Law choices

[Laundryandtoil]

Could someone who knows anything about law please advise whether my Y12 daughter is choosing realistic unis? Her choices are:

1. Cambridge - Downing, Magdalene or Selwin (not sure which)
2. Durham
3. Bristol
4. Exeter
5. Nottingham

She says she needs to sit an exam for the first three. She is likely to be predicted all A stars but reckons she will end up with A star, A star or A and A as actual results.

I would be very grateful as I don’t feel able to advise although she will run her choices past school (state grammar). Thank you MN

@Auchencar Yes I totally agree no need for a lower than AAA choice (Exeter and Nottingham) as she’s predicted A star x 3.

@Cakeandusername yes! A typo. Apologies. Should be most applicants don’t put down 5 LNAT! It’s good to have 2 that aren’t. None of the 5 universities listed are considered “safe” and all produce excellent lawyers. DD can choose after offers come in but plenty of candidates don’t do so well on LNAT. It’s not a learned curriculum.

plenty of candidates don’t do so well on LNAT. It’s not a learned curriculum

And that's exactly its point! The LNAT seems to be quite a good discriminator. It's tried and tested by now.

I wouldn’t be put off studying law if Lnat isn’t high enough to secure a place at an lnat university, most practising lawyers won’t have sat it. Lots of extremely well ranked universities for law don’t require it.
There’s no pass mark. The London universities (which op’s child is avoiding) typically require a much higher pass - 30 plus for home students v only mid 20s for international.
Essay weighing varies. I’ve seen a post this year of an lnat essay praised in Cambridge interview and UCL rejection with feedback weak essay.
It’s a snapshot on one day sat at a Pearson test centre. Some kids end up miles or getting rubbish time slots - slots go fast, need to book as soon as opens in early August. There was loud drilling when mine sat. She scored well but it could easily have gone other way.

Lots of well ranked unis don't require it precisely because the top ranked ones do. That makes complete sense for admissions purposes. It doesn't reflect on the value of the LNAT at all. It's a good test although like all tests is subject to any extreme conditions on the day.

I suppose it depends on your assessment of ‘top’
Personally I’d put Nottingham in that group as it’s usually top 10 in league tables (Times or complete uni guide) always been very well regarded for law and it’s none lnat.
Not trying to discourage this dc from sitting lnat I’m sure she will do very well just saying it’s not be all and end all. A first from Nottingham and she’s got excellent prospects.
This link gets shared a lot as a useful guide to the well regarded firms.
www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/law-firms-preferred-universities-2019

My daughters are both magic circle solicitors. Their route was a non law degree at Cambridge, then a law conversion at law school, one in London, one in Nottingham.

I was wondering about this pathway - similar to the route taken by @TizerorFizz ’s DD to the Bar.

Law is far from my discipline so I hesitated to comment. It appears that even today a probable majority, certainly a plurality, of Barristers have an Oxbridge background, either LLB or LLM which I presume is the conversion course? I know Nottingham, Bristol, a couple of London law schools and a few other places are excellent, but Durham is the only ones aside from Oxbridge I seeing mentioned with any frequency as I scan Guides to Becoming a Barrister.

I also know that in STEM we send a number of excellent students to top law conversion courses, and if they do well the world is their oyster. The posts from PPs and this knowledge have me wondering if, at this stage, it would behoove OP’s DD to make a couple of applications in a traditional academic subject with the idea of doing an LLM? Or is that combination more for solicitors?

PS I should emphasise that this was a speculative post! I imagine more applications for pupillage are being read blind nowadays, or at least I hope so. But I know that blind applications have only increased the Oxbridge numbers in certain branches of the Civil Service, and what I read about the predominance of Oxbridge at the Bar was rather shocking.

Bar is about 50% none law degree. Magic circle solicitors similar statistics. It’s certainly an option to explore but adds an extra year of study and cost.

