Which unis offer law grads the best chance of securing a job?

By on

New stats reveal the law schools with the highest — and lowest — ‘positive outcomes’ 15 months down the line

New data published by the Office for Students reveals the percentage of recent undergraduates who went on to secure a “positive outcome” 15 months after graduation. The data was collected via the Graduate Outcomes survey.

The following count as a “positive outcome”:

● Working in a professional role (pupil barristers, trainee solicitors, paralegals and legal executives are all deemed to be occupying “professional” roles)
● Studying
● Travelling
● Caring for someone
● Being retired

According to the regulator, 73.9% of law students who graduated in 2018 had a positive outcome 15 months down the line. Law graduates performed similarly to geography (75.0%), languages (73.2%) and politics graduates (73.1%). The worst-performing subject areas were media studies (67.4%), psychology (63.6%) and sociology (60.8%).

The relevant data is also split out by subject and university. For law graduates, household names can be found on both ends of the positive outcome ranking. On the one hand, Oxford (91.8%), LSE (91.8%), Durham (89.8%), Cambridge (87.3%) and King’s College London (87.3%) enjoy high positive outcome rates. City University (64.8%), The University of Law (66.4%) and BPP (70.8%), which has since discontinued its LLB, scored lower. The full list can be found here.

The report also measures the percentage of students who, having begun their course in 2018, were expected to progress onto their second year of university but did not do so. By combining this with the data on positive outcomes, the Office for Students has come up with an approximation of the percentage of students that will both complete their degree and have a positive outcome 15 months after graduation. This has been dubbed ‘Proceed’ (Projected completion and employment from entrant data).

Secure your place: The Legal Cheek Summer Virtual Vacation Scheme 2021

The results here vary enormously. Universities with high completion rates and strong positive outcomes continue to perform very well — for example, Oxford has a Proceed rate of 89.3%. However, several universities, such as London South Bank, have a Proceed rate of less than 50%.

The data has several limitations that are worth keeping in mind.

Firstly, the response rate for most universities is between 50 and 70%. It is very difficult to predict the outcomes of those who did not reply: the graduate may have moved overseas, changed their email address, be working in a demanding role, or be unwilling to disclose for privacy or other reasons. We also do not know whether the graduates who replied are representative of their wider cohort.

Secondly, because a positive outcome is defined very generously (paralegalling and self-funding the LPC both count as such), it is difficult to infer much about graduate prospects for the universities that scored highly in this area. Nonetheless, the low threshold should give applicants an additional reason to be wary of universities with low scores.

Thirdly, the data favours academically selective universities that attract more privileged students, as well as universities whose graduates predominantly look for work in thriving job markets such as London. The inclusion of “travelling” as a positive outcome also raises eyebrows. Fortunately, the Office for Students has benchmarked all of the data mentioned above (including Proceed scores) against the age, sex, A-Level grades, ethnicity and postcode of each university’s intake. The results can be viewed here.

Finally, the data has only been collected for 2018 graduates. Students starting three-year law degrees this September will be due to graduate in 2024. The data may well change by then.

Given the high cost of tuition and living for many undergraduates, prospective law students benefit from having as much information as possible. At the same time, anyone interpreting this data should be acutely aware of its flaws and seek to complement it with information obtained from other official sources. Because the positive outcome rate is just one aspect of ’employability’, graduate salaries, careers support and the presence of a university’s alumni in the legal sector are also important to consider.

Aspiring Academic is a postgraduate student who is conducting research on issues relating to graduate employability in the UK high education sector.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub



I can tell already that the comments on this article are going to be very entertaining.



so basically….

getting a good score = not that meaningful
getting a bad score = pretty bad lmao (what are your graduates even doing???)



