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

A very decent percentage of non law grads get pupillage according to the BSB. This could be due to larger numbers of applicants studying law, but the BSB conclusion is that not studying law is no barrier at all. Please see attached stats from BSB.

Law grads are just over 50%. I'm not sure where other posters get data from. BSB is best source.

I realise the solicitor discussion is off at a slight tangent, but having 4 solicitor children and they have cousins doing law too at present I have been looking quite closely at all this in the last few years. I watched an SRA "qualifying work experience" (the new training contract) video last week and continue to be unhappy that under the new system where there is an option (although not the best option to take) of 2 years even just volunteering in a law centre, even just 100% outside the UK volunteering in a law clinic in Papua New Guinea can count if an English solicitors (who does not have to be someone who worked at the same place) signs off on it as meeting a few of the "competencies" and is provision of legal advice (legal secretary would not count).

I suppose all we have done with SQE/QWE for solicitors is created more newly qualifieds but many of whom are not well trained so won't get jobs...

Anyway rant over and the thread can continue back to the bar.

@TizerorFizz very helpful to see those BSB statistics - thank you. Interesting that non law degree graduates success at securing a pupillage is higher than law degree students - I expect they are very motivated.

As to getting in to Oxford or Cambridge for MFL only having one language is not a barrier. You can do single language honours or start another language from scratch (ab intio). My DD was fortunate her comprehensive offered two languages at GCSE and A Level but universities know that often isn't the case and they are keen to encourage MFL enthusiasts who shown an aptitude.

DD and a friend both got offers the same year for the same dual honours languages at Oxford; one had studied one MFL A' Level, the other two MFLs at A Level.

@Juja

I would like to think Oxford could spot a linguist even if they only had one A level in it. I don't see Spanish as being a weak MFL either. If that's all that's on offer it's not the fault of the DC. I'm aware two is better but ab initio is of course possible. A first in MFL is better than a 2:1 in law. The stats show this too! The first is better, full stop.

I think you can see that far more law grads apply to be barristers. Obviously they have advantages whilst at uni but it appears to even up and lots of law grads get nothing. Vast numbers do not get pupillage on their first attempt via Gateway. DD did but lots don't. I think 10% do. Could be wrong. Chances improve with later applications.

If your DD wants this career, linguists are not shunned! The Bar welcomes bright people. The main piece of advice is to find the area of law where DC can shine. Being.realistic pays off and there's lots of advice on this. It will cost more to convert but dc should earn well if they avoid crime!

I agree with @TizerorFizz - very important to hone in on sets if you haven’t studied law and just done conversion. Of course you can make it work (as Tizer’s son has brilliantly done by playing to his strengths) but, if you want to be a barrister, more options open to you if you study law as undergrad.

@TizerorFizz thank you so much for the advice - really helpful.

I also agree that Spanish isn't a weak A Level and that only one MFL language is no barrier ... Ab initio languages move at quite a pace - by the end of the first year you are expected to be at the same standard as those who have done A level and a year at undergraduate level.

Spanish isn't a weak A level but the reason that swathes of schools all across England substituted Spanish for French as their GCSE option ten to fifteen years ago was purely and simply because it was an easier language to learn and earn a good grade (for the school) in. There was little disguising that as the motive for the widespread move from French to Spanish. I think it's entirely fair to say that it isn't as demanding a language to learn as French is, for an English speaker.

I didn't mean to imply that Spanish was weak as an A level at all. I don't see that any language is weak as an A level unless of course you're a native speaker of the language in question, in which case the choice of subject is a curious one anyway. I meant that given that Spanish is relatively weak as a measure of how good a student is at mastering languages in general, the teachers in this specific case are on weaker ground than they might be with a student studying French, or French and German, which militates even more strongly towards the idea of this being lazy advice targeted solely at getting an Oxbridge place and with a disregard not just for the student's inclination but also for their particular strengths. Teacher advice can be very misplaced.

Yes, my daughters and older son did French, German and Latin and by the time the twins came along their school did French, Spanish and Latin (although all my children just did one language at GCSE (4 of them did French and one did German). I did French and German to GCSE level and then German A level - even then in the 1970s only 2 of us did the German A level (3 of us started and one just stopped after lower sixth).

