Hi everyone

I'd be interested to hear from people who have received offers for the Ox BCL and the Camb LLM as to which one they will choose and why. I'm not so interested in the reputation question, as frankly I don't think it's relevant. What I am interested in is some specifics ie - do you think Oxford is prettier than Cambridge/ location? (I've never been to either) - is there a particular course you're excited about that only one uni offers - what teaching method do you prefer - anything else?

For the record, I'm still undecided about which one I will choose.

I'm in the same situation. When I was first applying, I was almost positive I'd accept Oxford over Cambridge, but I'm not as sure anymore. I was originally planning on studying restitution and property law (Oxford's home turf), but I'm thinking of switching to international law for various reasons, and both programs are pretty well stocked on that front.

By a stroke of lucky coincidence, I'll be in England for a week towards the end of April, and I'm planning to head to both to take a look - I shall report as to my findings regarding the prettiness (and pubs).

In terms of teaching method, I have to admit I'm used to being more or less left alone over the course of the year, and I'm not sure I'll prefer a constant barrage of deadlines. On the other hand, despite that, I'm subconsciously aware that I'll probably learn more from the tutorials.

I think it will come down to scholarships, to be honest. If anything substantial is awarded by either school, that'll pretty much make my decision for me. If not (more likely), at least it isn't a choice with the potential for an incorrect decision.

Anyone else in the same boat?

And good on you, Sydneycat, for banishing rankings from this thread from the get go.

Thanks Bender.

We sound like we're in similar situations. I had originally thought I would choose Oxford but now I am less sure. I too am waiting on funding news, but am working on the assumption that it will not be forthcoming. If I did get any funding that would make up my mind.

Thanks also for the offer of reporting back about your views of both cities (and pubs - very important). I think I would prefer the tutorial teaching to some degree, but not if it's going to be so all consuming that I can't experience life at the university. Also, one of my particular interests is competition law and I'm not sure about Cambridge's course (a previous thread from last year indicated it was a bit of a nightmare). Other than that my subjects are pretty general so either university would do.

.

Hi guys. Whilst wasting time I looked through some previous years' posts and there was another comparison of BCL v LLM. One of the main differences of note was the cost between the two (which i'm acutely aware of) - just thought I'd flag this (in Australian dollars the difference is approximately $10,000 - not to be sneezed at).

Also, someone was discussing the fact that the BCL goes for 11 months while the LLM is only 9 months. Has anyone else seen this? I'm a little confused about it all. The BCL starts in September and exams are early June right? When are the LLM exams?

Also (and Bender you might know this) I'm also getting confused about how exactly the courses are organised. So, some questions:
1. At each uni are there lecture style classes every week for the full year or do you do courses by semester only? (ie do you do say 'restitution' in michaelmas semester and then only sit the exam 6 months later?)
2. When do you actually tell them about your subjects?
3. What occurs in the first week of class - O-week or actual classes (this is important as Oxford seems to start 2 weeks before Camb)

I have too much time on my hands...

The BCL starts in October, but we're advised to be on campus at some point in September to get going on our readings. Exams are over by the middle of July, so it's certainly a longer program. I think Cambridge wraps up in May.

Also, as far as I know, lectures for BCL courses last all year for any given course; so if you're taking restitution, for example, you'll be taking it all year. The lecture and seminar schedule for each course does appear to change from term to term, though.

Tutorials appear to be arranged almost individually with your college, and there appears to be some flexibility in when they occur; we're encouraged to schedule some for before easter to avoid a dogpile of work at the end of the year. I guess each course has between three or four of them.

Here's Oxford's way of describing the schedule, as per their graduate handbook:

"an intense learning experience characterised by a demanding schedule of independent study, highly participative round-table seminars, and a complementary
diet of close individual or small-group contact with tutors."

Note: a 'complementary diet'? Seriously? It sounds like a poorly drafted brochure for some overpriced spa. Crap like that makes me want to go to Cambridge.

edited to avoid anymore diatribe like below.

The ability to dismiss Cambridge outright in this comparison absolutely fascinates me, particularly where the dismissal purports to derive from objective first principles.

On this very board there are innumerable, and energetic, debates concerning the merits of graduate programs at schools like UCL, KCL and LSE: these debates often focus on the strength of various professors, the available courses and a host of other useful, insightful and practical concerns and observations. A graduate degree at any of those schools, upon receipt, opens countless doors and makes available just about any (related) career you might care to name. Importantly, you'll note in these debates that the vast majority of participants would select Oxbridge instead, were that particular choice on the table.

Given the sheer, overwhelming validity of those debates, it's a source of wonderment to me that Cambridge could possibly be dismissed out of hand on the basis of "reputation" simply because it's being compared to Oxford. I will grant you that consensus grants Oxford "the edge" in that regard, but I have to ask: what do you think the difference in reputation will actually bring us? (You can't be made King one day: it's hereditary.)

Are the golden doors of opportunity crashing shut on Cambridge graduates in every corner of the Commonweath? Are the poor souls all mere pariahs, chilled in the shadow of the mighty BCL, flagellating themselves with flaming whips of regret for not having chosen Oxford when they had the chance? I put it to you, sir, that even if Oxford's reputation vis a vis Cambridge is better, depending on the speaker, that does not imply that Cambridge's falls anywhere short of "undeniably excellent". I highly doubt that the world's law firms and faculties have gone so far as to hang crudely scrawled "Oxon Only" or "No Cantabs" signs from their door knockers.

Removing "reputation" and "prestige" from this particular debate lets us focus on more practical, relevant and interesting topics than "what some guy told you".

I'm almost sure I'm heading to Oxford. I'm reserving my final decision in the hopes of potential scholarships, and actually seeing both schools firsthand, but I predict I'll be wearing (dark) blue by the fall. I say that because, after looking at the programs, I can't pass up the longer year (learning's afoot!) and the tutorials (which Canada doesn't have). I'm excited about the intensity of Oxford's program, and from what I've heard there is substantially more to do in the town itself, which is encouraging in terms of day to day living. And finally, my chosen college at Oxford (Wadham, fingers crossed) has a brilliant rowing club, which looks like a blast.

I just hope I can avoid spending the entire year sitting in semi-circles and talking about the school's bloody reputation.

Wow. Nice prose.

I'm glad you've got your head screwed so tightly on! At least you're sure what you want.
You'll enjoy the rowing.

Aha! The old "brief but stunningly mature" counter-reply!

Well played, sir.

Well ah, thanks guys. I am amused, despite remaining unable to really made a decision ;)

Thanks Bender also for the info re the tutorial system, that's good to know. For some reason I had it in my head that you did courses per semester which could give you a whole semester without a class. Seems that was but a dream...

The idea of a shorter academic year appeals to me, which may mark me as lazy, but I like the idea of travelling around the UK after class finishes. We shall have to wait and see about funding, colleges etc.

The good old bcl-- llm debate: oft-repeated, never resolved. I suppose it's indicative of the collective hubrus of generation y that we search for declearatory finality to this 800 year old row. I take comfort in Bender's modest and thoughtful comments that, however intersting this debate may be, it is ultimatley of little practical utility, for the differences between these schools is at best marginal and, quite frankly, beside the point as all those fortunate enough to be admitted to either will doubtless find that graduating from either school opens many, many doors.

My two cents: I, like Sydneycat, am attracted to the shorter semester and absence of tutorials. I have therefore only applied to (and been accepted by) cantab. From my perspective, that of a 30 year old practicing lawyer with seven full years of university and a few more in BIG LAW already behind me, I find the idea of gruelling tutorials tiresome. I concede they have pedagogical merit; I'm just not interested in that degree of on the spot rigour any more. I don't want to sound too mature for tutorials; that's not my point. Partly out of laziness, partly out of age, and partly due to the fact that I played that game (and, to be sure, enjoyed it) in numerous honour's seminars in undergrad and throughout my LLB (which was taught entirely pursuant to the socratic method), and partly due to a few years of running my own files and appearing in court and dealing with clients, I just don't think I want to play the role of eager pupil anymore. I'd prefer to write a thesis on my own and take three other complimetary exam based courses, finish early and tour Europe before embarking on a PHD.

That said, and, again, pardon me if this sounds condesending because it truly isn't intended to be, if I were five years younger I'd probably go for the BCL as I'd have the energy to play pupil in regular tutorials...

I'm currently studying for the LLM at Cambridge. My thoughts:

1. Cambridge is more of a town than a city, but it is beautiful and peaceful, ideal for a year's post-graduate study. The river Cam is magnificent for punting especially in the Summer. Personally I think the architecture of Oxford colleges and university buildings is much more brilliant - Christopher Wren left more of a mark in Oxon than Cantab. Oxford is of course has a noisier and busier social life.

2. I personally think Cambridge university is extremely strong in commercial law but for reasons unknown to me the Law Faculty undersells, underpromotes and underappreciates the commercial law courses, which is a crying shame. For example, the commercial insurance law LLM course is taught by Professor Malcolm Clarke who is a legend in his field. Also, the International Commercial Litigation course which is taught by Mr. Richard Fentiman is really the conflict of laws but focused solely on international commercial law and practice, unlike general conflict of laws courses which deal also with issues such as family and criminal law.

3. It is true that the BCL at Oxford is the most highly regarded masters-level course in England, particularly so when it comes to academics as well as barristers. I think the reality is that the BCL is essential for those who have not commenced on a legal career and need the strength and prestige of the BCL to gain an edge at entry level and to get them more job interviews. Otherwise the heavy workload may very well ruin the chance to enjoy life as a post-graduate.