@poetryandwine A couple of DDs friends have the LLM from Cambridge. It’s now only available after a law degree. A version of it was available after the conversion course and barrister training course, but before starting pupillage. They used to do one in commercial law and it was popular. Many barristers have a year between being called to the bar and actually starting pupillage so a masters is taken at that stage. If you have pupillage lined up with an earlier start date, most then crack on with that.

A LLM can also be gained by doing a LLM bar training course. This opens up post grad funding as well. The bar training course is not post grad funded (as far as I’m aware) but the best candidates can get high value scholarships from the Inns of Court and training provider scholarships. This is a career that needs high organisational skills and “ducks in a row” in spades! More deadlines than anyone normal encounters whilst studying!

poetryandwine there's a flaw in that suggestion: for the well regarded LLMs it's only in truly exceptional cases that you would get taken on without having an undergraduate degree in Law.

Second: why would a student wanting to read Law.... not apply for Law? There really is no advantage. There are certainly disadvantages for any student who wants to explore more areas of law than is possible with the conversion course. The conversion course is incredibly narrow and not academic in the sense that the undergraduate degree from a top university is.

I'm also interested that you find it 'shocking' that so many barristers at the London Bar are Oxford or Cambridge educated. Why so? Many areas of law are highly academic so there's an obvious synergy. Also, obviously, given the efforts that both universities have gone to to encourage applications from previously under represented groups, it would be quite the kick in the teeth to discriminate against graduates of those universities.

Cross post with TizerorFizz - apologies for repetition.

I think @poetryandwine means the post graduate law conversion diploma not an LLM.
It’s definitely a popular route for the bar, none law first degree eg history or PPE at Oxford then postgraduate conversion. The conversion does only cover the compulsory subjects though. I personally really enjoyed my law degree and the optional modules. When trawling the open days with dc recently there’s some fantastic modules being offered on undergraduate law degrees.

@poetryandwineThere are quite a few barristers chambers who seem to recruit Oxbridge only. Aspiring barristers just don’t apply to them if they don’t have the right cv! I’ve no idea if they recruit blind now or not. but many are among those that give the top pupillage awards so possibly recruit in the image of themselves as they are stumping up the money. This is often £80,000 plus per pupil.

Regarding Oxbridge - it’s around 40% of barristers. Of course some are the employed bar in those stats. Durham and Bristol are next but studying at a RG won’t hold you back but …. you might find you are not among like minded students so momentum can be lost. Also some barristers are career changers. Often these have not been to Oxbridge but are experts in their fields, which can be very varied.

It’s inevitable that training to be a barrister and getting pupillage is more likely to happen after Oxbridge law and Oxbridge anything! There are, of course, ways to get pupillage without being Oxbridge but non RG is still a small % and they will look for an academic subject if you are applying after university. Not all subjects are equal. A first is a massive help and so is Outstanding grade for the BTC and so is having a whacking scholarship from an Inn of Court.

First, thanks to everyone for clarifying the difference between the conversion course and the LLM.

I was focussed primarily on the DD’s goal if becoming a barrister, practicing in London. It is incredibly competitive. Just in case she does not get Oxbridge or possibly Durham this year, the Oxbridge statistics led me to wonder whether studying a different subject now - preferably one complementary to a law career - and doing a conversion course, preferably at Oxbridge, would make her more competitive? If Law is DD’s intellectual driver, I agree it is not a good path. For a number of our STEM students, it has worked brilliantly. (I don’t know the proportions of solicitors/barristers/other. They seem to converge on London mainly)

@Auchencar of course Oxbridge attracts many very intelligent people, but by no means does it have a monopoly. In most academic disciplines, the top ranked university Schools or Departments in the UK (or worldwide) could be taken as a parallel to the top law firms in the UK (or worldwide). In many disciplines, certainly including much of STEM , I am confident the innate intellectual abilities of the academics in these Schools and Departments compare well to those of the partners at the law firms. But the backgrounds are much more diverse.

Fifty years ago academic STEM particularly in the UK was very different, much more cliquey, and the academic scene was poorer for it. The Oxbridge statistics I’ve seen - and PP’s 40% is one of the lower suggestions - seem very old fashioned. But this thread is about getting OP’s DD launched in life, so the question is whether she needs an Oxbridge connection ( if possible).

