Why university rankings don't matter
1. No law firm or set of barristers' chambers cares about any university ranking table.
2. See above.
3. Er, that's it.
I have been considering applications for mini-pupillages and pupillages at two sets of barristers' chambers since the 1990s. One of those chambers is a magic circle chambers. I have also been a partner in an international law firm and made hiring decisions at that firm. I am a consultant to a law firm and assist in hiring decisions there. I teach part time at UCL and have also taught at QMUL, Reading, and at Trinity and University Colleges, Dublin.
At my current chambers and at my previous chambers, applications for mini-pupillages and pupillages are considered without disclosure of the university from which an applicant graduated.
When considering lateral hires, experience in practice is the key factor, with academic record a background factor.
I have asked around amongst colleagues at other sets of chambers and at law firms. Nobody has told me that their chambers or firm considers any university ranking when making any recruitment decision.
There is good reason for this. First, we are interested in individual talent, not in reputation by association. Secondly, the rankings are compiled on journalistic bases and aren't reliable. They are based on small sample opinions, they use varying measures chosen at random, and they sometimes present quantitative information as though it were qualitative (for example: "research quality").
Candidates from some universities tend to do better than candidates from other universities because of the resources available at the more competitive universities, and the quality of the education which those universities provide. When you consider that many colleges at Oxford and Cambridge have endowments larger than whole universities, you can see the resource disparity. Oxford, for example, has over one hundred libraries (that's one library for every two hundred and sixty students).
The most competitive universities can pick and choose from the most academically successful sixth formers, and can also pick and choose from the best academics when the universities recruit academic staff.
So, yes, you should work super hard and try to get into Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, LSE, KCL, QMUL, Bristol, Durham, Warwick, Nottingham, and so on, but please don't obsess about rankings. The law firms and sets of chambers you aspire to join don't care about rankings.
TL/DR? Law firms and chambers DON'T CARE ABOUT UNIVERSITY RANKINGS.
PS: Russell Group (1) has two ls; and (2) is a group of universities which have a loose association, mainly for marketing. The Russell Group universities are good universities, but non-membership of the Russell Group is not a sign of being no good.
2. See above.
3. Er, that's it.
I have been considering applications for mini-pupillages and pupillages at two sets of barristers' chambers since the 1990s. One of those chambers is a magic circle chambers. I have also been a partner in an international law firm and made hiring decisions at that firm. I am a consultant to a law firm and assist in hiring decisions there. I teach part time at UCL and have also taught at QMUL, Reading, and at Trinity and University Colleges, Dublin.
At my current chambers and at my previous chambers, applications for mini-pupillages and pupillages are considered without disclosure of the university from which an applicant graduated.
When considering lateral hires, experience in practice is the key factor, with academic record a background factor.
I have asked around amongst colleagues at other sets of chambers and at law firms. Nobody has told me that their chambers or firm considers any university ranking when making any recruitment decision.
There is good reason for this. First, we are interested in individual talent, not in reputation by association. Secondly, the rankings are compiled on journalistic bases and aren't reliable. They are based on small sample opinions, they use varying measures chosen at random, and they sometimes present quantitative information as though it were qualitative (for example: "research quality").
Candidates from some universities tend to do better than candidates from other universities because of the resources available at the more competitive universities, and the quality of the education which those universities provide. When you consider that many colleges at Oxford and Cambridge have endowments larger than whole universities, you can see the resource disparity. Oxford, for example, has over one hundred libraries (that's one library for every two hundred and sixty students).
The most competitive universities can pick and choose from the most academically successful sixth formers, and can also pick and choose from the best academics when the universities recruit academic staff.
So, yes, you should work super hard and try to get into Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, LSE, KCL, QMUL, Bristol, Durham, Warwick, Nottingham, and so on, but please don't obsess about rankings. The law firms and sets of chambers you aspire to join don't care about rankings.
TL/DR? Law firms and chambers DON'T CARE ABOUT UNIVERSITY RANKINGS.
