Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Arrowhead last won the day on October 16 2018

Arrowhead had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,128 Ridiculously Awesome

About Arrowhead

  • Rank
    I Will Survive

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Exams
    May 2010
  • Country
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

24,156 profile views
  1. Hey! Bit late on a reply for this, but in the event you're still considering UK law, it greatly depends on where you ultimately see yourself setting down/ practising law? If you want to practise law in the UK, then attending a UK uni is a no-brainer. If you want to practise internationally, but eventually (maybe 5/10 years after graduating) go back to Korea, the UK might ber a good starting point because UK and US legal backgrounds are highly respected and useful for travelling and working around the world. But you would have to be very careful about the practice area you pick to specialise in, but that's a different discussion. If you want to practise in Singapore, then you have to go to one of the select UK universities approved by the Singapore Ministry of Law, otherwise your law degree won't be recognised. If you want to practise in and live in Korea itself, then you're better off studying at a top Korean law school and preparing for the Korean Bar. I am a practising English-qualified lawyer who was an international student and studied law in the UK (and then ultimately worked in the UK, Singapore and sometimes with Korea on some cases) - so if you have any questions, feel free to drop me a private message and I'd be happy to advise you.
  2. She didn't. Not too many people I know who do a BMM end up doing Master's. They pretty much get into film work asap.
  3. Most people apply for uni in the UK before their final IB exams. UK unis then give them conditional offers on the basis of their predicted scores. If the conditions are met, these offers are then finalised and made unconditional. Therefore, if you're applying for UK unis before sitting your final IB exams, yes, your predicted scores matter a great, great deal.
  4. LSE is very strict with the minimum requirements. I girl I knew who applied for Economics had a 776 predicted at HL with an overall 40 point prediction. She ended up getting 42 overall but only a 775 at HL (the 5 in Maths HL) - she got rejected when applying for Accounting & Finance.
  5. Arrowhead

    Questions about LSE

    As long as you meet the minimum requirement, your application will be considered. After that, it's based on the strength of your personal statement. Just don't write a US-style college essay, nothing will get you placed at the bottom of the heap faster.
  6. Don't bother with rankings. They're all subjective and very unreliable. Mostly university choices based on rankings are nonsense. Oxford and Cambridge are Tier 1 for Law, followed by UCL and LSE in Tier 2, then you have the other 'top unis' like KCL, Durham, etc., there's a lot of debate on which universities are 'prestigious' enough to be in the Tier 3 category, and so on and so forth. But honestly, none of it matters. Think more about what you want to do after you finish your law degree. Do you want to be a solicitor in a law firm? Pick a law firm you like and look up the linkedin profiles of young trainee lawyers at these firms and see which universities they went to - that would be the best benchmark to help you decide where you should go to study to end up where you want to work.
  7. I attended the mid-IB summer school in the UK - total waste of time and money. However, the easter break prep course run at Oxford uni just before the May exams was excellent prep. I only attended for a week doing my 3 HL subjects, but it was intense and very helpful in giving me those finer points and exam writing tips that I was sorely lacking.
  8. Extracurriculars that are relevant to a law degree don't really matter as much. Tutors, particularly at the top universities, are only interesting in seeing that you have an interest in the academic study of law. So if you simply read a few legal textbooks, case judgments that would be more than enough. Most of your personal statement should be spent discussing different legal issues and your analysis of them. Your extracurriculars are generally the last paragraph of your PS and should rarely be more than 2-3 sentences long. They need not be particularly law-related either, for example, being captain of your school's football team or editor of the school paper, these are more than enough. Your extracurriculars need to only exist to show admissions that you have a life outside of university, that's all.
  9. You seem to have done your research and know what you'd like to do. I say go wherever feels like the best option for you since nobody on here would have done as much research as you into this question.
  10. Arrowhead

