Oxford or Cambridge - law degree (knowing the odds are against either!)

[Swottinguponlaw]

My daughter wants to be a high-flying commercial barrister and she has been advised to read a law degree. I know stats say that 50% of lawyers do not study law at uni but she has been told that does not apply for budding BARRISTERS applying to top commercial chambers. Most of them do study law and have a first. Is our intelligence correct on this - noting that DD wants to be a barrister not a solicitor?

How to choose between Oxford and Cambridge for law? DD likes both cities. Are there substantive differences in the two courses?

Neither my DH or I know the slightest about this so any guidance welcome. Thank you

Has she been accepted to both?

Except for organ scholars you can’t apply to both which is why I assume the OP is asking so their YP can decide between which to apply.

OP I can’t answer your questions, however DD is at a college in Cambridge studying a different subject and has friends studying law. They have short intense terms but still find time to get involved in Uni sports and societies.

Liking the cities is a start - but next you need to read each university’s undergraduate Law websites thoroughly - that’s where you’ll find all the requisite information on course content and teaching.

I read Law at one of them and practised as a barrister - but it was a long time ago. What I can say is that at the time undergraduate Law students had workloads similar to medics. And that yes, pretty much everyone in chambers had read Law at university rather than taking a conversion course. I gather things are different now.

Beyond UCAS and Oxford and Cambridge’s own websites it would be sensible for you and your daughter to become familiar with the

Bar Council

so she can assess her options and begin to make a plan.

DH did jurisprudence at Oxford and says that historically Cambridge is for science and Oxford for the arts.. and light heartedly said everyone knows Oxford is better with absolutely no other explanation.

Look at the structure of the course in detail, using the website. There are differences both in terms of how many optional vs compulsory modules you have to take, and also in assessment (how many exams, when, and what they cover).

Oxford have open days coming up this month and Cambridge in July, when you can meet students and tutors and ask questions about course structure.

DH is a barrister and helps with the recruitment at his well respected London chambers. Lots of the barristers they recruit tend not to have Law degrees. He did Law at Oxford and wished he'd done something else. If she wants to study Law she should but absolutely won't hold her back if she doesn't.

Three of my DC are lawyers and all went to Oxford. One went to a Magic Circle firm, another is a barrister in London (don't want to be too specific about what she does, but it certainly includes commercial) and the third is at a Magic Circle firm now (a different one to the older sister).

From the point of view of commercial sets it's immaterial whether you read Law or another subject and whether at Oxford or Cambridge.

If your DD is interested in Law, she should read Law.

A key difference between the two is that the Cambridge final exams are set at the end of years two and three whereas Oxford finals all take place at the end of the third year. Both have advantages and disadvantages but your DD may have a preference. Oxford has certain compulsory subjects which can be quite challenging too. But arguably just applying to whichever place you like the feel of better is the way to go.

How old is your daughter, @Swottinguponlaw? I ask because research, and the interpretation of that research, is the major part of the job she wants to do. So a question like Are there substantive differences in the two courses? should be something she can look up for herself, instantly - and then tell you about, in detail.

It may be that she’s too young to have developed these skills yet - but they’ll need nurturing.

Two of those DC read Law, the other (the second Magic Circle one) read History. All three really loved their subject. It just doesn't matter from the career point of view. However it certainly matters from a financial point of view (fine if you have an offer from a Magic Circle type firm since the conversion costs (incl living costs) are pretty much covered; but even the best scholarships from an Inn won't cover the whole thing - there would be a shortfall of several thousand and of course first you need to bag those top scholarships :)).

Which school year is your DD in OP? I’m assuming Y12? If so, what were her GCSE scores last year? Those may also colour the choice between Oxford and Cambridge.

If not yet through GCSEs I’m wondering if she’s done anything - maybe won a national mooting or debating competition - which has settled her on this particular choice?

And what has tripped an interest in commercial law in particular? She obviously can’t have studied it in any depth at all yet and it’s certainly not the area of choice for a lot of those aiming for the Bar.

At Bar School most DCs have worked out what they want. The degree from Oxford or Cambridge won’t matter. There are sets who are 100% Oxbridge! Most are not.

My one big tip is get into the MLaw at Cambridge. Most of DDs commercial barrister friends have done this. Obviously they are bright and haven’t all studied law at undergrad. If she wants law, absolutely fine but do your best academic subject.

Can I ask what kind of GCSEs and A levels your DC achieved @Karolinska?

They were pretty good Lassi but pre-dated the numbered GCSEs.

Straight A*s? Just weighing up things for DC.

The oldest DC took her A levels in the year prior to the A* being introduced, so the easy answer is no.

You don't need straight A* to get offered a place at Oxford or Cambridge, that's for sure.

https://llm.law.cam.ac.uk/admissions

Tizer do you mean the LLM? Because the entry requirements preclude non lawyers.

I’m wondering how many A*As they do need @Karolinska especially for a subject which is so competitive.

There's not a set number Lassi, for obvious reasons of contextualisation. Also, an outstanding score in the LNAT can compensate for less than perfect grades. Neither university is rigid.

My DC were fortunate to go to a high achieving school and so the bar would have been relatively high. It would be unfair to hold students at the much less good school down the road to the same standard.

The use of contextual data is explained here: https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/decisions/contextual-data

Among other things, universities have access to information about how the candidate’s performance compares to the school’s average GCSE performance so they can see, for example, if a candidate has done exceptionally well for that school.

So it isn’t about absolute GCSE grades and in any case they are one factor among others (eg LNAT, UCAS form, written work for some Cambridge colleges, interview performance if invited)

There must be some kind of middle ground of GCSEs needed for these courses? It’s weird that everyone on these boards seems to either send their dc to the highest performing or the lowest performing schools.

There isn’t a rule about what GCSEs are “needed” - what it says on the Oxford website is that “successful applicants typically have a high proportion of 7s, 8s and 9s”. GCSEs don’t form part of an admissions requirement like A levels do, they just give the tutors one piece of the jigsaw when it comes to assessing the strengths of the various candidates.

There may be all sorts of reasons why a successful applicant didn’t in fact obtain those grades, ranging from being at a rubbish school; extenuating circumstances during the GCSEs, very strong A level performance, or just that other aspects of the application were so very strong that the admissions tutors felt they outweighed an imperfect GCSE record.

I know it will vary from person to person but their admissions seem a bit hazy. DC has a high proportion of top grades but not all 9/8s. I was just wondering what other successful candidates have.

It is hazy intentionally because they want to have the flexibility to look at each application on its merits and weigh up all the evidence available to them.

@Karolinska Oh dear, rushing and got degree name wrong! It’s LLM or MCL for corporate law. Both take students after a law degree. LLM people generally have one I believe. I think DDs friends, now I’ve checked, did the MCL for corporate law and it is a very good qualification to get for the ambitious. The route for people I’m aware of has been GDL, Barrister training, MCL and then pupilage. They didn’t all have law degrees but all have firsts. MCL used to be called LLM (Commercial Law) a few years ago.