PS: Russell Group (1) has two ls; and (2) is a group of universities which have a loose association, mainly for marketing. The Russell Group universities are good universities, but non-membership of the Russell Group is not a sign of being no good.
Scroll to see replies
Reply 1
19
Bumped, because the local obsession with rankings persists, and is encouraged by some misinformed posters.
Reply 2
Original post
by Stiffy ByngBumped, because the local obsession with rankings persists, and is encouraged by some misinformed posters.
Thanks very much for this- extremely helpful for overseas applicants who usually only have league tables/rankings and website marketing to go by to make a decision.
Reply 3
19
You're welcome. The rankings are adjacent to the marketing. You will perhaps have noticed that there is a lot of marketing in this forum on the part of universities which are not over-subscribed.
Reply 4
Original post
by Stiffy Byng1. No law firm or set of barristers' chambers cares about any university ranking table.
2. See above.
3. Er, that's it.
I have been considering applications for mini-pupillages and pupillages at two sets of barristers' chambers since the 1990s. One of those chambers is a magic circle chambers. I have also been a partner in an international law firm and made hiring decisions at that firm. I am a consultant to a law firm and assist in hiring decisions there. I teach part time at UCL and have also taught at QMUL, Reading, and at Trinity and University Colleges, Dublin.
At my current chambers and at my previous chambers, applications for mini-pupillages and pupillages are considered without disclosure of the university from which an applicant graduated.
When considering lateral hires, experience in practice is the key factor, with academic record a background factor.
I have asked around amongst colleagues at other sets of chambers and at law firms. Nobody has told me that their chambers or firm considers any university ranking when making any recruitment decision.
There is good reason for this. First, we are interested in individual talent, not in reputation by association. Secondly, the rankings are compiled on journalistic bases and aren't reliable. They are based on small sample opinions, they use varying measures chosen at random, and they sometimes present quantitative information as though it were qualitative (for example: "research quality").
Candidates from some universities tend to do better than candidates from other universities because of the resources available at the more competitive universities, and the quality of the education which those universities provide. When you consider that many colleges at Oxford and Cambridge have endowments larger than whole universities, you can see the resource disparity. Oxford, for example, has over one hundred libraries (that's one library for every two hundred and sixty students).
The most competitive universities can pick and choose from the most academically successful sixth formers, and can also pick and choose from the best academics when the universities recruit academic staff.
So, yes, you should work super hard and try to get into Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, LSE, KCL, QMUL, Bristol, Durham, Warwick, Nottingham, and so on, but please don't obsess about rankings. The law firms and sets of chambers you aspire to join don't care about rankings.
TL/DR? Law firms and chambers DON'T CARE ABOUT UNIVERSITY RANKINGS.
PS: Russell Group (1) has two ls; and (2) is a group of universities which have a loose association, mainly for marketing. The Russell Group universities are good universities, but non-membership of the Russell Group is not a sign of being no good.
2. See above.
3. Er, that's it.
I have been considering applications for mini-pupillages and pupillages at two sets of barristers' chambers since the 1990s. One of those chambers is a magic circle chambers. I have also been a partner in an international law firm and made hiring decisions at that firm. I am a consultant to a law firm and assist in hiring decisions there. I teach part time at UCL and have also taught at QMUL, Reading, and at Trinity and University Colleges, Dublin.
At my current chambers and at my previous chambers, applications for mini-pupillages and pupillages are considered without disclosure of the university from which an applicant graduated.
When considering lateral hires, experience in practice is the key factor, with academic record a background factor.
I have asked around amongst colleagues at other sets of chambers and at law firms. Nobody has told me that their chambers or firm considers any university ranking when making any recruitment decision.
There is good reason for this. First, we are interested in individual talent, not in reputation by association. Secondly, the rankings are compiled on journalistic bases and aren't reliable. They are based on small sample opinions, they use varying measures chosen at random, and they sometimes present quantitative information as though it were qualitative (for example: "research quality").
