News

Top 10 places for Leeds, Queen’s Belfast and Warwick in latest law school rankings

By on
70

Russell Group unis secure all but one of the top 20 spots

The latest university rankings are out, with Leeds, Queen’s Belfast and Warwick jumping several places to secure top ten spots.

In what probably won’t come as a surprise to many, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge placed 1st and 2nd, respectively, in the 2023 Complete University Guide published this week.

Following the Oxbridge duo were London institutions UCL and LSE in 3rd and 4th, while Durham University took 5th spot on this year’s list.

King’s College London retained 6th spot, Leeds jumped five places to secure 7th, followed by the University of Bristol in 8th. Queen’s University Belfast climbed an impressive eight positions to lock in 9th, and Warwick completes the top ten with a nine place improvement on last year’s result.

Secure your place: The Legal Cheek Summer 2022 Virtual Vacation Scheme

Further down this year’s rankings and narrowly missing out on the top ten, the University of Nottingham leaped twelve places to eleventh. Up eight positions is Exeter (12th), followed by York (13th), Queen Mary (14th), Glasgow (15th) and Edinburgh (16th).

The highest placing non-Russell Group member, Lancaster University, jumped ten spots to bag 17th. Rounding off the top 20 are the universities of Birmingham (18th), Manchester (19th) and Cardiff (20th).

These results are based on entry standards, student satisfaction, research quality and graduate prospects.

There are some notable movers further down the power list of 106 universities. The University of Worcester and London Metropolitan are this year’s big risers, soaring 59 places and 48 places, respectively, to place 31st and 48th.

Top 20 law schools 2022:

RankingLaw school
1Oxford
2Cambridge
3UCL
4LSE
5Durham
6King’s College London
7Leeds
8Bristol
9Queen’s University Belfast
10Warwick
11Nottingham
12Exeter
13York
14Queen Mary
15Glasgow
16Edinburgh
17Lancaster
18Birmingham
19Manchester
20Cardiff

70 Comments

Curious Cat

It’s ironic that Warwick always makes top 10 but whenever I speak to anyone who’s studied there they say it’s the worst institution ever lol

How are they making top rankings???

(45)(10)

Harvey

I’m pretty sure it is mostly to do with employability statistics.

Warwick is notorious for not having their students MH in consideration (poor semester and exam timetables, general mismanagement, inconsistent teaching standards) but whenever you look at the top employers not just in law but across all industries, Warwick students dominate in stats (after Oxbridge ofc)

(23)(3)

J

It’s because Warwick students are mostly Oxbridge rejects or students who couldn’t get into an alternative Russel group Uni of their choosing so most of them have a chip on their shoulder and feel like they have something to prove

This is why you see Warwick grads doing multiple vac schemes and posting numerous TC offers on LinkedIn lol

(30)(14)

Sam

Loool why is this so true. All the Warwick students I know wanted to get into Uni of Notts or a top London Uni like Kings or LSE

(17)(13)

IC

So you are saying Warwick is filled with those rejected by the unis filled with Oxbridge rejects?

Get your facts str8 m8

LSE isn’t an Oxbridge reject uni whatsoever. Nor are the other two mentioned

For law, Uni of Notts had higher entry requirements than both Oxford and Cambridge for many years

LSE is known for having a rigorous selection system where they even have a preference for students who don’t study Law at A level

Amusing

Yes, Getyourfactsstr8, it is well known that Oxford and Cambridge are full of LSE and Nottingham rejects.

Haha

Hahaha Uni of Notts? As a lot of warwick students are international, I doubt they’ve even heard of nottingham

F

As a Warwick grad myself I do question the rankings but I’m not complaining lmaoo

Considering the postponed grad ceremony they are putting on for us is in a tent in some dingy car park tells you just how much they care for their students

(37)(2)

Flipper

And how are you finding working in Nando’s?

(0)(2)

Prince

Leeds and Bristol top 10?

