From Brian Leiter, a law professor at the University of Chicago, and well known for his rankings of law schools:
"The Toronto faculty is the strongest in Canada, comparable to the Georgetown/Northwestern/Texas cluster in the US, so stronger than some of those I assume you mean by top 14, and weaker than others. They have a particularly good law & economics group, which is unusual in Canada. Osgoode has the second best faculty overall in Canada, comparable to the US top 20-25 (Im referring to my measures, obviously, not US News). McGill has at least as good a reputation in Canada, though its faculty underperforms at the international level. British Columbia is also quite solid."
Source: http://www.top-law-schools.com/brian-leiter-interview.html
Regarding journals, from a comprehensive study done by the Australian Research Council on the quality of journals worldwide, U of T, McGill, and Osgoode Hall were the only Canadian law journals to score within the top 5% of their field (i.e. law).
Source: http://www.arc.gov.au/era/journal_list.htm
UBC has somewhat of an inflated name internationally, perhaps due to its location in popular Vancouver, and I don't think its LLM program compares to the other three. McGill has an inflated reputation as well, however, it is still very good (just not as good as some top U.S. programs, even though those who study there sometimes promote it as such).
I would only consider U of T, McGill, or Osgoode Hall if you want to come to Canada. But take into consideration the cold winters!
Opinions needed: best 5 law schools in the world (excluding US)
Posted Aug 10, 2009 17:42
0
From Brian Leiter, a law professor at the University of Chicago, and well known for his rankings of law schools:
"The Toronto faculty is the strongest in Canada, comparable to the Georgetown/Northwestern/Texas cluster in the US, so stronger than some of those I assume you mean by top 14, and weaker than others. They have a particularly good law & economics group, which is unusual in Canada. Osgoode has the second best faculty overall in Canada, comparable to the US top 20-25 (Im referring to my measures, obviously, not US News). McGill has at least as good a reputation in Canada, though its faculty underperforms at the international level. British Columbia is also quite solid."
Source: http://www.top-law-schools.com/brian-leiter-interview.html
Regarding journals, from a comprehensive study done by the Australian Research Council on the quality of journals worldwide, U of T, McGill, and Osgoode Hall were the only Canadian law journals to score within the top 5% of their field (i.e. law).
Source: http://www.arc.gov.au/era/journal_list.htm
UBC has somewhat of an inflated name internationally, perhaps due to its location in popular Vancouver, and I don't think its LLM program compares to the other three. McGill has an inflated reputation as well, however, it is still very good (just not as good as some top U.S. programs, even though those who study there sometimes promote it as such).
I would only consider U of T, McGill, or Osgoode Hall if you want to come to Canada. But take into consideration the cold winters!
"The Toronto faculty is the strongest in Canada, comparable to the Georgetown/Northwestern/Texas cluster in the US, so stronger than some of those I assume you mean by top 14, and weaker than others. They have a particularly good law & economics group, which is unusual in Canada. Osgoode has the second best faculty overall in Canada, comparable to the US top 20-25 (Im referring to my measures, obviously, not US News). McGill has at least as good a reputation in Canada, though its faculty underperforms at the international level. British Columbia is also quite solid."
Source: http://www.top-law-schools.com/brian-leiter-interview.html
Regarding journals, from a comprehensive study done by the Australian Research Council on the quality of journals worldwide, U of T, McGill, and Osgoode Hall were the only Canadian law journals to score within the top 5% of their field (i.e. law).
Source: http://www.arc.gov.au/era/journal_list.htm
UBC has somewhat of an inflated name internationally, perhaps due to its location in popular Vancouver, and I don't think its LLM program compares to the other three. McGill has an inflated reputation as well, however, it is still very good (just not as good as some top U.S. programs, even though those who study there sometimes promote it as such).
I would only consider U of T, McGill, or Osgoode Hall if you want to come to Canada. But take into consideration the cold winters!
Posted Aug 14, 2009 10:14
0
In my opinion are:
Cambridge
Oxford
LSE
McGill
Tokyo University
In my opinion are:
Cambridge
Oxford
LSE
McGill
Tokyo University
Cambridge
Oxford
LSE
McGill
Tokyo University
Posted Sep 21, 2009 23:09
0
If you are concerned about fees, then as an overseas student you have to contend with what have now become the astronomically high fees at Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh, as well as at the better U.S. schools. I received my D.Phil. in law from Oxford about a decade ago, and in those days it was still affordable for foreigners, but no longer.
This is the reason the better Canadian schools come into consideration, since even for foreign students they are comparatively quite inexpensive. University of Toronto is far and away the best law school in Canada, since McGill is grossly underfunded and still trying to live off the memory of its once-great reputation, while Osgoode no longer offers a legal education at all, but instead just has a profoundly uncritical indoctrination camp in Political Correctness. which it misleadingly labels a 'law school.'
If you are concerned about fees, then as an overseas student you have to contend with what have now become the astronomically high fees at Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh, as well as at the better U.S. schools. I received my D.Phil. in law from Oxford about a decade ago, and in those days it was still affordable for foreigners, but no longer.
This is the reason the better Canadian schools come into consideration, since even for foreign students they are comparatively quite inexpensive. University of Toronto is far and away the best law school in Canada, since McGill is grossly underfunded and still trying to live off the memory of its once-great reputation, while Osgoode no longer offers a legal education at all, but instead just has a profoundly uncritical indoctrination camp in Political Correctness. which it misleadingly labels a 'law school.'
This is the reason the better Canadian schools come into consideration, since even for foreign students they are comparatively quite inexpensive. University of Toronto is far and away the best law school in Canada, since McGill is grossly underfunded and still trying to live off the memory of its once-great reputation, while Osgoode no longer offers a legal education at all, but instead just has a profoundly uncritical indoctrination camp in Political Correctness. which it misleadingly labels a 'law school.'
Posted Oct 09, 2009 12:41
0
It is hardly worth engaging in threads like this.
Even including US schools, and speaking only in terms of LLM and other law masters degrees, the Oxford BCL is leagues ahead of everything else. Subjects like Restitution, Jurisprudence and the Conflict of Laws take much of their modern shape from the BCL course - it is a forum for the development of the law. The resources and prestige of the degree within the University of Oxford alone are massive. It is possibly the only university where the masters programme has greater prestige than the undergraduate law degree. Everywhere else is miles and miles behind.
After Oxford, (ignoring those who require particular specialisations), I would opt for Yale and Harvard, then Columbia and Cambridge.
