Typical A levels for law

[Come]

Am I wrong in thinking that for law specifically that there's no need for any specific A-levels apart from one essay subject?

I'm happy to be corrected, at the big firms you will do seats during training in different areas of lawyers regardless of what A levels you have. However some areas of personal skill & knowledge will be very relevant when practising, but usually law firms and chambers will see a degree in a specific non-law subject as proof of that knowledge or skill rather than an A level.

On the first point, the top firms tend to specialise, so the rotation of seats will expose you to areas of law only within that specialty.

On the second - yes absolutely. Classics has been very highly rated for ever almost, because it draws together a range of necessary aptitudes for the practice of law. The Bar has always been especially keen on classicists.

I have read both specs for Politics A Level
and any mention of Reagan or Thatcher with the actual A Level would be minor.

You have to know the entire History of Labour, the Conservatives etc also the theories of communism, socialism,
conservatism, nihilism etc. Also you learn about the Separation of Powers, the role and function of the executive, ministerial responsibility, collective responsibility. Also you learn about the reform of the House of Lords ( actually under Blair) and the construction of and powers of the House of Lords. Also you learn about how a bill becomes a Statute eg green paper, white paper, consultations., what is ping pong etc. You also learn about the restrictions of the Monarchy dating back to the Magna Carta onwards and the role of a Constitutional Monarch - ( having done this at degree level the history involved is nothing to do with Thatcher but more Charles 2nd etc). You learn about the Constituok and the various documents that make up our unwritten constitution eg the Act of Settlement. You also learn about Brexit and the Boris Johnson and the intervention of the Supreme Court ( and the constitutional basis for that).

I mean who are the great political thinkers - I doubt you would cover all of them in History A Level - you might encounter one or two eg Marx or Lenin but not not Burke or Hobbes etc. I only learnt who Rosa Luxembourg was as I specificity studied the Weimar period at degree level but it’s in the Politics A Level book

These is as much overlap as there is with Maths and Biology as Biology might have some Maths.

I have worked through both A Levels and actually did the equivalent A Levels in the 1980s and a History degree at UCL.

Incidentally a knowledge of Reagan even figured on Film Studies as oddly it was hugely influential in Blade Runner but you would not suggest a huge overlap with that A Level!

incidentally in English A Level you have to contextualise your novels - so should people not study that as it’s got History in it and it overlaps eg the Great Gatsby you have to know about the Golden Age and the Great Depression.

,

No idea if it's typical, but dds friend just got into Bristol for Law with English Literature, Drama and Psychology.

Noras I have no idea why you're so determined about this but the two specifications - history and politics - at our school had enormous overlap for at least ten years. I know this from a professional point of view as well as merely as a mother of seven DC who took history at A level between 2008 and 2020, all of whom had friends who took politics and were frustrated at the huge overlap in specification. Can I also say that mine was a passing observation about overlap, so it's certainly not something to get rattled about. If it happens that your DC didn't get bored because there was no overlap - great.

Not everywhere interviews.......DD had places at RG universities offered for law without interviews

@Blushingm I meant the Oxbridge interviews. They look at LNAT, GCSEs, A levels and interviews. Others obviously don’t.

@pivoinerose I think my DD just found Politics A level a bit boring! It tends to get sold by schools as a good subject if you are interested in political debate. This isn’t really the case.

I’m irked because you are wrong.

There is precious little overlap unless you just happen to be doing that bit of History that involves the Magna Carta whilst coincidentally also doing that bit of history involving the Act of Settlement several hundred years later and oh just also happened to have studied the Enlightenment period and happen to also studied , Suffragettes and Chartists not forgetting also studying the difference between Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats.Also the bit of History studied to overlap also should have covered the 1997 election. Which syllabus in History A Level and which board covers this variety of things?

You say from a professional point of view, did you actuary teach both History and Politics in a depth or just briefly look at the spec? I have helped a severe SEN kid through both A levels and there really is no overlap unless in the same way that English overlaps History as you have to understand the context of ‘My Antonia’ etc.

Noras I'm 100% correct about our own school's specifications, having played an active role in the History Dept for twelve years. There were a lot of conversations around specifications/ staffing and how to facilitate the teaching of politics without needing to recruit new staff, due to financial constraints. In fact I recruited every new member of staff to the department over that period apart from one NQT where I wasn't on the interview panel so I do know what I'm saying about specifications. I'm finding this is getting tedious. As I say, I'm completely correct about our particular specifications but entirely accept that in your son's case the specifications did not overlap. Let's leave it there. Your irkedness is side-tracking the thread, which is about A level choices for law. And to be clear, The History Dept was wholly responsible for the teaching of politics too - there was no separate department and there were no additional members of staff.