You’re having a laugh

(27)(11)

Tom

I have a strong feeling that there’s a correlation between Bristol uni being considered a contender for a top 10 law school after €v€ c0rnw£11 gained popularity

(15)(16)

Anonymous

Bristol uni law school has always been a top 10 contender regardless as to whether a successful YouTuber went there. Why would it make the slightest difference in rankings?

(20)(13)

Harry

Law firms were notorious for being highly selective in the universities they recruited from.

They would pick and choose Russell group unis of a particular kind like Durham, LSE, Kings etc

Bristol wasn’t a top contender for law firms or chambers on an application in comparison to other top Russell group unis. As a uni it wasn’t on their radar

However, ever since eve there has clearly been an upsurge in recruiting from Bristol. Whether or not this is due to her is another question, but it is true that since her YouTube days of showcasing the uni on her channel, law firms have taken on more vac schemers and offered TCs to Bristol grads

Whether this is directly correlated is something that cannot be proven, but it is an interesting coincidence

(10)(33)

FT

Lol Bristol has always been a target uni, with many law firm events throughout the year.

It has consistently ranked in top 5 preferred universities for law firms according to Chambers. And if you actually worked at a law firm, you’d notice that lots of partners and senior associates in many city firms went to Bristol.

Frank

Maybe because before eve, Bristol had a reputation for being a party university for middle class kids who go to piss about and take pharmaceuticals

It wasn’t taken seriously by many people including employers

(10)(17)
(4)(4)

L

No they say regional firms prefer regional universities

Bristol based regional firms target students in Bristol what a shock

(5)(2)

Bitter

You clearly don’t go to a Russell
Group uni if you can read the table properly – keep dreaming about the tc

(1)(4)

Loser

Don’t think that’s what the stats say mister can’t get a tc

(1)(1)

And in other news

Interviews will become more and more important now that unviersities are not a credible merits filter as their admissions are driven by virtue signalling and postcodes rather than ability. The story this week that straight A students from higher socioeconomic postcodes were effectively barred from the Edinburgh LLB course shows how awful this has become. The talented children of England’s true middle classes are being excluded from the best universities to appease the woke.

(35)(49)

@ privileged white man complaining

Shut up u silly bint

(35)(15)

Jonty

Well said

(15)(17)

Head up princess, your tiara is falling

This is clearly a personal problem lol.

You weren’t smart enough to get into the university of your choosing and now you want to blame the poor

Get a grip mate

(36)(9)

And in other news

Dream on. I got into my first choice. Sadly many good students today will be denied a fair opportunity to do the same not because of their ability but because they are being punished because of where their parents chose to live.

(9)(17)

You’re a deluded rich kid

If their parents chose to live in a wealthier post code area then it probably means they are wealthy and privileged.

You have admitted yourself the big point… they CHOSE to live in a nice area.

The students whose postcodes are being used didn’t deliberately choose to live in a poor area to benefit from contextual recruitment, they are most likely in a poor area because they are are poor…

What is so hard to grasp

(13)(6)

And in other news

I understood that, everyone has the right to dine at The Ritz. But postcodes are not exam results. The best can get top grades postcode or otherwise. “Contextual recruitment” means letting in students with poorer grades. It is standard dilution, especially when getting top grades in A Levels and GCSEs is now so easy.

@ In Other News

You are being deliberate obtuse or as OP says, you actually are just deluded.

you are trying to manipulate the meaning of contextual recruitment into “poor person gets a free handout” which is not the case.

Contextual recruitment looks at people who have defied the odds given their circumstances.

