Hello,


I would like to know if an LLB from the OU (UK) is really as much accepted by for example the UCL as it is (officially)
written.
I want to know if there is a discrepancy between the theory and the practise of acceptance.
I consider to take an LLM at the UCL after rewarding a 2.1 LLB from the OU (wish is not completed yet).

Thanks for any answers
Tom

As always, in theory theory and practice are the same, but in practice sometimes they differ.

The OU LLB is a regular qualifying law degree, essentially equal to any other.

But, and it's a big but, in the course of gaining your OU LLB you'll not have had the opportunity to demonstrate certain things that graduation admissions staff will likely expect of an LLB. As always the key is that there are certain skills that differ between an FT and a DL course in terms of what's gained/demonstrated. In order to satisfy the admissions tutor you'll likely need to convince them more thoroughly of a few things that they'd expect a "normal" LLB to have.

Also, bear in mind that UCL's law school is *very* well regarded, and quite competitive (5 or 6 applications for every place), so you really need to make sure you stand out from the crowd -- given that you're doing a DL course one of the key factors will likely be demonstrating interest/involvement in law outside the course during your period of study, especially in the area of law you wish to specialise in.