I'll probably go to UCL for LLM in Commercial and Corporate law. Anyone else going? I am from Colombia.

Hi Sophie, I was accepted to UCL and LSE, I´m interested in international finance and trade law so I decided to go to UCL, and soy de Bogotá!

Listen to this dilemma:
I am accepted to Utrecht (Netherlands) for LLM; UCL for LLM, and LSE for a MSc in International Employment Relations (didn't get into the LLM).....
I am an American attorney praticing in the gerneral commercial and employment field, most likely intending on returning to the States to practice in the general field of Int'l Commercial/ Business Law. In the States, my impression is that "LSE" has the better brand name so to speak, as far as reputation and name recognition. Utrecht, is barely known here, and UCL is known, but not nearly as much as LSE. The issue is whether the "MSc" from LSE in the niche field of Int'l Employment Relations trumps the prestige of an "LLM" from either a Utrecht or UCL..... I may #@@%^ the whole thing and just go to UCLA... any thoughts from people here?

Thanks. Good luck to everyone on their apps.

I'm a french lawyer currently working at Shearman and Sterling. I was admitted to LSE and UCL, and I decided that I will go to UCL. These are my reasons:

1. UCL is better ranked.
2. My main interest is International Business and Finance Law, and the partners of my firm recomend UCL over LSE in this topic.Indeed the LLM in International Business Law at UCL (comprising courses like Legal aspects of International Finance, International and Comparative Secured Transactions, Insolvency Law, International Business Transactions, etc) is one of the better taught modules of the UCL LL.M. Because of the practical nature of these courses, lecturers include both UCL Professors and practitioners fro leading Law Frims. Eg. Secured Transactions is taught by Profs Michael Bridge (of UCL), Frederique Dahan (Senior Legal Counsel of EBRD),Richard Calner (Partner at Norton Rose) and Ron Harmer (practitioner from New Zealand).
International Finance is taught by Prof Graham Penn (Partner at Austin Sidley), Philip Rawlings (of UCL).
3. LSE has better brand name internationally and is excelent is topics such as Law and Development etc.

Listen to this dilemma:
I am accepted to Utrecht (Netherlands) for LLM; UCL for LLM, and LSE for a MSc in International Employment Relations (didn't get into the LLM).....
I am an American attorney praticing in the gerneral commercial and employment field, most likely intending on returning to the States to practice in the general field of Int'l Commercial/ Business Law. In the States, my impression is that "LSE" has the better brand name so to speak, as far as reputation and name recognition. Utrecht, is barely known here, and UCL is known, but not nearly as much as LSE. The issue is whether the "MSc" from LSE in the niche field of Int'l Employment Relations trumps the prestige of an "LLM" from either a Utrecht or UCL..... I may #@@%^ the whole thing and just go to UCLA... any thoughts from people here?

Thanks. Good luck to everyone on their apps.

Yes you applied kind of late. It is probably a little harder to get into an LLM program at LSE than previously.

I went to LSE but UCL is an excellent school as well, if you do the LLM in UCL it might be advisable to work in the UK or on the continent for a bit as you are clearly correct since as far as american law firms go LSE is just after Oxbridge even though UCL law program (at least the LLB undergraduate degree) is ranked higher in the UK.

Also many lawyers in the US also have MSC's rather than LLMs from LSE so you will not lose out. I would advise that you do the MSC and then later down the line do an LLM in the US. If that does not make financial sense, have you considered applying to Georgetown to do an LLM? If you look at the website you will find out that they are presently undersubscribed and are still taking applications. Look into it.

hi everyone. i've got thru both ucl and kcl. i also secured a place in warwick and manchester. can anyone suggest me which of the 2 (ucl and kcl) is better for corporate and commercial law?

regards !

hi sofi.

i will also be joining ucl for corporate and commercial law.

i am from india.

regards

It is rather funny that when you feel alone in your amletic decision you jump into other guys same problems! Like to share to pain make it easier.

Well, I am an Italian lawyer 30 years old 5 PEQ working since 2002 with an Italian middle market corporate boutique named Monaco e associati.

Until now I received offers from KCL and Queen Mary and am still waiting fro UCL.

I am interest in Banking and Finance LLM and course anyone can help?? Sherman can I ask why you did not consider neither KCL and Queen Mary?? I have been told that for the matters we are interested in specializing they are the best while UCL is great for public law (and international finance).

