King's Inns or Masters first?

Inmyownworld

I'm currently in my final year of my undergraduate degree in law and have always wanted to go The King's Inns route. At the beginning of the year I had decided on doing an LLM next year and then applying for King's however now I'm wondering if I should maybe study study, do the revision course the following Summer and then sit the entrance exams? The expense of trying to do a masters and then pay for the revision course and exams and all would be crazy.
Just wondering if anyone has been down this route, would it be more helpful for me to have a Masters going into it or would it really be all the same with just my undergraduate degree?

BellaCullen

most would say a law masters is pointless unless you are doing it in Kings College, LSE or Oxbridge!

purpleglory

Why not try sit the exams in August without a revision course and then go onto a masters if you want. I know of a few people who took this route (currently doing masters) and it saves them from having to worry about entrance exams when doing their theses in the summer.

Also, this quasi- obsession with having to do revision courses in order to pass the exams fascinates me. I'm sure you will have studied all of the subjects in your undergrad. Why not use your own notes, thus saving expense on the courses?

johnnyskeleton

BellaCullen wrote: »

most would say a law masters is pointless unless you are doing it in Kings College, LSE or Oxbridge!

I wouldn't.

Ronald Sherrif

purpleglory wrote: »

Also, this quasi- obsession with having to do revision courses in order to pass the exams fascinates me. I'm sure you will have studied all of the subjects in your undergrad. Why not use your own notes, thus saving expense on the courses?

Have you seen people walking out of the entrance exam, in the middle of a sitting, crying? it is not a pretty sight. Many people have not studied the subjects at the entrance exam in a number of years. Many of the subjects are taught as first year subjects in the colleges. Examiners tend to focus on new developments in the subjects. Old notes can be quite out of date.
Colleges vary in their emphasis on different topics within subjects. Some colleges expect comments on law reform whilst others are more practical.
There is also the fact that in colleges there are tips and known favourite examination topics. Dealing with a different examiner without tips can be much more challenging. There was a judicial review by a candidate who had got 70% in Trinity and 15% in the entrance exam. High Court said tough!

Inmyownworld

I would love to be able to pass without the revision course but I don't know if I would be able to. Suppose would be worth trying to see and just study like crazy until then.
Most of my notes in those subjects would be a few years out of date alright.
Is it true you can only sit the exams twice?

brian__foley

BellaCullen wrote: »

most would say a law masters is pointless unless you are doing it in Kings College, LSE or Oxbridge!

Rubbish.