Just posting a topic because I'm bored. I was looking at websites of the golden triangle universities (Oxbridge, UCL, LSE,KCL) today and what what struck me was that many of the Professors more or less rotate around this schools every few years. This is not restricted to junior positions but to senior positions as well. For example within the last few years, Charles Mitchell has been at KCL, then Oxford now UCL. Given that students in these schools will more or less be taught by the same group of people, I am curious as to why there is a general consensus of a percieved quality difference between the schools. I think the usual ranking would be (Oxbridge>LSE>UCL>KCL). I mean for e.g. why is it a student from KCL from a few years ago who majored in legal theory under say John Gadener would be percieved as having a less prestigious degree as a student now in oxford who studies under the same Professor ( now the oxford professor of jurisprudence). It kind of makes no sense to me. Shouldn't the quality of education be adjudged to be the same since it is the same person teaching, just having switched universities?

The quality of one's education cannot be judged exclusively by the teachers who have taught him/her. There are so many factors involved, for instance: facilities, the ability level of other students, networking possibilities, city environment, to name a few.

Professors are a great factor, but not the only one. And one could argue that a more experienced Professor, now in another school, should be a better professor than he was before.

Yes, but it doesn't mean that the more experience the professor, the more likely he is to go to oxbridge. Jeremy Horder is a prime example of someone going from oxbridge to the london schools and he was a law commissioner. THe movement goes both ways, not just london schools to oxbridge when a professor becomes more senior. The reason that it goes both way, is also fairly obvious to me, sometimes one chair is still occupied in one university and the only way a professor is getting promoted is for him is move to another chair in a comparable university.

And with regards to ability level of the students, are there really that different? I mean when the entry score is already AAA for each of the golden triangle schools, any difference in student quality is going to be miniscule at best. Even at phD level, almost every bio I have read about a researcher in a golden triangle school have either gotten a first class undergrad or a distinction at masters. So, I think its really splitting hairs to talk about student quality, but its my opinon.

With regards to the facilities, how are they that different? The only difference I see is that cambrdige and oxford have much prettier campuses and I am a sucker for history so I will give them that. As for facilities that one will actually use in one studies, I don't really see much of a difference. All the university of london colleges are able to rely on the facilities of the entire university of london. Thus if you're a UCL student you can use a LSE library. Not to mention if you're in London, the British Library is a stone's throw away. Further I heard LSE law faculty is really nice and modern and king's is move to the gorgeous somerset house too. UCL is housed in a dump though, I'll give you that

I'm more of a academic not a practioner, so I got no clue about network possibilities. But wouldn't logically being in London next to the firms help in that regard? Also I have a hard time believing that there is not a significant portion of law firm partners who come from the London Schools too. The only advantage I really see about oxbridge is that a dispropotionate number of oxbridge alumni are in the Courts and House of Lords (I refuse to call the highest court the supreme court of the uk, sounds way too american for my taste :P) but its not like totally unheard of for individuals from the London Schools to be made Law Lords too.

two points to be made here: even though the same professor may teach at london and then at oxbridge the experience the students get - and the concurrent benefit - will be very different because 1) students get a lot more contact time and individual attention from the same professor in oxbridge than in london. [for example while you were taught by gardener at KCL you probably had the one lecture/seminar a week with around two dozen others, whereas those taught by gardener at oxford will have individual weekly/fortnightly supervisions with him as part of their ba/bcl degrees. 2) the workload at oxbridge is MUCH HEAVIER compared to london, in terms of both reading material as well as written work (an essay a week at OXbridge minimum compared to an essay a term in London). speaking from experience my undergraduate law degree at cambridge took a LOT more time, energy, and commitment compared to my llm at the LSE, which while enjoyable, was basically a joyride in comparison. comparing the reading list for the same LLM courses at LSE with say cambridge, the difference is stark. when i came here and looked at the undergraduate law syllabus and reading lists at the lse i was literally blown away: for example the land law course at the LSE covers AT MOST 25% of what we had to cover in cambridge. academics and professional recruiters are aware of the difference, and the universities' prestige varies accordingly.

one final point to make, regarding the quality of your classmates. at oxbridge student quality is unquestionably higher, especially with regards to english language skills as well as general willingness to work hard. here the lse and london universities suffer in general from having a much higher percentage of international students, of whom a substantial number speak english as a second/third language. law is a subject which requires strong english skills, and the standard of work of those students inevitably suffers.

not to knock the lse nonetheless as well as the london unis. i love the lse, it has lots of advantages that oxbridge does not share, most of all the breadth of courses on offer. the lse as well as ucl is unrivalled when it comes to that. i'm certainly glad i chose the lse for my llm when all is said and done.

