An American currently on the LLM program, I'd suggest you first need to realize that the facilities here (libraries in particular) are third rate compared to most U.S. law schools.

Having said that LSE is great if you want to go to an American school in London. You'll find a considerable percentage of your fellow students are American; if that's what you want the Notre Dame LLM in London would probably give you a better education with more clout back home.

A London LLM is just that. I'm not sure it really matters where you take the degree for U.S. employment purposes. For example, if you're into computer or intellectual property law you'd be crazy to do it anywhere in London other than Queen Mary. Better to fit your interests into the program rather than let your course selection be dictated by the reputation of the school.

I'm taking courses at King's, University and Queen Mary. My class at University College is by far the worst I'm taking. Only King's has a library worth using. My Queen Mary professor is the most approachable and likely my future source of a reference.

I'm really pleased at all the info that's come out of this thread - really useful.

Just to clear up Ronin's point, though:

"Ex Oxbridge students told me that between LSE, UCL, and even KCL, it is obvious that they will choose UCL."

I went to Oxford as an undergraduate, and I've chosen to apply only to the LSE and Cambridge. So it isn't everyone!

While LSE's origins might have been as a hotbed of leftist radicalism it's nothing like that now. These days it has far more of a free-market libertarian vibe about it. Also, Tony Blair relied to a large degree on the writings of LSE Prof Chris Greenwood QC to support his arguments on the legality of invading iraq - hardly a sign of anti-US leftist sentiment.

As for the intercollegiate LLM, I'll admit that the variety of subjects you can do is a real strength of the programme. As things currently stand I don't think any of the london colleges have the depth to run a top quality LL.M by themselves, not across a broad range of subject areas anyway. Still, I do think there's a real problem in ensuring that all the courses are taught and assessed to a consistently high standard. Some are very good and some are poor. Also there doesn't seem to be any real system in place to evaluate teaching quality.

Studentbarista, how come you aren't applying for the BCL? It's still the most respected degree at the bar. What college did you do your undergrad at by the way? I did mine at merton.

Hi guys! Very interesting thread.... Please help me out, it seems to me that you reaLLY can answer to my question.

Apart from the single courses which are well reputed at the London Law Schools, which are the LLM programs for which LSE, KCL, UCL, QM are best reputed ?

In particular, I am very interested in International Public Law/Human Rights, IP LAW and European Law.

Thanks

IP law is Queen Mary's specialty (even UCL professors like Jeremy Phillips teach on the LLM at QMUL) and I'd suggest KIng's for European law with the caveat that that is one area I'd like to pick and chose from all the faculties.

In terms of human rights I'd suggest that London is not the place to be for this field. If I had to be here LSE probably is where I'd go.

Thank you Turkued! And UCL is also strong for IP? Or what else? And for competition law? I'm sorry I bother, but as you can see, I'm very undecised...... ;-)

ciao

Mr K - Univ.

I decided not to apply for the BCL because I didn't get a high enough First.

I also quite fancy studying at a different university for a while.

Mr K - Univ.

I decided not to apply for the BCL because I didn't get a high enough First.

I also quite fancy studying at a different university for a while.

Insolvency - Vanessa Finch and Sarah Worthington are legends. But remember: my first choice is Cambridge!

I also love the LSE library. Very handy, as well - right next to the RCJ and Lincoln's Inn.

Interesting views have been expressed. I thought I should add my own observations.

I think at undergraduate level, the teaching quality for law at UCL and LSE are more of less the same. It is generally regarded as such by most academics and students too. Both are excellent and are probably the best law schools after Oxford and Cambridge. As to employment prospects for LLB students, I think UCL has a slight advantage because it is perceived as a more 'British' institution (both in culture and student population) as opposed to the LSE.

I can't comment on the respective LLM programmes at UCL and LSE. I do know that some UCL courses are excellent and taught by outstanding people, but I have also heard that some students who are admitted are not the most academically impressive. One thing that is greatly cherished is the diverse range of courses offered through the intercollegiate LLM; it is unfortunate that this will end soon.

I have also heard the general advice (from academics, senior partners, QCs and bankers) that if you have an LLB from a top British uni (Oxbridge, UCL, LSE or KCL), it is probably better to do an LLM at a top US law school. Indeed, that is why I chose Harvard. I agree with this general view. At least at Harvard, an LLM student is exposed to an amazing array of opportunities, facilities and experiences (intellectual, cultural, social and professional).

If you are wondering, I read law at UCL as an undergraduate (turning down offers from LSE and KCL), and accepted the place to do an LLM at Harvard (turning down the offers from Oxford and Cambridge). I was an international student and will be joining a Magic Circle firm (having turned down an offer from a US firm). So I guess I am reasonably impartial! Lol.

I agree with your views, as it seems to me quite logical and I would have done the same if I had a LLB from an UK University ( I am French and I have a law degree from University of Paris - Assas, and do currently a LLM in UCL which I really enjoy).

To say the truth, I was a little surprised (not to say upset) when I learnt that it was not necessary to have a LLM... and not even a law degree to work in Magic circles lawfirm in London for UK students, which is unthinkable in France for instance. By comparison, your technical background will be absolutely superb !

Congratulations for Harvard ! Last question : if it is not a secret, which Magic Circle lawfirm have you choose and in which area do you plan to specialise ?

Cheers, Ronin

'I was a little surprised (not to say upset) when I learnt that it was not necessary to have a LLM... and not even a law degree to work in Magic circles lawfirm in London for UK students, which is unthinkable in France for instance.'

Why on earth should you be surprised or upset about this?

It's always been possible to convert your BA into a law degree in the UK - especially for the Bar. If you look at chambers websites, you'll find that most QCs read something other to law as a BA. These days, that's less common but still possible. I'd say about two in three students with me at Bar School don't have a law degree.

Ronin, why do you think the legal profession should exclude able candidates in disciplines other than law?

Ronin, why do you think the legal profession should exclude able candidates in disciplines other than law?

Despite Kazafs astute comments (and a few others) there is a lot of rubbish posted on this thread. People are giving advice to others about institutions that they have never attended or studied at! How can you say, for example, LSE is better than UCL without studying at both? I think that this is most unfair. People may choose to snub a perfectly good institution because of some of the defective advice posted here.

I also have a question for studentbarista: did you really go to Oxford? You say you didn't get a high enough 1st to study the BCL but you don't need 1st to study the BCL; a good 2:1 is enough. My friend was accepted last year with a 2:1 from KCL. Futhermore, I was at the University of Oxford (St Johns College) last year but never came across you.

To the private messages that have asked my views on more or less the same question, this is my response:

1. As I have stated above, UCL and LSE are both outstanding law schools, and together with KCL, would generally be considered the best and most prestigious law schools in England after Oxbridge. If asked to choose (specifically for law), most people in England would probably say that UCL is very slightly higher than LSE. This is certainly reflected in the City law firms - there are far more UCL law graduates than LSE law graduates in City law firms.

2. In general, the law departments at UCL and LSE are considered slightly 'better' than KCL's, but I suspect this is due to the overall institutional decline of KCL and its slightly lower entry requirements for the LLB.

3. For the record, the 2001 RAE gave the same ranking to UCL and LSE for law: 5*A. Nonetheless, these rankings are out of date and to my mind, are a poor indicator. In terms of league tables, UCL generally comes higher than LSE for law in most years, but these tables may be more relevant to the undergraduates.

4. I am unable to express any view on the comparative quality of the LLM programmes at UCL and LSE because I have not done either. In my personal opinion, the most perceptible difference between them is this: LSE is a very international institution trying to model itself on the American universities; UCL is still a traditional British university.

I hold a Norwegian law degree, and am currently working in one of the bigger Norwegian law firms with IP. The Norwegian law degree is obtained after 6 years of studying, and when looking for a LLM it is very important to me that it is highly specialized in my subject. I do not want to study with beginners. Does anyone have tips on where to go to find a good LLM for practitioners of IP? I`ve heard about QM, but is this mainly for students without any prior knowledge of IP? How difficult is it to get into a PhD programme in the UK?

Hey Norwegian, in the UK you must first complete a LLM (or another Masters degree) before you can study a Ph.D.

With regard to your concerns about studying an LLM program, I would suggest that you consider the reasons why you want to study an LLM. If you are taking the course for its own sake, then I think you should look carefully at the courses available to see if their level of complexity meets your personal requirements. Conversely, if you are doing an LLM for its consequences (i.e. to improve chances of employment by getting a good grade) then I believe that doing a course that you would find straightforward is not a bad idea. You would be more likely to gain a high mark and, after all, that is one of the key things an employer looks for.


Good luck,

James

I am a little irritated with all the hype surrounding an LLM in UCL.It is not as good as it is made out to be.I have an Indian batch-mate(from LLB days) studying there and she is far from impressed.I obviously do not want people to think that I am basing my opinion on a certain individual's experience(s).

Guys instead of being in an awe please ask students who are studying there and then make an informed decision.

Hey Folks,
I am currently studying for an LL.M in UCL which I guess makes me competent to comment on the quality of the program.
While I may not be able as well to pass judgment on the quality of the programs at LSE and KCL, I wish to affirm the high quality of UCL's LLM program. Amongst the courses I am taking are Secured Transactions and Legal Aspects of International Law. So far, I ve had no regrets - if anything, I am glad I chose UCL above LSE and KCL.
From discussions that I ve held with the close friends at LSE and KCL, I feel lucky that I am at UCL and not in any of those places. If any UCL students are not happy, it probably has to do with their choice of courses. The intercollegiate LL.M gives you a wide array to chose from - more than a hundred courses, at the last count.
Having said that, I want to point that a lot of inaccurate advice and unfounded opinions are posted on this board which make things difficult for the outsider trying to reach a considered decision. It would help if we are more responsible with our posts.
For eg., in response to James' reply to Norwegian, I wish to point out that it is NOT correct that a prospective PhD student in the UK must have an LL.M. The minimum entry requirement into the PhD at Cambridge (and infact in most schools in the UK) which has an excellent IP program is either:
- a 1st class honours LL.B degree or its equivalent; or
- a strong 2.1 with in addition a distinction in a Master's degree in law.
So if Norwegian has a 1st class degree in the LL.B, he can sail straight (subject to being accepted) to a PhD without any requirement that he undergoes LL.M studies.
Cheers