But then (and these figures are off the top of my head) don't around 3% of law students in England and Wales get a first and around 17% from Oxford (for law) get a first?
Ergo, although it might not be easier, statistically you're more likely to get to get one from Oxford (and I think Cambridge is similar)?
Honestly, I don't know either way, this is just how I'd view the statistics. Of course admissions tutors may take your view point.

(Im not saying it's easier or harder to get a first; I'm just saying that it's more likely to get one, therefore i'd see it as if you get a first from a uni where no one else in the year got a first that is more impressive).

But then (and these figures are off the top of my head) don't around 3% of law students in England and Wales get a first and around 17% from Oxford (for law) get a first?
...

I did say these figures were off the top of my head; I knew law was the lowest.
I do distinctly remember Oxford's website saying they have a 17% rate of firsts in law; so even allowing that I was wrong it's still over double the average? So my point about it being more likely to get a first from Oxford (indeed, it's over 100% more likely when compared to the average) stands?
I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing; as it happens I don't think admissions tutors will look exceptionally closely at where you've been. From what I've heard they look at grades and references, then your piece of work, then cv, then SoP.

To be honest, I think it's pretty ridiculous to make these comparisons; getting a first in Law at Oxford is significantly harder than at any other University - the intensity of the programme and level of academic argument expected are (from my experience of speaking to friends at other universities) again, significantly higher than at other institutions - even those of comparable quality. I think that the idea that 'a first is a first' is also a bit ridiculous; I personally don't think that someone who gets a 70 from a university ranked outside the top 15/20 in the UK is academically more proficient than someone who goes to Oxford/Cambridge and gets say a 67+.

That's all just my opinion though.

That's all just my opinion though.

Isn't this why they do the "what percentile you are in" rather than just high low 1st? I.e. it could be telling if someone has 72% yet they came top of the year in all three years of their degree and are say in the top 0.5%, compared to someone else with 72% at another university that might not be in the top 5%?

You do get some unis where they just don't give that many firsts, for example at my university in law there will be one or two people a year who come out with more than 70 (a Russell group and top 10 uni)

You do get other universities however, where people can get 75 overall and still not be in the top 5%- rather than the age of the university perhaps it is looked down upon if loads of people seem to be coming out with 1sts?

Isn't this why they do the "what percentile you are in" rather than just high low 1st? I.e. it could be telling if someone has 72% yet they came top of the year in all three years of their degree and are say in the top 0.5%, compared to someone else with 72% at another university that might not be in the top 5%?

You do get some unis where they just don't give that many firsts, for example at my university in law there will be one or two people a year who come out with more than 70 (a Russell group and top 10 uni)

You do get other universities however, where people can get 75 overall and still not be in the top 5%- rather than the age of the university perhaps it is looked down upon if loads of people seem to be coming out with 1sts?

Also I have to say I'm sceptical of some places where people seem to get loads of 80s and 85s when at other universities like one person every 5 years will get more than 75

Indeed, this was my consideration too. Certainly at Cambridge, achieving over 74/75 is incredibly rare. It seems strange that someone with 85 from a much lower ranked university is around 10 pc points better than cambridge's top student. Not impossible, but strange.

I am at a mid ranked University, and I have received one 80% mark and I have only seen a handful of marks in the 80s when the marks happen to be posted. Same goes for marks above 74%, and we definitely see a lot of marks in the 67-68 range, so obviously it takes something extra to hit the high marks. I would be disappointed if marks were inflated or deflated from University to University.

I would think it would be strange if many students were consistently achieving in the upper 70s/80s... unless everyone happens to be a genius :). Hopefully the admissions tutors know what is genuine and what isn't.

OK.

As I am reading applicant's (people who are applying to Oxford) inadequate analysis upon the matters of marks and ranks. Insofar as to justify rather marks and ranks are irrelevant seems rather pointless for this thread. I seriously hope whomever applies to Oxford gains admittance. Despite the inadequate information being exchanged on this thread.

Moving along. The rigour of Oxford will boost your researching skills. However based upon the impractical analysis applicants exchange within this very thread. Some of you need a 'run for your money', per se. I find it appalling how applicants focus on the least important variables, concerning both marks and ranks. Have any of the applicants ever took the time to research law schools besides wasting thoughtful energy/time on such condescending exchanges? All law schools with regards to JD/LLB programme infer the same compulsory courses/modules for a qualifying degree. That is what I meant by "a 1st is a1st", verbatim. Nevertheless the lackluster ranking exchange holds no relevant weight toward sufficient information. And please take this into consideration; applicants who sought after answers when scrolling down the petty exchange about marks and ranks on a thread regarding the application process only negates any possible chance of gaining information about the BCL/MJur programme. And to add; you might have a renowned scholar as your lecturer. But the position of the renowned scholar, is simply, a lecturer. And the scholar's lectures are not going to make applicants more brilliant than they already are!

