DICTAeducation
UK Law Schools
A Critique of the Ranking System
Estelle Kadjo assesses
the usefulness of those infamous league tables when
selecting a university.
F
or aspiring lawyers who aim to graduate with a ‘first’ and
join the league of distinguished professionals, comparing law
schools via league tables seems to be a natural and sensible course
of action. The rankings allow students to choose a law programme
strategically. Furthermore, the tables provide consistency as law
schools are judged in accordance to a standardised process of
evaluation. As such, the results are arguably objective and easily
comparable. Therefore, students could make an informed choice.
However, the reasons above can be refuted. Let us deal first
with the proposition that the system is consistent. Such an assumption disregards the fact that there are multiple league tables.
The existence of varying standards reduces the consistency of the
results, as each organisation adopts different methods in qualifying the merit of each school. This is illustrated by a discrepancy in league table results: whilst The Guardian has listed Oxford
as number one, The Times and the Complete University Guide
have, respectively, listed LSE and Cambridge on top. These results
lead to confusion. In regards to these differences, it is arguable
that consistency was established by virtue of research methodology, as opposed to the mere results they produced. Moreover,
the argument that the results are objective can be challenged by
the fact that some of these evaluators are alumni from Oxford,
Cambridge, and the Russell Group. Accordingly, the results can be
skewed. Perhaps the alumnus’ affinity to his alma mater explains
why law schools such as Bristol, UCL, and Nottingham consistently score within the top 30. Understandably, great importance
is placed on where students graduate from. Put differently, the
distinction between Oxford, Cambridge, the Russell Group, and
other universities in the UK has become increasingly important.
In the legal profession, employers seem to regard certain students
as more ‘desirable’ if they graduate from an elite university. Where
clients pursue only the crème de la crème, graduates from Oxford,
Cambridge, and the Russell Group possess a marked advantage.
Whilst writing this article, I initially dismissed league tables
as unnecessary. However, upon deeper reflection on both sides
of the argument, I arrived at a conclusion that league tables are
neither good nor bad. They are simply irrelevant. The debates on
consistency and objectivity, though interesting, have little bearing
on one’s ultimate choice of law school. I would assume that those
who pursue law at Bristol are aiming to join the elite of the profession and make an impact on society. The critique that there might
be confusion due to varying results in league tables is, I think,
unsustainable. Ultimately, law students obtain a place at Bristol
by meeting an intellectual threshold. That criterion alone should
allow one to distinguish a law school from another, regardless of
the different league tables. Certainly, it is advantageous to graduate
from Bristol or a Russell Group’s counterpart with a 2:1 or a ‘first.’
However, that trajectory alone is not the only worthy pursuit. For
instance, what is the point of graduating with a ‘first’ if one lacks
the interpersonal skills to engage recruiters at a networking event?
Whilst top grades are crucial, they are only one piece of the puzzle.
Other pieces are also indispensable. As such, there should be a
shift in focus from the prestige of one’s university to the substance
of one’s skill-sets and competence.
Estelle Kadjo is a first year LLB Law student. She is bilingual, with
French as her native language. She enjoys debating and working as a
‘Pathways to Law’ mentor and student ambassador.
DICTA
2013 | 55