Originally Posted by Unregistered
(Post 237064)
Totally inaccurate assumptions. Not to diss on SUSS lah, I know it's meant to fulfill a specific purpose.
NUS, SMU as "old line" unis generally aren't reputable merely because they are "old". Age is no way a determining factor, otherwise SMU would've taken 50 years to catch up with NUS in repute, which is clearly not the case.
It's the cachet of intellectual concentration, research output, repute of the academic body etc.
Let's concentrate only on law as a discipline (i.e. ignore business, accounting, econs, computing).
SMU has done a good job attracting lots of high quality academics in a very short span of time and contributing to industry conversations and CLE programmes (SMU Law Academy), various think tanks and specialized research centres and cutting edge areas of law, e.g. data governance and AI and law, dispute reso, computational law.
SUSS was set up purely to be a vocational teaching law school. While there will be ancillary or sporadic research output from its faculty for sure (as a byproduct of being a legal academic), there is no way it will attract top notch intellectual capital to output the kinds of research necessary to propel it to a top tier law school.
As a vocational law school, SUSS merely has to be "good enough", and "good enough" means teaching its students sufficiently rigorously to qualify as lawyers in Singapore.
But to pretend that SMU and SUSS are even on the same trajectory as organizations, or have the same objectives as higher education/tertiary institutes, is widely off the mark. Your starting premise is already erroneous.
|