The University of London (esp through UCL or LSE) is in the next tier down but still very good.
I can't opine on Canadian universities but internationally their collective reputation (McGill, UBC, Toronto, Osgoode Hall) is perhaps somewhat lower than the University of London colleges but better than most other English and Scottish Universities (e.g. Warwick, Bristol, York, Nottingham, Edinburgh).
The better Australian law schools (Uni of New South Wales, Melbourne, Sydney) have masters degrees that are probably slightly behind the Canadian programmes but essentially comparable.
It is hardly worth engaging in threads like this.
Even including US schools, and speaking only in terms of LLM and other law masters degrees, the Oxford BCL is leagues ahead of everything else. Subjects like Restitution, Jurisprudence and the Conflict of Laws take much of their modern shape from the BCL course - it is a forum for the development of the law. The resources and prestige of the degree within the University of Oxford alone are massive. It is possibly the only university where the masters programme has greater prestige than the undergraduate law degree. Everywhere else is miles and miles behind.
After Oxford, (ignoring those who require particular specialisations), I would opt for Yale and Harvard, then Columbia and Cambridge.
The University of London (esp through UCL or LSE) is in the next tier down but still very good.
I can't opine on Canadian universities but internationally their collective reputation (McGill, UBC, Toronto, Osgoode Hall) is perhaps somewhat lower than the University of London colleges but better than most other English and Scottish Universities (e.g. Warwick, Bristol, York, Nottingham, Edinburgh).
The better Australian law schools (Uni of New South Wales, Melbourne, Sydney) have masters degrees that are probably slightly behind the Canadian programmes but essentially comparable.
Even including US schools, and speaking only in terms of LLM and other law masters degrees, the Oxford BCL is leagues ahead of everything else. Subjects like Restitution, Jurisprudence and the Conflict of Laws take much of their modern shape from the BCL course - it is a forum for the development of the law. The resources and prestige of the degree within the University of Oxford alone are massive. It is possibly the only university where the masters programme has greater prestige than the undergraduate law degree. Everywhere else is miles and miles behind.
After Oxford, (ignoring those who require particular specialisations), I would opt for Yale and Harvard, then Columbia and Cambridge.
The University of London (esp through UCL or LSE) is in the next tier down but still very good.
I can't opine on Canadian universities but internationally their collective reputation (McGill, UBC, Toronto, Osgoode Hall) is perhaps somewhat lower than the University of London colleges but better than most other English and Scottish Universities (e.g. Warwick, Bristol, York, Nottingham, Edinburgh).
The better Australian law schools (Uni of New South Wales, Melbourne, Sydney) have masters degrees that are probably slightly behind the Canadian programmes but essentially comparable.
Posted Oct 09, 2009 16:05
0
It is hardly worth engaging in threads like this.
Even including US schools, and speaking only in terms of LLM and other law masters degrees, the Oxford BCL is leagues ahead of everything else. Subjects like Restitution, Jurisprudence and the Conflict of Laws take much of their modern shape from the BCL course - it is a forum for the development of the law. The resources and prestige of the degree within the University of Oxford alone are massive. It is possibly the only university where the masters programme has greater prestige than the undergraduate law degree. Everywhere else is miles and miles behind.
After Oxford, (ignoring those who require particular specialisations), I would opt for Yale and Harvard, then Columbia and Cambridge.
The University of London (esp through UCL or LSE) is in the next tier down but still very good.
I can't opine on Canadian universities but internationally their collective reputation (McGill, UBC, Toronto, Osgoode Hall) is perhaps somewhat lower than the University of London colleges but better than most other English and Scottish Universities (e.g. Warwick, Bristol, York, Nottingham, Edinburgh).
The better Australian law schools (Uni of New South Wales, Melbourne, Sydney) have masters degrees that are probably slightly behind the Canadian programmes but essentially comparable.
Just my personal opinion and to provide an alternative viewpoint, but i would disagree with respect to oxford's supposed pre-dominance in restitution and jurisprudence. Furthermore, I don't think oxford supposed facilities and resources are that impressive especially compared to Harvard and Yale.
Oxford has lost Peter Birks and - having studied the subject - , I don't really see any academic currently teaching in oxford who is anywhere close to Professor Birk's standard, especially in terms of originality of thinking. To me, the best Restitution Scholar in the world right now, is from one of the Canadian universities which you rank as below the UoL colleges. To me, it is without the doubt that the most cutting edge research in restitution comes from Lionel Smith at Mcgill, especially given his ability - similar to Professor Birks - to abstract from the particularities of the cases and to give a general theory of the subject. I generally only skim though Andrew Burrows' work - I think he's the one currently teaching Restitution in Oxford - because it is way too similar to Peter Birks. Within the UK, I much prefer Virgo's work at Cambridge since it is much more original.
With regards to jurisprudence, I don't think oxford is leagues ahead everyone else contrary to Brian Leiter's philosophical gourmet. NYU has an outstanding legal theory faculty coupled with the fact that aspiring legal theorists can work with their philosophy faculty, which Leiter himself ranks as the best in the world. Particularly because of the fact that NYU philosophy faculty is so strong and aspiring legal theorists get to work with the beforementioned faculty, I would place the NYU LLM ahead of the oxford BCL for theory. Additionally, the last really big jurisprudence name at oxford, Ronald Dworkin teaches now at NYU not at oxford anymore. Off the top of my head, I think the only big name I can recall who teaches at oxford in juris is Joseph Raz. Personally, I have my doubts about the quality of John Finnis' work so I don't consider him a big name. Even within the UK, I think UCL's legal theory faculty is just as strong as Oxford. They have some really big names, like William Twinning and Stephen Guest. Additionally, just like oxford, UCL has a star studded philosophy faculty, with one of the pre-eminant Kantian Scholars - Sebastian Gardner - and also another pre-eminant Political Theorist - Johnathan Wolff - teaching there.
Lastly, with regards to facilities, I don't see how oxford is even in the same league as Harvard or Yale. If I remeber correctly Harvard's endowment is somewhere between 20 something billion while Oxford is a relatively small 5 billion. If one needs resources - books, facilities etc- Harvard and Yale is the place to go.
This is not to say that I don't think Oxford is a great school. I just think that it is not leagues ahead of everyone else as your post seems to indicate.
<blockquote>It is hardly worth engaging in threads like this.
