I think SMU is still an unknown quantity. It's true that SMU has established quite a - warranted or not - reputation for itself in the business field, but law is still quite an "old boys club". I've been told quite a number of times that I was asking for it by not going to NUS Law, simply because "Your future bosses will usually all have graduated from NUS".
The first batch of SMU LLB students have yet to graduate, what more can one say about their JD candidates? Then again, if you are talking about people in a mid-career switch, one year might mean a lot to them. One year doesn't matter if you are 22; it probably will when you are hitting 30.
some reason why going to nus is better
faculty strength,
international links and tie ups. just look at their visiting profs.
strong collaboration with industries. cmon the whole supreme court bench is NUS grad...save for CJ Chan who was UM grad..now known as nus..
the local legal bigwigs are almost all from NUS or oxbridge, with a few from top uk unis like notts, kcl, lse etc.
modules on offer. its a delicious menu of modules which smu will find hard to rival..even if given 30 more years.
smu has quasi business module which dilute the integrity of a law degree and make it into a somewhat law degree with a business "twist". LOL.
to second what callingmegod has mentioned, employers want graduates with sound fundamentals. Its no good just to touch and go and scrape through. Even if the employer hires u, the said lawyer will have an extremely steep learning curve and a tough time learning on the job. This is what i know frm many lawyers who have dispensed me with advice.
nus has greater international recognition and this bring about greater benefits [visitng profs, exchange tieups, postgraduate application etc].
most impt thing is still the fact that our legal fraternity is dominated by NUS grads. Our managing parters of drew and napier, rajah tann, a and g, our law minister, our ag, our solicitor general, our appeal court justice are all NUS grads. GG
So, given all these reasons....one would need to think twice before choosing smu over nus [assuming offered both].
international links and tie ups. just look at their visiting profs.
strong collaboration with industries. cmon the whole supreme court bench is NUS grad...save for CJ Chan who was UM grad..now known as nus..
the local legal bigwigs are almost all from NUS or oxbridge, with a few from top uk unis like notts, kcl, lse etc.
modules on offer. its a delicious menu of modules which smu will find hard to rival..even if given 30 more years.
smu has quasi business module which dilute the integrity of a law degree and make it into a somewhat law degree with a business "twist". LOL.
to second what callingmegod has mentioned, employers want graduates with sound fundamentals. Its no good just to touch and go and scrape through. Even if the employer hires u, the said lawyer will have an extremely steep learning curve and a tough time learning on the job. This is what i know frm many lawyers who have dispensed me with advice.
nus has greater international recognition and this bring about greater benefits [visitng profs, exchange tieups, postgraduate application etc].
most impt thing is still the fact that our legal fraternity is dominated by NUS grads. Our managing parters of drew and napier, rajah tann, a and g, our law minister, our ag, our solicitor general, our appeal court justice are all NUS grads. GG
So, given all these reasons....one would need to think twice before choosing smu over nus [assuming offered both].
Pretty much spot on.
I'll just add a slight caveat, which is that the faculty that SMU has attracted, which includes poaching some NUS law professors, is to a large extent of top quality. It still remains to be seen how strong their legal education is, the first batch hasn't graduated yet.
They also have a less intensive emphasis on law modules, i believe the figure is in the ball park of 70% compared to 90% at NUS which can add up to a qualitative difference. I personally think it detracts from the purposes of law school, which is an intensive legal education.
It's also generally recognized in the industry that the type of degree you have doesn't matter so much as getting a foot into the door. Ultimately, much like other industries the difference boils down to your own ability once you have become a qualified associate.
the 2Y duration looks good for those less discerning applicants. for those who know the legal industry, they will understand that the 2Y will actually work agaiinst them. it takes time to properly learn the legal principles and procedures, and the employers know that. that makes them very reluctant when it comes to hiring candidates who "rushed through the materials". On top of that, why hire a 30yo who rushed through the stuff in 2years when u can hire a 24yo who has the time to learn it more thoroughly? add to the woes the 30yo career swithcer probably belongs to tose who did not excel in his original field (hard to imagine a successful head engineer/banker/whatever forgoing2-3years salary to go into law and start over again), so not much specialized domain knowledge there.
there is a reason why JD in US are almost always 3years in duration.
I think 2 years for a legal education is bull****, regardless of what type of qualifications you come equipped with.
the 2Y duration looks good for those less discerning applicants. for those who know the legal industry, they will understand that the 2Y will actually work agaiinst them. it takes time to properly learn the legal principles and procedures, and the employers know that. that makes them very reluctant when it comes to hiring candidates who "rushed through the materials". On top of that, why hire a 30yo who rushed through the stuff in 2years when u can hire a 24yo who has the time to learn it more thoroughly? add to the woes the 30yo career swithcer probably belongs to tose who did not excel in his original field (hard to imagine a successful head engineer/banker/whatever forgoing2-3years salary to go into law and start over again), so not much specialized domain knowledge there.
there is a reason why JD in US are almost always 3years in duration.
By that same logic, why hire a UK grad who studies for 3 years to get the LLB when you can hire a NUS grad who spent 4 years studying for the LLB. u pay them the same amount anyway.
Frankly, I don't think employers care too much about how long the course is, especially since this is the person's 2nd degree - u expect that the person already has a good first degree plus maybe some work experience. besides, whatever you learn in school is nothing much - the real learning starts in practice.
the main concern that employers have are (a) what are the projected market conditions [e.g. in this kind of climate, if you are seeking employment for litigation, you should be fine. If you are seeking a corporate/financial services position then good luck], (b) the person's attitude [it's no use having the smartest person around if the person is lazy and not willing to work hard], and (c) the person's ability [as long as the person' ability is above average, the person can be trained - if the person has a bad attitude, you cannot change that].
