LLM in QM or Aberdeen?Which one would offer better career prospects?


vasilis

Hallo,
I am still concerning the international business law LLM in QM and the oil and gas law LLM in Aberdeen.
I would welcome all opinions.
Thanks

Hallo,
I am still concerning the international business law LLM in QM and the oil and gas law LLM in Aberdeen.
I would welcome all opinions.
Thanks
quote
Porosenok

I think Queen Mary, because it is a part of University of London.

I think Queen Mary, because it is a part of University of London.
quote
Banking

quote
Banking

quote
Banking

quote
Banking

quote
Interalia

LSE, Kings, UCL and QM are not equal - you have been seriously misguided. University of London does not mean much, it is different from Oxbridge, these are not simple colleges...LSE is on top, the only college that rival them is Imperial, but it is a technical place, like MIT in the USA or Bauman in Russia - they do not do law...King's is next but there is a difference in prestige between LSE and Kings. UCL is the next one but there is again a significant difference in prestige. Basically, LSE and Kings are part of companies' milk round while UCL is not. QM is the next one and really an also run...Do not get me wrong, it is a good university put if you graduated with top grades from MGIMO, not the one for you...


I actually find the ranking a bit weird, for law at least. But among the London Schools, there is a lot of reasonable differing opinion and I guess one's opinion is shaped by background.,My background is more on the academic side and while LSE has the better global brand name due to its economics and political science faculty, for law at least I would put UCL as the best London Law School or at the very least higher than KCL. I think they hands down have the best faculty in terms of Brand Name Professors among the London Schools, especially since UCL just raided KCL's law faculty and signed two of KCL's most notable professors (James Penner and Robert Chambers).

<blockquote>LSE, Kings, UCL and QM are not equal - you have been seriously misguided. University of London does not mean much, it is different from Oxbridge, these are not simple colleges...LSE is on top, the only college that rival them is Imperial, but it is a technical place, like MIT in the USA or Bauman in Russia - they do not do law...King's is next but there is a difference in prestige between LSE and Kings. UCL is the next one but there is again a significant difference in prestige. Basically, LSE and Kings are part of companies' milk round while UCL is not. QM is the next one and really an also run...Do not get me wrong, it is a good university put if you graduated with top grades from MGIMO, not the one for you...</blockquote>

I actually find the ranking a bit weird, for law at least. But among the London Schools, there is a lot of reasonable differing opinion and I guess one's opinion is shaped by background.,My background is more on the academic side and while LSE has the better global brand name due to its economics and political science faculty, for law at least I would put UCL as the best London Law School or at the very least higher than KCL. I think they hands down have the best faculty in terms of Brand Name Professors among the London Schools, especially since UCL just raided KCL's law faculty and signed two of KCL's most notable professors (James Penner and Robert Chambers).
quote
nok

Interalia & Private_Equity: you seem to know your stuff but wouldn't you say that the difference between UCL/KCL/LSE for law depends on the specialization/modules one wishes to pursue? For example, KLC would lead when it comes to finance law (Tennekon and Dalhuisen..), banking law (Hooley) and to a lesser extent international business law?

Interalia & Private_Equity: you seem to know your stuff but wouldn't you say that the difference between UCL/KCL/LSE for law depends on the specialization/modules one wishes to pursue? For example, KLC would lead when it comes to finance law (Tennekon and Dalhuisen..), banking law (Hooley) and to a lesser extent international business law?
quote
Banking

quote
Interalia

Interalia & Private_Equity: you seem to know your stuff but wouldn't you say that the difference between UCL/KCL/LSE for law depends on the specialization/modules one wishes to pursue? For example, KLC would lead when it comes to finance law (Tennekon and Dalhuisen..), banking law (Hooley) and to a lesser extent international business law?

I agree with you 100%. KCL does have a very strong finance faculty. Possibly the strongest among the london schools. In my previous post, I was assessing the London Schools in general without regard to specialization.

Juding solely from course descriptions though, I kind of like SOAS's Msc in Law and Finance as well. I think they provide something solely lacking in all the London Schools except maybe Queen Mary. They teach both the Finance side and Legal side. I think too many schools are too one sided in their teaching and the SOAS course seems like a breath of fresh air.