Even including US schools, and speaking only in terms of LLM and other law masters degrees, the Oxford BCL is leagues ahead of everything else. Subjects like Restitution, Jurisprudence and the Conflict of Laws take much of their modern shape from the BCL course - it is a forum for the development of the law. The resources and prestige of the degree within the University of Oxford alone are massive. It is possibly the only university where the masters programme has greater prestige than the undergraduate law degree. Everywhere else is miles and miles behind.
After Oxford, (ignoring those who require particular specialisations), I would opt for Yale and Harvard, then Columbia and Cambridge.
The University of London (esp through UCL or LSE) is in the next tier down but still very good.
I can't opine on Canadian universities but internationally their collective reputation (McGill, UBC, Toronto, Osgoode Hall) is perhaps somewhat lower than the University of London colleges but better than most other English and Scottish Universities (e.g. Warwick, Bristol, York, Nottingham, Edinburgh).
The better Australian law schools (Uni of New South Wales, Melbourne, Sydney) have masters degrees that are probably slightly behind the Canadian programmes but essentially comparable.</blockquote>
Just my personal opinion and to provide an alternative viewpoint, but i would disagree with respect to oxford's supposed pre-dominance in restitution and jurisprudence. Furthermore, I don't think oxford supposed facilities and resources are that impressive especially compared to Harvard and Yale.
Oxford has lost Peter Birks and - having studied the subject - , I don't really see any academic currently teaching in oxford who is anywhere close to Professor Birk's standard, especially in terms of originality of thinking. To me, the best Restitution Scholar in the world right now, is from one of the Canadian universities which you rank as below the UoL colleges. To me, it is without the doubt that the most cutting edge research in restitution comes from Lionel Smith at Mcgill, especially given his ability - similar to Professor Birks - to abstract from the particularities of the cases and to give a general theory of the subject. I generally only skim though Andrew Burrows' work - I think he's the one currently teaching Restitution in Oxford - because it is way too similar to Peter Birks. Within the UK, I much prefer Virgo's work at Cambridge since it is much more original.
With regards to jurisprudence, I don't think oxford is leagues ahead everyone else contrary to Brian Leiter's philosophical gourmet. NYU has an outstanding legal theory faculty coupled with the fact that aspiring legal theorists can work with their philosophy faculty, which Leiter himself ranks as the best in the world. Particularly because of the fact that NYU philosophy faculty is so strong and aspiring legal theorists get to work with the beforementioned faculty, I would place the NYU LLM ahead of the oxford BCL for theory. Additionally, the last really big jurisprudence name at oxford, Ronald Dworkin teaches now at NYU not at oxford anymore. Off the top of my head, I think the only big name I can recall who teaches at oxford in juris is Joseph Raz. Personally, I have my doubts about the quality of John Finnis' work so I don't consider him a big name. Even within the UK, I think UCL's legal theory faculty is just as strong as Oxford. They have some really big names, like William Twinning and Stephen Guest. Additionally, just like oxford, UCL has a star studded philosophy faculty, with one of the pre-eminant Kantian Scholars - Sebastian Gardner - and also another pre-eminant Political Theorist - Johnathan Wolff - teaching there.
Lastly, with regards to facilities, I don't see how oxford is even in the same league as Harvard or Yale. If I remeber correctly Harvard's endowment is somewhere between 20 something billion while Oxford is a relatively small 5 billion. If one needs resources - books, facilities etc- Harvard and Yale is the place to go.
This is not to say that I don't think Oxford is a great school. I just think that it is not leagues ahead of everyone else as your post seems to indicate.
Even including US schools, and speaking only in terms of LLM and other law masters degrees, the Oxford BCL is leagues ahead of everything else. Subjects like Restitution, Jurisprudence and the Conflict of Laws take much of their modern shape from the BCL course - it is a forum for the development of the law. The resources and prestige of the degree within the University of Oxford alone are massive. It is possibly the only university where the masters programme has greater prestige than the undergraduate law degree. Everywhere else is miles and miles behind.
After Oxford, (ignoring those who require particular specialisations), I would opt for Yale and Harvard, then Columbia and Cambridge.
The University of London (esp through UCL or LSE) is in the next tier down but still very good.
I can't opine on Canadian universities but internationally their collective reputation (McGill, UBC, Toronto, Osgoode Hall) is perhaps somewhat lower than the University of London colleges but better than most other English and Scottish Universities (e.g. Warwick, Bristol, York, Nottingham, Edinburgh).
The better Australian law schools (Uni of New South Wales, Melbourne, Sydney) have masters degrees that are probably slightly behind the Canadian programmes but essentially comparable.</blockquote>
Just my personal opinion and to provide an alternative viewpoint, but i would disagree with respect to oxford's supposed pre-dominance in restitution and jurisprudence. Furthermore, I don't think oxford supposed facilities and resources are that impressive especially compared to Harvard and Yale.
Oxford has lost Peter Birks and - having studied the subject - , I don't really see any academic currently teaching in oxford who is anywhere close to Professor Birk's standard, especially in terms of originality of thinking. To me, the best Restitution Scholar in the world right now, is from one of the Canadian universities which you rank as below the UoL colleges. To me, it is without the doubt that the most cutting edge research in restitution comes from Lionel Smith at Mcgill, especially given his ability - similar to Professor Birks - to abstract from the particularities of the cases and to give a general theory of the subject. I generally only skim though Andrew Burrows' work - I think he's the one currently teaching Restitution in Oxford - because it is way too similar to Peter Birks. Within the UK, I much prefer Virgo's work at Cambridge since it is much more original.
With regards to jurisprudence, I don't think oxford is leagues ahead everyone else contrary to Brian Leiter's philosophical gourmet. NYU has an outstanding legal theory faculty coupled with the fact that aspiring legal theorists can work with their philosophy faculty, which Leiter himself ranks as the best in the world. Particularly because of the fact that NYU philosophy faculty is so strong and aspiring legal theorists get to work with the beforementioned faculty, I would place the NYU LLM ahead of the oxford BCL for theory. Additionally, the last really big jurisprudence name at oxford, Ronald Dworkin teaches now at NYU not at oxford anymore. Off the top of my head, I think the only big name I can recall who teaches at oxford in juris is Joseph Raz. Personally, I have my doubts about the quality of John Finnis' work so I don't consider him a big name. Even within the UK, I think UCL's legal theory faculty is just as strong as Oxford. They have some really big names, like William Twinning and Stephen Guest. Additionally, just like oxford, UCL has a star studded philosophy faculty, with one of the pre-eminant Kantian Scholars - Sebastian Gardner - and also another pre-eminant Political Theorist - Johnathan Wolff - teaching there.
