Best uni for studying Law?

[Marmalade.]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

Originally Posted by nikkigirl

There really is no "best" uni for studying law different uni's suit different people and its just a matter of figuring out which uni best suits you.

The only reason some uni's have higher UAI cut off's is because they have been around for longer and then the prestige factor comes into play (but remember up until a few decades ago USyd had the only law school in sydney) and it is certainly not an indicator as to the quality of the program I can assure you.

If you want to become a lawyer then consider uni's like UNSW, UWS and UTS. If on the other hand you just want the university name then go to USyd or MacU who's law programs, by admission for their own graduates are far behind other universities.

Monash Uni in Melbourne is only 50 years old, but its law program is on the same level as UniMelb.

[tku336]

Hmm, i was wondering.

for my prefered course of commerce or eco /law, which uni would be better?

because most people seem to be saying sydney for a law degree, but nsw for an eco/commerce degree. that doesnt help a combined degree.

[bell531]

Originally Posted by Marmalade.

Monash Uni in Melbourne is only 50 years old, but its law program is on the same level as UniMelb.

That's pretty stupid. The age of an institution doesn't dictate the quality of it's offered course. Age is really only going to affect the prestige. Similarly in Sydney, UNSW has arguably a better law course, yet it's much younger. However, the prestige is no doubt more heavily focused on the older USyd.

[hYperTrOphY]

When people refer to 'best uni' for law, or 'best law program' what exactly do you mean?

For instance, bell531, you say that "UNSW has arguably a better law course" than USyd. How do you come to that finding? What do you base that conclusion on? What are the criteria?

[AsyLum]

Originally Posted by hYperTrOphY

When people refer to 'best uni' for law, or 'best law program' what exactly do you mean?

For instance, bell531, you say that "UNSW has arguably a better law course" than USyd. How do you come to that finding? What do you base that conclusion on? What are the criteria?

I'd say most people base it on job opportunities and the vocational aspects of the course, cos lets face it most lawyers are in it for the money, and in such an oversupplied marketplace, its those little things like 'prestige' and connections which will dictate who gets into the higher end of town.

[hYperTrOphY]

Originally Posted by AsyLum

I'd say most people base it on job opportunities and the vocational aspects of the course, cos lets face it most lawyers are in it for the money, and in such an oversupplied marketplace, its those little things like 'prestige' and connections which will dictate who gets into the higher end of town.

Perhaps. But if we take Bell531's response, for example, he says that UNSW has a better law program, but that USyd is more prestigious. Thus he appears to be treating quality as separate and distinct from prestige.

On the points you make:
1. Do you think the university you go to strongly impacts upon one's ability to make connections?

2. Do you think the correlation between the university you attend and your job prospects is causative in nature, or is it simply a consequence of the fact that the students who attend certain universities are the same students who have done well in the past, and are thus more likely to be better candidates in general? Because if it is the latter, the university you go to may have little impact at all.

[simonloo]

Harvard or Yale. Duh.

[bell531]

Originally Posted by hYperTrOphY

When people refer to 'best uni' for law, or 'best law program' what exactly do you mean?

For instance, bell531, you say that "UNSW has arguably a better law course" than USyd. How do you come to that finding? What do you base that conclusion on? What are the criteria?

There's no finding, I was trying to say that, in Sydney, it is widely accepted that the honour of "best" law course (as narrow minded a definition as that word creates) is between USyd and UNSW. It is argued intensely whether USyd's or UNSW's is better, but I by no means am trying to promote one or the other.

Originally Posted by AsyLum

I'd say most people base it on job opportunities and the vocational aspects of the course, cos lets face it most lawyers are in it for the money, and in such an oversupplied marketplace, its those little things like 'prestige' and connections which will dictate who gets into the higher end of town.

That's basically what I've gathered. Aside from the anecdotal evidence on here, the Dean of Sydney has said before that she believes a UAI of 80.00 would be a capable score for someone to undertake a Bachelor of Law at USyd. What causes the cut-off to reach the near unattainable heights of 99.55? Demand for the course. Therefore we can see that there isn't a direct link between UAI cut-offs for each course, and the intelligence of those students undertaking a course. The other factors which differentiate courses between the Uni's, including the 'prestige' and connections, no doubt increase the attractiveness of certain Universities over others.

Originally Posted by hYperTrOphY

Perhaps. But if we take Bell531's response, for example, he says that UNSW has a better law program, but that USyd is more prestigious. Thus he appears to be treating quality as separate and distinct from prestige.

On the points you make:
1. Do you think the university you go to strongly impacts upon one's ability to make connections?

2. Do you think the correlation between the university you attend and your job prospects is causative in nature, or is it simply a consequence of the fact that the students who attend certain universities are the same students who have done well in the past, and are thus more likely to be better candidates in general? Because if it is the latter, the university you go to may have little impact at all.

I didn't say UNSW is better, just that it has been argued to have been better. However, I do think quality of teaching is very different from 'prestige'.

As for your questions: The top Universities (in Sydney these are no doubt USyd and UNSW) attract the brightest and hardest working students, who go onto become the brightest and hardest working lawyers (for example). The knowledge that these Uni's create the best lawyers, over time, creates the appearance of 'prestige'.