Yes TizerorFizz I think a lot of students find it boring. Although ours was a grammar school there was still a range of ability and the History Dept didn't want to drop politics as a subject when cuts were being made because it was a good option for the less academic students. Which is not the same as saying that students who take it are by definition not academic! Before that irks someone too! But it does mean that brighter students can find it tedious as an A level subject (not necessarily!).

What active role did you play? Did you teach the syllabus?

Noras my reply was self explanatory.

Can we revert to the subject matter of the thread?

Our specifications had very significant overlap for the duration of my involvement in the History Department - emphasis on very - but it appears that your son's didn't. That's absolutely fine. School's differ and their choices differ.

@Noras by continuing to question @pivoinerose ’s clearly impressive and courteously expressed credentials on this subject you are coming across poorly. And what is worse, you are boring the rest of us who are following this thread with interest.
if you can’t accept you have lost an argument with good grace, try at least to lose it silently.

I'm gonna be honest. The reason I started this thread was about the role maths A level (and to a lesser extent FM) plays

Maths is the most popular A level, so I'd imagine lots of Law applicants have it.

I think that the overall message is to do A Levels you enjoy and can get the best grades in. That might be a preliminary filter. Law firms I understand still look at A Level grades and rank by A* AA and AAA etc.

It might be worth then seeking to have positions of responsibility in university eg treasurer or chair or editors etc etc. If lots of people have firsts from RG universities anything that sets you apart might help. Coupled with that is the notion then of having Sciences or Maths as that might just distinguish you but the A Level grades are key for top 50 firms more. Good communication skills are liked hence why English was considered a good A Level but not necessary.

Ultimately if you enjoy Maths or Sciences you might enjoy doing bioscience legal work, intellectual property. If you like Maths or Computer Sciences you might enjoy high value computer fraud cases. I would imagine that some of those case would be technically challenging unless you have a good interest in it.

When my daughter was considering options she took A Levels in Maths Chemistry and Biology but dipped to a B in Chemisty as my dad was dying and she had to be a carer for my son. She was self taught for Law and got an A. She got 94% for an EPQ on a neuroscience topic. In the meantime, she was encouraged to do Drama and got grade 8 Distinction. We hoped to cover all basis eg essay writing, communication skills and also Sciences. Further to that she was sub editor on her university newspaper and worked for Naga Munchetty at the BBC for 2 weeks and got nominated for National university sub editor of the year. She then got a First from a high ranked RG university.
Despite all the above, my husband who is partner on a top 50 firm said that she might not necessarily get a training contract in law. As it was she decided on Big 4. This is how tough it can be.

Having checked through Student Room lots of people did Politics and History combination and it was not considered ‘weak’ as they got into Cambridge and Oxford.

@Come As I think I pointed out maths is seen as worth considering at Cambridge. Elsewhere it’s a great 3rd subject behind say, History, English and MFL. Unis differ and many won’t give much of a steer at all. Essay subjects are generally preferred.

My DD submitted a Politics essay to Oxford and got a place so it’s academic and is on the Cambridge secondary list - as a third choice. If you are not aiming for Oxbridge or other elite courses, it matters less. Just doing what you like without considering what unis like is daft. Don’t do maths if she’s likely to get a B. AstarAA is what should be the target.

Not all students find it tough to get a TC at a top firm (such as Magic Circle for commercial law). At the end of the day it isn't about A level choices or ticking CV boxes about positions of responsibility, it's about intelligence and capacity for hard (or at least smart) work and the sort of personality which can get on with clients and colleagues alike. Of course it's tough unless you have those attributes but tbh you either have them or you don't. And the partners who tend to do the decider interviews are pretty good at spotting which applicants have what it takes.

My DS didn't read Law at uni, had never shown any interest in law as a career, had never applied for vac schemes while at uni but then thought maybe it could be a good choice. Good money and reasonable job security. He applied to two Magic Circle firms (no others), did short vac schemes at both, got offers from both within a few days and accepted the firm that he's still at (and thriving at). He was simply right for the job. He enjoyed his interviews which were pretty chatty. I wouldn't extrapolate from his experience that it's super easy to get a TC at the top commercial firms but to a significant extent the die is cast and it's not worth fretting about the small stuff.