Candidates from some universities tend to do better than candidates from other universities because of the resources available at the more competitive universities, and the quality of the education which those universities provide. When you consider that many colleges at Oxford and Cambridge have endowments larger than whole universities, you can see the resource disparity. Oxford, for example, has over one hundred libraries (that's one library for every two hundred and sixty students).
The most competitive universities can pick and choose from the most academically successful sixth formers, and can also pick and choose from the best academics when the universities recruit academic staff.
So, yes, you should work super hard and try to get into Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, LSE, KCL, QMUL, Bristol, Durham, Warwick, Nottingham, and so on, but please don't obsess about rankings. The law firms and sets of chambers you aspire to join don't care about rankings.
TL/DR? Law firms and chambers DON'T CARE ABOUT UNIVERSITY RANKINGS.
PS: Russell Group (1) has two ls; and (2) is a group of universities which have a loose association, mainly for marketing. The Russell Group universities are good universities, but non-membership of the Russell Group is not a sign of being no good.
Thanks for this detailed explanation it's been helpful. its just that people living out of UK just dont have much knowledge about the university or reputation so maybe we get misguided.
Reply 5
17
Basically, some universities attract students with, on average, higher grades and sometimes but not always they have the best researchers and facilities too.
But if you're clever, you're clever and you might as well go where you're happy, if it supports all you want from a university.
But if you're clever, you're clever and you might as well go where you're happy, if it supports all you want from a university.
Reply 6
19
I don't say that the choice of university doesn't matter. I say that the various rankings published by various newspapers and other organisations don't matter. I don't regard the rankings as reliable indicators of much except some journalistic choices.
The quality of a university tends to relate to the resources which it has available. Many of the former polys struggle because they have inadequate resources. Some have done well, Oxford Brookes being one notable example.
As I mention above, I have done a bit of teaching at an ex-poly, at a mid ranking university with US backing, and more recently at UCL, along with some occasional lecturing at Reading and at TCD and UCD in Ireland, and I have seen the difference which money makes.
There are probably too many universities in the UK, and some mergers and closures would perhaps not go amiss.
Running a law school is relatively cheap, because you can hire lecturers for not much money from amongst the over-supply of people with law degrees, and nowadays you don't even need a physical library. It's not like running a physics school, which is expensive. Some law schools are so cheap and uncheerful that they aren't much good.
Universities that have been established for longer and which engage in significant amounts of academic research may offer a better experience, so long as they are well managed and careful with their finances. Even some of the better known universities are struggling financially at present.
When you consider that even a college at Oxford such as, for example, St Peter's, which is considered "poor" in Oxford and Cambridge terms, has an endowment larger than many whole universities, you can see the difference that resources can make.
The quality of a university tends to relate to the resources which it has available. Many of the former polys struggle because they have inadequate resources. Some have done well, Oxford Brookes being one notable example.
As I mention above, I have done a bit of teaching at an ex-poly, at a mid ranking university with US backing, and more recently at UCL, along with some occasional lecturing at Reading and at TCD and UCD in Ireland, and I have seen the difference which money makes.
There are probably too many universities in the UK, and some mergers and closures would perhaps not go amiss.
Running a law school is relatively cheap, because you can hire lecturers for not much money from amongst the over-supply of people with law degrees, and nowadays you don't even need a physical library. It's not like running a physics school, which is expensive. Some law schools are so cheap and uncheerful that they aren't much good.
Universities that have been established for longer and which engage in significant amounts of academic research may offer a better experience, so long as they are well managed and careful with their finances. Even some of the better known universities are struggling financially at present.
When you consider that even a college at Oxford such as, for example, St Peter's, which is considered "poor" in Oxford and Cambridge terms, has an endowment larger than many whole universities, you can see the difference that resources can make.
Reply 7
17
Original post
by Stiffy ByngI don't say that the choice of university doesn't matter. I say that the various rankings published by various newspapers and other organisations don't matter. I don't regard the rankings as reliable indicators of much except some journalistic choices. The quality of a university tends to relate to the resources which it has available. Many of the former polys struggle because they have inadequate resources. Some have done well, Oxford Brookes being one notable example.
