How to get into law - the easy way

By John O’Leary, Editor of The Times Good University Guide

The university applications season is now in full swing, as sixth-formers agonise about their choice of course. Statistically, there is more angst about law than any other subject: it has by far the most applications (nearly 90,000) and the most places (over 17,000).

That is still not a bad ratio, considering that every applicant can make five choices, and law only just makes the top ten for the highest entry scores. But there are huge differences among the 87 universities offering law degrees. And, since only about half of all law graduates end up in the legal profession (either because they choose not to or because they cannot find a job that they want) it is a subject where making the right choice is particularly important.

Even discounting Oxford and Cambridge, where entrants in the year covered by the 2009 Times Good University Guide averaged four As at A level and another at AS level, most universities at the top of the law table had entry scores that were twice those at the bottom. Law firms are well aware of the differences.

As in other subjects, it is now impossible to compare law degrees according to the number of applications per place, although some universities volunteer the information. Edinburgh, for example, has about 12 applications per place. The nearest proxy is entry scores – which are much higher than the standard entry requirements but do show where competition is most intense.

More than 25 universities in the latest guide registered average entry scores above 400 points on the UCAS tariff (the equivalent of three As at A level and a C at AS level). Take a look at the the full table, which also takes into account student satisfaction, research quality and graduate employment. But, ranked simply in terms of entrants’ qualifications (below), the order is slightly different.

The main complication at ten of the leading universities is the LNAT, the national admissions test for law. Although it is used only by Birmingham, Bristol, Cambridge, Durham, Exeter, Glasgow, King’s College London, Nottingham, Oxford and University College London, it is at least as important as A level for those courses.

The test comprises 30 multiple-test questions designed to gauge aptitude for law, plus an essay. Practice papers and other information about the test are available here. The average number of correct answers in 2006 was just less than 17, so anything from 18 upwards is considered a good score.

All is not lost for those who find the competition too tough, or who develop a fascination for the law at a later stage. About one solicitor in five and up to a quarter of barristers took a different degree and went on to do a law conversion course.

Some of those with low entry scores do rather better in the guide's law table. Buckingham and Sunderland, for example, are in the top 50, while Napier is only just outside it.

Click below for full tables

Positions in The Times Good University Guide law table are in brackets

Law top 20 entries

Rank Title Entry Standards

1 (1) Cambridge 524

2 (2) Oxford 522

3 (3) London School of Economics 500

4 (7) Durham 485

5 (10) Nottingham 477

6 (19) Warwick 469

7 (5) University College London 467

8 (19) Glasgow 460

9 (16) Manchester 452

10 (4) King's College London 449

11 (15) Edinburgh 448

12= (16) Strathclyde 444

12= (30) Leeds 444

14 (12) Bristol 436

15 (14) Newcastle 435

16 (22) School of Oriental and African Studies 431

17 (23) Exeter 425

18= (18) Birmingham 424

18= (27) Liverpool 424

20 (6) Aberdeen 412

Law entry scores

Rank University Entry standards

67= (54) Teesside 266

67= (59) Staffordshire 266

69 (51) Napier 265

70 (78) Lincoln 252

71= (37) Buckingham 251

71= (77) Edge Hill 251

73 (56) Hertfordshire 250

74 (41) Sunderland 249

75 (58) Glamorgan 247

76= (65) Huddersfield 244

76= (80) Greenwich 244

78 (55) De Montfort 240

79 (75) Middlesex 220

80 (81=) Northampton 214

81 (81=) London South Bank 200

82 (74) Wolverhampton 196

83 (87) Thames Valley 179

84 (64) East London 177

85 (83) Buckinghamshire 174

86 (67) Southampton Solent 172

87 (76) Bedfordshire 165

Read School Gate on:

Getting into Oxford, the easier way

Getting into Cambridge, the easier way

Getting into medical school, the easier way

What university is really like

The world university rankings and why the UK should be proud

Comments

[Vinod Nakra]

I am a retired officer from Corps of Engineers with Post Graduate qualifications in Engineering and Defence Studies from India.
After serveing in the Military for about 33 years, I have been working in the construction industry since March 2002. Legal matters seem very appealig to me from my early days in the Service and I am keeen to do an ONLINE course in Construction Law and Alternative dispute resolution. My aim is to become a Consultant.
Please suggest which University should I go to.

I found politics was a very helpful A Level to have for my law degree

[Layla]

Im currently doing an ICS Law LLB. Its been dificult as I have no other infulence to learn from.As iv got children iv found its a very good idea as i could never have done it before. Whats the thought on doing a long distance learning LLB ?

