Lawyer Salary

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.

Well, sure, you can try and look to the context to interpret the meaning of '90% pass rate' but I'll call a spade a spade. It is a statement of fact erroneously made, to someone asking for advice.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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.

I won't be surprised if you tell me today that ACP had a 70% failure rate pre-moderation. I am not sure of its accuracy, so make what you will.

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.

Maybe he's from Oxford how you know don't taint NUS okay we're smarter than making that 90% assumption

heard retention rates across firms have been quite positive and high, what a relief!

Originally Posted by Unregistered

heard retention rates across firms have been quite positive and high, what a relief!

And who are you? The master of TC whisperers? Npnt!

Law seems like a never ending rat race.
You’re essentially competing your entire life.
Competing to go to Oxbridge law, after that competing to top the bar exams, competing to work in a white shoe or magic circle, competing to top the billable chart, competing to earn the most money, marry the most desirable spouse, send children to RI/RGS, live in a huge bungalow, etc.
The competition never stops the day you are admitted to law school.
Slack off at any stage or letting your guard down is fatal

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Law seems like a never ending rat race.
You’re essentially competing your entire life.
Competing to go to Oxbridge law, after that competing to top the bar exams, competing to work in a white shoe or magic circle, competing to top the billable chart, competing to earn the most money, marry the most desirable spouse, send children to RI/RGS, live in a huge bungalow, etc.
The competition never stops the day you are admitted to law school.
Slack off at any stage or letting your guard down is fatal

I mean pls tbh it's up to you whether you wanna partake in such class and status anxiety. Who are these people with picture-perfect lives, you tell me? Most of us are comfortable enough with where we are. There's always a point where extra ambition and competition will not lead to happiness.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I mean pls tbh it's up to you whether you wanna partake in such class and status anxiety. Who are these people with picture-perfect lives, you tell me? Most of us are comfortable enough with where we are. There's always a point where extra ambition and competition will not lead to happiness.

The legal fraternity reflects Singapore society. Either you make it to big law or you do shitlaw, there's no middle ground.

just whether u wanna compare kukubird size or not.

creating the best possible opportunities for yourself does not make you a comparatively superior person, however "superior" is defined

tt durai, mingyi, kong hee et al all ri boys ya. but do tell us more about how your education pedigree automagically makes you a superior species of human.

sinkies can be damn bloody superficial as is their wont but surely it is not too much to expect lawyers to exercise a bit of critical thinking.

Hello, for those of us who've managed to go in house, can I ask how you guys planned your exit strategy? I'm a litigation associate in a Big4 firm, but I can't see myself doing this for the rest of my life - I want to be out of the here in 3-5 years, tops. Would love to hear what you guys did, or any advice you might have

I guess I have some specific questions as well:

- How did you choose what type of in house firm to go to? E.g. Telecoms firms like singtel; aviation/cars like SIA, Chevron; tech firms; stat boards; banks. Did you just see whichever was hiring and apply to all?

- Do I have to start trying to get myself on certain type of work? I see many in house jobs look for TMT lawyers, though I'm not sure whether I could do that as my team does commercial liti.

- What sort of work do you do on average day?

- I've heard some people say you should try to pivot to an international firm first to increase your chances of being hired by a big MNC. Is this true?

- I've heard that some people get approached by headhunters, how can I get them to approach me? Or did you guys just keep applying for job listings till one accepted you?

Sorry for the long spam, thank you for any replies