Aforementioned. Why are renowned scholars praised? Their approach on lecturing remains practical within academia. Applicants are mainly glorifying Oxford for unforeseen reasons. Which remains speculative on the applicants behalf. Those explicit reasons are expressed in threads like this one. However, renowned scholars (or lecturers) at Oxford are not going to bother to take students under their wing (training purposes). The lecturer will only hear, not listen, to the student's apprehensive whinge on their scholarly materials that students find incomprehensible. There is nothing renowned about an Oxford scholar. Their pieces are regarded based upon marketing (network) themselves during uni. This means, having people who will vouch for the best of their interest. If a student lack interpersonal skills. The student will be another graduate/post-graduate from Oxford. Getting your work (research) published takes [a lot] of ground work. You do not hear of the whereabouts of Oxford alums. Majority of them hide the fact of being from Oxford. Unless, they are a lecturer at uni. Becoming a judge/magistrate or supreme court justice might be too farfetched. And being an alum of Oxford can hinder an applicants chances of gaining employment as a practicing barrister/solicitor. Furthermore, a lot of LLC/INC are not fond of academics handling claimants. You doubt me? Find out how many Oxford alums make it into the magic/silver circle within the UK. And please give me dated information if you endeavour.

Oxford is good in its own way. Therefore I beg to differ on a practical stance that students are not going to learning more at Oxford than some lower ranked uni. The BCL/MJur will consist of applicants who defer their chances of undergoing a pupillage. For the chance of attending a year at Oxford. Whilst the BCL/MJur programme will inform applicants on a practical stance. I feel the only rigour a student will get out of Oxford is diving right into research in their first week. That is it. And just to reiterate, there is no way of a student graduating from Oxford's post-graduate programme being completely brilliant! The only 'true' question remains relevant to applicants: will graduating from Oxford open doors to desired employers? No.

Hopefully applicants will start a blog and tell us their experience at Oxford.

;)

OK. Reading applicant's inadequate analysis upon the matter of marks/ranks. Insofar as to justify marks/ranks. Seems pointless. I seriously hope whomever applies to Oxford gains admittance. Despite inadequate information being exchanged. The rigour of Oxford will boost your research skills. Based upon the impractical analysis applicants exchange within threads. Some of you need a 'run for your money', per se.

I find it appalling how applicants focus on the least important variable; concerning ranks. Have any of applicants took the time to research law schools besides wasting thoughtful energy/time on such condescending exchanges. All law schools on a JD/LLB scale infer for their students to enroll in the same qualifying courses/modules. The lackluster ranking exchange holds irrelevant weight. Yes you might have a renowned scholar as your lecture. However, at uni, their position, simply, is to be a lecturer.

Aforementioned. Why are renowned scholars praised? Their approach on lecturing remains merely practical within the provisional confines of academia. So, all applicants are mainly glorifying uni for unforeseen reasons. Those explicit reasons are expressed in threads (i.e. rankings). However renowned lectures are not going to bother to take students under their wing. They will only hear, not listen, to the student's apprehensive whinge upon their scholarly materials that students find incomprehensible.

This is a reality check. Many of you will stick your so-called self righteous/passive/pretentious/condescending collective heads into the sand for the sake of sustaining a positive mode of thought during your application process. I respect that. After an applicant gains admittance into Oxford. Applicants should blog about their experience.

Oxford is good in its own way. Therefore I beg to differ, on a practical stance, that students are not learning more at Oxford than a low ranked uni. The BCL/MJur will consist of applicants who annulled their chances of undergoing a pupillage. Whilst the programme will inform applicants in its practical entirety. The only true query remains: will graduating from Oxford uni open doors to desired employers?

r3b|rth's post seems totally incomprehensible.

I'm shortly going to submit my BCL application to Oxford, and just wanted to get the Board's views on my chances:

1. South African student from reputable SA university (I think)
2. Magna cum laude for undergrad BA and LLB (average mark of 77 and 76 across all subjects respectively)
3. Admitted attorney of SA High Court; two years post-training experience
4. Practicsed at arguably SA's two premier law firms (the latter having aligned itself with a magic circle law firm)
5. One article published in peer reviewed journal

Do I stand a chance?

No idea what that non-sensical post means. All I can say is that a) if you go to somewhere like Oxford or UCL it will enhance your career chances and b) there are different opportunities at these kind of universities; tutorials at Oxford, for example, are incredibly good.

As to JeffJohnson's post...your CV certainly seems better than mine! I'd imagine you'd be in with a good chance. I think Ox just look for a good first and that's it really, make sure your references are good too!

No idea what that non-sensical post means. All I can say is that a) if you go to somewhere like Oxford or UCL it will enhance your career chances and b) there are different opportunities at these kind of universities; tutorials at Oxford, for example, are incredibly good.

