Hi - since first year LLB I always wanted to study in London simply because it is London! This is reflected in my applications (KCL, LSE and UCL only). However, I applied to Oxford for the heck of it. I did not apply to Cambridge.

While I have now been accepted into my top London choice (KCL), the whole Oxford reputation question is going through my head.

I have asked many academics and lawyers who said it is really just snobbery and that all this fuss over "reputation" among "golden triangle" schools is silly.

So if I have my heart set on study in London, is there any point lamenting over Oxford just for the name brand sake? Most leading academics here in Australia have LLM from London and could have easily went to Oxford and Cambridge, but chose London.

Could this be for the same reasons which I am currently facing?

I think it really depends on the types of courses you want to do during your LL.M and of course what you plan to do after your LL.M. If you would like to go into academia in England (I'm not too sure about Australia), or become a barrister then going to Oxford would be an advantage. It shouldn't make much of a difference if you would like to practice as a solictor.

As I see it, the advantages of Oxford (aside from the reputation factor) are that the degree would be academically challenging and rigorous, and you would get a lot of personal attention from your professors (which is also helpful when it comes to getting references).
Obviously, London is a much more exciting place (that being said, Oxford is an easy train ride away from London). And you would get a greater variety of courses to choose from at unis in London. You would also get a chance to do courses that are less academic in focus. Also look at if there are any particular professors you'd like to work with in the unis you're considering. hope this helps!

I think you should go to KCL if that's your dream school. Reputation is hugely important when one school is great and another is considerably less so; but between oxford and KCL, the difference is marginal. Sure everybody would concede oxford has a better reptation, but I cannot imagine that you'd ever be passed up for a job (in practice or academia) because you attended UCL or KCL and another candidate attended oxford.

Having said all that, I think that you will be working hard anywhere you go, so why not capitalize on any added prestiege oxford may give?

I think you should go to KCL if that's your dream school. Reputation is hugely important when one school is great and another is considerably less so; but between oxford and KCL, the difference is marginal. Sure everybody would concede oxford has a better reptation, but I cannot imagine that you'd ever be passed up for a job (in practice or academia) because you attended UCL or KCL and another candidate attended oxford.

Having said all that, I think that you will be working hard anywhere you go, so why not capitalize on any added prestiege oxford may give?

Hey,

First of all I agree with everything equity's darling said earlier about University of London vs. Oxford. If I'd be in your shoes I'd go for Oxford simply because that corresponds to my personal interests.

I also have a bit of a soft spot for SOAS, as I think Professor Ian Scobbie is brilliant. From what I can gather, the university's location is pretty rubbish, but the teaching should be very interesting especially if you are interested in the Middle-Eastern conflict. However, I'd like to remind you that is a very personal opinion, and its not based on any official rankings or anything of the sort. As far is reputation goes, SOAS being part of University of London puts it up there in my view. I suppose it really boils down to what you want to do.

best of luck with the choices