Lawyer Salary

If you look at the UK universities that were cut from the Schedule,you will see two things in common. First, relatively low ranking over past few years. Second, extremely large number of Singaporeans in their cohort. These are the unis that massively stocked up on sgp students when funding dried up in Uk post financial crisis. So it's really cutting down on abuse.

For Australia yes the reason is the FTA. I suspect that if e Govt could they would cut some of the universities from Australia too, as one or two of them have almost majority Singapore population in their law faculties coupled with relatively low ranking. However SG law firms are still reluctant to hire from Aussie uni so that helps to insulate the market, because many of these graduates will have no real prospect of TCs and jobs.

Longer term I suspect the solution is to license a lower level of legal professional or paralegal to take on many of the jobs that Lawyers used to do.

Right now firms are unwilling to hire these excess graduates even as paralegals because they fear these people will expect associate level salaries and the chance to qualify, and if they are not happy, they won't stay, or may create bad morale etc. Which is a real shame - there is a lot of demand for paralegals e,g. from poly law course etc.

In the US and UK many people do eventually qualify after working for a few years in such associated positions.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

If you look at the UK universities that were cut from the Schedule,you will see two things in common. First, relatively low ranking over past few years. Second, extremely large number of Singaporeans in their cohort. These are the unis that massively stocked up on sgp students when funding dried up in Uk post financial crisis. So it's really cutting down on abuse.

For Australia yes the reason is the FTA. I suspect that if e Govt could they would cut some of the universities from Australia too, as one or two of them have almost majority Singapore population in their law faculties coupled with relatively low ranking. However SG law firms are still reluctant to hire from Aussie uni so that helps to insulate the market, because many of these graduates will have no real prospect of TCs and jobs.

Longer term I suspect the solution is to license a lower level of legal professional or paralegal to take on many of the jobs that Lawyers used to do.

Right now firms are unwilling to hire these excess graduates even as paralegals because they fear these people will expect associate level salaries and the chance to qualify, and if they are not happy, they won't stay, or may create bad morale etc. Which is a real shame - there is a lot of demand for paralegals e,g. from poly law course etc.

In the US and UK many people do eventually qualify after working for a few years in such associated positions.

Another thing is if you compare the british and aussie law syllabus you will see that the aussie syllabus is very dry. the british law syllabus is very dangerous cos it touches on many things that will make the average singaporean go WOW.

Constitutional and administrative law, English legal system, Public law etc offered by UK unis in one sense is very dangerous because if SG students graduate from those unis and start creating awareness in Singapore when they return that's not gonna be good news.

When i was doing those subjects I would often compare with the Singapore situation and ask my hell wow what the hell is going on in Singapore. Why hasn't anyone opened their mouth to say something?

Having compared the different countries curriculum, i'm gonna be brave and say this. The aussie, NZ, canada and local uni law syllabus doesn't hold a candle to the UK law syllabus insofar as the subjects i've mentioned above are concerned.

if you want a solid education, choose a UK uni. the syllabus is an eye opener and when you graduate you get to work in UK. You might even become a UK citizen in the future

Originally Posted by Pippa

Another thing is if you compare the british and aussie law syllabus you will see that the aussie syllabus is very dry. the british law syllabus is very dangerous cos it touches on many things that will make the average singaporean go WOW.

Constitutional and administrative law, English legal system, Public law etc offered by UK unis in one sense is very dangerous because if SG students graduate from those unis and start creating awareness in Singapore when they return that's not gonna be good news.

When i was doing those subjects I would often compare with the Singapore situation and ask my hell wow what the hell is going on in Singapore. Why hasn't anyone opened their mouth to say something?

Having compared the different countries curriculum, i'm gonna be brave and say this. The aussie, NZ, canada and local uni law syllabus doesn't hold a candle to the UK law syllabus insofar as the subjects i've mentioned above are concerned.

if you want a solid education, choose a UK uni. the syllabus is an eye opener and when you graduate you get to work in UK. You might even become a UK citizen in the future

erm any good student in nus/smu would have considered the uk position and read lots of academic commentaries criticising the singapore system. in fact, stuff like adminstrative law is still pretty much UK-based, and many of the profs actually don't really like the local system that much (to the extent that the ex-CJ publicly accused academics of being "biased" against the system in a famous lecture). don't think there's any reason for the govt to be "scared" of more uk students.

the right to work in the UK is probably the biggest advantage of a UK education; practice in the UK is still probably more exciting than practice in sg.

