Applying for law degree the year after sixth form (with grades)

[70smillie]

I have a DD who has set her heart on studying law. She's currently in year 12 and a perfectionist. I'm concerned that she's heading for a meltdown as she's becoming obsessed with the process of choosing a university, reading background info on law for possible interviews (she's interested in Oxbridge) and getting the highest predicted grades. Plus she has a job. She's starting to not see friends etc which isn't healthy.

So, my question is whether universities such as Oxbridge and Russell Group frown upon applicants who do their A levels and then apply for law with their grades as they have an advantage in being able to focus on their application.

It all seems so far from my 1980s experience (admittedly not law).

Also OP, the die with exam results is pretty much cast as far as Oxford is concerned. They rank the GCSEs, not the A levels (provided the minimum standard grades are predicted or achieved).

Thanks Goodbyestranger, that's really helpful.

Sorry I just saw the message about ranking GCSEs. It might be slightly different this year due to the teacher assessment. She has a full set of 9s but not sure if that's more common for those taking GCSEs last year. Not that I will say that to her - I am looking to dial things down!

No. I cannot see any disadvantage.

I would be more concerned about how she will cope with the fast pace and volume of work at Oxbridge though. She may find she’s very mid division there so I suspect resilience to minor setbacks is important and keeping everything in proportion. Easier said than done I suspect. However a balanced life works best. I also think developing a thick skin is great too. I say this in terms of bouncing back from any minor setback without dwelling on it. All I’ve said is meant to be helpful OP.

@70smillie

Sorry I just saw the message about ranking GCSEs. It might be slightly different this year due to the teacher assessment. She has a full set of 9s but not sure if that's more common for those taking GCSEs last year. Not that I will say that to her - I am looking to dial things down!

Whilst they will be more common because they were in the cags cohort Oxford will be looking at them in the context of how she compared to others in her school rather than against other applicants per se. So if she has straight 9s in a state comp this is more likely to compare more favourably than straight 9s at a selective school whether private or state.

@70smillie
That’s a brilliant set of GCSEs in any year so no need to worry about that I would have thought.

I would also add that we don’t have any lawyers in the family either and no one could offer DD any help or advice at all. I didn’t know MN existed then! So DD had to work it all out herself. No family members or friends could do anything for her.

What is quite interesting now she’s practicing, is that most of her friends were in exactly the same boat! Yes some were privately educated, as she was, but once they got to university they did it all themselves and a lot didn’t study law. Off the top of my head, only one of her close friends is from a legal family. One has a widowed mum who is a police officer (not sure if that counts). However all, without fail, have been to a top class university and are very bright. Not always with starred firsts, but bright in terms of quick to understand and apply what they know.

In house law is very different from corporate city law so having an idea about destination helps with making decisions . The corporate lawyer friends of DD also work ridiculous hours! They earn a lot but they work seriously hard. Not everyone is suited to that. American firms really work their lawyers hard! That’s why looking at the various careers within law is important and tailoring your university career and other things you do makes sense. You really want your DC to be happy with their choices so doing a bit of research always helps.

(I’d better shut up now!)

Straight 9s is excellent. A very good start for an Oxford application! Just don't mess up the LNAT and she will almost certainly get an interview, where being able to think logically and with precision will be the key, not knowledge.

Oxford lawyers have time for fun too!

I also wouldn't worry about what sort of law she wants to do, or whether as a solicitor or barrister or in-house or whatever. Plenty of time to meander to the correct conclusion. Academic lawyers want people capable of thinking in an academic way about law. There's always a lemming like rush for vac schemes in the second year at most good unis not because the vast majority of these students are cut out for it but because it's competitive and plenty of them are too. Lots get vac schemes and offers for training contracts and loathe commercial law. First things first - get an offer to study academic law at the best place possible, if you're really genuinely interested in law, as opposed to its practice.

@goodbyestranger
I totally understand about not deciding yet but I was coming at it from a taking the pressure off point of view. You don’t need to be worrying about Magic Circle if you really would prefer something less pressurised. All this type of conversation at university can become a pressure cooker. So having a look at careers now can help DD become less stressed. And OP could become more informed too. Knowledge is never a bad thing ic you start from 0 knowledge.

There's no problem at applying post y13, and in fact there's some evidence to show that those applying with grades in hand to oxbridge and top others are more likely to be successful (known quantity rather than predictions). Its a good idea for her to go through the process in y13 though, as the year after she'll be on her own and won't have school to check personal statements and so on. Even if she never actually submits, it's worth thinking about. But then if you do that, why not press submit and see what offers come in? She might be pleasantly surprised!

I would agree with PPs about considering other degree courses. Of three of us who all used to do the same role as solicitors I was the only one with a law degree, and I didn’t start off doing law (changed after a year). Better to do a degree subject that she enjoys and will do well in. I loved the final year of my degree but the first two were very dry. My colleagues had done languages, and English, and others I know did history or PPE.

