Lawyer Salary

Why were the supp papers for part a removed but still around for part b?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

As they should. So sick of the poor standards of these foreign uni grads. Note that my gripe is with the foreign grads, not the unis themselves. Unfortunately, the majority of those Singaporean students that study in these schools just don't have what it takes to practice at the required level.

In my view, foreign unis should be limited to Oxbridge, LSE, UCL, Melbourne, Sydney and UNSW, and the US schools. Full stop. Sick of having to babysit subpar NQs.

LoL at the addition of schools from a certain country here.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Spoken like a true overseas graduate who doesn't understand the rigour of the local law courses. Part A is NOT equivalent to local law standards. It is equivalent in breadth but nowhere near in depth, and is in fact a watered down crash-course on Singapore law that anybody who bothers to take 2-3 weeks before the papers to study, can and should pass on the first go.

Second lower local law school grads are easily equivalent to 2.1s from the UK. Local law school graduates who are third class honours can't practice and they're already a step up from UK 2:2s, who are not graded on a curve.

I agree with the general tenor of your post. The hate is somewhat warranted.

But don't BS pls. You say I don't understand the "rigour" of local unis. But neither can you understand the "rigour" of Part A. You never took Part A. Don't provide a dumb comparison based on experience on one end and one end only.

Second paragraph - generally true. However, that being said, there must be a cut-off for reasons of parity. Where you would like to draw a line is really up to you. It's an objection from fairness and every single lawyer must be subject to the same exam.

Even if you say, for instance, every single UK grad must take NUS modules marked on a bell curve, that would be palatable. Don't need to make it a "Bar exam".

The lack of parity is disappointing and, to say the least, rigged.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I agree with the general tenor of your post. The hate is somewhat warranted.

But don't BS pls. You say I don't understand the "rigour" of local unis. But neither can you understand the "rigour" of Part A. You never took Part A. Don't provide a dumb comparison based on experience on one end and one end only.

Second paragraph - generally true. However, that being said, there must be a cut-off for reasons of parity. Where you would like to draw a line is really up to you. It's an objection from fairness and every single lawyer must be subject to the same exam.

Even if you say, for instance, every single UK grad must take NUS modules marked on a bell curve, that would be palatable. Don't need to make it a "Bar exam".

The lack of parity is disappointing and, to say the least, rigged.

I also agree because there are some foreign schools that print degrees. We know who the culprits are. No need to keep publicising. A 2.2 from NUS may even be better than a FCH from some places.

But the objection is parity. It is not school-shitting. I really do not give a **** about the vitirol that comes out of entitled local YPs.

To have parity:

1. Either make all foreign grads take the first part of the Bar based on NUS papers marked on a bell curve

2. Make NUS modules which are tested in Part A marked on a pass-fail-distinction basis.

It is rubbish to categorise each person based on perceptions about school and reputation.

You advocate merit. So there isn't any reason for a lack of parity - even your perception about reputation, if true, does not apply to every single person from a particular school. Many duds around in every school.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I also agree because there are some foreign schools that print degrees. We know who the culprits are. No need to keep publicising. A 2.2 from NUS may even be better than a FCH from some places.

But the objection is parity. It is not school-shitting. I really do not give a **** about the vitirol that comes out of entitled local YPs.

To have parity:

1. Either make all foreign grads take the first part of the Bar based on NUS papers marked on a bell curve

2. Make NUS modules which are tested in Part A marked on a pass-fail-distinction basis.

It is rubbish to categorise each person based on perceptions about school and reputation.

You advocate merit. So there isn't any reason for a lack of parity - even your perception about reputation, if true, does not apply to every single person from a particular school. Many duds around in every school.

My next question is also this: if you advocate merit why should the people in every school who only party and dud around be able to rely on the perception about their school, which is formed usually from the brilliant ones?

Originally Posted by Unregistered

LoL at the addition of schools from a certain country here.

Delta variant country?

Wtf guys. Nobody cares about what tom dick harry on a forum thinks is aptitude.

Unpopular take: Curve and mandated fail rates do not weed out ineptitude. They merely breed competitiveness. The selectivity of such systems is a byproduct. There’s no reason not to grant a professional qualification for everyone who meets the necessary standards.

Students just need to make sure they study for the bar. Yes you’re out if school now but you have one (or two) more exam(s) to go for before you can practice. Now is not the time to let up.

Now can the kids please take your vitriol elsewhere, and just ask salary (or practise) related questions?

[QUOTE=Unregistered;174849]Wtf guys. Nobody cares about what tom dick harry on a forum thinks is aptitude.

Unpopular take: Curve and mandated fail rates do
The current system is regressive since it purports to produce the SAME STANDARD of lawyers based on different objectives and standards (of local exams and Part A).

The starting point should be the same and not vary according to different subsections of the legal profession. You want to produce an NUS 2.1 standard across the board, so be it. All foreign grads to be marked on NUS exams on a bell curve.

This puts an end to the entire universe of vitirol which has been expounded in the past 1000 pages. If someone cannot meet an NUS 2.1 standard, he's out. No need to compare schools. If someone is from a bad school but meets an NUS 2.1 standard, he's worthy of being called regardless of school.

If you say NUS students should have jobs because of the academic rigour in NUS, I'm sure you will support parity. It will remove everyone's sense of entitlement. Don't give me BS like your school better than his school. Put your money where your mouth is.

Members of the public are relying on the rigour of examinations to ensure certain minimum standards. The ends justify the means (of imposing such parity).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Unpopular take: Curve and mandated fail rates do
The current system is regressive since it purports to produce the SAME STANDARD of lawyers based on different objectives and standards (of local exams and Part A).

The starting point should be the same and not vary according to different subsections of the legal profession. You want to produce an NUS 2.1 standard across the board, so be it. All foreign grads to be marked on NUS exams on a bell curve.

This puts an end to the entire universe of vitirol which has been expounded in the past 1000 pages. If someone cannot meet an NUS 2.1 standard, he's out. No need to compare schools. If someone is from a bad school but meets an NUS 2.1 standard, he's worthy of being called regardless of school.

If you say NUS students should have jobs because of the academic rigour in NUS, I'm sure you will support parity. It will remove everyone's sense of entitlement. Don't give me BS like your school better than his school. Put your money where your mouth is.

Members of the public are relying on the rigour of examinations to ensure certain minimum standards. The ends justify the means (of imposing such parity).

why set to the nus standard? "practice" on its own has demands above and beyond that of what is taught in nus, have a higher common bar

but anyway, agree with your basic premise

Originally Posted by Unregistered

why set to the nus standard? "practice" on its own has demands above and beyond that of what is taught in nus, have a higher common bar

but anyway, agree with your basic premise

Let's stop all this pointless bickering. With the new training regime reforms to be implemented in 2023, they're raising the bar across the board for both overseas and local grads. And the fact that they're extending the TC period from 6 months to 1 year shows increasing emphasis on producing practice ready NQs, which is a step in the right direction.

The longer period will also weed out those who are half-hearted and not genuinely inclined to practise law. Nothing wrong with that btw since many law grads in oversaturated jurisdictions like Australia and the UK also don't practice law.