http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379 en Best LLM Programs in London - LLM GUIDE Discussion Board Tue, 23 Aug 2005 22:46:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#7379 I am a US JD and am having trouble finding a ranking system of universities in London. I would like to get an LLM and do not know which schools have the most prestigious programs, etc. Any advice would be most appreciated. Also, does anyone know the estimated cost of these programs. I realize that it will vary depending on the university but if someone is aware of a range I would appreciate that information as well. Thanks in advance! Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:51:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#7421 Although we have rankings in the UK, they are not quite as well developed as I believe in the US. When you look into rankings thoroughly in the UK, more often than not you will hear of a single UK HE establishment with a specialise in a particular area or areas, rather than a lead in all subjects (the latter being the way our existing ranking systems order our schools). Often students will seek out particular tutors, regardless of which institution they work at, because the tutor is so highly regarded. Do you have any UK authors who you particularly rate? What's the area of legal study you intend to look for? UK LL.M costs will range from 5,000 GBP to 12,000 GBP for an international student. That's only an approximation based on last years fees, and accounts for the rise in fees expected each year. Also, why London? Have you thought that your search for the most prestigious programmes might take you beyond London? Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and many others will likely have the academics or centres of excellence representing the best in UK for their subject areas. Tue, 30 Aug 2005 01:12:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#7474 I am interested mostly in programs in either Intellectual Property or Human Rights. (I realize they are very different but am struggling with which avenue I wish to pursue). I am somewhat limited to London because I can work part-time out of my firm's London office to take some of the sting out of the costs of the program. We don't have any other offices throughout England thus, London is the most feasible option. Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:07:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#7484 I might be somewhat biased going to KCL myself, but why don't you have a look at their programme? They offer courses on IP Law that sound quite interesting, and they also have some human rights law courses. In addition, there's always the opportunity to take two courses from other University of London colleges (i.e. UCL, QM, SOAS). Tue, 30 Aug 2005 15:29:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#7485 If you're interested in IP, which area of IP particularly? Have you considered the option of distance learning? If IP is your area of interest you could check out The University of Edinburgh's LL.M. If you were keen to remain on-campus in London then I know that Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute (http://www.qmipri.org) also has a very popular, and well resourced programme, though it tends to shy away from the technical side of IP. KCL might be better for more techy stuff. If you were interested in developing the human rights/IP route then Birkbeck might be the option, it does well in the REA (research) and got 5a. And although the IP programme may not necessarily be the best, the London School of Economics always has a good name attached. There's a good IP law blog from a couple of folks from QM at http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/. Hope this helps. Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:16:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#7488 Hehe, Colin, I knew this would come ;-) Edinburgh's long-distance programme is certainly worth thinking about, CA Associate. It might be easier to co-ordinate with working part-time at your firm than having to attend courses at fixed hours. Oh, and thanks a lot for the address of the IP law blog, Colin, it's very interesting. Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:44:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9321 Can someone please tell me how the application process works for UCL, King's College and QMUL? Must I send a separate application to each university or does one application cover each of them since they are all part of the London university system? Please advise. Kind regards. Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:03:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9379 Yes, you have to send a separate application form to each of the University of London colleges you want to apply to (since each college doesn't ask for exactly the same things in an application). There is no centralized application system for the UofL LLM programme. Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:04:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9417 Does anyone know where to find the application to QMUL? I cannot seem to locate it on their website...any guidance would be greatly appreciated! Wed, 04 Jan 2006 18:17:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9451 Here's the address: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/postgraduate/apply/index.html Tue, 10 Jan 2006 14:08:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9575 The best LLM programme in London is the LSE's, natch. It's the only London university that is on a par to the Oxford BCL and the Cambridge LLM, and is also a very international course. As an American, you would be best advised to go there. Tue, 10 Jan 2006 15:52:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9578 Hi studentbarista, do you have some objective parametres for your ranking of LSE? If so, please share it! I would have thought from what I read on this board and from other rankings that UCL is slightly better or at least at par with LSE Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:23:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9585 "In the most recent national research assessment (2001), LSE came second after Cambridge in the UK for the quality of its research. LSE submitted 97 per cent of its staff for assessment, more than any other university. A further review in 2003, retrospectively introduced a higher grading of 5** for subject areas which had achieved 5* in the two previous rounds of the research assessment exercise. Economics and Social Policy all received a 5**. In total, LSE received 12 grades of 5**,5* and 5 for all but one of its units of assessment. * Economics and Econometrics 5** * Social Policy and Administration 5** * Accounting and Finance 5* * Anthropology 5* * International History 5* * Law 5* * Philosophy 5* * Economic History 5 * Politics and International Relations 5 * Business and Management 5 * Geography 5 * Sociology 5 * Statistics and Operational Research 4" LSE law scored higher than UCL law in the last RAE. Fact. And if you think that the RAE is rubbish, just on a casual basis, you can easily see that the LSE law department has far more big names than UCL. UCL might well have Lord Woolf (sometimes) and Michael Bridge and Dworkin (occasionally) but that IS IT. The LSE has a star studded cast who regularly teach, including about 20 QCs. Not to mention the regular crew: Sarah Worthington, William Blair (brother of Tony), Vanessa FInch, Nicola Lacey, Michael Zander... The LLM course at UCL is also far too big. It's the largest LLM course in London. I've got a friend doing it and he hates it. It's very disorganised. Tue, 10 Jan 2006 23:16:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9587 I 've got some observations on studentbarista's views but first, lets hear from someone in UCL. So members of the UCL clan, kindly step forward and air your views. Is LSE really superior to your school? Wed, 11 Jan 2006 02:58:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9593 In America, UCL has an excellent reputation especially among New York law firms. LSE is very respected, but many American lawyers (and clients) unfortunately associate LSE with ultra-leftist radicalism and a faculty and student body tinged with virulent anti-American sentiment. Some LSE grads I've met in New York have complained that LSE's radical image caused some impediment in the American job market as a result. For this reason when it comes to London LLM's, the best and most practical choice (for someone wishing to penetrate the USA legal market without any prejudicial hurdles) would have to be UCL, hands down. Wed, 11 Jan 2006 13:52:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9608 Er... why would anyone do an LLM in London with a view to penetrating the NY jobs market? Surely an LLM from an American university would be more useful? Obviously - the LSE has a left wing reputation. But we're talking about an LLM here chaps. So unless you went to the LSE as an undergraduate, they're not going to automatically assume that you're some hairy leftie. Also: I'm not laying into UCL as a place generally. It's really good. Much better, for example, than Queen Mary, London Met, and even King's. I just think that the intercollegiate London LLM is really poor. I think LSE was right to go it alone and have it all taught 'in-house.' As far as I can make out, LSE is percieved to be the best university in London for law. (See other discussion about the intercollegiate LLM - although I don't know whether they really are going to get rid of it). Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:29:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9619 I 've got some observations on studentbarista's views but first, lets hear from someone in UCL. So members of the UCL clan, kindly step forward and air your views. Is LSE really superior to your school? Hello there, I am currently a LLM UCL student. Answer to the question : in the most recent ranking of the Times Good University 2005, UCL is ahead. But it is just a ranking. It seems that among British students, or if you want to work after in London, Lawfirms prefer UCL students compared to LSE, as LSE mainly focuses on foreign (ie non Brit) students. Ex Oxbridge students told me that between LSE, UCL, and even KCL, it is obvious that they will choose UCL. It depends also of your jurisdiction. In France where I am from, I must admit that LSE and also KCL are much more known than UCL which I did not even know before looking to the ranking ! The same appears to be true in Italy and in Germany, but I am not sure. This explains why there are few French at UCL compared to KCL or LSE (to my knowledge). Basically, I think both are equal. I am very happy at UCL as the content of classes and teachers are excellent (International finance with prof Graham Penn, Secured Transactions with Prof Michael Bridge, Torts with prof Basil Markesinis). I have also taken KCL European regulations class with the excellent Prof Dalhuisen, which is a "must have" for those who want to specialise in financial law. Classes taught at KCL in Trust Law (Prof Matthews) and Banking Law (Prof Hooley) are known also to be excellent, as well as the UCL insolvency