If anyone wants the full list it’s here btw:

University Name — Percentage (%) of 2018 law graduates who secured a positive outcome 15 months after graduation

University of Wolverhampton 55.9
Staffordshire University 58
University of Sunderland 58.9
Canterbury Christ Church University 59.6
University of Central Lancashire 61
Birmingham City University 61.2
Teesside University 64
De Montfort University 64.2
Oxford Brookes University 64.3
City, University of London 64.8
The University of Essex 66
The University of Law Limited 66.4
Liverpool John Moores University 66.5
University of Portsmouth 66.8
Kingston University 67.4
University of Derby 68.5
University of Winchester 68.6
Coventry University 68.8
The University of Hull 68.9
University of the West of England, Bristol 69
The University of West London 69.2
Brunel University London 70.4
School of Oriental and African Studies 70.4
BPP University Limited 70.8
Leeds Beckett University 70.9
Aston University 70.9
University of East London 71
Nottingham Trent University 71.3
University of Greenwich 71.6
The University of Westminster 71.7
London South Bank University 72
University of Plymouth 72.3
University of Hertfordshire 72.8
Anglia Ruskin University Higher Education Corporation 73
University of Keele 73.5
Manchester Metropolitan University 73.7
Edge Hill University 73.9
London Metropolitan University 74.1
The University of Huddersfield 74.2
The University of Kent 74.4
University of Salford, The 74.6
St Mary’s University, Twickenham 74.6
University of Southampton 74.8
University College London 75
The University of Liverpool 75.3
Sheffield Hallam University 76.5
University of Sussex 76.9
The University of East Anglia 77.6
The University of Warwick 78
University of Chester 78
The University of Sheffield 78.3
University of Northumbria at Newcastle 78.5
University of Lincoln 78.5
The University of Reading 79
The University of Birmingham 79.5
University of Nottingham, The 79.5
The University of Surrey 79.5
The University of Manchester 80.1
University of Exeter 80.2
University of Bristol 80.3
University of Northampton, The 80.5
The University of Leeds 80.6
The University of Leicester 81.9
University of York 82.6
The University of Lancaster 83.1
University of Newcastle upon Tyne 85.7
Queen Mary University of London 86.7
King’s College London 87.3
University of Cambridge 87.3
University of Durham 89.8
Royal Holloway and Bedford New College 90.8
The London School of Economics and Political Science 91.8
University of Oxford 91.8


disgruntled resident of Freedland St.

Any idea as to why UCL and Warwick perform as badly as they do? Expected to see them up with King’s, Cambridge, Durham, and the others.


former ucl student

It’s partially because a large proportion of UCL’s students are internationals / ESL who, although they went to an elite university, have difficulty competing with Imogen and Percival Double Barrel for the top law firm gigs


Yi Xhan

why doesn’t this apply to LSE, which has even more internationals?

i’m pretty sure that oxford-cambridge-kcl also attract lots of international students

should international students avoid UCL altogether if they want a career in the uk? did you feel unsupported during your studies and applications? were english lessons offered?


That’s the same with LSE though?

Realest Realist

UCL, KCL and LSE are filled with international students that would not have a shot at these Universities if they were domestic students. These Unis are filled with sub-par students paying the full £30k a year whack that subsidises the experience s of the UK students. I say this as someone who was made an offer by one of the three very quickly on the basis that they thought I was a foreign student (which I challenged) but my school mate who had a stronger application than me was not accepted. Also the same school runs a Woke scheme for kids that grew up on road. There is a reason why firms now go to Exeter in addition to Bristol, Durham and the other redbricks like Manchester-Birmingham- Newcastle-Leeds etc. for trainees, as there are some really top grads there.


@Realest Realist ^

ahahahaha what are you sniffing big man are you still sore about that LSE rejection?


Would be willing to bet this is down to response rate. I was at UCL and find it extremely difficult to believe this is accurate.


Yi Xhan

But why does UCL do especially badly compared to LSE, Oxford, etc?

given that all of them have very similar response rates?

do you have any reason to believe that the non-respondents at UCL were all employed?

Nah mate.

This applies to a number of other leading universities that recruit a large proportion of overseas candidates. It does not explain why UCL is especially bad on this metric.



