Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

On the Ministry of Law website, see the Admission to the Bar section, then Omitted Universities.

But it also quotes:

"Singapore citizens and permanent residents who obtain approved law degrees from these 8 omitted universities will remain eligible for admission to the Singapore Bar, provided they were:

(a) admitted before 1 October 2015 as a candidate for that degree; and "

My question is supposed I graduate from University of Manchester with a LL.B. in mid 2014, may I able to practice law in Singapore? Further, would I need to or would I be advised to study LL.M. or J.D. as the school has been placed on the omitted list.

If you're reading law and you cannot come to a conclusion on your own by reading whatever MinLaw has provided you, then I'm not entirely sure if you have been studying at all..

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If you're reading law and you cannot come to a conclusion on your own by reading whatever MinLaw has provided you, then I'm not entirely sure if you have been studying at all..

I realized my mistake. Thank you for pointing it out.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Understand that some of the big fours are not equal in terms of working hours. Have been offered by 3 out of 4 of the big fours. Which has a better culture. I know that life as a junior associate at WongP isn't rosy.

Depends on team/practice area.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Depends on team/practice area.

Please advise in more details.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Please advise in more details.

If your main criteria is working hours, I question whether you are suitable for a career in law.

I weep at the short sightedness on this boards. Highest starting pay and the easiest life is the priority, when what you should really be asking yourself is which firm will give me the best legal foundation and development opportunities for a successful career in the law?

Like all professions, you need to suffer a bit at the beginning to earn your right to success.

Have you noticed a reluctance for anyone to respond to your enquiries in detail? Being a law student you should know that there is potential liability for any comments on this board which might be construed as defamatory.

Improve your networking skills and find your answers by other means, rather than expecting others to put their necks on the line here.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If your main criteria is working hours, I question whether you are suitable for a career in law.

I weep at the short sightedness on this boards. Highest starting pay and the easiest life is the priority, when what you should really be asking yourself is which firm will give me the best legal foundation and development opportunities for a successful career in the law?

Like all professions, you need to suffer a bit at the beginning to earn your right to success.

Have you noticed a reluctance for anyone to respond to your enquiries in detail? Being a law student you should know that there is potential liability for any comments on this board which might be construed as defamatory.

Improve your networking skills and find your answers by other means, rather than expecting others to put their necks on the line here.

I'm not the poster who had the three offers. But I wish to humbly say this. I do think it is short sightedness on your part to immediately assume that he wanted to minimize working hours. He just said he was aware of them.

Maybe he wanted to know more about the working culture and fit other than the hours themselves.

Read first word again "If"

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Read first word again "If"

I read it again. I apologize for my short sightedness.

there are a couple of reasons why there is/was a glut of lawyers.

the british currency went bust in 2010. people realized that the pound was undervalued so our local students flew to UK in large numbers. the UK unis were caught offguard because they were not able to revise their tuition fees in time. back then in 2010 the fees for international students was 9,000 pounds a year. now it's close to 15,000 a year.

the private colleges in singapore also sees plenty of its students going to UK unis after they completed the diploma in law offered by uni of london. many of these students do not have A levels. their O levels results are also nothing to shout about. the diploma in law offered them a pathway to doing a law degree in uk.

many of these students ended up in unis of southampton, sheffield or liverpool + manchester. the offer was that a student had to score average of 50% for sheffield and liverpool, 55% to 60% for southampton and manchester.

but the ministry of law has since reduced the list of recognized UK schools. the reason was to control the number of law grads to prevent oversupply? if that is the case then why did they increase the list of recognized Aussie unis from 5 to 10? Does it make sense?

what is so frightening bout the UK syllabus that you have to reduce the number of UK unis from the list of unis which is recognized for practice in SG? If you say you want to control the number of law grads then why recognize 10 Aussie unis?

and to make it even difficult for locals to enter into UK unis, the remaining UK unis on the recognized list require applicants to take the LNAT. the LNAT is a difficult test. if you score below 21, you are rejected. the national average in the previous window was 23. it may rise.

what is so frightening about the UK law syllabus that you have to come up with measures to reduce the number of SG students who choose UK to do their law degree?

Originally Posted by Pippa

but the ministry of law has since reduced the list of recognized UK schools. the reason was to control the number of law grads to prevent oversupply? if that is the case then why did they increase the list of recognized Aussie unis from 5 to 10? Does it make sense?

what is so frightening bout the UK syllabus that you have to reduce the number of UK unis from the list of unis which is recognized for practice in SG? If you say you want to control the number of law grads then why recognize 10 Aussie unis?

I think that cutting down on the UK schools and recognising more Australian schools is their form of controlling. Not too sure if MinLaw expressly stated that they want to cut down on the number of law students or merely to prevent oversupply. If it is the latter, then cutting down on UK and recognising more AU schools is a form of controlling supply (but not cutting down). There are also (probably) political and economical reasons behind the move to recognise more AU schools, as can be seen in the SG-AU FTA. Here's the link if you wish to know more about the SG-AU FTA: dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/safta/pages/singapore-australia-fta.aspx

Originally Posted by Pippa

and to make it even difficult for locals to enter into UK unis, the remaining UK unis on the recognized list require applicants to take the LNAT. the LNAT is a difficult test. if you score below 21, you are rejected. the national average in the previous window was 23. it may rise.

what is so frightening about the UK law syllabus that you have to come up with measures to reduce the number of SG students who choose UK to do their law degree?

Hmm you sound like someone who has been caught in the mix. Well in my honest opinion, I'm not too sure if the LNAT has been introduced to show that the UK syllabus is rigorous and tough, and therefore the UK unis should be accorded the same treatment as the AU unis. It's just a benchmark to see if you are sufficient adequate to read law in their universities.

Think about it from the UK unis' perspective. If you are a student who (presumably) failed to get into your country's law school because you didn't score well enough, as a UK university, my first thought would be whether I'm accepting a sub-par student who just isn't good enough to read law. So the LNAT is just to test if you are smart or adept enough to handle the rigour of the UK law syllabus. But this has nothing to do with proving that the UK law syllabus is as or even more rigorous than the AU law syllabus.

If you can't get into the local unis, and can't even score past 21 on the LNAT, then perhaps the question you should be posing yourself is whether law is the right path for yourself?