Lawyer Salary

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

life is what you make of it.
there's no shame in deciding not to compete.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

life is what you make of it.
there's no shame in deciding not to compete.

Exactly. Even the average or below average lawyer will command a salary which is far above the average Singaporean. Work as hard as you want or aim as high as you can, but don't feel bad if things don't work out as you plan. They don't for anyone. Be happy where you are.

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.

I am the original poster and yes, the "90% pass rate" was just a figure plucked from thin air. My bigger point I was trying to make is that one should not be choosing electives based on pass rate.

No sure how it could be misconstrued and I do not really understand the whole moderation point. My point is that it should not matter.

As someone else posted on this forum, taking this kind of attitude of trying to game the system should really stop by the time you are taking the bar exam. This attitude will also then lead someone to apply for a place in a firm with the most trainees (higher chance), highest retention rate etc. Surely this cannot be healthy and will only lead to an unhappy lawyer.

Personally, you can see Part A / B as an obstacle, or you can see it as having the final opportunity to have the luxury of time to learn from about a subject which can help you in your practice. Sure you can argue that you cannot teach someone to be good in practice, but for some of the subjects like wills / arbitration etc, at least you get the luxury of reading up on it first which I personally believe helps.

For example, you are not familiar at all with arbitration but you are going to do litigation. Your first piece of work is to assist on an advice on a potential arbitration dispute etc. Being unfamiliar with the concepts of arbitration, you basically have a few hours or days to learn everything there is about arbitration then consider the issues and do the research or provide the advice. Alternatively, if you have had one entire module in law school to learn about arbitration or at least 6 months during Part B to learn the basic concepts on it, when you get that piece of work, you can straight away zoom in on the gaps in your knowledge and need not do an entire refresher course within the span of a few hours or days.

of course I am saying this as someone who has already gone through this some time ago. If you are saying that intellect / ethics does not matter because Walter Woon is just trying to fail people to regulate the numbers (as opposed to weeding out the "weaker ones"), then yes perhaps such deliberate choices would make sense.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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.

TT Durai mingyi kong hee et all are living proof that RI boys got pedigree ? is that the point? They are successful in their own ways (of gaming the system)...

all these losers who will never make it as lawyers but commenting on forums to appear wise.

just admit you have no balls to compete

Originally Posted by Unregistered

all these losers who will never make it as lawyers but commenting on forums to appear wise.

just admit you have no balls to compete

I'm happily married with a young child, and live in a 5-rm flat.

I make 150 - 170k a year in an in-house role. I am content with what I have, and don't regret leaving practice.
(By the way, I'm a RI boy.)

Originally Posted by Unregistered

life is what you make of it.
there's no shame in deciding not to compete.

This.

I do "shitlaw" [apparently] in a small firm where we profit share. My bread and butter is mainly gen lit for SMEs, with a sprinkling of family law when needed. "Shitlaw" is certainly more fulfilling to me than big corp.

I earn less than when i was doing big corp but enough to lead a comfortable life.

I am much happier now. I get off work at a decent hour 99% of the time. My clients aren't assholes. I get to refuse asshole clients by quoting sky-high fees. I never get calls after 6pm, save for the once in a blue moon emergency (one midnight call in the last 3 years).

There is a middle ground for those who want it... It's pride that gets in the way. You shouldn't care what other people think so long as you're happy with the choices you've made. Took me a long time to tune out the white noise. No regrets so far.

ya agreed, i think this forum thread exacerbates a lot of neck-to-neck comparison and envy. dun understand who on this thread is constantly obsessing over supposed Raffles-Oxbridge-International Firms pedigree.

at the end of the day, it's a livelihood and a lifestyle. the whole idea of constant competition and ranking is relegated to the good ol' law school days - balls or no balls.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Exactly. Even the average or below average lawyer will command a salary which is far above the average Singaporean. Work as hard as you want or aim as high as you can, but don't feel bad if things don't work out as you plan. They don't for anyone. Be happy where you are.

Shouldn't we strive to be better versions of ourselves daily and benchmark ourselves against the investment bankers instead of settle for mediocrity?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Shouldn't we strive to be better versions of ourselves daily and benchmark ourselves against the investment bankers instead of settle for mediocrity?

why would finding a comfortable rhythm / pace of life necessarily imply that we are settling for mediocrity? why must we even be fixated on mediocrity? this is such a false dilemma there lol (see above points on no need for constant comparison).