I’m a full-time carer for the guy on here who thinks he’s an associate Kirkland. If anyone sees him, can you just pretend the sandwich in his hand is a ‘Lambo’?

Thanks x


K&E PA Extraordinaire

Sorry, he’s too busy overseeing the team of Lambo washers. They can’t be trusted to clean matte paint off a ’18 Aventador. One of them chipped the paint last time.

Can I take a message?



What a useless survey. What they should really do is gather data on what percentage of graduates make it to MC/US firms. Students need to get an idea of what their chances really are.


iz going down

not everyone aspires to work at these firms bucko

also this survey captures people who are working as pupil barristers 15 months after graduation, which is by no means an easy graduate job to get


iz going down

many do and that’s fine. MC/US firms aren’t for everyone. also you do realise that many aspire to work in criminal/family/administrative/etc law right? so they couldn’t care less about the percentage of MC/US lawyers



I agree that MC/US firms aren’t for everyone. They are very selective and choose only the smartest candidates. I don’t know what university you’re at/you went to but the vast majority of law students see careers in criminal/family/administrative law as a joke. I can genuinely only think of 1 person in 50 who actually went down that path deliberately. Everyone else just settled for those careers once they realised they have no other choice. I guess if you’re at somewhere like Leeds, that realisation comes about sooner.



Also the NQ salary at CMS puts you either in or close to the top 5% of UK salaries, often before your late 20s. That’s impressive outside of the hyper competitive mindset some have in commercial law.



I have calculated the chance of a “positive outcome” on an application to our place from Royal Holloway and Bedford New College would be somewhere between zero and diddly squat.



The university being referred to is Royal Holloway, I believe. Queen Mary is also referred to by its previous name (Queen Mary & Westfield College) in many data releases.


Bavis Bolk

still shet



another limitation that could’ve been mentioned is that this favours useless graduates who sit around for a “gap year” and then do an LPC/LLM etc the second year after they graduate. so these people are seen as having a “positive outcome” even if they end up unemployed in their third year

the well-meaning graduate who does the LPC and then can’t find a job is seen as having a “negative outcome”



imagine studying at UCL

75% positive outcome rate

compared to 90% ish for King’s and LSE and Durham aka the other tier 2 unis

why live




Didn’t realise there’s a tier system for British universities? Or is it something the students on LC ‘created’?


Bristol gang

the only people who don’t realise there’s a tier system are those at tier 1 universities (oxbridge) or tier 4-5 universities (warwick, exeter, nottingham)

everyone else is acutely aware of the tiering



I did law with a year abroad at nottingham and pretty much all of the people on similar courses ended up in city law firms (of those who wanted to). Relatively few of the 200-ish straight law grads did, however.

The university doesn’t matter so much as what you do there and if people go to Exeter and network and develop some personality they have a better chance of getting a job than those who spend 3 years swiping and drinking.

Recruiters don’t so much think about university tiers as they do about graduate tiers and the guy with work experience and actual hobbies and interests is always a tier above the dull graduate from a higher tier university (oxbridge excepted).


disagree soz x

imagine boiling your university’s value and ranking down how it’s perceived by a bunch of HR gimps at City firms


ROFL imagine getting a degree at the Strand Poly and openly telling people about it 😀 😀 😀 😀


Glass Houses

Your law school is literally called the Dickinson Poon school of law, there is nothing more embarrassing than that.



Expensive PR agency: “This name looks alright to us”
Students: 😯



KCL and Durham are a tier below LSE. You simply need to look at the average offer holder’s grades/LNAT to arrive at this conclusion.


deal destroyer (now disbarred)

is no one commenting on the fact that the government is spending 9k minimum on students who study at universities where the odds are >50% that you won’t graduate and get a graduate-level job?

like why are LSBU, CCCU still allowed to recruit???

this is a survey aimed to weed out the crap unis. not to be used to bash bristol, ucl.


lamborghini mercy 🚗

we can do both — imagine studying at bristol though



Does this mean that King’s College London is a better university for employability than University College London? Hope I don’t regret my choices.