You need to look at the numbers that apply @pivoinerose So many try for these jobs. The word tough really refers to the odds. These are stacked against grads. They still take loads of Oxbridge grads because they meet the selection criteria. However suggesting dc rock up and get a vac scheme placement is not true. There’s a huge amount of competition. Thousands don’t get them! Of course you need to have what they are looking for and clearly thousands don’t. Some very bright people are poor at conversation for starters. Getting through the filters matters and taking the time to apply!

I think there are 3 things here at play.

1 You have to ge through the bot screening process eg A Level grades and the anticipated or actual degree grade. On another site someone posted % on how many people at Slaughter and May ( where my dad trained back in the day when any degree was good) had 1st and it was the majority. So try to get the best A Levels and year 1 and 2 grades and they do look at individual grades in university exams or call for script eg someone said contract law exam ( which I believe is in year 1 still) might be looked at. The thing is not to party too hard in year 1.

So if you like Politics English History and will get an A star AA in a combination then do that! That person will get though better than someone with AAA in Maths Chemistry and Biology if the firm demands A star AA.

2 There might be various other stages before an interview with a partner who really does not have time to spend on interviews with hundreds of people. At various stages things like extra curricular might come into play if you have got through with a mid 2:1 prediction as at this stage it might help keep you in the game.

3 Finally if all good you get to a partner and can impress with your social skills.

Upshot do the A Levels to get the best grades and do the degree that you will do well in. Really just do stuff you enjoy.

However if you have a skill for Science or Maths you might carve out a niche for yourself in some areas that other people might find complicated.

The only issue with Maths are the people who dislike Maths and dread the accounts exam or worse fail it. So as I keep saying a decent GCSE would help. Obviously when transferring millions you don’t want to mess up and certainly DH always seems to have number scribblings.

Overall I never fully understood who got what training contracts as even in the middle ranking firm I was in there were people with Oxford degrees or 1st from Bristol. (Actually one was in my team that I ran). Sometimes I think that it’s luck or just having a good day. The person in my team was personable enough.

Conversely some people will lesser universities on their CV managed to become senior partners at top 25 firms on over a million a year. Back in the day I spoke frequently ( partied) with such people.

Also some people go to Oxford get a first and never make partner anywhere. I have a friend like that - a very good lawyer but not suited to the cut and thrust of big law.

It's well known that masses apply TizerorFizz. To an extent the numbers are not the key thing, since there's a lemming like phenomenon which causes an absurd number of students to think that commercial law is a holy grail, quite disregarding the fact that they might well not be suited to it. In fact at DD4's graduation last month in Oxford my eldest bumped into her old college tutor on the street and he asked her to come back to Oxford to give a talk to current students on why they should not go for commercial law (she trained and became an associate at a Magic Circle firm then decided to go into human rights, which she hugely prefers).

An ability to communicate is definitely key but having a mechanical approach to the application process is somewhat besides the point. An applicant needs to be very smart - and interesting too: not necessarily someone who plays by rote.

You won’t get anywhere near a partner until Stage 4 after a bot screen, critical thinking test, maybe a couple of interviews with non partner people including HR then finally you might have a cosy chat with a partner and can impress with all your acumen that you have etc

Thanks for that Noras but I think you may have completely missed the point of my post. I wasn't intending to list the various stages of a standard application.

I mean, I would just point out that neither of my two Magic Circle DC went through all these stages either. DD1 did a summer vac scheme in her second summer vac at uni and was phoned by a partner at the start of Sept to be offered a TC on completion of her degree. DS3 did two much shorter vac schemes in the Autumn after graduating and had an interview with partners/ job offer at the end of each of those (they were back to back).

(My own experience is too long ago to be relevant but I think the lack of universal computers got me off the hook on these irksome tests :). CV into the firm followed by one interview with HR and a second with three senior partners and that was it boom).

Another reasonably interesting point is that despite the extraordinary numbers rushing for these commercial firms, and the exhausting process that Noras has detailed (but which clearly doesn't apply to all), the make up of the intake in current times has barely changed since I joined back in the 80s. The spread of unis is almost exactly the same, according to my DC. The only striking change is the gender balance but nothing else. So one wonders why bother with all the filters if the net effect is the same?

I agree about being interesting. If you get to an interview anywhere, that helps. There’s also an issue with thinking a few firms are the ultimate goal. Many have great careers elsewhere and move around. Everyone has to survive for a few years and then see if it’s something they enjoy. The most important thing is to get considered in the first place,