Magwa, your comments have been very insightful. I didn't expect Advance Property and Trust to be like that!

My interest lies around purpose trusts, resulting trusts, and the so-called Quistclose trusts. I was thinking that these areas would be addressed more in depth in either Restitution or Advance Commercial Equity. But I guess I could be wrong, in relation to the latter.

Would you kindly advise the courses that would probably have more relevance to my interested areas?

Regards,
Alvin

What is Advanced Commercial Equity?? Quistclose etc are touched on in restitution, and in corp finance and insolvency.

The people who really piss me off are the softcocks who do shit like a dissertation, some soft subjects like 'crime, justice and hugs' and then talk loudly about why they don't know how everyone can be so stressed. Those people undermine the BCL. To my mind they don't get a BCL. The BCL is for private law, evidence and juris - but not namby pamby juris like that socio econ right shit.

Man up and do good subjects or go to Cambridge, Harvard or even Yale (where the exams are take home).

With that said, I have lived and will continue to live for the next 11 days a miserable existence.

Your choice.

Public BCL, I'm afraid the Everest of my academic career would not be the BCL, but an exam I'll be taking in 2 weeks time, one which requires sheer memory work and no intellectual appreciation whatsoever. 10 full-fledged subjects in 9 months, and the amount of cases and statutory provisions to be remembered could only be described with the word "much" - no longer countable. This is pure stupidity and I applaud the legal body to have come up with such a creature. I have to do it, nevertheless, for me to qualify as a legal practitioner.

Enough moaning, and back to the BCL. I certainly believe that it would be an Everest, on an intellectual level. And I'm really looking forwards to do it!

Bchell, would love to hear a little about Evidence from you. Would it be a good pick?

@Public BCL: "Take home exams"? You sure are not suggesting that the BCL is more prestigious than the Harvard LLM? I can understand Cambridge, and even Yale, but Harvard? Do they really do take home exams?

@Alvin: Hey Alvin. Goodluck in your professional qualification exams. I perfectly understand you because i had undergone a similar situation 2006/2007 when i took my Bar qualification exams at the Nigerian Law School. A legion of statutory authorities, and hordes of case law to not only remember but also apply appropriately. It was like a purification of my academic soul. And, like you have if there, you also have to pass this exam before you qualify as a lawyer in Nigeria.

Best of luck, and just aside, i am yet to hear from a college, and this is driving me loco.

Don't do evidence.
Do something that actually relates to your other subjects.
Evidence is irrelevant to ever other course.

Actually, better idea: don't do the BCL.

@Awojc: I didn't mention anything about takehome exams.

But - I am entirely willing to stipulate that the BCL is equally or more prestigious than the Harvard LLM, definitely in large parts of the UK and the Commonwealth Of Nations.

The Harvard LLM degree is carelessly tacked-on to the JD degree (the latter is absolutely a prestigious degree); the BCL is a proper standalone postgraduate course. Whatsmore, the BCL has intensive supervised small-group teaching which no other masters has.

Magwa, PublicBCL, bchell,

thanx for your insight.

If I might take this opportunity to inquire a bit, could you throw some light on the content, ambit, relative toughness and prestige, and relative utility (at the Bar and in research) of the following subjects:

1) Evidence;
2) Jurisprudence and Political theory;
3) Socio economic rights;
4) corporate business taxation;
5) International dispute settlement;
6) Advanced property and trusts.
7) Principles of Civil Procedure;
8) Constituional Theory;
9) Conflict of Laws.

I look forward to your response.

1) Evidence;

Big Dog subject. Massively difficult, huge syllabus.

2) Jurisprudence and Political theory;

Huge Dog subject. BCL best place on earth to do it. Examined by 3 extended essays over easter. Which is either good (fewer exams) or bad (you won't be revising during easter), depending on how you look at it.

Absolutely useless from point of view of practice.

3) Socio economic rights;

Yeah, umm.. probably would avoid this.

4) corporate business taxation;

5) International dispute settlement;

Lightweight.

6) Advanced property and trusts

7) Principles of Civil Procedure;

8) Constituional Theory;

Lightweight,

9) Conflict of Laws.

Massive. Hugely useful in practice. Well respected.

The real Big Dog subjects are, as my learned and noble friend Magwa has pointed out, Evidence, Juris, Restitution, Corp Insolvency, and Conflicts.

Make sure you do at least one of those five. If not, you'll forever be explaining why you didn't do one of those subjects to people in the know. Those subjects are the BCL.

Be warned: Evidence is very, very time consuming. Also, if you are not planning to work in crime in the UK it will be of limited practical worth; but of more practical worth than that socio thing, I assure you.

