Comment

Graduate recruiters need to realise some law modules are harder than others

By on
78

Some firms don’t even look at what subjects you’ve studied

When I was at university, I was attending law firm presentation evenings on campus in order to network with commercial firms. One of the most alarming and revelatory encounters I had was with one firm’s graduate recruitment team.

We were discussing the firm’s grade requirements. Some firms take particular interest in each individual module mark an applicant has achieved. You may have heard stories of interviewers questioning a 2:2 mark from first year, or you may have been asked yourself why you scored 70 in criminal law and only 61 in commercial law.

My answer to this would be that the commercial law module was far more challenging. It does not mean I am more predisposed to criminal law. Some modules are more difficult than others.

You only need to look at your university data for module results. When, year on year, 70% of a class are scoring 65+ in module A, and in module B 70% are struggling to achieve 55+, it is logical to conclude that it was more achievable (for the ‘reasonable’ student) to get a high score in module A (whether that is down to better teaching, the assessment methods used, or the general intellectual difficulty of the content). This is plain as day to law students.

The issue came to a head when I asked the recruiters if they looked at what modules an applicant had undertaken. What I found remarkable was that this firm, at the application stage, did not. In fact, they told me they put applicants’ module marks through a computer screening. So it didn’t matter whether a student had studied wildlife law, corporate insolvency law, or even flying monkeys law. It was about getting high marks to get through this computer filter.

HR teams at law firms are highly experienced and adept at their jobs. You would undoubtedly be questioned on your rationale for choosing non-commercial modules when at interview and would have to give a really convincing answer.

The 2018 Firms Most List

But recruiters don’t see the whole-year results for your modules. They only see your mark, in isolation. So, what’s to distinguish medical law from UK human rights law?

Legal Cheek in 2016 explored the trend of students ‘playing the system’ by taking non-law modules (which were easier to score highly in) to boost their overall grade. That can be quite an obvious tactic, which recruiters can see through, and law schools can guard against.

I know several students, though, who have deployed the same strategy by choosing those law modules which are easier. They find this out from the statistics on results, which are published after exams every year.

I put my view to this grad rec team about some modules being more difficult than others, but they did not agree. I was incredulous.

I don’t think other HR teams share their views. I know most law students would agree that there are specific types of modules that are harder than others.

It’s quite depressing that an application could be rejected on the basis of grades that don’t quite meet a computer’s threshold, despite you having chosen difficult modules that you thought would demonstrate your interest in the firm’s practice areas. I suppose that is the brutal nature of the training contract application process. Achieving high 2:1s or firsts in every module seems to increasingly be becoming an essential prerequisite to be considered.

I am a strong believer in choosing modules that I find most interesting. But I can’t deny I’ve seen people that have strategically chosen specific ‘easier’ modules and ended up getting a better degree overall. It was also a sure-fire way to more interviews for them. This firm didn’t agree that was the case.

Judgemental Observer is a future trainee.

78 Comments

YES MASTER ILL GET BACK TO BILLING NOW

i took media, family and sociolegal theory as my ousside option

got a first in all of them

now an NQ at a MC firm

(5)(2)

Anonymous

Of course they don’t look, why would they? University grades are used to cut down on the number of applications which firms actually have to read as they get too many to read them all fully. The individual subjects you took are in no way indicative of the kind of lawyer you’ll be, or whether or not you will be a good trainee.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Academics are not that important in the grand scheme of an application. The difference between a couple of modules is not going to be a deciding factor in whether you get short-listed to the next stage, let alone get a job offer. You are really putting too much concern over something so minor.

Plus, what you are told by GR people on campus is PR bluff. They have to say the inclusive thing, not the factually correct thing. The reality is that they go back to their offices and do a lot of things differently to what they say they do on campus, including reviewing certain modules with more scrutiny than others. Very few are using computers to screen (at the moment anyway).

(2)(3)

random passer-by

I don’t know why the comments are so combative as there is much truth in the article. However in my day City firms asked you to justify your final year options. I think that is important and should weed out people taking the easier modules that are not relevant to a commercial law career. Ultimately though firms look at the whole picture so as long as you are consistently good I wouldn’t say it stops you getting a good job.

(8)(2)

Anonymous

lol

(0)(2)

LLB grad

LC comments as ridiculous as ever.

1. Recruiters rarely care about the modules you studied, let alone the degree. All they want to know is your overall grade and likely the institution.

2. Even if recruiters do care, they will prioritise extra-curricular, commercial awareness, work experience etc above the fact that someone studied Family over Commercial, for example.

3. My mid-ranking RG uni law school’s easiest module was a banking and financial regulation module. Firsts were given to over half of the cohort on that module last year, with a number of 80+. Stop it with this fallacy that something vaguely connected to city work is more challenging than anything else.

(8)(2)

Anonymous

Unis know how firms perceive modules and have inflated grades or manipulated them in the fear of their students missing out on employment opportunities. Their rankings are now determined by the employability of their students, and so it makes sense to inflate grades in certain modules for their own selfish interests.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

I agree with this. Degree classification and extra-curriculum activities is what they look for above everything else.

I do pay attention to weather you got good grades throughout your three years and specific modules can be a talking point but overall just do the modules which are easiest as recruitment will do the first shift based on degree classification.

(1)(2)

UCL grad.

Recruiters don’t give a damn. In my final year I took all modules that are suitable for the work at an International law firm. Commercial law, Company law etc. We were screwed over by out lecturers as they included topics in the exam paper that we haven’t even covered and when we complained, well, you know how it works. I ended up with few low 2.1’s and 1 2:2. It has screwed my whole degree and chances to obtain a 1st. Now try explaining that to a grad recruitment team, or better don’t.

(1)(2)

Anonymous

Which firms actually ask for a first anyway? I thought they just wanted a 2.1. People on here are so weird with their obsessions with rankings etc. Once you spend some time in the real world it will soon pass though.

(3)(1)

Future trainee at MC

This is why the best way to do law is to study either geography/biology/psychology at a mid tier russel group uni. You will get some filthy module results that law students could only dream of. But no, please insist on doing law at UCL/Bristol and convince yourself that you have some divine right to a successful career on false perception that your “ law degree from a top uni” means anything.

(4)(1)

LLB grad

Agreed. Wish I had followed this and done History at a better uni instead of going to a lower-tier RG to do Law. Hasn’t made a huge difference because I got a First anyway, but I’ve wasted a couple years in a different industry so having doing a non-law law degree and conversion would have probably gotten me to the same place I’m in now.

(1)(0)

Future trainee at MC

In truth a law degree is very hard compared to most degrees so well done on a 1.1 !

(1)(1)

Antitrust

I think you are mistaken … the majority of any top 5 uni’s LLB cohort will end up with a tc. Of course, it is easier to get a 1st in a mid-tier RG uni studying geography but to actually get a TC with that background is more difficult I believe. Also, I know quite a few trainees with mid or even low 2:1s at MC/US firms and a lot of them at other international city firms. So I don’t think a 62-66% from a top 10 LLB course is that bad as people seem to think here…
Besides, a 17 years old who chooses her degree based solely on the likelihood of getting good results in order to eventually qualify as a solicitor in the City is simply pathetic or too immature to say no to daddy/mommy.

(0)(1)

Future trainee at SC

Your first argument is painfully false with nothing to back it up. If you think your more likely to get a TC with 64 from UCL/LSE in law than 73 in psychology from Bristol/Exeter (with the same level of work experience) then you are just wrong. After many open days and speaking to grad recruitment at 15 plus firms the overwhelming feel is that provided you get AAB at A level, it’s your uni grade that’s important not the subject or the university itself. Your right about the top ten LLB part, but his/her point was that one can’t complain when they choose the fate of law.

(1)(0)

Antitrust

Yeah, I might be wrong and its true that I cannot factually back it up. But I wrote out of my experience with my cohort and what I hear from my friends at other firms. Of course not every Bristol grad with a 73 in psychology applies to a City firm so I have no idea what chances they have in general but I also wouldn’t I trust what HR says at open days… that might be useful info for being invited to the 1st round… but the end goal is actually getting a TC isn’t it? That is not to say that people should not choose psychology. My point is that you shouldn’t consider all this if you actually want to study Law as your bachelor degree. Just do it at a good uni and you will have good chances getting a TC even if you don’t get a first. Similarly, if you want to learn psychology then do so. But don’t be an idiot and base your decision on what HR people say at law firms… that’s just sad

(0)(0)

Future trainee at SC

Obviously you choose what you enjoy studying but more importantly what you will do well at. If people want to scrape 2.1s and study law honestly be my guest

Anonymous

As someone who could about as close to full marks as is possible for my total accumulated A Level Geography marks, I agree and think it was the worst decision of my life to do law at University instead of geography.

But try telling that to an ambitious 18 year old who thinks he is gods gift and doesn’t quite believe you when you say a law degree requires 10x more work.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

What? As some have pointed out, certain markers are harsher than others. Are firms meant to take that into account too? Are you meant to list the module with (harsh marker) in brackets afterwards?
As for commercial law being the hardest module? What a joke. I have never heard this to be the case. Commercial law is surely quite straightforward compared to something like jurisprudence. The point I am making here is that different people find different modules easy so how the heck are the recruiters meant to know which are your particular strengths?
I am guessing this particular writer is Alex trolling again. It reads pretty much word for word like his dumb Occupy the Inns character who suggested moronic stuff like limiting access to the BPTC to Russell Group grads.

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Occupy the inns was Alex??? This is a revelation to me.

(0)(0)

"Woe is me"

This article was just silly.

You should always pick modules that suit you and the way you work best. I will admit interest can have a little bit to do with that but in all honestly the people that shoved aside the “harder” modules if they knew it would impact their grade negatively were the strategic ones. It’s completely fair.

The whole article is very “woe of me” and if this is how you’re reacting now, the industry will chew you up and spit you right out *shrugs*

(1)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories