Hi Wolfenix,

In Argentina LSE is by far better known than the others. However, I was told that the LLM is not going to improve your salary, at least in Argentina. It's not like an MBA, so in my opinion we should choose the programm that suit us best.

I feel the exact same way: nowadays, an LLM is almost a "must have" instead of a big career or CV improver.

In Chile, you will also not get a significant salary increase due to an LLM (it is significant, however, to have a LLM from Harvard or Oxbridge, since it will not entail a salary increase, but it will surely open a lot more doors career-wise).

That is why I really lean towards UCL, I have met graduates from both UCL and LSE, seen the programs, reviewed courses and teaching staff, Union, etc., and I really think that UCL better suits my interests (and character)!

Hi there,

my queries kind of resemble what tintirita asked. I accepted an offer by KCL and recently received an offer by UCL as well. Now I'm hesitating which one to decline. Me specialism would be International financial law at KCL or International banking and finance law at UCL. As far as I know UCL is thought to be better suited for financial-wise programs, but would also like to know what do you think, as the thread so far has been really useful and interesting. Also in general - what are the advantages and disadvantages of both of the universities?

Many thanks in advance.

Hey guys,
I am a LLB student from Hong Kong and will be applying for a LLM next year. I am really inclined towards the International Commercial Law specialism at UCL. I would like to know what is the minimum GPA requirement to be considered for these universities. Their website says "a high second upper" but is this really the admission requirement? What more can I do to improve my chances to get accepted?

Any info from those who received offers would be highly appreciated.

Hey guys,
I am a LLB student from Hong Kong and will be applying for a LLM next year. I am really inclined towards the International Commercial Law specialism at UCL. I would like to know what is the minimum GPA requirement to be considered for these universities. Their website says "a high second upper" but is this really the admission requirement? What more can I do to improve my chances to get accepted?

Any info from those who received offers would be highly appreciated.

I'm currently at KIng's doing the LLM and I am a Londoner.

Some of the opinions people have here is interesting about these schools. I have friends who've studied at UCL, LSE & QMUL.

LSE is good for economics,politics and business but NOT law. Most city law firms know that. They just have a good branding machine.

UCL & KCL are the best Law schools in London. King's Law School has produced the highest number of UK Judges after Oxbridge. In the city, after OXbridge, King's has produced the highest number of law firm partners. UCL too has a great alumni association with the last two Attorney Generals under the last Labour govt having studied at UCL.

The difference between KCL and UCL is really fine- Lawyers respect UCL & King's qualifications. Law firms specifically insists on interviewing King's undergrads for internships and training contracts. I guess it would be same with UCL but I don't know much about UCL careers. Law firms also come talk to King's LLM students.

QMUL is also good but it's reputation is beneath King's and UCL's. I remember two QMUL students were stopped from entering the King's LLM students career's fair as they don't have that.

King's Competition, IP, International Finance and Public International law and European Law departments are outstanding and well respected. I know UCL has some very strong departments especially their IP department which they run together with King's and QMUL.

Somerset House is great but It shouldn't influence your decision on where to go as you'll be having few lectures there. King's is also good socially, many parties, drinks and the careers service is great.

One last thing, King's Law school received a £40m donation from a Hong Kong based Philanthropist (Dickson Poon) to help fund research and hire more leading professors. I think with this money, King's might just be stepping into another level.

KCL is better located than UCL for sure . KCL has it's Iconic waterfront bar with nice views of the River Thames and Tutu's night club.

The difference between King's and UCL is very thin.

Good luck

@Speciale! I could not agree more! Absolutely true! The best answer and the most realistic so far! It is worth mentioning, that KCL produced more partners in London's law firms than LSE even in topics like banking and finance!!!

By the way: QMUL has become a member of the Russell Group (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17341478), the group for leading universities in the UK. This will be a boost for QMUL! So QMUL comes closer to UCL and King's!

Dear all,

Firstly, it is good to keep in mind that there is a traditional rivalry between LSE, KCL and UCL. Graduates and current students from each of these institutions will argue that theirs is the best in London just like speciale was doing above, and I am no exception.