I have done a bit of teaching at an ex-poly, at a mid ranking university with US backing, and more recently at UCL, along with some occasional lecturing at Reading and at TCD and UCD in Ireland, and I have seen the difference which money makes.
There are probably too many universities in the UK, and some mergers and closures would perhaps not go amiss.
Running a law school is relatively cheap, because you can hire lecturers for not much money from amongst the over-supply of people with law degrees, and nowadays you don't even need a physical library. It's not like running a physics school, which is expensive. Some law schools are so cheap and uncheerful that they aren't much good.
Universities that have been established for longer and which engage in significant amounts of academic research may offer a better experience, so long as they are well managed and careful with their finances. Even some of the better known universities are struggling financially at present.
When you consider that even a college at Oxford such as, for example, St Peter's, which is considered "poor" in Oxford and Cambridge terms, has an endowment larger than many whole universities, you can see the difference that resources can make.
I have done a bit of teaching at an ex-poly, at a mid ranking university with US backing, and more recently at UCL, along with some occasional lecturing at Reading and at TCD and UCD in Ireland, and I have seen the difference which money makes.
There are probably too many universities in the UK, and some mergers and closures would perhaps not go amiss.
Running a law school is relatively cheap, because you can hire lecturers for not much money from amongst the over-supply of people with law degrees, and nowadays you don't even need a physical library. It's not like running a physics school, which is expensive. Some law schools are so cheap and uncheerful that they aren't much good.
Universities that have been established for longer and which engage in significant amounts of academic research may offer a better experience, so long as they are well managed and careful with their finances. Even some of the better known universities are struggling financially at present.
When you consider that even a college at Oxford such as, for example, St Peter's, which is considered "poor" in Oxford and Cambridge terms, has an endowment larger than many whole universities, you can see the difference that resources can make.
Sorry, I since totally changed my post but I agree.
Reply 8
Original post
by Stiffy ByngYou're welcome. The rankings are adjacent to the marketing. You will perhaps have noticed that there is a lot of marketing in this forum on the part of universities which are not over-subscribed.
yes I have noticed that even as a newbie on this forum.
Reply 9
19
Here is a discussion on LinkedIn about why many barristers' chambers recruit "university-blind".
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/anthony-hand-27699a15b_why-should-a-blind-sift-of-pupillage-applications-activity-7324354104007303168-nZ5N?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAARMHqwBXGz-2c2l7hz2WlMeeoTxEcZfZKM
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/anthony-hand-27699a15b_why-should-a-blind-sift-of-pupillage-applications-activity-7324354104007303168-nZ5N?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAARMHqwBXGz-2c2l7hz2WlMeeoTxEcZfZKM
Reply 10
Original post
by Stiffy Byng1. No law firm or set of barristers' chambers cares about any university ranking table.
2. See above.
3. Er, that's it.
I have been considering applications for mini-pupillages and pupillages at two sets of barristers' chambers since the 1990s. One of those chambers is a magic circle chambers. I have also been a partner in an international law firm and made hiring decisions at that firm. I am a consultant to a law firm and assist in hiring decisions there. I teach part time at UCL and have also taught at QMUL, Reading, and at Trinity and University Colleges, Dublin.
At my current chambers and at my previous chambers, applications for mini-pupillages and pupillages are considered without disclosure of the university from which an applicant graduated.
When considering lateral hires, experience in practice is the key factor, with academic record a background factor.
I have asked around amongst colleagues at other sets of chambers and at law firms. Nobody has told me that their chambers or firm considers any university ranking when making any recruitment decision.
There is good reason for this. First, we are interested in individual talent, not in reputation by association. Secondly, the rankings are compiled on journalistic bases and aren't reliable. They are based on small sample opinions, they use varying measures chosen at random, and they sometimes present quantitative information as though it were qualitative (for example: "research quality").
Candidates from some universities tend to do better than candidates from other universities because of the resources available at the more competitive universities, and the quality of the education which those universities provide. When you consider that many colleges at Oxford and Cambridge have endowments larger than whole universities, you can see the resource disparity. Oxford, for example, has over one hundred libraries (that's one library for every two hundred and sixty students).
