Law degree - Oxford or Cambridge?

[Grayswoodgirl]

My daughter is in year 12 and studying history, politics and French. Set to be predicted two A-stars and an A. She knows she wants to be a barrister (and how very competitive it is) so she must am high. She is minded to apply to either Oxford or Cambridge plus Durham, Bristol, Nottingham and one other (Exeter? Warwick?). Any insight as to the law degrees at any of those please? Also do you need to prepare for the LNAT or just turn up?

PS. She likes all of her A-levels but doesn’t love them enough to study at uni and then convert to law after graduating - hence why she thinks she’ll do a law degree straight off

@Karolinska

Yes, they usually show up at some point during the first year.

And I agree with you. A lot of what I teach is very technical and dry. I think people remember a subject being fun, not a great deal of work, and conceptually not demanding at school and so switch without thinking hard about the university version of the same subject.

I was slightly taken aback by the OP saying that her daughter doesn't like any of her subjects enough to continue with them at university. My ideal student would happily write a 10,000 word dissertation on paint-drying methods over time.

I loved my LLB and even today (a Sunday and when I am old)... I am doing some academic law (updating a law book) and that is just as much fun as anything else I do. There are also issues for those without a rich family and also who may not obtain any sponsorship in funding a conversion and a year after that of studies and there is only one post grad student loan so that may be relevant to some too.

I also found the work experience point interesting for those who are older....new trainee solicitors too often find themselves up against applicants who have been a paralegal for 2 years+ after finishing law studies. I think it may be becoming a bit of a big firm - you are younger, small firm and you are older thing. If you are fighting as HR to hire the top people during their top degrees you may well be taking people who have not done years as a paralegal - hence bigger firms might well have younger people training there (solicitors not barristers in my comment here); whereas medium sized and regional firms might well want someone who is well over 25+ who has worked as a paralegal for years and probably knows more about office life than someone who is being recruited when they are still at university. I don't think this trend (if it is one) for solicitors and barristers is a good thing as it means several years of lower pay even though you have already just spent 4 or 5 years studying without pay and then have your training in a law firm etc after that. How old we want people to be before they can get on decent pay and buy a flat and have babies etc.?

I meant I lacked the languages which used to be required to read History….

Xenia strongly agree. Young people need as fair a crack as they can have in an incredibly unfair housing market. For those from ordinary middle income families - let alone low income families - these exhortations to read a non law degree then convert then do the professional training then gather ‘life experience’ is all very well but can only come from the perspective of those who don’t have DC who actually have to sustain themselves in London. Plenty of these young people aiming for the London Bar will not have family who live in London and can offer the significant cushion of rent free accommodation yet who still understandably have the same aspirations as the vast majority: the ability to save for a deposit on a first home and move on in adult life. Exactly the same applies to all young people aiming for competitive firms who are given similar advice. The luxury of time and a languorous gathering of things to build a CV isn’t on their side, purely because family financial support isn’t there, often even with the best parental will in the world.

Don't zero in on the law degree. Look at other courses too - history, politics, economics, social sciences and then you can do a one year law conversion. For the top chambers often they look for experience in other areas - a few years in academia or consultancy.

@Karolinska There are scholarships for GDL. There are residential scholarships at the Inns of Court. As many barristers don’t have law as an undergrad degree it’s not fair to say they are all rich. They absolutely are not. However it’s not easy but it’s possible and if dc truly think another academic subjects suits them better, they really should do it. GDL is available in cheaper areas.

Plus it depends what grads find “interesting”. DD loves what she does. She’s found her niche and many of her friends have found theirs. It’s not realistic to suggest everyone has to be at top chambers to be happy. Or fulfilled. They absolutely don’t.

I’m a Solicitor with a law degree. Loved my degree. You get to study interesting modules not just the core subjects, loved law & medicine.
Just done the Uni visits with dc yr 13 who is looking to study law. So many interesting modules these days. Durham you can choose a none law modules on your law degree too.
Lnat needs prep. You need a high score to be competitive as a home student. This year some Universities eg Kings were wanting 30 plus (average was 23) My dc sat it October yr 13.

TizerorFizz you’re misrepresenting the financial burden of the GDL and Bar Course.

Fees for the GDL in London are over £13k while the scholarships on offer - all on
merit and not thick on the ground - are a maximum of £13k, and that includes the means tested awards.

Fees for the Bar Course in London are nearly £16k while the scholarships on offer - all on merit and thicker but still not thick on the ground - are a maximum of £20k, and that includes the means tested awards (caveat: there are two non means tested named awards which are £22k and £21k respectively). I’m using Inner Temple - with its reputation for being generous - as the example.

Neither course qualifies for the government postgraduate award unless the student ‘upgrades’ to the ‘Masters’ version - ridiculous - and a student can only apply to a single Inn (their own), so one bite at a significant scholarship which would leave a minus amount to live on for the GDL course. Assuming the same outstanding student gets the single biggest scholarship available for the Bar Course (for which there’s significant competition), they will have the princely sum of £6,100 to live on.

