Son has an offer for Classics but really wants to study Law?

[duckeggblu]

Hi all,

DS is in middle of sitting his A-levels.

He has an offer to study Classics, which is a 4 year course (at Oxford).

Before applying he was uhming and ahing if to apply to Law or Classics. The school managed to convince him to study Classics in the end, as past pupils seem to dislike Law.
His end goal is to become a Lawyer and he is involved in a few Legal extra curriculars/networking events.

He’s come to me tonight to say that he wants to study Law as undergrad instead. He does obviously know that he could do the GDL but in his view it’s 6 years of study vs 4.

He’s planning on finishing his A level exams, having a think and then possibly emailing different Law schools to ask if they accept very late applications. (I don’t suspect many of worth will). He has his eyes on the Bristol Law course as he goes to a school eligible for the contextual offer that he’d meet quite comfortably (In theory!)

The only other option I can think of, is a Gap year, which he doesn’t want. Or, perhaps to email his future Oxford college and ask if he could be considered for Law instead.

Any advice?

Bubbles the problem with 'university blind' recruitment appears to be that it increases the number of Oxbridge interviewees :)

DD was advised that many law firms actively prefer students that have not studied law at university. Accordingly she is doing an English degree with the plan to do GDL and then LPC. She's been lucky to be able to work in the summer vacations for a good law firm.

I can't really see why your DS wants to do law at this juncture in preference to classics. Is it the pull of law? Or has he just decided he doesn't really like classics enough to study it for 3 years. It's kind of odd because the one thing the Oxbridge admissions process is designed to do is weed out people who don't really love their subject.

Thesearepearls well with the greatest respect, that's pretty rubbish advice as far as the top firms go. They're interested in the people most suited to a career in commercial law, regardless of subject. if your DD preferred the idea of English then all well and good, but she'll gain absolutely not one iota of advantage. Just no disadvantage (except having a shallower and less broad knowledge of law).

Not patronising at all of course - goodbyestranger - it's funny how the term "with the greatest respect" has come to mean with no respect whatsoever

DD comes from a legal family. Her godfather (a partner originally in a magic circle law firm now with another firm) provided her with that advice with which the legal members of the family agreed.

Let's see what the statistics say shall we? There aren't many published but the magic circle say that of their trainees, roughly half do not have law degrees. See here for a reference www.theguardian.com/law/2014/aug/28/law-degree-best-route-law

Certainly DGF's experience and DH's experience and DM's experience and the experience of the very many family and friends who are in the profession is that in many ways a non-law degree can be advantageous. DGF often said that he felt like a poor relation for having a law degree in a firm where many of the most senior people did not. Shows a lack of breadth, I think he says.

Exactly, I think the stats show precisely that the law firms don't 'actively' prefer non law grads. Either that or their HR guys are doing a shite job. Perhaps you felt I was patronising but all it takes is one person to trot out a DH or another male member of the family saying something and then on MN it's a given.

I prefer to rely on my own experience in a Magic Circle firm and that of my peers and now the current generation.

No actually let's get this right. I didn't feel you were being patronising. You objectively were being patronising. And now you've doubled up.

Are you actually even a lawyer? And if so where?

He should do the subject he is passionate about. If that subject is law, he should look into switching. But if it's classics, he has the rest of his life to learn and practice law.

And when I interviewed at a magic circle firm in the third year of my history degree, one of my questions was 'why would you want me, when you could have someone who has studied law for three years?' Their answer was that if they restricted themselves to law students they wouldn't necessarily get the brightest applicants available, just the ones who had studied law.

Personal experience, not having a law degree won't hold you back at all. I am a solicitor, but found majority of degree deathly dull and anecdotally, those of us who did have one seemed to get given a harder time in justifying motivation for joining a city firm than if you came from completely different subject. I think Oxbridge is a massive advantage too just echoing everyone else, firms would even go there to hold interviews when I was applying for vac schemes rather than making students travel to London like the rest of us had to. Work experience however also seems to be incredibly important now, students seem so driven and serious minded. I'd reccomend your son try to get himself fixed up with some vacation placements as soon as he can, some fims offer at A-level stage or first year uni, so earlier and earlier. It's a chance to experience what it's like and show early interest. All the very best for the exams, I think it's so hard having to make this kind of decision at 18 and kind of yearn for the broader approach America takes where you only specialise later when you've had more of a chance to know what you like, but I guess that'd be very expensive!

Thesearepearls perhaps read the earlier part of the thread. I assume you're joking if you seriously think I'm going to specify firms or chambers. But misinformation on MN is potentially very unhelpful. A non law degree won't hinder is as high as one could put it. Saying a non law degree is a positive asset is wrong. A First is a positive asset. Oxbridge is a positive asset. A non law degree is neutral.

Gosh you've managed to patronise me three times now. Do you practice being patronising in front of a mirror?

