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.

Exactly, not everyone wants to be self employed and not everyone loves advocacy. There are many may areas of law to consider.

As mentioned above a high proportion of people go into law after doing a non Law first degree so they won't have taken LNAT anyway. Recruiters won't care about what LNAT score anyone got just a 2.1+ and A level grades.

My DH actually does place a value on someone who has done a 'crap' job in the past as it shows someone has work ethic, committed to being at a time and a place etc. Indeed he appreciates that some people need to earn money during uni holidays and may not have the luxury of parents funding them through unpaid internships and placements.

There is still an ongoing debate as to whether SQE will actually happen.

Mojo well I take from that that you worked with the guy and found him not to be an arse. However, fact is that with First in both the first and third years at Oxford you tend to get a decent Training Contract unless there's an issue with personality or confidence. Clearly something about the guy was deficient in recruiters' eyes, and clearly it wasn't the academic side. None of the kids with Firsts from Oxford that my own kids know have had the slightest problem securing Training Contracts or pupillages. The fact that this one guy didn't suggests the issue was something peculiar to him, rather than the profession being that super competitive (by which I mean, the majority don't find an Oxbridge First necessary to secure a Training Contract or pupillage, although one undoubtedly helps).

I tend to feel, newt, that legal recruiters should know a little bit about how universities select candidates. I know, and my DD didn't do a law degree. Obviously it doesn't matter regarding selection of the candidate but it's just general knowledge really. Most young people applying to many of the better universities these days do have to know about it so I guess their knowledge will be better when you move on. From the op's point of view, it does help select universities.

I don't think where my DD is a barrister they would have cared one fig about a crap job because it doesn't show commitment to
Law. The poorer students she knows didn't do this either. They were utterly focussed from about Y2 at university onwards. Perhaps that's the difference between being a barrister and a solicitor? In fact DD was asked about her hobbies, volunteering and outside interests, not her coffee shop credentials.

With respect bubbles, (and I'm really not trying to be mean here even though I'm a hated lawyer ), whilst I do appreciate that your daughter has recently gone through the process, there are a lot of senior lawyers on here who have an awful lot more experience and knowledge in this area than you. I really don't think you can possibly know whether those who recruited your DD look for people who've worked before. I think work ethic is extremely high up on the list of things recruiters are looking for and that is in both arms of the profession. I'm confused anyway because you say yourself that they were interested in her volunteering work. Lawyers are not inherently good and worthy (in fact many would say exactly the opposite!). They were interested in her volunteering work because its the equivalent of real work. They were looking to see what skills she could demonstrate through that experience. It just happens to be that she could afford to demonstrate those skills through working for free whilst others might not have been in quite so fortunate a position.

It is also pretty insulting to imply that students who wish to be barristers are more focussed than those who wish to be solicitors. There are loads of really crap barristers out there. Just as there are loads of crap solicitors. There are also excellent barristers and excellent solicitors. One is not better than the other. One is not more intelligent than the other. One is not more senior than the other. They just handle different parts of the legal process. And even that is changing. In many areas (such as mine) solicitors do masses of advocacy and barristers rarely get a look in. In fact in my field barristers are generally only instructed because they're an awful lot cheaper than solicitors. Over the past few years I've also instructed Counsel when I need a QC because a case is incredibly high profile and strategically important.

And when my generation move on [Hmm] , your daughter may well be much better at recruiting (ignore the fact that she'll be 20 years on by then too). But if she's taking much notice of a university filter system applied at a time when students haven't even started a degree, rather than the candidates actual grades and their ability to perform and show their fit and potential on the VP weeks, then perhaps not.

Clearly I'm not saying that law firms have not heard of the test. I'm sure the HR departments have. But we lawyers have day jobs and fit recruitment around it. Trainee lawyers (whether solicitors or barristers) are actually pretty useless to the firm/set for quite some time and the law they learned at law school is constantly changing. Taking outstanding academics as a given, we will then of course be influenced by the university chosen. A first from Oxford is going to be considered more academically impressive than a first from a former poly (although we might actually have negative preconceptions about how normal and rounded that Oxford candidate will be). We then look for evidence of a specific set of skills and behaviours and the fact that someone has worked, whilst not the determining factor, may well help them to demonstrate that they have those skills and behaviours.