This is discriminatory.


Jarred Leto

How so?



City, SOAS and ULaw are the ones mentioned in the article, but if you download the Excel spreadsheet, there are so many more with positive outcome rates in the 60 percents. So much wasted talent and debt


Call me a Labour voter but

What I don’t like in these discussions is the elitism and determinism that pervades them.

A university that recruits privileged people will be bound to perform better. A university where students are self-driven needs to do less remedial and support work to get them to a standard where they are comfortably employable and possess the skills (both ‘soft’ and ‘hard’) that legal employers look for. I don’t see why this country obsesses with Oxbridge and LSE when these are elite universities that hire elite students that would do amazingly no matter where they study. LSBU performs a far more valuable service by offering a path to professional employment for underrepresented groups – and especially BAME groups – in the capital.

The point I am getting at is that articles such as these are predicated on the belief that education is a return on an investment (the debt incurred by a student). But had maintenance grants not been scrapped for students who attend the universities that rank less well, these students would not have had to meet such a high return level or risk their courses being deemed low value and irresponsible by the powers to be. Instead of chastising and singling out London South Bank, maybe consider lowering or abolishing fees for the diverse candidates who are in need of financial support. That will make studying at LSBU a more attractive proposition because the ‘investment’ incurred will be less. Also maybe consider paying more in legal aid and social worker programmes so that these students do not feel financially excluded from these career options (which are still dominated by the white middle classes even in areas with a high proportion of BAME/diverse communities).

LSBU graduates perform an equally valuable social role as the King’s College London graduates who study a short walk away, even if they work in different sectors and organisations. That needs to be recognised and not everything can be boiled down to money.


Chancery Barrister

I’ve learned from this thread that there exists a Dic*s on Poon law school. Highly amusing.

Aside from that, I read the above post a couple of times and I’m still note sure what it is meant to say. What I do know is that I dislike the assumption that ‘privileged’ people are recruited by the elite universities. Not everything is about power structures. Some families simply value high standards and prioritise education; it is not suprise that they are more likely to produce high performing students. It is a sad state of affairs where a two parent, hardworking family which puts education and high standards at the apex of its value structure is viewed as ‘privileged’. There is nothing privileged about reading to your children every night, watching over them whilst they complete their homework, limiting TV and social media etc. I dont care how busy you are, you can find time.

Whilst there are levels of absolute poverty in the country, it is vanishingly small. The majoirty of people have never been so well off. The real problem is a corrosive culture of low standards and low aspirations which pervades certain sections of the population and is unforunately enabled by teaching establishment. I dont blame them per se. Why maintain discipline and high standards when no one else does.

I sound like my dad 🙁

I was a socialist once before realising that throwing money at a rotten culture is pointless and most likely counter productive.


Call me a Labour voter but

Culture is a dog whistle and unfairly excludes those who have had little exposure to white collar or professional employment because of family, social or educational reasons. You’ve effectively abandoned a generation of working class and migrant households and are trying to heap the blame onto them too! Shocking.

As I explained, what these lower-ranking universities try to do is lift up these people and by offering them a law degree give them access to the solicitor and barrister professions as well as other allied career paths such as social work.

My point was that the neoliberal marketisation of higher education has resulted in us having very high expectations of returns from universities. However, not everyone can or will work in the City or at the leading sets – which is in itself ironic given that many leading sets such as Doughty and Garden Court do not see their pupils or tenants getting paid very much by virtue of the work they do. Instead of demonising LSBU students and LSBU for ‘low returns’ on an enormous investment of £50,000 plus once living costs are factored in we should be lowering that investment so that career paths that are currently seen as not being worth it by virtue of their nominally low return are seen as worth it. Working as a lawyer for a local authority may not be worth it if one is £50,000 plus interest in debt but it could be worth it if one is not in debt or is in very low amounts of debt. And that is not to forget about the social benefits to these communities of having diverse candidates being represented in professional roles and hopefully providing a role model for the next generation.