As for the type of person who opts to switch careers, I don't think it's people who don't excel in their original field. Instead, it tends to be people who either just graduated pretty high up in their cohort, or people who realise that if they continue in their previous career (e.g. as an engineer), they may be good, but they will be underpaid for a long time to come unless they can move to management (which requires a different skill set from being a good engineer).
By that same logic, why hire a UK grad who studies for 3 years to get the LLB when you can hire a NUS grad who spent 4 years studying for the LLB. u pay them the same amount anyway.
Frankly, I don't think employers care too much about how long the course is, especially since this is the person's 2nd degree - u expect that the person already has a good first degree plus maybe some work experience. besides, whatever you learn in school is nothing much - the real learning starts in practice.
the main concern that employers have are (a) what are the projected market conditions [e.g. in this kind of climate, if you are seeking employment for litigation, you should be fine. If you are seeking a corporate/financial services position then good luck], (b) the person's attitude [it's no use having the smartest person around if the person is lazy and not willing to work hard], and (c) the person's ability [as long as the person' ability is above average, the person can be trained - if the person has a bad attitude, you cannot change that].
As for the type of person who opts to switch careers, I don't think it's people who don't excel in their original field. Instead, it tends to be people who either just graduated pretty high up in their cohort, or people who realise that if they continue in their previous career (e.g. as an engineer), they may be good, but they will be underpaid for a long time to come unless they can move to management (which requires a different skill set from being a good engineer).
A UK graduate who studies for 3 years still takes the same amount of time to become an associate, even with the new rules, so no, you don't pay them the same amount. The training contract for overseas graduates is longer by 6 months.
That may be true for other courses but for a law degree, a large part of the education (and application of the law) is substantive. I do not think it is wise to cram a legal education into two years, there is just too much to be learnt. The NUS graduate law degree takes 3 years for good reason. Education is not all about how fast you can complete your degree.
There are no problems whatsoever for law graduates (from local and reputable overseas universities) to get a job now, nor have there been any difficulties for awhile. Ask any law student if you know any. We simply do not have enough lawyers.
I agree with your last statement, incidentally, my cohort had 1st class honours students from other disciplines. The time investment is still work it. Lawyers are renumerated very well if you can stick it out.
the 2Y duration looks good for those less discerning applicants. for those who know the legal industry, they will understand that the 2Y will actually work agaiinst them. it takes time to properly learn the legal principles and procedures, and the employers know that. that makes them very reluctant when it comes to hiring candidates who "rushed through the materials". On top of that, why hire a 30yo who rushed through the stuff in 2years when u can hire a 24yo who has the time to learn it more thoroughly? add to the woes the 30yo career swithcer probably belongs to tose who did not excel in his original field (hard to imagine a successful head engineer/banker/whatever forgoing2-3years salary to go into law and start over again), so not much specialized domain knowledge there.
there is a reason why JD in US are almost always 3years in duration.
from your logic the longer the course the better the student? The SMU course is 3 years infact; they just allow u to cram the electives during the break to finish it faster. I believe that many US JD allow u to finish in 2 years as well. There are reasons why the graduate course is shorter; the applicant had already underwent a period of tertiary education and proven capable of learning with a second upper honours. Do you know that medicine can be a course from as short as three years ( at reputable canadian universities to as long as six years, in australian universities. Does that mean that the 3 year doctor is more likely to kill a patient than a 6 year old? I think not...)
Infact, i would think that employeers like to hire second career lawyers. They come equip with prior knowledge. Engineers can do very well in coporate cass, M&A. Bankers can do even better.
About your point being that second career lawyers probably dun do well in their original career....obviously, you are either not working yet or work just mean a salary for you. Sometimes, people switch career not because they are not doing well, they switch to doing something else as a natural progression, as a means to reinevent themselves, as opposed to working just for a salary, they prefer to work for their passion...
A UK graduate who studies for 3 years still takes the same amount of time to become an associate, even with the new rules, so no, you don't pay them the same amount. The training contract for overseas graduates is longer by 6 months.
That may be true for other courses but for a law degree, a large part of the education (and application of the law) is substantive. I do not think it is wise to cram a legal education into two years, there is just too much to be learnt. The NUS graduate law degree takes 3 years for good reason. Education is not all about how fast you can complete your degree.
There are no problems whatsoever for law graduates (from local and reputable overseas universities) to get a job now, nor have there been any difficulties for awhile. Ask any law student if you know any. We simply do not have enough lawyers.
I agree with your last statement, incidentally, my cohort had 1st class honours students from other disciplines. The time investment is still work it. Lawyers are renumerated very well if you can stick it out.
Welcome to 2009.
Don't rub it in the faces of the 20% who just got cut (ballpark figure, might be higher)
For those in the industry, what's the market like for pupillages for 2011? I graduate this year and am still deciding between taking up my training contract in the UK and returning to Singapore. Leaning towards the latter but I don't want to be gainfully unemployed...
For those in the industry, what's the market like for pupillages for 2011? I graduate this year and am still deciding between taking up my training contract in the UK and returning to Singapore. Leaning towards the latter but I don't want to be gainfully unemployed...
If you wanna do Corp work then you'll be better off staying over there.
Most firms have cut pay by 10 - 20 %.
When will you do your pupillage if you come back here?
Haha thanks, that's the thing - I'm interested in litigation work but I don't really mind corporate work that much either. And between a job and no job, I pick a job.
I'm probably doing a masters next year, so I will probably be starting my pupillage earliest 2011 or late 2010, depending on how they iron out the so-called training contract changes.
Haha that's quite far away so things might have improved by then.
You'll get better exposure in the UK anyway. You don't have to answer, but I have this gut feeling that you're from Oxbridge and managed to get into a Magic Circle firm LOL
Channels
TECH GUIDES