Without family either living in London or able to offer a very significant subsidy, the financial burden is huge, even with two maximum scholarships, and a serious risk. Complaints about this have been rumbling for years, with a tiny amount of progress but still not masses.

Obviously any student bagging two consecutive maximum awards would be very likely to get an excellent pupillage and therefore an excellent pupillage award from which they can draw down a modest amount for the Bar Course but basically there’s just nothing there for the GDL in terms of living costs.

So I think you may well be underestimating the problem.

Which is why I say the recommendations for choosing a non law option at university is all very well, up to a point - but it comes either from a place of wealth or from simply not knowing the numbers.

As far as the OP’s DD goes I would say she’s playing it smart. Aim to read Law, aim for Oxbridge and take it from there. She’s minimising cost and maximising opportunities and appears to be following her interests.

I’m not saying the OPs DD should not read law. I’m not sure she will totally enjoy it if she doesn’t like her A levels that much. I do know living costs matter but lots commute to GDL course (DD had lots of friends who did this) or go nearer to home. It does suit around 50% of lawyers. Their skills are obviously valued and law for three years isn’t for everyone. Bar course is available outside London too. Several of DDs friends have done a MLaw too (so three post grad years) and others have been a Juducial Assistant. It’s an occupation that can take a long time to qualify so needs planning but DD has barrister friends from very ordinary single parent backgrounds. It’s possible if you are good enough.

When DD did Barristers course it was £19,000. They have reduced it. Also Inns of Court are very focussed on widening participation.

I keep making the point to young students these days too that if you don't have family to pay doing an LLB first can make sense financially particularly for the many who might be solicitors or barristers who may not find any kind of law firm or inns of court sponsorship/ money.

For solicitors the fees have come down a bit recently in theory but on top of the course people now have to pay on the SQE for the exam fees which are about £4,564 so in my view it is no cheaper, but worse (this is for solicitors, not for the bar).

The only point I might hadd however is that for those who can afford it you might not want to bother with LNAT, might want a relaxed course with only 3 hours of lectures a week but somewhere good and only get down to serious work after on the law conversion so it is not necessarily a bad thing not to do law first and 50% of people in good law firms do a different subject first. I have been looking at linkedin profiles of trainee solicitors as so many of the family are going into law - at least 6 or 7 of this generation of cousins alone.... and sometimes it almost divides on class lines as to if people do an LLB first (less money so those who have come from a difficult background or not a great state school tend to have done an LLB).

Others suggested another subject too Tizer. It's just that reading another subject when you're interested in law as an academic subject is something very often suggested here and I do wonder why, given the additional cost, when a student expresses a clear interest in law as a career. I mean, if you only want to do the much narrower GDL modules at BPP or wherever, and don't have the interest to study at any academic level at all - why the Bar? I've read on MN that some parents/ students think it's an easier way to get an Oxbridge offer, but if you have to attempt to game that particular system then a) good luck and b) the student may well not have what it takes intellectually to prosper at the Bar.

Yes the fees for the Bar Course have been tweaked downwards. That's some progress but marginal in the scheme of things. The size of the Inns scholarships hasn't increased but there are more of them. When DD did that year she got £23k of scholarship funding and the fees swallowed most of that. Fortunately she had a good Pupillage Award and could take a chunk out of that.

A lot of Oxbridge people aiming for the Bar do the BCL at Oxford or the LLM at Cambridge. Expensive again, but more scope to make a dent in that cost with a variety of scholarship funding. A very small number of chambers also offer some financial support for the BCL/ LLM (4 New Square and One, Essex Court) specifically recognising the financial hurdles in the way of some less well off but extremely able students wanting to make a career at the Bar. Obviously the academic standard required is sky high for these scholarships. As in, get a First first and then some: highest in the year for a couple of subjects at least etc.

My own DD was a Judicial Assistant. She enjoyed the year hugely but it wasn't profit making project to then fund the Bar Course. A Civil Service salary. She certainly earned enough to live on though, just, given that she had to pay rent. It's not something any old student can walk into. Those places are competitive too.

I suppose though, that if a well off student's parent is happy to fund them to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds, then possibly not getting a pupillage at the end of it doesn't matter too much. But you really do seem to make it sound easy, as though you just apply for the BCL/ LLM get a place, apply to be a Judicial Assistant get a place, apply for a named scholarship and walk out of the interview room with £20k. It just isn't how it happens and without any funding at all for the slightly weaker applicants (not weak but not top tranche either), then you're staring down the barrel at £13,400 GDL fees plus London living and £15,900 Bar Course fees and London living. It just wasn't something DD could have considered. There's been a serious issue with access for years and just as well it's being addressed by those with some clout. The fact remains that a student from an ordinary middle income background with no parent living in London can't afford to do the GDL and the Bar Course without being an absolute star to secure funding and a pupillage which offers a large up front award. The corollary obviously being that far more middling but well off young people will make it at the Bar with far fewer of their middle and low income peers ever getting the chance. You say no need to go to a top set but tbh if you haven't got an injection of parental funding it's top set or bust.