Lastly, with regards to facilities, I don't see how oxford is even in the same league as Harvard or Yale. If I remeber correctly Harvard's endowment is somewhere between 20 something billion while Oxford is a relatively small 5 billion. If one needs resources - books, facilities etc- Harvard and Yale is the place to go.
This is not to say that I don't think Oxford is a great school. I just think that it is not leagues ahead of everyone else as your post seems to indicate.
Posted Oct 10, 2009 00:50
0
I hardly disagree with anything you write but you are discussing overall faculties and universities, not masters programmes. I would rank Harvard as being in a different league to any UK university in terms of research.
Of course Harvard's resources are greater than Oxford's. Vastly so. But I am only discussing masters degrees. The Harvard LLM is a vague afterthought compared to the JD or its research students. This is true nearly everywhere. That is what makes the Oxford BCL different.
I believe that Restitution at Oxford is taught by Professors Burrows, Mitchell and Edelman as well as Bill Swadling. Considering that this includes small group tutorials I don't think anything matches it.
I'm not discussing whether Oxford's jurisprudence (etc) faculty is better than anywhere else's (though leaving out Gardner and Honore suggests you're not really trying and, while I'm no great fan of Finnis's either, he's obviously a very big name). The point is that they devote personal attention and resources to teaching on the BCL. Most big names would have very little interest in developing masters-level courses. If they do any teaching at all it will usually be at the first-law-degree level. At Oxford, even those who no longer teach undergrad will very likely be found in BCL seminars.
I hardly disagree with anything you write but you are discussing overall faculties and universities, not masters programmes. I would rank Harvard as being in a different league to any UK university in terms of research.
Of course Harvard's resources are greater than Oxford's. Vastly so. But I am only discussing masters degrees. The Harvard LLM is a vague afterthought compared to the JD or its research students. This is true nearly everywhere. That is what makes the Oxford BCL different.
I believe that Restitution at Oxford is taught by Professors Burrows, Mitchell and Edelman as well as Bill Swadling. Considering that this includes small group tutorials I don't think anything matches it.
I'm not discussing whether Oxford's jurisprudence (etc) faculty is better than anywhere else's (though leaving out Gardner and Honore suggests you're not really trying and, while I'm no great fan of Finnis's either, he's obviously a very big name). The point is that they devote personal attention and resources to teaching on the BCL. Most big names would have very little interest in developing masters-level courses. If they do any teaching at all it will usually be at the first-law-degree level. At Oxford, even those who no longer teach undergrad will very likely be found in BCL seminars.
Of course Harvard's resources are greater than Oxford's. Vastly so. But I am only discussing masters degrees. The Harvard LLM is a vague afterthought compared to the JD or its research students. This is true nearly everywhere. That is what makes the Oxford BCL different.
I believe that Restitution at Oxford is taught by Professors Burrows, Mitchell and Edelman as well as Bill Swadling. Considering that this includes small group tutorials I don't think anything matches it.
I'm not discussing whether Oxford's jurisprudence (etc) faculty is better than anywhere else's (though leaving out Gardner and Honore suggests you're not really trying and, while I'm no great fan of Finnis's either, he's obviously a very big name). The point is that they devote personal attention and resources to teaching on the BCL. Most big names would have very little interest in developing masters-level courses. If they do any teaching at all it will usually be at the first-law-degree level. At Oxford, even those who no longer teach undergrad will very likely be found in BCL seminars.
Posted Oct 10, 2009 02:34
0
I hardly disagree with anything you write but you are discussing overall faculties and universities, not masters programmes. I would rank Harvard as being in a different league to any UK university in terms of research.
Of course Harvard's resources are greater than Oxford's. Vastly so. But I am only discussing masters degrees. The Harvard LLM is a vague afterthought compared to the JD or its research students. This is true nearly everywhere. That is what makes the Oxford BCL different.
I believe that Restitution at Oxford is taught by Professors Burrows, Mitchell and Edelman as well as Bill Swadling. Considering that this includes small group tutorials I don't think anything matches it.
I'm not discussing whether Oxford's jurisprudence (etc) faculty is better than anywhere else's (though leaving out Gardner and Honore suggests you're not really trying and, while I'm no great fan of Finnis's either, he's obviously a very big name). The point is that they devote personal attention and resources to teaching on the BCL. Most big names would have very little interest in developing masters-level courses. If they do any teaching at all it will usually be at the first-law-degree level. At Oxford, even those who no longer teach undergrad will very likely be found in BCL seminars.
Just to clarify, I left out Gardner on purpose. There's a reason for that. I remember an essay in which he was criticising corrective justice and he was obviously using an inferior form of the theory to make his case, which to me seemed like intellectual bad form. Unlike say Rawls or even Oxford's own Hart, who usually take the strongest versions of a theory to criticise, Gardner didn't even discuss the strongest versions of corrective justice which is usually developed by Ernest Weinrib, Jules Coleman and Stephen Perry. That left me with a sour taste with regards to Gardner's work and admittedly I haven't read much of him since. Gardner could have improved substantially since the last work I read, but I just can't bring myself to read or speak about Gardner because of the experience.
I left out Honore because isn't he already almost fully retired. I think he does teach from time to time but not that much. I admit I might be mistaken to Honore's work schedule but that's the reason I left him out. You right though, if Honrore still does teach regularly, then I was wrong to leave him out.
Admittedly though, when I evaluate legal theorists, I evaluate them in terms of philosophy professors not lawyers trying to do theory. That's why I'm actually a pretty big fan of oxford's Raz even though I don't buy into legal positivism. Like a true philosopher, he is precise and systematic and he supports his arguments extremely well. I always feel I learn something from Raz whenever I read his books. Finnis - to me - on the other hand is a different kettle of fish. That's despite the fact that - like Finnis - I buy into natural law myself, but the natural law I buy into is the - partially secular version - of the 18th century enlightenment professors. Natural Law and Natural Rights to me seems overly sloppy without the systematic nature necessary to be considered true philosophy in my view.
I also disagree that most Big names don't teach at least in north american law schools. I'm pretty sure Jules Coleman at Yale still teaches though not this year. Ditto for Jeremy Waldron, Stephen Perry, Brian Leiter et al.
