Lawyer Salary

why is a summa cum laude not qualified for AGC? thought they are only asking for 2:1? :S think this guy is trolling sigh.

I think he's referring to JLC...anyways AGC just sent out a round of rejection letters I think. Seems like theyre hiring very few dpps this year

While AGC's requirement is Prima facie a second upper, with their limited intake in recent years, some individuals who get a first/summa cum laude don't even get hired. There are a no. of factors, such as performance during the interview where the panel would want to see if the interviewee is a good fit to their organisation.

AGC gets a very steady stream of Oxbridge scholars due to the scholarships given out yearly by legal service. As such they don't have to recruit much more people beyond that. Also, it is common for them to accept slightly less academically qualified applicants if they think that it will be a better fit for the organization.

Well, I must say that first class honours / summa cum laude graduates from NUS/SMU will always have an advantage in the legal profession throughout their legal careers. Once anyone hears that this particular person was a first class honours graduate, his first impression would be "wow this guy must be super smart". Regardless of how well that guy is actually doing in practice.

I therefore advice students to work hard and get their first class honours / summa cum laude.

How are first class from universities that have been removed by minlaw viewed?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

How are first class from universities that have been removed by minlaw viewed?

Here's the prestige ranking in my opinion:

1) Oxford & cambridge first class honours
2) NUS, SMU, LSE, UCL first class honours / summa cum laude. Ranked equally are oxford/cambridge non-first-class.
3) NUS, SMU, LSE, UCL good second uppers / magna cum laude. Ranked equally are first class honours from King's College London.
4) NUS, SMU, LSE, UCL poor second uppers / cum laude. Ranked equally are first class from all other Australian and UK schools,
5) NUS, SMU, LSE, UCL second lowers / merit. Ranked equally are all other UK and Australian degrees that are non-first-class, e.g. nottingham, bristol, [insert other random name] etc.

TLDR; only first class from Oxford, Cambridge, NUS, and SMU are regarded highly. First class from other schools are nowhere near.

I think that's a good compilation judging from the recent hiring trends of law firms. IMO the first class from Oxbridge are usually the legal service scholars so it's not common to see them in firms. Unless they have served their bonds and decide to leave the service. So that leaves law firms with (2), (3), (4). With the influx, (5) is not a good position to be in.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Here's the prestige ranking in my opinion:

1) Oxford & cambridge first class honours
2) NUS, SMU, LSE, UCL first class honours / summa cum laude. Ranked equally are oxford/cambridge non-first-class.
3) NUS, SMU, LSE, UCL good second uppers / magna cum laude. Ranked equally are first class honours from King's College London.
4) NUS, SMU, LSE, UCL poor second uppers / cum laude. Ranked equally are first class from all other Australian and UK schools,
5) NUS, SMU, LSE, UCL second lowers / merit. Ranked equally are all other UK and Australian degrees that are non-first-class, e.g. nottingham, bristol, [insert other random name] etc.

TLDR; only first class from Oxford, Cambridge, NUS, and SMU are regarded highly. First class from other schools are nowhere near.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Here's the prestige ranking in my opinion:

1) Oxford & cambridge first class honours
2) NUS, SMU, LSE, UCL first class honours / summa cum laude. Ranked equally are oxford/cambridge non-first-class.
3) NUS, SMU, LSE, UCL good second uppers / magna cum laude. Ranked equally are first class honours from King's College London.
4) NUS, SMU, LSE, UCL poor second uppers / cum laude. Ranked equally are first class from all other Australian and UK schools,
5) NUS, SMU, LSE, UCL second lowers / merit. Ranked equally are all other UK and Australian degrees that are non-first-class, e.g. nottingham, bristol, [insert other random name] etc.

TLDR; only first class from Oxford, Cambridge, NUS, and SMU are regarded highly. First class from other schools are nowhere near.

Not sure if this is entirely accurate wrt 2, 3, 4, and 5. I'm a final year from a local school and I've been collecting data on places at the big 4/JLVs. There are quite a few people with second lowers (equivalent to below cum laude) who have secured places in the big 4 and popular medium firms (e.g. TSMP, Stamford, WST, etc.). On the other hand, I have quite a few friends from non-london schools with second uppers and firsts that simply cannot find a TC with any of the above firms.

I have also heard of firsts/summas getting rejected from certain firms (the ones I know of personally were all rejected from JLVs) while second uppers/magnas get the spots (I fit into this category).

As I understand it, the graduates from non-london schools are having a very tough time. This is partly due to the school standing and (more importantly IMHO) because most of them do not have internships with local firms.

I initially believed the above examples to be more the exception than the norm, but the number of people who do not fit into the ranking is quite significant. This leads me to believe that firms are looking past grades (i.e. you only need a certain minimum to get a chance, and this minimum isn't very high), focusing on interview performance and other indicators(e.g. internship performance, moot competitions, etc).

The good thing about this is that you can still get a decent spot even if your grades aren't very good and even if your school isn't a top one (this probably plays a bigger role in admissions). Just gotta try early and play up your achievements outside of academia.

I think we have to differentiate between connections and no connections. This is the reality. Ppl with 2:2s, below cum laude - if they have connections and bother to use it, big fours, JLVs, etc are not an issue. They do not fall into any of the categories when it comes to finding a TC. Even if they do not admit it, it's quite obvious.

Excluding these people, it is quite plain that 2:2s, below cum laude are having a bad time. 2:1s/Magnas from NUS/SMU do get the opportunities for interview, but after that it's all about performance.

Frankly CCAs are not important unless they relate to law, i.e. Moots.