"Golden Triangle" refers to research universities - hence it includes Imperial which does not have a law school. As law schools make only a small proportion of their income from research, their golden triangulism is extremely limited. If you mean the super-elite universities around London, you really should refer to the Russell Group (though the comments re. professors' time apply here too).

Thanks Good Gosh, I appreciate the view. I got no horse in this argument, I'm amenable to either position but thought it was interesting to find opinons. I am what you refer to as a lowly international student and have no experience with the uk system prior to phD level, so I might be a bit out of my depth when I argue.

Interesting point about workload, but does greater workload mean better teaching? I had a much greater workload in my undergrad uni, yet without a doubt I found the intellectual level at my masters uni to be at a much higher level. Basically, at Masters Level, I was told to read the Elements of the Philosophy of Right by Hegel or the Metaphysics of Morals by Kant and figure it out by myself. There was no assigned secondary reading, no tutorials, just figure it out by yourself and try not to seem like an idiot during seminar. I found I actually learnt more with this sink or swim manner as compared to undergrad when I recieved much more hand holding (need to submit essays, having tutorials etc). The Professors at my Master uni expected us to start critquing the law during class and they would then proceed to destroy each of our arguments. I really prefer that style of teaching than what was in my undergrad where the Prof would be acting like it was kindergarten and would painstalkingly explain a concept till I fell asleep. My long winded point is that does greater workload mean better teaching, being more intelligent etc or could it not be argued that maybe having a lighter workload just means a different philosophy of teaching, treating the student as just being more independent in his learning. Further, does time matter as much as the quality of questions asked? For all I know, when you were a undergrad student in Cambridge the Professors asked insanely difficult questions, so the above argument might be moot. I just don't really equate workload with level of teaching, that's just my basic point. I do know for sure though that the Professors at Oxford at Dphil level do ask insanely difficult questions. My former academic dean at my Master university complains on a regular basis how he had to rewrite his doctoral dissertation endlessly. :)

Second, I am actually suprised that Oxbridge has much greater monitoring to be honest, but maybe its because you're talking undergrad. When I was selecting phD unis, the number one complaint I heard among Cambridge almuni in particular - and also my current supervisor who did his phD at cambridge and taught there as a junior lecturer some time ago - was that Cambridge leaves students to themselves, at least at phD level. My supervisor often complains how he would see his old supervisor once in a blue moon and said he would have chosen a London Uni if he had to do it all over again, for better supervision. Its hearsay and I got no idea how accurate this is. I never seriously consider Oxbridge because it does analytical jurisprudence which I hate, so I went to a much less pretisgious uni in order to do continental jurisprudence. Thus, I appologize for any inaccurancies in my argument.

Lastly, I just have a curiousity question. How accessable are the Profs at LSE in the LLM. I mean if the teaching hours are limited but you get to make appointments with the profs whenever you like then I don't really think the lack of tutorials is a big deal. I did supplement the lack of contact hours at my LLM though by having fornightly chats with my profs using questions I prepared in my spare time. Better than a tutorial because it was one to one, even if was for only 30 mins :)

"Golden Triangle" refers to research universities - hence it includes Imperial which does not have a law school. As law schools make only a small proportion of their income from research, their golden triangulism is extremely limited. If you mean the super-elite universities around London, you really should refer to the Russell Group (though the comments re. professors' time apply here too).

Thanks Good Gosh, I appreciate the view. I got no horse in this argument, I'm amenable to either position but thought it was interesting to find opinons. I am what you refer to as a lowly international student and have no experience with the uk system prior to phD level, so I might be a bit out of my depth when I argue.

Interesting point about workload, but does greater workload mean better teaching? I had a much greater workload in my undergrad uni, yet without a doubt I found the intellectual level at my masters uni to be at a much higher level. Basically, at Masters Level, I was told to read the Elements of the Philosophy of Right by Hegel or the Metaphysics of Morals by Kant and figure it out by myself. There was no assigned secondary reading, no tutorials, just figure it out by yourself and try not to seem like an idiot during seminar. I found I actually learnt more with this sink or swim manner as compared to undergrad when I recieved much more hand holding (need to submit essays, having tutorials etc). The Professors at my Master uni expected us to start critquing the law during class and they would then proceed to destroy each of our arguments. I really prefer that style of teaching than what was in my undergrad where the Prof would be acting like it was kindergarten and would painstalkingly explain a concept till I fell asleep. My long winded point is that does greater workload mean better teaching, being more intelligent etc or could it not be argued that maybe having a lighter workload just means a different philosophy of teaching, treating the student as just being more independent in his learning. Further, does time matter as much as the quality of questions asked? For all I know, when you were a undergrad student in Cambridge the Professors asked insanely difficult questions, so the above argument might be moot. I just don't really equate workload with level of teaching, that's just my basic point. I do know for sure though that the Professors at Oxford at Dphil level do ask insanely difficult questions. My former academic dean at my Master university complains on a regular basis how he had to rewrite his doctoral dissertation endlessly. :)

Second, I am actually suprised that Oxbridge has much greater monitoring to be honest, but maybe its because you're talking undergrad. When I was selecting phD unis, the number one complaint I heard among Cambridge almuni in particular - and also my current supervisor who did his phD at cambridge and taught there as a junior lecturer some time ago - was that Cambridge leaves students to themselves, at least at phD level. My supervisor often complains how he would see his old supervisor once in a blue moon and said he would have chosen a London Uni if he had to do it all over again, for better supervision. Its hearsay and I got no idea how accurate this is. I never seriously consider Oxbridge because it does analytical jurisprudence which I hate, so I went to a much less pretisgious uni in order to do continental jurisprudence. Thus, I appologize for any inaccurancies in my argument.

Lastly, I just have a curiousity question. How accessable are the Profs at LSE in the LLM. I mean if the teaching hours are limited but you get to make appointments with the profs whenever you like then I don't really think the lack of tutorials is a big deal. I did supplement the lack of contact hours at my LLM though by having fornightly chats with my profs using questions I prepared in my spare time. Better than a tutorial because it was one to one, even if was for only 30 mins :)

Willingness to work hard is a good point. However, the broad coverage you think to be good, I disagree. You don't get any depth.

Anyway, I don't think that at the end of the day there's much difference among these schools. There is some difference, but I think it is overestimated.

"Golden Triangle" refers to research universities - hence it includes Imperial which does not have a law school.
I used golden triangle since the term only covers the London Unis and Oxbrdige. If I used the Russell Group, my initial argument would have no legs to stand on because it would be factually untrue. And yes I do know Imperial is in the golden triangle but I assumed the term would be understood in the context of law since this is a law board :)

Fair enough point. the advantage with law schools is that the amount of contract research is low - so you should 'in theory' get more facetime with profs in law schools in the UK than in economics/politics/sciences.
The problem at Oxbridge is the undergrad teaching load is so heavy that the dons cannot have much time for LLMs. Other high ranked universities have profs who teach almost entirely on the LLM with consequent increase in student contact.
It's always worth checking on your favoured profs to see whether they have undergrad teaching commitments.

The problem at Oxbridge is the undergrad teaching load is so heavy that the dons cannot have much time for LLMs. Other high ranked universities have profs who teach almost entirely on the LLM with consequent increase in student contact.

I tend to agree with Good Gosh (am at LSE at present). What I would say, though, is that there is a fair amount of variation between teaching styles, driven in part by the sizes of classes. The big, popular classes have a lot of students whose English is good but not great, and the reading lists for those are less demanding. Some of the smaller, more specialist classes have a much more Oxbridge like approach (and because of the smaller numbers the lecturers are more approachable). So as with most things in law, "it depends".

I tend to agree with Good Gosh (am at LSE at present). What I would say, though, is that there is a fair amount of variation between teaching styles, driven in part by the sizes of classes. The big, popular classes have a lot of students whose English is good but not great, and the reading lists for those are less demanding. Some of the smaller, more specialist classes have a much more Oxbridge like approach (and because of the smaller numbers the lecturers are more approachable). So as with most things in law, "it depends".