Thanks for your very eloquent answer Newtssuitcase because I saw Bubbles comment yesterday and couldn't actually trust myself to respond without using expletives! Your answer is what I would have said too

Let's hope bubbles dd does not share the view that barristers are more focused than solicitors or she may find herself not getting instructed much.

Bearing in mind the recent SRA dictat on solicitors swearing allthebest I edited slightly

I always feel very twitchy reading these threads.
DS is in his 3rd year of a 4 year Law Degree at a RG uni. He's doing fine but nowhere near at the top of his year and although he's done a few bits on bobs to put on his CV I doubt he's outstanding enough to ever get a training contact. It sounds nearly impossible.

Prefer my dog has he not done any vacation placements as they are the route to training contracts now.
Is he doing 4 years because he's doing a year abroad? That could be helpful

2014, he's applying madly now for next summer but it seems competition is steep.
Yes, his final year is in France doing French Law.

I'm a lawyer at a big firm. I've never heard of lnat but just googled it and see it came in after I did my degree.

My firm sees loads of applicants from non-lnat unis. Indeed I would say some of the excellent uk law faculties aren't part of it. Bristol, Durham and UCL are all top flight unis in their own right. That's why you see their students getting the training contracts. Reading is not in the same league reputationally (sorry). It's not because of LNAT.

Reputation is often built on where things were 20 years ago so that is not to say that Reading won't have the best course for your daughter. But personally if she has a choice I would go for one of the more historically well regarded options.

Agree with everyone else. "Best" university you can get into, doesn't matter if not law as long as recognised "proper" subject.

I had a paralegal who did American Studies at Aberyswth (sp). I know personally that is a good academic course. I knew from working with her she was really bright, thorough and likeable. She was as good as, if not better, than the Oxbridge trainees at the firm. But she didn't get a training contract and when my colleague and I tried to argue her case with the partners they wouldn't give her a chance because of her degree .

(LNAT is a bit of a red herring to the decision of where to read law. I had heard of it but only because I have recently had children applying to university and it's a useful filter on some heavily subscribed courses where perhaps most applicants have A and A* to have the additional hurdle of an extra test like this)

Good luck at the Birmingham open day. Your husband's views and all we lawyers posting on here are the same - go for the hardest university she can get into whether she reads law or not.

There is quite a good list for the universities people came from on here www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/law-firms-preferred-universities who went into law firms.

Also do warn your daughter not to miss time limits - law firms recruit years ahead so you need to work backwards from where you want to be getting work experience, internships and then applying in time. You cannot wait until you graduate or you miss the boat particularly if you want a firm to pay your law school fees (if going to be a solicitor not a barrister).

You asked about the new SQE exam from 2020. Most of us do not know much about it yet - no one does. It is likely that a law degree starting next year will include SQE exams part 1 as part of the degree. After that I suspect the better law firms will either continue to want solicitors to do a year at law school as now doing the SQE but they may instead have people working for them on a salary rather than the current sponsorship of law school right away with day release to study for SQE2 to be sat after 2 years of work.

It is not clear if SQE2 will be harder or easier than the current LPC post graduate solicitors' course. I hope it's not easier as no one wants a solicitor who is not bright enough for the job any more than a brain surgeon who doesn't understand the brain.

Nor do we know for those who cannot get a training contract or post SQE1 law job if the SQE2 exam and coursese to take it will cost an absolute small fortune are be as cheap as chips.

The only hires in my firm from non top universities though still good academics were female and extremely attractive (all male partnership) . Some time ago hope that's changed...

kerala1 I wonder if it was the same firm I was at once where the trainees for 3 years in a row (where a particular partner was in charge of training contracts for that period) were blonde, females who rowed or rode horses (but who still had firsts or 2.1s and all As at A level of course)!

After the pattern emerged the training contract recruitment was dealt with by a different partner.

The "pattern" we identified was slim brunettes with long legs....poshness actually not a requisite but these attributes meant your average university was overlooked - though of course all academics top notch. But still.....

Thanks Ludo more food for thought.

Kerala, All

What sort of law does your chambers do babybarrister?

I was interviewed by three partners including one with a double barrelled name (this was a MC firm) and they phoned home (40 minutes drive) before I got back there to offer me a TC (no mobiles as standard in those days). This was very, very unusual according to the other trainees and I'm now hoping that it was because of my slim brunette looks rather than my intellect or personality :)