Hi people....

I heard that after the recent reorganization of London Univ. UCL has become the best LLM course, even better tan LSE because now al the best faculty is with UCL. Is this true? which do you think is better, UCL or LSE?

thanx!!

While there may be some point in asking which is the best course when the institutions are completely separate and in different areas of the country, to ask which is the best course when both are in the same city and under the auspices of the UOL is rather pointless, if I'm being honest. The similarities between both are deep routed and, particularly in the case of QMUL, UCL and KCL (but perhaps also LSE-although I'm not sure), you'll find that they share lecturers, facilities and the like at postgraduate level- so essentially the experience is very similar. You need to consider the individual positives and negatives of each course and university as they reflect upon you and the subject you want to study because an objective table of A is better than B is not, realistically, possible.

Quite enlightening: http://www.llm-guide.com/board/22637

FYI: Since the intercollegiate LLM has ended one or two years ago, the UoL colleges go separate ways: http://www.london.ac.uk/95.html

Although the official line may be the intercollegiate LLM has ended, the reports I have heared from current UOL LLM students is that much is still being shared. UCL/KCL/QMUL students in the same lectures, lectures being held by staff members from any of the faculties, et cetera.

Hey Guys,
Honestly, UCL is the best University in London ( for Law of course)
There s no discussion now
Cheers

How erudite....

The intercollegiate programme is finished. All former London Colleges offer separate degrees and there is only a slight handful of courses which are shared, and that is only because the teaching is shared (ie an LSE prof and a UCL prof teach half each). UCL does not permit students to choose a course from another former London College as part of the UCL LLM. So, for those going to UCL, unless it is already a course whose teaching is shared with, say the LSE, there is no possibility to take a course elsewhere. I believe that the same is true for the LSE. I am also told that Queen Mary will allow students to take a course at UCL if they find one they like, but it is not guaranteed that it will be permitted by UCL.

if some were to go through the profiles of faculties at kcl,ucl,qmul, one would notice that quite a few of them teach at more than one college.. so the teaching facilities are shared...

Jagsmehn. Yes, a very, very small number of courses are shared, but only a few, and not enough to make a choice of University based on an expectation to share.

If you want a degree in a particular specialised area, you need to check the web pages very carefully, to see just how many are shared. You will find that for almost all specialised degrees there will be no sharing. In some few cases there may be at most one course shared. So be careful.

There is absolutely no obligation for these former colleges to share, and at UCL and the LSE you would be really disappointed if you hoped to be able to ask to take a course run by another college that is not one of those very rare ones that already shared. The answer would be 'no'.

Just to add to this, if anyone is interested in IP at KCL then I'm told that most of the options a friend has taken involve sharing to one degree or another. More so, UCL and QMUL students than LSE though. Although, by sharing I don't, and never did, mean that you have the option to pick modules from another college. What I simply said was that whether you go to UCL or KCL, for example, I believe you will find that you will be sitting in lecture theatres alongside students of the other college- that is the experience, as I say, of a few friends of mine. It may be that the institutions have similar modules and bunk up to save time and expenditure but when some asks is an LL.M better from one institution or another, as a current outsider looking in, surely this shows that subjective considerations must be taken into account because you potentially face sitting in the same lectures and seminars, using the same resoureces (if you so wish-granted hours access may be different) and living in similar locations within the same city. It's not about being able to interchange modules, it's about the experience being so similar and so dependant on personal requisites that person A can not say whether person B, from a completely different country and with different hopes and study options, would prefer insitution A or B when they are so closely related.

Ok..so if the Univ London system as been reorganized which of the two (LSE or UCL) is better for studying M&A and antitrust and for getting jobs in top law firms? I heard UCL is not that well knowen among law firms and they confuse with UCLA....has anyone heard of this?....frankly speaking i was surprised because i thought UCL is ranked quite high overall

Only the misinformed confuse UCL with UCLA! UCL is ranked well ahead of UCLA. (I know rankings do change, but not so much as to cause confusion)
UCL is a first choice for City firms in London and many internationally....

In terms of competition policy the names are Richard Whish (KCL); Val Korah (UCL); and - though not a prof - Giorgio Monti (LSE). Riley is at City. It might prove worth investigating how many courses are on offer on competition related subjects - and by the top rank academics. Just out of London, Essex has traditionally offered a range of competition and technology/communications modules but I don't know if Prof Anderman is still there. The very strong presence of QMUL in technology/computer law is more IP contract focussed than competition. Another question relates to whether full-time faculty provide the courses or whether the School is reliant on visiting profs (whether from academia or practice) - there are both advantages and disadvantages to this approach. As to jobs, an LLM is not a qualifying law degree; law firms in London have an established system for recruitment which starts with internships for 2nd year undergrads, so they recruit 2 years ahead of when the training contract is to start, so if you are looking to remain in London it may be worth factoring this timescale in to your plans. Very few universities offer internships to provide a way round this system.

Hi Imwoods

Thanks so much for the information. Can you please clarify....is it very difficult fot an LLM to get a job in London? As far as I know I think i know of some guys who finished LLM in UK and immediately secured a position in top london law firms. They were not accepted for 2 years in the future.

If a person has close to 3 years experience in top law firms in one's home country, then is it possible to be directly recruited as an associate?

Thanks.

You are right - it is different if you are already qualified and have more than two years' experience. I think you might have to take the qualified lawyers' transfer test to practice in England and Wales (and what ever the Scottish or Northern Ireland equivalent is, if you want to practise there), but you might even be able to do that while in post. Details of the test are on the Law Society web page. The whole two years in advance thing is for people coming straight out of law school. Also, there are always exceptions - the two years in advance process is a general practice, not a legal requirement. For example, some firms might get a last minute vacancy (though probably less likely they'd want to fill it in the current economic climate). I thought it would just be helpful for people to be aware of the normal progress of student to lawyer, so they know what they're dealing with.

Both LSE and UCL are excellent choices. What one should take into consideration is one's academic interest more than which school is better. The choice of school depends on the area you intend to specialise. If you plan to specialise in human rights law, LSE has Professor Conor Gearty, Chairman of the LSE Center for the Study of Human Rights (I understand that in some programs Cherie Booth, QC, is invited as guest lecturer). If you plan to specialise in public international law, UCL has Professor Philippe Sands who also teaches environmental law. LSE has an outstanding international reputation in economics and the social science, including law (Dame Rosalyn Higgins, President of the International Court of Justice is a prominent LSE alumna and former professor of human rights law) while UCL is recognized as one of the top schools in the UK. Both LSE and UCL have been given greater administrative autonomy from the University of London and are now allowed to grant their own degrees.However, the faculties of law in both schools remain intact, and I am certain there is an internal collaborative arrangement between the two schools which you can explore if you are accepted to either one, similar to "cross-registration" privileges in American universities. Both schools are likewise allowed access to the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, including its library, which is situated along Russell Square.

I think that these points about degrees and IALS are common to all colleges forming part of the University of London, so are relevant to colleges such as SOAS, KCL,QMUL etc.

The only thing different is that LSE, UCL and KCL can now grant their own degrees. Otherwise, they are still part of the University of London and all other previous arrangements with each other, and with the federal University of London, remain in force. Those who graduated from LSE this year were offered the chance to receive either a University of London degree or an LSE degree. The regulations of the University of London were amended to allow the colleges (especially the Russell Group members LSE, UCL and KCL) to award degrees in their own right.