Those of you getting college offers -- have you fulfilled all the conditions of your offer, or do the colleges go through applications even before they become unconditional?

They all do look good, but I'd much prefer a mixed undergrad/postgrad college. Do you think it would be worth contacting anybody to get this across or would it be futile at this point?

Thanks for your help

I don't think they take that into account, seeing that they already gave you two choices.

Probably Wolfson, Hughes or St-Edmunds, as I hear they take in a lot of LLM students, both are fine options anyways.

They all do look good, but I'd much prefer a mixed undergrad/postgrad college. Do you think it would be worth contacting anybody to get this across or would it be futile at this point?

Thanks for your help

I don't think you would get anywhere if you did. In the guidance booklet, which accompanies my offer, I recall it saying we can't change our college allocation unless there are 'exceptional circumstances', e.g. we get funding from another college.

They all do look good, but I'd much prefer a mixed undergrad/postgrad college. Do you think it would be worth contacting anybody to get this across or would it be futile at this point?

Thanks for your help

I don't think they take that into account, seeing that they already gave you two choices.

Yep, fair enough. Thanks

does anyone know when we can start expecting scholarship decisions?

does anyone know when we can start expecting scholarship decisions?

I don't think they take that into account, seeing that they already gave you two choices.

Yep, fair enough. Thanks

I mean, don't get me wrong, I would prefer being in one of the old, pretty and traditional colleges too. But we have to be honest here, we're just LLM students. Our application process to Cambridge is, compared to the trouble eg undergrads or phd's need to go through, relatively short. So I don't think the old colleges really like taking in students like us who didn't even need to come for an interview to get in.

Any word on Gates Cambridge?

I see your point, but personally I don’t think it’s right to say we’re ‘just’ LLM students. LLM admission is extremely competitive and, after all, Cambridge is ranked the best in Europe for law and second best in the world at the moment, behind Harvard... I’d also like to move onto a PhD at Cantab after the LLM, so the fact we aren’t interviewed for the LLM I’d say is irreverent and I’m sure the colleges would view it like that too (Harvard and Oxford also don’t interview).

Yep, fair enough. Thanks

I mean, don't get me wrong, I would prefer being in one of the old, pretty and traditional colleges too. But we have to be honest here, we're just LLM students. Our application process to Cambridge is, compared to the trouble eg undergrads or phd's need to go through, relatively short. So I don't think the old colleges really like taking in students like us who didn't even need to come for an interview to get in.

I see your point, but personally I don’t think it’s right to say we’re ‘just’ LLM students. LLM admission is extremely competitive and, after all, Cambridge is ranked the best in Europe for law and second best in the world at the moment, behind Harvard... I’d also like to move onto a PhD at Cantab after the LLM, so the fact we aren’t interviewed for the LLM I’d say is irreverent and I’m sure the colleges would view it like that too (Harvard and Oxford also don’t interview).

I see your point, but personally I don’t think it’s right to say we’re ‘just’ LLM students. LLM admission is extremely competitive and, after all, Cambridge is ranked the best in Europe for law and second best in the world at the moment, behind Harvard... I’d also like to move onto a PhD at Cantab after the LLM, so the fact we aren’t interviewed for the LLM I’d say is irreverent and I’m sure the colleges would view it like that too (Harvard and Oxford also don’t interview).

Well that depends on what you call "extremely" competitive. The LLM is for example clearly less competitive than the undergraduate degree in law. In 2016 there were 1048 applications for the undergrad, and only 256 got an offer (24% offer rate), whereas for the LLM in 2016 there were 1331 applications but 412 got an offer (30% offer rate). Let alone if we compare this to how competitive the undergraduate degrees in for example engineering (17% offer rate) or medicine (22% offer rate) are.

To be clear, yes this degree course does have a competitive entry, but to call it "extremely" competitive is a bit of a stretch. Let's not forget there are top universities like Yale who have an LLM class size of only around 25 students. What would you call that? Super-duper extremely competitive?

