Quote:
Originally Posted by Pippa
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?
|
I think that cutting down on the UK schools and recognising more Australian schools is their form of controlling. Not too sure if MinLaw expressly stated that they want to cut down on the number of law students or merely to prevent oversupply. If it is the latter, then cutting down on UK and recognising more AU schools is a form of controlling supply (but not cutting down). There are also (probably) political and economical reasons behind the move to recognise more AU schools, as can be seen in the SG-AU FTA. Here's the link if you wish to know more about the SG-AU FTA: dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/safta/pages/singapore-australia-fta.aspx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pippa
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?
|
Hmm you sound like someone who has been caught in the mix. Well in my honest opinion, I'm not too sure if the LNAT has been introduced to show that the UK syllabus is rigorous and tough, and therefore the UK unis should be accorded the same treatment as the AU unis. It's just a benchmark to see if you are sufficient adequate to read law in their universities.
Think about it from the UK unis' perspective. If you are a student who (presumably) failed to get into your country's law school because you didn't score well enough, as a UK university, my first thought would be whether I'm accepting a sub-par student who just isn't good enough to read law. So the LNAT is just to test if you are smart or adept enough to handle the rigour of the UK law syllabus. But this has nothing to do with proving that the UK law syllabus is as or even more rigorous than the AU law syllabus.
If you can't get into the local unis, and can't even score past 21 on the LNAT, then perhaps the question you should be posing yourself is whether law is the right path for yourself?