The most competitive universities can pick and choose from the most academically successful sixth formers, and can also pick and choose from the best academics when the universities recruit academic staff.
So, yes, you should work super hard and try to get into Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, LSE, KCL, QMUL, Bristol, Durham, Warwick, Nottingham, and so on, but please don't obsess about rankings. The law firms and sets of chambers you aspire to join don't care about rankings.
TL/DR? Law firms and chambers DON'T CARE ABOUT UNIVERSITY RANKINGS.
PS: Russell Group (1) has two ls; and (2) is a group of universities which have a loose association, mainly for marketing. The Russell Group universities are good universities, but non-membership of the Russell Group is not a sign of being no good.
2. See above.
3. Er, that's it.
I have been considering applications for mini-pupillages and pupillages at two sets of barristers' chambers since the 1990s. One of those chambers is a magic circle chambers. I have also been a partner in an international law firm and made hiring decisions at that firm. I am a consultant to a law firm and assist in hiring decisions there. I teach part time at UCL and have also taught at QMUL, Reading, and at Trinity and University Colleges, Dublin.
At my current chambers and at my previous chambers, applications for mini-pupillages and pupillages are considered without disclosure of the university from which an applicant graduated.
When considering lateral hires, experience in practice is the key factor, with academic record a background factor.
I have asked around amongst colleagues at other sets of chambers and at law firms. Nobody has told me that their chambers or firm considers any university ranking when making any recruitment decision.
There is good reason for this. First, we are interested in individual talent, not in reputation by association. Secondly, the rankings are compiled on journalistic bases and aren't reliable. They are based on small sample opinions, they use varying measures chosen at random, and they sometimes present quantitative information as though it were qualitative (for example: "research quality").
Candidates from some universities tend to do better than candidates from other universities because of the resources available at the more competitive universities, and the quality of the education which those universities provide. When you consider that many colleges at Oxford and Cambridge have endowments larger than whole universities, you can see the resource disparity. Oxford, for example, has over one hundred libraries (that's one library for every two hundred and sixty students).
The most competitive universities can pick and choose from the most academically successful sixth formers, and can also pick and choose from the best academics when the universities recruit academic staff.
So, yes, you should work super hard and try to get into Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, LSE, KCL, QMUL, Bristol, Durham, Warwick, Nottingham, and so on, but please don't obsess about rankings. The law firms and sets of chambers you aspire to join don't care about rankings.
TL/DR? Law firms and chambers DON'T CARE ABOUT UNIVERSITY RANKINGS.
PS: Russell Group (1) has two ls; and (2) is a group of universities which have a loose association, mainly for marketing. The Russell Group universities are good universities, but non-membership of the Russell Group is not a sign of being no good.
How would you view manchester law school?
Reply 11
19
Original post
by l_rai10How would you view manchester law school?
From a safe distance!
I'm kidding. I know next to nothing about Manchester Law School.
Reply 12
What are your thoughts on Northumbria, Reading and Surrey?
And also are foundation law degrees viewed negatively by law firms?
Thanks
And also are foundation law degrees viewed negatively by law firms?
Thanks
Reply 13
19
Original post
by FharwoodWhat are your thoughts on Northumbria, Reading and Surrey?
And also are foundation law degrees viewed negatively by law firms?
Thanks
And also are foundation law degrees viewed negatively by law firms?
Thanks
I think that Northumbria is iffy, for two reasons. One, it's small and may be under-resourced. Two, the academic standards of the university are doubtful in view of a really terrible law book recently co-edited by one of the full time academic staff in the law school. When I say terrible, I mean intellectually dishonest. I think that Reading is good and underrated. A friend has a Chair at Reading and I have done some visiting lectures there and been impressed by the students and staff. I know nothing about Surrey, except that Guildford is the world's dullest place, but it is at least close to London.
I can't speak for others, but I don't see why anyone would take an adverse view of a student undertaking a Foundation Year. On the contrary, success on a Foundation course might well be regarded as a positive thing. It shows a person working to overcome obstacles.
