Durham or St. Andrews better for Law recruitment?

[tigster]

Jumping the gun a bit as DS is waiting for decisions from both but as the discussion at home has been ongoing for the past few weeks I thought I’d seek advice here. DS has in mind that he would like to apply for Law following a history degree at either Durham or St. Andrews.

My knowledge of graduate recruitment rounds is severely outdated. So magic circle firms prefer one of these over the other?

Durham.

Durham

Neither, both are fine. I say that as a partner in a city firm.

To be honest any uni is fine Itsachange.

tigster maybe dial up the Slaughter & May website applications page which is an excellent one, as you'd expect. It lists the things they're looking for. It's not about university so much as which universities tend to have graduates with those qualities. Durham remains very high on the list in recruitment terms in the City.

Depends whether you want to practice in England or Scotland.

The DS is reading History so that isn't relevant actually.

Indeed @ToffeeTalk just noticed that.

I would say either would be great.

Good luck with the applications, DS was rejected from St Andrews last year with 3 x A star predictions and excellent work experience which was a bit of a kick in the teeth for him.

Either but I would say Durham if I had to choose. But if wanting to get into a city firm, the degree is step 1 and the next is everything else - leadership roles, extracurricular, work experience, vac schemes, awards. So don't worry too much about the uni, encourage him to have a plan for the everything else.

Law is a traditional sector that likes Oxford, Cambridge, Bristol and Durham.

Perhaps once, but these days we recruit from a much broader list of universities than this.

2019 stats https://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/law-firms-preferred-universities-2019

DH and I are both partners in large firms. DH's firm now does blind recruitment (so the university attended is removed).

They still find that the kids from the top ranking universities do best in the selection process but that would logically be the case anyway since the top ranking universities will have asked for higher A level grades and thus attract the brightest of applicants. This should then come out in the assessment process if it's any good. However at least they can't be accused of favouring particular schools/universities.

My firm still likes good old fashioned names and places on CVs but wouldn't distinguish between St A and Durham (or any of the top 10-12 ranking universities).

That's why I suggested that tigster's DS looks at the Slaughter&May website, to see the attributes they're looking for, which are more likely to be there in graduates at certain universities, but by no means exclusively.

I think if first degree is history it probably matters less BUT Durham may provide more opportunities for networking with London law firms during his undergraduate degree (many institutions have "law for non-lawyers" events - it is worth exploring this with the university Law Societies).

Don't know if it helps with discussions but my DS is doing History at St As. He has been offered an internship with a top law firm. They advised that their only interest is graduate recruitment in those that have done their internships and not in the university the student went to which I thought was interesting. Both St As and Durham will produce well rounded students capable of getting those internships.

I’m a Durham English graduate with a training contract at a Magic Circle law firm. The law firm sent around a list of the people starting as trainees at the firm at the same time of me: out of the 40 of us, 10 are Durham graduates and 2 are St Andrews graduates, so it’s definitely possible to become a corporate solicitor from either university. One thing it might be worth your son considering is that it’s already quite a long route to become qualified from a non-law background: a non-law degree, a year doing the PGDL and a year doing the SQE. Some people also have to take a nine month gap between the PGDL and SQE because some Magic Circle law firms have two intakes, one in September and one in March, and while you can express a preference for one intake you are not guaranteed to be offered it. Therefore is he happy to add another year onto that route by doing a 4 year degree at St Andrews rather than a 3 year degree at Durham?

It’s not so much about the university but the individual and grades. The top firms want the brightest and really, the brightest will be at the top universities. And many firms expect students to have above 60% in every single module, so again, the ability to study and get good grades is very student dependent.

Both are good universities but out of the two, I would say Durham.

@TheHangryAzureBird I think there’s a bigger group of non law students wanting English law at Durham than at StA. Scottish law might be a bigger pull in Scotland. I think networking is possibly better at Durham. It’s one of the most popular unis. Oxbridge and RG still rule @tigsterbut StA isn’t a big supplier of London lawyers. RG big hitters are Durham, Bristol, Nottingham, Exeter and Warwick plus Kings and UCL.

Internships should not be a sole way of recruiting, but they help. Definitely look at support and advice for non lawyers entering law and what firms go to law career fairs at both. DD did lots at her uni for non lawyers.

There are of course opportunities in regional law that are frequently overlooked. My DD did a 4 year degree (MFL) and with the conversion it takes longer to qualify. She’s a barrister. Some will also do a MLaw taking even longer! I cannot see a 4 year history degree in Scotland is an advantage over Durham 3 years and meeting plenty of like minded students at Durham helps crystallize what type of law. Students must also meet all those application deadlines for jobs, internships and scholarships etc . It’s a whirlwind.