In addition to all of the above the reason why many students at these lower ranked universities struggle is because of austerity-related cuts and pressures at school that only the lower classes bear, such as the scrapping of extracurriculars and large class sizes. If someone gets poor A-level grades and has little in the way of relevant experience or skills elsewhere how are they going to get into one of the universities at the top of the employability list? What this survey shows is something we all know: in this country, the privileged and the extremely academically able win big, and the rest of us – especially the lower classes who have had little exposure to the higher education and office environment – lose.


Alan Robertshaw

“Some families simply value high standards and prioritise education”

Plenty of less fortunate families do too though. I think we have to be careful not to conflate intent with capability.

If you don’t like the word privilege; then just consider in terms of advantages.

It’s a lot easier to study when you have a quiet space; and you’re not crammed into tiny substandard accommodation. It’s a lot easier to spend time helping your kids study when you’re not knackered after getting in late after a double shift. If you’re struggling to make ends meet, then you might not have the funds for your kids to enjoy all the extra curricular activities that look good on CVs. It’s a lot easier to fix up internships and work experience when you’re in a professional job yourself and move in those sorts of circles. And of course if your parents went to uni, then you’re less in the dark about the whole process of applying and collegiate life. The list goes on.

Poor parents make all sorts of sacrifices for their children’s futures. And I know from my own experience that kids from less well-off backgrounds are no less bright, and often even more hard working and motivated, than better off kids.

It’s just a heck of a lot easier to get ahead when you’re starting from pole position rather than the back of the grid.


Call me a Labour voter but

I fully agree with you Alan.

Someone at Cambridge who can do unpaid work experience during their summer vacations and has lots of time to spend sending applications will be enormously advantaged compared to someone at a lower-ranked university who has to work alongside their studies and therefore has less time for elaborate extracurriculars and other CV-enhancing activities. It is also well-documented that the elite graduate schemes will take most applicants several application cycles to break into further benefitting those who are wealthy and otherwise privileged.

With the exception of Oxbridge most disadvantaged students at university have to either live in poor quality accommodation or live at home or in general be in an environment that is overcrowded and leaves little in the way of mental or physical space for concentrated work. This affects grades and one’s perceived educational standing.

Obviously the BBB student at London South Bank who has no time to send applications or do other things that will make them a more competitive candidate will look worse on paper than the AAA student at Bristol who has literal weeks of free time every year.

This “ranking” or rather this poor excuse of a ranking just proves to us what we already know. It has nothing to do with the university. It has everything to do with class, BAME status, and other intersecting factors such as sexuality, gender-presentation, disability (all of which either explicitly – by way of minimum entry requirements – or implicitly – by the presentation of a lawyer as stereotypically male and well-off) make it much more difficult for disadvantaged graduates to achieve one of these veneered “professional – level roles” 15 months after graduation.

We might as well rank postcodes by the percentage of under-18s who go on to progress to graduate-level roles. The results will be the same. W10 will do better than W4, N1 will do better than E1, the rich stay rich and the poor get f*cked.


Call me a Labour voter but

I apologise but I spotted two typos in my post.

“venerated” not veneered”
“W4 will do better than W10” rather than vice versa

Good day to all

Chancery Barrister

Intersectionality – it says it all…..

If we get to choose postcodes, I chose the second most deprived borough in London, Newham. It would otherwise be a wet dream for the intersectionality brigade by virtue of its diverse intake – were it not for the fact that 41 students picked up Oxbridge offers this year. Hardwork, discipline and dedicated teachers who expect more than merely reducing the poor and minorities to nothing more than the sum of their intersecting characteristics.

This victimisation philiosophy is so obviously wrong it beggars belief that otherwise smart people are comfortable to draw conclusions based upon nothing more than superficial correlation. The notion that the poor and BAME students don’t succeed because they are poor and BAME is a perfect example of this lightweight thinking.

