarvestingSeason; 1 week ago
2
reply
Bona Cynara
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
(Original post by HarvestingSeason)
With all due respect, Bona Cynara, this is very much anecdotal. I've been tracking the numbers on LinkedIn for quite a while. The pattern is generally similar across cohorts and really does not match what you are saying here. Attached below are the numbers you get when you enter "trainee" into the search box for each individual firm on LinkedIn. The figures here are specifically for the five firms generally considered to constitute the "Magic Circle".

The notion of "prestige" is really getting quite tiresome and as I've learnt, it doesn't mean much. Even in industries where your undergraduate institution plays a part in the selection process (corporate finance and investment banking), the question isn't "prestige", but rather past patterns of recruitment.

As for the acceptance rate, I believe what OP was referring to is the percentage of applicants who are given offers. In this regard, OP is correct in that Durham's offer rate is twice that of KCL (Durham has a considerably larger cohort as I recall). This is not the same as the likelihood of acceptance as you referred to.
I did say I was giving anecdotal evidence. Thank you for this graph - I think it seems to confirm a lot of what I said, though. The gap between Durham and King's may not be massive but there's a distinct pattern which goes Oxbridge --> LSE --> UCL/KCL --> non-London RGs. Manchester clearly has relatively few trainees at the MC.

I would say that prestige to some extent essentially is past patterns of recruitment. Institutions are perceived to be more prestigious partially as a result of where their graduates end up. For instance, Slaughter and May (from your graph) take fewer non-Oxbridge trainees than the others so a uni which consistently sent people there would seem more prestigious in the corporate law world. The more 'prestigious' unis also tend to have better career support, career events etc so it becomes a cycle.

Ah, thank you for clearing that up.
0
reply
Johnny ~
Badges: 12
#10
Report 1 week ago
#10
(Original post by Chillman1)
I'm speaking specifically in regards to MC/SC London firms in terms of career prospects. I've seen that Manchester supplies more trainees to firms, but it is my understanding they also have a larger intake. Does anyone have anything quantitative to show which of these performs better? also, general opinions would also be appreciated

Edit: I thought it better to include the other universities that are RG but don't require the LNAT, ie Warwick and Leeds. which out of these 4 would you recommend for career prospects, completely irrespective of other factors
Doesn't matter. Some of these may get slightly more or slightly fewer events a year but the difference is negligible. Thinks like cost of living and student life (proximity to London no longer really matters) should be at the front of your mind.

(Original post by Bona Cynara)
Looking solely at career prospects, I do think Durham is better. I had a vac scheme at an MC firm this summer and out of around 40 students, the majority (over half) were from Oxbridge, around 10 were from Durham, and only one person was from KCL. I know this is anecdotal, but even just looking at trainee profiles on LinkedIn, there are far more people from Durham than KCL. I'm not saying unequivocally that you should definitely exchange, but I can honestly say that I would do it if I were you. KCL also has a poorer reputation in terms of just 'prestige' than Durham, which often claims to be a rival to Oxbridge (it isn't really but there's a reason it can pretend to be).

Offer rates... not sure you should take those into account much. When I was applying to uni three years ago I don't think this calculator even existed and certainly nobody ever discussed them. It sounds very woolly and I wouldn't base any major decisions on it.
What you described sounds very odd. The 50% Oxbridge is just about believable... the 10 Durhamites? Was this spread across multiple schemes? What about other universities?

Reputation doesn't matter, all of the unis mentioned by the OP are fine. KCL is on par with Durham for all intents and purposes. It falls into the 'reputable uni that isn't Oxbridge' category. No one thinks that Durham is on par with Oxbridge, it has never been perceived as such, you're not going to get brownie points for this.

The offer rate calculator isn't 'woolly', it deals with numbers. Offer rates are numbers. They're as concrete as you can get. They're just one of the many ways in which you can quantify the difficulty of gaining admission. They have their flaws, just like any other metric.
0
reply
Johnny ~
Badges: 12
#11
Report 1 week ago
#11
HarvestingSeason made the point already but some of you really need to sit back and think about how you interpret university 'representation'. https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/sho....php?t=6247090 (point 1)
0
reply
Johnny ~
Badges: 12
#12
Report 1 week ago
#12
(Original post by HarvestingSeason)
With all due respect, Bona Cynara, this is very much anecdotal. I've been tracking the numbers on LinkedIn for quite a while. The pattern is generally similar across cohorts and really does not match what you are saying here. Attached below are the numbers you get when you enter "trainee" into the search box for each individual firm on LinkedIn. The figures here are specifically for the five firms generally considered to constitute the "Magic Circle".

The notion of "prestige" is really getting quite tiresome and as I've learnt, it doesn't mean much. Even in industries where your undergraduate institution plays a part in the selection process (corporate finance and investment banking), the question isn't "prestige", but rather past patterns of recruitment.

As for the acceptance rate, I believe what OP was referring to is the percentage of applicants who are given offers. In this regard, OP is correct in that Durham's offer rate is twice that of KCL (Durham has a considerably larger cohort as I recall). This is not the same as the likelihood of acceptance as you referred to.
Apologies for the triplepost but this is a very useful chart, thank you
0
reply
Bona Cynara
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 week ago
#13
(Original post by Johnny ~)
Doesn't matter. Some of these may get slightly more or slightly fewer events a year but the difference is negligible. Thinks like cost of living and student life (proximity to London no longer really matters) should be at the front of your mind.


What you described sounds very odd. The 50% Oxbridge is just about believable... the 10 Durhamites? Was this spread across multiple schemes? What about other universities?

Reputation doesn't matter, all of the unis mentioned by the OP are fine. KCL is on par with Durham for all intents and purposes. It falls into the 'reputable uni that isn't Oxbridge' category. No one thinks that Durham is on par with Oxbridge, it has never been perceived as such, you're not going to get brownie points for this.