In addition to Magwa's remarks:

1) Evidence;
Definitely. But almost entirely focussed on criminal law. If you're interested in privilege - which is to say, if you don't intend to go to the criminal bar - do Civil Procedure instead. Zuckerman's a hoot, and one of the top 2 in the world in his field. I repeat: this is really a course for intending CRIMINAL barristers. Even the reading list for privilege is largely treated as an opportunity to discuss public interest immunity.

2) Jurisprudence and Political theory;
Again: definitely. Doesn't get better than Oxford if Juris floats your boat.

3) Socio economic rights;
Haha.

4) corporate business taxation;
Wouldn't have the first idea. But from a practice point of view: if you're thinking transactional work, tax decides nearly everything. So it would be useful to have a handle on it.

5) International dispute settlement;
Ludicrously lightweight. Prepare for big international 'court' love-in.

6) Advanced property and trusts.
Despite Magwa's prejudices, a good course. It's also your only opportunity to be taught by BMc. Ben McFarlane. Big. Dog. Watch that space.

7) Principles of Civil Procedure;
See above. Nearly everyone doing it seems to regard it as a great subject. Would probably like to have done it myself ... It's possible you will get more out of it if you've spent some time as a solicitor - or at the bar, though I appreciate it would be unusual to come from the (English, at any rate) bar to the BCL - but by no means necessary.

8) Constituional Theory;
No idea. I imagine if you find constitutions interesting, you'll find this interesting. Useless for the next 30 years of your practice, in all likelihood.

9) Conflict of Laws.
Agreed. Brilliant course. Professor (definitely "Professor", even on this forum) Briggs is scarily brilliant. Reputedly scary too (though I've never understood that). Ed Peel makes for a good double act.
Huge respect in the real world. A difficult topic that most practitioners (and the ECJ, but that's a different story) get wrong when they come across it.

2 others I'd suggest thinking about for those who are planning on doing the BCL (by which I mean private law subjects). RUMOUR has it:
(a) Jamie Edelman and Ed Peel are taking a Remedies course next year - which would likely be extremely useful for practice, and is (in my view, at least) an excellent area for research. If BMc is teaching as well, make it a priority. Assuming it's offered ...

(b) John Armour is on sabbatical in the US for Michelmas next year. Which means Insolvency will be taught in Hilary and Trinity 2010. By all means do it - it's an excellent course - but be prepared to do a huge amount of self-motivated work in Michelmas, otherwise you will die. I don't mean that figuratively. And it won't be easy to make time to do work on Insolvency. Unless you choose some lightweights, 2 serious BCL courses are good for about 8-10 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week.

If you want your life to be manageable, or make a good result in the exams more likely, I strongly suggest ensuring there's as much overlap as possible in your courses. Alternatively, you can go for a broad education, but make your chances of a distinction a little slimmer. You pays your money; and takes your choice.

Speaking from a private law perspective: if you want to do commercial / private law, but don't want to be stretched to the limit (and beyond) of sanity, go to Cambridge. It's not easy by any stretch, but it's not the BCL.

Can I just say thanks a bunch to you lot doing the BCL giving freshers the low down on subjects. I, for one, really appreciate it.

I had intended to take: Evidence, Con Theory (if offered), Phil Found of CL and Competition Law.

Judging from above, though, I think maybe I'll swap evidence for civil procedure.

I work in public law so Con Theory will be useful to me. I hope it'll be offered.

Any tips on Phil Found of CL? Worth doing? And anyone doing Competition? My employer is giving me some dosh to study so in exchange I said I'd take competition law, as it's the area I generally work in (for the government regulator).

I was going to do Resto. Number 5 on my list unfortunately. Not heaps useful for my practice (which will probably be the opposite for most) but totally enthralling... I'd recommend it.

For those going to Cambridge - Virgo is an absolute gun, and one to watch in that field. A very, very, very good source here in Oz advised Virgo over the guys at Oxford for Resto. I'd take that advice if you can.

Can I also offer this perspective on subject selection: It will be unlikely that you'll ever get another opportunity to do subjects you like and are interested in at this level (unless you're going to be a forever academic). Practical and useful subjects are fine but It's the Oxford BCL - employers aren't gonna care too much if what you took was practical or not! You'll be an Oxford grad! Take the opportunity to do stuff you WANT to do.

M

Thanks to all those posting advice to the potential Oxford freshers and good luck to you in your upcoming exams.

I think most of my potential modules have been covered, although any comment on Law and Society in Medieval England (which may be difficult, as only about 2 people seem to take it each year) and Comparative Public Law (particularly, the extend to which you really need to be converse in French, if anyone has any experience). Im aware that neither are particularly relevant to practice, but as I tend to be veering towards academia, this is of little relevance to me.