I'll give you oxford's tutorial system though, which isn't found in any other LLM program in the world. I just don't think it's that important, since - to me - the point of a masters program - even coursework intensives programs since in many north american law schools at least, coursework intensive LLM students are assessed by long paper instead of exam - is research and with research tutorials don't matter much. It is much more important to be sipping coffee while the Big Name demolishes your argument - and by that process learn something - than it is with a big name trying to teach you what he has already concluded. To me - the whole point of postgrad - is to go past the frontiers of knowledge not learn what is already known. And to clarify, by stating this, I am not saying that oxford's supervision system isn't superb. From what I hear it most cartainly is, I'm just explaining why I don't think tutorials are that big a deal. That also explains why when I was presenting my point of view, I emphasized so much on the Names. To me, the quality of teaching is related to the Names, since you want this obviously brilliant people to be the one who make a mockery of your hard fought argument, so that you learn new ways of attacking and building viewpoints. That to me is a lot more important than knowing what the actual law is. That's also why I would place the best North American LLM programs either above or alongside Oxford. Who cares about the seminars, what's important is access to the most brilliant people of the world especially since at postgrad level I think one should already be able to pick up almost any field of law and learn it without help; that was the whole point of the LLB to teach you to learn other areas of law by yourself. The help needed at LLM and JSD level, is learning how to formulate your own viewpoints past what people have already written. While Oxford certainly has a lot of very brilliant people, I always find the collection at Harvard or Yale to be more impressive since - with their greater resources - they obviously have a better ability to (i) attract a far greater number of brilliant professors than oxford - harvard's faculty seems hugh - and (ii) retain them.
<blockquote>I hardly disagree with anything you write but you are discussing overall faculties and universities, not masters programmes. I would rank Harvard as being in a different league to any UK university in terms of research.
Of course Harvard's resources are greater than Oxford's. Vastly so. But I am only discussing masters degrees. The Harvard LLM is a vague afterthought compared to the JD or its research students. This is true nearly everywhere. That is what makes the Oxford BCL different.
I believe that Restitution at Oxford is taught by Professors Burrows, Mitchell and Edelman as well as Bill Swadling. Considering that this includes small group tutorials I don't think anything matches it.
I'm not discussing whether Oxford's jurisprudence (etc) faculty is better than anywhere else's (though leaving out Gardner and Honore suggests you're not really trying and, while I'm no great fan of Finnis's either, he's obviously a very big name). The point is that they devote personal attention and resources to teaching on the BCL. Most big names would have very little interest in developing masters-level courses. If they do any teaching at all it will usually be at the first-law-degree level. At Oxford, even those who no longer teach undergrad will very likely be found in BCL seminars.</blockquote>
Just to clarify, I left out Gardner on purpose. There's a reason for that. I remember an essay in which he was criticising corrective justice and he was obviously using an inferior form of the theory to make his case, which to me seemed like intellectual bad form. Unlike say Rawls or even Oxford's own Hart, who usually take the strongest versions of a theory to criticise, Gardner didn't even discuss the strongest versions of corrective justice which is usually developed by Ernest Weinrib, Jules Coleman and Stephen Perry. That left me with a sour taste with regards to Gardner's work and admittedly I haven't read much of him since. Gardner could have improved substantially since the last work I read, but I just can't bring myself to read or speak about Gardner because of the experience.
I left out Honore because isn't he already almost fully retired. I think he does teach from time to time but not that much. I admit I might be mistaken to Honore's work schedule but that's the reason I left him out. You right though, if Honrore still does teach regularly, then I was wrong to leave him out.
Admittedly though, when I evaluate legal theorists, I evaluate them in terms of philosophy professors not lawyers trying to do theory. That's why I'm actually a pretty big fan of oxford's Raz even though I don't buy into legal positivism. Like a true philosopher, he is precise and systematic and he supports his arguments extremely well. I always feel I learn something from Raz whenever I read his books. Finnis - to me - on the other hand is a different kettle of fish. That's despite the fact that - like Finnis - I buy into natural law myself, but the natural law I buy into is the - partially secular version - of the 18th century enlightenment professors. Natural Law and Natural Rights to me seems overly sloppy without the systematic nature necessary to be considered true philosophy in my view.
I also disagree that most Big names don't teach at least in north american law schools. I'm pretty sure Jules Coleman at Yale still teaches though not this year. Ditto for Jeremy Waldron, Stephen Perry, Brian Leiter et al.
I'll give you oxford's tutorial system though, which isn't found in any other LLM program in the world. I just don't think it's that important, since - to me - the point of a masters program - even coursework intensives programs since in many north american law schools at least, coursework intensive LLM students are assessed by long paper instead of exam - is research and with research tutorials don't matter much. It is much more important to be sipping coffee while the Big Name demolishes your argument - and by that process learn something - than it is with a big name trying to teach you what he has already concluded. To me - the whole point of postgrad - is to go past the frontiers of knowledge not learn what is already known. And to clarify, by stating this, I am not saying that oxford's supervision system isn't superb. From what I hear it most cartainly is, I'm just explaining why I don't think tutorials are that big a deal. That also explains why when I was presenting my point of view, I emphasized so much on the Names. To me, the quality of teaching is related to the Names, since you want this obviously brilliant people to be the one who make a mockery of your hard fought argument, so that you learn new ways of attacking and building viewpoints. That to me is a lot more important than knowing what the actual law is. That's also why I would place the best North American LLM programs either above or alongside Oxford. Who cares about the seminars, what's important is access to the most brilliant people of the world especially since at postgrad level I think one should already be able to pick up almost any field of law and learn it without help; that was the whole point of the LLB to teach you to learn other areas of law by yourself. The help needed at LLM and JSD level, is learning how to formulate your own viewpoints past what people have already written. While Oxford certainly has a lot of very brilliant people, I always find the collection at Harvard or Yale to be more impressive since - with their greater resources - they obviously have a better ability to (i) attract a far greater number of brilliant professors than oxford - harvard's faculty seems hugh - and (ii) retain them.
Of course Harvard's resources are greater than Oxford's. Vastly so. But I am only discussing masters degrees. The Harvard LLM is a vague afterthought compared to the JD or its research students. This is true nearly everywhere. That is what makes the Oxford BCL different.
I believe that Restitution at Oxford is taught by Professors Burrows, Mitchell and Edelman as well as Bill Swadling. Considering that this includes small group tutorials I don't think anything matches it.
