Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

naivety is astounding

Care to back up your comment?

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.

I dislike it when people like to talk about connections. So this post is refreshing. Faith in humanity restored. Not everyone have connections, and it’s always unfair that so many people in the big four get in through connections.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Care to back up your comment?

There is a trainee in an MC firm who got the position by sleeping with a hedge fund manager who uses the firm.

Upper echelons? Keep dreaming

Originally Posted by Unregistered

There is a trainee in an MC firm who got the position by sleeping with a hedge fund manager who uses the firm.

Upper echelons? Keep dreaming

Details? I am happy to discharge my public duty to limit the careers of women who use the pussy pass.

For the benefit of the uninitiated here who loosely use the word pedigree to support their arguments (on both sides), please read the book 'Pedigree' by Lauren A. Riveira. She details, through interviews and on-the-ground work behind the scenes at the most prestigious global law firms, consultancies and investment banks, how pedigree confers tangible and substantial starting career benefits to those born with privileged parents and her book completely destroys the notion of social upward mobility at least within elite careers.

Pedigree is not of school, nor character or parents alone. It is the cumulative sum of voluntary and involuntary upbringing and characteristics that distinguish the elite in society from the hoi polloi or even middle-class families when applying for the most prestigious and highest-paying starting jobs today.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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.

Dear Poster, may we know your source of information? Are you an [local/London/other UK/Australia/US] undergraduate, trainee, lawyer (if so, what's your PQE, and are you from a [Magic Circle/US/CC/Bakers/Big 4/other local] firm)? I just wanted to know the credentials of the people making these statements throughout the thread.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

For the benefit of the uninitiated here who loosely use the word pedigree to support their arguments (on both sides), please read the book 'Pedigree' by Lauren A. Riveira. She details, through interviews and on-the-ground work behind the scenes at the most prestigious global law firms, consultancies and investment banks, how pedigree confers tangible and substantial starting career benefits to those born with privileged parents and her book completely destroys the notion of social upward mobility at least within elite careers.

Pedigree is not of school, nor character or parents alone. It is the cumulative sum of voluntary and involuntary upbringing and characteristics that distinguish the elite in society from the hoi polloi or even middle-class families when applying for the most prestigious and highest-paying starting jobs today.

Context is everything. That book is largely about the American context and relevant in only the most tangential way to Singapore society.

Even "pedigree" in a British context is vastly different from what passes off as "upper class" in America.

The very notion of social "pedigree" in such a formative society like Singapore is laughable in any case.

While I appreciate that law firm hiring or indeed any top job hiring in Singapore is dependent on many more factors than simply A-Level results and the party line regarding "meritocracy", I fail to see how going on at length about who's got "pedigree" and who doesn't is going to help the majority of people here.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Context is everything. That book is largely about the American context and relevant in only the most tangential way to Singapore society.

Even "pedigree" in a British context is vastly different from what passes off as "upper class" in America.

The very notion of social "pedigree" in such a formative society like Singapore is laughable in any case.

While I appreciate that law firm hiring or indeed any top job hiring in Singapore is dependent on many more factors than simply A-Level results and the party line regarding "meritocracy", I fail to see how going on at length about who's got "pedigree" and who doesn't is going to help the majority of people here.

Hardly. The counterargument that the book is written using American evidence and consequently largely irrelevant to the local context is a convenient but at best superficial reprisal that betrays a true lack of understanding of hiring processes at top firms. First note that these top firms are necessarily international and the vast majority have strong NA presences as well as hires distributed around the world. 'Context is everything' is largely a catchphrase somehow born out of the Singapore educational system (largely during High School & JC) muttered by apologists who have no substantive argument to put forward for their case.

Hiring processes at the very top international law firms and investment banks (for anyone who has ever worked in one) are coordinated and guided by international HQ and decisions are made by senior Partners/MDs that more often than not have experience in New York and/or are a product of the NA educational system. The similarity in your bosses making the analyst hiring in Singapore for a global investment bank are not that much different from the men making the hiring in New York - they are largely looking for someone who would function equally well across both offices when necessary.

Of course this is not to say that the way new hires are selected in Singapore and London are identical, there are subtleties local to the country. However, what is common and predominant is highlighted in my original point: what is being looked out for is 'pedigree' - the cumulative sum of characteristics in an applicant that largely match the interviewer's own privileged background and upbringing. To put it more bluntly, the specific dissection of pedigree differs in slight ways everywhere, but human nature to look for people similar to you is constant.

If you had actually read the book you would notice that Riveira details ways in which candidates from non-privileged backgrounds can emulate those successful in applying for prestigious jobs. This is in response to your question of the utility of my original post.

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.

Oxbridge / LSE / UCL / NUS are on-par? You must have been high over the Christmas period.

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

11/10?

You probably have not seen enough in your career (or just deluded or arrogant) to make such sweeping statements.

My spouse has the money and was accepted by the higher-tier UK law schools you mentioned but my spouse chose a Singapore law school (not because of prestige but because it was closer to family). I am in a magic circle firm (after being headhunted) and I am proud to be from SMU.