Bristol Law vs Oxbridge Arts Degree

[brentlondon]

This is an imaginary situation.

For becoming a city lawyer, would it be best to study Law at a strong russell group such as Bristol, or to study an arts degree (english,geo,history etc) at Oxbridge.

Which would get the edge in tc applications?

A First

Science degree...

Or any 2.1 from a Russell Group in any academic subject

Or any degree from Oxbridge.

My intake at a City law firm was varied - if you are good enough at interview you get an offer and the 2.1 prediction and application form answers get you an interview.

Firms target Russell Groups and Oxbridge with sponsorship and events but applications are not really about where you went.

Sciences are useful in many City fields, especially IP/IT law!

They are all valuable degrees. However, selection is about way more than a degree from Oxbridge or Bristol, although they are excellent universities for a career as a city lawyer.

The best will be selected for the traineeships via a tough selection process and Law doesn’t necessarily give you an advantage. However, the Arts degree list you give is wide (especially the etc) and obviously the student would have to strongly desire to be a lawyer and demonstrate they can be effective in their new field as they have not chosen to study law as an undergrad. Plenty don’t though.

You do actually have to get an interview though, randoms. Degree/university won’t necessarily guarantee this when there is a cigarette paper between candidates.

Good degree is the minimum - it's the questions. Law at Birmingham got interviews everywhere (Linklaters, Clifford Chance etc) except possibly the American Firms.

The true hiring ground for a training contract is to get an internship with a law firm during the university school holidays. It is the equivalent of an extended interview.

Most people were from oxbridge in my trainee intake at the city law firm I used to work at

When did you get your tc?

I believe law firms hiring practices these days seek out a more diverse intake and are consciously making at effort to recruit from socially diverse backgrounds and universities as opposed to sticking to the traditional universities. At least this is what I hear from the head of recruitment at my US law firm.

Equally good for a tc at a city firm. Half of my magic circle trainee intake (6 years ago) were oxbridge, half Russell group, half law half non-law. You need a 2.1 minimum but obviously a first is better.

Of the three people I know well who have become successful lawyers, two did Oxbridge degrees (one law, one maths) and one did Philosophy at a very well regarded Russell Group university. The Russell Group one found it significantly harder to get a training contract. The two Oxbridge ones have become a city lawyer and a well known QC. The other works in IP within the film industry etc. All had a 2:1 or better and all have ended up in the area of law they preferred.

Look at www.chambersstudent.co.uk for up to date number crunching and advice in their section “what legal recruiters are looking for”. Basically, in London, 81% Russell Group, 25% Oxbridge. Around 50/50 law degree/non law degree. Non law degree - sciences and languages are good to have.

Neither, either is fine.

Not clear why you don't ask Bristol v Oxbridge or Law v History etc. I think you're making a mistake if you think it's vastly more difficult to get into Oxbridge for Law than for History.

Also, are you talking Magic Circle or any old City law firm? There's a big difference.

I was at a Magic Circle firm in the '80's and still have my intake list. It's interesting that it doesn't seem very different at all from my DCs' intake at their Magic Circle firms, other than in terms of gender where the difference is huge (lots more boys in my day).

A friend of my DD's got an offer from a law firm whilst at University. I'm not sure what sort of offer it was: it wasn't a job offer but it was something along the lines of a "we like the cut of your jib, come for interview".

Here's the annoying bit. He has/had no inclination to be a lawyer! His mate, the head of the Student Law Soc, was putting on a networking Dinner and had to fill a seat at the last minute so Friend went along as a favour to make up numbers.

Moral of the story: find a University with a proactive Law Soc and be an engaging dinner guest.

senua most offers from these top firms are made at the start of the third year at uni, it's very standard. Also, lots of students 'fall into' good firms without having had any burning mission to become a commercial lawyer. DS is a case in point, having read History, never having joined the Law Soc, never having done a single moot - but he's clever and charismatic so got multiple offers despite no obvious legwork and no networking having ever been done.

I rather suspect the selection process is not about being in a law society at university (if you don’t read Law you might not be admitted anyway) and mooting at university. DD couldn’t get into moots at university as she didn’t read Law. Therefore selection doesn’t really involve participation in these or the 50% of trainees that are not Law grads, wouldn’t ever stand a chance. However, they do because of the attributes goodbye talks about.

Yes Bubbles, put it another way - you can network all you like and go to as many Law Soc beanos as you can get into, with or without being a member, and moot until your heart's content (or you get knocked out) but without being clever and having a bit of a spark you might as well not apply. When I was in the City a paper wrote an article written comparing two of the Magic Circle firms and they said in it that an applicant had not only to be brilliant to be there but had to be interesting too. That clearly over eggs it a bit, since I was at this particular firm :), but it's got some truth at Magic Circle level: clever - and interesting too.

written

Not all trainees are charismatic and engaging dinner guests. Their personalities differ quite a bit. Excellent academics are a given as is the ability to do well in the interview (i.e. read widely, speak well, got commercial awareness, capable of very hard work).

blueshoes if it's a given that academics are excellent and interviews uniformly go well, what then is the clincher?

Personality I think - does the Partner interviewing you see you as someone they want to share an office with and work with?

I am mentioned earlier in the thread that many of the trainees did internships during their university holidays at the firm, so they are a somewhat known quantity. The interns themselves go through an objective application process to get on.

I am not in graduate recruitment but do speak to my head of recruitment from time to time. Academics is the baseline and then after that they are looking for deep thinkers, commercial awareness (e.g. can talk about Brexit and financial crisis) and very hard workers. I think the firm has started/considered using online logical reasoning tests. Cannot remember the name, maybe Pearson?

The top firms are competing for the same limited pool of good candidates. It is not a given that an offer for a tc will be accepted.

My last post was to goodbyestranger

I do think an internship helps. Plenty sift with logic tests for that! Therefore you have to tick lots of boxes. University and degree is a starting point but high performance in selection tests is also vital.

I’m never sure how they judge ability to work hard. Sometimes I wonder if they like people who achieve highly and juggle lots of things. I’m really not sure about this, but how else could you judge hard work and stamina in a 20 year old?

Well yes I'm aware life is different these days with vac schemes blueshoes although you didn't really answer the question. I've come across vac schemes because DD1 and DD3 did them (although DD3 only did vac schemes because her tutor advised her that Magic Circle vac schemes were a good thing to do for those going to the Bar as well as those keen on City law). DS2 did a two day workshop thing and got an offer also a five day vac scheme and another offer, both from the Magic Circle. Yes I think you're right randomsabreuse, ultimately you need a personality that is congenial and fits, with being clever as a given.