I was granted admission to Ox and Cam.

Someone told me that law at Cam is better than that of

Ox and is more prestigious in both legal academia and

professional filed.

If I want to focus on " International Law" or "Competition law",

and prefer to pursue further study in the campus, which one

should I prefer?

Besides, I understood that Oxford has personal conselling,

what about LLM in Cambridge?

Thanks a lot to your advice!

actually, both cam and ox are dreams of many students all over the world. however,it seems that cam is better at international law. incidentally,you must be extremely exceptional for you were granted admission by cam amd ox.
would you share your successful experience with me? my e-mail is zengsnow806@163.com . i am a chinese student.

I m admitted to both too. Will choose for Oxford, altough I m particulary interested in international law, Cam does not offer tutorials for LLM s and no thesis supervision if I m not mistaken. I prefer to have more contact with lecturers.

Thanks to all your messages.

In my mind, I would be more inclined to Oxford because

of the direct contact as that in Yale or Stanford.

Considering finding a job, did Cambridge graduates better

than those in Oxford (I heard some news like this )

Thanks again!

There have been some good discussions in this forum about Cambridge vs. Oxon: http://www.llm-guide.com/boardsearch/q/oxford+cambridge

Do you really want (or need) the Oxford handholding?

Thanks to all your replies.

Because Canta people appears less than those in this

forum. It seems that Canta more practical-oriented whilst

Oxon more academic-oriented. I would like to ask you if

I want to pursue a legal study in US top law schools, which

one is better suited me? Besides, I have heard obtaining a

distinction grades in Ox is easier than that in Canta? (Mjuris

in Ox vs. LLM in Canta)

Thanks again!

Do you really want (or need) the Oxford handholding?

Why is it that Ox does not have an LLM,both for common law and non common law countries?Instead they have BCL and Mjur respectively.What are the odds that the BCL(being a Bachelor of Civil Law) might be mistaken as a bachelor's degree by a CEO of some huge conglomerate, who really should know better?

Argubly, I think BCL is quite prestigious in Common law system. So I think BCL would not do any troubles on your
occupation selection. Also, BCL students are regarded as the most diligent ones in Law Faculty. So I think the fame of
this programme would satisfy the needs of a majority of applicants.

I've just read an invigorating post from last year on the countless advantages of studying an LLM at Harvard, and Oxbridge being labelled as 'pathetic' in comparison by someone who went to Harvard. Are we just wasting our time thinking that Oxbridge are the best Universitites, with this huge caveat: 'outside of America'. Apparently Yale and Harvard are unmatched! Are we just playing a very distant, second fiddle to the Americans?

I apologise if this is a somewhat repititive discussion, but it really does worry me that you could think 'I was at Oxford, intellectual hub of the world', whereas, you were at a place that is effectively a wannabe (if you'll excuse the colloquialism).

Please do not misunderstand me, I'm sure Oxbridge are beyond great, but are they even in the same league?

Well, I quite agree with the opinion that Law School in US
may appears better than those of UK. The only perspective for me is to distinguish which faculty of law (Ox or Canta)would be more appropriate for me. Harvard Law School is the ideal one in my dream and I would only think how to get into it in the future. Besides, I think Oxbridge would be only less valuable than Yale, Harvard, Stanford or perhaps equivalent to Columbia or NYU and I also consider this thinking was accepted by many applicants from civil law system.

With regards to the Oxbridge vs Ivy League debate: I think that Cambridge and Oxford are sufficiently well recognised to be able to compete quite strongly with the top American schools.

In fact, I believe Harvard and Cambridge have some kind of exchange agreement for their students. From a British perspective, I think that getting an LLM from an American law school is more a matter of being more lucrative to the American market than anything else.

If you look at the British judiciary, over 80% are Oxbridge graduates. It all depends on the context in which a graduate wishes to practice, I think.

As for the Oxford BCL, few people in the US will know what it is. In contrast, everyone knows what a LLM is. If you're going to the US, just make sure you explain what the BCL is.

Believe me, if you are pursuing further study in the US, especially in the legal field, anyone of any worth will know what the BCL is.

Although i fully understand the confusing way in which an LLM is termed a BCL at Oxford, you have to bear in mind that this has been the case for hundreds of years. It seems quite extraordinary that people would undertake such a course without staying in the same field academically or professionally. Those that do will be applying to some of the best places available and these places will undoubtedly know about the BCL.

At the end of the day, the BCL is regarded as the toughest Masters course in Law in the world and has the strictest entry requirements in the UK. I dont wanna get into a discussion whether its better than US schools, although I know someone who has done a BCL and an LLM at Harvard and thought the latter was like another year at law school. There is little doubt to me however that Yale and Stamford are a (little) cut-above both.

Anyway, it is extremely unlikely that high calibre potential employers/academic institutions would not have heard of the BCL or its reputation. In fact, its is arguable that because of the unique nature of its title, the course is more likely to stand out on your CV.

Thanks to all your replies.
I think Law in Oxford is really unique in the legal academia.

DJ_Loxy, for a mere DJ, you sure do mix quite a symphony of words. Take your point fully and think that to a large extent, you are quite correct.

Mixing is the crucial lynchpin in my armoury of practical skills, be it with the vast array of lexemes in the English Language, or the deepest, darkest, rolling Drum and Bass - a music form that may sound like a swathe of paltry cacophony to the uninitiated, but is in fact cleverly and intricately harmonious. My purpose in life is to weave seamlessly a vast tapestry of the varying examples of this and ultimately, to form a logically coherent and aurally stimulating ensemble.

I must thus inform you, that I take offence with your use the adjective 'mere'.

While talking about a mere BCL, I saw a CV today, here in Paris, which included the Oxford BCL and then had in parentheses: "(Post-Graduate Degree)"

Gosh, if you were a woman I'd say marry me, such passion, albeit a bit tautologous and verbose. Be that as it may, I am certain that we are all aware now that some (one wonders how many) disc jockeys are capable of intellectual debate and interaction, you will please excuse my ignorance. Oh and by the way, let's not kid, drum and bass is not supposed to be 'aurally stimulating', you just party to it, and there's nothing wrong with that...