|
|
|||||||
| Education and Personal Growth Schools, further studies, getting ready for employment, and motivation stuff |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| 11-06-2014 02:21 PM | ||
| Unregistered |
time sigmodu Quote:
Of course law firms wouldn't worry. Since when do companies ever worry? Do you see any pharma / life sciences-related companies getting worried when all the life science degree holders were royally screwed over in recent years, courtesy of our govt's push to make Sg a "life sciences hub"? |
|
| 11-06-2014 10:06 AM | ||
| 100sheets | well, if the law firms are not worrying, MinLaw wouldn't worry either. that's how the SG govt works. | |
| 11-06-2014 07:02 AM | ||
| Unregistered |
Quote:
The thing with increased business activity is that they require immediate solutions. The solution is oftentimes not hiring at fresh graduate level. Supposed they need more junior associates with 3PQE, they would simply get a recruiting firm to get them the associates. |
|
| 11-06-2014 01:37 AM | ||
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Actually, putting aside law students who get hired based on family and relatives (e.g. uncle is a Partner or father is a major client of the firm), the legal industry trainee-level hiring is supposed to be the most meritocratic. Which industry aside from academia scrutinises applicants' grades and transcripts so closely? At least that's the spirit of things. But the lower standards of the UK unis heavily distorts this. Hence, a 2:1 UK grad is supposedly on paper equivalent to a Second Upper Honours NUS grad, but in reality, there is a considerable difference in the amount of effort required as between the two. As Anon 08:27 rightly points out, hitherto the situation has been OK. But MinLaw has come to a very premature conclusion that an increase in commercial legal activity translates into an automatic need for more law graduates, which is certainly not the case. It MIGHT result in an uptake in lateral hiring, but I don't see law firms vastly increasing their trainee intakes in tandem with the supposed increase in business activity. Meanwhile, the number of A Level/Poly grads studying law in the UK will only increase year-on-year. It is not merely about the prestige of the profession. It is about professional competence. Lower quality graduates will increase the likelihood of a larger number of less-competent practitioners. We may see an increase in professional negligence suits against lawyers. |
|
| 10-06-2014 08:27 PM | ||
| Unregistered |
Quote:
At the end of the day, why would the law firms worry. They have a set number to recruit, and they will go out there and cherry-pick. The main issue that I have gather from reading most of the posts by the other anonymous users has to do with the image and prestige of the profession. If you reduce the benchmark, ultimately over the long run, the quality of practitioners would only deteriorate. Besides, if we want access to 'desirable' profession to be truly meritocratic, why would MinLaw allow more than half of the yearly intake of lawyers to come from overseas Universities. It is a known fact that large number of students in the Singaporean law faculty come from above-average households. Wouldn't it be more ideal to restrict the number of overseas university to only those that are better than what we have locally? With the third law school coming up, isn't it better to ramp up the numbers through the third law school so that the profession becomes more accessible to the public. At the end of the day, it is just disconcerting to know that in the near future, more than half of the freshly-minted lawyers would come from overseas universities which are not accessible to the man on the street. |
|
| 10-06-2014 02:09 PM | ||
| 100sheets |
Quote:
|
|
| 10-06-2014 01:31 AM | ||
| Unregistered |
Quote:
Ask your friends from NUS/SMU law how much effort the First Class/Summas put in to get their honours. Law firms hire many UK students with grades that look good on transcripts. Its not about the competition, its about the declining standards of new entrants into the profession. |
|
| 09-06-2014 05:10 PM | ||
| Unregistered |
Quote:
|
|
| 09-06-2014 09:56 AM | ||
| 100sheets |
Quote:
|
|
| 09-06-2014 02:45 AM | ||
| Unregistered |
In my opinion, MinLaw isn't thinking things through very clearly. They're so fixated on the supposed attrition of mid level lawyers, they fail to see the glut of law graduates being churned out by the UK universities every year! The number of new entrants into the legal profession is dictated by how many trainees and associates the law firms want to hire. If the economy is good and profits are being raked in, they will hire more. If the economy is bad, they will hire less. Simple logic. You can't increase the supply of praticing lawyers to combat attrition by increasing the number of graduates, since the bottleneck is at the hiring level. We have second rate law grads from UK universities returning in huge numbers, and competing for places in law firms. If only the best and the brightest can enter NUS and SMU as a form of quality control, why recognise LLBs from second rate universities that aren't even particularly well regarded in the UK itself? It undermines the rationale entirely! I'm so glad I graduated a few years back. The next generation of law graduates are in for a hard time. MinLaw should do the conscionable thing and de list most of the Scheduled Universities aside from Oxbridge, UCL, LSE and maybe Kings. |
|
| This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
