Hi everyone,
I'm struggling to choose between Edinburgh Uni, LLM in Corporate Law and Nottingham Uni, LLM in International Commercial Law. It appears to me that the Law Dept in Nottingham Uni is quite strong, speaking about commercial law. What about Edinburgh in that respect?
Anyone going at Nottingham University for LLM in International Commercial Law this fall?

I am heading to Nottingham this year! Top 10 and very good law school. Excellent LLM programme and one of the best schools in the UK. Edin is also good especially internationally and also a good LLM programme.

edinburgh law school is miles ahead of nottingham especially on postgraduate level. it is more beautiful and you may have more things to do there. Edinburgh university has also a better worldwide reputation and prestige and it is only comparable to oxbridge and london colleges. Nottingham is quite good as well. But not better than Ed.

The miles away claim is simply misleading. Yes good law school but based in Scotland and a focus on Scottish law as opposed to English law. Yes also beautiful - very true.

Academically superior? - the are both on the top 10 - Edn 8 Notts at 10

edinburgh law school is miles ahead of nottingham especially on postgraduate level. it is more beautiful and you may have more things to do there. Edinburgh university has also a better worldwide reputation and prestige and it is only comparable to oxbridge and london colleges. Nottingham is quite good as well. But not better than Ed.

I thing that Notts is a good law school. it is respected worldwide but mostly in UK and i would put it in the same category as bristol, warwick and durham. But in terms of global recognition and prestige, Edinburgh's law school is ahead, incomparable and really competitive to get into some of its llms. If you don't mind paying more fees then go to Edinburgh 100%.

I know from personal experience that noone will ask you who was your professor during your studies. The only thing that a possible employer will see, is the name of your Universities and your experience. So i would clearly go with Edinburgh. Again, Nottingham is really good.

About the scotts law comment i disagree. Most of the llms at the University of Edinburgh are designed for international students and are not based on scotts law.

Finally yes edinburgh is 8th and Notts 10th according to the complete university domestic rankings (note that in student satisfactory, those rankings rate Edinburgh among the worst universities.. but even with that rated is still in top10 ahead of notts). In QS world rankings (the most accurate in my opinion), Edinburgh is in the top 20 both as a university and as a law school and Notts well below..

Edinburgh university has also a better worldwide reputation and prestige and it is only comparable to oxbridge and london colleges.

I didn't say that edinburgh is better than oxbridge because it is not. I just said that its reputation and prestige falls in the same category as oxbridge, lse, ucl, kings. Dont forget that its one of the oldest universities in the english speaking world

I just said that its reputation and prestige falls in the same category as oxbridge, lse, ucl, kings. Dont forget that its one of the oldest universities in the english speaking world

I think you dont really know how good the law school of edinburgh is. I cannot explain it in other words.

Again, im talking about REPUTATION. And as far as i know EVERY employer knows that Edinburgh university is among the best. And thats way i said that it is in the same reputation category with oxbridge, lse etc. because every employer knows these universities and how good they are. Thats what reputation means. I dont compare them, i just put them in the same category of recognition. If someone knows oxbridge, harvard etc he surely knows Edinburgh too.

If i would classify them they way you do i will surelly put oxbridge and harvard ahead of edinburgh. Stanford no because it relies on its marketing and not on its teaching

P.s as for the date, generally speaking, older universities have more reputation in teaching traditional courses such as law , medicine etc. and they build their reputation throught years of teaching and their research output.

I think you dont really know how good the law school of edinburgh is. I cannot explain it in other words.
(...)
If i would classify them they way you do i will surelly put oxbridge and harvard ahead of edinburgh.

I think you dont really know how good the law school of edinburgh is. I cannot explain it in other words.
(...)
If i would classify them they way you do i will surelly put oxbridge and harvard ahead of edinburgh.

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2016/law-legal-studies#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search=

2. Oxford
3. Cambridge
....
....
....
....
...
28. Edinburgh

Btw, LSE 7th and UCL 14th.

I think it's pretty clear that they do not consider Edinburgh to be in the same category as Oxbridge...

Old university: Does it make a significant difference whether a university was founded in the 16th century or in the 18th/19th century? If so, why would it make no significant difference whether a university was founded in the 11/12th century or 1583?

I think you dont really know how good the law school of edinburgh is. I cannot explain it in other words.
(...)
If i would classify them they way you do i will surelly put oxbridge and harvard ahead of edinburgh.

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2016/law-legal-studies#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search=

2. Oxford
3. Cambridge
....
....
....
....
...
28. Edinburgh

Btw, LSE 7th and UCL 14th.

I think it's pretty clear that they do not consider Edinburgh to be in the same category as Oxbridge...

Old university: Does it make a significant difference whether a university was founded in the 16th century or in the 18th/19th century? If so, why would it make no significant difference whether a university was founded in the 11/12th century or 1583?

Hi, rankings cannot be seen as the only one marker. For example, one of the most reliable and respected rankings, QS World Universirty overall ranking, puts LSE only to 35th place wheras Edinburgh is 21th. Furthermore, another the most recognisble in terms of comparing research, hence scientific, power ARWU ranking (mostly known as Shanghair ranking) puts LSE only to 101-150 position, even without a definte place. KCL is only the 55th, while Edinburgh is 47th. And Oxford is also well below its typical second place, it's on the 10th. Considering these, it seems your opponet has a point when trying to say that rankings is not the only thing to take into account and that reputation is simply not the same as the place in a ranking.

Well, let's sum it up:
1. The ratings may be innaccurate.
2. However, according to the ratings quoted so far (including the "scientific" ARWU rating) Oxbridge is in a different category from Edinburgh and it is always a better one (Cambridge is 5th by the way; http://www.shanghairanking.com).
3. So far, no empirical evidence whatsoever has been produced for the ominous "overall reputation comparable to Oxbridge" allegedly held by Edinburgh.
4. However, it appears that - in general and based on the UCAS score - it is significantly "easier" to get into Edinburgh than into Oxbridge. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/03/14/the-10-hardest-universities-to-get-into/
4. During the discussion the "seniority argument" was mentioned in order to place Edinburgh in the same category as Oxbridge -> however, a difference of 300-400 years would be both insignificant (1583 - 300/400years -> Oxbridge) and very significant (1583 + 300/400 years -> "new universities"). This might be the case, however it is far from self-evident.


The discussion is certainly very interesting, but in the end the "entry level requirements market" has put an academic price on the entry to Oxbridge and the entry to Edinburgh.

Either there is a huge market failure at work or Oxbridge is indeed in a different category - what is more likely?

I am not saying that Edinburgh is not an excellent university. However, given that some people do actually take the posts on this forum into account when selecting their LLM programs (they probably should not ;-)), I think that claims such as "X is way better than Y/ Z is comparable to A/ You will get a horrible experience at B and so on" should be backed up by more than hearsay/ anecdotal evidence.

(This is by no means restricted to this thread and I assume that all/ most of such postings are sincere).

Bye
flori
P.S.
As far as ratings are concerned:
1.If I am not mistaken, the "QS ranking"-argument was used pro Edinburgh and contra Nottingham by a certain poster. Quote:
"In QS world rankings (the most accurate in my opinion), Edinburgh is in the top 20 both as a university and as a law school and Notts well below.." Unquote (Wed Jul 06, 2016 08:56 PM)

2. Now, that someone else continues this line of argumentation and turns it "against Edinburgh", it becomes invalid?

Well, let's sum it up:
1. The ratings may be innaccurate.
2. However, according to the ratings quoted so far (including the "scientific" ARWU rating) Oxbridge is in a different category from Edinburgh and it is always a better one (Cambridge is 5th by the way; http://www.shanghairanking.com).
3. So far, no empirical evidence whatsoever has been produced for the ominous "overall reputation comparable to Oxbridge" allegedly held by Edinburgh.
4. However, it appears that - in general and based on the UCAS score - it is significantly "easier" to get into Edinburgh than into Oxbridge. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/03/14/the-10-hardest-universities-to-get-into/
4. During the discussion the "seniority argument" was mentioned in order to place Edinburgh in the same category as Oxbridge -> however, a difference of 300-400 years would be both insignificant (1583 - 300/400years -> Oxbridge) and very significant (1583 + 300/400 years -> "new universities"). This might be the case, however it is far from self-evident.


The discussion is certainly very interesting, but in the end the "entry level requirements market" has put an academic price on the entry to Oxbridge and the entry to Edinburgh.

Either there is a huge market failure at work or Oxbridge is indeed in a different category - what is more likely?

I am not saying that Edinburgh is not an excellent university. However, given that some people do actually take the posts on this forum into account when selecting their LLM programs (they probably should not ;-)), I think that claims such as "X is way better than Y/ Z is comparable to A/ You will get a horrible experience at B and so on" should be backed up by more than hearsay/ anecdotal evidence.

(This is by no means restricted to this thread and I assume that all/ most of such postings are sincere).

Bye
flori
P.S.
As far as ratings are concerned:
1.If I am not mistaken, the "QS ranking"-argument was used pro Edinburgh and contra Nottingham by a certain poster. Quote:
"In QS world rankings (the most accurate in my opinion), Edinburgh is in the top 20 both as a university and as a law school and Notts well below.." Unquote (Wed Jul 06, 2016 08:56 PM)

2. Now, that someone else continues this line of argumentation and turns it "against Edinburgh", it becomes invalid?

Hi, I have an LL.B from the University of London external program and an LL.M from University of Sussex. I want to practice family law in the Uk and I need advice on whether I should do an LPC (which is quite expensive) or can I make do with a graduate diploma in legal practice? I will be grateful for any help or advice!