@poetryandwine A conversion course at Oxbridge is not a thing. The course is called the PGDL (postgraduate diploma in law) and is typically offered at providers such as the University of Law, BPP or City University, though places like Oxford Brookes also offer it. It doesn’t matter where you do it and it doesn’t require the academic heft of an ancient university.

We find that law graduates and non-law converters do equally well in our pupillage selection process, as well as in pupillage and later on in practice. I did PPE and converted (having come to the idea of a law career later on). Others really relish the jurisprudence and start with law as they mean to go on! It really does not matter to us when selecting the next generation of barristers.

The main area in which there is a positive advantage to be gained from doing a non-law degree and then converting is if you want a career in intellectual property (IP) law. In that very interesting field someone with a scientific background will have a strong advantage because there is a need to understand really technical matters.

Having said that, I’ve cross-examined Formula 1 engineers, Big Pharma scientists and shipbuilders in various commercial disputes (as well as plenty of accountants, chartered surveyors and handwriting experts) so there’s plenty of technical variety on offer even outside IP!

poetryandwine everyone seems to love STEM graduates now; not before time :) My second to youngest is a STEM academic (a very junior one I should add) - definitely a throwback gene which he'd know a million times more about than me.

Completely 100% agree that Oxford and Cambridge don't have a monopoly of very smart people. The thing is that those who do get into one or the other tend to be accepted as having had their card marked as such. So they may get waved on through the first port on that basis alone. I agree that that's harsh (where it happens) for those very smart applicants who don't happen to have gone to either. On the other hand there's the argument about relative merits of firsts and high 2.1s etc etc. For those who say all firsts and 2.1s are equal I'd ask those same people why they say that they wouldn't want their own DC going to Oxbridge because the workload and stress are so high. It doesn't make a lot of sense that very clever students have to work that hard to achieve the same result as other students elsewhere if the latter degrees are indeed completely equal. Most people with firsts, whatever the uni, will have their CVs looked at though, so the grey zone is with the 2.1s. Recruiters do seem to understand that a decent degree at high 2.1 or above from Oxford or Cambridge is in fact pretty hard won. And quite aside from prior attainment there must be a significant wodge of added value provided by the nature of the tutorial/ supervision system which other universities simply can't afford.

I guess given that the OP's DD has exactly the same ability and potential whichever uni she goes to, the added value provided by an Oxbridge education is the key. TizerorFizz alos mentioned downward peer pressure - I'll leave others to argue about that (It seems to me that a lot of students these days are far more ambitious than my generation ever were, not just at Oxford and Cambridge). But then a huge number of Oxford and Cambridge students do seem to arrive at the universities super competitive and I'm not convinced that that many lose that streak. How healthy that is is another matter.

In the overall scheme of things I wouldn't see it as old fashioned to have such a high proportion of Oxbridge graduates at the Bar. It isn't exclusive for sure. I would see it simply as a recognition that this is an academic career for those with a lot of resilience. It would be genuinely shocking if it were a closed shop for no reason but it isn't a closed shop and there are sound reasons in this case for attaching a reasonable price tag to Oxbridge graduates.

Thank you for clarifying who does conversions. I had the idea from other threads that there was a broader selection of options.

In any case, what I was really wondering about - highly speculatively - was whether DD might have another beloved subject, complementary to Law, for an Oxbridge application now with a conversion afterwards.

This is an interesting post. If, as in branches of the Civil Service, Oxbridge graduates excel under a blind recruiting process, that is an eminently sound reason to employ them.

I would not be surprised if this were true.

It is the only objective one [reason]

This is what my daughters did and successfully obtained excellent places in top law firms, where they still work.

I entirely disagree with this. Law is enormously competitive and there is no 'bound to get' for anyone. That doesn't mean she needs to find a BBB option, but she should ensure that she has at least one option that she is well over the entry requirements for (although AAA should give her that so she's probably covered this with Exeter). That said, I agree schools can push students to apply for safe options and sometimes this is pointless - she has to be willing to go to every university she applies for and if she doesn't get in to any there's always clearing / taking a gap year and reapplying.

I agree with the other advice to include at least 2 non-LNAT in case she bombs the LNAT (even if she is doing well in practice, anyone can have a bad day). I think only Exeter on the current list is non-LNAT. It might be worth swapping one for Warwick for example (maybe Nottingham?).

I’m a senior lawyer (27 years pqe). I’m married to a senior partner of another large law firm. I have two children who are in the university system at different stages (one doing non law, one doing law) both of whom want to be lawyers.

what I would say is that any parent on here whose child did law and therefore puts themselves forward as an expert can only really have very limited knowledge anyway since they are speaking about their own child’s individual experience. I would also point out the training for solicitors in particular (appreciate the ops child currently thinks she might want to be a barrister) has changed massively now. Law conversion is a perfectly possibly route still but is unlikely to be as common going forwards simply because the SQE is a very difficult legal test and if you haven’t been studying law for as long you are likely to find it more difficult. It’s much more challenging than just passing the LPC. It’s also even more expensive than ever before to qualify due to the SQE exam fees plus you get a limited number of attempts (I think 3) before that’s it, you’ve wasted all of your time and money (although law firms are going to be sceptical about the ability of anyone who doesn’t pass first time).

The fact that the SQE now exists means that university degree structures have changed. If your child might want to become a barrister it is important that they study European law so you need to check this. Not all law degrees have this as a compulsory module now since it isn’t required for the SQE (technically nothing is required for the SQE in terms of undergraduate legal education but you’d be foolish to try to sit it without doing either a law degree or a non law degree plus some sort of “conversion” or course in core legal areas plus an SQE prep course).

Advice remains that you should pick a university which ranks highly both in the overall rankings and is top 20/25 for law itself (although the subject specific rankings fluctuate wildly depending on which ranking you look at so are of far more limited relevance). I’d have an AAB option in there just in case but the reality is that if you get lower than about ABB then you have very little chance of getting a job in law anyway.

My DD is a barrister and not many need European law but no doubt some do. However the main thing to consider is that perhaps there’s a need to make a choice over the barrister or solicitor route or non law route earlier. However if DD studies law, then all bases are covered.

I don’t know if the big legal employers will move to a greater % of law grads. That remains to be seen I think.

Barristers also have varying attributes. The Oxbridge ones maybe less likely to go into criminal law and not so many in family. Many see criminal barristers depicted on tv and don’t necessarily see all the other options. What really matters is knowing where your skills lie. Where will you fit in and flourish. What does your cv lean into? Most aspiring barristers work this out because you cannot scattergun applications for pupillage. So do young lawyers want the academic side, commercial side or more working with people - and all the others! I’m guessing the DD here isn’t a scientist but building up a cv around what you like and will be successful in, is the best route.

Someone predicted three A stars by a state school (albeit grammar) is highly, highly unlikely to need to go right down the law school ladder just to 'be safe'. That's particularly true of someone aiming for the London Bar. There's no need to be timid if you have a strong hand - that's simply a 20% waste of the available choice on a UCAS. The risk is significantly greater that one or more of the top law schools such as Durham will have yet another change of admissions policy and not offer to an apparently strong applicant than it is that a three A stars applicant will burn and crash to AAA. It's extremely poor advice to waste that 20%.

Quite apart from the obvious point that going to a much less well regarded law school could impact a subsequent career, it actually isn't a great mindset for a London barrister to be too timid. I'd be inclined to say that that wouldn't bode much better for a career than going to a low ranked uni. That's especially the case coming from a state grammar since a subsequent recruiter will look at a CV and go oh wow Pate's Grammar [illustration only :)] - well, no educational disadvantage there then so no real excuse for the low ranked uni. And the CV will most likely be binned. When looking for disadvantage recruiters are looking for run through disadvantage which might account for relatively low performance; this is absolutely not the case here.