Actually the statistics show otherwise -
LSE has a 6% admission rate and a cap of less than 20 Singaporean students versus a school that takes 200+ a year. Which is more selective? Look at the numbers.
So selective, I'm not so sure. Prestige arguments, I'm also not so sure if you look at the pedigree of who graduated from
LSE vs who graduated from
NUS, in Singapore and internationally.
NUS makes good Singapore lawyers at the top 5-10% (and not the average and bottom).
LSE makes Singapore and international lawyers and a lot more than just legal drones.
The reason why there is a lack of representation in Singapore is that
LSE takes in 10% of
NUS cohort per year or less. A good proportion stay in the UK, the rest come back. They also go on to do things other than law (the benefit of an
LSE degree).
But the practice of Singapore law,
NUS. This is a fact of utility rather than prestige, because it is 4 years SG law vs 3 years UK law. Should the argument be reversed,
LSE would be more prestigious to an international law firm doing UK law by virtue of having 3 years LLB in UK law, which is a stupid comparison.
Sure arguments can be made either way. But the fact is you're 100% not prejudiced locally by choosing
LSE. Two people have already given you the statistics, so you are able to make an informed choice. However, no one also has refuted the fact that you need to be top 10-20% of
NUS to work at an international firm at the outset.
Second, half (?) of the
NUS batch gets a 2.2 (correct me if I'm wrong). Take that into account. At
LSE, Oxford and Cambridge you won't have to cannibalise your own classmates.
Local connections, yes. This is important.
Covid - yes, stay in Singapore.