Call me a Labour voter but

Ah yes the usual knee-jerk reaction to “intersectionality” from someone who just instinctively dislikes it… I wonder why. Is it because you don’t understand it, or fear that it dethrones the conservative idol of the “white working class boy”? Or are you just the sort of person who reacts negatively to certain words? That may be a concern in and of itself.

There is indeed an excellent school in Newham that does much to promote social mobility and whose students I believe even secure places at leading universities abroad. However until you ensure that every poor boy and girl in this country has access to similar institutions which offer them – at the very minimum – access to the kind of opportunities that a predominantly white suburban grammar school in Kent would offer, I do not see how your point or example would stand. Does every borough in London have a Brampton Manor? No. Does every county in the country have one? No. Do they deserve one? Yes, and we agree on this point. However, until everyone does have a Brampton Manor the point I made about unequal opportunities and disadvantage stands.

BAME is absolutely relevant because implicit and explicit racism still exists in the profession and because it intersects with class to eliminate role models for young black and asian minority individuals – for example, we can all think of white working class men who went on to achieve great things, but how many – in number, or as a proportion – working class black men do we know of who did the same thing? A black working class man needs black working class role models and the suggestion that their life experience and disadvantage is interchangeable with that of a white working class man who grew up around say Blackpool or Merseyside is painfully ignorant. Class is not mutually exclusive with race and at core this is what intersectionality thesis acknowledges.

Either way I fear that I am discussing this with yet another boring Oxbridge clone who would not know disadvantage or oppression if it came up and bit him on the nose! Thankfully policy and research is not determined by you and your ilk but is rather left to those who have specialised in this area of law. It is perhaps for the best that the privileged white men and women get paid to argue over the finer points of substance in a courtroom while policy is made by a more diverse group of researchers and politicians.

It is precisely why these surveys and rankings are so dangerous – they undo decades’ of progress in social policy and research by dumbing down outcomes to oh it’s a bad university or oh it’s a matter of prestige, when life outcomes and professional outcomes have been proven to be determined by things other than what name happened to go on your diploma, and when there is a valuable role to be played by the likes of LSBU in higher education in 2021.

Chancery Barrister

I’ve filed the above under ‘rant’.

Call me a Labour voter but

That’s because you clearly don’t have the willingness or ability to engage on the substance. I can only hope that whatever dodgy scumbag offshore trust hires you gets a better service.

Also a barrister

Scratch the surface of a leftie, and you will find nothing but resentment and hatred of the rich and successful.

“The evil that is in the world always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding. … The soul of the murderer is blind; and there can be no true goodness nor true love without the utmost clear-sightedness.” Albert Camus.

Your conviction in your own righteousness blinds you to the harm your utterings would cause if they were put into practice.

D. Chan

is there a breakdown by gender? would be interested to see how these rates vary by men and women by institution



Second this. There is a gender gap at too many universities, even for young female professionals. Providing only gross/unfiltered data is not appropriate and I’m not sure why the government is not holding itself up to the reporting standards it holds medium and large-sized companies to.



I don’t see why your post got this many downvotes. There are provable enormous differences in salary between men and women just 5 years after graduation. However, they do not persist across all universities. More discussion and research as to why LSE males earn more than LSE females but why Oxford males and females earn similar amounts would surely be a worthwhile research agenda. I suspect that the default response from the reactionary right-wing crowd is “personal choice” but that would ignore the multitude of anticipatory pressures and divergent career guidance women receive (e.g. picking law firms and practice areas based on which ones would be the most family-friendly). I also know for a fact that this data does ask the respondent for their M/F status so this data should theoretically be available it just hasn’t been published!



More females than males get onto law courses and subsequently get training contracts at large commercial firms

This type of gender gap apparently isn’t a problem though



Would you like to show me evidence of men being persistently discriminated against when applying to training contracts… oh, I guess not. Is there evidence of men opting out of applying to City Law in general because of the fear that this would interfere with maternity and family life? Would you chip in 50-50 and take a real career hit to support your female partner (your post reads like that of a chippy wannabe oppressed male, and I’m assuming you’re straight, sorry if my assumption is untrue).

