Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I don't think they hate foreign grads, but they definitely attribute the glut of lawyers to the law grads from UK.

From TODAY: 'Lawyer glut’ due to spike in overseas graduates: Shanmugam

But its indeed true that Minlaw has a duty to ensure foreign law graduates are of quality to be called to the bar. But I have to admit that it is pretty easy to get into UK law schools as long as you have the money.

But the foreign trained uk lawyers have pedigrees. not matter how poorly ranked and 2nd tier you consider their schools to be, they still come from the richer families. Of a better breed.
So their pedigrees should be able to pull them up as compared to farmers from nus who had good A level results but no pedigrees.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

But the foreign trained uk lawyers have pedigrees. not matter how poorly ranked and 2nd tier you consider their schools to be, they still come from the richer families. Of a better breed.
So their pedigrees should be able to pull them up as compared to farmers from nus who had good A level results but no pedigrees.

How do you know that those from Nus have no pedigree? There are so many students who are from upper middle income families, much more than you can even imagine! I know because my daughter just graduated this year.

I also know a fair number of students who have gone to UK to read law, both top and 2nd tier in MOL's approved list, granted most come from mid to upper mid income families. Only those from Oxbridge unis had places reserved for them in Nus/Smu, while the others had no choice but to pay hefty tuition fees for their law undergrad degrees.


So next time don't just write without thinking,

Originally Posted by Unregistered

But the foreign trained uk lawyers have pedigrees. not matter how poorly ranked and 2nd tier you consider their schools to be, they still come from the richer families. Of a better breed.
So their pedigrees should be able to pull them up as compared to farmers from nus who had good A level results but no pedigrees.

wow this is wow. pedigrees?!! i cannot.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

wow this is wow. pedigrees?!! i cannot.

I like to put this on record. I am one of the foreign uni grads. I do not come from a well to do family. My family saved every cent just to sponsor me overseas to study law because it was my passion. I do not see how wealth alone can be equated with pedigree. If you ride on the coat tails of your rich parents, it is nothing to be proud about.

Even if you come from a rich and well to do family, please remember that wealth is not permanent. Just as your family (your parents) worked hard to get rich, bear in mind that wealth can also be lost via other means (eg failed investments, or change of fortunes).

My family used to be well to do, but we were cheated by a so called business partner and suffered massive losses as a result. As such, I do not consider wealth to be pedigree. It can be easily earned and it could be lost easily as well.

The level of insecurity and ignorance of local law grads is astonishing. First time posting here but the fact is that, 11 out of 10, given an opportunity to study in London (anything above KCL tier) vs NUS/SMU for the same cost all of you would have chosen to study in London.

If that does not speak to pedigree and desirability of London over Singapore degrees, I don't know what will. The only reason you are studying in NUS/SMU is because you (a) Don't have the money to study overseas (i.e. given same opportunity cost, not necessarily the same absolute cost) or (b) Are seriously deluded about the 'prestige' of our local universities. Come on, let's skip all the nonsense about wanting a 'regional asian' perspective and the benefits of skipping Part A exams.

There's a reason UK law grads (at least those from the top schools) have their choice of MC in London, MC in Singapore and Big 4 in Singapore while NUS and SMU grads are restricted to the vast extent to the latter.

Just because the truth hurts doesn't mean it's not the truth

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The level of insecurity and ignorance of local law grads is astonishing. First time posting here but the fact is that, 11 out of 10, given an opportunity to study in London (anything above KCL tier) vs NUS/SMU for the same cost all of you would have chosen to study in London.

If that does not speak to pedigree and desirability of London over Singapore degrees, I don't know what will. The only reason you are studying in NUS/SMU is because you (a) Don't have the money to study overseas (i.e. given same opportunity cost, not necessarily the same absolute cost) or (b) Are seriously deluded about the 'prestige' of our local universities. Come on, let's skip all the nonsense about wanting a 'regional asian' perspective and the benefits of skipping Part A exams.

There's a reason UK law grads (at least those from the top schools) have their choice of MC in London, MC in Singapore and Big 4 in Singapore while NUS and SMU grads are restricted to the vast extent to the latter.

Just because the truth hurts doesn't mean it's not the truth

i think most people are talking about those from places inferior to KCL. quite undisputable that UCL/Oxbridge opens way more doors than NUS/SMU, although the latter is quite on par when you're talking about practice in Singapore.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

i think most people are talking about those from places inferior to KCL. quite undisputable that UCL/Oxbridge opens way more doors than NUS/SMU, although the latter is quite on par when you're talking about practice in Singapore.

Dont be a joke. KCL is the biggest law degree mill in london.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

But the foreign trained uk lawyers have pedigrees. not matter how poorly ranked and 2nd tier you consider their schools to be, they still come from the richer families. Of a better breed.
So their pedigrees should be able to pull them up as compared to farmers from nus who had good A level results but no pedigrees.

You clearly haven't studied in NUS Law

The proportion of upper middle class & well to do kids there, whose fathers are so-and-so, is significant. Strangely more so than in SMU Law.

What the heck pedigree are you talking about anyway? In Singapore? The 6th Earl of Taman Jurong? LOL

Btw guys, connections / 'pedigree' in some sense only gets you up to a certain point. Big 4 and Baker have taken in some people based on connections. But the ultimate upper echelons of firms i.e. magic circle and white shoe firms based in Singapore DO NOT take in people based on connections. Even the daughter of a partner in a certain magic circle firm could not get into the magic circle firm and is now at a mid-sized local firm.

To truly be in the upper echelons of firms based in Singapore, you have to be excellent in academics, moots, publications etc. In this regard, Oxbridge / LSE / UCL / NUS are on-par. Other lower-tier UK schools and SMU are disadvantaged.

I would also comment that a certain top magic circle firm in Singapore takes in predominantly NUS first class honours grads for their training programme.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Btw guys, connections / 'pedigree' in some sense only gets you up to a certain point. Big 4 and Baker have taken in some people based on connections. But the ultimate upper echelons of firms i.e. magic circle and white shoe firms based in Singapore DO NOT take in people based on connections. Even the daughter of a partner in a certain magic circle firm could not get into the magic circle firm and is now at a mid-sized local firm.

To truly be in the upper echelons of firms based in Singapore, you have to be excellent in academics, moots, publications etc. In this regard, Oxbridge / LSE / UCL / NUS are on-par. Other lower-tier UK schools and SMU are disadvantaged.

I would also comment that a certain top magic circle firm in Singapore takes in predominantly NUS first class honours grads for their training programme.

naivety is astounding