[Edited by tsangc4 on Mar 13, 2018]

I see your point, but personally I don’t think it’s right to say we’re ‘just’ LLM students. LLM admission is extremely competitive and, after all, Cambridge is ranked the best in Europe for law and second best in the world at the moment, behind Harvard... I’d also like to move onto a PhD at Cantab after the LLM, so the fact we aren’t interviewed for the LLM I’d say is irreverent and I’m sure the colleges would view it like that too (Harvard and Oxford also don’t interview).

Well that depends on what you call "extremely" competitive. The LLM is for example clearly less competitive than the undergraduate degree in law. In 2016 there were 1048 applications for the undergrad, and only 256 got an offer (24% offer rate), whereas for the LLM in 2016 there were 1331 applications but 412 got an offer (30% offer rate). Let alone if we compare this to how competitive the undergraduate degrees in for example engineering (17% offer rate) or medicine (22% offer rate) are.

To be clear, yes this degree course does have a competitive entry, but to call it "extremely" competitive is a bit of a stretch. Let's not forget there are top universities like Yale who have an LLM class size of only around 25 students. What would you call that? Super-duper extremely competitive?

I see your point, but personally I don’t think it’s right to say we’re ‘just’ LLM students. LLM admission is extremely competitive and, after all, Cambridge is ranked the best in Europe for law and second best in the world at the moment, behind Harvard... I’d also like to move onto a PhD at Cantab after the LLM, so the fact we aren’t interviewed for the LLM I’d say is irreverent and I’m sure the colleges would view it like that too (Harvard and Oxford also don’t interview).

Well that depends on what you call "extremely" competitive. The LLM is for example clearly less competitive than the undergraduate degree in law. In 2016 there were 1048 applications for the undergrad, and only 256 got an offer (24% offer rate), whereas for the LLM in 2016 there were 1331 applications but 412 got an offer (30% offer rate). Let alone if we compare this to how competitive the undergraduate degrees in for example engineering (17% offer rate) or medicine (22% offer rate) are.

To be clear, yes this degree course does have a competitive entry, but to call it "extremely" competitive is a bit of a stretch. Let's not forget there are top universities like Yale who have an LLM class size of only around 25 students. What would you call that? Super-duper extremely competitive?

There exists a high minimum academic requirement for Cambridge LLM applicants. It applies equally to Cambridge Undergraduate students as well as law students from other schools. If the LLM were in fact less competitive than the undergraduate course the entire Cambridge undergraduate cohort would gain automatic admission to the Cambridge LLM regardless of their grades. That is not the case, though.

I think it's at least plausible to suggest that the calibre of the average Cambridge LLM applicant is of higher quality than the average Cambridge undergraduate applicant. This is because LLM applicants, assuming most of those applying do have first class grades, are proven to be adept at legal reasoning, writing and handling education at a tertiary level more generally. Numbers alone cannot account for this difference in quality. (Of course, you can point out that grading methods vary among universities and those applying might hold grades more inflated than Cambridge undergraduate students', but I don't think these applicants are in the majority)

In any event, I don't think it was necessary to reply to LLM2238 sarcastically. I'm sure he or she was simply voicing her concerns.

There exists a high minimum academic requirement for Cambridge LLM applicants. It applies equally to Cambridge Undergraduate students as well as law students from other schools. If the LLM were in fact less competitive than the undergraduate course the entire Cambridge undergraduate cohort would gain automatic admission to the Cambridge LLM regardless of their grades. That is not the case, though.

I think it's at least plausible to suggest that the calibre of the average Cambridge LLM applicant is of higher quality than the average Cambridge undergraduate applicant. This is because LLM applicants, assuming most of those applying do have first class grades, are proven to be adept at legal reasoning, writing and handling education at a tertiary level more generally. Numbers alone cannot account for this difference in quality. (Of course, you can point out that grading methods vary among universities and those applying might hold grades more inflated than Cambridge undergraduate students', but I don't think these applicants are in the majority)

There exists a high minimum academic requirement for Cambridge LLM applicants. It applies equally to Cambridge Undergraduate students as well as law students from other schools. If the LLM were in fact less competitive than the undergraduate course the entire Cambridge undergraduate cohort would gain automatic admission to the Cambridge LLM regardless of their grades. That is not the case, though.

I think it's at least plausible to suggest that the calibre of the average Cambridge LLM applicant is of higher quality than the average Cambridge undergraduate applicant. This is because LLM applicants, assuming most of those applying do have first class grades, are proven to be adept at legal reasoning, writing and handling education at a tertiary level more generally. Numbers alone cannot account for this difference in quality. (Of course, you can point out that grading methods vary among universities and those applying might hold grades more inflated than Cambridge undergraduate students', but I don't think these applicants are in the majority)

To be honest I still think that the LLM is not as competitive as they make out to be, but I assume that is because I have had personal experiences that tell me so. For example, both me and my colleague got into the LLM programme, although neither of us had a first. My colleague was even quite far away from it. Meanwhile the best student in my class in high school got into the final round for admission into Cambridge's undergrad program in law, but was ultimately not selected, even though his grades were ridiculously high (a minimum of 90% average on all his courses, mind you in my country our curriculum constists out of 12 courses, so that means he scored equally well on maths as on French or sports, crazy). He ultimately chose not to study law and went for a degree in civil engineering, and is still way more talented than I am.

I mean, by all means, let's pat ourselves on the back that we made it into Cambridge, but all I am saying is that we should keep our heads level and realize that this is just an LLM program.

I don’t think the academic rigour of a high school curriculum can be compared to a university’s, but ok

There exists a high minimum academic requirement for Cambridge LLM applicants. It applies equally to Cambridge Undergraduate students as well as law students from other schools. If the LLM were in fact less competitive than the undergraduate course the entire Cambridge undergraduate cohort would gain automatic admission to the Cambridge LLM regardless of their grades. That is not the case, though.

I think it's at least plausible to suggest that the calibre of the average Cambridge LLM applicant is of higher quality than the average Cambridge undergraduate applicant. This is because LLM applicants, assuming most of those applying do have first class grades, are proven to be adept at legal reasoning, writing and handling education at a tertiary level more generally. Numbers alone cannot account for this difference in quality. (Of course, you can point out that grading methods vary among universities and those applying might hold grades more inflated than Cambridge undergraduate students', but I don't think these applicants are in the majority)

To be honest I still think that the LLM is not as competitive as they make out to be, but I assume that is because I have had personal experiences that tell me so. For example, both me and my colleague got into the LLM programme, although neither of us had a first. My colleague was even quite far away from it. Meanwhile the best student in my class in high school got into the final round for admission into Cambridge's undergrad program in law, but was ultimately not selected, even though his grades were ridiculously high (a minimum of 90% average on all his courses, mind you in my country our curriculum constists out of 12 courses, so that means he scored equally well on maths as on French or sports, crazy). He ultimately chose not to study law and went for a degree in civil engineering, and is still way more talented than I am.

I mean, by all means, let's pat ourselves on the back that we made it into Cambridge, but all I am saying is that we should keep our heads level and realize that this is just an LLM program.

I don’t think the academic rigour of a high school curriculum can be compared to a university’s, but ok

I don’t think the academic rigour of a high school curriculum can be compared to a university’s, but ok

I made that point to illustrate how someone with much more potential than me didn't get into Cambridge and I did, because I think the LLM admission standards are lower and take other factors into account (for example academic potential etc).

I agree, and also I’d very interested to know why they’re accepting people with 2:1’s, if what Ribben is saying is true, when I know people who Cambridge have rejected with firsts, eg someone who has a first and did a training contract at a magic circle firm... my understanding is if you do not have a first you will not be admitted. I feel a freedom of information request coming on to find out if this is true.

I’d respond but I find it pointless at this point... good luck at Cambridge!