Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

No, what I meant was if you're not of that pedigree at an undergraduate level, an LLM is not likely to shore up your prospects.

But yeah, those ARE solid schools, except I'd cast my net a bit wider depending on what I am seeking to achieve by an LLM (which may already come with a lack of practicality - see post on fees + loss of 1 PQE)

We are on the same page.
We are advising the poster who is from NUS.
It doesn’t make sense for a NUS grad to do a LLM unless it is from Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge for reasons mentioned above.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

We are on the same page.
We are advising the poster who is from NUS.
It doesn’t make sense for a NUS grad to do a LLM unless it is from Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge for reasons mentioned above.

Yeah thanks appreciate the clarification, I fully agree.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The only worthwhile Masters to take if you're concerned with career progression (particularly if you're at the International side of an FLA, JLC, academia or inhouse, everywhere else 1PQE is worth more) are:

1. Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, NYU, Wharton (combined Wharton + LLM, I don't think UPenn alone is worth it), Yale
2. Oxford, Cambridge, LSE (but let down by high admission rates for LLMs)

The rest are not worth it (only LLMs are worth it).

I'm talking in terms of getting to the international side of an FLA, not the Singapore side. Every Singapore side practice, B4, mid-sized etc, 1PQE is worth more.

There's also significant risk involved, in that you don't really know how it'd affect you in terms of career prospects. 1PQE is certain, the benefits of getting an LLM may not materialise in a concrete and observable way.

E.g. if you are a first class from NUS, you get a Harvard LLM offer. You take it. You don't know for a fact that it actually makes you more valuable than if you didn't. There's a possibility/probability that it does not help in any material way.

Second, LLMs have more to offer in terms of transactional work especially if your LLM is transactional related. LLMs for disputes or arbitration practice, not so much. Your track record talks more than your grades. You can be very academically sound but impractical.

Anything else, if you do a Masters in Economics, it doesn't really speak to aptitude.

Also, you only really need an LLM if there is something you want and you're not there yet. The LLM is a stepping stone to something you need above and beyond your LLB.

So for instance, a 2:1 from Oxford at a MC is not likely to get an LLM. Why? Because 1PQE + loss of 1 year salary + loss of tuition fees and expenses for an LLM without a scholarship. Most don't seem to cover expenses.

Anything else, I would not take up an LLM. If they were free and I got paid with an extra PQE, why not. But nope, not worth it.

thank you very much for writing this!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The only worthwhile Masters to take if you're concerned with career progression (particularly if you're at the International side of an FLA, JLC, academia or inhouse, everywhere else 1PQE is worth more) are:

1. Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, NYU, Wharton (combined Wharton + LLM, I don't think UPenn alone is worth it), Yale
2. Oxford, Cambridge, LSE (but let down by high admission rates for LLMs)

The rest are not worth it (only LLMs are worth it).

I'm talking in terms of getting to the international side of an FLA, not the Singapore side. Every Singapore side practice, B4, mid-sized etc, 1PQE is worth more.

There's also significant risk involved, in that you don't really know how it'd affect you in terms of career prospects. 1PQE is certain, the benefits of getting an LLM may not materialise in a concrete and observable way.

E.g. if you are a first class from NUS, you get a Harvard LLM offer. You take it. You don't know for a fact that it actually makes you more valuable than if you didn't. There's a possibility/probability that it does not help in any material way.

Second, LLMs have more to offer in terms of transactional work especially if your LLM is transactional related. LLMs for disputes or arbitration practice, not so much. Your track record talks more than your grades. You can be very academically sound but impractical.

Anything else, if you do a Masters in Economics, it doesn't really speak to aptitude.

Also, you only really need an LLM if there is something you want and you're not there yet. The LLM is a stepping stone to something you need above and beyond your LLB.

So for instance, a 2:1 from Oxford at a MC is not likely to get an LLM. Why? Because 1PQE + loss of 1 year salary + loss of tuition fees and expenses for an LLM without a scholarship. Most don't seem to cover expenses.

Anything else, I would not take up an LLM. If they were free and I got paid with an extra PQE, why not. But nope, not worth it.

To add on to this, let's say your end goal is to work at CC. You didn't get in based on undergraduate. You are now doing Singapore work at a FLA or a mid sized. Your goal should not be an LLM. Your goal should be to get to a place that feeds CC. You can either (a) go to A&G M&A after some time or (b) go to a small international outfit that does international work, then hop your way up.

