i have to say I am a little surprised by the number of people who seem to be choosing their LLM institution purely based on the 'name recognition' of that institution. For example, I have applied to UCL and LSE. As far as I am concerned I would be more than happy to be admitted by either. Yet there are some who say you HAVE to go to LSE as it is so much better. I do feel these opinions have little basis in fact. In fact if you spole to most emploers globally they could not separate the two.
What is crucial is that you apply to the best universities for your chosen specialist area. Do not make yourself unhappy applying to a university simply because it has a 'name.'
Choose the best course
Posted Mar 24, 2008 19:54
0
i have to say I am a little surprised by the number of people who seem to be choosing their LLM institution purely based on the 'name recognition' of that institution. For example, I have applied to UCL and LSE. As far as I am concerned I would be more than happy to be admitted by either. Yet there are some who say you HAVE to go to LSE as it is so much better. I do feel these opinions have little basis in fact. In fact if you spole to most emploers globally they could not separate the two.
What is crucial is that you apply to the best universities for your chosen specialist area. Do not make yourself unhappy applying to a university simply because it has a 'name.'
What is crucial is that you apply to the best universities for your chosen specialist area. Do not make yourself unhappy applying to a university simply because it has a 'name.'
Inactive User
Posted Mar 25, 2008 00:35
0
Posted Mar 25, 2008 01:57
0
You must know better than anyone that in this profession, a NAME does MATTER.
It is unfortunate, but this is the reality. "You" might be a piece of crap but if you have, lets suppose, LSE in your CV, you are likely to be given a job.
I do think that the schools offer similar modules and similar areas of expertise to graduates, which makes it harder to have a choice. All the courses have commercial modules, corporate modules and so on. All of the universities seem to be good in commercial law and all seem to be strong in at least on area of commercial or corporate.
I agree with you, but the name unfortunately does matter and I am an example of that.
Well I'm sorry my friend - we will have to agree to disagree. I base my reasoning on the following:
1) I think the 'name' of the university is an obsession to US employers - if you wish to work in the UK most employers don't give a damn. They want you to have a FIRST and good A levels.
2) Not all courses have good corporate modules - I have taught law at university level and I can assure you of the fact!!
3) UCL is ranked as one of the top 10 universities in the world - the LSE is not.
4) In the Times Good University Guide - UCL was ranked 2nd in the UK. I can't help it if my US cousins as employers - who I have a great deal of respect for as lawyers I might add - still have a rather strange ranking system regarding UK universities.
5) The LSE's curriculum is woefully limited when compared with UCL. I would only say that the curriculum suits me as I am a lawyer interested in competition and economic law.
6) Go for an interview at a top firm in London. Assume for one moment the specialist area is banking. If the selector is left with two identical candidates whom he cannot split - both have distinctions in their LLM. One is from LSE and the other Queen Mary. I believe he/she takes the latter - and would be a fool not to.
7) Language ability - I have seen numerous of my friends disadvantaged by language capabilities when being interviewed in London.
8) MOST important of all - WORK EXPERIENCE - it hides most academic sins. A selector at an employment interview sees a candidate with 4 years work experience versus any candidate even with an LLM but no work experience. I'm afraid to say the latter loses out.
The name may matter in the US my friend but in the UK - the centre of the Common Law world - the name is less important. Undoubtedly an Oxbridge first trumps all in many cases - but employers in the UK do not have the same outlook as US employers.
Also an LLM is not going to open doors for employment in the US in the same way as a good quality JD does. And most solicitors firms in the UK could not care less - as I have already mentioned - whether you have an LLM or not. They want to see good performance at high school and a good degree classification.
I simply do not think it is wise for people to invest a lot of time and money pursuing a 'name.' Your priority should be to your subject of specialism and enjoyment in studying that subject.
I'm sure you still disagree with me and that is fine - but I hope I have at least given a view to those out there who believe that the US model for recruitment based on degrees/LLMs etc... is different in the UK and the rest of the common law world.
Pedrinus, my friend, if you are currently applying for an LLM or looking for work I wish you all the best. Many thanks for the debate!
<blockquote>You must know better than anyone that in this profession, a NAME does MATTER.
It is unfortunate, but this is the reality. "You" might be a piece of crap but if you have, lets suppose, LSE in your CV, you are likely to be given a job.
I do think that the schools offer similar modules and similar areas of expertise to graduates, which makes it harder to have a choice. All the courses have commercial modules, corporate modules and so on. All of the universities seem to be good in commercial law and all seem to be strong in at least on area of commercial or corporate.
I agree with you, but the name unfortunately does matter and I am an example of that.</blockquote>
Well I'm sorry my friend - we will have to agree to disagree. I base my reasoning on the following:
1) I think the 'name' of the university is an obsession to US employers - if you wish to work in the UK most employers don't give a damn. They want you to have a FIRST and good A levels.
2) Not all courses have good corporate modules - I have taught law at university level and I can assure you of the fact!!
3) UCL is ranked as one of the top 10 universities in the world - the LSE is not.
4) In the Times Good University Guide - UCL was ranked 2nd in the UK. I can't help it if my US cousins as employers - who I have a great deal of respect for as lawyers I might add - still have a rather strange ranking system regarding UK universities.
5) The LSE's curriculum is woefully limited when compared with UCL. I would only say that the curriculum suits me as I am a lawyer interested in competition and economic law.
6) Go for an interview at a top firm in London. Assume for one moment the specialist area is banking. If the selector is left with two identical candidates whom he cannot split - both have distinctions in their LLM. One is from LSE and the other Queen Mary. I believe he/she takes the latter - and would be a fool not to.
7) Language ability - I have seen numerous of my friends disadvantaged by language capabilities when being interviewed in London.
8) MOST important of all - WORK EXPERIENCE - it hides most academic sins. A selector at an employment interview sees a candidate with 4 years work experience versus any candidate even with an LLM but no work experience. I'm afraid to say the latter loses out.
The name may matter in the US my friend but in the UK - the centre of the Common Law world - the name is less important. Undoubtedly an Oxbridge first trumps all in many cases - but employers in the UK do not have the same outlook as US employers.
Also an LLM is not going to open doors for employment in the US in the same way as a good quality JD does. And most solicitors firms in the UK could not care less - as I have already mentioned - whether you have an LLM or not. They want to see good performance at high school and a good degree classification.
I simply do not think it is wise for people to invest a lot of time and money pursuing a 'name.' Your priority should be to your subject of specialism and enjoyment in studying that subject.
I'm sure you still disagree with me and that is fine - but I hope I have at least given a view to those out there who believe that the US model for recruitment based on degrees/LLMs etc... is different in the UK and the rest of the common law world.
Pedrinus, my friend, if you are currently applying for an LLM or looking for work I wish you all the best. Many thanks for the debate!
It is unfortunate, but this is the reality. "You" might be a piece of crap but if you have, lets suppose, LSE in your CV, you are likely to be given a job.
I do think that the schools offer similar modules and similar areas of expertise to graduates, which makes it harder to have a choice. All the courses have commercial modules, corporate modules and so on. All of the universities seem to be good in commercial law and all seem to be strong in at least on area of commercial or corporate.
I agree with you, but the name unfortunately does matter and I am an example of that.</blockquote>
Well I'm sorry my friend - we will have to agree to disagree. I base my reasoning on the following:
1) I think the 'name' of the university is an obsession to US employers - if you wish to work in the UK most employers don't give a damn. They want you to have a FIRST and good A levels.
2) Not all courses have good corporate modules - I have taught law at university level and I can assure you of the fact!!
3) UCL is ranked as one of the top 10 universities in the world - the LSE is not.
4) In the Times Good University Guide - UCL was ranked 2nd in the UK. I can't help it if my US cousins as employers - who I have a great deal of respect for as lawyers I might add - still have a rather strange ranking system regarding UK universities.
5) The LSE's curriculum is woefully limited when compared with UCL. I would only say that the curriculum suits me as I am a lawyer interested in competition and economic law.
6) Go for an interview at a top firm in London. Assume for one moment the specialist area is banking. If the selector is left with two identical candidates whom he cannot split - both have distinctions in their LLM. One is from LSE and the other Queen Mary. I believe he/she takes the latter - and would be a fool not to.
7) Language ability - I have seen numerous of my friends disadvantaged by language capabilities when being interviewed in London.
8) MOST important of all - WORK EXPERIENCE - it hides most academic sins. A selector at an employment interview sees a candidate with 4 years work experience versus any candidate even with an LLM but no work experience. I'm afraid to say the latter loses out.
The name may matter in the US my friend but in the UK - the centre of the Common Law world - the name is less important. Undoubtedly an Oxbridge first trumps all in many cases - but employers in the UK do not have the same outlook as US employers.
Also an LLM is not going to open doors for employment in the US in the same way as a good quality JD does. And most solicitors firms in the UK could not care less - as I have already mentioned - whether you have an LLM or not. They want to see good performance at high school and a good degree classification.
I simply do not think it is wise for people to invest a lot of time and money pursuing a 'name.' Your priority should be to your subject of specialism and enjoyment in studying that subject.
I'm sure you still disagree with me and that is fine - but I hope I have at least given a view to those out there who believe that the US model for recruitment based on degrees/LLMs etc... is different in the UK and the rest of the common law world.
Pedrinus, my friend, if you are currently applying for an LLM or looking for work I wish you all the best. Many thanks for the debate!
Inactive User
Posted Mar 25, 2008 02:08
0
Posted Mar 25, 2008 02:18
0
I agree with all that...
BUT
Employers in London do prejudice candidates in function of where they have studied.
I am overseas...currently on the LPC and have admissions both in the UK and US for LLM and to be honest with you.. it will be ridiculous if I go to the US and find a job there only with an LLM, whereas in the UK, because my law school is not English I am struggling to find a suitable position, although I have been interviewed.
What you said is not new, I know about rankings and recruitment procedures specially in London, and unfortunately firms do prejudice as regards to school. I have evidence of this by my fellow LPC colleagues who do not apply to London, because they don't come from a RedBrick university.
I agree. This is same everywhere, not only US or UK.
Those rumors about "Prestigeous University is not as important as what courses you choose" is definitely an excuse for losers who are not admitted by those prestigeous University as well as a lie to themselves so that they may feel better.
But, of course everybody has the right to choose their way of life. If you prefer University of X over Oxbridge, nobody will stop you from going there. But when you do that, always note employers have the different view with you.
Good luck in your choice.
<blockquote>I agree with all that...
BUT
Employers in London do prejudice candidates in function of where they have studied.
I am overseas...currently on the LPC and have admissions both in the UK and US for LLM and to be honest with you.. it will be ridiculous if I go to the US and find a job there only with an LLM, whereas in the UK, because my law school is not English I am struggling to find a suitable position, although I have been interviewed.
What you said is not new, I know about rankings and recruitment procedures specially in London, and unfortunately firms do prejudice as regards to school. I have evidence of this by my fellow LPC colleagues who do not apply to London, because they don't come from a RedBrick university.</blockquote>
I agree. This is same everywhere, not only US or UK.
Those rumors about "Prestigeous University is not as important as what courses you choose" is definitely an excuse for losers who are not admitted by those prestigeous University as well as a lie to themselves so that they may feel better.
But, of course everybody has the right to choose their way of life. If you prefer University of X over Oxbridge, nobody will stop you from going there. But when you do that, always note employers have the different view with you.
Good luck in your choice.
BUT
Employers in London do prejudice candidates in function of where they have studied.
I am overseas...currently on the LPC and have admissions both in the UK and US for LLM and to be honest with you.. it will be ridiculous if I go to the US and find a job there only with an LLM, whereas in the UK, because my law school is not English I am struggling to find a suitable position, although I have been interviewed.
