Is the new London LL.M. Really All that Much Different than the Old One?

This is to Nosborne and others in the field of law (or anyone with knowledge in this area).

Is the new UoL LL.M. really worth the additional money based upon the differences expressed in the prospectus? I'm wondering if it's really worth three times the price (which was, admittedly, a remarkable value, though from what Nosborne indicates, they casted you adrift a bit).

So, what do you think? Does the new program really look like it prepares students better than the old for the dreaded exams?

 

I think it IS different if only because they let you examine in bite sized pieces.

Is it worth the additional money? That's one question I'm asking myself right now.

I am thinking that a Taft's tax degree might be a better investment.

 

How about the extra study guides and support? Do you think that would be a tipping point? Or is it just a lot of hype so they could justify the 300% price hike.

 

I don't know. They say that they are offering more complete study materials, including the core text, and in some cases are assigning a "reader", which I take to be a faculty member willing to answer questions from students.

If you are considering going the London route, I am really not the person to ask right now. I had some trouble with the whole package, no one's fault, really, but in the end I had to forgo examining this year and I'm unhappy about it.

I can't say that I don't recommend the University of London; I do, but I am not sure that the experience isn't just a bit too foreign for an American trained student. Ths criticism was around before I started, BTW, but at that time I didn't understand what was meant by it. I think I know, now.

There are a few points that an American might think about before taking the London LL.M. on:

-The degree is designed for people who earned a first degree at the undergrad level IN THE ENGLISH STYLE SYSTEM. It is not the system YOU are familiar with and it has its own peculiar potholes.

-Most of the materials will NOT be in your local law school library. You will purchase a LOT of books and rely very heavily on online sources. Computer research works and is available worldwide but it is far from ideal for the student if for no other reason that it displays ONE PAGE AT A TIME.

-The degree is important to any non American common law lawyer who wishes to teach law or practice in a particular arcane specialty. It is almost valueless to an American lawyer for either of these purposes. Are you really motivated enough to do the thing for its own sake?

-The complete lack of any sort of student community is a problem that even the University acknowledges and is attempting to address but without much visible success.

If I had it to do over again...and really, I suppose that I do...I don't think I'd go the London route. The lack of a good common law library (remembering that American law is largely isolated from the rest of the common law world) is a HUGE handicap, one I badly underestimated. London knows this; they say that lack of access to the books and periodicals is the biggest reason people don't finish.

OTOH, I have learned a LOT about things I'd only guessed at. The structure lent discipline to my study and for that I am grateful. But I question whether I'd be grateful at three times the price.

If you are panting to get an LL.M. by distance learning, I'd look around first. I suspect that you will find that all the English and other common law programs will share many of the problems the London program has.

Really, the almost complete lack of D/L American LL.M. programs is a problem. They appear from time to time and then poof! they seem to disappear! This is likely because the LL.M. is not a terrifically useful credential to most American lawyers or law professors. I'd look carefully at WHAT I wanted to study and pay less attention to the degree title. If you REALLY want an LL.M., do Taft's tax degree. At least the materials for THAT are found in any law school or business school library!

 

Thanks, very good advice, as near as I know.

The only reason I'd consider UoL is because while I'm doing whatever I end up doing over the next few years, I want to pursue some other credential that may eventually qualify me to make it into academia. As you know, I'm thinking about taking the entrepreneurial route. If successful (a Big If), I'd like to sell out and "retire" into academia. If I can get another credential PT while pursuing a business, I'd at least like to pursue one that would, along with the J.D. and M.B.A. (which I should finish--G-d willing--sometime next year), set me up for a career in academia, say teaching business law and other courses at an AACSB B-school. That's my ultimate dream destination.

Perhaps I should be focusing my efforts on publishing in good journals or pursuing a DL DBA from an AACSB, or perhaps I should just cast it all to the wind. I don't know.

 

I wouldn't go around SAYING that you want to "retire" into academia... academia may not appreciate the compliment!

If I were you and I really wanted to beef up my resume, I think I'd cross London off the list.

The LL.M. degree isn't necessary in American legal scholarship. Period.

Better you should spend your time on improving your credentials as a scholar in general, by which I mean PUBLISH, PUBLISH, PUBLISH and seeking qualifications in law related areas, such as a Ph.D. in Sociology Criminal Justice or International Business or something.

Really, a business doctorate might be the best course.

 

I agree, I won't say it--that would get me escorted out of the interview, likely with jack booted thugs on either side who would deposit me head first just outside the campus gates. But I'm not backing down from the sentiment. Remember, I married into academia: wife's parents are both tenured profs, six degrees between them. As much as they complain, I know about their lifestyle, and most would consider it semi-retirement. Not that they don't stir up lots of dust and are always active academically, but they have a lot of fun doing it, and they pretty much see the world at college expense. They've got a good gig there.

Probably, and I've been getting a steady stream of brochures from the likes of Manchester, Aston, Henley, but it's all so blooming expensive and they all require at least annual residencies. As my life and my money is pretty much invested in five beautiful children, I don't exactly have a spare $50K for tuition and $20K for three or four tripe to the UK laying around the house.

When my banker, whom I met recently to see about a line of credit for a business, asked me what my assets were, I told him: "A lovely wife and five beautiful children."

 

What? No CATS??

 

Sorry, you're right. Kitty counts too. In fact, I'd better go pull the boys off her now and peel her off the floor.