[Lesley]

I am a barrister with an English degree, who has followed the CPE route.
I am not convinced that an LLB is necessary having seen, whilst at Bar school, a few apparently very academic law post-grads struggling to apply the law to the facts of real problems.
Whether you have a law degree or do the conversion, that is merely the foundation, as the real learning comes when you start to practise and specialise.
Real life is not like television, a knowledge of obscure points of law is unlikely to be of very much practical use. Far better to have a thorough understanding of the basics, and an ability to apply that knowledge.
Some law firms and chambers will always prefer law graduates but a 2:1 from a good university in a "proper" subject, some evidence of commercial acumen,the ability to relate to people and to influence and persuade will go a long way to help create a good lawyer.
It's a tough hard road, and you need to be very committed and resilient but otherwise- and as for A level law- don't bother!

[Heather]

To S.Ullah.

Dont worry about not doing A level law before going onto do the LLB. Both the A levels you have mentioned will assist yor language, research and analytical skills which you need on the LLB.

As for contemplating the BVC, it is expensive but it does prepare you for other legal careers. Upon completion you will be able to work as a judicial assistant or legal advisor in a magistrates court. By the time you graduate, you will need to pass an aptitude test anyway.

If you want a career in law, then my recommendation would be to start reading the legal sections of the times, and try and get work experience at a court, chambers or solicitors and volunteer experience. Plus work hard and get great grades- always a bonus!

[Evelyn]

The Scandinavian lawyer posted below comes to a bizarre conclusion. If analytic skills and law background have no apparent correlation and it differs from person to person, shouldn't the natural conclusion be to diversify routes into law, not make law exclusive for people who studied law as undergraduates?

[s. ullah]

I'm planning to study law in university this year but I haven't studied it at A level so I'm not sure what to expect. Will I be at a disadvantage for not knowing the basics? I have studied english and history. I hope to become a barrister in future but the cost of the BVC is worrying and the fact that there are hardly enough places is making me wonder whether it would be worth pursuing it at all. I don't want too regret doing so too late. Any advice?

[Kayleigh Swain]

I personally think that a GDL is not sufficient enough to allow someone to practice law. I am in the final year of an LLB and the fact that I will soon be a graduate, with the BVC on the horizon is making me feel very uneasy! I think that even after 3 years of a law degree I am still lacking in certain information. If the GDL was removed and committment to the profession was started at undergraduate level, it would cut the competition for places. In my opinion all those who have not studied law are not committed to a career in law. Is that not one of the crucial requirements for a pupillage or TC?

[Deborah]

Despite the spiralling costs of studying at university fulltime, law still remains the most popular degree according to the UCAS statistics published today. There were a staggering 82,000 applications to study law – nearly a quarter of the total. Of these, only just over 17,000 people were accepted onto a degree last year – less than 18%. Fewer still will manage to secure a training contract at the end of their studies. In this increasingly competitive marketplace, many people pursuing a law career are going to be disappointed one way or another.

However there is an alternative route to becoming a qualified lawyer without having to either study at university or securing an elusive training contract/pupillage: the Institute of Legal Executives (ILEX). Yet, despite over 80,000 people choosing ILEX to pursue their career as a lawyer, the ILEX route remains ‘one of the best kept secrets of the legal profession’.

There are many benefits to becoming a lawyer through ILEX, and the gaps between being a solicitor, barrister or legal executive lawyer are fast diminishing, particularly as Legal Executive lawyers can already become advocates and will be able to become a partner from March 2009. However one of the main advantages of the ILEX route is that students are able to study whilst they’re working, gaining valuable real-life experience of law firms and earning a salary as they go. So this is an ideal route for those who wish to pursue a career in law but cannot afford to study full-time, or who care for relatives or children.

A recent survey fund that over a third of Legal Executive Lawyers chose the ILEX route because they felt they couldn’t afford to go to university (qualifying through ILEX costs around £3,500), and more than 10% because they couldn’t afford to do a GDL/LPC/BVC. But a quarter chose to become a Legal Executive because it was the fastest way to become a qualified lawyer.

ILEX also accepts graduates into its membership, but isn’t it time that those applying for a place at Uni also considered the vocational route to becoming a lawyer, not just the ‘traditional’ ones? It could save them time, money and the disappointment of rejection.