Law class of Prof Fletcher. Hope it helps. I have tried to be objective. Cheers, Ronin Wed, 11 Jan 2006 23:33:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9622 I agree with ronin. UCL and KCL are highly regarded by oxford and cambridge law grads. It's only in the last 5-10 years that LSE has acquired a reputation as a decent law school. LSE has made a big effort to attract star names to its law faculty, although interestingly most of them are not lse graduates. Furthermore, just because a school has a famous faculty doesn't mean that it necessarily provides a top legal education. A lot of excellent academics are poor teachers. When trying to determine the quality of a law school I think it's just as useful to look at how successful it's students are as it is to compare the reputation of its professors. For example, if you check out the academic background of barristers at the top chambers in london you'll notice that most of the tenants are from oxford and cambridge, followed by UCL and KCL. Still, studentbarista has a point - the intercollegiate LLM is way too big to ensure that all the courses are of a consistent high quality so I'd advise anyone who's thinking of doing it to properly check out the classes they're interested in before choosing subjects. From my experience I'd recommend international insolvency at UCL (profs fletcher and harmer are superb) and international trusts at KCL. CA Associate, if you're interested in human rights then I'd recommend Comparative Human Rights at UCL or Human Rights in the Developing World at SOAS. The International Protection of Human Rights course at UCL is fascinating, but the main teachers on it (ralph wilde and matt craven) are awful, excellent academic records notwithstanding. Thu, 12 Jan 2006 01:56:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9624 MrK, you have just hit the nail on the head! Most popular academics make their name from writing fabulous books which turn out to be reference points on the subject. However, when it comes to classroom lecturing, some of these otherwise big names are big flops... Additionally, most of the big names are quite busy! Some are practising barristers, others have engagements with a lot of international organisations, even with schools abroad. So one shouldnt be carried away by the strength of the CVs of a Faculty's academics. The taste of the pudding is in the eating and people who should know testify that UCL has an edge over LSE on teaching style and prospects after graduation. On the intercollegiate system which most people see as a weakness, I actually think it is a source of strength. A UCL student who doesnt want to have anything with the so called unweildy system can always take all his courses from UCL. For the adventurous bird, the intercollegiate system permits you to have the best of 2 worlds - excellent UCL teaching in courses like Int'l Trade, Secured Transactions, Int'l Finance, Environmental Law and Natural Resources. Complemented by KCL's reputed International Law of Trusts. Cheers Thu, 12 Jan 2006 04:16:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9625 i'm not sure where everyone is from on here. I am an American attorney living between New York and Miami (best of both worlds, sun & city!!) More and more young American attorneys are going abroad to pursue LLMs for (a) the quality of the Int'l Law programs, and to expand their realm of knowledge; and (b) the invaluable experience of living overseas for a year or more. London seems to be the most popular target, in addition to Holland, France, and Asia. Another reason many Americans choose foreign LLMs is the fact that the best American law schools (i.e. Yale, Harvard, Columbia, UC-Berkley, Chicago, NYU etc) heavily restrict admission to their LLM programs to only non-American students. Accordingly, many of us are left with the choice of pursuing a mediocre and worthless domestic LLM (and there are plenty to choose from), or attending a premier and valuable foreign LLM such as the London programs. After earning the LLM I believe most of us want to come back to America and resume practice here. To the extent that is the case, I do believe that UCL (and obviously Oxford, Cambridge, Sorbonne) has excellent name recognition and respect here in the US, and doesn't connote an intense leftist philosophy as an LSE degree may symbolize. Thu, 12 Jan 2006 07:09:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9631 An American currently on the LLM program, I'd suggest you first need to realize that the facilities here (libraries in particular) are third rate compared to most U.S. law schools. Having said that LSE is great if you want to go to an American school in London. You'll find a considerable percentage of your fellow students are American; if that's what you want the Notre Dame LLM in London would probably give you a better education with more clout back home. A London LLM is just that. I'm not sure it really matters where you take the degree for U.S. employment purposes. For example, if you're into computer or intellectual property law you'd be crazy to do it anywhere in London other than Queen Mary. Better to fit your interests into the program rather than let your course selection be dictated by the reputation of the school. I'm taking courses at King's, University and Queen Mary. My class at University College is by far the worst I'm taking. Only King's has a library worth using. My Queen Mary professor is the most approachable and likely my future source of a reference. Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:58:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9651 I'm really pleased at all the info that's come out of this thread - really useful. Just to clear up Ronin's point, though: "Ex Oxbridge students told me that between LSE, UCL, and even KCL, it is obvious that they will choose UCL." I went to Oxford as an undergraduate, and I've chosen to apply only to the LSE and Cambridge. So it isn't everyone! Thu, 12 Jan 2006 23:18:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9655 While LSE's origins might have been as a hotbed of leftist radicalism it's nothing like that now. These days it has far more of a free-market libertarian vibe about it. Also, Tony Blair relied to a large degree on the writings of LSE Prof Chris Greenwood QC to support his arguments on the legality of invading iraq - hardly a sign of anti-US leftist sentiment. As for the intercollegiate LLM, I'll admit that the variety of subjects you can do is a real strength of the programme. As things currently stand I don't think any of the london colleges have the depth to run a top quality LL.M by themselves, not across a broad range of subject areas anyway. Still, I do think there's a real problem in ensuring that all the courses are taught and assessed to a consistently high standard. Some are very good and some are poor. Also there doesn't seem to be any real system in place to evaluate teaching quality. Studentbarista, how come you aren't applying for the BCL? It's still the most respected degree at the bar. What college did you do your undergrad at by the way? I did mine at merton. Fri, 13 Jan 2006 00:12:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9656 Hi guys! Very interesting thread.... Please help me out, it seems to me that you reaLLY can answer to my question. Apart from the single courses which are well reputed at the London Law Schools, which are the LLM programs for which LSE, KCL, UCL, QM are best reputed ? In particular, I am very interested in International Public Law/Human Rights, IP LAW and European Law. Thanks Fri, 13 Jan 2006 01:22:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9658 IP law is Queen Mary's specialty (even UCL professors like Jeremy Phillips teach on the LLM at QMUL) and I'd suggest KIng's for European law with the caveat that that is one area I'd like to pick and chose from all the faculties. In terms of human rights I'd suggest that London is not the place to be for this field. If I had to be here LSE probably is where I'd go. Fri, 13 Jan 2006 09:29:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9667 Thank you Turkued! And UCL is also strong for IP? Or what else? And for competition law? I'm sorry I bother, but as you can see, I'm very undecised...... ;-) ciao Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:23:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9673 Mr K - Univ. I decided not to apply for the BCL because I didn't get a high enough First. I also quite fancy studying at a different university for a while. Sat, 14 Jan 2006 18:09:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9697 Mr K - Univ. I decided not to apply for the BCL because I didn't get a high enough First. I also quite fancy studying at a different university for a while. Fair enough - Three years in oxford was enough for me too at the time, which is why I did my masters at UCL. Still, am slightly curious as to your choice of LSE - what area of law are you hoping to practice in at the bar? Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:14:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9700 Insolvency - Vanessa Finch and Sarah Worthington are legends. But remember: my first choice is Cambridge! Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:21:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9703 I also love the LSE library. Very handy, as well - right next to the RCJ and Lincoln's Inn. Sun, 15 Jan 2006 08:14:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9707 Interesting views have been expressed. I thought I should add my own observations. I think at undergraduate level, the teaching quality for law at UCL and LSE are more of less the same. It is generally regarded as such by most academics and students too. Both are excellent and are probably the best law schools after Oxford and Cambridge. As to employment prospects for LLB students, I think UCL has a slight advantage because it is perceived as a more 'British' institution (both in culture and student population) as opposed to the LSE. I can't comment on the respective LLM programmes at UCL and LSE. I do know that some UCL courses are excellent and taught by outstanding people, but I have also heard that some students who are admitted are not the most academically impressive. One thing that is greatly cherished is the diverse range of courses offered through the intercollegiate LLM; it is unfortunate that this will end soon. I have also heard the general advice (from academics, senior partners, QCs and bankers) that if you have an LLB from a top British uni (Oxbridge, UCL, LSE or KCL), it is probably better to do an LLM at a top US law school. Indeed, that is why I chose Harvard. I agree with this general view. At least at Harvard, an LLM student is exposed to an amazing array of opportunities, facilities and experiences (intellectual, cultural, social and professional). If you are wondering, I read law at UCL as an undergraduate (turning down offers from LSE and KCL), and accepted the place to do an LLM at Harvard (turning down the offers from Oxford and Cambridge). I was an international student and will be joining a Magic Circle firm (having turned down an offer from a US firm). So I guess I am reasonably impartial! Lol. Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:38:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9717 I agree with your views, as it seems to me quite logical and I would have done the same if I had a LLB from an UK University ( I am French and I have a law degree from University of Paris - Assas, and do currently a LLM in UCL which I really enjoy). To say the truth, I was a little surprised (not to say upset) when I learnt that it was not necessary to have a LLM... and not even a law degree to work in Magic circles lawfirm in London for UK students, which is unthinkable in France for instance. By comparison, your technical background will be absolutely superb ! Congratulations for Harvard ! Last question : if it is not a secret, which Magic Circle lawfirm have you choose and in which area do you plan to specialise ? Cheers, Ronin Sun, 15 Jan 2006 17:51:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9725 'I was a little surprised (not to say upset) when I learnt that it was not necessary to have a LLM... and not even a law degree to work in Magic circles lawfirm in London for UK students, which is unthinkable in France for instance.' Why on earth should you be surprised or upset about this? It's always been possible to convert your BA into a law degree in the UK - especially for the Bar. If you look at chambers websites, you'll find that most QCs read something other to law as a BA. These days, that's less common but still possible. I'd say about two in three students with me at Bar School don't have a law degree. Ronin, why do you think the legal profession should exclude able candidates in disciplines other than law? Sun, 15 Jan 2006 20:35:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9727 Ronin, why do you think the legal profession should exclude able candidates in disciplines other than law? I do not say that, far from it ! I am just saying that it is very uncommon un France, as well as Germany as far I know. Well, I must admit I am quite sceptical that students who have not a law degree (even with a convert class) be as efficient as those who have one when they begin to work in Lawfirms. I am not alone to have this feeling, honestly. I have already worked as an associate in a Lawfirm and from my (short) experience, I prefer to work with law degree trainees / people when files are extremely technicals. Let's say that I am one of those "French old school academical lawyer" (arrogant you will probably think...) who think that to be able to understand efficiently very complicated subject such as law requires several years of studies exclusively dedicated to it ! Honestly it is just because after all those years dedicated to study exclusively law, I tend to be modest as I realize it is a subject really technical. And it would not occur to me to compete with historians or psychologists in their field, even if I can convert my degree ! But ey, it is only my opinion. I know that in UK, it is different and really really far from me the idea to ecxlude able candidates in disciplines other than law or even to criticize the UK system, as UK lawfirms are excellent with non law degree people !!! I am just quite sceptical because in France we are not very accostumated to such idea and, who knows, I can change my mind one day ! Cheers, Ronin Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:03:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9731 Despite Kazaf’s astute comments (and a few others) there is a lot of rubbish posted on this thread. People are giving advice to others about institutions that they have never attended or studied at! How can you say, for example, LSE is better than UCL without studying at both? I think that this is most unfair. People may choose to snub a perfectly good institution because of some of the defective advice posted here. I also have a question for studentbarista: did you really go to Oxford? You say you didn't get a high enough 1st to study the BCL but you don't need 1st to study the BCL; a good 2:1 is enough. My friend was accepted last year with a 2:1 from KCL. Futhermore, I was at the University of Oxford (St John’s College) last year but never came across you. Sun, 15 Jan 2006 23:42:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9733 To the private messages that have asked my views on more or less the same question, this is my response: 1. As I have stated above, UCL and LSE are both outstanding law schools, and together with KCL, would generally be considered the best and most prestigious law schools in England after Oxbridge. If asked to choose (specifically for law), most people in England would probably say that UCL is very slightly higher than LSE. This is certainly reflected in the City law firms - there are far more UCL law graduates than LSE law graduates in City law firms. 2. In general, the law departments at UCL and LSE are considered slightly 'better' than KCL's, but I suspect this is due to the overall institutional decline of KCL and its slightly lower entry requirements for the LLB. 3. For the record, the 2001 RAE gave the same ranking to UCL and LSE for law: 5*A. Nonetheless, these rankings are out of date and to my mind, are a poor indicator. In terms of league tables, UCL generally comes higher than LSE for law in most years, but these tables may be more relevant to the undergraduates. 4. I am unable to express any view on the comparative quality of the LLM programmes at UCL and LSE because I have not done either. In my personal opinion, the most perceptible difference between them is this: LSE is a very international institution trying to model itself on the American universities; UCL is still a traditional British university. Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:51:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9751 I hold a Norwegian law degree, and am currently working in one of the bigger Norwegian law firms with IP. The Norwegian law degree is obtained after 6 years of studying, and when looking for a LLM it is very important to me that it is highly specialized in my subject. I do not want to study with beginners. Does anyone have tips on where to go to find a good LLM for practitioners of IP? I`ve heard about QM, but is this mainly for students without any prior knowledge of IP? How difficult is it to get into a PhD programme in the UK? Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:11:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9755 Hey Norwegian, in the UK you must first complete a LLM (or another Masters degree) before you can study a Ph.D. With regard to your concerns about studying an LLM program, I would suggest that you consider the reasons why you want to study an LLM. If you are taking the course for its own sake, then I think you should look carefully at the courses available to see if their level of complexity meets your personal requirements. Conversely, if you are doing an LLM for its consequences (i.e. to improve chances of employment by getting a good grade) then I believe that doing a course that you would find straightforward is not a bad idea. You would be more likely to gain a high mark and, after all, that is one of the key things an employer looks for. Good luck, James Mon, 16 Jan 2006 21:25:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9763 I am a little irritated with all the hype surrounding an LLM in UCL.It is not as good as it is made out to be.I have an Indian batch-mate(from LLB days) studying there and she is far from impressed.I obviously do not want people to think that I am basing my opinion on a certain individual's experience(s). Guys instead of being in an awe please ask students who are studying there and then make an informed decision. Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:35:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9765 Hey Folks, I am currently studying for an LL.M in UCL which I guess makes me competent to comment on the quality of the program. While I may not be able as well to pass judgment on the quality of the programs at LSE and KCL, I wish to affirm the high quality of UCL's LLM program. Amongst the courses I am taking are Secured Transactions and Legal Aspects of International Law. So far, I ve had no regrets - if anything, I am glad I chose UCL above LSE and KCL. From discussions that I ve held with the close friends at LSE and KCL, I feel lucky that I am at UCL and not in any of those places. If any UCL students are not happy, it probably has to do with their choice of courses. The intercollegiate LL.M gives you a wide array to chose from - more than a hundred courses, at the last count. Having said that, I want to point that a lot of inaccurate advice and unfounded opinions are posted on this board which make things difficult for the outsider trying to reach a considered decision. It would help if we are more responsible with our posts. For eg., in response to James' reply to Norwegian, I wish to point out that it is NOT correct that a prospective PhD student in the UK must have an LL.M. The minimum entry requirement into the PhD at Cambridge (and infact in most schools in the UK) which has an excellent IP program is either: - a 1st class honours LL.B degree or its equivalent; or - a strong 2.1 with in addition a distinction in a Master's degree in law. So if Norwegian has a 1st class degree in the LL.B, he can sail straight (subject to being accepted) to a PhD without any requirement that he undergoes LL.M studies. Cheers Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:39:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9766 Amongst the courses I am taking are Secured Transactions and Legal Aspects of International Law. ...sorry, that should read - Secured Transactions and Legal aspects of International Finance. Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:39:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9781 Hi James, thanks a lot for your advice. My Norwegian degree is recognized as a Master-degree (it's actually higher than a master), it's just that they had not adapted the BA - master system yet when I finished in 2004 (now you may obtain a masters degree in law after five years of studying, and as I said I did six years, including a 20,000 word thesis). Therefore I think I`m formally qualified for a PhD. The reason why I still want to do an LLM is that I want to specialize on IP, and have a degree from abroad on this subject. I would also like to improve my chances of getting a good job abroad. Are holders of PhDs in the UK attractive on the job-market (as in house lawyers or in law firms) or are they more considered theroretics (working with research, teaching etc.)? Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:53:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9800 Hey Norwegian, I don't know much about the virtues of possessing a Ph.D., but one would suspect that they are more revered in the academic community than in the legal profession. A PhD, after all, is a research degree and not a practical qualification like the BVC or LPC. I doubt therefore whether it would SIGNIFICANTLY increase your chances of being employed by a reputable law firm (although I could be wrong). I say ‘significantly’ because I am not suggesting a PhD would hinder your chances of employment, only that it would be more useful if you were applying for a job as a university lecturer. None of the solicitors at the law firm I work part-time at - including the partners - possess PhD’s. Good luck, James Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:24:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9869 Is there a common understanding that one of the to rankings, Times and Guardian, is more regarded than the other one? There are some differences between the two. It would be nice to know which to relay on. Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:40:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9870 In the UK - the Times league table for law carries with it the most weight. Hope this helps, James Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:57:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#9872 Thank you James. It made it a bit easier for me to decide. I'm going to apply for an LLM in London for 2007/2008. I'm thinking of KCL, UCL and LSE, but it's hard to decide which is the first choice. But of course, if I am denied admission for one or two if them, it would make my choice much easier... Which of them is the most difficult to get in to? I am under the impression that LSE is the hardest. Is that true? OKM Tue, 07 Mar 2006 01:43:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#12016 The preoccupation with 'top schools' and the pointless comparisons with mangoes and apples is a recipe for disaster. While I understand the age -old reputation of 'oxbridge' and 'london' and their US ivy league equivalents, it is important to remember three things: 1. Having graduated you WILL have to prove yourself...and so wherever you graduated from becomes less important as you go on 2. Universities are not meant to be carbon copies of each other. These comparisons are therefore pointless. Queen Mary has a different focus in its devotion to legal scholarship, not found at UCL or LSE and vice versa. Ultimately you all end up with the same degree ( from the University of London ). In short, follow the expertise whereever it is. And in doing that get the best grades you can and network until they day you leave! These will count for much much more than attending as a misfit for the sake of something that in the long run will not really make a difference. 3. Top tier is not what will make you into the brightest thing ever, or the best lawyer to walk the earth. The domination of Oxbridge/London on the Bench for example is an accident of history. In 10-20 years time it will be comprehensively diversified. Brilliance comes well prior to attending any university and will shine virtually anywhere. Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:20:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#12051 Factual Inaccuracies on this thread I have spotted two factual inaccuracies in this thread 1. it is not true that you need a LLM to do a PhD. It is often the case that PhD students have LLMs but that is not necessarily the case-but most British University Law Schools will take a student either from practice; direct from a LLB or from a foreign first degree. 2. The Times listing does not have much more special weight than the Guardian. My understanding is that they are measuring different things-I would check what they are measuring in making any assessment of a school's position in any list. And more generally on PhDs in practice-they are not uncommon-but they exist in some areas-eg in my area-competition law, where the law is very complex and there is very little difference between practical and theoretical approaches quite a few practitioners have PhD's. Dr. Alan Riley Director of LLM Programmes City Law School Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:41:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#12108 I would like to disagree with the comment about the times not having more weight that the Guardian ranks. I have said before that the Guardian has ranked Bradford as 10th in law and yet Bradford does not have a law faculty! It does not do the law degree!!!! How can they claim to be accurate and give a correct view of the ranks yet they have made such a big mistake! I think the Times ranking is certainly more credible! Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:21:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#12117 The point I made is that they measure different things-so it is important to look at what they are measuring. In fact Bradford does have a Law School see http://www.bradfordlaw-school.org.uk/ Dr. Alan Riley Director LLM Programme City Law School Electronic Mail: alan.riley.1@city.ac.uk Wed, 08 Mar 2006 12:30:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#12118 Yes...Bradford has a law school, but it is not under University of Bradford which is what the Guardian Ranks claim. It is a school run between Bradford College and Leeds Met. It remains, Bradford University does not have a law degree and this is contrary to what the Guardian Tables claim. Wed, 08 Mar 2006 15:08:00 +0200 http://www.llm-guide.com/board/7379/last#12133 The Guardian, like The Times has sub-editors! and that bit of information clearly got lost. Identifying that there is a Law School at Bradford is about as far as you can expect any newspaper to go! A newspaper is not drafted like an Act of Parliament! I am sure if you had a look down The Times lists you would find similar style and institutional name mistakes on their list as well. And incidentally there is now a Law School at Bradford University See http://www.brad.ac.uk/university/ugpros/law.php Dr. Alan Riley Director LLM Programme City Law School Electronic Mail: alan.riley.1@city.ac.uk