    LSE Doubts

    They are very strict on the Maths HL rule, don't bother applying for BSc Economics without it.
  11. 1. I read the differences between solicitors and barristers post early on in this topic and I was wondering if you could tell me more about which side of the profession has more international travel opportunities in their usual line of work? Completely varies depending on the area of practice you're in. Something like international arbitration, or corporate work for cross-border deals, involves a lot of travel, tax, on the other hand, not as much in comparison. There are more solicitor roles in general and law firms, at least the bigger ones, offer a lot of travel opportunities to work in their foreign offices. Barristers have to spend (usually) the first decade or so (give or take a few years), honing their skills and developing their abilities. So you will often see them travel to different courts all over England, representing clients. International travel tends to play in once they've become more senior and again, depending on the nature of their practice, a barrister representing small- or medium-sized companies or individuals wouldn't need to travel as much as say a barrister repsenting coca-cola. 2. I know there have been various answers about using a law degree from one country and then working in another, but then is there no mobility between say the lawyers in the London office of a law firm going to maybe work in the Paris or Sydney or some other country's office? Permanently or even temporarily? How would that work? Different jurisdictions have different rules. Take Singapore for example. International lawyers (i.e. qualified to practice abroad in countries like the UK, US, etc.) are absolutely not allowed to represent clients in Singaporean courts, cannot engage in contentious litigation disputes, and cannot ever sign off on giving Singapore law-related advice to clients without having it signed off by a Singapore qualified lawyer. However, you can still practise, as a foreign lawyer, in Singapore. This is usually in the context of big law firms that have clients who do business in many countries all over the world. So you can continue to advise your international clients, and when matters of Singapore law or the SIngapore courts come up, you, as a foreign lawyer, can liaise with the local lawyers to create your client's case strategy. In such situations, you would be working in the official capacity of a 'consultant' and not a lawyer, even though you would be doing legal work as a lawyer. Foreign lawyers usually practise law through this means when they are working in a jurisdiction that they are not qualified in. 3. I saw from your profile that you are nearing the end of your training with a big law firm. Being near to the end of this long process, what would you advise students considering this route to be aware of so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not they want to go down this route? Can this advice be applied equally regardless of the country that the students want to eventually practise law in? How would it vary, if not? My advice would be to do as many internships as you can. Being a lawyer is not the same kind of work across the profession. Working for a big law firm comes with a unique set of challenges and opportunities that you wouldn't have in a smaller law firm with say only 2-5 partners and one office, and vice versa. Work experience at different kinds of firms will give you a much better idea of what kind of work would suit you. Many law students have aspirations to work for big law firms. They have all seen the TV shows and what not. The internal office politics are a real thing, you do have to deal with very different and often difficult personality types, especially when you're a junior, and that's even before you start looking at managing the egos and wishes of your big name clients. The hours can be very, very long, but usually a long, terrible period is followed by a period of respite. The work tends to come in waves. Different jurisdictions have different approaches to training junior lawyers, and this again varies based on the individual culture of the particular firm that you have picked. Big US law firms are notoriously hardcore, they will beast you, but they will also pay you obscene amounts of money. UK firms pay lesser, but the training is good, and you can maintain some semblance of a life outside of work, but again, it comes in waves. Australian law firms can go one way or another. It usually comes down to who your supervisor is and what your firm's culture tends to be like. But from everything I have heard from Australian-trained colleagues, it is no different from the UK experience. Singapore law firms have at this point become a meat market, you will be paid pennies compared to firms in the US, UK and Australia but you will still be equally beasted. Indian law firms are difficult to get a foothold in. The legal market is fragmented. There are one or two big law firms with international links and then many smaller national ones. There is a face-showing culture (from my personal experience and that of many of my friends working in Indian law firms at present), the hierarchy also tends to be more rigid. Again, these are generalisations, your experience need not be like this. If there are queries you have about any other specific jurisdictions, let me know and I can tell you what I have seen or heard from colleagues who have trained there. All of the individual jurisdiction observations above apply only to the bigger law firms. The culture and experience of smaller, regional or boutique law firms is likely to be completely different in each of these jurisdictions. 4. I've read in the media about how difficult entry into the profession is. I've alread from you and in other advice forums that the people in your position say that if you have good grades, go to a good uni and check all the boxes, there is no reason you shouldn't get through. How do you self-assess if you have in fact checked all the boxes? The check boxes are not intangibles that are difficult to self-assess in any way. The usual list is as follows: Good grades (from school all the way through uni and explanations/extenuating circumstances if the grades are not good for any reason) Intelligence Good variety of extracurricular activities Leadership positions Experience working in a team Demonstrated understanding that you have read up on what the law firm you're applying to is about and what they're looking for Experience to deal with pressuried situations/conditions and still be able to deliver Unafraid of long hours or hard work with a good work ethic Good communication skills (both written and oral) Strong grasp of the language (English in the UK) The intangibles part usually adjudged at the interview stage is if you have a good personality that could mesh well with the people in the firm and an ability to get along and chill with all sorts of people. 5. I've been researching online and law firms have a lot of first-year taster events and such, I plan to apply for these. Would you maybe have time to review some of my applications or give me some general advice in application writing? Also, does attending these sessions help when applying for training positions in the years to come? Happy to help! Attending such sessions will help you in the sense that they are an opportunity to show your face to the graduate recruitment team and make an impression. It will usually benefit your application to have had the opportunity to present a personal touch when you eventually apply for vacation scheme (internship) or training contract positions as opposed to the opposite when you're just another name on a page. Hope this advice is helpful and drop me a line if you have any further questions. Cheers Arrowhead
  12. King's used to ask for 38 points from IB students (back in 2010 when I was applying). But they reviewed their internal policies and came to a decision that 35 points is enough provided that the IB students achieve 766 at HL (which in most universities' opinions would be the equivalent of achieving an A*AA at A-Level, which is the minimum entry requirement for Law at these universities). So King's is one of the few universities in the UK that has actually acknowledged that doing the IB is in fact more challenging than A-Levels and that poorer SL scores should not prevent a high achieving IB student from attending their law school. As a general point, when UK universities state their minimum entry requirements, then that means that if you achieve that score, you are officially qualified enough to study their programmes. It doesn't matter if 10 other students have 45 predicted, they will consider your application equally and give it the same amount of weight. There are practice tests for the LNAT available on the LNAT website, google it. There are also some practice books available, you can find them on Amazon. A lot of students have used these in the past. It's a test to essentially assess your ability and comfort with the English language. Try some of the practice tests and see how well you do in the multiple choice sections. If you're scoring 28-30/42 or higher, you're doing well. My earlier point was simply to advise you to do your research: read some of the first-year textbooks at King's for the Law degree and see if they interest you. If you do not find the information interesting or engaging, at least to some extent, then ask yourself if you would want to incur the financial risk of pursuing a degree you're perhaps not likely to enjoy. A Law degree may open doors to some extent, but so would an Economics or Accounting or Science or Maths degree. At the end of the day, you need to not only complete a Law degree, but you also need to get at least an Upper Second Class Honours in it for it to be meaningful. It is challenging to achieve that overall grade if you find the degree uninteresting. So, all I'm saying is: be careful, do your research, and be as sure as you can about your decision before committing to it.
  13. Arrowhead

    Law school

    Hello! As someone who has suffered at the hands of the UK Visa regime in my desire to pursue a legal career, I will set out the current position for you: 1. Previously there was a 2-year Work Visa that allowed graduate international students to kick around the UK looking for a job. This was officially removed in 2010/11. 2. As an international student now, you need to secure your sponsorship from a law firm while you're still in university in order to stand a chance to receive a work visa. 3. Do not take any gap years after you graduate from law school or in any way pause your education unless you are moving onto your sponsored work at a law firm/UK company. Due to the way they have structured the new Visa rules, even if you manage to get a job at a law firm, but chose to take a gap year or pause your education in the UK for any reason, you will no longer be eligible to get onto the normal Tier 2 Work Visa (which is what you need to work towards ultimately receiving your Indefinite Leave to Remain). Essentially you need to be in continuous education in the UK and should seamlessly move from education to a sponsored job in order to secure a work visa. This means that if you graduate from law school without a job already in place, your best option is to do an LLM or the LPC in the UK to give yourself an extra year of applications. But if you leave post-graduation, it will become infinitely more difficult to get a work visa down the line. 4. Furthermore, as an international student, you may only apply to law firms/companies that are willing to sponsor your visa. If you do intend to practise law in the UK, this would mean you can only apply to the top tier of law firms that have the resources and systems in place to hire internationals. This is not easy, but not impossible either. It just means there is room to fail here, but if you go to a good uni, get good grades and have a strong CV, there is nothing to stop you from succeeding. As an international student myself who completed a three-year law degree in the UK and is now sponsored on a Training Contract with a UK-based law firm, I can relate to your position. If you have any more questions, feel free to drop me a line.
  14. I just have two comments: 1. I worry if the decade-long period being considered might restrict your ability to do an in-depth analysis due to the word count restraint? However, I am not familiar with this topic enough to be able to materialise this concern. However if you feel you can cover all the points you mentioned above (Naval Aid Bill, the Manitoba/Ontario bilingualism affair in trying to eradicate instruction in the French language, and the 1917-1918 Conscription crisis), then go for it. As you write though, if you feel that the information is too much for the word count available, don;t be afriad to narrow down further and specify if his leadership deepened the rift with reference to, for e.g., the Conscription crisis. 2. This looks to be a straightforward examination ("How..?"), so the RQ appears to posit that it is irrefutable that his leadership did deepen the rift. I just wanted to make sure that you intended for that effect and your essay proceeds on that basis, rather than trying to examine whether or not his leadership played a role at all.
  15. For UK universities, work experience is not necessary. The best way to show your interest in a subject is to read about it. Look up which textbooks first-year criminology students use and read some chapters. Come up with some ideas based on what you've read as to why the subject would be interesting to you at degree level. For some general advice on writing personal statements, see here: Drop me a line if you have any questions. Cheers!
  • Create New...