I cannot really comment on the quality of teaching at KCL or UCL, but as a current LSE LLM student I have nothing but good to say about the teaching there. Speciale was suggesting that it is generally known that KCL and UCL are the best law schools in London and further, that LSE is not good in law, but only in politics and economics. I beg to differ. Looking at the results of the most recent research research assessment excercise (RAE 2008, which arguably is a few years old already), this seems off the mark: LSE was placed first in UK in terms of research. Several of the most recent league tables also place LSE above UCL and KCL: see e.g. Times Good University Guide or QS World University Rankings for law in 2012. My British fellow students would also argue differently regarding LSEs reputation among London law firms.

From a students perspective one of the main benefits of LSE is that the LLM courses are capped: a cap of 30 students applies to all LLM modules and most of my classes have about 15 or fewer students. Keeping the group sizes small allows for much more interaction and discussion in the class, which I think is vital for postgraduate study. For what Ive understood, this may not be the case at all other UoL colleges. Also the applicant/admission rate at LSE is lower than that of KCL or UCL, both of which take in close to 400 LLMrs each year, whereas LSE only takes about 230.

This is in no way to suggest that KCL or UCL are not great to the contrary, I am sure they are fantastic institutions. All I am saying is that each of you should find out as much as possible from various sources about the institution you intend to choose and not rely too much on the highly subjective postings (including mine!) on this site.

Dear author,

I agree with you that humans have a propensity to say their own institution is better than others. It's also well documented that there's constructive rivalry amongst LSE, UCL & KCL.

LSE is a good and well renowned institution worldwide and in the UK. It knows how brand itself and the marketing and PR team do a fantastic job. What I was saying is that none or few of its famous alumni has come from the Law school compared to KCL & UCL. The Kennedys and other world leaders studied economics or politics at the LSE and not law. The Law department is simply benefitting from that broader image. Legal practitioners would quickly pick KCL & UCL over LSE , but non-legal practitioners would be blinded by LSE's other strengths. Do you know Nottingham and Bristol universities have stronger law faculties than LSE? Go to the City and inquire. The LSE has good professors as the other law schools but it hasn't yet imposed itself as a legal powerhouse in the country.

Rankings are very capricious and unrelaible. When you go to a City law firm or a Barrister's chambers to look for work, do they check the rankings? Or even in-house legal teams? Can you believe Reading Uni being ranked ahead of Edinburgh or Bristol Law school in Times 2012 rankings? Incredible joke!! These rankings are influenced by many capricious factors.

The argument that because LSE admits only 230 students compared to 400 for UCL and KCL is unconvincing. Oxford recruits more that 300 students on the LLM, does that mean LSE is better than Oxford? LSE might not have the capacity to admit more students or might just want to create unnecessary scarcity whereby when supply is low and demand high it creates a premium feeling.

However, I go to LSE occasionally to meet friends studying there, I also attend public lectures there on golbal issues. LSE has it's own strengths and it's fantastic in its own way but I remain convince that it is not the best Law School in London. May be if you're from outside the UK, you might have a different opinion based on what popular opinion is in your country.

Dear speciale,

I agree with you that rankings should definitely be taken with a pinch of salt. They certainly were not the main reason for my choice and should probably not be that for anyone. The reason for me mentioning RAE was that it, perhaps more than the other rankings, says something about the quality of research and staff of the institution, and the fact that LSE has done well in that one does say at least something of the quality of its teachers.

In terms of work prospects and reputation among lawyers, it is true that my perspective is that of a non-UK lawyer. Nevertheless, it is not true to say that legal practitioners in general would pick UCL and KCL over LSE, certainly not at the international level at least. I have worked in the in-house legal team of a large European corporation as well as in a large law firm and I have UK based colleagues, and my view of LSE's reputation is largely based on that. Having never worked in a magic circle firm in London myself I cannot personally comment on the views of the city practitioners, but my understanding is that LSE does not really lag behind.

As regards the admissions, it may well be that LSE does not have the capacity to admit more than it does. This does, however, not mean that they would be creating unnecessary scarcity: The benefit from LSE admitting less than the others is that the group sizes are kept relatively small, and that has for me been a key factor contributing to the great experience that I've had.

Having said that, I am not even trying to say that LSE would trump the other UoL colleges in general. Each of them have their strengths, but I strongly disagree that LSE's reputation in law would only be an illusion created by its marketing and PR teams.

I also think that this correspondence will hardly affect your or my opinions on our respective colleges (let alone that we would be admitting that here ;-), so I rest my case.

