I actually have seen a number of Oxford BCL/Harvard LLMs just from googling, although, as already said, it is not a conventional path.

For those choosing this path, did you apply to both and defer one? Or did you apply to the second one while you were doing your first?

Is there rationale for doing the BCL before the LLM, or vice versa, or does the order not matter?

Oh, and how about taking a few years in between them to practice...or should they be done one after the other? Sorry for all the questions, but this thread definitely got me thinking about this route. Thanks!

Well, if you can only do one (and not both), I believe there is one other significant factor which has yet been considered by this thread.

The general concensus is that the BCL is far more rigorous than the Harv LLM. I am not entirely sure whether the LLM degree is 'classed' but the BCL degree definitely is. You either get a Distinction (otherwise known as a first), a Pass or (God forbid), you fail the course. On the average, 1 in 3 BCL students achieve the distinction. If you are keen to know, 1 in 5 MJur students achieve the same.

I can assure you that achieving the distinction requires a lot of hard work and discipline. I speak from personal experience. But it appears that you guys are all bright sparks, and so, maybe it will be a walk in the park for you.

To my mind, the answer to this dilemma turns on whether you examine it from the 'before' or the 'after'.

'Before' - The fear is that if you do go for the BCL, you do not obtain the distinction, in which case, you are better off doing the LLM which (I believe) is not 'classed'. Personally, if I know for a fact that I will only get a BCL pass, I would take the LLM over the BCL any time.

'After' - Operating on the assumption that you would achieve the distinction if you do go for the BCL (which I cannot overemphasize requires a phenomenal amount of work (again, on my part at least - you guys may be way smarter) and obviously, luck), then my view is that having the BCL is better than the LLM as you would be viewed as having undergone 'true academic rigour and succeeded'.

Our views on having both are set out exhaustively above so I won't go into them again.

For my part I think it comes down to where you want to study and what sort of law you want to study. I had the choice between the US and the UK for my Masters and chose the US because I was more interested in the US's approach to legal philosophy and constitutional law at the time. That being said, I didn't find the program particularly rigorous in that I was just lumped in with the other JDs (many of whom were first years) and it seemed like people could talk about what ever they wanted and call it law. That could be quite fun because we were assigned many non-law books to read as part of our courses on human rights, law and culture etc. This is not to say the LLM was easy - I worked extremely hard due to the amount of credits you need in order to graduate and the reading they assign - but intellectually I found it to be a bit too easy.
I also chose to do the US LLM because I wanted to live in New York over Oxford (and Boston for that matter) and considered working in the US subsequent to my LLM.
That being said, I am now moving to Oxford to do my DPhil because the supervision there (I hear) is much better than at the top US universities (ie: they take the DPhil seriously) and there is more researching going on at Oxford in what I want to do.

I agree. The main priority and essential deciding factor for those fortunate enough to be accpeted to both masters courses has got to be the question of where you want to practice (in this I would subsume the question of what you want to practice, meaning both the subject area/discipline and the forum--i.e.e academia or firm/business).
For academia, I'd do the BCL; for practice/business, I'd select based on where I want to work, and, to a lesser degree, the area I want to practice in, having regard to the repute of each faculty in that area.

Point taken. Other things constant, my decision on which course to accept would also be based on ED's considerations. However, if on an ex poste facto examination, I know for a fact I won't do well for the BCL, I will go for the Harv LLM.

Yeah but the very fact that you would do better in the Harvard LLM is the reason why it is a lesser respected degree academically. If you just want the name and the chance to live in the US and learn US law then go to Harvard. If you actually want to be challenged more and learn new intellectual skills then do the BCL.

is it a fact that the harv llm isn't graded/classed? if not, then the above discussion might be somewhat misplaced.

It is graded but you don't get awarded a first, second, etc degree overall like at Oxford so it is less obvious from your CV how well you did. I am not sure the fact that the BCL degree is graded makes much difference. The individual courses/papers at Harvard are still graded and you'd still have to show your transcript at an interview. Personally, I think it choosing Harvard because it is "easier" than Oxford or whatever is a little misguided. Choose somewhere because it offers one the best possible educational experience.

even if we allow that in selecting a school one takes into account the relative difficulty of the programme and therefore the anticipated ease with which one may obtain top grades, I think that, as flygirl points out, those results will be appreciated irrespective of whether or not the entire degree is classed. any future employer will consider the grades in each course; A's and firts look terrific, but bpluses and 2:1's are probably sufficent, at least from schools of this calabre.

I agree with the point that, in principle, the choice of which degree to go for should not turn on the relative ease or difficulty of the programme although in practice, I believe this factor would usually not go unconsidered. In reality, this is one of the factors (together with others like costs, geography, likelihood of an exciting social life, family proximity etc.) which gets considered, if only at a subconscious level, in totality with everything else.

On the point that B+s and good 2:1s are probably sufficient, I would beg to differ. Anecdotal evidence suggests that MC employers are 'very eager' to woo the BCL firsts, while expressing 'an optimistic willingness' to consider regular BCLers. I have also been candidly informed during interviews that, all things equal, a first is preferred (duh...). With that being said, I know of regular BCLers who have received offers in priority to BCL firsts, which clearly goes to show that there are other things employers look for.