Reply 14
Original post
by Stiffy ByngI think that Northumbria is iffy, for two reasons. One, it's small and may be under-resourced. Two, the academic standards of the university are doubtful in view of a really terrible law book recently co-edited by one of the full time academic staff in the law school. When I say terrible, I mean intellectually dishonest. I think that Reading is good and underrated. A friend has a Chair at Reading and I have done some visiting lectures there and been impressed by the students and staff. I know nothing about Surrey, except that Guildford is the world's dullest place, but it is at least close to London.
I can't speak for others, but I don't see why anyone would take an adverse view of a student undertaking a Foundation Year. On the contrary, success on a Foundation course might well be regarded as a positive thing. It shows a person working to overcome obstacles.
I can't speak for others, but I don't see why anyone would take an adverse view of a student undertaking a Foundation Year. On the contrary, success on a Foundation course might well be regarded as a positive thing. It shows a person working to overcome obstacles.
Thankyou. A really helpful opinion and advice.
Reply 15
19
You're welcome.
I have to add the following. If your son is hoping to enter the legal profession but is starting out with middling A level grades -
(1) He should steel himself for disappointment. He might not make it. He will be competing for training places against people with top grades at A level and degrees from the most competitive universities. The competition to become a practising lawyer is intense, and can be bruising. The attrition rate is high.
(2) It is of course possible to overcome a slow start, shine at university, and succeed in a legal career. To do this requires a lot of effort at undergraduate level and beyond. Reading might be just the right sort of university to assist a student who didn't excel in sixth form (for whatever reason) to make himself a competitive candidate a few years down the line.
Good luck to your son.
I have to add the following. If your son is hoping to enter the legal profession but is starting out with middling A level grades -
(1) He should steel himself for disappointment. He might not make it. He will be competing for training places against people with top grades at A level and degrees from the most competitive universities. The competition to become a practising lawyer is intense, and can be bruising. The attrition rate is high.
(2) It is of course possible to overcome a slow start, shine at university, and succeed in a legal career. To do this requires a lot of effort at undergraduate level and beyond. Reading might be just the right sort of university to assist a student who didn't excel in sixth form (for whatever reason) to make himself a competitive candidate a few years down the line.
Good luck to your son.
Reply 16
Original post
by Stiffy ByngYou're welcome.
I have to add the following. If your son is hoping to enter the legal profession but is starting out with middling A level grades -
(1) He should steel himself for disappointment. He might not make it. He will be competing for training places against people with top grades at A level and degrees from the most competitive universities. The competition to become a practising lawyer is intense, and can be bruising. The attrition rate is high.
(2) It is of course possible to overcome a slow start, shine at university, and succeed in a legal career. To do this requires a lot of effort at undergraduate level and beyond. Reading might be just the right sort of university to assist a student who didn't excel in sixth form (for whatever reason) to make himself a competitive candidate a few years down the line.
Good luck to your son.
I have to add the following. If your son is hoping to enter the legal profession but is starting out with middling A level grades -
(1) He should steel himself for disappointment. He might not make it. He will be competing for training places against people with top grades at A level and degrees from the most competitive universities. The competition to become a practising lawyer is intense, and can be bruising. The attrition rate is high.
(2) It is of course possible to overcome a slow start, shine at university, and succeed in a legal career. To do this requires a lot of effort at undergraduate level and beyond. Reading might be just the right sort of university to assist a student who didn't excel in sixth form (for whatever reason) to make himself a competitive candidate a few years down the line.
Good luck to your son.
Thank you so much for the time you have given to offer this advice. My son and I have talked at length about the competition and the challenge of this not having top grades or attending a top university. But he is determined so I don't want to dampen that for him. He had a brain hemorrhage 18 months ago which was at the midst of GCSE and then obviously it's impacted on the start of his A levels needing time off for radio surgery......but it does not deter his passion to do law. He wants to be a barrister
I do think he has Northumbria at the top of his list after going to the open day (I know you don't rate this one).....but he will probably put both reading and Northumbria as his top options. Include his extenuating circumstances and then the fall back for him is the foundation course
I do of course worry about how everything is rated in the legal world and that he will be up against it but we will just do our best to support him in what he wants.
