Is there any point studying Law other than LNAT universities ?

[Historyismylife]

Our DD has visited several universities some that require LNAT and some that don't. We have split visits between her dad and me so whilst she has seen them all, we can't necessarily compare what we haven't seen. For the first time, we jointly visited Reading Uni last Saturday and I found it really refreshing - there were no airs and graces, the lecturers were engaging, campus was welcoming. DD liked it too. It felt like they recognised that new students are not the finished article but could become so in their time there.

My DH liked it too but was bit disappointed with the law firms they have links with - not the big names you see at Bristol, Nottingham, Oxford, etc.

Most of the places she has looked at are AAA or above so whilst entry requirements are similiar some require LNAT and some don't. Any opinions on how this makes a difference once you hit the real world after uni - you can probably tell I'm not a lawyer, both DH and I have science degrees but work in finance so DD is bucking our family trend.

DS really likes Reading and we were impressed

Poor Birmingham, they could have ended up with a dearth of MN DCs applying to them for law due to Bluntness's posts. .

I think there are fewer opportunities to be a barrister - about 400 pupillages on offer every year at the moment. Regardless of why she wants to be a barrister, connections are not really part of it. My DD had none and nor did her friends. Mini pupillages are they way to get connected.

Working in a care home is a total waste of time for anyone who wants to be a barrister. A vac scheme for solicitors and work experience related to the job is what counts. The cv for pupillage must be stellar and relevant. It must demonstrate why you want this job. Why you out of the vast number of applicants.

In view of this, there is a lot of information on the background education of barristers. Interestingly, the LNAT universities are perceived as excellent plus Cambridge of course. The vast majority of barristers are educated at Oxbridge (about 40%) or Russell Group. I think a very small percentage are not. If you are serious about being a barrister, it is vital to go to a top university. My DD is a barrister and none of her friends was educated at Reading or Birmingham. However the cv counts for a lot and it must be fantastic - everyone else's will be.

There are a vanishingly small number of pupillage vacancies in the provinces too. Most are in London.

There is a lot of good advice on the thread. I and my daughters are solicitors in London. we know a lot of barristers too.

Your daughter should go to the best university she can get into and if that means not reading law but reading a different subject then she should do that other subject. Half of those going into law don't read law at university.

We she hoping to become a solicitor the same applies. The new exam system may well be delayed beyond 2020 by the way and is probably unlikely to alter the requirement for the best firms that you go to a university with high grade requirements and very competitive entry requirements (forget how nice Reading were on an open day - my son went to Reading and now drives an Ocado van......_)

So she should ideally get all As at A level in decent idally majority facilitating A level subjects and apply to those universities people list above as being the better ones.

I agree with Bubbles. 'Connections' are not valuable currency at the moment. Indeed if Dad happens to be a Bencher that might almost be a disadvantage these days (or at the very least,lead to sarky comments even if the DC is completely meritorious in his or her own right, which seems a little unfair). DD3 is doing pupillage now having done lots of (successful) mooting at uni, research assistant posts for a couple of well known professors and been a judicial assistant for a year at the Court of Appeal on top of getting an 'Outstanding' on the Bar course to top up her Oxford degree. It's a long old road, with nothing guaranteed at the end. I agree that it's worth going to a good uni but I'm not convinced that there's much water between being Reading and Birmingham so better to choose the uni where she's likely to be happiest and do the best which then gives the maximum chance of leaving doors open. A First from Reading and real enthusiasm borne from being engaged by the teaching will be worth vastly more than a middling degree from any other non Oxbridge uni. I'd forget 'RG'. Does anyone really care about 'RG'?

being I really should read my posts before posting :)

That gives 5% or 8% if you include those who are taking a break

We are looking at different stats. I’m talking about drop out rates after the first year, you’re looking at total drop out rates. Both of us are correct. Total drop out rates are very diifferent to first year drop out rates.

Unistats measure continuation from first to second year. 95% of first year Law students at Birmingham continue to the second year.

Bluntness no sizeable department in an otherwise respected uni can possibly lose half the cohort after the first year. It would have no credibility and wouldn't be sustainable. Law isn't such a crazily demanding subject at undergraduate level that 50% drop out. Also, if it was, you'd expect similar drop out rates in other law faculties. And that's before one gets on to the maths. I'm no expert, but if 50% drop out after the first year then that doesn't compute to even an 8% overall figure assuming everyone else stays on - you're already beyond that with the first year figures. Also (this may be too simplistic) unistats appears to state explicitly that the stats are the first year stats.

Here for clarity:

Unistats

Cross post!

Regarding RG universities - I used this definition of a university because the Bar Barometer does. My stats were a bit out though! Successful pupillage applications: Oxbridge 29%, RG 39%, non RG 25%. There are some pupils whose educational background is not known! My point was that non RG has fewer pupils - about 100 a year. Some stats refer to top 10 law courses but, unhelpfully, do not define the list.

It is quite true you do not need to study law at university to go into the profession. Sometimes doing what you are best at is a better proposition. Lots of students of law work in legal departments of companies and do all sorts of other work. Any student aiming high in the legal profession is better off at the top universities: there is no doubting that.

I did go to one of the universities listed as now using lnat but it must have been introduced after my time.

My advice for law would be to go to oxbridge, London or a RG uni if you can, and then get as much relevant experience as you can - mooting, public speaking, law centres, etc. And don't underestimate the importance of vac schemes. They are a key recruiting tool now.