Oh, yeah, the answer to all of these is no.



The irony of you calling someone chippy and “wannabe oppressed” 😂


I would say there is a clear disadvantage to a man aiming at a training contract. Namely, that the man is not a good looking woman.


Anon, sorry if I don’t take the writings of a privileged white boy (because that’s what you are) seriously. I’m sure that you will experience actual oppression in another lifetime. Then your wishes will be granted and you will be able to post about it on a forum for university students!


Carolyn shows the victim mentality of mediocre right there.



Willing to bet real money that you’re just another mediocre male… you know, the kind that says #NotAllMen and thinks that women just choose to be discriminated against in the workplace! IRONIC



Carolyn – you seem to know a lot about people simply based on the fact they don’t agree with you

If I had to guess I’d say you’re a lower middle class white woman who has limited success with her career or with men. That makes you angry and you project that anger on men generally and blame men as a group for your lack of progression in your career

Am I wrong?



I love it when LC deletes multiple comments after approving them in the first place. I guess they went to some of the universities that other commenters are speaking negatively about.

Embarrassing. Grow up.



agreed. noticed the same thing 20 minutes ago



I can’t help but think that surveys like this are highly damaging.

Firstly, they are crudely used to target “low value” or “sub-par” courses that do not fit the government’s elitist requirements for success. That is highly detrimental in the long run as many departments that require on tuition fee income for survival are forced to shut down. In turn, the students who would have attended are forced off the university route and, because of the lack of suitable apprenticeships or non-HE-related paths to employment, are effectively confined to jobs that only require a school leaver qualification, which are severely limited in terms of pay and progression.

Secondly, the government has been consistently pursuing the above policy for a number of years. The timing of this release is not coincidental:, Articles such as these effectively do the government’s bidding for it as it seeks to win its propaganda war against who it tries to depict as unworthy timewasters who are getting themselves and the Treasury into debt for no social gain (allegedly).

Thirdly, these surveys favour the traditional incumbents (the names are familiar) that fail to recruit inclusively and contextually, choosing instead to focus on exceptional students who succeeded despite all of the odds and heavily pampered grammar and privately educated students, often from international backgrounds. In turn, this perpetuates cycles of oppression and elitism, as less well performing universities (whose students were never given a fair chance in life!) are shown in a uniformly negative light (“oh, Noah went to Chichester? it’s a terrible university!”), whereas the failures of students from the incumbents is individualised and painted as a product of personal failings (“oh, of course Andrew didn’t do well at Bristol, he was lazy, it’s his fault”). It’s not hard to see how these perceptions bleed into recruitment strategy as of and when the graduates of the incumbents rise in seniority, further excluding the poorly performing institutions from the ‘top jobs’ that guarantee security and social and monetary progression for their graduates, who are arguably in the greatest need of said progression and security.


Car cleaner of the Kirkland PQE

Very woke.



I take it you went to Wolverhampton then



Because only Wolverhampton graduates have empathy. As if the Tory government’s plans aren’t transparent.


Pandora, Oxford LLB

Thrilled to see my alma mater is top of the list. Not a surprise. You have to attend to understand. There’s an ‘Oxford way’ – if you will – you can hear it in the voices of the students. Some people say we all sound the same.

It ONLY takes the brightest from each generation. But it’s also convenient that twenty four of my classmates won a place, including my best friends, Felicity and Eliza. My boyfriend, Hector, from the sister school, was also bright enough to win a place. In fact, a lot of the schools around me did rather well in that regard. I think talent attracts talent. All I know is that I was under an insane amount of pressure. It’s not easy when your parents and sister have already gone to Oxford.

We’ve all graduated this year. Mostly heading into MC and US firms, of course. Although Eliza only got a place at HSF. We all find that hilarious. My Dad was a partner at HSF in the nineties, though, and he says it isn’t that bad.



