LLB at London, Wolverhampton, Nottingham Trent or Unisa?? comments please!

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: thanks....

agreed, but part two, the llm route is fairly common, and is the back up plan....

The enitre prospect of law school is risky...for instance spending over 20,000 and attending an ABA law school and not surviving the first year, or failing the bar exam after spending 60+...

Just doing nothing has a cost also....I've been thinking about this for ten years...and not doing something then has cost me....I think I have done my due diligence, and if I have made a mistake then alternative plans will be implemented.

peace

 

Law student registration

Some states, among them California and Texas, require any law student intending to take their bar exams to register at the beginning of law study.

If one is already admitted in another state or foreign country, there is no registration requirement, of course.

 

I do know that California makes an exception for foreign law graduates in this case though, whether admitted or not in another jurisdiction. I'm not sure about Texas, although Texas does discriminate against holders of D/L law degrees, either foreign or domestic. I'm not sure why this is.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: thanks....

Madcow,

email me at [email protected]. I would like to compare notes.

 

Fascinating...

I find it fascinating, the hoops which we are driven to in order to achieve long sought goals: research, calculation, "due diligence" coinciding - or not.

Now for the execution!

This kibitzer's seat has me wondering if nosborn would weigh in with a mid-course report?-for the benfit of the novices... But perhaps this already appears elsewhere?

--Orson

 

I have just begun; I plan on taking the first half of the examinations summer 2005. I had to spend this year finishing my second year of Spanish (B&M).

I'll keep everybody posted.

 

There is a lot of good info on this thread, so I'm going to try to avoid rehashing.

I am a current LLB student at UoL. Still first year, so no first hand comments on the exams. However, from what I understand they are very difficult. From UoL information it appears that the first year pass rate is approximately 50-55%.

One point I see on the plus side for Wolverhampton vs London is the flexibility in choosing courses. Wolverhampton has a wide variety of course offerings, and they do not appear to particularly care what you take. They do warn you that you need certain courses to obtain a UK Qualifying law degree, but my understanding is that that if you want a non qualifying LLB they will accomodate you (that sound you just hear was Nosbourne falling off his chair). This means, for instance, that you can totally avoid the experience of taking courses such as Law of Trusts and Land Law.

Now, London does not REQUIRE you to get a qualifying LLB. But they don't offer as much flexibility as Wolverhampton. Seeing as you're not interested in qualifying in the UK, this might be a real consideration for you.

Also, Wolverhampton is more flexible in terms of failed courses. Not that you plan on failing, but good to know. At London if you crash and burn on an exam (and about half the candidates do) then you get to resit the exam. Now, you'd have to check the regulations but be warned that in some routes they can require you to retake not only the failed exam, but all the exams that you took. In other words, if you're taking Contract, Criminal and Public and you fail Contract you might be doing a resit on all three. You fail the resit and they make you retake the whole year. It's UGLY. At Wolverhampton you fail and you resit only the failed course. At London, the exams are in May, the resits are in October. No summer session available. As an added bonus you wait all Summer to get your results; they only tell you if you passed in August.

The down side of Wolverhampton is clearly prestige and possibly overall quality of education. If you want a LLB to get into a US Grad program then Wolverhampton might work well. If you are looking to get a first rate legal education, well, I am not qualified to speak on this but from what I read you are probably better off with London.

The final question would be why did I choose London? Honest answer: I wanted to take something law related. I stumbled onto the UoL program just before the application deadline, so I didn't really have a chance to fully research the alternatives. If I had I might have gone for Wolverhampton.

The nice thing about London is that everyone has heard of London. If not the university then certainly the city. Virtually nobody has heard of Wolverhampton, either the city or the university.

Good luck whatever you choose.

 

Isn't London less expensive than Wolverhampton, as well?

 

I always forget the important bits!

Without tutorial support London is a lot less expensive. With tutorial support I'm not sure off hand. I looked at it once, it seems to me that at worst it comes out about even, probably London is a bit (or quite a bit) cheaper even then. Of course it depends on who you use for tutorial support.

In the decision process it's definitely worth considering that you're getting a degree with a far better reputation for less money.

 

St. Thomas is an ABA accredited school. That means that the ABA approved their JD program. It says nothing about their LL.M. program.

The ABA INSISTS that it doesn't prescribe requirements for post JD programs but only "aquiesces" in an ABA school's decision to establish an LL.M. program upon a showing that the LL.M. program will not have an adverse impact on the accredited JD program.

Nevertheless, you are correct; St. THomas' programs are as accredited as any LL.M. can be in the United States.

This does not mean that the holder of an unaccredited JD can necessarily use the St. Thomas LL.M. to become Bar eligible; some states allow the holder of ANY LL.M. from an ABA school to sit for the Bar but others require that the LL.M. comprise specific classes like constitutional law.

As always, check first!

 

Where did you find this information? I'd be interested to look this up.

 

I am not speaking for Dude, nor do I know where he got the information from, however I have read something similar on the discussion board at www.malet.com which I copy here for your ease of reference.

Re(2): Anyone here planning to take the California Baby Bar Exam in 2004?
Posted on November 6, 2003 at 03:03:06 PM by vin2

Hi All;

I have registered with the CA Bar Examiners and had my UOL transcript evaluated. The advice was that if I pass the Baby Bar I will be credited with 3 years of law education. After completing another year of law education at a California approved law school I will become eligible to take the General Bar Exam in CA. There are two other routes: the ABA approved LLM or one year at an ABA ($30,000/yr) school. I choose the Baby Bar route for three reasons:

1. I know that my UOL LLB(hons) done through the Graduate entry Route A in two years (completion of 9 courses) did not prepare me adequately to take a
US bar exam. It provided a solid foundation which must be supplemented with some knowledge of US legal theories and procedures.

2. The Baby Bar will provide some experience, and a warm-up for the General Bar exam in 2005.

3. An LLM at an ABA school is quite expensive when compared to taking one year at a CA approved correspondence law school for the JD. Furthermore, that one year and the review for the Baby Bar exam will be spent taking courses that prepare me for the General BAR exam.

On the contrary, the LLM is a specialist degree which only marginally, I was told, has anything to do with taking and passing the bar exam. If I decide to seek the prestigious LLM, I can do so after passing the Bar and working as an attorney. After all, my first objective is to pass the bar exam and getting to practice law in one state.

Your responses and suggestions are appreciated.

Vin