I'm not discussing whether Oxford's jurisprudence (etc) faculty is better than anywhere else's (though leaving out Gardner and Honore suggests you're not really trying and, while I'm no great fan of Finnis's either, he's obviously a very big name). The point is that they devote personal attention and resources to teaching on the BCL. Most big names would have very little interest in developing masters-level courses. If they do any teaching at all it will usually be at the first-law-degree level. At Oxford, even those who no longer teach undergrad will very likely be found in BCL seminars.</blockquote>
Just to clarify, I left out Gardner on purpose. There's a reason for that. I remember an essay in which he was criticising corrective justice and he was obviously using an inferior form of the theory to make his case, which to me seemed like intellectual bad form. Unlike say Rawls or even Oxford's own Hart, who usually take the strongest versions of a theory to criticise, Gardner didn't even discuss the strongest versions of corrective justice which is usually developed by Ernest Weinrib, Jules Coleman and Stephen Perry. That left me with a sour taste with regards to Gardner's work and admittedly I haven't read much of him since. Gardner could have improved substantially since the last work I read, but I just can't bring myself to read or speak about Gardner because of the experience.
I left out Honore because isn't he already almost fully retired. I think he does teach from time to time but not that much. I admit I might be mistaken to Honore's work schedule but that's the reason I left him out. You right though, if Honrore still does teach regularly, then I was wrong to leave him out.
Admittedly though, when I evaluate legal theorists, I evaluate them in terms of philosophy professors not lawyers trying to do theory. That's why I'm actually a pretty big fan of oxford's Raz even though I don't buy into legal positivism. Like a true philosopher, he is precise and systematic and he supports his arguments extremely well. I always feel I learn something from Raz whenever I read his books. Finnis - to me - on the other hand is a different kettle of fish. That's despite the fact that - like Finnis - I buy into natural law myself, but the natural law I buy into is the - partially secular version - of the 18th century enlightenment professors. Natural Law and Natural Rights to me seems overly sloppy without the systematic nature necessary to be considered true philosophy in my view.
I also disagree that most Big names don't teach at least in north american law schools. I'm pretty sure Jules Coleman at Yale still teaches though not this year. Ditto for Jeremy Waldron, Stephen Perry, Brian Leiter et al.
I'll give you oxford's tutorial system though, which isn't found in any other LLM program in the world. I just don't think it's that important, since - to me - the point of a masters program - even coursework intensives programs since in many north american law schools at least, coursework intensive LLM students are assessed by long paper instead of exam - is research and with research tutorials don't matter much. It is much more important to be sipping coffee while the Big Name demolishes your argument - and by that process learn something - than it is with a big name trying to teach you what he has already concluded. To me - the whole point of postgrad - is to go past the frontiers of knowledge not learn what is already known. And to clarify, by stating this, I am not saying that oxford's supervision system isn't superb. From what I hear it most cartainly is, I'm just explaining why I don't think tutorials are that big a deal. That also explains why when I was presenting my point of view, I emphasized so much on the Names. To me, the quality of teaching is related to the Names, since you want this obviously brilliant people to be the one who make a mockery of your hard fought argument, so that you learn new ways of attacking and building viewpoints. That to me is a lot more important than knowing what the actual law is. That's also why I would place the best North American LLM programs either above or alongside Oxford. Who cares about the seminars, what's important is access to the most brilliant people of the world especially since at postgrad level I think one should already be able to pick up almost any field of law and learn it without help; that was the whole point of the LLB to teach you to learn other areas of law by yourself. The help needed at LLM and JSD level, is learning how to formulate your own viewpoints past what people have already written. While Oxford certainly has a lot of very brilliant people, I always find the collection at Harvard or Yale to be more impressive since - with their greater resources - they obviously have a better ability to (i) attract a far greater number of brilliant professors than oxford - harvard's faculty seems hugh - and (ii) retain them.
Posted Oct 18, 2009 04:45
0
[TOP LLM Ranking excluding US]
RankA+ Oxford/LSE
RankA Cambridge/UCL/Toronto
RankA- McGill
-----[Big 6]-----
RankB+ King's/UBC
RankB Queen Mary/Melbourne/ANU
RankB- Warwick/Utrecht/Tokyo/Hitotsubashi
RankC+ Oslo/Leiden/Sydney/KeioU
1.UK
Oxford=5+5+4+5=19
Cambridge=5+4+4+5=18
LSE=5+5+4+5=19
UCL=4+5+5+4=18
King's=4+3+5+4=16
Queen Mary=3+4+5+3=15
Warwick=3+3+5+3=14
2.EUROPE
Utrecht=4+3+4+3=14
Oslo=3+3+4+3=13
Leiden=3+3+4+3=13
3.America
Toronto=4+5+5+4=18
McGill=4+4+5+4=17
UBC=3+4+5+4=16
4.Oceania
Melbourne=3+3+5+4=15
Sydney=3+3+4+3=13
ANU=4+3+4+4=15
5.Asia
Tokyo=4+3+3+4=14
HitotsubashiU=4+2+4+4=14
KeioU=4+2+4+3=13
ChuoU=3+2+4+3=12
I know it's far from a perfect ranking. But at least it is less subjective, I think.
You can arrange each point rating if you feel strange. :-)
And you can also add other universities.
But I guess Big 6(Oxbridge/LSE/UCL/Toronto/McGill) may dominate outside of USA in any case.
Hey guys, I think we had better stop this fuzzy discussion.
I prepared following measurements to decide top llm courses of the universities outside of US.
1.Entrance difficulty (based on the entrance requirement and stats such as GPA/work exp/interview/exam/rate of competition )
2.The level of Research (based on RAE in UK)
3.The level of Practicality (based on course structure)
4.Graduate Prospects (based on job offer and salary after graduation)
No1 represents the level of student.
No2 represents the quality of professors.
No3 represents the quality of teaching.
No4 represents the level of our future job.
And each item has 5 kinds of points.
5=very high 4=high 3=middle 2=low 1=very low
And the score is a sum of them.
Following Scores are the result of this calculation.
[[TOP LLM Ranking excluding US]]
RankA+ Oxford/LSE
RankA Cambridge/UCL/Toronto
RankA- McGill
-----[Big 6]-----
RankB+ King's/UBC
RankB Queen Mary/Melbourne/ANU
RankB- Warwick/Utrecht/Tokyo/Hitotsubashi
RankC+ Oslo/Leiden/Sydney/KeioU
1.UK
Oxford=5+5+4+5=19
Cambridge=5+4+4+5=18
LSE=5+5+4+5=19
UCL=4+5+5+4=18
King's=4+3+5+4=16
Queen Mary=3+4+5+3=15
Warwick=3+3+5+3=14
2.EUROPE
Utrecht=4+3+4+3=14
Oslo=3+3+4+3=13
Leiden=3+3+4+3=13
3.America
Toronto=4+5+5+4=18
McGill=4+4+5+4=17
UBC=3+4+5+4=16
4.Oceania
Melbourne=3+3+5+4=15
Sydney=3+3+4+3=13
ANU=4+3+4+4=15
5.Asia
Tokyo=4+3+3+4=14
HitotsubashiU=4+2+4+4=14
KeioU=4+2+4+3=13
ChuoU=3+2+4+3=12
I know it's far from a perfect ranking. But at least it is less subjective, I think.
