A levels was a walk in the park in my experience. Just study hard and consistently. If people work from 9-5pm, you study from 9-5 pm, and maybe at night too.

The trick to A levels, is not through rote memory work, but in using your head to tackle the problems.

Compared to what Law school and now, the BPTC is throwing at me, I think the amount of work I put into A level exams in a month is what I do in a week. Hopefully this strained comparison would give you an idea as to what it's like.

My advice though, do not ever shun hard work and challenges.

Cardiff. Unless you like the outdoors. Sheffield is in the middle of Peak District, fantastic hiking, cycling and climbing district imho.

Academically I can't help you.

A levels- 3 sciences and math
LLB- just trolled around and didn't study much. I went cycling, climbing and running. Saw the sights and read some non-law related matters throughout the year.
Got into the BPTC- now it's tough stuff. Hope to pass it.

I note that I was relaxed and active through A levels, being social and active.
Uni was a little harder; reading was wide and deep, never had time to finish everything so I had to pick and choose my focuses in studying. I behaved more reclusively. I do recall regularly running about 40km a week though, so that consumed quite a lot of time and energy. Had an injury, gave up running and took up cycling and did about 100+km a week of it. You can imagine I am not the most focused of students.

As for the BPTC, intellectually it's not massively challenging but the work is voluminous. It's a very hands on course and I am enjoying it thoroughly.

In terms of hours of work per week, A levels 30-40 hours.
Uni- up to about 50 or so hours, got away with 35-40 most weeks and about 60 during exam periods.
BPTC- 60 hours a week consistently; no holidays. Hardest thing I have done to date.

If work for the next 40 years is like the BPTC is in terms of having to daily absorb new material and law, I'll could foresee burn out. Even my tutors who are part time judges find the course fairly demanding.

Hope this gives you some sort of gauge.

I would concur with you on the matter of having to use Malay as a medium. Frankly, it's something many struggle with in transition. The lack of knowledge is easily remedied. Analytical ability however, is more of a gift, shall we say, less nurture and more nature in that.

Having to refamiliarise with myself with malay however, is a challenge one has to accept and in all hope, master; frankly though, language is not my forte.

Pardon, I don't mean work, I meant studies = work. If you have time to work proper, you're looking at some really tough time. However, I do know people who work and they did ok, no time for hobbies though.

I decided to do my A levels in KL and went on to do my undergraduate degree in the UK.

As for the BPTC, I had 3 offers from the three schools I applied to, 2 of them were in London and one regional. Based on hearsay, this is relatively uncommon; most only get 1 offer. I did my applications in 2 very stressful days (don't leave it to the last minute).

Also, nobody recommends, and it is often discouraged actually, that one do A level Law. Frankly though, I would just go for what I feel most comfortable with in A levels (I did 3 sciences because I knew I was good at that).

That is probably more untrue than it is true. I do know of people who, despite getting the required results, didn't get a place, equally vice versa.

Also, do not be fooled into thinking that a 2:2 will suffice. If your predicted results are below 2:1, you're just not getting in. You could get unlucky in the exams and get a 2:2 but if you already have an offer, you're fine.

I was told by one of the providers that if they thought the student will only get a 2:2, they won't make an offer.

Also, I suspect and do believe that a significant chance depends on your referees and your admissions essays. Believe me, they read your application.

Nevertheless, given that most applicants have a place, I should think it's not difficult.


This post has been edited by silwen: May 12 2013, 01:53 AM

Relating to the post on why it's discouraged- I recall a lecturer saying about half a decade ago that it's because A level law tends to distort the idea of what the LLB offers. It's more academic, and there are more discussions on the matter of the law and the philosophy behind it; the lecturer thought that the A level law was all about rote memory work. Their words, not mine. I merely parrot what I have heard.

It's considered a soft subject, I believe, because ti does not require the same amount academic and intellectual ability to do well in, otherwise stated, not as challenging as the traditional subjects.

This position is largely correct. Given the premises, if you are deciding between UoL and UM then UM will probably be a fine university to go to. Local Malaysian firms think well of it and the general quality (as a practising lawyer) is more consistent (and a bit better) than the UoL graduates who exist across the spectrum.

As for the above quoted universities, if you do not have the current opportunity, you may consider these in studying a masters. I've known several lawyers who have gone to UM/UoL and then on to OxBridge and the Trinity.