It is interesting that a few people have commented about going to Cambridge. Now, while if anyone was to be looking to join the English commercial Bar or one of the top chambers, or, indeed, if someone is looking to focus on private law or return back to a common law country and practice where the BCL remains so well thought of (perhaps Im thinking Australia in particular), I completely see that there is no real option but to go for the BCL; is the option so straightforward for a home grown academic hopeful? While, yes, the retention of the tutorial system on the BCL is a fantastic plus for Oxford, as I want to go onto research study it would be silly for me not to do a dissertation as one option (which Cambridge provide for in a seminar class, which ensures good, group supervision) and, as my interests are veering towards constitutional/public law and legal history, which are going to have small seminar style classes at Cambridge anyway (well, at least 2 or 3 of my options will), I wonder whether I really need the tutorial system, as Ill already sort of, kind of, potentially, have it; if you see what Im getting at... Plus, Ive done something of a recognisance and really, while some institutions and academics are aware of the BCL and it reputation, some of them found it doubtful (which, Im not for a second) and many told me it doesnt really matter as your successes as an academic will ultimately come down to your publication record, not whether you chose Oxford or Cambridge for LLM/BCL and, potentially, PhD/DPhil. Essentially, if you perform with distinction on the Cambridge (which, as said by others, is still by no means easy), you can still find a good junior academic job and then the rest is down to you.

If you can understand and follow my ramblings, any thoughts would be most welcome. Cheers!

DO NOT DO CPL UNLESS YOU REALLY LIKE THE FRENCH.

You will lose the plot otherwise.

No French needed, but it is incredibly frustrating to try to learn about what the French laughably call a legal system. The guy who partly runs the show is a weapon though. But he doesn't take the French part. And that's where it all goes pear-shaped.

You'll find yourself on google trying to figure out what all these ridiculous French "legal concepts" entail. Then you find out that they don't mean anything. It is intolerable.

I have no idea what the other person is talking about with the reference to 'research'. If you mean "Will I be reading ridiculously large amounts of information?", then, yes. If you mean "Will I be doing lots of legal research?", then, no. The courses are self-contained. You'd be mad to do much reading off the list. In fact you'd be mad to do the BCL.

Australian academics would say Virgo is a gun. Because Grantham and Rickett are beguiled by his views on property.

Don't do restitution anywhere but Oxford. Oxford is its home. Birks was here. Burrows is here. Swadling is such a big swinging dick, its not even funny. MASSIVE dog.

If you do it in Cambridge you have to put up with "vindication of property rights" as a theory for beneficiary's right to claim interest in substitute assets. Simply wrong and incoherent, despite Foskett v McKeown.

If you want to be an academic then i'm sure, in the long run, it doesn't matter if you do the BCL, LLM, or Wipe my Arse and Eat it.

The English Bar, however, and particularly the best chambers recognise that the BCL is top banana. I was told by a certain chambers that the only thing on a CV that would REALLY impress, make them stand back and say "well, that is one clever cookie" is a distinction in the BCL. The rest, as they say, is silence.

BcHell: your thoughts please on Virgo. (I decided against failure of consideration BTW. Will chance it tomorrow. We'll be fine)

Ah yes, Magwa is correct. The last thing you want to do is learn:
1. Property is an event or;
2. Vindication of property rights explains cases like Foskett.

There's a view out there, which is put at Cambridge inter alia, that property explains all. If you learn that and only that you will miss the mainstream view.

You would be absolutely mad to go anywhere else for Restitution. Get onto Bailii or any other legal research site and have a look at the number of times Swads, Burrows, Edelman, Stevens, Mitchell and of course Professor Birks are cited. It's pretty enthralling being in a seminar, reading the cases and find out that the three guys taking the seminar are all cited with approval. For example check out DMG, FII and Westdeutsche: three rather recent cases where people who have taught Magwa and I have been cited with approval.

One of the things Oxford offers too, don't forget, is the chance to go to undergrad lectures. Undergrads here are spoiled for choice. Every week you can see the world's biggest guns in private and public law lecturing for free. It's pretty impressive.

Magwa: I'm relieved. Let's hope.

If offered nxt yr, Constitutional Theory sounds less lightweight and more a subset of heavyweight Jurisp & PT from what I found on the 'Legal Philosophy in Oxford' websites.

T

The BCL is not a research degree, and it will not provide you with much in the way of additional research skills (you are provided with lengthy weekly reading lists, which you are required to read; research beyond the lists is unusual and not necessarily helpful). The lists are long.

The one exception is if you do (i) a dissertation in lieu of one subject or (ii) Jurisprudence & Political Theory, in which case you do extended research essays.

Other than that, there's not much to say about research and the BCL. If you wanted to you could follow the BCL with a full research degree (i.e. Mphil or Dphil) but I do not know much about how they work.

Other than that, there's not much to say about research and the BCL. If you wanted to you could follow the BCL with a full research degree (i.e. Mphil or Dphil) but I do not know much about how they work.