You can arrange each point rating if you feel strange. :-)
And you can also add other universities.
But I guess Big 6(Oxbridge/LSE/UCL/Toronto/McGill) may dominate outside of USA in any case.
I prepared following measurements to decide top llm courses of the universities outside of US.
1.Entrance difficulty (based on the entrance requirement and stats such as GPA/work exp/interview/exam/rate of competition )
2.The level of Research (based on RAE in UK)
3.The level of Practicality (based on course structure)
4.Graduate Prospects (based on job offer and salary after graduation)
No1 represents the level of student.
No2 represents the quality of professors.
No3 represents the quality of teaching.
No4 represents the level of our future job.
And each item has 5 kinds of points.
5=very high 4=high 3=middle 2=low 1=very low
And the score is a sum of them.
Following Scores are the result of this calculation.
[[TOP LLM Ranking excluding US]]
RankA+ Oxford/LSE
RankA Cambridge/UCL/Toronto
RankA- McGill
-----[Big 6]-----
RankB+ King's/UBC
RankB Queen Mary/Melbourne/ANU
RankB- Warwick/Utrecht/Tokyo/Hitotsubashi
RankC+ Oslo/Leiden/Sydney/KeioU
1.UK
Oxford=5+5+4+5=19
Cambridge=5+4+4+5=18
LSE=5+5+4+5=19
UCL=4+5+5+4=18
King's=4+3+5+4=16
Queen Mary=3+4+5+3=15
Warwick=3+3+5+3=14
2.EUROPE
Utrecht=4+3+4+3=14
Oslo=3+3+4+3=13
Leiden=3+3+4+3=13
3.America
Toronto=4+5+5+4=18
McGill=4+4+5+4=17
UBC=3+4+5+4=16
4.Oceania
Melbourne=3+3+5+4=15
Sydney=3+3+4+3=13
ANU=4+3+4+4=15
5.Asia
Tokyo=4+3+3+4=14
HitotsubashiU=4+2+4+4=14
KeioU=4+2+4+3=13
ChuoU=3+2+4+3=12
I know it's far from a perfect ranking. But at least it is less subjective, I think.
You can arrange each point rating if you feel strange. :-)
And you can also add other universities.
But I guess Big 6(Oxbridge/LSE/UCL/Toronto/McGill) may dominate outside of USA in any case.
Posted May 24, 2011 15:29
0
mainland Europe
1. Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne & Paris II Panthéon-Assas
2. Bucerius Law School
3. Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg & Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
4. KU Leuven & Leiden
5. Bologna
UK
1. Cambridge
2. Oxford
3. LSE/UCL
4. Kings College
5. QMUL/Edinburgh
just my two cents
mainland Europe
1. Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne & Paris II Panthéon-Assas
2. Bucerius Law School
3. Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg & Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
4. KU Leuven & Leiden
5. Bologna
UK
1. Cambridge
2. Oxford
3. LSE/UCL
4. Kings College
5. QMUL/Edinburgh
just my two cents
1. Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne & Paris II Panthéon-Assas
2. Bucerius Law School
3. Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg & Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
4. KU Leuven & Leiden
5. Bologna
UK
1. Cambridge
2. Oxford
3. LSE/UCL
4. Kings College
5. QMUL/Edinburgh
just my two cents
Posted May 27, 2011 16:53
0
There are a lot of preconceived ideas out there about the rankings of EU universities. To my mind, the high degree of subjectivity underpinning many of the posts on this issue robs them of authority.
As a starting point for this exercise of evaluating Law Schools, it would be necessary to evaluate the publications output from all of these institutions over, say, the past ten years. You would be surprised at the results you would achieve if you were to perform such an exercise. But who amongst us has the energy or motivation (or indeed skil) to carry out such an exercise?
Obviously, the choice of courses and the quality of the teaching is also important. But, once again, these cannot be evaluated simply on the basis of "educated guesses" on the part of posters on this forum. There has to be a more scientific basis to this evaluation.
There are a lot of preconceived ideas out there about the rankings of EU universities. To my mind, the high degree of subjectivity underpinning many of the posts on this issue robs them of authority.
As a starting point for this exercise of evaluating Law Schools, it would be necessary to evaluate the publications output from all of these institutions over, say, the past ten years. You would be surprised at the results you would achieve if you were to perform such an exercise. But who amongst us has the energy or motivation (or indeed skil) to carry out such an exercise?
Obviously, the choice of courses and the quality of the teaching is also important. But, once again, these cannot be evaluated simply on the basis of "educated guesses" on the part of posters on this forum. There has to be a more scientific basis to this evaluation.
As a starting point for this exercise of evaluating Law Schools, it would be necessary to evaluate the publications output from all of these institutions over, say, the past ten years. You would be surprised at the results you would achieve if you were to perform such an exercise. But who amongst us has the energy or motivation (or indeed skil) to carry out such an exercise?
Obviously, the choice of courses and the quality of the teaching is also important. But, once again, these cannot be evaluated simply on the basis of "educated guesses" on the part of posters on this forum. There has to be a more scientific basis to this evaluation.
Posted Aug 29, 2011 20:43
0
I wouldn't care about rankings if its about european law schools - there are just no good ones (I mean no good rankings). I'd seperate by country:
Best law school in
UK: Oxford/Cambridge
Germany: Bucerius Law School
France: Sorbonne/Assas
Rest: Leiden/...
If I had to choose, I'd go to Cambridge or Bucerius. But it really depends where you want to work afterwards.
I wouldn't care about rankings if its about european law schools - there are just no good ones (I mean no good rankings). I'd seperate by country:
Best law school in
UK: Oxford/Cambridge
Germany: Bucerius Law School
France: Sorbonne/Assas
Rest: Leiden/...
If I had to choose, I'd go to Cambridge or Bucerius. But it really depends where you want to work afterwards.
Best law school in
UK: Oxford/Cambridge
Germany: Bucerius Law School
France: Sorbonne/Assas
Rest: Leiden/...