Originally Posted by Pippa

Having compared the different countries curriculum, i'm gonna be brave and say this. The aussie, NZ, canada and local uni law syllabus doesn't hold a candle to the UK law syllabus insofar as the subjects i've mentioned above are concerned.

if you want a solid education, choose a UK uni. the syllabus is an eye opener and when you graduate you get to work in UK. You might even become a UK citizen in the future

you poor, poor thing. i don't think you've gone through the local uni's public law syllabus, or in fact, any of the other jurisdiction/uni's syllabuses to be able to make such a bold proposition. go read Thio Li Ann and Kevin Tan's Consti law textbook before making such an ignorant comment. Just because the UK syllabus opens your eyes to the flaws of Singapore's system in no way means that the Singapore uni's syllabus is lacking in any manner.

If you want a solid education, I'm sure any university within the top 50 (I'm just giving a ball park figure here) law schools worldwide would be able to give you one. If you want a solid education that has the most relevance and practicality in Singapore, your best bet is still nus & smu. Local firms still have a preference for local grads unless you're from one of the top UK unis or have a first class from the other overseas unis (which i've heard witnessed still pales in comparison to a good 2:2 NUS, i.e. 2:2 because of shitty grades in lame modules but has good/decent grades for important modules).

Originally Posted by Unregistered

erm any good student in nus/smu would have considered the uk position and read lots of academic commentaries criticising the singapore system. in fact, stuff like adminstrative law is still pretty much UK-based, and many of the profs actually don't really like the local system that much (to the extent that the ex-CJ publicly accused academics of being "biased" against the system in a famous lecture). don't think there's any reason for the govt to be "scared" of more uk students.

the right to work in the UK is probably the biggest advantage of a UK education; practice in the UK is still probably more exciting than practice in sg.

you stated 'would' have. that's say a lot!

Most SG law students in local unis have no interest to read around the subject let alone read 'lots of academic commentaries criticising the SG system'. All they want to do is get their hands on suggested answers so that they can replicate and regurgitate it in the exams. many of them want to go into finance after they graduate. they couldn't care less about representing ordinary citizens for free especially in areas of civil liberties and so on.

you clearly haven't attended the SG-UK law student conferences. if you did you would know that they are indeed so afraid of SG students studying law in the UK. these students tore into the ministers during Q&A. a pity they disallow recording of the yearly event including the Q&A segment.

It always cracks me up seeing the minister trying to put together an answer to a killer question. best part? when they look at you with their mouth wide open and after they've recovered from their shock, they tell you 'i'll find out the answer to your question and will get back to you'. but they will never get back to u.

LOL!

Originally Posted by Pippa

you stated 'would' have. that's say a lot!

Most SG law students in local unis have no interest to read around the subject let alone read 'lots of academic commentaries criticising the SG system'. All they want to do is get their hands on suggested answers so that they can replicate and regurgitate it in the exams. many of them want to go into finance after they graduate. they couldn't care less about representing ordinary citizens for free especially in areas of civil liberties and so on.

you clearly haven't attended the SG-UK law student conferences. if you did you would know that they are indeed so afraid of SG students studying law in the UK. these students tore into the ministers during Q&A. a pity they disallow recording of the yearly event including the Q&A segment.

It always cracks me up seeing the minister trying to put together an answer to a killer question. best part? when they look at you with their mouth wide open and after they've recovered from their shock, they tell you 'i'll find out the answer to your question and will get back to you'. but they will never get back to u.

LOL!

okay. keep dreaming that UK students are superior then.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

you poor, poor thing. i don't think you've gone through the local uni's public law syllabus, or in fact, any of the other jurisdiction/uni's syllabuses to be able to make such a bold proposition. go read Thio Li Ann and Kevin Tan's Consti law textbook before making such an ignorant comment. Just because the UK syllabus opens your eyes to the flaws of Singapore's system in no way means that the Singapore uni's syllabus is lacking in any manner.

If you want a solid education, I'm sure any university within the top 50 (I'm just giving a ball park figure here) law schools worldwide would be able to give you one. If you want a solid education that has the most relevance and practicality in Singapore, your best bet is still nus & smu. Local firms still have a preference for local grads unless you're from one of the top UK unis or have a first class from the other overseas unis (which i've heard witnessed still pales in comparison to a good 2:2 NUS, i.e. 2:2 because of shitty grades in lame modules but has good/decent grades for important modules).

are you from NUS? lets not turn this into a 'local v UK based law student' thing.