Thanks again for this great advice
Reply 17
Also just to add in fairness to him...he actually is excelling in 6th form.....it's just that his predicted grades are impacted by his gcse grades and the lack of time he has had to recover fully and get to grips with it all. I believe he will get better grades than his predicted next year as he is working so so hard. I'm certainly proud of him either way though
Reply 18
19
Original post
by FharwoodThank you so much for the time you have given to offer this advice. My son and I have talked at length about the competition and the challenge of this not having top grades or attending a top university. But he is determined so I don't want to dampen that for him. He had a brain hemorrhage 18 months ago which was at the midst of GCSE and then obviously it's impacted on the start of his A levels needing time off for radio surgery......but it does not deter his passion to do law. He wants to be a barrister
I do think he has Northumbria at the top of his list after going to the open day (I know you don't rate this one).....but he will probably put both reading and Northumbria as his top options. Include his extenuating circumstances and then the fall back for him is the foundation course
I do of course worry about how everything is rated in the legal world and that he will be up against it but we will just do our best to support him in what he wants.
Thanks again for this great advice
I do think he has Northumbria at the top of his list after going to the open day (I know you don't rate this one).....but he will probably put both reading and Northumbria as his top options. Include his extenuating circumstances and then the fall back for him is the foundation course
I do of course worry about how everything is rated in the legal world and that he will be up against it but we will just do our best to support him in what he wants.
Thanks again for this great advice
I am very sorry to hear of your son's misfortune and hope that he is making a good recovery. Might it be worth deferring university for a year or two and taking the time to improve A level results? I appreciate that a young person may feel an uncomfortable sense of being left behind in that situation. Two anecdotes: One of my nephews fluffed his A Levels (he had no health crisis, he just screwed up). He spent a few years bumming around trying to be a musician. Then he did A Levels again, and went to Oxford aged 23. He had a great time, did well, and later became a barrister. The son of a friend had a brain hemorrhage in his first year at Durham. He took two years out, and has just graduated from Durham with a good 2.1.
Although I take published rankings with a bucket of salt, the fact remains that the best known, largest, and most well-resourced universities tend to offer a qualitatively better higher education, and this sets up graduates to compete for the most sought after jobs.
PS: One more story. My daughter was predicted somewhat below par grades. She chose not to apply to any university before finishing the IB. She surpassed the predictions, and then applied to universities with her achieved grades, obtained a place at her first choice university, and enjoyed a gap year. She's just finished a happy and successful first year at Oxford.
I think that if I were again young, I would hurry less than I did when I was actually young.
(edited 9 months ago)
Reply 19
19
Good luck, all y'all students.
I can't be bothered with this place anymore, so I'm checking out.
“We'll be saying a bighello goodbye to all intelligent lifeforms everywhere, and to everyone else out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys.”
I can't be bothered with this place anymore, so I'm checking out.
“We'll be saying a big
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Nottingham or KCL pharm?
- which university is better for computer science , uni of southampton or uni of notts
- law conversion years
- medical school and md working experience in singapore vs australia
- UCL or KCL law??
- Which UK unis are the most internationally recognized for Mechanical Engineering?
- Do Russel groups matter ?
- Course or Uni?
- Hi, I Urgently Need Your Opinion About This
- mistake picking the University of York over Warwick or Bath for Chemistry?
- law at BBB
- Low ranking
- Year 13s: What's the most important thing to you when comparing universities?
- How is Loughborough a top 10 uni?
- Uni of Birmingham or Nottingham Trent uni?
- Imperial vs UCL for postgrad in conservation field
- I need help; I don’t know how to reply my parents
- what unis should i pick for psychology
- UCL Reputation
- General engineering UK university rankings
Latest
Trending
How The Student Room is moderated
To keep The Student Room safe for everyone, we moderate posts that are added to the site.