If I had to choose, I'd go to Cambridge or Bucerius. But it really depends where you want to work afterwards.
Posted Sep 01, 2011 17:47
0
>UK: Oxford/Cambridge
I think at least LSE and UCL should be put equally.
Quality of research especially in Cam is not that much good as RAE gave them only 2.80.
2.8 is simply a bad score and can't be regarded as "Internationally" well-qualified level.
Cambridge itself is an amazing and prestigious school, but not as a law school.
I'd say best law schools in the UK are Oxford, LSE and UCL in terms of quality of education/research and job prospects.
>UK: Oxford/Cambridge
I think at least LSE and UCL should be put equally.
Quality of research especially in Cam is not that much good as RAE gave them only 2.80.
2.8 is simply a bad score and can't be regarded as "Internationally" well-qualified level.
Cambridge itself is an amazing and prestigious school, but not as a law school.
I'd say best law schools in the UK are Oxford, LSE and UCL in terms of quality of education/research and job prospects.
I think at least LSE and UCL should be put equally.
Quality of research especially in Cam is not that much good as RAE gave them only 2.80.
2.8 is simply a bad score and can't be regarded as "Internationally" well-qualified level.
Cambridge itself is an amazing and prestigious school, but not as a law school.
I'd say best law schools in the UK are Oxford, LSE and UCL in terms of quality of education/research and job prospects.
Posted Sep 06, 2011 03:26
0
I did study at Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard as a postgraduate student as well as a couple of study exchanges at Sorbonne and Hamburg. Harvard is slightly better than Cambridge due to great resources and facilities it has but I think the intellectual environment is superior in Cambridge. Oxford is probably one of the most overrated place to study: definitely not good old Oxford anymore.
I did study at Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard as a postgraduate student as well as a couple of study exchanges at Sorbonne and Hamburg. Harvard is slightly better than Cambridge due to great resources and facilities it has but I think the intellectual environment is superior in Cambridge. Oxford is probably one of the most overrated place to study: definitely not good old Oxford anymore.
Posted Sep 08, 2011 15:50
0
Oxford is probably one of the most overrated place to study: definitely not good old Oxford anymore.
What nonsense. This is reflected in neither surveys nor student experience.
Substantiate or retract.
<blockquote>Oxford is probably one of the most overrated place to study: definitely not good old Oxford anymore.
</blockquote>
What nonsense. This is reflected in neither surveys nor student experience.
Substantiate or retract.
</blockquote>
What nonsense. This is reflected in neither surveys nor student experience.
Substantiate or retract.
Posted Sep 09, 2011 16:33
0
Guys, be objective please.
We don't care about how great experience you had, because some can have the best experience in the world's worst univeristy.
The recognition capability highly depends on who and how you are, and no one is interested in your own subjective recognition mechanism, unless you are god or we fall in love with you.
At least, it is a basic manner in any discussion to refer data provided by third-party.
So please try to pay more attention to the 'objective' evidence just like a professional lawyer. It is also a good exercise for how to convince people at the bar of justice in your future.
Guys, be objective please.
We don't care about how great experience you had, because some can have the best experience in the world's worst univeristy.
The recognition capability highly depends on who and how you are, and no one is interested in your own subjective recognition mechanism, unless you are god or we fall in love with you.
At least, it is a basic manner in any discussion to refer data provided by third-party.
So please try to pay more attention to the 'objective' evidence just like a professional lawyer. It is also a good exercise for how to convince people at the bar of justice in your future.
We don't care about how great experience you had, because some can have the best experience in the world's worst univeristy.
The recognition capability highly depends on who and how you are, and no one is interested in your own subjective recognition mechanism, unless you are god or we fall in love with you.
At least, it is a basic manner in any discussion to refer data provided by third-party.
So please try to pay more attention to the 'objective' evidence just like a professional lawyer. It is also a good exercise for how to convince people at the bar of justice in your future.
Related Law Schools
Full Profile
Oxford, United Kingdom
929 Followers
878 Discussions
Cambridge, United Kingdom
912 Followers
796 Discussions
Montréal, Canada
217 Followers
131 Discussions
Full Profile
Dublin, Ireland
147 Followers
88 Discussions
Toronto, Canada
278 Followers
151 Discussions
Frankfurt am Main, Germany
198 Followers
115 Discussions
Full Profile
Leiden, Netherlands
703 Followers
554 Discussions
Toronto, Canada
199 Followers
95 Discussions
London, United Kingdom
627 Followers
925 Discussions
Full Profile
London, United Kingdom
833 Followers
954 Discussions
London, United Kingdom
875 Followers
968 Discussions
Full Profile
Brussels, Belgium
77 Followers
24 Discussions
Bologna, Italy
28 Followers
10 Discussions
Full Profile
Bruges, Belgium
88 Followers
82 Discussions
Sydney, Australia
168 Followers
113 Discussions
Melbourne, Australia
217 Followers
115 Discussions
Singapore
343 Followers
240 Discussions
Hong Kong, Hong Kong (PRC)
90 Followers
57 Discussions
Full Profile
Utrecht, Netherlands
173 Followers
162 Discussions
Maastricht, Netherlands
281 Followers
229 Discussions
Tokyo, Japan
19 Followers
5 Discussions
Cambridge, Massachusetts
1306 Followers
936 Discussions
New Haven, Connecticut
379 Followers
384 Discussions
New York City, New York
2339 Followers
1671 Discussions
Full Profile
New York City, New York
1626 Followers
1085 Discussions
Hamburg, Germany
117 Followers
53 Discussions
Heidelberg, Germany
63 Followers
24 Discussions
Munich, Germany
62 Followers
17 Discussions
Paris, France
96 Followers
79 Discussions
Paris, France
94 Followers
76 Discussions
Jerusalem, Israel
11 Followers
2 Discussions
Other Related Content
Hot Discussions
-
Cambridge LL.M. Applicants 2024-2025
Oct 30, 2024 141,884 544 -
Georgetown LLM 2024/2025 applicants
15 hours ago 39,820 209 -
Stanford 2024-2025
Nov 07, 2024 35,012 117 -
Oxford 2025-2026 BCL/MSCs/MJUR/MPHIL/MLF
Nov 15 04:43 AM 1,878 44 -
NUS LLM 2024-25 Cohort
Oct 25, 2024 5,838 34 -
Warwick or Birmingham
Nov 10, 2024 1,159 5 -
LLM Technology law Germany in English lang.
Oct 21, 2024 822 5 -
NUS vs Peking
Nov 09, 2024 172 4
