there are a couple of reasons why there is/was a glut of lawyers.

the british currency went bust in 2010. people realized that the pound was undervalued so our local students flew to UK in large numbers. the UK unis were caught offguard because they were not able to revise their tuition fees in time. back then in 2010 the fees for international students was 9,000 pounds a year. now it's close to 15,000 a year.

the private colleges in singapore also sees plenty of its students going to UK unis after they completed the diploma in law offered by uni of london. many of these students do not have A levels. their O levels results are also nothing to shout about. the diploma in law offered them a pathway to doing a law degree in uk.

many of these students ended up in unis of southampton, sheffield or liverpool + manchester. the offer was that a student had to score average of 50% for sheffield and liverpool, 55% to 60% for southampton and manchester.

but the ministry of law has since reduced the list of recognized UK schools. the reason was to control the number of law grads to prevent oversupply? if that is the case then why did they increase the list of recognized Aussie unis from 5 to 10? Does it make sense?

what is so frightening bout the UK syllabus that you have to reduce the number of UK unis from the list of unis which is recognized for practice in SG? If you say you want to control the number of law grads then why recognize 10 Aussie unis?

and to make it even difficult for locals to enter into UK unis, the remaining UK unis on the recognized list require applicants to take the LNAT. the LNAT is a difficult test. if you score below 21, you are rejected. the national average in the previous window was 23. it may rise.

what is so frightening about the UK law syllabus that you have to come up with measures to reduce the number of SG students who choose UK to do their law degree?