News

Why women should pick Oxford for law and men LSE

By on
65

Students getting their A-Level results today, take note

A-Level results day is upon us and for students deciding which university offers they should accept, now is the ideal time to be thinking about the impact this decision could have on their future earnings.

A new interactive tool produced by the BBC shows that LLB-ers’ salaries five years after graduating differ quite dramatically depending on the university they attended.

At the very top, women who study law at Oxford can expect to earn £26,062 more than the average degree holder five years after graduating. Sitting just below them are female law grads from LSE (+£20,769), Cambridge (+£19,764) and UCL (+£17,592). Meanwhile, male law grads from LSE can expect to earn £24,608 over and above the five-year post-graduation average, while their opposite numbers at Oxford and Cambridge sit on healthy earning excesses of £18,610 and £18,030 respectively.

Law degree earning power five years after graduating (woman)

University Expected earnings (above average)
Oxford +£26,062
LSE +£20,769
Cambridge +£19,764
UCL +£17,592
Warwick +£14,594
Bristol +£12,715
Durham +£12,694
KCL +£12,325
Manchester +£11,463
Nottingham +£9,758

The tool is based on findings produced by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and considers English students’ academic performance and background prior to starting university. The figures are based on students graduating between 2008 and 2012.

There were some interesting findings further down the pay table. Male law grads from the University of Sunderland can expect to earn £2,620 more than the average degree holder, while their female counterparts are expected to earn £1,398 less. It’s a similar story over at UWE — men earn £379 more, while women earn £1,398 less, five years post-graduation.

At the very bottom, women who study law at Salford can expect to earn £3,785 less five years after leaving university, while their opposite numbers at Anglia Ruskin University sit £3,806 below the earnings average.

Law degree earning power five years after graduating (men)

University Expected earnings (above average)
LSE +£24,608
Oxford +£18,610
Cambridge +£18,030
Durham +£16,747
Nottingham +£14,869
Warwick +£13,466
UCL +£13,387
Newcastle +£13,381
Bristol +£13,147
KCL +£11,780

You can view the results in full here.

65 Comments

Anonymous

In all seriousness, if you’ve met the offer from Oxford you should almost certainly choose to go to Oxford. The intellectual development you get from 2-on-1 or even 1-on-1 tuition can’t be matched elsewhere. Even if you purely think in terms of money (and I think the results of this poll are probably attributable to e.g. postgraduate study), do yourself a favour and go for the best. LSE is a great law school, but they just can’t compare to the tutorial system.

(49)(3)

Anonymous

Absolutely, and if you choose LSE over Oxford, people will always consider you intellectually second rate. Why handicap yourself in this way?

(21)(28)

Anonymous

Haha, we need to cull those people who actually think someone is more intelligent because they attended Oxbridge. Strong academics aren’t the only indicator of intelligence…

(33)(7)

Anonymous

It’s not even strong academics, though. Rather it’s strong interview skills at the age of 17. Any kid that suffers from anxiety at that age is going to struggle to impress, even if he is brilliant in many other respects. Indeed, the average tariff entry scores for Law at LSE are often higher than Oxford.

(29)(5)

The real ‘a trust fund with a trust fund’

calm under pressure is also a form of merit, so I don’t see what the problem is with Oxbridge selecting for that alongside intellectual ability. What’s the value of all your brilliance if you’re too shy or anxious to ever express it to anyone else?

Is 17 too early? 17 year olds used to go to war, so no it isn’t.
I definitely can’t say I experienced any unbearable pressure during interviews, but then it probably helps to have a sense of perspective when you go into it

Anonymous

The interviews are designed to determine who is the brightest of the bright. If you do not get into Oxford or Cambridge, it is because you were not clever enough. And state school kids are given every allowance for their inevitable gauchness.