Consider this:

Person 1: someone from a low socioeconomic background who achieves AAB in a school where the average is CCD and they have poor living conditions and live in an area where hardly anyone goes to university. They are the first to attend university in their family. They attend a state school, one of the worst in the area, consistently ranked ‘Need Improvement’ by OFSTED

Person 2: is middle class and lives in a decent sized house in a nice suburban area where people going off to university is a given and their parents have both been uni educated. They achieve AAA in a school where the average is A*AA. They went to a fee paying school of 21k a year (7k a semester)

Without context, person 2 looks like the better candidate as they have higher grades. However, in actuality, person 1 has defied the odds given their circumstances whilst Person 2 has actually underperformed

You are person 2 @ in other news. You achieved the grades and got into your uni but you are now threatened by people who are poor but have defied their odds to get to the same place as you and you cannot stand the sight of it

And in other news

10.13. I was the first in my family to go to university and it was very much a working class upbringing. I find the suggestion that a working class kid with poorer academics should be subject to some sort of pity uplift condescending and demeaning. Universities should look at grades not postcodes.

Lol

So predictable…

“And in other news” is now using the veil of internet anonymity to claim – what a twist! – that they’re actually from a working class background themselves! Therefore they can’t *possibly* be out of touch with working class experiences. They just happen to be coming out to bat for the privileged middle classes and… hmm… speaking in a way which shows that they are in fact hopelessly out of touch with working class experiences.

I would say “nice try”, but it really wasn’t. Quite funny though.

And in other news

Your comment, LOL, shows more about your prejudices than anything else.

And in other news

You are right

I’m just a rich kid cosplaying as poor online

I’m going to seek employment so I can stop spending my working day pretending to be working class online whilst spouting typical Tory nonsense

Lol

Resorting to vague ad hominem attacks.

Can you be more specific about my supposed prejudices?

Lol

Subsequently lampooning yourself / your attempts to “cosplay” doesn’t really obscure that that is what you were trying to do.

The original comments are above for all to see.

And in other news

It goes without saying that 4:43pm was not me. Typical of the left to behave that way.

Lol, your prejudices? You seem to be able to divine someone’s socioeconomic background as a child from the way the write as an adult and that acknowledging that the best make it wherever they come from is “hopelessly out of touch”. “Contextual recruitment” does not help the best working class kids, as with all leftist interference it has the opposite effect by tainting achievements.

The gap between the classes in examination performances are not a function of deep rooted structural discrimination. They are a function of application, attitude and the simple fact that clever people are far more likely to have clever children. I know the left hates these truths, they much prefer their class struggles to be based on vacuous utterances of “privilege”.

You caught the bait @ And in other news

“So typical of the left to behave that way” he says….

Do you really think a poor working class person who lives in a deprived area is going to be voting Tory…

As the other commenter mentioned, this person is clearly a middle class dweeb using internet anonymity to spout nonsense to hate on social mobility

Lol

Your last comment has degenerated into absolute nonsense. It’s not worth my time anymore. (But I will say that guessing someone’s social background from their comments is entirely possible – what a ridiculous thing to negate. And your comments overall are obviously not from someone of working class stock.)

The downvotes on your comments speak for themselves. Especially on a forum where the average person is likely to be from a similar background to you – look, they don’t agree with you.

Could it be that you’re wrong? Think about it.

Joe

Cry more

(15)(3)

‘22 grad

The complete and utter lack of empathy shown here is disappointing.

Contextualising is not the same as favouring. It is an equitable policy aimed at discovering which students will benefit the most from the education provided by top institutions and, therefore, who will attain the best grades.

It is unfair that by virtue of economic background, a student will receive a better education and then be favoured in university admissions.

It is often provosts schooled individuals who, despite this elite education, were still not good enough to get into the top universities, and therefore blame the disadvantaged students.

I will say, however, that some in the cintextualisatikns are VERY lenient, such as UCL accepting BBB students down from AAA, and that a postcode will not stop naturally academically inclined students from achieving top grades. But we do have to accept not everyone comes from elite schools with parents that push students to do well.

(15)(7)

Anon

“It is an equitable policy aimed at discovering which students will benefit the most from the education provided by top institutions and, therefore, who will attain the best grades.”

Your point which I have quoted shows the problem. “Benefitting the most” is not the same as “attain(ing) the best grades”. If universities want to advance a social justice policy then that might allow some to access social mobility but the price of excluding the most able will tend towards lower grade outcomes. There used to be a high correlation between the best candidates and the best universities such that employers could use admissions as a proxy filter. That correlation is now shot given postcodes are more important than academic results.