I have friends in the local unis, Aussie, Canada and NZ law schools. i've seen their syllabus. It's nothing to shout about in comparison to the British syllabus.

First of all you assumed. Did you not know that assumption is the mom of all fark ups? The UK syllabus doesn't 'opens your eyes to the flaws of Singapore's system'. It makes you think about stuff and makes you compare both jurisdictions.

You then jumped the gun about 'solid education'. All I said was that in areas of constitutional and administrative law, public law, english legal system etc, UK unis would be ideal. Look back at my previous posts.

Who cares about local firms? i've got my whole life planned out. I'm gonna apply for british citizenship upon graduation and working for a bit.

The UK law schools offer a more holistic and complete teaching for the foundation of any law degree namely the area of constitutional law. I just went gaga when my lecturers encouraged us to read text from legal giants such as Sir Rupert Cross, Robert Hazell from UCL, A.V Dicey, Roger Masterman from Durham, Martin Loughlin from LSE and loads more.

I don't want to say too much. You clearly know very little. That's wonderful. Because the less you know that means better for me since I know more

Originally Posted by Unregistered

okay. keep dreaming that UK students are superior then.

clearly you lack comprehension skills. It's either that or you have an inferiority complex. any reasonable person akin to the man on the clapham omnibus can see from my posts that I did not insinuate or state that UK law students are superior. All I ever said was that in areas like constitutional and administrative law, public law, english legal system etc, UK unis are an ideal choice to study at.

let me elaborate since you have problems understanding things the first time around. there is no academic freedom in the local sense. everything is controlled. once in a while they will grant some minor concessions.

their policy is very simple. teaching you too much on sensitive areas will result in you asking too many questions later on. as you can see some ministers have already shown their real reactions. they don't like Q&A sessions during seminars with the public or with people from a specific field. they also bar/ban video recording of the event cos they don't want it uploaded online for all to see.

but the UK law syllabus is different. in areas of constitutional law, everything is out in the open. it's such an eye-opener and very rewarding in terms gaining the knowledge contained within the british syllabus. you will learn several new mind boggling concepts and you will ask yourself repeatedly till you go hoarse 'what the hell is happening in singapore'.

Originally Posted by Unregistered

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



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?

All your arguments do not hold any water.

there are 3 reasons why they reduced the unis from the UK list and increased the Aussie list. first has to be the agreement SG and Aussie signed, secondly too many SG students without O and sometimes even A levels joined the private colleges in SG, sat for the Diploma in Law by Uni of London and then gained entry in the UK unis and these students number in the hundreds on a yearly basis since the year 2000 and lastly I sincerely believe that the top brass knows damn well that in areas of constitutional law, the UK syllabus is thorough and replete with mind-boggling concepts and that would be dangerous for SG cos I don't think they want a situation where all the SG students studying law in UK suddenly rally together and start questioning authority.

But what i find odd is that why would you include Aussie unis into the list of recognised unis to gain admission into SG bar when these unis have open book tests, quizzes, presentations etc that contribute to your final mark besides the typical end of year exams.

Why would you also recognise 10 Aussie unis for their postgraduate programme which will allow virtually anyone to become a lawyer in singapore following completion of the course? the aussie syllabus is very dry and bare? Whats the point of paying $200,000 for a degree that is boring and doesn't increase your knowledge one bit?

I scored 35 on the LNAT. but that doesn't make me any smarter than the person who scored 21. scoring 35 doesn't mean im more legally aptitude than the one who scored 21. it just means that i was either prepared for the test or that i like answering mcq times questions on a computer.

i have spoken to UK admissions tutors before. they don't think that SG students who apply to UK unis for law do so cos they can't get into the local institution. you think the UK law lecturers and admissions tutors don't know about SG and how things are run etc? LOL!

I never ever thought about gaining entry into local unis. the target from the first day has always been UK. You clearly lack knowledge. Consider yourself fortunate that I have increased yours. But I don't want to make this a habit cos it then becomes a one way traffic where you continue to take in everything I say cos you know i know more and what i know can be substantiated and what i know is legit.

I suggest you go back to the drawing board and reconsider whether your continued presence on this section of the forum is still required. You have nothing to contribute and your bias is apparent. Wake up and smell the Iced Caramel tea will ya?

Originally Posted by Pippa

I suggest you go back to the drawing board and reconsider whether your continued presence on this section of the forum is still required. You have nothing to contribute and your bias is apparent. Wake up and smell the Iced Caramel tea will ya?

This guy sibei funny sia!!! Wonder whose bias is more apparent LOL.