Does Russel group matter as much as people say in Law?

Does it matter as much as people say whether you go to a Russel group uni for law, or does it not put you at much of a disadvantage if you don’t, but still go to a well-ranked university? I’m going to a uni that is very highly ranked in general rankings, and it’s pretty decently ranked for Law. However, since it’s not Russel group, does this mean that I’ll really be at a disadvantage? Any responses are appreciated

Does it matter as much as people say whether you go to a Russel group uni for law, or does it not put you at much of a disadvantage if you don’t, but still go to a well-ranked university? I’m going to a uni that is very highly ranked in general rankings, and it’s pretty decently ranked for Law. However, since it’s not Russel group, does this mean that I’ll really be at a disadvantage? Any responses are appreciated

What uni is it? Because I am in the same situation right now and I’ve heard that employers really look at the candidates qualities and not which uni they’ve graduated from.

Hi thanks for the reply! I’m currently studying at Surrey uni, so I was wondering if you think that it’s on the same tier as some of the Russel group unis (obviously not the top ones like Oxford and Cambridge though phahaha)?

Hi thanks for the response, I’m currently in my first year at Surrey uni, so it tends to rank I think between 12th and 20th in general rankings so it’s pretty high which is helpful I believe. Yeah I heard the same, I doubt anyone would get hired over other candidates just because the went to a Russel group uni, and the other candidate didn’t. But I’ld still like to see why people belive Russel group uni status matter so much, and if you’re at a disadvantage if you don’t go to one

Trust me i know how you feel, I’ve honestly been going crazy with researching on all platforms to see why people go crazy over RG unis and if it affects employment, and the uni your attending is really up there so you shouldn’t worry. Good luck!

Going to Surrey vs the lower ranked RGs will make no difference to your job prospects. It will be down to everything else in your application.

Thanks! I’ve been to some Russel group uni open days for law, and the only difference I really found was that they have some higher ranked law firms come in for career days, but obviously only a very small percentage of the students there would be able to get places from those career days, so I really can’t see that much difference between RG and non-RG uni’s. What uni are you going to if you don’t mind me asking?

The uni reputation/ranking will matter to some extent, but not if it is Russel Group or not, as several non RG unis are better than some RG ones, particularly St Andrews, Bath, Lough and Lancaster.

Does it matter as much as people say whether you go to a Russel group uni for law, or does it not put you at much of a disadvantage if you don’t, but still go to a well-ranked university? I’m going to a uni that is very highly ranked in general rankings, and it’s pretty decently ranked for Law. However, since it’s not Russel group, does this mean that I’ll really be at a disadvantage? Any responses are appreciated

I am a partner in an international law firm and I am involved in trainee recruitment. We hire candidates, not their universities. We have hired from Surrey and other non-RG universities. Just make sure you get good grades and build out your CV as much as possible.

So when law firms hire candidates they tend to focus mainly on the grade of the candidate and how strong their CV is? Do they not focus on what uni the candidate graduated from at all or is there some to little affect if the candidate did graduate from a RG uni or non - RG uni?
Thank you!

Ok that makes me feel a lot better lol. And I am gonna start my first year at Strathclyde uni. To be fair I really wanted to apply to Uni of Glasgow I had the grades for it too but since my parents said no no to living on campus I am commuting and the closest uni to me was Strathclyde, but I am not hating it

University has little-to-no relevance when it comes to hiring at most law firms.

Despite this being stated by experienced solicitors and barristers over an over again, the myth that, in order to become a barrister or get a job in a commercial law firm you must graduate from one of a narrow group of universities persists.
The problem may arise from a sort of confirmation bias or causation/correlation confusion. It so happens that the sort of people who get pupillages and commercial training contracts have often (but not exclusively) graduated from one of a narrow (ish) group of universities, but that is because people with the attributes that chambers and law firms are looking for tend to do well at school, tend to go to one of those universities, and tend to get good degrees at those universities. This does not mean that a person who fluffs his or her A levels (or is constrained by family or other pressures) and goes to a university outside the narrow (ish) group has no chance of a shiny legal career.
Three examples from the Bar:
The joint heads of Blackstone Chambers are Tom Weisselberg KC and Jane Mulcahy KC. Tom went to Westminster School, took a First in Modern History at Merton College, Oxford, and did a Diploma in Law. Jane left her Essex comprehensive school at sixteen, worked in trade journalism, did a London degree in Law part time, and started at the Bar in her thirties. Nick de Marco KC, the number one football lawyer in the UK, left his East End comprehensive school at sixteen and worked as a bouncer at nightclubs before getting a degree from Birkbeck and starting at the Bar in his thirties.

Despite this being stated by experienced solicitors and barristers over an over again, the myth that, in order to become a barrister or get a job in a commercial law firm you must graduate from one of a narrow group of universities persists.
The problem may arise from a sort of confirmation bias or causation/correlation confusion. It so happens that the sort of people who get pupillages and commercial training contracts have often (but not exclusively) graduated from one of a narrow (ish) group of universities, but that is because people with the attributes that chambers and law firms are looking for tend to do well at school, tend to go to one of those universities, and tend to get good degrees at those universities. This does not mean that a person who fluffs his or her A levels (or is constrained by family or other pressures) and goes to a university outside the narrow (ish) group has no chance of a shiny legal career.
Three examples from the Bar:
The joint heads of Blackstone Chambers are Tom Weisselberg KC and Jane Mulcahy KC. Tom went to Westminster School, took a First in Modern History at Merton College, Oxford, and did a Diploma in Law. Jane left her Essex comprehensive school at sixteen, worked in trade journalism, did a London degree in Law part time, and started at the Bar in her thirties. Nick de Marco KC, the number one football lawyer in the UK, left his East End comprehensive school at sixteen and worked as a bouncer at nightclubs before getting a degree from Birkbeck and starting at the Bar in his thirties.

This is a great post. If only it good be tagged and automatically displayed anytime someone expresses concern about going to a non-RG university!

However, there is another level to the situation, and maybe when those of us with plenty of real world experience advise on TSR we should be completely frank. The fact is that law is an intelligence-based career, and while a few people don't fit the school system well and don't flourish at A level, but are late developers (and I'd class myself as one of those), it doesn't mean you have a realistic chance of getting pupillage at Blackstone with ABB and a law degree from Kent.
The success stories you cite there are people who have 'flunked' school and gone into the real world, and done some deeper personal reflection on their talent, and have realised they are wasting it. In many cases on TSR, that simply isn't realistically likely to be the case.
Of course a law degree is a useful mental exercise in itself, and doesn't have to establish a career in law. And being a regional/market town solicitor is a well-paid, satisfying career. But perhaps we ought to strike a note of realism about what you would have to add to your profile if you want a 'city law' career, if you are entering with As and Bs from a university that doesn't have a long history of top-end law candidates?

I agree. We are encouraged to say "all have done well and all shall have prizes", but, frankly, some who post here with aspirations about careers in City law firms or at the Commercial Bar may need to take a reality pill.
Entry to the upper echelons of the legal profession is brutally competitive. It's not an accident that posh chambers and swanky law firms are full of people who went to Oxford, Cambridge, the LSE, UCL, KCL and so on. People should by all means aspire to success, but pie in the sky dreams don't get a person anywhere. The American "if you wish it, it shall be so" thing doesn't really work, and not everybody is Elle Woods (the thing about Elle Woods is that she is super-smart). As you correctly observe, a legal career away from the glittering towers of the City can be rewarding in many ways.