Referring to the comment that said:

“Unless you studied in Oxbridge or LSE, you have no right to feel like a "successful person" for studying law overseas. The fact that you did not study in NUS or SMU means that you are already intellectually worse than 50% of the law aspirant cohort of your batch, since these 2 schools are more competitive than other foreign law schools on the scheduled list sans Oxbridge.

As a matter of fact, your default state should be to feel like a "failure" and work your way upwards from there.”

Why do posters on this forum make such asinine comments? After a few years in practice, whether you went to NUS/SMU or UK/Aus universities no longer matter as much. Employers value you based on your experience and the quality of your work.

Ironically, MC/US firms that recruit in London/SG take a liking to candidates from UK universities because a large number of partners are British, and it helps with building rapport, cultural fit and whatnot.

I was rejected by NUS and SMU law. I went to what most posters on this forum would consider a second rate degree mill UK university. I'm drawing the increased Milbank/Davis Polk salary (and Cravath scale bonuses). My target hours are less than what a Big 4 associate is expected to pull. I don't see myself as a "successful person" but I don't see myself as a "failure" either.