What you said is not new, I know about rankings and recruitment procedures specially in London, and unfortunately firms do prejudice as regards to school. I have evidence of this by my fellow LPC colleagues who do not apply to London, because they don't come from a RedBrick university.</blockquote>
I agree. This is same everywhere, not only US or UK.
Those rumors about "Prestigeous University is not as important as what courses you choose" is definitely an excuse for losers who are not admitted by those prestigeous University as well as a lie to themselves so that they may feel better.
But, of course everybody has the right to choose their way of life. If you prefer University of X over Oxbridge, nobody will stop you from going there. But when you do that, always note employers have the different view with you.
Good luck in your choice.
Posted Mar 25, 2008 02:20
0
Two points:
1) UK firms don't so much discriminate against non English courses - however, they do discriminate against language skill. You may think this is wrong but it is the situation.
2) You will have a very difficult job pursuading a recruiter to employ you if when asked why you did a particular LLM it comes over to them that you chose it purely for the name. And I can assure you these people know when somebody has done that.
London can be a cruel and harsh world for those who are from overseas. There are enough people from the UK filling law schools who can't get jobs. So I will reiterate to you - I don't care whether somebody has a distinction from Harvard, Yale, NYU, LSE wherever... if language skills are missing it will be as tough as anything. So you are better off doing a course you enjoy - are good at - and can get the best marks in.
Two points:
1) UK firms don't so much discriminate against non English courses - however, they do discriminate against language skill. You may think this is wrong but it is the situation.
2) You will have a very difficult job pursuading a recruiter to employ you if when asked why you did a particular LLM it comes over to them that you chose it purely for the name. And I can assure you these people know when somebody has done that.
London can be a cruel and harsh world for those who are from overseas. There are enough people from the UK filling law schools who can't get jobs. So I will reiterate to you - I don't care whether somebody has a distinction from Harvard, Yale, NYU, LSE wherever... if language skills are missing it will be as tough as anything. So you are better off doing a course you enjoy - are good at - and can get the best marks in.
1) UK firms don't so much discriminate against non English courses - however, they do discriminate against language skill. You may think this is wrong but it is the situation.
2) You will have a very difficult job pursuading a recruiter to employ you if when asked why you did a particular LLM it comes over to them that you chose it purely for the name. And I can assure you these people know when somebody has done that.
London can be a cruel and harsh world for those who are from overseas. There are enough people from the UK filling law schools who can't get jobs. So I will reiterate to you - I don't care whether somebody has a distinction from Harvard, Yale, NYU, LSE wherever... if language skills are missing it will be as tough as anything. So you are better off doing a course you enjoy - are good at - and can get the best marks in.
Inactive User
Posted Mar 25, 2008 02:30
0
Posted Mar 25, 2008 02:41
0
I fully agree with you on the discrimination front. I'm a UK student - and I feel I'm looked at differently because I am half middle eastern. You shouldn't give a damn for one very good reason: the UK needs overseas trained lawyers - cross border commercial law is hugely important.
You have to target the right firms. A piece of advice to you when you do apply. Apply to a UK firm which has an office in your country and the selctors will see you as an asset which I am sure you will be.
You are right Durham is a good uni for commercial law. I can understand that a lot of people don't apply to London schools because of the cost but QM is great for commercial law and banking.
I wish you all the best my friend! :-)
I fully agree with you on the discrimination front. I'm a UK student - and I feel I'm looked at differently because I am half middle eastern. You shouldn't give a damn for one very good reason: the UK needs overseas trained lawyers - cross border commercial law is hugely important.
You have to target the right firms. A piece of advice to you when you do apply. Apply to a UK firm which has an office in your country and the selctors will see you as an asset which I am sure you will be.
You are right Durham is a good uni for commercial law. I can understand that a lot of people don't apply to London schools because of the cost but QM is great for commercial law and banking.
I wish you all the best my friend! :-)
You have to target the right firms. A piece of advice to you when you do apply. Apply to a UK firm which has an office in your country and the selctors will see you as an asset which I am sure you will be.