I suppose it depends on where you study and what your total package is. If the BCL is the only significant thing on your application, then I guess I agree with your point above. But i think that if you are very strong in other areas, then 2:1's from the BCL are probably sufficent.
In saying this I was thinking in the context of myself and my canadian peers. I personally know three people working in MC firms who don't have masters degrees at all. They have first class degrees in underghrad (BA) and top ten percent in their LLB's., both in canada. They then articled here for one year to get their call to the bar and then jumped over to huge MC firms.
When i wrote that 2:1's are proabbaly suffiecent, i was thinking of these three people, and I suppose myself in that I have similar credentials. If they gotseveral MC offers without masters degrees at all, then surely a 2:1 from oxford would only strenghten their chances, not diminish them. That was my thought process.

heh, heh. Yes this whole discussion thread has become a bit ridiculous.
I have an inherent dislike of deciding whether to do something based on how well I think I am going to do at the end. This creates a "fear of failure" mentality that can prevent you from ever achieving anything that is difficult or risky. It is self-defeating. Also, the idea of not doing the BCL because I'd be worried about not getting a distinction misses the point that study is supposed to be about the journey not the destination.
Sigh. Back to work.

ok, if this thread wasn't cooky before, it definately is now!

Now that we've settled the above debate, I have an actual, substantive question: what grades does one need, generally (say in the context of cantab llm bc that's where i'm going) in order to get into the phd??
Flygirl, I know you went to columbia and are now (very unfortunately!!!) going to oxford for the doctrotae instead of cambridge, so maybe you can answer this.
I don't think you'd have to get all firsts in the llm, would you? Do you think two firsts and two 2:1's would do it??
Irishguy, you must know some people carrying on into the phd, what's your view?

To be honest, I don't think that it is as much to do with grades (and individual papers) as your overall research agenda and your academic references and publications.
I wrote a 1,000 word research proposal and had three referees (two of whom had supervised me in substantive pieces of work). In my proposal I didn't mention my grades/individual courses but I did mention previous research I had done and how it had tied in. I imagine they looked at my transcript but I think, at the research level, they'd be more interested in whether your professor=referees saw you as an original and sophisticated thinker and writer as opposed to someone who just sits good exams.
So I imagine that provided you get a solid LLM then getting a first wouldn't be so important. I would work on building up a relationship with a professor in your area who will write you a good reference and developing an interesting research proposal.

[btw, can someone explain Irishguy's reference to his forum mom above? So confused]

very interesting...
flygirl, did you have all firsts at columbia?
irishgoy and flyirl, do most people get funding for the phd if they are admitted? i find it hard to believe that many people would pay for the full three years themselves...

The LLM at Columbia isn't graded in terms of firsts etc but I had all As and A minuses (no A+s and no Bs). I am not sure that would have been enough to do the PhD if I hadn't actually formed a good relationship with one professor at Columbia. I took 2 seminars with him and wrote a dissertation with him for which I got all As. The other professors didn't give me the time of day.
If you think you might want to do your PhD at Cambridge then I would probably do a Masters at Toronto, which is cheaper, and then get admitted to the PhD after that.
I think it is much easier to get funding for the PhD than the LLM. I got into the Cambridge LLM a few years back and got ZERO funding but got full funding this time. That could have also been because of the additional Columbia qualification but I tend to think there is more money for PhD candidates because they are going to contribute more back to the institution in terms of research.

Interesting.
I'm actually leaning towards the opposite, i.e. do the LLM at Cambridge and then the PHD at either Toronto or UBC. My reasons are primarily that I'd like to live in canada while doing the doctorate, preferably on the lovely west coast. also, if i were to teach, being in canada is advantageous in that i could do two years in residence of the phd and then go into teaching and finish the remainder of the doctorate over then next three or so years. It draws it out, to be sure; but it also gives me the chance to continually check out the job market here...

Well Toronto is a great school too but I wonder whether by the time you get to the UK you'll enjoy it so much there that you won't want to leave...that was my experience with the US anyway. Nine months is very short.
Actually, I thought about doing my doctorate at Toronto as I heard Dyzenhaus is great but then I visited Toronto and didn't like the town very much plus we weren't sure about work for my husband there.

I guess I just wonder about spending so much on a Cambridge LLM if it is going to be only a step to a PhD. If you were to stay on at Cambridge and get your (fully funded) PhD there you could attend the LLM classes for free and your PhD degree would trump your LLM (thus, possibly, making your expensive LLM less important). And if you went to Canada after your Cambridge LLM then your Canadian PhD would make your Cambridge LLM less important (since employers usually look at your last degree) so again devaluing all the money you spent on your Cambridge LLM.
Not sure if I am making sense.

that makes sense. I agree that generally your last degree is the one that matters (up to the LLm, ie the llm trumps the llb, which trumps the ba), however it seems that many people at the law faculties here in canada often follow a pattern that i've laid out. ie get the big impressive LLM, which has status just because it's hugely competative to get in, but then the phd is often an esoteric academicy few years spent at a canadian uni. it seems that by then, ie post llm, the schools don't really care where you do the phd. Maybe im totally wrong, but that's the impression one gets when you look at the faculty profiles-- very few bother doign the big name phd, but most do have a big name llm.
Maybe it's less competative to get into a phd than into an LLm? I know that sounds backwards, but I think it may be true. LLM's at the very prestigious uni's get SO MANY apps from all over the world that they tend to require really exceptional grades to make offers. But I think the number of apps to PHD programmes is much much lower, since only the academically oreinted people would apply (whereas for the one year LLM, you get all the academics plus all the practioners applying). Now, it's true that all those applying to the PHD [probably have great grades from the LLM, which would suggest high competation, but I wonder if you have some awards for writing, and a pub,ication or two, and references speaking to your research writing ability and potential success ina phd, and if your proposal is lucid and fits within the mandate of a supervisor, well then maybe all these things might make up for, say, two firsts and two 2:1's in the LLM??
I really don't know; I just suspect that the PHD has way fewer applicants and therefore they take a much more nuanced and detailed individual look at each app, rather than simply rejecting you based on your GPA (as they tend to at the LLM level)
what do you think fig?