[Foreign judge]

As a scandinavian lawyer, currently working as a judge, the discussion on the law v. non-law background on this webpage seems quite silly. Obviously, most graduates with law-background have an advantage as to general knowledge of law. Similarly, those graduating with first class law degrees usually have stonger analytical skills. After working as an attorney for some years, it is just as clear that all graduates with first class law degrees do not necessarily have strong analytical skills. Similarly, some graduates without the law background, have stronger analytical skills and even better general knowledge of law than most with such a background. In other words, this obviously varies from person to person (it is silly to pose this as a question whether those without the law-background are "more interesting" than those without). Coming from Scandinavia, I think the GDL-system is weird. I really can't see the need to open up the gate to a position as solicitor or barrister for those without law undergraduate degrees...

[Michael Jacobs]

Sam. I initially did an English degree and received training contract offers from two top City firms in my final year of undergraduate study. I can't objectively say whether it's more or less academically challenging than a law degree.

What I do know is that the firm whose employment offer I accepted was likely impressed with a more general skillset I possessed. Spending hundreds of hours in the British Library researching Victorian periodicals for my dissertation provided strong research competency. Writing many essays on various texts, from medieval poetry to modern prose, enhanced my analytical ability (as hopefully shown with a case study in my interview). Add to that commercial awareness and a personality (which, although non-academic attributes, are important to law firms), I'd like to think that I am no better or worse than someone holding an LLB.

You are insulted that this route is not comparable with a law degree; that the GDL is not a 'sufficient background in law'. Well, it is precisely that: a background. During vacation schemes I've met some tremendously able associates and partners from non-law backgrounds. Once you're in the workplace, especially if it's transactional/corporate work you do, it shouldn't be an issue. I hope for your sake that you become less insulted over time otherwise you might find it hard to get on with a significant number of colleagues.

[Sam Jones]

It is an insult to think someone can do a degree which is no where near as academically challenging as Law and get a tc. There should be a standard requirement to have a law degree to get a tc no doubt on that. How can studying ONE year consitute sufficient background in law?

[Heather]

I studied an LLB with the Open University. You do not need UCAS points and most chambers I have spoken to really value the fact I have got an excellent grade (1st)studying part-time whilst working in the legal industry. Furthermore, I have less debt than some. I would recommend this route to anyone.

[J.M]

The conversion route is also meant for international law graduates.

I am actually completing a "Licence en Droit" completely in French although my first language is English.

The fact that I am from a Common Law country, I will have to complete my BVC in UK to be able to practice as a Barrister. But before getting access to the BVC, although I will have a law degree, the BAR COUNCIL told me that I will need to do the GDL/CPE course.

Frankly speaking, the law degree in France SEEMS to be really very tough compared to other countries. And besides, now that I will need to apply for the GDL, I really don't have any idea which university I will choose. Moreover, I am somehow a bit down since after studying so much in France, I will have to do the 7 fundamental Common Law modules. I just don't know how to take this.

It would really be very grateful if someone can help me to choose a nice university for the GDL/CPE. Besides, I would also like to know how is the GDL course level? Is it tough? Very tough?

Thanks in advance for your help and good luck to all of you!

[hsy]

I think small and medium firms partners will take LLB+LPC/BVC=ready to go;other qualifications like GDL/CPE/non-law degee should interveiw in second tide(when capital were excess, or maybe the applicant is from oxbridge).For big firms, they have a handy of specialists on hire from public so that they may not rely on your 1st hon. deg. They have plenty of doctors or masters available in any areas to select(e.g. a firm can hire surveyor or medical doctor to appear before courts). So a 1st class degree in bachelor level may not advantage...

[Fiona]

Now that there are more than a handful of different routes into the legal profession, lawyers-to-be can pick and choose a route which would best suit them.

Finance certainly plays the biggest factor. I completed my first degree (non-law), went onto study a two year masters in law and then completed my LPC.

I was lucky enough to be supported by generous parents but appreciate that this is not an option for all.
Looking back, after being in 6 years of higher education, it would have been a much shorter journey to have simply completed an LLB.

Indeed, half the trainees recruited to my firm this year did a straight LLB and half had completed a first degree before converting to law. Students should not be concerned by the route they take into the profession.

One of the best kept secrets of the legal profession is that a few solicitors would have started their careers as junior assistants, or legal secretaries, going on to take the ilex exam or the LPC. These people often have great hands-on experience in terms of legal procedural know-how as they will have worked alongside qualified solicitors or partners for may years.

[Duncan]

To anyone thinking of becoming a barrister, please be aware that the "50% of Law grads go into Law" statistic in the article is misleading in your case.