The real ‘trust fund with a trust fund’

It’s usually the privately schooled little darlings that have the mental breakdowns during interview.
State schoolers quite rightly see getting into Oxbridge as very useful but not really essential – after all, they can always just go drive heavy duty trucks for a living like their uncle ‘big bozo’ does

Anonymous

Warwick graduate?

(5)(0)

Judge hobosexual

That poncey git ‘trust fund with a trust fund’ went to oxford.
I’d love to see him try to fight me and my group of 20 mentallly retarded mates while tied up!

(3)(1)

loljkm8

Did you go to Oxford Brookes too?

(1)(1)

Trust fund with a trust fund

Bring it on you little bitch.

(1)(0)

kek

Just moving beyond law for a second… I think this survey shows that many degrees are pretty meaningless as a result of the push to get to the target of 50% of school leavers going to university. 20% would be more than adequate. You could drop the meaningless degrees, concentrate on academic subjects at university and spend the money saved on decent vocational training and apprenticeships. Nobody wants to hire a philosophy graduate.

(15)(0)

Anonymous

What’s the best degree? Medicine, law, economics or physics?

(1)(0)

Anonymous

The best degree is the one that guarantees you a job and which increases your life earning potential furthest above the curve of a non-graduates’ earning potential.

(6)(1)

Anonymous

Languages?

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Philosophy at a top end uni is very academic, it just quickly drops off into stoners and layabouts by the time you get to red brick level.

Most PPE grads do half philosophy after first year.

(11)(0)

STALLONE

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(4)(1)

Dr Frankenstein

preposterous…are you implying women aren’t equal to men?

(5)(1)

Dr Cosby

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(1)

Anonymous

I’ve looked at the assessment methods of Oxford and it’s a disgrace that they can only do final end of year exams with no coursework.

It’s no surprise that their lecturers can do research as they don’t have any coursework to mark.

Additionally they only have three modules in final year with a dissertation or can substitute it for a fourth module.

Academically rigourous my arse.

I know a non Russell that does 40,000 words of coursework and dissertation with final end of year exams across all the modules, but they don’t have good research due to the massive marking, now that’s grit

(58)(16)

Anonymous

Do you even know how the tutorial system works? You have a one-to-one, or two-to-one, meeting with your tutor every week for 8 weeks. At that meeting you have to produce a 2,000 word essay, or longer, after having digested a large reading list in one week. So that’s say 16,000 words a term… 48,000 a year. And there is no hiding, it is just you and the tutor for an hour with him/her testing your knowledge and your writing in person. That’s certainly more difficult than sitting in a lecture for a few hours and knocking out an essay on a generic topic, which will be marked by some lecturer using a basic grading rubric along with 80 other essays.

(21)(23)

Anonymous

In fact, it’s more than once a week, because one-and-a-half modules are taught per term, so you see a tutor 12 times a term (hence 12 essays per term).

(11)(12)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(17)(7)

Anonymous

Essays at Oxford during term time don’t count to the final mark.

The coursework at non Russell does.

(26)(0)

Anonymous

True. Oxbridge graduates are not only by definition the brightest people but also the best educated. Claiming otherwise is like rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic: an exercise in pointlessness.

(4)(4)

Anonymous

The only thing that is correct about this comment is that Oxbridge has far greater resources than all other UK universities, meaning that its academics are able to devote a greater amount of time to research. However, this is not because students have less contact time or write less (as set out above). It’s because Oxbridge hires vastly more academics at all levels and gives generous sabbaticals. This does mean that the average Oxbridge academic has more time to devote to research than the average lecturer at red bricks or ex-polys, especially at the early career end.

(5)(0)

Dr Frankenstein

disgruntled academic ehh?!

(1)(1)

lawtutor

Yes, Oxford only has central university exams in first year and third year, with only third year exams counting towards the final degree result. However, all law students will also have to sit exams in college every term (usually two or three each term) and will have to maintain at least a 2.1 average in those exams. At the end of the third/fourth year, a student’s degree result is determined by their performance in nine or ten papers sat over approx. 2 weeks at the end of their degree. In my view (having witnessed methods of assessment elsewhere) this method of assessment is far more rigorous.

