http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954 en Harvard LLM vs. Oxford BCL - LLM GUIDE Discussion Board Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:04:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#28954 I am looking for advice on the offer I should accept. My area of interest is comparative constitutional law/comparative criminal procedure. Harvard's comparative constitutional faculty is amazing, but I have heard the Harvard LL.M program to be something of a "fourth year of law school", whereas the BCL is geared towards graduate students with more intensive courses and one-on-one instruction. Please advise! Thanks :) Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:11:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#28956 That pretty much sums up what I've heard too. Other factors to consider: If it's academia you're intersted in, I think, as a general proposition, the BCL is a better bet. I'm sure others will disagree, but this was the advice I was given by the faculty at my canadian law school from graduates of BOTH the harv llm and the bcl. If it's business you're interested in, then the decision turns probably more on geograpgy than anything else: ie, US practice, then Harvard; UK practice, then Ox. Also, absent funding, money becomes important: the LLM will be nearly twice as much, and I don't think anybody would argue that it's twice as good... Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:23:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#28959 My post from the other thread is below. I am not entirely sure about the academia/business distinction simply based on my own experience - I did a US LLM and am now going on to my doctorate in the UK. I think it will be useful to have training in both jurisdictions and you'd have to be very fortunate to get an academic posting with only a BCL in any event. I agree that a HLS LLM standing alone would also make it difficult to get into academia. I know many of my Canadian friends at CLS didn't even apply to HLS since they wanted to be academics and the reputation is that is a factory. "Tricky. I was in a similar position a couple of years back. Although I don't have first-hand experience of either programme I have lots of friends who have gone through both and I did a US LLM. Personally I think the BCL is a superior program because it is an actual graduate degree with intensive tutorials that challenge your thinking. Also, Oxford jurisprudence faculty is unmatched in the world. That being said, I decided to study in the US because its legal system was so different from my own and I thought of Oxford as being too conservative and "black letter" for me at the time. While I enjoyed my LLM this was largely for the experience living in NYC as opposed to the particular courses (which were good but probably not a patch on Oxford's graduate classes) I didn't like being lumped in with the JDs. At the risk of causing offensive to some who may be reading here I found many immature intellectually (although some had PhDs in other subjects many were only second year JDs whose thinking hadn't developed in a theoretical or critical way regarding law) and the people who really challenged my thinking were the other LLM students. The JDs seemed more keen to get good grades and get law firms jobs than engage in original thinking. I would have preferred a class with only graduate students. All generalizations, I know, but those are my thoughts." Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:24:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#28961 I appreciate the quick reply! Do you mean the Harvard LLM is twice as much? How so - from what I can see, tuition costs are roughly equivalent (Oxford a little less expensive than Harvard), but living expenses seem considerably higher in the UK. I haven't looked into this too carefully yet so please fill me in! All my info on the two schools has come from professors as well, most of whom have advised me to accept the offer from Oxford. I am Canadian too by the way, hoping to do either crim/constitutional legal policy or continue in academia. Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:28:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#28963 My understanding is that Oxford is around 20,000GPB inclusive (and I presume that includes college meals) which comes to around US$40,000. Harvard was around US$55,000 for everything when I applied. Please correct me if I am wrong. Think of all the travel in Europe you can do from Oxford... Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:32:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#28964 But the living costs are all included in the college fees, right? (this isn't rhetorical, I only applied to Cambridge and am lazily assuming it's the same at ox). So, at leats at cambridge, you're looking at about 55K cdn for the year, but that includes food, rent, tuition etc... The harvard llm is around 60K us isn't it (again, laziness preculdes me from checking) which means about 75kiss cdn, but that doesnt include food or accomodation. That's how i arrived at my statement re cost... Mon, 02 Apr 2007 21:40:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#28966 I think the college fees do include everything. When I did my Harvard figures i thought the US$55k included all living costs but it was a while ago now... Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:25:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#28990 Hi Julie, I am studying the Harvard LLM this year and am starting the Oxford BCL in September. I don’t think you can go wrong with either offer as I think both would be fantastic qualifications and experiences. I have had the most fantastic time at Harvard this year and I think that whether the courses are academic or practical really depends on your particular course choice. There is the opportunity to engage in very academic courses or very practical ones/clinical courses. I have a friend who is doing the Oxford BCL at the moment and is coming to Harvard to study the LLM later this year and he has told me Oxford is fantastic too. It seems that Oxford has more one-on-one discussions with professors and is perhaps more blackletter and theoretical. However, there is a huge array of courses at Harvard whereas the course choice at Oxford is more limited. Despite this, some of the best courses at Harvard are the practical or clinical courses (for example, I studied the Trial Advocacy Workshop which was absolutely brilliant) so perhaps if you are more interested in academia, then Oxford would be a more appropriate choice. For me, I think a big part of the experience is also where you are based. Being from Scotland, I wanted to go abroad to the US to study at Harvard last year as I thought it would provide me with a different experience and perspective. It has been amazing studying in a different country and meeting people from all over the world. But now I am also really looking forward to Oxford as I miss home and I am looking forward to a more in depth experience of my own legal system. From speaking to people who have done both the MJur at OX and LLM at Harvard, they have said the experiences were very different. I think it is just personal preference but I think you cannot go wrong with either in terms of CV and personal experience. Hope that is of some help to you. If you would like any more specific info on the Harvard LLM program, please let me know. Anna Mon, 02 Apr 2007 23:33:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#28992 It seems that Oxford has more one-on-one discussions with professors and is perhaps more blackletter and theoretical. I am confused - aren't "black letter" and theoretical the opposite of one another? My understanding is that "black letter" means the black letter of the law ie: the printed word, such as cases and statutes, as opposed to theory (what comes from your head). Can someone help me out? Have I been using it out of context? Ek. Tue, 03 Apr 2007 00:02:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29001 Yes, sorry for the confusion. What I meant was that from what I have heard Oxford involves more blackletter study of the law in some subjects and theory in other subjects. I was distinguishing these 2 concepts from the practical application of law rather than from each other. I know blackletter law can be termed as practical but it is my understanding that Oxford involves more the learning of blackletter law in the abstract (as opposed to linked to its practical application) whereas in Harvard there are many truly practical subjects and clinical courses. I believe many of the courses at Oxford involve blackletter law and theoretical concepts as opposed to Harvard where I have found that at least the subjects I have taken have been very practical rather than theoretical. Hope that makes sense! I only really have experience of Harvard so the things I have said about Oxford are really just based on what I have been told. Tue, 03 Apr 2007 23:36:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29106 Thank you all for your helpful comments! I have decided, for a number of reasons (primarily funding and location), to accept the offer from Harvard. Anna, congratulations on being able to pursue both of these incredible options. Best of luck next year. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 10:27:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29146 do both!!! Wed, 04 Apr 2007 12:16:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29147 do both!!! yeah, it never hurt anyone to have Ox and Harv! indeed, it has done some a lot of good:=)) Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:09:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29210 Before I joined this forum, I was not aware that this was even an option. Now you've got me thinking! Is it common/advisable for students to complete both a HArvard LLM and Oxford BCL? Do you think it is more difficult to get funding from Oxford if you already have a comparable graduate degree from HLS? Thanks in advance :) Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:13:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29212 We've already had this conversation in relation to AnnaC who is doing just that. I was told by the Graduate Admissions Tutor at Oxford (Endicott) that the BCL would be a waste of my time after a US LLM since I wanted to go to my doctorate. If you don't want to do your doctorate it could be an interesting experience to do both and have two different perspective. My personal view is that two Masters is a bit of a waste of time when you could be developing your career not to mention extremely expensive. I have my doubts as to whether Oxford would cough up money for someone to do a second Masters there after Harvard (esp. if one wants to go back into practice) but we'll wait and see what AnnaC comes back with. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:15:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29213 I should mention again what I said in my other post - some people do both if they want to practice in both country. I met some people from India, for example, who did that. I think it is a bit of a luxury. If you want the Oxford experience I would recommend applying for the MSt after your LLM. That would give you one taught degree and one solely research degree. It would also develop your thinking to a higher level than a solely taught course would. Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:31:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29214 I agree entirely with flygirl. I really don't see the point of doing the bcl after the harvard llm. I suppose if one was rich, really liked school, and didn't have a taste for independent research (thus ruling out a PHD), then it's not the worst idea in the world, but generally speaking it sounds like a very expensive redundancy. Take the LLM and go practice; or move onwards and upwards to the PhD. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 01:16:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29231 Before I joined this forum, I was not aware that this was even an option. Now you've got me thinking! Is it common/advisable for students to complete both a HArvard LLM and Oxford BCL? Do you think it is more difficult to get funding from Oxford if you already have a comparable graduate degree from HLS? Thanks in advance :) it is an option! it is always an option. There's AnnaC coming to Ox, and there's at least 3 of us crossing from Ox to HLS. i know that at least one of these guys deferred from last year. For my part I only applied to Ox last year, and the HLS LLM was always the next logical step. People choose to do various things at various times in their academic lives. Some people take gap years. some take fellowships. some practice a little b4 going back to school. some go straight on to do PhDs. Some do volunteer work. Some teach a little. Some just head straight into practice. And yes, some decide to do the two most recognisable LLMs at the two most recognisable unis. Its just a matter of personal taste i guess. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 01:36:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29232 I agree that it is a matter of personal taste but Julie did ask for our advice. None of your responses Busingye have actually given reasons why having both degrees makes sense financially or academically. They have just asserted that having both degrees is a good thing. I am just not sure that any additional benefit of getting two taught Masters degrees is worth the further year away from developing your career and the financial cost. Unless, of course, you want to be able to practice in both countries but even then I am sure there are more efficient and cheaper ways of doing that. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 02:08:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29235 [he he....thought better of this section-in terms of form and content] Financial considerations: I did Ox on full scholarship. so i lost nothing there. But i will probably be in debt up to my neck by the time i am done with HLS, so i am not prescribing medicine i cant take. I just value the HLS experience that much that i wud take the added (and some wud say, needless) financial burden. Part of the reason is the sheer recognizability of HLS. It makes life easy when u dont have to explain your credentials in great length. But to be fair, i would probably not do it if i had had to pay for the BCL. Academic considerations: Two taught masters degrees may not make sense stricto sensu. But put the other way, they do not hurt either. I know i intend to do doctoral work soon...but i also know that at this point in time i am not ready for it...I do need some time to reflect on what i want to do instead of rushing in and being frustrated one year into the programme....So probably the best thing would be to take off a year or two to practice and/or teach as i reflect on this stuff. But the danger with this is that working life has its attractions. i dont want to be caught up in the rat race and shelve PhD plans till it becomes a story i tell my grandchildren.."you know...i intended to do a PhD". Doing a 2nd LLM is my way of keeping away from temptation...while i plan the way ahead... Miscellaneous: On the other hand...there is also the real possibility that after a year at HLS, i may just get fed up of the whole reading thing...and decide to do join the real world. In the case, Ox and HLS would allow me to combine practice and adjunct teaching due in part to the added gravitas... It is all really a variety of reasons...many of which are difficult to put down...wat can i say...HLS has always been on my list of things to do b4 i die(the challenge)...i do want to sit the NY bar (another little project)...i get tired of explaining that the BCL is actually a masters degree..i cud go on and on and on [Heh...also deleted...] Its all a matter of taste...i wouldn't eat sushi even if u paid me to...other would pay good money to eat it...and none of us might be able to explain it one way or the other without finally coming down to this simple conclusion:) and now...i must put an end to my rambling! Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:52:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29286 I have to agree with Busingye: you don't need to do both but if you have the opportunity why not and to a cetain extent it sometimes depends on your circumstances. I'll be going to Cambridge to do my second masters. Did I intentionally plan to do this? No. It's just the way circumstances dictate what you should do. I know of many people who have done both the BCL and LLM. One of my best friends was accepted to do. He told Harvard that he was going to do the bcl, at which point they turned round and said to him that they would keep the offer open for the following year. We're not saying you should do it or there is a need to do it, but if you can do and want to do it, then i don't see what should stop you! Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:48:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29300 I'm not really sure the post above really adresses the question. Of course it's a matter of taste and of course you are free to do whatever you like, but the question I think was whether it makes carrer sense (either academically or firm/business wise) to do another matser's in law. If that is the question, then I really don't think it makes sense. Academically, there is no question whatever that you'd be better off doing a PhD and focussing on publications than doing a second LLM. And business wise, I think if you really felt a need to get futher educational credentials (which I'm not sure you do if you already have the harvLLM), I'd suggest there are other degrees (beside the BCL) that are of more utility in the parctive of big law/ big business. Consider an MBA, or a CA for starters. Those provide indredible networking opportunitiea and real business acumen. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:00:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29301 Actually, that is a REALLY good point. Julie - if you wanted the Oxbridge experience I would suggest taking ED's approach and getting another Masters (an MPhil) in management, economics, business or anything really. I actually know people who have done their PhDs and then gone on to do an MBA or MPhil in order to learn how to apply their esoteric research to business. A great combination I think. Personally, I often wish I had an economics degree. My sense from reading the other posts is that the main argument is prestige/reputation and having both Harvard and Oxford after your names than gaining any additional substantive benefit from another law Masters. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:13:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29304 all good points...Julie do you like sushi:) Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:13:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29305 One final thing, I am not sure the argument that because you received a full scholarship it has cost you nothing makes financial sense either. Even with a full scholarship for fees etc you are still taking a year out of your career which will cost you both in terms of salary (in NY that is US$155k before tax, I am not sure about other country) and the additional year work experience. In short, if you think it makes sense to do two law Masters by all means go for it but I would think very carefully about your reasons. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:35:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29308 I like sushi Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:36:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29309 okay...i'll be serious for a moment:P there is really no getting round the fact that reason leans heavier on the side of E's D and FG. That said, life is not one big ball of reason. The prettiest girl does not always marry the most handsome fella (otherwise some of us would be in real trouble). You have but one life...try to live it in such a way that you have as few regrets as possible. For my part I am not sure i would not look back at 50 and wish i'd not seen how its done the other side. In the end it boiled down to just that for me... So there u have it. It doesn't make much sense, it is a great expense both in terms of time and money. But i am still going for it. Thats me, thats Baron, thats AnnaC, and thats a few other blokes. If u can avoid the temptation, please do. but if u have some time and a little money to spare, stop by! Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:37:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29310 I like sushi Lol:P Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:04:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29312 Fair enough. They say it's better to regret the things you did, than the thing's you didn't do. So, even if it turns out to be a great waste of time and resources, you're ok in the final analysis. Besides, it sounds like you won't regret it at all. The only nagging question I have from this perspective is, if the choice is motivated by a "hair in the wind, live life to the fullest' philosophy, then, well, there are MANY, MANY beter ways to spend your time than memorizing ratios in order to barf them back in a three hour pie eating contest. Thu, 05 Apr 2007 19:04:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29313 Okay, here's the deal...the title of your thread was the BCL vs the HLS LLM...it is a tough call, and whichever way you choose, u might always wonder about the other. all SB and I r saying is that there is another way, where u dont have to choose:D its an indulgence, yeah, but an option nevertheless. in a way its a lazy and costly way out of indecision, and i do condemn it in the harshest terms possible:P but if u can...and u wanna...go for it:)) Fri, 06 Apr 2007 01:20:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29340 Busingye i have your back on this one :-) No seriously, ED and flygirl make some valid points. If you want to go into the world of academia you should definitely do a PhD instead of another masters. It will definitely be more beneficial. You could do other degrees like in economics or a MBA but that depends on you knowing what areas of law you want to do and go into. But in saying that will doing the LLM and the BCL harm your legal career. Will having oxford and harvard on your CV not give you an advantage? All i'm saying is that there are different courses for different horses. I already have a masters but i don't what to do a PhD because i can't see myself studying on one particular area for 3/4 years. In addition, I want to practice rather than enter the world of academia. Will doing the second masters help my career? I hope so because it will be from Cambridge. People mention that it will be waste of another year and in that time you could be working and earning money. But I don't