FWIW your comment was that having an non-law degree meant "having a shallower and less broad knowledge of law" and implying that a law degree was more desirable. it absolutely isn't and i have cited people who have commented that a non-law degree is more desirable because of the breadth it confers.

My DD is gaining good work experience during her vacations and I think she will do well in the profession.

You claim to have what you claim to have. I don't know you and I note you aren't prepared to substantiate your claim to knowledge. But I can see you've been backpedalling from your position whilst simultaneously managing to be very rude and very patronising.

Good luck in that career of yours old thing :)

Thesearepearls I haven't back pedalled on a single thing. Very happy to correct that impression if you'd point out where you felt I was doing so. I used to work in a Magic Circle firm in my twenties, I nevertheless wouldn't name the firm at your bidding and find it a very strange question. DD1 would be livid if I named her own Magic Circle firm and rightly so. DS2 likewise. DD3's experience at the Bar confirms the same lack of bias towards non law degrees but these personal details add absolutely nothing to what I'm saying. Do you make a habit of asking posters for personal details? I find it excessively intrusive and odd.

A non law degree confers a different type of breadth but different not better. I happened to enjoy academic law for the breadth that degree gave in areas of law not covered by the GDL and the exploration of all areas in a depth not possible on the GDL. As I say: different not better. I preferred law, your DD prefers English. Both are equally valid but non law is not broader nor deeper nor do non lawyers possess a monopoly of talent for either branch of the legal profession.

As reluctant as I am to jump in, I think that the problem with this argument is that it suggests that there is a uniform view amongst interviewers and law firms. Clearly there isn't. Some do have a bias towards law degrees; some have a bias towards non law degrees. There are types of law (IP springs to mind) where a science degree and law conversion might be viewed as preferable to a law degree. Some interviewers love a maths degree but don't rate an English degree.

Yes that's obviously true Lorelai since some specialties benefit from certain non law background training. But as a general rule it's not correct either at top law firms (which is usually synonymous with the Magic Circle in MN discussions) or the Bar that a non law degree is 'actively preferred'.

I'm simply not going to rise to the bait any more. I've already pointed out the backpedalling. I've already pointed out the rudeness and patronising behaviour. You do what you will with that.

OP, apologies for getting into a bunfight with the rude bloke, I do agree that your DS should talk to his prospective college at Oxford. Good luck to your DS with the exams.

Generally I agree but having worked for and been on transactions opposite many MC and SC partners, I know that some do have preferences... usually based on the subject they themselves studied!

I’d really strongly advise him to do Classics followed by the GDL.

The preference now is more for people who have done the conversion course after a different degree, both at law firms and in chambers.

The market is utterly saturated regarding prospective trainee solicitors and barristers. If your son wants to pursue a practising career he needs to at least pander to the preferences.

If he wants an academic career then of course, reading law is the right choice.

I wish I had approached my degree understanding that in reality, it was all about the academics not practising for me personally. The joys of plotting your future career at 17!

I only read the op before replying and have now realised this thread is quite heated re preferences. Oh dear!

You haven't specified where I'm supposed to have backpedalled at all Thesearepearls, despite an express invitation.

Yes apologies from me too OP but it's best to correct misinformation where it's dished out, since it's potentially unhelpful.

I would actually advise extreme caution before suggesting to your DS that he jump in and ask the Classics tutors and law tutors if he can switch. The law tutors are extremely unlikely to say yes without either the LNAT or a law interview and the Classics tutors are extremely likely to be pissed off. I'd advise going to Oxford, starting the course and asking to switch if he still feels the same after several weeks in - with enough time to schedule an interview in the upcoming December round.
If he wants to be a lawyer he needs to be tactical.

Semperldem well my position is that it's utterly neutral, so it couldn't be less heated!

Except actually that in the OP's case I'd definitely go with Classics at Oxford.

Semperidem please may I introduce you to goodbyestranger I feel you are very well suited to discussing the relative merits of a non-law degree.

FWIW my take on the matter is that if goodbystranger is by some chance a practising lawyer, I bet he did a law degree! :)

My suggestions come as a non-lawyer in a family of lawyers - all of whom are strongly persuaded that a non-law degree is preferable. Even those in family who did a law degree say that a non-law degree is preferable.

We could of course spend much more time discussing whether or not a career in the law is a good idea ... Why don't you get your DS working at a law firm over the summer OP? It might inform his decision.

good

Me too!

A friend of mine is currently studying Anthropology at one of the Cambridge colleges.

How I wish I’d taken a subject like that. Unfortunately I was the sort of teenager who lacked any ability to have fun and militantly engineered a Five Year Plan for myself. It didn’t work out that way, much to nobodies shock except my own.

I'm a girl if that's of consequence .

Out of interest I've just dialled up Blackstone's chambers and of the twelve junior tenants most recently recruited only three didn't have a law degree.

That's simply for context :)

One has an Oxford Classics degree though :)