Some universities, if not all, required from prospective students to inform how were they ranked in their law schools. For example, if your are within the 1%, 5%, 10%, etc.

Someone knows how this rankings are prepared? what they consider? For instance, they only consider how are you ranked in comparison with your graduated classmates or in comparison with all your classmates (including those ones that are graduated, those ones that still are not graduated, those ones that left the career, etc.)?

As I understand it, a class ranking takes into account your cumulative standing over the course of your degree relative to the rest of your graduating class.

So if your degree program lasts for three years, your class ranking would be determined by taking your cumulative G.P.A. (or percentage, or raw score, or what have you) and comparing it to the rest of your year on graduation.

I can't guarantee that schools don't somehow factor in people who leave the program prior to graduation, but I'm pretty sure a "class ranking" is only concerned with a graduating class.

I'm open to correction, though!

Wow, what a deception! I am very upset! This system seems to be pretty unfair! Look this:

Suppose that the degree program lasts for three years (from August 2001 up to May 2003), that the students that started with you the program in 2001 are 50 (hereinafter, the original students), and that you and 24 original students graduate (approve all your exams, the thesis, or whatever it could be required by a university) in 2003 (from May up to December). The remaining 25 original students graduate in 2004, 2005, or perhaps never finish the degree.

It is unfair to compare your GPA with the GPA of all the people graduated in 2003 because they are not comparing you with the 50 original students which whom you started the program. They are not only comparing you with 24 original students but they are also comparing you with other students form other years (for example, people that started the program in 2000, 1999, etc.).

I think that a fair ranking should be that in which only original students are compared. If you graduate in 2003, they should compare your performance with the performance of the other 49 original students, because I think that, besides the GPA, the time is it also important and should be considered. If you graduate in time (2003) with a good GPA, it is not fair to compare your GPA with the GPA of a student that graduate over-the-time (for instance, that started the program in 1999 and finished it in 2003) and that had more time to study and take better grades. On the other hand, it is also unfair to no compare your performance with the performance of the remaining 25 original students because, while you make the effort to graduate in 2003 the other original students still studying.

I don´t know if I was clear!

What do you think about?

I have to admit that I'm only familiar with how class rankings were worked out at my own law school; it may be done differently elsewhere.

That said, I don't see a particularly pressing problem with using the graduating class to determine a class rank. At the very least, it's simple. If only the "original students" in a graduating class were used as the basis for comparison, how could anyone else even be part of a class rank? What if a given year had 10 out of 50 students who took an extra year? Are they in their own personal graduating class of 10 people? What if only one person takes an extra year?

And besides, I think most law schools don't have a fixed curriculum, which leaves individual students free to take entirely different courses. Is it unfair to compare a student who focuses on criminal law courses with one taking tax? Maybe. But there isn't really much of a way around it, unless we abolish class ranks altogether.

Okay I've been reading the posts and replies on this forum with interest for a while now and, although a lot has been said on the topic, I will like to know what you guys think my chances are with regards to getting into Oxford (BCL)/ LSE (LLM).

I graduated last year from the University of Reading (Top 25 UNi in the UK) with a 2.1 (66%). My final year results were 4As, a B and a C, however my 1st and 2nd year results are nothing to write home about due to documented extenuating circumstances (Else, I might have gotten a first!!! (lol). I havent got a lot of UK legal experience but I have done a couple of legal internships in Africa and volunteer work. I already have an unconditional offer from UCL (and this was before I even got my 2.1) which I have deferred. I am currently working as a researcher for a financial consultant in the City.

I really really want to go to Oxford and although my referees are confident of my chances, I wanted to find out from you guys so I would really appreciate your honest opinion as I am tearing my hair out with worry at the moment!!!

P.S - I have recently been advised by my undergrad uni that I graduated in the top 15% of my year. Is this information that might aid my application or will it hinder it?

I understand why most would want class ranks but it only serves to hurt me as I am just outside the 30% range and most descriptions I see are for Top 10%-20%

I have a solid GPA though but apparently so do others here