Summer holidays had a bearing on Spanish. It's where Brit's go. Spanish seemed more relevant.

Plus there are more Spanish speakers in the world. Schools liked the idea of Spanish and presumably could find teachers to teach it.

Native speakers who have been taught a language from birth often take that language at degree level. DD had lots of them at uni with her and a primary school classmate went to Oxford for MFL and she had a mum from that country who was a MFL teacher. It's very easy to disguise. My friend did exactly the same. The dc needs some talent but they have acquired it over 17/18 years. Other dc it might only be 4 if they pick up a second MFL in y8.

It's unfortunate schools give one option for MFL which then appears to condemn a child as being second rate because it's deemed as an easier MFL

Tizer the rationale for schools was the relative ease of Spanish and the cheap rush for grades. It certainly wasn’t to make communication on holidays easier! Let alone to condemn students who take it!

I actually think it was to try and make the language more attractive to young people for the reasons I stated and I have seen that stated by schools. All schools are different though.

Iberian languages are studied by gifted linguists and they could have been inspired by a visit to Spain and then take the Languages further.

Unfortunately schools struggle with German and many force DC to have one MFL. No one does this for science but how are DC supposed to have their linguistic ability stretched when schools don't value it? The implication from an Oxford expert that Spanish as a single A level is sub par feels very harsh. Grammar and privately educated DC will inevitably dominate MFL, plus native speakers, which isn't great.

Tizer you're taking this and dashing off with it slightly! I've already explained that all I meant about this particular case was that the teachers doling out this advice about oh do MFL you'll walk in compared to a Law application was based on less evidence than had the DS been taking two stronger MFL and excelling in both. Obviously Spanish is a completely respectable A level. No-one said it wasn't. it's purely relative.

Students did show a clear preference for Spanish - many found French notoriously hard. The whole shift was widely discussed at the time by HTs and teachers of MFL. Another angle would be not so much that schools were chasing better grades (although naive to deny that was a large part of it), but that they wanted a language which was more accessible to their students, especially those who struggled with languages.

I won't dignify the other flip comment in your post!

Privately educated and grammar do have more dc accessing 2 MFLs. It's been a worry for some time and numbers falling in A level entries are a concern for many. I do not see that concern as flippant. I'm not sure the school said doing MFL was an easy option. It's just that the successful percentage is higher. However I totally agree if the dc wants law, he should go for law. Maybe schools should have access to a handbook for Oxbridge? Written by you!

I don't think so Tizer although I did spend many years working on educational access. We chipped away and I hope did a dot of good in our own small way. Everything anyone needs to know is on the two websites and if it isn't, email the admissions guys or a tutor.

@Karolinska

My comment was based on your view that schools give poor advice. It seems the schools don't have all the info to hand but pick and choose what they say.

TizerorFizz I didn't say that all schools give poor advice but that some do, and in the case of the teachers leaping to the idea of 'easier' MFL to bag a place at Oxford rather than Law, where a student appears to be keen on Law, seems to me to fall into the poor category. Heightened by the fact that it shows a disregard for the two additional years (year abroad plus conversion including fees/living).

But I think it is fair to say that plenty of schools give weak (as opposed to poor) advice, especially for high achievers predicted a full or nearly full set of A* and with a very strong hand of GCSEs. It's impossible to think that that isn't purely because teachers don't want to get it in the neck from irate parents if a bolder approach goes wrong, which it rarely does for achievers with those grades. And that's across all school types I would say.

How did this pan out ? What offers have they ?

I am a lawyer, ex magic circle, now very senior in a niche field, and I guest lecture at Cambridge, oxford and UCL. I also live in oxford and am fairly plugged in to the uni at faculty and also certain colleges, judge moots etc. I would prefer Cambridge over Oxford for undergrad as I just think the way they examine at oxford is unnecessarily nuts, and it seems to me there is more scope for choice at Cambridge. But like all uni voices, personal preference plays a great part so dc should visit north and have a really good look at the department and how the degree works as well as the town and see what they think.