Bubbles I only threw in the RG thing because it's been talked about through the thread. eg Durham has only recently become RG but has always been thought very well of for law for decades. It's more than simply RG/ non RG.

To Mojo, about the guy with a First from Oxford: he might well have been an arse. Getting a First certainly doesn't preclude someone being an arse, and recruiters would prefer a 2.1 non arse to a First Class arse.

Bluntness no sizeable department in an otherwise respected uni can possibly lose half the cohort after the first year.

Yes, this, in bucketloads. Departments would be in deep financial trouble if they lost half their cohort; they would be in deep trouble with university management; they would be trouble with NSS (survey done in the final year but such a high drop out rate would affect student morale and NSS scores); they would be in trouble with the forthcoming subject level TEF. TEF considers drop out rates from RG universities over 5-10% as poor, let alone 50%.

The drop out rates don't tell you how many students have to repeat the first year but it can't be anywhere near enough to make the 50% figure not getting to the second year you are quoting.

Yet another senior lawyer here, also married to a senior equity partner who is involved in all TC recruitment decisions for his very large regional firm. Neither of us have heard of LNAT either.

In very basic terms, regarding university decisions (and it certainly isn't all about that) I would keep in mind that those of us who make recruitment decisions like this are probably fairly old and we are therefore influenced by what we knew to be the case in our day. We are less likely to be impressed by the brand new university of Newtown that didn't exist in our day and more likely to have confidence in the places that were known as good for law 25 years ago.

In general terms we want extremely strong academics, a confident and outgoing personality and signs that the applicant is motivated, hard working and 'normal' (i.e personable, well balanced and will fit into the organisation).

Durham is listed as RG now.

I am surprised at recruiters posting on here not knowing what LNAT is. I find that a little bit worrying! I would have thought it was important to be up to date if you are making decisions about the future of young people.

I also think lawyers are, by nature, conservative about education so the best advice to students is stay traditional! It is highly likely that some universities rarely have alumni working as barristers or magic circle solicitors. The universities that require the highest grade A levels will also matter so aiming high is best. However, it is not all about academics and a 2:1 won't bar a good candidate from anything. I agree motivation and personality count for a lot.

Thanks all. Hate to say it but think my DH has been right all along - doesn't matter what sort of feeling you get from a university, it matters that it is top 15 if you want a particular type of law career and that there is still definitely still a 'who-you-know' culture around. But as Newts mentions, could just be that recruiters recruit from places they know and therefore, it continues.

We are looking forward to Birmingham this Saturday; definitely got some different questions to ask this time.

For all the experienced people here, any thoughts on new SQE that is supposed to be coming in post 2020 ?

Actually I think that is a whole other thread.

It really isn't who you know. Very few of DDs friends knew anyone with a legal background or who worked at the Bar. No-one.

DC must be proactive and seek out opportunities to network. This is done via vac schemes for solicitors (DD did two weeks for a mid size regional firm) and then, as she wanted to be a barrister, she applied for, and got, very many mini pupillages at Chambers. They all advertise these on their web sites with details about when to apply. This is the opportunity to see if you fit in. Is it the job for you? She got pupillage at one of these Chambers but she had only been there for a week on a mini p and she certainly did not know the Pupillage Comittee.

There are other options as goodbyestranger describes but whatever you do, they are all highly competitive. They do not require the applicant to know anyone beforehand. Any volunteering is good if it is law focussed and demonstrates you are a serious candidate. Whilst doing the GDL, DD volunteered for the CAB and a Women and Girls charity dealing with crisis management. She also applied for, and got, two months work experience with a Chambers who worked in an area of law that interested her. She didn't know anyone there either.

Also bear in mind your DD does not have to study law. Sometimes this can make the applicant very one dimensional. DD did MFL. Her co-pupil last year did History and French. Another friend did Music and another did Classics. All have done further legal qualifications of course but sometimes having a broader education can be of benefit to the student. You do have to work very hard to do this. It's not for the faint hearted. If a student does this, the undergrad degree must be in a strong academic subject. Lots of decisions to make. Birmingham is 21st for Law so look at top 10 to see if any others are obtainable excluding Scottish ones of course!

But why would a recruiter be bothered about LNAT?

Having googled it I can see that it is an aptitude test used by some universities to see whether a candidate will succeed on their law degree course. It seems to be based on an assessment of various skills that lawyers do indeed need in order to succeed.

However when I recruit I already know an individual's A level grades and the type of university they are at, what sort of marks they've been getting so far and therefore what degree they are likely to get plus I've probably nowadays spent two weeks in close contact with them on a Vacation Placement scheme before I even think about recruiting them. On that scheme I will have done my own assessment of their ability to demonstrate the necessary skills and behaviours.

As such, a test done before commencing the degree seems entirely for the benefit of the university, not the employer.

My advice is unchanged, pick the universities with the good reputation for law, not the ones imposing an additional pre-entry test.

And it isn't all about who you know but that can help you get a VP scheme and other work experience and that does make all the difference.

Allthebest, at the moment she wants to be a barrister - but I think that is probably what many aspirational students want to do without fully appreciating how hard it is, how clever you have to be and how well connected too

As an additional point, just make sure your DD isn't communicating this . Being a solicitor is a different job to being a barrister. It isn't that the clever ones get to be barristers and the rest of us dumbos stick with the easy option of being solicitors