The law colleges are necessary after graduation for the BVC but only meet about 50% of the demand for places. What they still don't tell you is that they themselves over supply the market - their production is at least twice that of available pupillages, without which you cannot actually practise as a barrister.

Therefore, be aware that you are committing yourself to a lottery (and it is) where only 1 in 4 people get to start trying to practise.

[Kirsty]

As a comment to Glen; I am a 17 year old student planning to attend law school in the UK in 2009. Law is my favourite subject and I cannot think of anything else that I would rather study more. I also do not see the purpose in studying a first degree in an unrelated subject. If I did, I would surely choose to stay in Canada and waste my money here.

[BIG TEA]

Well a clear fault in arguements from the against "non-law are more interesting", the fact that you guys actually discredit this on the basis of statistics is the precise effect of not being from a 'non-law' background.
The profound thing about going into law and those who start with it, is they do so because they are well educated and can speak english and argue well, though they probably do not know this. Then the non law people apply post grad realising the importance of acedemic English and that they might have the skill that is needed to be a succesful law student, but this time they are aware and become aware of it...and therefore they are more interesting...if just to have come to this conclusion.

[Clare]

'Where is the College of Law on here?'

The CoL doesn't do undergraduate law.

[LW]

FutureSolicitor, I only mean that NOT studying Law does not automatically convey some bizarre advantage at the jobs application stage, as some other posts suggested. I also wanted to point out that to suggest non-law students are more rounded people than law students is just rubbish!

[Richard Williams]

I just tried the LNAT test and I was completely rubbish at it. As a law graduate from one of the universities that makes applicants now sit this test (from which I graduated with a first class law degree) what is it with peoples' obsession with these types of test?! They are utterley useless and pointless. I have also taken them as part of interviews and although have been offered jobs where I was required to take such tests, I declined the job offers on such a basis. It would be sad if potential quality candidates were refused places on courses as a result of these tests.

[Futuresolicitor]

I previously agreed with your argument LW. I found it quite distressing to be told that I may not be as useful as French or German graduates. On one of my vacation schemes only three of us were law students.

I have now secured a training contract at a City firm who were delighted at some of the optional legal modules I had take. Even this however has not convinced me that doing an LLB gives you any more advantage in securing a training contact that a GDL student.

[LW]

Quote: "[I] was told in one interview that non law grads are perhaps more interesting as they have more diverse skills and interests."

Again, this is patent nonsense if you compare a Law graduate to a History or English (or similar subject) graduate. The analytical and writing skills across those subjects all come in handy as a solicitor. Other aspects of the individual subjects such as History or English are not so relevant. If the first degree is in languages (but something useful for modern business such as Russian or Chinese, rather than the traditional French or German), Science or business it MAY be helpful, depending on the ultimate choice of firm.

The idea that someone who studies Law is someone who generally has less diverse interests than someone who studies another subject sounds like rubbish to me.

[Tired of solicitor apathy]

The applications process needs to look closer at the applicants’ practical ability to practice law - in the real world – not just their ability to pass exams.

A solicitor needs to have good people skills; an excellent grasp of the English language; the ability to construct a sound, concise statement; to be able to spell (yes, you would think to qualify for a law degree one would need basic grammatical and spelling skills); and to have the guise and acumen to always appear to be one step ahead of the “other side” even if they’re not.

I've just parted company with a local law firm having spent tens of thousands on a solicitor that consistently delivered letters past deadline to the other side, and to the courts, containing factual, grammatical and spelling errors – despite me bringing this to their attention many times.

This is not acceptable on two counts; one because we are led to believe that solicitors will fight to the death for our best interests and secondly, because we're paying them huge sums of money to provide the highest level of service possible.

At no point should law practitioners forget they are no higher than those they represent. They're a service provider like any other, be it a hairdresser or a cleaner, employed to assist and make life easier, not to make an extremely stressful and emotional time all the harder.

I've spent thousands of pounds (every word is logged and billed) pointing out my solicitor’s errors and then paying yet more for them to contact the other side to right these errors.

It seems that the applications process needs to step back and look at what it really takes to be a good, well respected, case winning legal professional. Common sense; the will to win for your client; attention to detail and a good dictionary will go a lot further to winning client satisfaction than the crest under which a qualification lies.

[Futuresolicitor]

Having spent the Summer taking part in numerous legal vacation schemes and training contract interviews I have some what changed my opinion of the LLB vs GDL debate. Given the choice again I would not have opted to take Law at University but instead opted for English or History. I have learnt that law firms tend to take at least 40% of trainees from non law backgrounds and was told in one interview that non law grads are perhaps more interesting as they have more diverse skills and interests.

