Hi everybody,

I have unexpectedly been rejected from LSE. I have several french degrees in law, I practised as an attorney for eight years, I am used to doing legal researches and building legal argumentation, I wrote several thesis during my studies (one of them was a 120-page work), I had very good letters of recommendation...But it seems that it isn't enough...So my question is : do you think that it is a disadvantage when you have too much experience?

Thanks

I wouldn't think too much experience would be a disadvantage. I know lawyers with 10-20 years experience who have done the LLM.

Did you meet the academic and language requirements?

If so, it might be worth contacting them and asking for an explanation.

Not yet...But we don't have to show evidence of english proficiency when we submit the application.

I don't think too much experience is a problem especially at LSE (the situation may be different at Oxbridge)

However, when did you apply to LSE? As you're probably already aware, LSE has rolling admissions so the earlier you apply the better your chances. As applications usually open in October, by the time January comes along alot of places have already been offered.

Moreover, UK law schools generally don't care that much how much working experience you have. Only thing that really matters is your rank in class.

By contrast, US law firms care a lot about working experience.

<blockquote>Moreover, UK law schools generally don't care that much how much working experience you have. Only thing that really matters is your rank in class.

By contrast, US law firms care a lot about working experience. </blockquote>

Yep.

Would it be fair to say, then, that Oxbridge would prefer a BCL/LLM applicant to have had a Phd in Philosophy instead of 7 years experience in a City law firm?

<blockquote>Would it be fair to say, then, that Oxbridge would prefer a BCL/LLM applicant to have had a Phd in Philosophy instead of 7 years experience in a City law firm?</blockquote>

Unfortunately, I think it would!

Now, as for the general topic of this thread, I don’t think too much experience would be a setback. However, like it’s been said before either in this particular thread or many others round this website, UK universities don’t reckon much to one’s working experience. They do tend to focus their analysis of the merits of an application on the performance either at undergraduate or graduate level, if the applicant already has some graduate degree.

I didn’t apply to US universities, but I have the feeling things work a little different there. I know of people who didn’t do very well (to say the least) in their undergraduate programmes, but even so they’d gathered throughout the years a very solid experience in big law firms and cases with significant repercussion. Those guys managed to pull off offers from universities such as Columbia, Stanford, NYU, Berkeley and many others. My brother is a living example. His performance whilst in Law School is very similar to mine and by the time he applied he had even less experience than I did when I sent out my applications, but in spite of all that he got into Columbia and NYU (he was only rejected by Harvard).

Even though I consider myself lucky, ‘cause I’ve secured my place on UCL’s LLM programme for September 2010, I must be honest and admit that I’ve collected more rejections than offers. And I truly believe if I’d applied to US universities, I would’ve had a much better record in terms of offers against rejections.

In my humble opinion, it is as if UK universities have been living off ‘professional students’. I don't think that is the best way to go, but that is how things work. Maybe they could try putting a little more importance on working experience, without casting aside totally one's educational background.

I’m not sure how things work in other countries, but around here (Brazil) most law students tend to cast their studies aside and focus their efforts on law firms. Most of us start working in law firms at the second year of the undergraduate programme (which is only part-time). There only a few of us, especially in big cities like São Paulo, who are actually able to sit down and study throughout the five years of the undergraduate programme.

Like everything in the world, there are two sides to this scenario. On one side, students get a lot of practical knowledge and expertise of how things work in the real world. On the other side, however, students just forget about studying (which seems like a paradox) and sometimes don’t even know basic legal principles and theories. They become legal technicians rather than lawyers. They can flip through the laws and regulations and find their way around, but they lack the understanding of legal principles and theories.

I could harp on about the setbacks of the reality in Brazil in relation to legal education, but I think I would be straying away far from road. So I’m finished here and will bore you no longer!

Regards,

Thanks for your answers guys...

However they emphasize on their website that they prefer applicants with professional experience. Isn't it weird?

when i applied they were asking me to show evidence of english proficiency unless i hadnt taken the exam yet,,then they give you a conditional offer or something like that until you show that

i had good grades, professional experience etc as well and got rejected ,,,i think sometimes its just luck,,dont take it personal really!