You are right Durham is a good uni for commercial law. I can understand that a lot of people don't apply to London schools because of the cost but QM is great for commercial law and banking.
I wish you all the best my friend! :-)
Inactive User
Posted Mar 25, 2008 02:53
0
Posted Mar 25, 2008 12:44
0
Two points:
1) UK firms don't so much discriminate against non English courses - however, they do discriminate against language skill. You may think this is wrong but it is the situation.
2) You will have a very difficult job pursuading a recruiter to employ you if when asked why you did a particular LLM it comes over to them that you chose it purely for the name. And I can assure you these people know when somebody has done that.
London can be a cruel and harsh world for those who are from overseas. There are enough people from the UK filling law schools who can't get jobs. So I will reiterate to you - I don't care whether somebody has a distinction from Harvard, Yale, NYU, LSE wherever... if language skills are missing it will be as tough as anything. So you are better off doing a course you enjoy - are good at - and can get the best marks in.
Right. I agree with this. :)
What about shining marks in an ordinary Uni and ordinary marks in Oxbridge?
Well. I guess there is always too much to discuss. And is all this kind of discuss necessary?
Just choose the best you can gain, the most suitable for you and do your best! Enjoy it!
<blockquote>Two points:
1) UK firms don't so much discriminate against non English courses - however, they do discriminate against language skill. You may think this is wrong but it is the situation.
2) You will have a very difficult job pursuading a recruiter to employ you if when asked why you did a particular LLM it comes over to them that you chose it purely for the name. And I can assure you these people know when somebody has done that.
London can be a cruel and harsh world for those who are from overseas. There are enough people from the UK filling law schools who can't get jobs. So I will reiterate to you - I don't care whether somebody has a distinction from Harvard, Yale, NYU, LSE wherever... if language skills are missing it will be as tough as anything. So you are better off doing a course you enjoy - are good at - and can get the best marks in.</blockquote>
Right. I agree with this. :)
What about shining marks in an ordinary Uni and ordinary marks in Oxbridge?
Well. I guess there is always too much to discuss. And is all this kind of discuss necessary?
Just choose the best you can gain, the most suitable for you and do your best! Enjoy it!
1) UK firms don't so much discriminate against non English courses - however, they do discriminate against language skill. You may think this is wrong but it is the situation.
2) You will have a very difficult job pursuading a recruiter to employ you if when asked why you did a particular LLM it comes over to them that you chose it purely for the name. And I can assure you these people know when somebody has done that.
London can be a cruel and harsh world for those who are from overseas. There are enough people from the UK filling law schools who can't get jobs. So I will reiterate to you - I don't care whether somebody has a distinction from Harvard, Yale, NYU, LSE wherever... if language skills are missing it will be as tough as anything. So you are better off doing a course you enjoy - are good at - and can get the best marks in.</blockquote>
Right. I agree with this. :)
What about shining marks in an ordinary Uni and ordinary marks in Oxbridge?
Well. I guess there is always too much to discuss. And is all this kind of discuss necessary?
Just choose the best you can gain, the most suitable for you and do your best! Enjoy it!
Inactive User
Posted Mar 25, 2008 12:46
0
Hot Discussions
-
Cambridge LL.M. Applicants 2024-2025
Oct 30, 2024 142,562 544 -
Oxford 2025-2026 BCL/MSCs/MJUR/MPHIL/MLF
11 hours ago 2,177 47 -
MIDS - 2024-25
Nov 15, 2024 1,849 16 -
Harvard LLM 2025-2026
Nov 20 09:34 PM 1,831 7 -
Indian Tribes as US Jurisdictions of law attorney admission?
Nov 08, 2024 773 6 -
NUS LLM cohort 2025/26
Nov 17, 2024 488 5 -
LL.M. Scholarship Rates?
Nov 09, 2024 2,517 5 -
LLM in Germany 2024
Nov 09, 2024 839 4