[Futuresolicitor]

Having spent the Summer taking part in numerous legal vacation schemes and training contract interviews I have some what changed my opinion of the LLB vs GDL debate. Given the choice again I would not have opted to take Law at University but instead opted for English or History. I have learnt that law firms tend to take at least 40% of trainees from non law backgrounds and was told in one interview that non law grads are perhaps more interesting as they have more diverse skills and interests.

[Cristina Falkenberg]

An interesting approach is the one of Complutense in Madrid: no tests and no special marks required to enter. You'll find top students and other way less intelligent/clever/hard working ones. But the place is as life itself: with over 30.000 students from all sorts of social backgrounds, professors can be extremely tough and you are nothing but a number.

Like life itself, you'll have to deal with diffiuclt clients, demanding judges and sneaky, immoral work colleagues. You'll also make very good friends and for a very moderate fee you'll have access to the best legal minds of the country. It all depends on you to take it or not: and that is called academic competence and is in a way, such a very fair system indeed.

[David]

On the law/non-law degree issue this all depends on whether you want to pursue a career in law.

Assuming you do, the best bet is to go to a generally well respected university and do the subject you'll get the best marks in (as long as it's a "proper subject").

Get a 2.1 from a good university and you're well on your way. The conversion may take another year but with a good degree you'll get an offer fro ma good firm and get sponsored for it.

[Mike G Sheppard]

1. The GDL or CPE does not give a student enough academic law and this is well recognised by graduates who deal with sophisticated legal issues as part of their practice. To be fair, if you do private client or PI you don't need, or do, much law.

2. Cambridge withdrew from the LNAT because they are introducing a university admissions test. Most of the students who apply to Cambridge will also have to apply to other LNAT universities so students who apply there will have to do it anyway.

3. If most students obtain 3 'A's' to get into study at a top law school, doing well in the LNAT can make a crucial difference if getting a place.

[Mike G Sheppard]

1. The GDL or CPE does not give a student enough academic law and this is well recognised by graduates who deal with sophisticated legal issues as part of their practice. To be fair, if you do private client or PI you don't need, or do, much law.

2. Cambridge withdrew from the LNAT because they are introducing a university admissions test. Most of the students who apply to Cambridge will also have to apply to other LNAT universities so students who apply there will have to do it anyway.

3. If most students obtain 3 'A's' to get into study at a top law school, doing well in the LNAT can make a crucial difference if getting a place.

[LW]

Studying something other than Law neither "gives you an edge" nor "helps you to stand out." Many big firms take 50-50 law and non-law graduates and get high numbers of applications from candidates with Law degrees and those needing to convert. Studying a non-Law degree is simply an perfectly acceptable alternative route into the profession. No more or less than that the vast majority of the time. In some cases, some smaller firms will prefer Law graduates, and a small number of bigger firms may specifically like to take a few science graduates based on the nature of their practice. Studying History or English etc, however, is neither here nor there when it comes down to it.

[John Scott]

The author is evidently uninformed. The LNAT is incredibly UNimportant for admissions decisions, at least at Oxbridge. So unimportant, in fact, that Cambridge no longer requires overseas applicants to take the test and no one will be taking it next year.

The LNAT has NEVER been as important as A-Level scores (or AS-Level marks in Year 12 and GCSE scores in Year 11). It is only in the past few years that academics have been able to gauge the correlation between LNAT scores and performance at university - at which point Cambridge dropped the test!

[James, Sydney]

The fun and games begin when you start looking for training contracts, especially after forking out the best part of 10k on the LPC - for many it is a hard slog and completely soul destroying. Too many graduates and not enough work.

[Alex]

I am full LLB and I love it

[Helen Smith]

Where is the College of Law on here?

[Young Lawyer]

Taking the conversion route after studying something you simply enjoy, also gives you an edge when it comes to applying for legal training contracts. Instead of blending in with the majority of applicants who've "wanted to be a lawyer all my life", a scientist or historian for example, will stand out in a pile of applications, and perhaps convince an employee that they're committed to the legal profession. The conversion route shows that an applicant has made a careful and informed decision to "take the leap" into law.

[Glen]

Snuffy, you are right. What sort of 17-year-old feels enthused by the chance to study law for a first degree? Getting a degree in something that interests you may even give you a legal expert niche to fill later when/if you convert to Law.

[Snuffy]

Hmm, yes, I understand the conversion route is the best way to go. Just do what you enjoy at the best university you can get into. The rest will follow later...