Ok ... amm, pretty harsh guys, but I have deleted the offending part of the post. I didn't feel I was bashing Oxford, more venting my frustration in general at Restitution as a subject. To be fair all I keep hearing in lectures is "this is what Birks/Burrows thinks and this is why its incorrect or flawed based on cases that don't fit into their theory." I wasn't bashing the University or the BCL course. And I do and have known people who were rejected by one but accepted by the other so think what you want about that.

As for the insecurity comment and the general tone of the previous post, I think it was uncalled for. I have never bashed another University on here (unlike plenty of others), apart from the occasional rant about how much I hate certain things on the Cambridge LLM. And believe me, I am definitely not a Cambridge loyalist by any stretch of the imagination.

All I have ever done is answer questions based on my experience on the applications process and this particular course and how it has been taught. This however seems to have deeply offended some people, so apologies.

Good luck the applications for the PhD, I'm sure you'll fit right in wherever you go.

irishguy, you're a class act. You have been eminently helpful on this board on numerous occassions, and all for the benefit of total strangers; and, for that, I thank you. Also, I agree that your post about the BCL was a far cry from the venemous, vitrolic vituperation written by those above in response to your supposed slight. I think all on this board enjoy the benefit of other peoples' perspectives, but only indofar as the discussion is civilized and mature.

I'd second that. Equity's Darling, have you received the formal letter yet? I was only admitted yesterday but just wanted to know how long the formal letter would take in order to find out what conditions have been attached.

For what it's worth, I agree and started my post with an overall compliment for the very helpful and insightful subject summaries given by Irishguy.

Having studied Restitution myself, however, I just though it worth adding a bit of perspective to the debate.

I also believe that, for private lawyers, the Oxford BCL is better than the LLM. This comes down to:

1. the calibre of the other students;
2. the tutorials; and
3. the level of respect that the faculties of the two law schools have for the respective degrees.

For better or worse, the BCL has an unrivalled reputation. It also has tutorials. This means the students work harder and the academics take the whole enterprise more seriously.

Of course it is impossible to say that the faculty of one university is better than the faculty at the other. For an undergraduate there is little in it. But at the Masters level, there is a world of difference.

I really just wanted to add to the discussion on two points that I felt had been taken down the wrong path on a couple of minor points.

Very sorry if I caused offence.

I agree with the last post that the tutorials at ox give it an enviable and qualitative advantage over the llm at cantab. I don't think anyone will take issue with the fact that smaller classes and more interaction with professors, preferably in the socratic style, make for a better learning experience in virtually all disciplines. Pedagogical theorists have been pretty much settled on this point for decades. So, in this respect the BCL would seem to have a real or at least ostensible advantage. I wonder whether the seminars at the llm provide a degree of interactiion with professors that appraoches that of the bcl tutorials. Having studied at neither school, I cannot venture an educated opinion. With respect to points 1 and 3 above, well, I'm not sure either can be substantiated; and, furthermore, even if one could demonstrate that the bcl is better than the llm in these measures, i think the difference between the two would be so marginal that basing any sort of argument on either would be of little utility.

thoughts

ut, dont hold your breath. It's been about a month since i got the email and i've yet to hear anything else. if i were to hazard a bet, i'd say that the formal letters will not be out until spring, say aprilish, because it is then that the bulk of the admissions decisons are made and i doubt very much that they bother sending formal letters continuously. It sems more likely to me that they send them all out around the same time, but that's only a guess. I think in the meantime we should just be happy to have recieved early (albeit conditional) offers.

@Joseph1: I think your post about the restitution course here at Oxford is misleading in one very important aspect - you list virtually every member of the faculty who might have, at one time or another, played a role in teaching the subject, thus suggesting that they are all somehow involved in running the course. However, this is simply not the case: I am doing the BCL at the moment, and all the seminars and tutorials are given by James Edelman and Robert Stevens - the other (probably more eminent) faculty members you have mentioned do not teach on it, be it because they are currently on sabbatical or because they are now more heavily involved in other BCL courses.

Hi..I am from India n still awaiting response from cambridge..has ne1 from India gotten an offer from Cambridge..please let me know..than you

Leo, you will see that I highlighted the involvement of Burrows, Swadling, Edelman and Rob Stevens as they are those most involved at the moment.

This changes from year to year. Last year Stevens was on sabbatical and not involved at all. However, the others do turn up from seminars from time to time when discussion is on a topic they are interested in.

The point I was making is that there is no dogmatic line on any subject of restitution. Those who lead the seminars have varied views on different topics. And even on something like absence of basis where none of them are really proponents of that theory, they are keen to put the Birksian view forward and there are usually a few students who will take it up.

Well, I don't want to appear pedantic but you did claim that, "with Burrows, Swadling, Edelman and Stevens all running the course (along with Krebs, McFarlane, Peel, Chen-Wishart)" one would be exposed to an unrivalled range of views on the law of restitution, and it was that part of your post that I found misleading. While I accept that arrangements may change from year to year, it is - I think - safe to say that while some more eminenent members of the faculty (or indeed an outside speaker) might make a very occasional appearance in seminars, both the seminars and undoubtedly the tutorials are firmly the hands of much more junior lecturers. That obviously isn't a bad thing per se (Edelman is an exceptional thinker and a rising star in the field, and debates with Stevens are always lively); I just wanted to clarify that while Oxford might have produced its fair contribution to cutting-edge research in this field that isn't necessarily reflected in the composition of the teaching team.

http://www.gradunion.cam.ac.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=18

The Cambridge Grad Union's forum is pretty outdated imo. This board seems to be way more informative (with all respect).

Was reading thru the arguments over Oxford v Cambridge (restitution or everything in general). Couldn't help but wondering what the point is. Ppl tend to forget that Oxbridge are tier 1 unis and probably most LLMs in UK (apart from UoL) can't compare with them.

Personally I would be content with a post-grad degree in any of the 2 unis. I'm sure any employer would be impressed with their reputation regardless of which is actually the 'better' course.

Mate, sorry you feel strongly about this. I didn't realise Burrows and Swadling were less involved this year than last. Last year it was Burrows who chaired with Swadling and Edelman there every week. Stevens was on sabbatical. Most of the others I mentioned turned up from time to time.