The offer rate calculator isn't 'woolly', it deals with numbers. Offer rates are numbers. They're as concrete as you can get. They're just one of the many ways in which you can quantify the difficulty of gaining admission. They have their flaws, just like any other metric.
A couple of schemes. There were also several people from UCL, Imperial etc. I don't really care whether you find it 'believable' or not, since it happened. And believe me, I'm not trying to get 'brownie points' on TSR of all places, so there's no need to be snide.

I had previously misunderstood the offer rate calculator. But I would say there are serious flaws with this metric since it completely fails to take into account things like interview performance (at the unis which interview).
0
reply
aspiringlawyerNW
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 week ago
#14
(Original post by Bona Cynara)
I did say I was giving anecdotal evidence. Thank you for this graph - I think it seems to confirm a lot of what I said, though. The gap between Durham and King's may not be massive but there's a distinct pattern which goes Oxbridge --> LSE --> UCL/KCL --> non-London RGs. Manchester clearly has relatively few trainees at the MC.

I would say that prestige to some extent essentially is past patterns of recruitment. Institutions are perceived to be more prestigious partially as a result of where their graduates end up. For instance, Slaughter and May (from your graph) take fewer non-Oxbridge trainees than the others so a uni which consistently sent people there would seem more prestigious in the corporate law world. The more 'prestigious' unis also tend to have better career support, career events etc so it becomes a cycle.

Ah, thank you for clearing that up.
Of course, there are also other factors/reasons why there are less Manchester students at MC firms. You'll find many students at the Northern Universities (like myself, for example) who made the deliberate choice to remain up North because that's where they want to study and later work. And you'll get the students who have fallen in love with living in the North after studying here for three years, so choose to apply to firms in Liverpool/Manchester/Leeds. Also, I believe that Manchester has a comparatively large international intake. Which means that student's wont necessarily be looking to remain/work in the U.K. following graduation.

I think students often think that your University plays a much bigger role in determining your later success than it actually does. I know dozens of students in my cohort at York which secured TCs with Magic/Silver Circle firms in their first/second year.

What makes the difference is what *you* can bring to the table, not which University you attended.
Last edited by aspiringlawyerNW; 1 week ago
1
reply
Johnny ~
Badges: 12
#15
Report 1 week ago
#15
(Original post by Bona Cynara)
A couple of schemes. There were also several people from UCL, Imperial etc. I don't really care whether you find it 'believable' or not, since it happened. And believe me, I'm not trying to get 'brownie points' on TSR of all places, so there's no need to be snide.

I had previously misunderstood the offer rate calculator. But I would say there are serious flaws with this metric since it completely fails to take into account things like interview performance (at the unis which interview).
I think that I misunderstood your post. I would have found it more believable if you gave a percentage for Durham and how well-represented it was in comparison with e.g. UCL or LSE.

I was referring to getting brownie points from law firms, not other TSR users.

Agreed with the last point. Each metric can only give us a partial view of admissions.
0
reply
Johnny ~
Badges: 12
#16
Report 1 week ago
#16
(Original post by LpoolLawStudent)
Of course, there are also other factors/reasons why there are less Manchester students at MC firms. You'll find many students at the Northern Universities (like myself, for example) who made the deliberate choice to remain up North because that's where they want to study and later work. And you'll get the students who have fallen in love with living in the North after studying here for three years, so choose to apply to firms in Liverpool/Manchester/Leeds. Also, I believe that Manchester has international intake. Which means that student's wont necessarily be looking to remain/work in the U.K. following graduation.

I think students often think that your University plays a much bigger role in determining your later success than it actually does. I know dozens of students in my cohort at York which secured TCs with Magic/Silver Circle firms in their first/second year. What makes the difference is what *you* can bring to the table, not which University you attended.
This is probably the single biggest fault with relying on raw 'representation' - many of the students at the unis with lower representation never really wanted or expected to work at e.g. Clifford Chance and don't see the low rep as something that shows their university in a negative light. It just is what it is. Same goes for the graduates of the London unis that have a very small alumni presence in the regions.
0
reply
aspiringlawyerNW
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
(Original post by Johnny ~)
This is probably the single biggest fault with relying on raw 'representation' - many of the students at the unis with lower representation never really wanted or expected to work at e.g. Clifford Chance and don't see the low rep as something that shows their university in a negative light. It just is what it is. Same goes for the graduates of the London unis that have a very small alumni presence in the regions.
Agreed. For me, I could think of few places worse to begin my legal career than a Magic Circle firm. That doesn't mean that I couldn't secure a TC there if I really wanted to...
0
reply
Bona Cynara
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
(Original post by Johnny ~)
I think that I misunderstood your post. I would have found it more believable if you gave a percentage for Durham and how well-represented it was in comparison with e.g. UCL or LSE.

I was referring to getting brownie points from law firms, not other TSR users.

Agreed with the last point. Each metric can only give us a partial view of admissions.
I can give you more percentages. The scheme was 55% Oxbridge and 20% Durham. There was actually nobody from LSE but people from other unis, including UCL, made up a couple of percentage points - there was a significant and noticeable difference.

Apologies for misunderstanding your post and getting offended!
1
reply
Ray3RE
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 week ago
#19
I feel like I just witnessed OP's thread get hijacked, v. entertaining and enlightening.
0
reply
Chillman1
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#20
(Original post by Ray3RE)
I feel like I just witnessed OP's thread get hijacked, v. entertaining and enlightening.
haha, I like to learn about this stuff, so I'm enjoying it.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (159)
14.56%
I'm not sure (47)
4.3%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (323)
29.58%
I have already dropped out (31)
2.84%
I'm not a current university student (532)
48.72%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise