Cambridge Law Degree

[LawDegree]

My son has a long held desire to study Law at Cambridge. I am managing his expectations as I know it is very, very difficult to get into!

Yesterday he got his GCSE results. He did amazingly with 9s across the board... except for English Language and Literature where he got two 7s (he was predicted 9s). He has no idea why and wants to get the papers back to have a look.

He is worried that this might affect his chances of getting into Cambridge to study Law, which is obviously a subject that relies on English and the abilities that subject shows. He knows 7s are excellent grades, but also knows Cambridge is something else.

He is not planning to do English A-Level (and never was) but is doing Classics, Politics and Mathematics. He is aware of the LNAT and also plans to enter Essay competitions to show his abilities.

Does anyone have any knowledge about what affect, if any, the 7s might have? I would obviously like reassurance for him, but I would rather people were brutally honest!

Thank you.

Many of you will already know this, but it's worth emphasising -- the Oxbridge admissions processes are highly unpredictable (not just for Law). Partly this is because the process is not centralised, and also because you can apply only to ONE course at ONE college at EITHER Oxford or Cambridge. There are probably 2-4 Fellows making the key decisions for Cambridge courses at each college. So applicants effectively place a single bet on a tiny microcosm within Cambridge. They end up competing within different pools of students and have no idea, when they apply, what the strength or composition of their particular pool will be.

The subjectivity of interviews and essay marking adds to the uncertainty, Academics have their own nuanced views about the qualities that make an 18 year old suited to their subject, the significance of different school environments and what counts as a ‘sign’ of intelligence, 'teachability' or an upward trajectory. Those judgements aren’t identical across colleges or individual academics. There's also quite alot of variation in the degree of attention paid to personal statements. For some academics, its just a cursory check that the statement is sensible and reasonably-well written. Wheras others pick up on something in the statement to use as an ice-breaker or as a starting point for a testing conversation. It can be helpful to attend open days and talk to the Law Fellows at colleges you’re interested in, partly to get a feel for their personalities and what they say they are looking for. But admissions teams change a little from year to year. And, as we all know, what people say they’re looking for and what they actually do in practice are not always quite the same thing! This is simply human nature.

Whether the Oxbridge admissions system is actually better than basing decisions on A-level results is open to debate. Most academics I know believe it is, because they have confidence in their ability to spot potential and to make sensible allowances for applicants who have had less supportive school or social environments. Personally, I’m not entirely convinced that we should have quite that degree of confidence in our own judgement, and there haven’t been any follow up studies that I’m aware of. Like a lot of established systems, there is plenty of tinkering around the edges, but genuinely radical change is rare. There’s probably an element of better the devil you know about it.

My advice to academically bright teens is that it’s great if you get an Oxbridge offer (it does correlate with academic ability) but don’t think any less of yourself or your potential if you don’t. The Oxbridge admissions system undoubtedly selects many clever and well-suited students, but it also misses plenty of others who would have been every bit as clever, capable and suited to the undergraduate law course at Cambridge. There's also many students who would actually be more suited to other types of undergrad law courses (me included).

A comment on statistics: even if Cambridge's law faculty published more detailed information about the A level subjects studied by students admitted to each new cohort, this would not prove that certain A level subjects are more likely to get you selected. The subjects studied by successful applicants tell you what those students happened to take, not whether taking those subjects increased their chances of admission. That is particularly pertinent at Cambridge because admissions decisions are made by individual colleges, involving different selectors and applicant pools, so a Faculty-wide pattern cannot be treated as evidence of selection preference shared across colleges. Advising a child to imitate a statistical pattern could therefore steer them away from subjects they enjoy, excel at and are best suited to potentially weakening rather than strengthening their application. So I agree that DCs are sensible to choose A level choices that suit them and keep their options open, and that help them improve their logical reasoning and academic essay-writing. (I posted some basic statistics in an earlier post only to prove that students are not required to take 2 subjects from the list on the University’s ambiguously worded webpage.)

I know plenty of confident barristers. 😄

I don’t like people who won’t answer a fairly straightforward question. It’s fairly obvious that if Cambridge bother to publish the A levels they recommend but 90% of applicants don’t take them, it’s a pointless exercise to recommend anything. I think the majority do follow the advice though but, like many things at Cambridge, it’s a mystery. Just like how students are actually chosen. Very little transparency.

Another useful post @Cambridgedonna and it echoes what I know of the process (which is based on the YP I know who appleid to Cambs or Oxford, so really anecdata).

This in particular: The Oxbridge admissions system undoubtedly selects many clever and well-suited students, but it also misses plenty of others who would have been every bit as clever, capable and suited to the undergraduate law course at Cambridge.

Yes indeed. I know, and in fact I expect anyone who has had a couple of DC going through uni admissions also knows, a number of YP where I was genuinely surprised that they did not get an offer – except that the stats show no offer is much more likely. So anyone not getting an offer should not be downcast. For sure it is not in any real sense a comment on you and your ability. If you do get an offer, amazing. But if not it by no means you are not worthy of one. Just, the cards were not dealt in that way. This time.

I also take your point about correlation vs causation. The fact that Cambs law UGs have xyz A levels really proves nothing. Certainly not that that is why they got the place. But the website A level recommendation, if not correct or in some way meaningful (so if in fact it is generally ignored by those making offers) certainly should be amended accordingly.

i rly wouldnt write Cambridge off over two 7s. id get the papers back if he's curious, then move on and focus on what he can still control. When I was applying for law, dwelling on finished GCSEs was honestky the least sueful bit.

@clary We don’t know for sure it is ignored though. Without evidence we just don’t know. It’s also about improving chances.