Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Any thoughts (pass rate, difficulty of content/assessment, etc.) on these part b electives:

-advanced corporate practice
-IP
-wills/trusts
-mediation
-CBT

Lol. Not to diss / sound harsh, but if you can pass law school and yet worry about Part B, then either your law school was too easy or you should be reconsidering career options.

In every exam and/or tests in your life, there will be people who pass and people who fail. Taking an exam with a 90% pass rate does not give you a higher chance to pass - your effort and intellect does not change according to statistics.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Obviously AGC and MFA.

MAS and EDG are also options but in general govt agencies definitely favour STEM grads for non-legal roles. The myth that your LLB opens the doors to any industry is a blatant lie. Banks and MC firms don't like to hire LLB as well. If you aren't gonna be in the legal industry, your LLB is a piece of toilet paper.

Agreed. Getting a biz/acc degree from nus/smu/ntu is more practical. be among the best 50 in a batch and can earn 150 upon graduation and up to 280k per annum for IB/PE/S&T after a few years. Even the next 50 in a batch can join management associate programs which pay 5+ base for fresh grads.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Any thoughts (pass rate, difficulty of content/assessment, etc.) on these part b electives:

-advanced corporate practice
-IP
-wills/trusts
-mediation
-CBT

Just pick what you like or is geared towards your firm's work. And please la don't throw face can. Next time client come to you, you gonna discharge him or not take him on if the win rate for his kind of matter is low???

Something you gotta do, just pick one and do it and pass it end of story. Leave this stupid attitude of gaming the system in school. It's disgustingly immature and has no place in the working world. People's cases aren't box ticking exercises to just get over the line and be done with. Goodness. Should teach all you newbies this in ethics instead of just harping 90% of the time on how conveyancers cannot tout.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Agreed. Getting a biz/acc degree from nus/smu/ntu is more practical. be among the best 50 in a batch and can earn 150 upon graduation and up to 280k per annum for IB/PE/S&T after a few years. Even the next 50 in a batch can join management associate programs which pay 5+ base for fresh grads.

AGC is most relevant, and MAS not too bad (if you're interested in going into a different industry or sector altogether). Unsure about EBD / MFA for law grads or legal practitioners.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Hi guys, would you recommend a NQ to accept a paralegal position with a US firm, with an option to possibly convert to an associate position 2 years into the role? Do international firms actually convert, or are they just paying lip service?

Not suggesting that you use this anecdote for your dd process but I do have a NQL friend who got converted from a paralegal role to an associate role in a MC firm. So there is that possibility.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Lol. Not to diss / sound harsh, but if you can pass law school and yet worry about Part B, then either your law school was too easy or you should be reconsidering career options.

In every exam and/or tests in your life, there will be people who pass and people who fail. Taking an exam with a 90% pass rate does not give you a higher chance to pass - your effort and intellect does not change according to statistics.

90% pass rate is with moderation and resits..

Lol not to diss / sound harsh but maybe you should do your homework.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

90% pass rate is with moderation and resits..

Lol not to diss / sound harsh but maybe you should do your homework.

Oh, and lol not to taint everyone and everything with the same brush like you did, the pass rates do differ for the electives.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

90% pass rate is with moderation and resits..

Lol not to diss / sound harsh but maybe you should do your homework.

I'm not the guy who posted the initial comment, but I don't think that's what he meant. I think he meant - if you are a normal student in a good (or above average) law school you shouldn't be afraid of passing the bar (unless your law school didn't teach you well enough) - it's an elitist attitude but that attitude is prevalent among the SG unis. However, I do not disagree that the bar is supposed to be a rite of passage and to weed out the weaker students, and it's not meant to be a big deal unless you're aiming for distinctions or top in course.