Yes it definitely still happens at both Durham and Bristol. And indeed they are widening their net for widening participation. HSF were at Northumbria this week.

My point was that it's not a good idea to study law at Oxbridge because you don't like history, maths, English etc. enough to continue studying them at an advanced level. Law is not more interesting as an academic discipline than the standard A-level subjects. It is probably less interesting, despite being more practical and useful as the foundation for a career.

There are lots of really good reasons (eloquently expressed already) to do a first degree in law. But someone who doesn't love any A-level subject is either someone who is very badly taught or someone who (despite being extremely clever) would hate the intense abstraction of an Oxbridge degree course.

I also don't agree that every lawyer must be an academic lawyer. We know circa 50% have done the conversion course. They do get fulfilling work and are offered positions in high quality firms. However if you are looking to study law at Oxbridge, I do think you need a strong reason to choose law. If you would prefer another subject then law is still possible via the GDL. Clearly the pros would need to outweigh the cons!

hopsalong even at our (state) school which had outstanding A level History teachers, only a couple of students in the twenty or twenty five strong classes loved the subject enough to apply to Oxbridge for it. Around five a year used to apply more widely, but a fair number applied for PPE or Economics or Law. I’m not clear that in itself is sufficient to cast aspersions on the quality of teaching. I’m aware that that’s only a response to your first point and I think it’s fair to say that both of the DC who read Law at Oxford would have been happy to read History at Oxford instead; they simply preferred the idea of Law.

Tizer with respect, you do seem to be generalising a lot from your own immediate circle. There are areas of law which are inherently less academic than others, such as family and crime (although even those can throw up knotty problems), but other areas can require someone who has a ruthlessly academic mind, and that’s why certain sets favour Oxbridge firsts. It’s not about the flood of applicants all possessing these. I’m talking about barristers here and in my earlier posts, not solicitors, yet you mentioned lawyers and firms, so I wonder if you’re morphing the two?

I know two kids who have just finished Oxford and Cambridge for law, they both loved the content but the structure was different. Cambridge more frequent exams and Oxford big at the end. Culture wise they both preferred Cambridge.

Another thing I’d argue hopsalong, is about your idea that Law as an academic subject is dry. Again, much will depend on the teaching, which is by no means uniformly excellent, even at elite unis. With good teaching though, almost no area of academic law is dry. It’s a fabulous subject for a polymathematical mind at university level, just as History is, or Classics or any language course with a broad literary and historical base.

@Karolinska

I think you are generalising too! You have brilliant DC. It's well known you do. That's absolutely great snd I have no issues with their experiences. However my DD isn't a brilliant lawyer. She's just a very good one. She wasn't going to get a top Set. She knew that. So she aimed where she would get in. In fact it was pretty high ranking! It's a huge shame to put people off by saying they must love academic law. They must love enough about law to pass the GDL, get pupilage and pass the bar course. These things don't just go to the academic ones who have studied law at Oxbridge. You also know that. Few in DDs set are Oxbridge and that gives plenty of hope to those who have slightly different talents and slightly different goals as barristers.

This is a very interesting debate. My son is planning on applying to Oxbridge for law. He is state comp and predicted 3 A stars - but obviously no guarantees as so many are. What I find disconcerting is that, even though he definitely wants to be a barrister and is enthused about studying law as an academic discipline (degree), his teachers are (cynically) saying he should apply for Modern Languages (he is doing A-level Spanish) as it will maximise his Oxbridge chances: and then convert! A languages degree is four years (law is three) and then requires a year’s law conversion course - adding an extra £30,000 to his uni cost and two years behind. Surely better to follow his passion and study law from the outset, particularly if you want to be a barrister aimed at top ‘sets’ (this is a term I have learnt from this thread as I know nothing about law!). I would like to thank @Karolinska in particular for the insight on this thread. Much food for thought!

I think this would depend very much on the area of law he was interested in Stringbean. If he wanted to do international trade or international commercial law it might be worthwhile eating the upfront cost for the future earning potential. If he wanted to do crime, probably not.

Future earnings will really dictate what's best. My DD actually did MFL first. She knew she wanted law later. School is right about odds of getting a MFL place. However DD wanted MFL at uni. As it wasn't the current loan, her decision was a lot easier.

He will need to consider where else he might go. Durham and Bristol are both highly sought after.

If he wants law though, he should do it. As you don't really know what a top set is, (and they vary depending on area of law as many are specialist) I think you need to do a bit more research. Like most things, the top level of any profession isn't available to most. Some chambers only take Oxbridge grads. Look at Legal Cheek and Chambers Student for info. He will also need to think about what area of law at some stage and applying for scholarships from the inns of court. Also look at the Chambers Most list at Legal Cheek. This gives money info on pupilages.

This listing will give you a start.