(PS. I have no idea why my user name was not showing properly in my last message. I hope it will now.)

Dear Ok Computer,

We are almost on the same wave length with just a few divergent opinions.

The summary for me is that, the difference between the LLM at KCL,LSE & UCL is thin. They all have their own strengths and weaknesses.

Long live our various institutions.

Cheers

E

Just popping in to come to the defence of LSE, where I am currently studying the LLM part time:

(i) none of my classes has been taught by students, unless you count the requirement for each of us to do a 10 minute presentation on our dissertation topic at some point during one particular course;

(ii) admittedly I am mostly studying finance subjects; I have been taught by two very well known professors and in the regulatory course by a range of experienced practitioners and regulators, which is much more appropriate for that particular subject;

(iii) as a "mature" student who worked in the magic circle for 10 years (after 8 years working in major firms in the colonies) I can categorically reject the view that UCL and KCL are in some way seen as superior to the LSE; it varies on a very much subject by subject basis (and for IT or comms you probably want to be at QMUL). If anything, the US firms tend to favour LSE as they know more about it.

So overall, choose the course depending on the particular subjects you want to take and the lecturers who will be teaching them. As with most things in life - don't generalise :)

Which one (LSE, KCL or UCL) is considered the best in tax law and public finance?

Hello everyone!

As I have just read through your very helpful comments above, one more question arose: am I right, that with regard to an IP specialization KCL would still be a better choice than QMUL?

Many thanks!

Hello everyone!

As I have just read through your very helpful comments above, one more question arose: am I right, that with regard to an IP specialization KCL would still be a better choice than QMUL?

Many thanks!

Hello everyone!

As I have just read through your very helpful comments above, one more question arose: am I right, that with regard to an IP specialization KCL would still be a better choice than QMUL?

Many thanks!

Yes! Depends on what ip subjects you want to specialise. The lectures offered on trade marks and patents by KCL/UCL (lectures hold by professors from KCL and UCL and The Rt. Hon. Professor Sir Robin Jacob, former LJ of the Court of Appeal and Englands IP god) are excellent. KCL offers a very good range on copyright related topics as well (int comparative copyright law; uk copyright law; copyright and the media (piracy topics); copyright related to competition law). When I applied to QMUL I thought they were much better in ip than KCL/UCL, but in fact, the opposite is true! And remember UCL/KCL have better reputation - King's esp. on the Continent (esp France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium what I was told by my fellow students from the mentioned countries). And finally: Who wants to spend a year at Miles End in East London, when King's is at the heart (Strand) of the law making authorities? Greets from Maughan Library (google it).
Seneca

Hi Seneca,
that sounds great and endorses my decision of going to King's which I am very much looking forward to. In Germany, King's, indeed, has a good reputation, overall much better than QMUL, which I have (only) heard of for its IP programme.
Thank you so much for your quick and helpful response! Stefan

Which one (LSE, KCL or UCL) is considered the best in tax law and public finance?

Just popping in to come to the defence of LSE, where I am currently studying the LLM part time:

(i) none of my classes has been taught by students, unless you count the requirement for each of us to do a 10 minute presentation on our dissertation topic at some point during one particular course;

(ii) admittedly I am mostly studying finance subjects; I have been taught by two very well known professors and in the regulatory course by a range of experienced practitioners and regulators, which is much more appropriate for that particular subject;

(iii) as a "mature" student who worked in the magic circle for 10 years (after 8 years working in major firms in the colonies) I can categorically reject the view that UCL and KCL are in some way seen as superior to the LSE; it varies on a very much subject by subject basis (and for IT or comms you probably want to be at QMUL). If anything, the US firms tend to favour LSE as they know more about it.

So overall, choose the course depending on the particular subjects you want to take and the lecturers who will be teaching them. As with most things in life - don't generalise :)

Hi guys!

I will be doing my LLM this year and I am seriously considering LSE, UCL and KCL. I am highly interested in Public International Law (PIL) and will be focusing on this. However, I understand that each of the 3 schools mentioned has its own strengths on PIL (as PIL is really a very broad topic). So at LSE, I intend to focus on human rights; at UCL, on international environmental law; and at KCL, on EU Law.

Any thoughts/insights as to which would be the best choice in your opinion if you are faced with the above options? Thanks.