<blockquote>Interalia & Private_Equity: you seem to know your stuff but wouldn't you say that the difference between UCL/KCL/LSE for law depends on the specialization/modules one wishes to pursue? For example, KLC would lead when it comes to finance law (Tennekon and Dalhuisen..), banking law (Hooley) and to a lesser extent international business law?</blockquote>
I agree with you 100%. KCL does have a very strong finance faculty. Possibly the strongest among the london schools. In my previous post, I was assessing the London Schools in general without regard to specialization.

Juding solely from course descriptions though, I kind of like SOAS's Msc in Law and Finance as well. I think they provide something solely lacking in all the London Schools except maybe Queen Mary. They teach both the Finance side and Legal side. I think too many schools are too one sided in their teaching and the SOAS course seems like a breath of fresh air.
quote
Banking

quote
Interalia

Private Equity:
I really find it strange that a number of UK law schools do not place more emphasis on cross disciplinary teaching. Such teaching is considered normal in North America and is why I really prefer North American Law Schools to UK Law Schools. It's unfortunate that most North America Law Schools charge ridiculous tuition fees (typical tuition charges are around 40k USD per year), putting them out of reach for most of us.

In North America, law is really taught in conjunction with other subjects. Check out the Corporate Finance Law modules in any reputable american law school. In those courses, it is normal to incorporate material normally associated with an MBA corporate finance course in addition to the legal material . They also have modules focusing on accounting, quantitative skills, mathematics and economics. When I was an exchange student in america, I remember my corporate finance professor recounting an incident he had with foreign counsel (the country shall remain nameless, let's call it X). Sad to say, I didn't really think I could keep up with the mathematics so I only audited the course. Anyways, the legal team in country X were relentless in arguing over a choice of law provision and it perplexed him because they ignored the most important contractual clause which he being well versed in mathematics and accounting knew immediately would effect the profit magins of his client. Needless to say he ceded on the choice of law clause but made sure the other clause was intact. Worst thing was the other side thought they had gotten the better end of the deal!.

Though I'm not from the UK, I'm educated in a system which closely follows the traditional dichotomy between law and other disciplines and it's irritating the heck out of me. There's so much I got to learn by myself, it's not funny.

Actually, besides just oxford's law and finance program, you might want to check out Stanford's LLM in Corporate Governance & Practice. Personally I find the module selection a lot more impressive than oxford. Besides the quantitative finance modules taught side by side the law modules, they even have stuff like game theory thrown in!

Private Equity:
I really find it strange that a number of UK law schools do not place more emphasis on cross disciplinary teaching. Such teaching is considered normal in North America and is why I really prefer North American Law Schools to UK Law Schools. It's unfortunate that most North America Law Schools charge ridiculous tuition fees (typical tuition charges are around 40k USD per year), putting them out of reach for most of us.

In North America, law is really taught in conjunction with other subjects. Check out the Corporate Finance Law modules in any reputable american law school. In those courses, it is normal to incorporate material normally associated with an MBA corporate finance course in addition to the legal material . They also have modules focusing on accounting, quantitative skills, mathematics and economics. When I was an exchange student in america, I remember my corporate finance professor recounting an incident he had with foreign counsel (the country shall remain nameless, let's call it X). Sad to say, I didn't really think I could keep up with the mathematics so I only audited the course. Anyways, the legal team in country X were relentless in arguing over a choice of law provision and it perplexed him because they ignored the most important contractual clause which he being well versed in mathematics and accounting knew immediately would effect the profit magins of his client. Needless to say he ceded on the choice of law clause but made sure the other clause was intact. Worst thing was the other side thought they had gotten the better end of the deal!.

Though I'm not from the UK, I'm educated in a system which closely follows the traditional dichotomy between law and other disciplines and it's irritating the heck out of me. There's so much I got to learn by myself, it's not funny.

Actually, besides just oxford's law and finance program, you might want to check out Stanford's LLM in Corporate Governance & Practice. Personally I find the module selection a lot more impressive than oxford. Besides the quantitative finance modules taught side by side the law modules, they even have stuff like game theory thrown in!
quote
banker3

Interalia & Private Equity: very nice posts indeed. One more question though. Beside from the obvious Tennekon finance courses, what do you think of the below module. Isn't it a good example of cross disciplinary teaching (especially with Dalhuisen teaching it)


Professor Jan Dalhuisen
Module: Analytical & Quantitative Method for Lawyers

This module covers in the first term modern game theory, modern contract theory, negotiation theory, the principles of micro-economics and of Law and Economics. In the second term, there follow principles of accounting and statistics. During this term students will also be introduced to the meaning of applied mathematics and economic modelling.

This is an important foundation module for future business lawyers. No prior knowledge in any of these subjects is required. The intention is not to make accountants, statisticians or mathematicians out of our students but to give them an idea of the effect of these analytical tools on the formation and application of business law and to make them also familiar with the basic jargon of MBA graduates who are likely to become their major clients

Interalia & Private Equity: very nice posts indeed. One more question though. Beside from the obvious Tennekon finance courses, what do you think of the below module. Isn't it a good example of cross disciplinary teaching (especially with Dalhuisen teaching it)


Professor Jan Dalhuisen
Module: Analytical & Quantitative Method for Lawyers

This module covers in the first term modern game theory, modern contract theory, negotiation theory, the principles of micro-economics and of Law and Economics. In the second term, there follow principles of accounting and statistics. During this term students will also be introduced to the meaning of applied mathematics and economic modelling.

This is an important foundation module for future business lawyers. No prior knowledge in any of these subjects is required. The intention is not to make accountants, statisticians or mathematicians out of our students but to give them an idea of the effect of these analytical tools on the formation and application of business law and to make them also familiar with the basic jargon of MBA graduates who are likely to become their major clients
quote
Interalia

banker:
I like the intention behind module, Analytical & Quantitative Method for Lawyers. My only fear is that the course seems to cover an awful lot even taking into account that's it is a full year module. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I suspect that it might only be possible to give a cursory treatment to the subject matter, especially since the subject-matter is diverse and consists of some extremely difficult subjects like game theory. As a comparison, in many law schools which do inter-disciplinary work - check out Chicago, Stanford, Virginia and Northwestern- , accounting, law and economics and quantitative methods are treated as separate modules. I am unsure how useful such an inter-disciplinary module is if the subject is - I suspect - taught at just surface level.

Aside from my above apprehension, I think it's great that KCL is at least exposing its students to the jargon which business people use. At the very least, one will get some sense of what business people want and are saying.

I have never studied in KCL, so I have no idea whether what I have said is actually true. I'm just giving an opinion based on the course description.

Maybe Private Equity would like to weigh in since he's finance trained while I'm not. I'm probably not the best person to ask since my training is in legal philosophy not finance and law and economics. So Private Equity, is it possible to cover the subject material of the course adequently, taking into account the fact that it's only a single module?

banker:
I like the intention behind module, Analytical & Quantitative Method for Lawyers. My only fear is that the course seems to cover an awful lot even taking into account that's it is a full year module. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I suspect that it might only be possible to give a cursory treatment to the subject matter, especially since the subject-matter is diverse and consists of some extremely difficult subjects like game theory. As a comparison, in many law schools which do inter-disciplinary work - check out Chicago, Stanford, Virginia and Northwestern- , accounting, law and economics and quantitative methods are treated as separate modules. I am unsure how useful such an inter-disciplinary module is if the subject is - I suspect - taught at just surface level.

Aside from my above apprehension, I think it's great that KCL is at least exposing its students to the jargon which business people use. At the very least, one will get some sense of what business people want and are saying.

I have never studied in KCL, so I have no idea whether what I have said is actually true. I'm just giving an opinion based on the course description.

Maybe Private Equity would like to weigh in since he's finance trained while I'm not. I'm probably not the best person to ask since my training is in legal philosophy not finance and law and economics. So Private Equity, is it possible to cover the subject material of the course adequently, taking into account the fact that it's only a single module?
quote
Banking


quote
banker3

Well it does seem a lot to cover even for a full module but I expect ( I hope at least) the course will be well structured to deal with lawyers in IB and not investment bankers.
Incidentally do you have any info on Dalhuisen?

Well it does seem a lot to cover even for a full module but I expect ( I hope at least) the course will be well structured to deal with lawyers in IB and not investment bankers.
Incidentally do you have any info on Dalhuisen?
quote
vasilis

Thank you for your interesting posts but unfotunately they were not very helpful concerning my dilema between Aberdeen and QMUL.
Would anyone have any new ideas?

Thank you for your interesting posts but unfotunately they were not very helpful concerning my dilema between Aberdeen and QMUL.
Would anyone have any new ideas?
quote
beicon

Hi Vasilis.

Totally agree with you that the posts did everything but to help you! They seem to have been caught up in the heat of the discussion. Cant blame them, right!?

Regarding your dilemma, Id say that it all depends on what you want to do with your career.

If youre seeking a job at some big UK firm or at some firm back in your home country, no doubt that QM will give you much better career prospects. Although Aberdeen, in my opinion, is a top UK law school (better than QM if you allow me to say so), its not one of the most popular worldwide, unless youre looking for a career in energy law. However, if you want a more academic-focused career, Id say go Aberdeen! Itll definitely give you a better career prospect in that field.

One last thing that I think you should take into account as you decide: where would you like to live during the LLM? London is London it speaks for itself. Aberdeen, on the other hand, is much more calm and relaxing and cheap!!!

Hope this helps.

Best of luck.

Hi Vasilis.

Totally agree with you that the posts did everything but to help you! They seem to have been caught up in the heat of the discussion. Can’t blame them, right!?

Regarding your dilemma, I’d say that it all depends on what you want to do with your career.

If you’re seeking a job at some big UK firm or at some firm back in your home country, no doubt that QM will give you much better career prospects. Although Aberdeen, in my opinion, is a top UK law school (better than QM if you allow me to say so), it’s not one of the most popular worldwide, unless you’re looking for a career in energy law. However, if you want a more academic-focused career, I’d say go Aberdeen! It’ll definitely give you a better career prospect in that field.

One last thing that I think you should take into account as you decide: where would you like to live during the LLM? London is London… it speaks for itself. Aberdeen, on the other hand, is much more calm and relaxing… and cheap!!!

Hope this helps.

Best of luck.
quote
vasilis

Hi beicon,

Thank you very much for your post. All these thoughts are in my head for quite a long time and I am afraid that things are getting more confusing for me..I recieved an uncoditional offer for the LLM at UCL the day before yesterday..

In my opinion too, Aberdeen is a better law school than QM but as you already mentioned, " everyone has heard of QM " but only few know about Aberdeen. On the other hand, what really matters is my future employer's opinion. and when it comes to energy law Aberdeen would be the right choice. Even then though, I can not be so confident that I am going to find a good job in that sector, given that my options won't be too many.

I have to take my final decison until the end of next week and now my dilema is between Aberdeen and UCL..

Thank you very much for your help.

Hi beicon,

Thank you very much for your post. All these thoughts are in my head for quite a long time and I am afraid that things are getting more confusing for me..I recieved an uncoditional offer for the LLM at UCL the day before yesterday..

In my opinion too, Aberdeen is a better law school than QM but as you already mentioned, " everyone has heard of QM " but only few know about Aberdeen. On the other hand, what really matters is my future employer's opinion. and when it comes to energy law Aberdeen would be the right choice. Even then though, I can not be so confident that I am going to find a good job in that sector, given that my options won't be too many.

I have to take my final decison until the end of next week and now my dilema is between Aberdeen and UCL..

Thank you very much for your help.



quote
beicon

Given the fact that whats really driving your decision is your future employers opinion, I think you ought to go UCL. I have no doubt that Aberdeen is a top-notch law school, but unless youd like to go for an academic career or specialise in energy law, UCL has undoubtedly a better effect on law firm recruiters, whether in the UK or abroad.

Given the fact that what’s really driving your decision is your future employer’s opinion, I think you ought to go UCL. I have no doubt that Aberdeen is a top-notch law school, but unless you’d like to go for an academic career or specialise in energy law, UCL has undoubtedly a better effect on law firm recruiters, whether in the UK or abroad.
quote

Reply to Post

Related Law Schools

London, United Kingdom 919 Followers 891 Discussions
Aberdeen, United Kingdom 158 Followers 247 Discussions
London, United Kingdom 787 Followers 932 Discussions
London, United Kingdom 602 Followers 915 Discussions
London, United Kingdom 808 Followers 940 Discussions

Hot Discussions