As to JeffJohnson's post...your CV certainly seems better than mine! I'd imagine you'd be in with a good chance. I think Ox just look for a good first and that's it really, make sure your references are good too!

r3b|rth's post seems totally incomprehensible.

I'm shortly going to submit my BCL application to Oxford, and just wanted to get the Board's views on my chances:

1. South African student from reputable SA university (I think)
2. Magna cum laude for undergrad BA and LLB (average mark of 77 and 76 across all subjects respectively)
3. Admitted attorney of SA High Court; two years post-training experience
4. Practicsed at arguably SA's two premier law firms (the latter having aligned itself with a magic circle law firm)
5. One article published in peer reviewed journal

Do I stand a chance?

Indeed, this was my consideration too. Certainly at Cambridge, achieving over 74/75 is incredibly rare. It seems strange that someone with 85 from a much lower ranked university is around 10 pc points better than cambridge's top student. Not impossible, but strange.

r3b|rth's post seems totally incomprehensible.

I'm shortly going to submit my BCL application to Oxford, and just wanted to get the Board's views on my chances:

1. South African student from reputable SA university (I think)
2. Magna cum laude for undergrad BA and LLB (average mark of 77 and 76 across all subjects respectively)
3. Admitted attorney of SA High Court; two years post-training experience
4. Practicsed at arguably SA's two premier law firms (the latter having aligned itself with a magic circle law firm)
5. One article published in peer reviewed journal

Do I stand a chance?

You do stand a chance but why are you enquiring here? Why not go to Oxford law's website and check out their FAQ here: http://www.law.ox.ac.uk/postgraduate/taughtfaqs.php ?

And you comprehend.

OK.

As I am reading applicant's (people who are applying to Oxford) inadequate analysis upon the matters of marks and ranks. Insofar as to justify rather marks and ranks are irrelevant seems rather pointless for this thread. I seriously hope whomever applies to Oxford gains admittance. Despite the inadequate information being exchanged on this thread.

Moving along. The rigour of Oxford will boost your researching skills. However based upon the impractical analysis applicants exchange within this very thread. Some of you need a 'run for your money', per se. I find it appalling how applicants focus on the least important variables, concerning both marks and ranks. Have any of the applicants ever took the time to research law schools besides wasting thoughtful energy/time on such condescending exchanges? All law schools with regards to JD/LLB programme infer the same compulsory courses/modules for a qualifying degree. That is what I meant by "a 1st is a1st", verbatim. Nevertheless the lackluster ranking exchange holds no relevant weight toward sufficient information. And please take this into consideration; applicants who sought after answers when scrolling down the petty exchange about marks and ranks on a thread regarding the application process only negates any possible chance of gaining information about the BCL/MJur programme. And to add; you might have a renowned scholar as your lecturer. But the position of the renowned scholar, is simply, a lecturer. And the scholar's lectures are not going to make applicants more brilliant than they already are!

Aforementioned. Why are renowned scholars praised? Their approach on lecturing remains practical within academia. Applicants are mainly glorifying Oxford for unforeseen reasons. Which remains speculative on the applicants behalf. Those explicit reasons are expressed in threads like this one. However, renowned scholars (or lecturers) at Oxford are not going to bother to take students under their wing (training purposes). The lecturer will only hear, not listen, to the student's apprehensive whinge on their scholarly materials that students find incomprehensible. There is nothing renowned about an Oxford scholar. Their pieces are regarded based upon marketing (network) themselves during uni. This means, having people who will vouch for the best of their interest. If a student lack interpersonal skills. The student will be another graduate/post-graduate from Oxford. Getting your work (research) published takes [a lot] of ground work. You do not hear of the whereabouts of Oxford alums. Majority of them hide the fact of being from Oxford. Unless, they are a lecturer at uni. Becoming a judge/magistrate or supreme court justice might be too farfetched. And being an alum of Oxford can hinder an applicants chances of gaining employment as a practicing barrister/solicitor. Furthermore, a lot of LLC/INC are not fond of academics handling claimants. You doubt me? Find out how many Oxford alums make it into the magic/silver circle within the UK. And please give me dated information if you endeavour.

Oxford is good in its own way. Therefore I beg to differ on a practical stance that students are not going to learning more at Oxford than some lower ranked uni. The BCL/MJur will consist of applicants who defer their chances of undergoing a pupillage. For the chance of attending a year at Oxford. Whilst the BCL/MJur programme will inform applicants on a practical stance. I feel the only rigour a student will get out of Oxford is diving right into research in their first week. That is it. And just to reiterate, there is no way of a student graduating from Oxford's post-graduate programme being completely brilliant! The only 'true' question remains relevant to applicants: will graduating from Oxford open doors to desired employers? No.

Hopefully applicants will start a blog and tell us their experience at Oxford.

;)