(7)(7)

@ And in other news

Your comments:

“The talented children of England’s true middle classes are being excluded from the best universities”.

“many good students today will be denied a fair opportunity to do the same not because of their ability but because they are being punished because of where their parents chose to live.”

What do you think has happened to the “talented” and “good students” among the children of England’s working classes? Literally for centuries.

The simple fact is that a student from a working-class background who attains (say) AAB may have achieved a hell of a lot more than a student from a private school background who attains (say) A*AA.

Had that particular state-schooled child instead had the benefit of the private school education, they might have obtained A*A*A*A*A* – that is, have proven to be much more “talented” and a “better student” than their private-schooled counterpart. This issue is exactly what contextual entry requirements seek to address. If you go to an exam-factory school which regularly churns out students with straight As then yes you have to academically excel to prove that you are truly talented and a good student – for example A*A*A*A*A* and academic prizes.

A state school student achieving AAB might have achieved just as much as the A*A*A* student in the above example.

People who went to private schools often (apparently) cannot comprehend just how bad the education is in this country can be. I went to a school where, in the year that I joined the school, a single student in the whole of Year 11 got a B in GCSE maths – everyone else was C or below (i.e. no As or A*s). I got an A*, the first person to do it at my school for three years. How’s that for a bit of context to my achievement? But well done for achieving your A* in maths from your private school (alongside 40% of your year group) which definitely shows that we’re equally talented in that particular subject.

“many good students today will be denied a fair opportunity to do the same not because of their ability but because they are being punished because of where their parents chose to live”…. cry me a river.

(11)(4)

@ @

You are insulting the working class kids that worked hard and get in on merit not pity. A levels are so easy nowadays that if someone cannot get straight As then that is their own problem.

(3)(7)

What?

How can you possibly conflate my explanation of how good grades genuinely demonstrate merit for working class kids (unlike private school kids) with the statement that working class kids “get in on pity rather than merit”? My comment took the exact opposite position.

I guess you’ve seen similar arguments elsewhere and tried to apply it to my comment inappropriately. Complete lack of critical thinking.

Your statement that A levels are “easy” gives away that you are private school educated. You failed to read anything in my comment. Google the A level results of an average comp and tell me again that getting straight As is easy. When you’re spoon-fed, yes I imagine that it is.

(7)(0)

Truth Serum

Exactly this.

They are trying to manipulate the meaning of contextual recruitment into “poor person gets a free handout” which is not the case.

Contextual recruitment looks at people who have defied the odds given their circumstances.

Consider this:

Person 1: someone from a low socioeconomic background who achieves AAB in a school where the average is CCD and they have poor living conditions and live in an area where hardly anyone goes to university. They are the first to attend university in their family

Person 2: is middle class and lives in a decent sized house in a nice suburban area where people going off to university is a given and their parents have both been uni educated. They achieve AAA in a school where the average is A*AA.

Without context, person 2 looks like the better candidate as they have higher grades. However, in actuality, person 1 has defied the odds given their circumstances whilst Person 2 has actually underperformed

@Truth Serum

Absolutely spot on. Thanks for explaining it so well (better than my examples further above).

WarwickGrad

Warwick is a good law school. But it scores badly because it’s brutal. Academically it’s a bit like the Hunger Games, only the strongest survive. I should know I went there and did well, but my god it was hell on earth at times. You get great teachers who really care, but most of them are more focused on research than helping students; making the experience very lonely and isolating. Plus, everybody at Warwick is so competitive. Literally, everyone is gunning for a TC. They know that just getting a 2:1 will take you places, so no one collaborates.

(11)(30)

K

How does it score badly if it makes top 10 every year?