Boh??

KCL and UCL are equal as regards financial law I think. Class of International Finance taught at UCL (prof Penn) and at KCL (Prof Tennekoon) are both excellent, but the way of teaching is different, M Penn being more technical and close tro legal concepts.

Banking Law seems to be better at KCL, but the scope of classes of banking law at UCL and KCL are different.

KCL has the awesome M Dalhuisen in European Financial Law, which is absolutely a "must have" in my opinion.

UCL has "Secured Transactions", which is also a "must have", and maybe next year a Corporate Finance class (to be confirmed).

If you are from Italy, Italian people told me that KCL is more known than UCL in Italy. The same is true in France. But at the very end, lawfirms I know do not make the difference it seems. They rather focus on what you did during your LLM.

Definitely, the best policy is to attend to both UCL and KCL classes thanks to the intercollegiate system, but rumors said that UCL and or KCL are about to quit next year (I said Rumours...)

I am French and I choose UCL, because of the ranking and the reputation in the whole Commonwealth. I took International Finance at UCL, SecuredTransactions, European Financial Law at KCL, and ...Comparative Torts law at UCL taught by the awesome M Markesinis. I am very happy with my subjects.

I Think UCL has maybe the slight adavantage to have other very good commercial subjects such as Corporate and especially Insolvency law too with M Fletcher.

Hi there.. I've received offers from both LSE and UCL for their LLM programmes. I am from a commonwealth jurisdiction and am interested in common-law subjects, in particular Conflict of Laws and Restitution. Which school would you recommend?

I'm in for LSE as well.

In your case, I would go for UCL. Their options are traditional common law courses. The LSE LLM is quite international - I don't think there's an option for Restitution at LLM level, and the Conflicts course is known by its civilian name as 'Private International Law.'

Dear all,
could you please advise me on the following. I received offer both from LSE&KCL. However due to the condition set from LSE (I was requested to obtain the Master's degree I am studying now, although this is a four year programm ending in 2007), I requested LSE a deferral and it was approved so that I could start LLM in LSE next year (2007/2008), ie. after I will receive my current degree. Do you think LSE is really that good and better that KCL to postpone studies from this autumn to the next and reject offer from KCL? To be honest my current studies are of a quite low quality, therefore I would like to start my studies in a well known university as soon as possible.

Hello guys. My name is Pablo and I'm a 28 years old peruvian lawyer. I want to apply for a taxation LLM programme in UK for 2007, but I don't have much information. I've heard that LSE has the best taxation programme, and it looks pretty good in their web site. Is LSE really the best choice for a taxation programme? Are there other schools with taxation programmes that I sholud be considering? Thanx a lot!!

Thanks, studentbarista, best of luck at the LSE!

Incidentally, does anyone know whether UCL / LSE allow LLM students to compete in its mooting teams?

By the way chaps...

Re LSE admissions:

"Only Oxford and Cambridge have higher entry requirements."

It's official - Times University Guide 2006

Hi there everyone,

I must agree with the point being made immediately above. I have recently completed an LLB degree and have recieved offers from KCL and LSE. The former is conditional on obtaining a 2:1 degree whilst the latter is conditional on obtaining a first class degree. As many of you who have studied in the UK will know, there is an enormous difference between 60% and 68%, let alone 70%.

All in all, I can get into KCL by scraping a 2:1 but need a first for LSE. That must, objectively, be a strong indication of the standards of the respective courses in terms of the quality of class discussion and examination levels. It (the differing application standards) may also indicate a reason for LSE withdrawing from the rest of the London LLM programme, but this is speculation on my own behalf. Personally one cannot deny that KCL and the rest of the London programme offer an amazing variety of courses and I have no doubt that the programme is a quality one. Nevertheless, one surely cannot ignore what in my view is a fundamental discrepancy between the entry requirments of KCL and LSE, which in turn must, in some way, impact the reputation of the respective programmes.
CRS

CRS, I am surprised to hear your offer condition for LSE is a first. Almost all people I know of have a straight 2:1 offer for LSE (including me). Perhaps timing of application has something to do with this - did you apply near to the deadline? If so I believe they may have set a higher condition as the competition for remaining places will be greater towards the deadline. I do not think there is a straightforward comparison between LSE and King's. Both are excellent institutions with strengths in different areas.