A tricky decision and one that I am not so good at answering since I still haven't made up a decision myself!
If I were going for just one year then I would probably go to Oxford since its focus on jurisprudence is quite unique. I also prefer the town - it is bigger and it is easier to get to London via the Oxford tube.
One thing I read on this board or somewhere else is that the Cambridge LLM doesn't make allowances for unfamiliarity with the common law system - I think you are just thrown in the deep end. That might be something to bear in mind.

One thing I would point out is that the Mjur is not as highly esteemed as the BCL (I believe it was irishguy who discussed the differences in some detail). If I remember correctly, the Mjur is a reuced courseload compared with the BCL and is less competative. So, that's one thing to bear in mind: all the previous ox versus cantab discussions were between the LLm and the BCL (my view is the difference is very minimal, akin to the harvard -yale debate, and thus repuation should not really be the deciding factor between these schools, but rather you should consider your propoed area of concentration and any funding you recieve).
But my instinct (and I think you should investigate this further, as I'm not sure-- maybe shoot irishguy a PM) is that the Mjur is less prestiguous than the BCL and therefore (if true), the LLm at cantab would be a bteer choice.

ED: Thanks for your answer. As we can read at the Faculty of Law's website, the sole difference between MJur and BCL is the small number of subjects available to MJur students. However, depending on the area, a MJur student may take the same courses in comparison with a BCL student. I'll send a PM to irishguy in relation to this. In my area - International Corporate Law - it seems that Cambridge is a little bit stronger than Oxford. But Oxford offers the tutorials...

To be sure, I don't think that is the sole difference, but you's better ask irishguy as he'd know more about it than I would. I do recall someone writing specifically that Mjur's take fewer courses and/or their exams are two rather than three hours in length. Also, it gets fewer applicants I believe (than the BCL). So, in my view, assuming these points are true (i think they are but could be wrong) less competiona to get in plus fewer courses taken and shorter exams all equals less rigour and therefore, arguably, less prestiege...

Just to be a pedant, I don't think fewer courses and shorter exams necessarily equals less rigour. For example, at Columbia we had to take 24 points (which is the equivalent of 12 seminar courses) over 9 months. It was a huge workload and many of us ended up handing in very superficial papers. I often envied the courseload at Oxford which, from my impression, seemed to have fewer courses/papers but done more throughly and to a higher standard.

Sure, I suppose I agree. In fact, I think most people will agree than exams generally are a little goofy at the master's level. The focus really should be on research and writing, not barfing out data as fast as possible.
I guess my point was to be taken within the context of the same institution, meaning if the same school has two masters programmes, but one has more course work, longer exams, and is harder to get into, then it would follow, in my view, that it is more rigorous and prestiguous than the other.
Now, I would not include in the above comment a comparison of, say, the mlitt and the BCl, because those are very different animals, and it doesnt follow that because the mlitt has fewer courses it is less rigorous than the BCL. Furthermore, I wouldn't neccessarily apply my commments to a comparrisson of master's programmes at two different schools, but would confine my point to a comparisson of two taught courses offered at the same school.

I just had another thought that I forgot to mention. I spoke to someone at Oxford a few days ago and she mentioned that the faculty at Oxford is quite diffused amongst the colleges and that they only go into the law school to teach. She was expressing some jealousy about Cambridge where there is a beautiful new building apparently which creates more of a central meeting place. It is probably not such a concern for taught degrees where you see the professors anyway but for research degrees chance encounters around the faculty can be very helpful.

Just to clarify on the BCL/MJur distinction and how it operates in practice (I'm currently at Oxford doing the BCL): MJur students have to take the same number/credit of courses as BCL students (NB that the credit system is about to be abolished), but may take one of their courses from the menu available for undergraduate students here and are discouraged from taking courses involving particularly advanced common law study unless they have a sufficiently strong background in the area (these courses - e.g. Restitution, Corporate Insolvency, Corporate Finance - are clearly designated as such in the Faculty's handbook for postgraduates and individual course convenors discuss the issue at length in the taster lectures at the beginning of the academic year). They take the same exams as BCL students, but in a number of subjects are only required to answer three questions instead of four; they are given the same amount of time for this, however (3 hours). The differential treatment in the examination process has been under very intense scrutiny for a while now - probably because external examiners have repeatedly criticised it as indefensible and out of line with common practice in the UK -, and will very probably no longer be in operation as from the 2007-2008 academic year. Hope this helps.

very helpful, thanks. Any opinion on the competition of the mjur vs. the bcl, i.e. number of applicants relative to spaces available, and average gpa or class standing required for admission to the mjur versus the bcl?

Hi, i know this is changing the subject somewhat, but since you're on the BCL i wonder if you could answer a few questions i have.

You mention some courses that are defitinitely postgrad only level. Does that generally mean you can get by in most of the others with little/no grounding in that specific area of law? I'm keen to take the jurisprudence paper, but having done almost none, i'm worried it might be a good way to get a third.

Also, how popular is the dissertation option - what sort of proportion do it, and is it encouraged?

Finally, a rather vague question: how much work is the BCL? I've heard somehting like an essay with tutorial a week, with a seminar every now and then. Is that accurate?

Thanks very much

Hi everyone,
I wonder if you could set up a separate BCL thread if you want to get into solely the specifics of that course (unless, of course, you can offer a comparison with Cantab). I would really like this thread to be about Oxford v Cambridge since there are already a lot of threads dedicated solely to either Ox. or Cam.
Sorry to be a pain.
Fig.

Good luck for your exams.

hello! im thinking of doing a DPhil next year and I hope to go to either Ox or Cam. My interest is in constitutional law and international law. Would it be better for me to go to Oxford?

Also, what are the main requirements for admission to the DPhil? Is it imperative that I get practical experience first before applying? I'll be doing an LLM in a top tier US school this year and I was wondering if I should take a break after and work first before trying for the DPhil. thanks.

Oh lastly, im also interested in doing the DPhil at LSE, although I don't have any idea about its rigour or prestige. I just like the idea that its in London. Can anyone comment please?