When this reaches the 'second tier stage' (where school students are attracted to a Uni's 'prestige', and employers automatically assume the best in potential employees from said Uni because of the 'prestige'), there is an ongoing circle created. Benefitial or not, I'm unsure. However, at this second stage, there is a subconcsious advantage, in the mind of employers, of hiring students from a prestigious Uni. And when this becomes more widely known, students would no doubt prefer making connections, during their time at Uni, with the people who are given a subconcsious advantage in the workplace.

[spence]

Originally Posted by bell531

As for your questions: The top Universities (in Sydney these are no doubt USyd and UNSW) attract the brightest and hardest working students, who go onto become the brightest and hardest working lawyers (for example).

I disagree, as I hardly think the people who are getting the UAIs needed for entry to these courses are going to perform better at uni, or in the workforce

[Marmalade.]

Originally Posted by bell531

That's pretty stupid. The age of an institution doesn't dictate the quality of it's offered course. Age is really only going to affect the prestige. Similarly in Sydney, UNSW has arguably a better law course, yet it's much younger. However, the prestige is no doubt more heavily focused on the older USyd.

Are you saying that what I said was stupid? I didn't even offer an opinion, just stated a fact. My point was just an example that you can't say that reputation is based solely on whoever's been there longer.

[AsyLum]

Originally Posted by hYperTrOphY

Perhaps. But if we take Bell531's response, for example, he says that UNSW has a better law program, but that USyd is more prestigious. Thus he appears to be treating quality as separate and distinct from prestige.

On the points you make:
1. Do you think the university you go to strongly impacts upon one's ability to make connections?

2. Do you think the correlation between the university you attend and your job prospects is causative in nature, or is it simply a consequence of the fact that the students who attend certain universities are the same students who have done well in the past, and are thus more likely to be better candidates in general? Because if it is the latter, the university you go to may have little impact at all.

1. Not really, connections in this field are practically done well before university begins, ie, you're really born into the high-end of town, those who buck that trend are the exception rather than the rule. As an egalitarian society, we like to promote that anyone can become a chief justice etc, but that's just not true.

2. I think this is a bit more complex, and has more to do with the established partnerships in place, ie certain firms may be partnered with universities but as a requirement would have some say on what gets taught as part of the syllabus/course, so that those graduating are ready-to-go for the particular industry. Again, while there are those that buck this trend, it'd be more the exception. This may also explain why certain universities are considered to have an 'edge' on others in terms of graduate positions, because those 'partnered' courses/universities have been sponsored and thus the firm knows what standards and skills they are getting.

In this sense, the uni you go to will have a tremendous impact upon your job prospects but not in the way people think it may affect things. Again, reality is that most lawyers are there for a vocational reason and the big firms are centres of stability as well as status/money. Also, the reality of law courses are that there aren't any specific skills taught that are strictly 'law' skills, there aren't any formulaes or the like, and so the specialisations and understanding of processes are more important than actually understanding the philosophy of law.

For this reason, it seems fairly difficult to apply 'prestige' to undergraduate courses in the traditional sense of the word as the quality of courses are not really that far apart.

[ephemeral]

I disagree, as I hardly think the people who are getting the UAIs needed for entry to these courses are going to perform better at uni, or in the workforce

Why? That's like saying that intelligence and diligence have no bearing whatsoever on UAI results or that it intelligence and diligence have no bearing on whether you make a good lawyer. Choose your error.

As an egalitarian society, we like to promote that anyone can become a chief justice etc, but that's just not true.

I actually do think anyone could become Chief Justice, just not necessarily through traditional means. Two High Court judges in recent memory made it there without even having an undergrad law degree because their merit was recognised by people who could appreciate it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by ephemeral

Why? That's like saying that intelligence and diligence have no bearing whatsoever on UAI results or that it intelligence and diligence have no bearing on whether you make a good lawyer. Choose your error.

I think that, once you get past UAIs of, say, the high 80s, intelligence doesn't play much of a role, and it largely comes down to who has a better memory, or crammed harder, etc. Obviously hard work comes into it, but just because someone works hard for a year of high school doesn't mean they will keep it up over 4+years of uni, or in the workforce. I know plenty of people who went extremely well in high school, but have struggled in uni, and vice versa
Edit: Also, bear in mind in many cases we're talking about the differences between students who got, say, UAIs of 99.6 (and got into USyd), and those who got, say 99.2 (and missed out on the 'top universities.' I don't think this difference will have any bearing on how good a lawyer these students will become

[FreshOffTheBoat]

it will have an impact on how much of a head start you get after going out of uni. i certainly would think that if a company/law firm had a choice between a student from usyd (99.6 cutoff) and a student from newcastle (92.9 cutoff), they would pick the former simply because the student is more capable and because the course is more established.
of course later on in ur career, u determine how good of a lawyer you are, but having that head start definitely helps you climb to the top faster. thats y you see most of the top lawyers/barristers come from reputable unis.

[spence]

Originally Posted by FreshOffTheBoat

i certainly would think that if a company/law firm had a choice between a student from usyd (99.6 cutoff) and a student from newcastle (92.9 cutoff), they would pick the former simply because the student is more capable and because the course is more established.

I don't think the uni you attend comes into it as much as you would think. They would surely look at grades, extracurriculars, etc. before this