In my opinion one advantage of waiting an extra year is the ability to find out more about the universities and courses on offer. This is particularly important post covid. As others have said there is a lot of change around with a learning is online or face-to-face.

I chose the wrong course albeit at the right university, and it was only through some very kind staff in the law faculty that I ended up with a good outcome.

Good luck OP

@Leftbutcameback
The DD really wants Law. It’s her main interest.

She wants to do law. I loved my law degree.
On user's rather weird point above that you might as wel go to a useless ex poly even if this girl might get into Oxbridge that is a very strange point of view. I might well have family in Sunderland (I am from NE England) but we all know full well that if yo go to Sunderland ex poly that is not as wise a choice as in this order Oxbridge or more locally Durham then Newcastle. There is no point in pretending to people there are prizes for all and all the universities are as good as each other as that is just deluding the teenagers.

Yes OP that's another thing too, apart from law threads tending to say you don't need to go to Oxbridge to get a top job, they also come up with the idea that you should think of another degree rather than law, then convert. Like Xenia, I hugely enjoyed my law degree. It's an extremely interesting degree and allows you to explore various areas of law which then makes law much more whole. It also allows you to make more informed choices about which areas might interest you later on. It's academically rigorous and very varied.

I never said that Xenia.

Yes Tizer I quite see the point. Just putting the case for feeling your way as an 18 - 20yr old. I tend to take the view that there's no particular hurry. Take your time to try to get it right.

Well User if the brightest students tend to go to Oxbridge (plus two or three others) what is the benefit to firms to try to consciously move away from Oxbridge (plus two or three others) for recruitment purposes? It's a bit shortsighted given the concerted drive at Oxford in particular to broaden access. Also fiddlesticks to 'blind' recruitment. It makes virtually no difference and is purely lip service.

@goodbyestranger
I find the notion that employers look elsewhere rather than trusting the tried and tested routes for the best candidates odd. Why think large numbers of high calibre young people are elsewhere? Having said that, there are other attributes needed and students can develop them as they go along. I totally agree students should study law if they wish to. It doesn’t matter what others have done.,

Employers can also query as to why obviously bright people have settled for the “down the road” former poly rather than extending themselves elsewhere. There can be good reasons but sometimes it’s because it’s relatively risk free and they retain friends and social life nearby.

We have a huge number of universities offering Law. Many have marketing that over promises. Low ranking universities with mock court rooms and pictures of barristers etc. There is little evidence that their students ever get near this profession - the marketing sells a dream. So if you have all grade 9s, go for the best you can. It’s a no brainer really.

I certainly did not want to misrepresent User's post. the only point I want to make is that for an individual pupil particularly who may not know much about law and universities and whose school may not, do not believe teachers and others who might imply the status of your university does not matter.

It is not just standards of teaching that might be better in the better universities but also things like drop out rates are less and plenty of students do what their friends do. Also if most of your friends are going into good firms and good jobs it makes that more likely - a bit like choosing a secondary school - if you pick one where most pupils do badly at GCSEs and leave at 16 your own child might well do so too as plenty of teenagers are as influenced by friends as by parents by that age.

*all lawyers need to be extremely intelligent and academic'

I take issue with this slightly too. There are some stupendously dim lawyers out there. Absolutely terrible at their job and enormously lazy, busy making money while dishing out unimaginative advice, to people who don't know how terrible the advice is and who can't afford a second better opinion.

Obviously it would be better if they were all bright.

I also think the notion that better universities have better teaching is extremely suspect. In fact, there is some evidence that the opposite is true and that universities where research scores highly (which tends to be the RG universities) is because the professors are more interested in their own research than they are in teaching undergraduates.

At post-graduate level it is sensible to choose a university which is strong on research in the area which interests you; there is no de facto corollary between that and teaching ability.

Perhaps that's less the case with new entrants to the profession - I hope so.

Sorry OP, off topic :)

Given that the GDL is done in one year, it’s not necessarily of interest to any employer that lower ranking universities might have “good” teaching. The employers, as far as I can tell, don’t examine young people further regarding their capability regarding law. They, I think, test on other attributes snd skills. If a 3 year law degree at all universities was gold standard, there would be no need for the GDL. Turns out very bright people study various subjects and convert to law in one year. I have never seen any evidence that employers evaluate teaching at universities. In fact, plenty (according to MN) don’t look at university attended. I’m sceptical about that but it’s noticeable the same universities are in the top 10 most years.

I think it's fair to say that top quality teaching should translate into some sort of added value for students, which must be capable of being evidenced in their applications for training contracts and pupillages, in particular at interview. It's hard to get away from the value that one to one or one to two teaching can give, which lower ranked unis can't afford to give.