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

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

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...

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?

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!

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

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?

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?

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?

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 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.

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.