While going over the archives on this discussion board, I came across this thread which, believe it or not went down to question the recognition of BCL in the legal arena. Check it out here:
http://llm-guide.com/board/20138

People have gone along to question the standing of Oxford in today's academic and professional world..

Guess all the insecure wait and pondering that some of us are experiencing is due to a certain archaic, misplaced, mistimed and misdirected reverence for something whose relevance has been questioned at length a couple of years ago!!

long live our knowledgable and street-smart ancestors;)

do read it to the end, the real matter comes only towards the latter half of the above-referred thread..

no one seems inclined to make a comment??

The nomenclature of the Oxford BCL distinguishes it from the first degree in law, the BA in Jurisprudence (which is the formal Oxonian title) and the LLB (title given to graduates of other British universities, including Cantabrians). In medieval times, the title of Bachelor of Civil Law was conferred to differentiate it from the study of canon law (prior to the introduction of the common law in the 19th century) as a separate and distinct system of law for those outside the clergy. Historically, the Faculty of Law at Oxbridge was referred to as the Faculty of Civil Law (as distinguished from the Faculty of Canon Law). In modern times, a first degree in law from a British university normally provides training in the common law. For those who wish to pursue postgraduate studies beyond a first degree in jurisprudence, a BCL (and in most other schools, an LLM) was introduced. Thus, the Oxford BCL is a postgraduate degree conferred on graduates from common law countries who wish to gain a deeper understanding of law especially from the perspective of the civil law, hence the title Bachelor of Civil Law, which has been its academic designation since medieval times. It is in the level of the MJur and the LLM, and is assessed at a higher standard than that expected of a student reading for a BA in Jurisprudence, LLB or JD. These distinctions are clear for those in legal academia, but may not be readily discernible for those engaged in the practice of law outside the United Kingdom, or the British Commonwealth.

in one line: BCL is well known.

It is well known in most countries and in learned societies of the law.

haha!!
the above thread that i referred to came from people living in the learned societies... uk,us,france,canada arnt 3rd world for sure...

"Learned societies" are those organizations that are formed to promote an academic discipline or group of academic disciplines, such as the American Society of International Law, the Asian Society of International Law, the International Law Association, the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, the Society of Legal Scholars, etc. This was the context by which it was used. It was not meant to refer to any specific geographical region whatsoever, whether of the North-South, East-West dichotomies in international geopolitics.

Even if you have to explain what the "BCL" on your resume means, everyone's going to understand what a masters-level degree in law is. I wouldn't worry about it.

In terms of the US v. UK debate in the linked thread, it's probably true that (in most cases) you're better off going to school where you want to practice. If you're studying any kind of domestic law (like tax, for instance) and are looking for practical, hands-on knowledge, there isn't much point in going to Oxford if you want to work in New York, or vice-versa.

It's less important to draw the distinction if you're taking some form of international law, though, for obvious reasons. If that's the plan, you really can't go wrong if you're choosing between Oxford and Harvard, or from amongst any of the other top programs out there. (Except Cambridge, naturally: it's a terrible place.)

Oxford's been around for a while. The fact that a single poster on an anonymous internet forum randomly opines that the BCL may be "pathetic" probably shouldn't cause you any concern.

I guess it is not about the concern that is caused by a certain misplaced opinion that someone has expressed here some years ago. The whole point was to bring out the astonishment that someone could go along to refer to oxbridge (or london for that matter!!) as obscure or pathetic or whatever....

The question is one institution or the other might fit into your plans better than another (supposing that you were to get into all!!) but to say that one institution has no standing at all in comparison with another certainly does not leave a good taste.

"Learned societies" are those organizations that are formed to promote an academic discipline or group of academic disciplines, such as the American Society of International Law, the Asian Society of International Law, the International Law Association, the British Institute of International and Comparative Law, the Society of Legal Scholars, etc. This was the context by which it was used. It was not meant to refer to any specific geographical region whatsoever, whether of the North-South, East-West dichotomies in international geopolitics.

Thanks for the clarification.
Even as the list of those organisations that constitute the civilised world has been expanding rather quickly (and indeed vaguely!!) in this millenium, I doubt even the most backward of those societies in the most obscure part of this world would feign ignorance as to the existence of a certain pole star called oxbridge in this infinite space called law.