We want LI to be one of the friendliest places on the internet, where lawyers and law students help each other with their career related queries and occasionally discuss other stuff that might affect their lives too. In other words:
1. Be kind, respectful and helpful to each other.
2. Be bona fide, truthful, genuine and curious.
3. Assume the best intention of others.
Therefore, in using the site, you must agree to do your best to uphold these community guidelines.
Note that what you find here is written and moderated by anonymous people on the internet.
Therefore everything you read here is very likely unverified, rumour, speculation and/or downright false.
In continuing to read anything here, you must therefore agree not to take anything you read here as factual and that you will exercise due caution, diligence and common sense before acting on any information you may come across here.
You also agree to report any inaccurate or malicious comments with the buttons. Moderators take action within 24 hours, as required and appropriate under law.
Our full terms and conditions apply too.
Do you solemnly agree to all of the above?
You can contact me on that address initially.
1. Some unis I recall applying to (forget which ones, as extenuating circumstances wasn't something I had to consider) said on their websites that they have a presumption that extenuating circumstances have been taken into account by your law school examiners when evaluating your work. Nevertheless, because of your overall grades and CGPA/percentage, especially the higher grades, I would say that there is no problem in applying, mentioning your conditions and explaining how they impacted your performance, especially if they impacted your performance in courses relevant to your intended specialisation. This is because you have achieved what we would call 'distinction', or a 'first class' (at the undergraduate level), in the UK. If you look at most websites, they ask for either a '2:1' or a 'good 2:1'. The complicating factor, obviously, is the courses in which you achieved disappointing results. Emphasize particularly on anything that shows you overcoming these circumstances. Regarding the first one, you should know something about the exam regulations of British universities and what they consider to be extenuating circumstances for their own students taking degree exams, as they are likely to apply a similar thought process to your application. They usually consider circumstances that are beyond a student's control and that impact before an exam. So regarding (1), their response is likely to be, 'Are you asking us to believe that students who come from families whose income is below a certain threshold are less likely to perform well academically?', which obviously isn't good (considering that many of them love to thump their chests on what is called a 'social mobility' ranking, i.e., what percentage of their students from the bottom 20% income bracket of British society end up graduating from one of these places with a job whose salary is such that they would fall into the top 20% income bracket). Regarding health conditions etc., they also usually only take into account an accute episode that has impacted students prior to an exam, because the assumption is that long-term illness can be managed - so usually something unexpected like an illness suddenly getting worse, despite you taking all the prescribed medications or whatever. Many British unis also operate, for their own students, what are known as 'fit-to-sit' policies, i.e., a presumption that if you attended an exam and wrote it, you were at the top of your form, and therefore deserved the marks you got (a presumption that is rebuttable by something like illness during an exam). Their question is likely to be, 'Why did this person even sit an exam if they were ill? Why didn't they apply for extenuating circumstances on medical grounds from their own uni?'.
2. UCL, for example, requires an average of 65% across all years of your degree. They are willing to relent to the extent of 62%, if the candidate shows good "motivation" in their SOP. Is this something you are able to demonstrate? Despite your current CGPA, this may be a complicating factor.
3. You may want to ask your referees (those who write your recommendation letters) to write about anything they know about the impact of your circumstances on your performance. If your referees ask you anything about it, tell them, would be my advice. I know this is delicate, but not holding back is my suggestion. Another complicating factor is that King's doesn't want references, and doesn't allow you to provide them on their LLM application, therefore all you have to say about ECs has to be done in your SOP.
4. While they would be interested to know how you are doing relative to your classmates, they are, from my experience, more likely to give greater importance to marks.
PS: I don't wish to discourage you, but even an Oxbridge LLM these days is no golden ticket to a foreign law firm job, if that is your aim. Remember, in terms of vacation schemes and training contract applications, British LLB students have had three (sometimes as many as four) years to develop the knowledge, experience etc. required to navigate this job market that you will have only one year to develop, meaning you will have to be that much more adaptable, that much more resilient. And if that wasn't enough, you may be ineligible for some firms' vacation schemes, meaning you would have to directly apply for their training contracts (Freshfields Brukhaus Deringer, for example, has a vacation scheme which would be out of bounds for you as an LLM student in the future, something I have heard from the lips of one of their Grad Rec team). This isn't to say that you can't develop it or that the task is impossible, but it is definitely going to be difficult, even if you land an LLM acceptance. In this culture, students often collaborate in groups of three or four to tackle vacation scheme or TC applications. You'd be well advised to join your uni law society if you end up at a British uni for an LLM and get to know some LLB students who can help you navigate the system. And just to be clear, I personally know a fellow Indian (LLB) student at my own uni who seemed to have all the cards stacked against himself medically (including bad luck in having a sergical operation fail), but he still secured a training contract at a top American law firm's London office, only a few months later than he had intended.
Mental illness - yeah- but it’s tricky. There are definitely admissions officers and professors who will be wary of taking on a student who is not currently and for the future term in a stable condition. They want to make sure you can handle course work and graduate. If you can show how you’ve grown and learned to handle your mental illnesses - then yes.
They consider your rank. Evaluation standards vary so much institution to institution that it’s hard to trust a gpa.
My advice for anyone worried about not getting in after applying is to apply anyway. Worst they Can say is no. And you can apply the next year if they do. Don’t find reasons to disqualify yourself.
Regarding your second question, Georgetown primarily considers class ranks rather than grades. However, it's worth noting that most other schools do focus on grades instead of ranks.
(1) Familial income <2LPA
(2) Mental health disorders of the kind that could arguably meet the M'Naughten threshold at times (3) on a related note, admissions to an asylum
(4) clear illustration of my mental condition in marks — some semesters, I've scored about 90% & others as low as 45% and that too with multiple repeat exams.
Also separately, do these colleges consider just your grades - or rank, too? Because while my ordinary CGPA to percentage conversion comes out to be >80%, my rank is somewhere in the middle of the batch for now (I'll try to get it higher but who knows).
Please don't troll my conditions. Any serious advice on any of the above points is deeply appreciated so that I can figure out whether it's even sensible to try for an LLM at this (or later) stage.