(5)(2)

R

He means the score badly in assignments and exams. As in they are strict and stingy in giving out firsts

(5)(1)

Leedslame

Leeds top 10 lmao

(0)(0)

Rolleyes

Wow you must be so smart to do well in such a hardcore environment here’s a cookie

(27)(2)

Warren

Law schools are tough on marking everywhere at top Russel Group unis

Warwick students act like they’re the only ones subjected to it

(23)(0)

Sad Boi

Leicester should’ve joined the Russell Group when they had the chance.

(1)(6)

Mark

Did they ever have a chance??

(21)(1)

Mancandproud

I think @WarwickGrad means by “scores badly” is that WLS rides off the reputation of the Warwick university; the law school in itself seldom makes the top 10. I am a Manchester grad and have a couple of mates down at Warwick. They mostly complain about their marks, and lack of action.

(13)(0)

ULaw Student

They should rank University of Law and BPP University too. Even though they’re private institutions it would be good to know what their statistics are like and how they match up to other universities.

(6)(9)

Anon

In terms of international rankings the top 3 are miles ahead of everyone else in terms of institutional performance
. Oxford and Cambridge average 5-10 across most international ranking and UCL averages 15 or better. Apart from LSE which is specialised the rest above are mediocre or irrelevant. In time this this will affect reputation.

(11)(20)

Anon

QS legal rankings put KCL 15th for law and it’s usually in the top 50 at least for overall world rankings – how on earth does that make it a “mediocre” institution. (World rankings are pretty irrelevant to someone who wants to work in the UK anyway). To say that the majority of the unis listed above are mediocre/ irrelevant is just ridiculous.

(4)(5)

manofthepeople

To Anon,

You sound like a barrister with that sh#te elitist attitude of yours.

From the ‘common people’: Do one!

(12)(6)

So I can empathise

How did it feel when you received your Oxbridge rejection letter?

Did Mummy tell you it was their loss and you will show them one day before taking you out for some ice cream?

(8)(14)

Anon

Warwick grads are mostly state-educated, which explains their limited success in the job market.

(12)(14)

G

Warwick grads dominate in terms of employability after Oxbridge grads

(11)(8)

City

Warwick grads are also gauche and chippy. Little wonder that employers don’t want them.

(10)(7)

manofthepeople

To Anon,

So you don’t believe in meritocracy?

Defo a conservative.

I rest my case

(8)(0)

gauche and chippy lmao

haha, there seems to be a lot of jealous non-Warwick ‘grads’ (like they’re one monolith) struggling to even get one vac scheme let alone a TC in the City in the comment section today.

(9)(12)

Chip E. Ghosh

One thing I learned today is that there is a University of Warwick. My safety school list did not drop that far in the rankings.

(10)(6)

2PQE

It’s not jealously it’s just facts.

Clearly you’re triggered by the comments lmaooo

If everyone is saying the same thing about Warwick including Warwick students themselves then don’t you think it’s probably true

(7)(3)

200PQE

2PQE and you have time to compare universities on legal cheek when in reality literally no one cares once you *actually* qualify where you studied? Make it more believable lol

(6)(4)

Perpetual associate

Law firms generally don’t care where you went to university. It’s generally your application which gets marked, scored and takes you to interview. HR does the screening, they have been to the University of Portsmouth or what have you.

I went to a university on that list and people said it was crap etc. and the people online 15 years ago on “the student forum” would get into university arguments, and how one university would set you up for life, but because another person went someone sort of comparable, they were doomed. Even if their grades at school were the same or better.

University is not an issue. There are a handful of firms which can be difficult – everyone I know at GD went to Oxbridge – but it’s the exception, not the rule. I got pretty depressed feeling helpless when I was at university because of all this noise. If I could go back in time, I would just study hard consistently and be more confident – about everything.

(21)(0)

Lad

So true!!

What uni did you go to if you don’t mind asking?

It’s funny you say that because there isn’t a single uni in that top 20 list that isn’t a fantastic uni and offers a great law school

(4)(1)

ByeLeeds

Leeds should not be top 10. Bristol should be 6 sorry.

(5)(2)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories