Let me speak from my experience both at Oxford and London, and with friends at both places (unlike other "experts" at LI who think they know everything in their second year of law school).
- Both UK and US professors can have good or bad relationships their students. It depends on the personalities of both the professor and the students. Most UK professors met with students over a drink at the pub/cafe a few times. US professors do the same. Formal lunches and dinners are also organised.
- UK classes are often smaller because they are LLM only and there are specialised electives. There are also special LLM tutorials held in the UK.
- Pedagogically (big word for a second-year kid), the difference pertains mainly to jurisdictions covered. In a UK LLM pre-Brexit there would be focus on both UK and EU law, not so much US. It's the reverse in the US.
Bottom line: All the US/UK law schools in the top 50 of the QS law rankings are absolutely top notch in quality and brand value. Singapore and Australia too. Many outside the top 50 are also excellent in certain fields, like SOAS.
Or someone who knows both systems, at the highest levels. Harvard classes are large but profs take their students out for lunch and make efforts to get to know them. There are also small seminars. Which is also true of the UK. You can choose to be in large or small classes. The only people who have issues with the idea of taking classes with JDs are people who are desperate to cling to the idea that the UK is superior. Except for a few US schools that take a small specialised LLM cohort, US and US schools give you space to build relationships with professors, access interesting jobs or be unremarkable.
What a ch*****p and ignorant comment from someone who has no clue! FYI US class sizes are bigger and LLMs are dumped in classes with JDs. Harvard profs are even more inaccessible. Also, who says the "UK is actually lagging behind pedagogically"? You have no clue!
The UK is actually lagging behind pedagogically. 4 courses are of little use without more attention to the class and active mentorship/ info sharing. Some people choose based on what they want to study and where they want to go. Others choose based on what they know and what seems accessible. If you wanted an education that doesn't come from an unapologetically colonial perspective for example, SOAS is a great choice.
People pick UK over USA for pedagogical reasons. The Oxford BCL and Cam LLM allows someone to just do 4 courses for a full year. Which helps the academic path to PhD etc.
It's just cheaper. Same reason why many people choose LSE/London University over Oxford. Same reason why people choose UK colleges over US Ivy Leagues.
LSE, King's and UCL are all ranked high in QS, yet many NLU grads chose SOAS, despite being ranked lower and not having the glamour of the other London colleges. Why is it so? Is it because of political ideology, i.e. SOAS is heavily Marxist and the LW students prefer it? Or because of certain subjects not taught elsewhere?
- Both UK and US professors can have good or bad relationships their students. It depends on the personalities of both the professor and the students. Most UK professors met with students over a drink at the pub/cafe a few times. US professors do the same. Formal lunches and dinners are also organised.
- UK classes are often smaller because they are LLM only and there are specialised electives. There are also special LLM tutorials held in the UK.
- Pedagogically (big word for a second-year kid), the difference pertains mainly to jurisdictions covered. In a UK LLM pre-Brexit there would be focus on both UK and EU law, not so much US. It's the reverse in the US.
Bottom line: All the US/UK law schools in the top 50 of the QS law rankings are absolutely top notch in quality and brand value. Singapore and Australia too. Many outside the top 50 are also excellent in certain fields, like SOAS.