Lawyer Salary

Originally Posted by Unregistered

NUS r the best.

FCH while eating cheap Cai Peng, can throw shade in forums on all oxb grads too

True nus law kids eat at evans road mr prata. no mr prata, no talk

Which firm got the most delisted

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Academics =/= practice.
There are also 2:1s and 2:2s from delisted, now law firm partners. There is NUS 2:2 working in MC. There are also UK Law firm partners who study some other subjects, not even law.
Oxbridge FCH doesn't mean you are set for ptnership either.
Practice will be the true test.

Saying a lot when saying nothing at all.

What you’re saying is akin to saying leaving school with Primary 6 education does not mean you cannot become a millionaire because academic ability cannot be equated with earning potential. You’re technically correct of course that practice is the true test but law school and academic performance is the best even if quite flawed proxy of this. So what you’re saying is in theory correct but useless and dangerous advice.

Enough people giving advice like this will lead to a situation in Singapore like the US where people go into TTT law schools thinking “well that one partner in that one law firm is from this school” and with loads of graduates who can’t pass their state bar and those who do never earning enough to have made the debt they accumulated in law school worth it to begin with.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Saying a lot when saying nothing at all.

What you’re saying is akin to saying leaving school with Primary 6 education does not mean you cannot become a millionaire because academic ability cannot be equated with earning potential. You’re technically correct of course that practice is the true test but law school and academic performance is the best even if quite flawed proxy of this. So what you’re saying is in theory correct but useless and dangerous advice.

Enough people giving advice like this will lead to a situation in Singapore like the US where people go into TTT law schools thinking “well that one partner in that one law firm is from this school” and with loads of graduates who can’t pass their state bar and those who do never earning enough to have made the debt they accumulated in law school worth it to begin with.

The difference is (1) most Sinkie students who cmi local law and go overseas are upper middle class kids whose parents could've afforded to sponsor them for any other Mickey Mouse arts or biz degrees to begin with; and (ii) LLB is studied as an undergrad degree so you can pivot to many other industries like a general arts grad even if you never end up practising law at all

The analogy with US legal education is flawed cos most JC students don't take on the great financial and opportunity cost to do what US JD students do.

Let them study in second rate UK or Oz unis and the market will sort out the wheat from the chaff lor. Who cares, if you're good, you don't need to be worried.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The difference is (1) most Sinkie students who cmi local law and go overseas are upper middle class kids whose parents could've afforded to sponsor them for any other Mickey Mouse arts or biz degrees to begin with; and (ii) LLB is studied as an undergrad degree so you can pivot to many other industries like a general arts grad even if you never end up practising law at all

The analogy with US legal education is flawed cos most JC students don't take on the great financial and opportunity cost to do what US JD students do.

Let them study in second rate UK or Oz unis and the market will sort out the wheat from the chaff lor. Who cares, if you're good, you don't need to be worried.

Not the OP but you clearly haven't any idea what the profile of people who go to delisted schools are. A good % of them don’t align to your assumptions of their family’s affluence.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Not the OP but you clearly haven't any idea what the profile of people who go to delisted schools are. A good % of them don’t align to your assumptions of their family’s affluence.

Sure not? I was from NUS and most peers were definitely middle class or above. Many were driving to school.

I can't imagine it would be different for overseas grads who are easily paying 4x that of local tuition fees excluding COL. In fact, I would imagine the vast majority should be more affluent than those studying locally.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Sure not? I was from NUS and most peers were definitely middle class or above. Many were driving to school.

I can't imagine it would be different for overseas grads who are easily paying 4x that of local tuition fees excluding COL. In fact, I would imagine the vast majority should be more affluent than those studying locally.

Actually that may be somewhat true of NUS but not correct of overseas grads from delisted schools. Many in the latter camp actually come from less affluent backgrounds. Gross generalization of course, with many exceptions but that’s what I’ve observed.

There’s this PR who rent a cheap room in my firm. Just found out, family damn rich back home

Originally Posted by Unregistered

The difference is (1) most Sinkie students who cmi local law and go overseas are upper middle class kids whose parents could've afforded to sponsor them for any other Mickey Mouse arts or biz degrees to begin with; and (ii) LLB is studied as an undergrad degree so you can pivot to many other industries like a general arts grad even if you never end up practising law at all

The analogy with US legal education is flawed cos most JC students don't take on the great financial and opportunity cost to do what US JD students do.

Let them study in second rate UK or Oz unis and the market will sort out the wheat from the chaff lor. Who cares, if you're good, you don't need to be worried.

Problem is Minlaw already separated the wheat from the chaff by delisting them....

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Problem is Minlaw already separated the wheat from the chaff by delisting them....

Must la else how tio bo