If you cannot get (a) or (b), then get PQE until you get (a) or (b). Someone at CC is not likely to do an LLM if his end goal is and was already CC

If I may add on, for a NUS grad, it makes no sense to do a LSE LLM.
NUS law is ranked very highly.
NUS law is only inferior to Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge (“HYOC”) Law.
It makes absolutely no sense for a NUS grad to downgrade and do a LSE LLM.
If NUS grad intends to pursue career in academia/legal service, then it makes sense to do a HYOC LLM.
Otherwise there is really little advantage in so doing.
If you’re a RI/HCI straight As person, and you intend to work in London Magic Circle, then straight away apply for Oxbridge.
It’s pretty pointless to apply for NUS law and not be satisfied working in the big four in Singapore, and then asking why you are unable to get into a London MC/SC.
The selection bias argument is totally irrelevant here.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If I may add on, for a NUS grad, it makes no sense to do a LSE LLM.
NUS law is ranked very highly.
NUS law is only inferior to Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge (“HYOC”) Law.
It makes absolutely no sense for a NUS grad to downgrade and do a LSE LLM.
If NUS grad intends to pursue career in academia/legal service, then it makes sense to do a HYOC LLM.
Otherwise there is really little advantage in so doing.
If you’re a RI/HCI straight As person, and you intend to work in London Magic Circle, then straight away apply for Oxbridge.
It’s pretty pointless to apply for NUS law and not be satisfied working in the big four in Singapore, and then asking why you are unable to get into a London MC/SC.
The selection bias argument is totally irrelevant here.

Forget rankings. Rankings are irrelevant, since QS ranks LSE at 6 and NUS at 12, might I add. Everyone would have gome to Oxbridge but sometimes it's dumb **** that doesn't get you in.

Now if you’re an SMU law grad, doing a LLM at LSE, Columbia, NYU may actually be very helpful in adding pedigree.
It just doesn’t make sense for NUS law grads to do a LLM at LSE, Columbia and NYU, unless you have very good reasons for doing so. It is a no brainer though if it is Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge as mentioned by earlier posters.
Hope this clarifies.
This is done through many years of observing successful NUS law graduates and the additional qualifications (both academic and professional bar admissions) they possess after graduating from NUS law school and their career trajectory.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If I may add on, for a NUS grad, it makes no sense to do a LSE LLM.
NUS law is ranked very highly.
NUS law is only inferior to Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge (“HYOC”) Law.
It makes absolutely no sense for a NUS grad to downgrade and do a LSE LLM.
If NUS grad intends to pursue career in academia/legal service, then it makes sense to do a HYOC LLM.
Otherwise there is really little advantage in so doing.
If you’re a RI/HCI straight As person, and you intend to work in London Magic Circle, then straight away apply for Oxbridge.
It’s pretty pointless to apply for NUS law and not be satisfied working in the big four in Singapore, and then asking why you are unable to get into a London MC/SC.
The selection bias argument is totally irrelevant here.

By your reasoning everyone should apply for an NUS LLM

Originally Posted by Unregistered

When asked to clarify on his/her concept of selection bias as raised, OP from allegedly Harvard posts this. M o e lawn

Real OP here - not the "Harvard" guy.

My point was that everyone in the SG market only sees the delisted uni grads who come back after their LLB and end up working in small-mid firms. They don't see the other section of grads who don't come back but instead start their careers in London or HK. This perpetuates the impression that NUS > delisted unis because they are comparing the prospects of the average NUS law student against those from the bottom half of the delisted uni cohorts, hence selection bias.

If you just check Linkedin, you can see that there are far more delisted grads working in the London offices of US/MC/SC/international firms than NUS grads. Yes, the proximity of the uni will have an effect on representation in the office, but many firms conduct wide outreach when it comes to recruitment (e.g. HSF's dedicated Indian uni recruitment programme or Slaughter's tradition of partners flying to US unis to interview candidates). If NUS was really held in that high regard in the international scene, you would see firms having similar dedicated recruitment programmes.

Tldr, if you want to compare returning delisted uni grads against NUS grads, at least compare them against the corresponding segment of NUS grads - i.e. the low 2:1s and 2:2s. You will see that uni doesn't really matter, its just about individual capability.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

3.3 ~ 25th%
3.8 ~ 95th %

Thanks - I didn't see this reply till now. This is helpful.