4. I have observed that many LLM students at Cambridge are in a similar position as Equity's Darling (btw long time no see, hope you are well!). They have a few year's practice behind them, have nothing to prove, and are doing the LLM purely out of their own interests. I think it goes a long way towards building a more relaxed and friendly environment. I can only imagine how competitive it is at Oxford.

5. Cambridge has a magnificent law faculty building. Sorry Oxford.

6. The never-ending debate about BCL (Oxon) v LLM (Cantab) will warm the hearts of patriotic Oxbridge members but it does little to help prospective applicants make an informed decision. I propose a two-stage 'test' to determine which course one should choose:

i. Do you intend to become a practicing barrister or academic in England? If yes, do the BCL. If no,

ii. You won't go wrong with any of the two courses. They are equally prestigious, and you will in any event end up earning the most money, living the happiest life, and marrying the most attractive member of the opposite sex.

Hope that helps.

Thanks Equity and wtlow - both your comments are appreciated.

I didn't think there was much I could add to this debate till I saw the post by Equity's Darling. As someone on the wrong side of 25, I think I have to weigh in and agree that the age factor does matter -- unless, of course, you really like the cut and thrust of tutes, and derive inherent enjoyment from that: that's perfectly fine too! I did the BCL four years ago, and I don't think I could do it now. You need the kind of sharpness of mind that is at its freshest right after your first law degree. Of course, if you have spent the last seven or eight years in deep thought as an academic, the BCL may be right up your street.

Truely a neverending discussion...
1) There are some major differences between the two programs, most importantly: Ox (BCL/MJur) offers tutorials, Cam (LLM) doesn't. This leads some people to conclude that Ox is the better course because tutorials are a good means to make a program a more intense learning experience. This perspective, however, is somewhat flawed: Tutorials are not per se helpful. There are good and bad tutorials. And some students just don't need tutorials at all to reach their personal goals.
2) The choice should also depend upon one's areas of academic interest. Cam's offerings in corporate law are really good, as are the offerings in international law. Ox is stronger in jurisprudence.
3) Prestige Again, it is hard to say that one program has the edge over the other. Much depends on the country where you want to work.
For instance, in Germany, the Cam LLM is by far the most prestigious program in the UK. It is not the right place here to discuss the reasons for this at full length. One factor surely is that Cam IN GENERAL only accepts German students with the grades "sehr gut" or "gut" (the two highest grades awarded in the German State Examination), whereas Ox also admits many students with consiberably lower grades.

My thoughts on both are probably quite contoversial in that I would honestly wish to go to neither. The very thought of being billed £10-12,000 to be told that I must teach myself is not appealing! :-)

A "complimentary diet" means that as with any diet - the will power and work is your own! :-)

I am also not much of a jurisprude - so neither would suit me well. I will certainly not be taking such classes should I be admitted to UCL :-)

Seriously though if either of these are an option to you, they are both great schools, do you realise this debate is the definitive splitting of the hair or even atom!

When you have to choose between the two - just look at the courses - which one most interests you? Failing that throw a coin in the air and see how it lands!! You will be ultra-employable by attending either!

I'm a Kiwi who's been living in the Uk for 12 years. I was admitted as a Barrister & Solicitor in NZ in '93 & practised for a short time before returning to University to supplement my BA(Hons)/LLB with a Masters in Parks, Recreation & Tourism Management. This two-year masters by thesis involved advanced quantitative research methodolgies, analytical stats, maths etc analysing variables in tourist psychology. I arrived in the UK after submitting my thesis & have ever since been a freelance IT contractor in IT Investment Banking - mainly Project Management on trading systems across all product lines (Fixed Income, commodities, Money Markets, Equities & their derivatives). My observation is that Cambridge is fundamentally stronger in the sciences & technology & Oxford in the humanities & arts. Cambridge is definitely prettier & it has strong links with industry because of it's strong engineering & software development faculties. I'm currently working with an Aussie Cambridge PhD student who has developed a leading edge piece of software which we're implementing at the world's leading on-line gaming exchange. Bill Gates pumped millions into Cambridge to foster links with high-tech industry. In this respect Cambridge is more like the American Ivy League universities (Stanford, MIT etc) which have strong links with the commercial world. If you like the buzz of science, technology, & start-ups then Cambridge is for you. The guy i'm working with has a start-up company in partnership with his academic supervisors & he's sold his product to multiple clients before he's even finished his PhD! He always intended his doctral studies to be an incubator for his business start-up! By comparison Oxford is resolutely in the 20th century rather than the 21st. The word has moved on & so has Cambridge - but the question remains-has Oxford?

Hey guys, just wondering if anyone has had any further thoughts on this (Bender?). I've found out which colleges I've gotten into at Camb and Oxford so in the absence of any funding coming my way (unlikely) I need to make a decision soon I guess. I got my financial guestimate from Cambridge and it is certainly a lot cheaper than the year at Oxford, quite dramatically, so that's very tempting.

Take a look at:

http://www.llm-guide.com/board/44652/last/#post-44762