Pandora, Oxford doesn’t offer an LLB. It’s a BA…



Its a joke. Relax. Reference to LLB is exactly the point.



Hi Prune, I’m Pandora and Eliza. I realised after posting that I had written LLB rather than BA. This being Legal Cheek, I knew I had to get in there and clarify before anyone else did. The students on here are very finicky about education and will do anything to protect Oxford.



Not a very funny one darl’, you would have stood out at SPGS with that kind of humour!


Des Gusting

Unfortunately Oxford no longer takes the brightest. It is turning away some of the best from the top public schools to make places for its charity “diversity” drive. This year’s entrance figures show merit is no longer the touchstone of entry. Most bright sixth formers in the nation’s better schools are now looking at US unis to compensate for being blocked out of Oxbridge because of woke madness.


sipping on privileged tears

It’s okay mate, Durham/Bristol/Exeter will be a fine destination for you and candidates of your ilk 🧺 you can all get together on weekends and cry about how unfair life is


Bavis Bolk

haha i love these surveys because they show you the flip side. all these warwick students bragging about getting a tc with linklaters on LI. guess a quarter of them are unemployed LOL



Wasn’t aware that Lincoln had a ‘university’, if that’s what they’re seriously calling it?

Only been to Lincoln once, and it was a shithole tbf.


lmao cuck

Lincoln performs better on this survey than UCL, Warwick and Liverpool, which are seen as more traditional “universities”

Eggs on face?


UEA and other non-RGs

Very interesting to see unis such as UEA rank next to Warwick on the list… How is this possible? Are these non-RGs really that respected?


hi sir

maybe their graduates are all paralegalling or working for Shit, Creek & Stain LLP in Norfolk


First seat

Useful advice only!

What sort of seat should i do as a first seater?


Useful advice

Your firm will force you to do PE as a first-seater. If they don’t, leave.


Why is no one mentioning the fact that the University of Law sees less than 50% of its LLB students actually complete their degree and go on to secure a graduate job within 15 months of graduation?



I say this with genuine love in my heart because I had a great time at ULaw on the BPTC, but they are not equipped to offer actual academic degrees and shouldn’t be trying to do it.



Forget unis for a sec – which magic circle firm is the best and why?


bantosaurus rex

Low quality effort 0/10


The real law list

Someone above already posted this link, but just to make clear, this is the list (with reasonably explained survey method) you have all come for:



lol why do you think everyone wants to become a solicitor at a commercial law firm
also that list has a response rate of 20%. 20%!


haha 🍳🍳

Oh hello do you happen to study at Warwick or UCL by any chance? Maybe Bristol? Nottingham?

The real chad universities will do well on any metric. You don’t see any Oxbridge graduates begging you to stop looking at this inconvenient set of data and to look at this other more convenient set of data instead, do you? Nope! That’s because they are secure in the knowledge that their university bosses any metric or ranking you can compile. Literally anything. Try to prove me wrong, Reject, I know you can’t.



And its hi, ho, Wolverhampton, every where we… oh wait.. never mind.


Fred A.

Hi Legal Cheek, can you make your hyperlinks coloured or underlined or something? It appears that there are a lot of hyperlinks in the article (and in the comments section) that aren’t clearly visible as such.


Common Sense Man with a Common Sense Opinion

All these softie softie students thinking theyre degree will get them a million pound job. Well guess where I studied? The university of HARD KNOCKS!!!


Advice pls

Should I go to LSE and have a shot at that US salary or go to Durham and probably make far less afterwards but actually have a social life?



You sound like the type of geezer who’d go to Durham and have no social life anyway so just flip a coin mate.



Go to Oxbridge and have the best of both.


hello i am confooze

no social life and a job offer from a top US firm?


oxbridge = kings

Love all the butthurt children in here whose universities didn’t do quite as well as they expected. I thought that Warwick was the most prestigious university ever and so career driven and everyone ended up in City firms.


Comments are closed.

Related Stories