Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
Spoken like a true overseas graduate who doesn't understand the rigour of the local law courses. Part A is NOT equivalent to local law standards. It is equivalent in breadth but nowhere near in depth, and is in fact a watered down crash-course on Singapore law that anybody who bothers to take 2-3 weeks before the papers to study, can and should pass on the first go.
Second lower local law school grads are easily equivalent to 2.1s from the UK. Local law school graduates who are third class honours can't practice and they're already a step up from UK 2:2s, who are not graded on a curve.
|
I agree with the general tenor of your post. The hate is somewhat warranted.
But don't BS pls. You say I don't understand the "rigour" of local unis. But neither can you understand the "rigour" of Part A. You never took Part A. Don't provide a dumb comparison based on experience on one end and one end only.
Second paragraph - generally true. However, that being said, there must be a cut-off for reasons of parity. Where you would like to draw a line is really up to you. It's an objection from fairness and every single lawyer must be subject to the same exam.
Even if you say, for instance, every single UK grad must take
NUS modules marked on a bell curve, that would be palatable. Don't need to make it a "Bar exam".
The lack of parity is disappointing and, to say the least, rigged.