Why is it more challenging? The main reason is because it makes it impossible for students to cram one or two subjects and then forget about that subject for the rest of their degree. Also, retaining (and revising) the requisite material to pass nine or ten subjects at once is very difficult, even for the best students.

However, there is a downside. Oxford, by assessing its students on all their courses over a very short period of time, encourages a hothouse culture that can be damaging to many of its students. In my experience, many Oxford students (especially the brightest) don’t cope well with the sheer amount of pressure this method of assessment creates. However, make no mistake, having to sit all your university exams in a very short period of time is much more challenging than a modular system where you deal with one, two or three subjects at a time.

(18)(0)

Anonymous

You realise, don’t you, that the ‘average Oxford Law undergrad’ produces 12 essays per term? That is a total of 192,000 words over the course of their degree: 12 [number of subjects] * 8 [wks of teaching per subject] * 2000 [words per individual essay].

Those essays are marked and Oxford academics dedicate hours and hours to tutorial teaching, which is obviously more time-intensive than preaching for 2h at a room full for 30 students once a week.

(The above does not include the actual assessments, which consist of 4 essays they have to produce per 3h exam, of which there are 12 over the course of the degree, and the Jurisprudence course work, which is another 3000 words).

So, with respect, your ‘non Russell with his 40,000 words of coursework and dissertation’ can get in the bin.

(15)(19)

Anonymous

Others have been making very inconsistent comments read up top and they say 48000 you’re saying it’s almost 4 tines that.

Good cheating, lying, dishonest lawyers.

(3)(3)

Anonymous

Mate, read the comment above again, it suggests that Oxford law students write roughly 48,000 words per year not in the house of their degree. Also that estimate was on the basis of 8 essays per term, others have suggested that students have to do 12 per term. I didn’t do law so can’t comment, but I did another subject at Oxford in which requirements for tutorials varied college by college. So it’s probably true that some law students are required to write 8 essays per term, some 12.

(3)(15)

Anonymous

The essays at Oxford don’t count to the final mark but the coursework at the non Russell does (hence the term coursework and not essay) so you get in the bin.

(1)(2)

Big Dolla

Spot on.

Additionally, the tutorial system inevitably lead to much greater hours spent teaching and in contact with undergrads, since tutorials are done in addition to lectures.

(7)(5)

Anonymous

Surely it is better to go to a university where you do not work as hard if you end up in the same place.

I enjoyed my easy life Politics degree a lot. I still got my training contract and have now been qualified for 4 years.

What is the point of being a nerd, getting your Duke of Edinburgh, straight A*s, 1st in Law at Oxford, etc? It all becomes irrelevant pretty fast. You won’t get lost chunks of your youth back.

(8)(10)

Anonymous

Durham?

(4)(1)

Anonymous

Bristol 😉

(2)(0)

Anonymous

…considered Durham but Bristol sounded like more fun

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Clifford Chance?

(3)(0)

Anonymous

HSF 😮

Anonymous

Jeremy?

citylaw213

Well, depending on your career aspirations, it might be worthwhile simply because many of the best legal opportunities are essentially monopolised by candidates with A* and Firsts from Oxbridge (see the commercial and chancery bars…)

(7)(0)

Random passer-by

Agree with this. AAA at A level and then a first in history from Exeter or Bristol can get you to the MC if you play your cards right. Yes it’s hard work but nothing compared to what my Oxbridge friends endured. The value of Oxbridge is in snobbery at dinner parties and those aiming for the bar. If you want to be a snob, go to Oxford for a masters with your first in politics. If you want to be a commercial solicitor it’s very unnecessary to suffer 3 years at Oxbridge, and it doesn’t help you with the job. What does help are the incredible work habits you develop at Oxford but others can develop those habits elsewhere too. If you want to work at Brick Court or 20 Essex Street, then an Oxford law first is obviously really helpful.

(3)(0)

Some Random Professor

As someone who has tutored at both LSE and Oxford, I can say that there is little difference in the quality of the student at the two institutions. In fact, the average quality of essays seen at LSE may be stronger because they are given slightly longer to complete them and because the grading thresholds are slightly stricter (hence the lower number of Firsts). Additionally, perhaps the LSE student is slightly more commercially-minded.

There is, however, a clear benefit of having the tutorial system at Oxford that cannot be ignored. Ultimately, it all comes down to the style of education that you’re looking for and the university experience. LSE students tend to have a lot of the pressure that you see at Oxford, but without much of the ‘fun’.

(26)(25)

Anonymous

Remember to take every comment with a grain of salt – never believe credentials you see on Legal Cheek. Just a quick lesson.

Carry on.

There’s still some truth in this.

(2)(1)

LSE Alum

I studied at the LSE and there is no social life there. Why brilliant students with A*s go there rather than Durham, Bristol or even just down the road at UCL is beyond me. As a UK undergrad you are about 25% of the undergrad body and maybe 10% of the total student body. You will be studying with foreign students who range from brilliant to very average (but rich of course). The dumber ones studying development studies or social policy will of course frequent clubs and bars that are out of your budget. Everything is expensive and the halls are crap. It is also based in a part of London that you will get to know during your careers. Uni is about a lot more and Oxbridge does have a better social side.

(12)(0)

Anonymous

Do we need to give young children a belief they have to go to oxbridge to be successful?

Ex prime minister did politics philosophy and economics. Then fucjed the economy with brexit.

Ex foreign secretary did a classics degree at Oxbridge. Now makes islamophobic comments.

Oxbridge get a combined 1 billion pounds a year cuts are made to the NHS by Oxbridge MPs, money siphoned off to the just two unis.

Absolutely anal

(18)(7)

Anonymous

Oxbridge graduates are personable and competent. That’s why they succeed.

(2)(7)

Anonymous

Yeah succeeded in dividing a nation and the communities they represent.

Foodbanks, inflation, removal of disability allowances.

(5)(3)

Anonymous

My boyfriend still lives with his parents and his mum is a bitch but he has a training contract offer at Freshfields. Should I dump him?

(6)(2)

Anonymous

No, you dig that gold mine love.

(9)(1)

Woody Peterson

What’s the size of his cock?

If anything under 12in length and 5in girth, dump his ass.

(3)(0)

Anonymous

I don’t think anyone has a penis like that.

(0)(0)

A horse

I would like to dispute your point.

(2)(0)

JDP

As would I

Ron Jeremy

Bitch you ain’t seen nothing yet

(0)(0)

Anonymous

DM me

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Dude… that is freakish. Actually scary.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Just apply to join Love Island you idiots

(1)(0)

Trumpenkrieg

This article reeks of statistical innumeracy.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

You, no doubt, reek of piss.

(0)(0)

Anonymous

Do black British school kids even know about Oxbridge’s past colonial history?

They have a Rhodes scholarship named after a colonialist who plundered precious gems from Zimbabwe it was even named after him as Rhodesia. These two universities are also charities for some perverse reasons. How can they colonise and be charitable?

No wonder there are issues around diversity at these institutions.

DONT BEND OVER. JUST BECAUSE EVERYONE GOES HERE DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO.

Having a conscious and a moral view on self righteousness is better than spending time at Oxbridge.

(3)(6)

BMBK

By the sounds of it you were rejected from Oxbridge.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Nah, I am with this guy. Oxbridge = despicable.

(1)(2)

Anonymous

What people have to consider is that LSE and Oxford offer radically different experiences. LSE has a very international (and rich) student body, it’s not a very social place and feels more like a corporation rather than a university, it also has no campus per se. Oxford offers a more traditional and in-depth university experience.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

WHY NO ONE SHOULD BOTHER READING LC

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.