see it like that. I'm sure you will recoup that money in no time, spending what 40k-50k may now seem a lot but that will be pittance to what you can potential earn in 10 years time. Most importantly, who knows how long your career will last. You may outlive ED, flygirl, myself and busingye and thus have a longer career etc etc, who knows what will happen in the future.... But thats me, ED and flygirl have different aspirations, some people enter the legal profession after having doing something else. Question is do you want to do it, do you have the resources to do it? If yes then go for it. Just to give you an example below is a link to a profile of a partner at a leading american law firm. If you check out the profile, he has 2 masters, one from Cambridge and one from Georgetown and he doesn't seem to be doing badly for himself! Also note he did his original undergraduate law degree from cambridge and so some may argue that he didn't even need to do a masters let alone two but he nonetheless did! (phew!!!!!!) http://www.sidley.com/lawyers/bio.asp?ID=P342281521 Fri, 06 Apr 2007 04:41:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29349 Ummm...I can't really be bothered with discussion anymore since I think all points have been made. That being said, the point about the partner is misleading. For every one partner in a firm you can find with two Masters you can finding 100 more at least with only one Masters and even more with none at all. So that example dispproves your point rather than makes it. In addition, the Cambridge Masters in Laws is an LLM not an M.A. so it would seem his second Masters wasn't in law which supports ED's early point about diversity. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 10:42:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29368 Busingye : spot on dude. .... The temptation to do both, if you can manage the finances, is irresistible. Where are you going ? I'm hoping to be headed to Oxford - the cobbled streets, Raz, Raz, Raz & more Raz ! Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:03:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29369 Heh..Verily, verily i say unto you...around this time in September, i will be treading upon the autumn leaves in Boston:) Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:04:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29370 Flygirl's right - if you do a cambridge BA they give you an MA a year after you graduate, in a sort of honorary fashion, without actually having to do the study. So I suspect that partner hasn't really got two MAs/LLMs. I don't really see the point about having to choose between another LLM/BCL and Phd. There are other graduate degrees i think - Mst or Mphil etc. These seem the obvious thing to do if you don't want to go on to a phd yet or ever, but like the idea of more grad law study. They're only a year still i think, but at least a little different to your last, and actually doing a bit of research. Also something less exam focused. At the same time, I agree there can be no harm in another LLM, if you've got the money and time to play with. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:02:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29388 Heh, Raz as a draw card?! He also teaches at Columbia for one semester a year and he is a lovely man but a terrible teacher. I love his writing but would just read his books and steer clear of his classes. I have heard he is a good research supervisor though. You know he retired recently though, right? I don't think he teaches at Oxford any more but perhaps the BCL students can correct me on this. Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:54:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29407 Wishful Thinking - I notice from another post that you are deciding between Oxford and Columbia. If Raz is who you want to study with then I recommend CLS since he still teaches there for half a year due to no compulsory retirement like in the UK. Mon, 09 Apr 2007 20:15:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29572 hmmm .........i intend to get back to practise ... and in India. . . the brand oxford opens doors !!! Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:06:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29658 I am in a similar position: I have offers from Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge (where I currently study). I know for a fact that I definitely want to do the Harvard LLM next year because I have never been to America and would love the experience. I am from Malaysia and therefore the UK has been a great three years for me but I'd like to experience an alternative. Should I decide to do the Oxford BCL after my Harvard LLM, does anyone know whether Oxford is ok with deferring entry for a year after they have already offered it to me for the coming academic year? Tue, 10 Apr 2007 23:27:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#29659 As to whether you should do the BCL after your Harvard LLM I think we have comprehensively touched on all the issues in this post. As for a deferral, I am not sure whether Oxford does that. When I was accepted into the BCL programme I inquired about that and Endicott told me that I should not consider the BCL after my LLM and instead move on to a research programme. I am not sure if that answers your question but it does indicate the general attitude of the faculty towards having both degrees and perhaps that would influence whether they would allow a deferral in your case. Thu, 07 Jun 2007 06:15:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32496 I actually have seen a number of Oxford BCL/Harvard LLMs just from googling, although, as already said, it is not a conventional path. For those choosing this path, did you apply to both and defer one? Or did you apply to the second one while you were doing your first? Is there rationale for doing the BCL before the LLM, or vice versa, or does the order not matter? Oh, and how about taking a few years in between them to practice...or should they be done one after the other? Sorry for all the questions, but this thread definitely got me thinking about this route. Thanks! Fri, 08 Jun 2007 16:09:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32532 Well, if you can only do one (and not both), I believe there is one other significant factor which has yet been considered by this thread. The general concensus is that the BCL is far more rigorous than the Harv LLM. I am not entirely sure whether the LLM degree is 'classed' but the BCL degree definitely is. You either get a Distinction (otherwise known as a first), a Pass or (God forbid), you fail the course. On the average, 1 in 3 BCL students achieve the distinction. If you are keen to know, 1 in 5 MJur students achieve the same. I can assure you that achieving the distinction requires a lot of hard work and discipline. I speak from personal experience. But it appears that you guys are all bright sparks, and so, maybe it will be a walk in the park for you. To my mind, the answer to this dilemma turns on whether you examine it from the 'before' or the 'after'. 'Before' - The fear is that if you do go for the BCL, you do not obtain the distinction, in which case, you are better off doing the LLM which (I believe) is not 'classed'. Personally, if I know for a fact that I will only get a BCL pass, I would take the LLM over the BCL any time. 'After' - Operating on the assumption that you would achieve the distinction if you do go for the BCL (which I cannot overemphasize requires a phenomenal amount of work (again, on my part at least - you guys may be way smarter) and obviously, luck), then my view is that having the BCL is better than the LLM as you would be viewed as having undergone 'true academic rigour and succeeded'. Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:36:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32537 Our views on having both are set out exhaustively above so I won't go into them again. For my part I think it comes down to where you want to study and what sort of law you want to study. I had the choice between the US and the UK for my Masters and chose the US because I was more interested in the US's approach to legal philosophy and constitutional law at the time. That being said, I didn't find the program particularly rigorous in that I was just lumped in with the other JDs (many of whom were first years) and it seemed like people could talk about what ever they wanted and call it law. That could be quite fun because we were assigned many non-law books to read as part of our courses on human rights, law and culture etc. This is not to say the LLM was easy - I worked extremely hard due to the amount of credits you need in order to graduate and the reading they assign - but intellectually I found it to be a bit too easy. I also chose to do the US LLM because I wanted to live in New York over Oxford (and Boston for that matter) and considered working in the US subsequent to my LLM. That being said, I am now moving to Oxford to do my DPhil because the supervision there (I hear) is much better than at the top US universities (ie: they take the DPhil seriously) and there is more researching going on at Oxford in what I want to do. Fri, 08 Jun 2007 20:02:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32538 I agree. The main priority and essential deciding factor for those fortunate enough to be accpeted to both masters courses has got to be the question of where you want to practice (in this I would subsume the question of what you want to practice, meaning both the subject area/discipline and the forum--i.e.e academia or firm/business). For academia, I'd do the BCL; for practice/business, I'd select based on where I want to work, and, to a lesser degree, the area I want to practice in, having regard to the repute of each faculty in that area. Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:39:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32562 Point taken. Other things constant, my decision on which course to accept would also be based on ED's considerations. However, if on an ex poste facto examination, I know for a fact I won't do well for the BCL, I will go for the Harv LLM. Sun, 10 Jun 2007 16:51:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32573 Yeah but the very fact that you would do better in the Harvard LLM is the reason why it is a lesser respected degree academically. If you just want the name and the chance to live in the US and learn US law then go to Harvard. If you actually want to be challenged more and learn new intellectual skills then do the BCL. Sun, 10 Jun 2007 22:28:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32576 is it a fact that the harv llm isn't graded/classed? if not, then the above discussion might be somewhat misplaced. Sun, 10 Jun 2007 23:59:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32578 It is graded but you don't get awarded a first, second, etc degree overall like at Oxford so it is less obvious from your CV how well you did. I am not sure the fact that the BCL degree is graded makes much difference. The individual courses/papers at Harvard are still graded and you'd still have to show your transcript at an interview. Personally, I think it choosing Harvard because it is "easier" than Oxford or whatever is a little misguided. Choose somewhere because it offers one the best possible educational experience. Mon, 11 Jun 2007 04:49:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32579 even if we allow that in selecting a school one takes into account the relative difficulty of the programme and therefore the anticipated ease with which one may obtain top grades, I think that, as flygirl points out, those results will be appreciated irrespective of whether or not the entire degree is classed. any future employer will consider the grades in each course; A's and firts look terrific, but bpluses and 2:1's are probably sufficent, at least from schools of this calabre. Tue, 12 Jun 2007 15:21:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32627 I agree with the point that, in principle, the choice of which degree to go for should not turn on the relative ease or difficulty of the programme although in practice, I believe this factor would usually not go unconsidered. In reality, this is one of the factors (together with others like costs, geography, likelihood of an exciting social life, family proximity etc.) which gets considered, if only at a subconscious level, in totality with everything else. On the point that B+s and good 2:1s are probably sufficient, I would beg to differ. Anecdotal evidence suggests that MC employers are 'very eager' to woo the BCL firsts, while expressing 'an optimistic willingness' to consider regular BCLers. I have also been candidly informed during interviews that, all things equal, a first is preferred (duh...). With that being said, I know of regular BCLers who have received offers in priority to BCL firsts, which clearly goes to show that there are other things employers look for. Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:30:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32633 I suppose it depends on where you study and what your total package is. If the BCL is the only significant thing on your application, then I guess I agree with your point above. But i think that if you are very strong in other areas, then 2:1's from the BCL are probably sufficent. In saying this I was thinking in the context of myself and my canadian peers. I personally know three people working in MC firms who don't have masters degrees at all. They have first class degrees in underghrad (BA) and top ten percent in their LLB's., both in canada. They then articled here for one year to get their call to the bar and then jumped over to huge MC firms. When i wrote that 2:1's are proabbaly suffiecent, i was thinking of these three people, and I suppose myself in that I have similar credentials. If they gotseveral MC offers without masters degrees at all, then surely a 2:1 from oxford would only strenghten their chances, not diminish them. That was my thought process. Fri, 15 Jun 2007 09:35:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32736 .. Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:06:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32744 heh, heh. Yes this whole discussion thread has become a bit ridiculous. I have an inherent dislike of deciding whether to do something based on how well I think I am going to do at the end. This creates a "fear of failure" mentality that can prevent you from ever achieving anything that is difficult or risky. It is self-defeating. Also, the idea of not doing the BCL because I'd be worried about not getting a distinction misses the point that study is supposed to be about the journey not the destination. Sigh. Back to work. Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:21:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32746 Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:31:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32749 ok, if this thread wasn't cooky before, it definately is now! Now that we've settled the above debate, I have an actual, substantive question: what grades does one need, generally (say in the context of cantab llm bc that's where i'm going) in order to get into the phd?? Flygirl, I know you went to columbia and are now (very unfortunately!!!) going to oxford for the doctrotae instead of cambridge, so maybe you can answer this. I don't think you'd have to get all firsts in the llm, would you? Do you think two firsts and two 2:1's would do it?? Irishguy, you must know some people carrying on into the phd, what's your view? Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:02:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32750 To be honest, I don't think that it is as much to do with grades (and individual papers) as your overall research agenda and your academic references and publications. I wrote a 1,000 word research proposal and had three referees (two of whom had supervised me in substantive pieces of work). In my proposal I didn't mention my grades/individual courses but I did mention previous research I had done and how it had tied in. I imagine they looked at my transcript but I think, at the research level, they'd be more interested in whether your professor=referees saw you as an original and sophisticated thinker and writer as opposed to someone who just sits good exams. So I imagine that provided you get a solid LLM then getting a first wouldn't be so important. I would work on building up a relationship with a professor in your area who will write you a good reference and developing an interesting research proposal. [btw, can someone explain Irishguy's reference to his forum mom above? So confused] Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:06:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32751 >_>_>_>_>_> Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:08:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32752 sorry flygirl, I'm a little bonkers today. Ignore it as the nonsense it is. Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:17:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32753 >_>_>+>+>+>>+ Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:21:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32754 very interesting... flygirl, did you have all firsts at columbia? irishgoy and flyirl, do most people get funding for the phd if they are admitted? i find it hard to believe that many people would pay for the full three years themselves... Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:28:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32755 In regards to my comments, I'm only going by what was sent around to us, flygirl was actually admitted, so she's probably your best bet re reliable information. Most go for funding yes, they apply to government bodies and internal trusts and subject specific scholarships. Securing funding is a lot more difficult than being admitted unfortunately (again flygirl will be of more help here) :-( Fri, 15 Jun 2007 21:03:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32762 The LLM at Columbia isn't graded in terms of firsts etc but I had all As and A minuses (no A+s and no Bs). I am not sure that would have been enough to do the PhD if I hadn't actually formed a good relationship with one professor at Columbia. I took 2 seminars with him and wrote a dissertation with him for which I got all As. The other professors didn't give me the time of day. If you think you might want to do your PhD at Cambridge then I would probably do a Masters at Toronto, which is cheaper, and then get admitted to the PhD after that. I think it is much easier to get funding for the PhD than the LLM. I got into the Cambridge LLM a few years back and got ZERO funding but got full funding this time. That could have also been because of the additional Columbia qualification but I tend to think there is more money for PhD candidates because they are going to contribute more back to the institution in terms of research. Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:21:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32770 Interesting. I'm actually leaning towards the opposite, i.e. do the LLM at Cambridge and then the PHD at either Toronto or UBC. My reasons are primarily that I'd like to live in canada while doing the doctorate, preferably on the lovely west coast. also, if i were to teach, being in canada is advantageous in that i could do two years in residence of the phd and then go into teaching and finish the remainder of the doctorate over then next three or so years. It draws it out, to be sure; but it also gives me the chance to continually check out the job market here... Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:26:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32772 Well Toronto is a great school too but I wonder whether by the time you get to the UK you'll enjoy it so much there that you won't want to leave...that was my experience with the US anyway. Nine months is very short. Actually, I thought about doing my doctorate at Toronto as I heard Dyzenhaus is great but then I visited Toronto and didn't like the town very much plus we weren't sure about work for my husband there. Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:39:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32774 I guess I just wonder about spending so much on a Cambridge LLM if it is going to be only a step to a PhD. If you were to stay on at Cambridge and get your (fully funded) PhD there you could attend the LLM classes for free and your PhD degree would trump your LLM (thus, possibly, making your expensive LLM less important). And if you went to Canada after your Cambridge LLM then your Canadian PhD would make your Cambridge LLM less important (since employers usually look at your last degree) so again devaluing all the money you spent on your Cambridge LLM. Not sure if I am making sense. Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:25:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/28954/last#32777 that makes sense. I agree that generally your last degree is the one that matters (up to the LLm, ie the llm trumps the llb, which trumps the ba), however it seems that many people at the law faculties here in canada often follow a pattern that i've laid out. ie get the big impressive LLM, which has status just because it's hugely competative to get in, but then the phd is often an esoteric academicy few years spent at a canadian uni. it seems that by then, ie post llm, the schools don't really care where you do the phd. Maybe im totally wrong, but that's the impression one gets when you look at the faculty profiles-- very few bother doign the big name phd, but most do have a big name llm. Maybe it's less competative to get into a phd than into an LLm? I know that sounds backwards, but I think it may be true. LLM's at the very prestigious uni's get SO MANY apps from all over the world that they tend to require really exceptional grades to make offers. But I think the number of apps to PHD programmes is much much lower, since only the academically oreinted people would apply (whereas for the one year LLM, you get all the academics plus all the practioners applying). Now, it's true that all those applying to the PHD [probably have great grades from the LLM, which would suggest high competation, but I wonder if you have some awards for writing, and a pub,ication or two, and references speaking to your research writing ability and potential success ina phd, and if your proposal is lucid and fits within the mandate of a supervisor, well then maybe all these things might make up for, say, two firsts and two 2:1's in the LLM?? I really don't know; I just suspect that the PHD has way fewer applicants and therefore they take a much more nuanced and detailed individual look at each app, rather than simply rejecting you based on your GPA (as they tend to at the LLM level) what do you think fig?