His comment on the 90% pass rate was "Taking an exam with a 90% pass rate does not give you a higher chance to pass" read with his immediate statement of "your effort and intellect does not change according to statistics" should be read as "even if you take an elective with a higher pass rate, if you are a lousy student you will still fail, and if you're a good student just ignore the pass/fail rate since you will be of a minimally acceptable standard to pass either way." (I'm not sure what you took his statement to be - seems like you took it as an insinuation that the bar is really easy if 90% passes, which is not what he meant). His meaning was that if you are smart enough for the legal sector, then you should be able to pass the exam, regardless of the % of failures, because exams will always have failures but smart/hardworking people will definitely pass ("your effort or intellect does not change according to statistics").

I disagree with his statement - a 90% pass rate compared to a 50% pass rate elective evidently means that the course is either more difficult or content heavy (and that a normal student who studies well will still find it easier to pass the 90% pass rate course - it's just simple mathematics). It literally means that only the bottom 10% of the exam sitters will fail. To the original poster, don't be an asshole, I'm sure that there are people with legitimate concerns about the courses, and they want to understand

I understand that the original poster wants to harp on the "being smart/hardworking means you don't have to care about the pass rate" type of reasoning but that's not logically sound advice. Making a logical, informed choice is also part of being a good student/lawyer. Telling people that their fears are unsound does not show them anything except a smug sense of superiority on your part. I'm sure that was not your intention, but it does come across that way, which led to this poster's comment against you. Since it's a rite of passage, and the electives generally don't matter, then obviously you would have an easier time studying (and possibly excelling) at an elective with a high pass rate.

Aiya I think a lot of this stems from the fact that the bar exams have for the longest time been really, really easy to pass. Not too long ago you could literally leave half to 2/3 of questions unanswered and still pass. How was that acceptable, I don't know. But that's why many people view the bar exams this way now.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I'm not the guy who posted the initial comment, but I don't think that's what he meant. I think he meant - if you are a normal student in a good (or above average) law school you shouldn't be afraid of passing the bar (unless your law school didn't teach you well enough) - it's an elitist attitude but that attitude is prevalent among the SG unis. However, I do not disagree that the bar is supposed to be a rite of passage and to weed out the weaker students, and it's not meant to be a big deal unless you're aiming for distinctions or top in course.

His comment on the 90% pass rate was "Taking an exam with a 90% pass rate does not give you a higher chance to pass" read with his immediate statement of "your effort and intellect does not change according to statistics" should be read as "even if you take an elective with a higher pass rate, if you are a lousy student you will still fail, and if you're a good student just ignore the pass/fail rate since you will be of a minimally acceptable standard to pass either way." (I'm not sure what you took his statement to be - seems like you took it as an insinuation that the bar is really easy if 90% passes, which is not what he meant). His meaning was that if you are smart enough for the legal sector, then you should be able to pass the exam, regardless of the % of failures, because exams will always have failures but smart/hardworking people will definitely pass ("your effort or intellect does not change according to statistics").

I disagree with his statement - a 90% pass rate compared to a 50% pass rate elective evidently means that the course is either more difficult or content heavy (and that a normal student who studies well will still find it easier to pass the 90% pass rate course - it's just simple mathematics). It literally means that only the bottom 10% of the exam sitters will fail. To the original poster, don't be an asshole, I'm sure that there are people with legitimate concerns about the courses, and they want to understand

I understand that the original poster wants to harp on the "being smart/hardworking means you don't have to care about the pass rate" type of reasoning but that's not logically sound advice. Making a logical, informed choice is also part of being a good student/lawyer. Telling people that their fears are unsound does not show them anything except a smug sense of superiority on your part. I'm sure that was not your intention, but it does come across that way, which led to this poster's comment against you. Since it's a rite of passage, and the electives generally don't matter, then obviously you would have an easier time studying (and possibly excelling) at an elective with a high pass rate.

His reason for being smug was that Part B has a 90% pass rate. It doesn't. Call it what you want, maybe you might as well argue that it was an opinion and not purported statement of fact