Hello guys (and girls),

I would kindly appreciate your help on the following matter. Namely, I received an offer for the LLM course at Cambridge as well as an offer for Magister Juris course at Oxford. I shall soon have to decide which offer to accept. I am inclined towards Oxford since their course is aimed at students with civil law backgrounds as myself. However, I was wondering if it would be really "easier" to follow Magister Juris programme than the LLM course at Cambridge (Cambridge states at its website that students with civil law backgrounds shall have to familiarize themselves with the principles and methodology of common law) and to what extent the difference between the two is noticeable (in terms of suitability for students with civil law backgrounds).

Sorry for the lengthy post and thank you for your help.

Leno,

I was offered places at both Oxford and Cambridge, and ended up doing the Cantab LL.M.

My main reason for doing so was the LL.M title - I'm inclined to belief that the M.Jur entails more explaining to prospective employers etc.

In my experience, with a civil law background, there is really not much to catch up on in order to do well on the course. (you will also be invited to common law inducements)

However, I did corporate and banking stuff which to a large
extent is harmonized through various EU directives.

Hi Leno,
congratulations :)
I think both Oxford and Cambridge LLM programs are great.
Every employer know that Ox. and Cam. are most distinguished law schools and every Oxonians or Cam.graduate have outstanding intellectual ability so
All roads lead to Oxbridge :)........

When I saw that Oxford had an LL.M. for civil law students, I didn't even think of applying there. I got the impression that it was somewhat a secondary master shadowed by the MJur of common law.

Hi yaiza,

Ox doesn't have a civil law LLM. The Mjur is the Ox equivalent of the LLM for civil law students, while the BCL is its common law counterpart.

Cheers,

whatever. I knew the names were different, but I didn't feel like learning every single denomination (BCL, Mjur...) for, basically, the same thing. The point remains: I don't get why the instruction has to be differentiated while the rest of LL.M.'s don't even mention it.

I don't know, I thought the rationale was pretty straightforward (but then again I thought the denominations were pretty straightforward too). We're dealing with two legal systems and pedagogies. I would have thought this is ample justification for distinguishing between the degrees. Further, if the only down side is the possibility of an easily explainable misunderstanding with prospective employers, then you're selling both yourself and those employers short. Take the degree that suites you best, not the denomination.

Props to Paddy.

I'm intrigued by the idea of an employer who would require (or even be interested in) a graduate-level legal degree yet at the same time lack the patience or wherewithal to grasp the precise nature of your program.

For said confusion to possibly occur, you're either applying to an organization that doesn't particularly care about your graduate degree (making the whole debate moot), or to someone too dim-witted to provide you with anything resembling a decent job.

Thank you all for you replies :-)