Best uni for studying Law?

[cannibal.horse]

You can hide this advertisement by registering.

What is really funny about these threads is it is a bunch of asians/migrants/ lower middle class kids who go to public select schools argueing about 'prestige' and 'old boys connections'.

News for you: going to sydney uni does not enter you into an old boys club - the place pumps out 500 law grads a year. Prestige and old boys connections come from who your daddy knows, what school you went to (eg Joeys, Scotch), and what yachting or rugby club you are affiliated with.

Almost nobody here is part of this. Its irrelevant for all but 2-3% of jobs in law anyway. If you really want in, start telling people you went to X private school, buy some paul and shark polos and get your Sperrys out brah!



PAUL & SHARK BRAH!




SPERRYS BRAH!




Wat? u think this is some kinda frat club boi? getcha shirt in brah!

[bell531]

Originally Posted by spence

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

Formally, but employers would subconsciously notice the Uni attended, and factor this into their final decision.

Originally Posted by Marmalade.

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.

Maybe stupid was too harsh, but you were certainly implying that it was an achievement of Monash that after only 50 years their law course was on par with Melbourne's, yet the age of the Uni does not dictate the quality of teaching.

[FreshOffTheBoat]

employers want the most highly trained/qualified applicants. there is great variation in the quality of the law courses. the unis with better courses will provide slightly better trained students (in general). employers want the better trained/qualified students. generally, u will find that the students from well respected unis have a lower unemployment rate after graduating. hence it does make a difference what uni u attend for law.

[cannibal.horse]

Originally Posted by FreshOffTheBoat

employers want the most highly trained/qualified applicants. there is great variation in the quality of the law courses. the unis with better courses will provide slightly better trained students (in general). employers want the better trained/qualified students. generally, u will find that the students from well respected unis have a lower unemployment rate after graduating. hence it does make a difference what uni u attend for law.

So, you realise that the supreme court regulates content taught in unis across the state so everybody is doing the same course brah?

And you also realise that only UTS/UNCLE/UoW are solicitors with experience straight out of uni brah?

Nice redundant arguement tho, brah.

[FreshOffTheBoat]

of course its all regulated. but not enuff. medicine on the other hand is, since ur dealing with ppls lives. but thats beside the point.
every uni is fully accredited thats a given. but some are better quality do u beg to differ? sure u can get a job if u graduated from UNCLE, but ur chances of getting the top starting jobs are diminshed compared to some1 from usyd. employers have certain prejudices/assumptions of different unis and rightly so. some are better than others.

lets use an analogy. all restruants must be keep to a certain standard of hygiene. however, some are more hygienic than others. most of the customers would obviously go to the more hygienic one.

if, as u say, all unis have the same course, y are some unis more competitive to get into that others?

[ephemeral]

Originally Posted by cannibal.horse

So, you realise that the supreme court regulates content taught in unis across the state so everybody is doing the same course brah?

And you also realise that only UTS/UNCLE/UoW are solicitors with experience straight out of uni brah?

Nice redundant arguement tho, brah.

I don't really understand anything you write?? Also as far as I know the Supreme Court has nothing whatsoever to do with the setting of university standards or accreditation programs? That sounds a bit far-fetched. I always thought it must be worked out by some sort of statutory committee. I don't have a clear idea where the accreditation actually comes from though so it'd be great if you have a link explaining it for me. I'm clearly not part of the club

[circusmind]

Originally Posted by FreshOffTheBoat

of course its all regulated. but not enuff. medicine on the other hand is, since ur dealing with ppls lives. but thats beside the point.

lol.

every uni is fully accredited thats a given. but some are better quality do u beg to differ? sure u can get a job if u graduated from UNCLE, but ur chances of getting the top starting jobs are diminshed compared to some1 from usyd. employers have certain prejudices/assumptions of different unis and rightly so. some are better than others.

The point is--Torts is Torts is Torts. Doesn't matter where you do it, a law degree is a pretty stock standard product. I'd wager that the main differences between unis are more to do with peripheral matters than the actual core courses.

if, as u say, all unis have the same course, y are some unis more competitive to get into that others?

How did you get into med school without understanding how the UAI system works? It's supply and demand. Uni choice depends on a lot more than perceived prestige of the various institutions--especially in Aus., where we don't really have as much of a culture of going interstate to go to uni as in the US, for example. Check out my own alma mater--ANU is a top notch uni, but it's also in Canberra.* The fact is that Canberra is an area of small population, that many are unwilling to locate to our fine city, most interstate students won't have friends going there, it's cold, Canberra is overly expensive, etc. etc. etc. All these are factors that affect a kid's choice of university education.

In any case, even if UAI was simply a reflection of the perceived quality of education provided by a given institution, it would not necessarily be accurate. What do yr 12 students really know about the quality of various courses at various institutions?

*NB: ANU sets its cut-offs itself, so it's a tad different. Still, the logic of my point holds true.

[FreshOffTheBoat]

sure torts is torts as u say. but different unis have different methods of delivery, levels of funding, quality of lecturers, facilities etc. these all play a part in determining the quality of the course. [i think this is where the disagreement lies]

the content may be the same, but the methods of teaching, assessment, and facilities vary greatly. the courses are not clones of each other. as long as a course covers the content in a appropriate manner, it will be accredited. some are on the boderline, some are well above it.
again, with the analogy of the resturuants. they all provide food, but the quality of the food varies.

ANU is a top notch uni no doubt. but u need to realise that ANU isnt the best uni in australia for its teaching of law. it is for research/science, completely different.

[melsc]

Originally Posted by FreshOffTheBoat

sure torts is torts as u say. but different unis have different methods of delivery, levels of funding, quality of lecturers, facilities etc. these all play a part in determining the quality of the course. [i think this is where the disagreement lies]

the content may be the same, but the methods of teaching, assessment, and facilities vary greatly. the courses are not clones of each other. as long as a course covers the content in a appropriate manner, it will be accredited. some are on the boderline, some are well above it.
again, with the analogy of the resturuants. they all provide food, but the quality of the food varies.

ANU is a top notch uni no doubt. but u need to realise that ANU isnt the best uni in australia for its teaching of law. it is for research/science, completely different.

Those differences have nothing to do with prestige and vary from subject to subject, faculty to faculty. Being someone who has seen the difference between UWS and MQ, MQ has a better rep for law (which it does not deserve) yet the majority of its law lecturers are bad and the courses focus way too much on theory and jurisprudence, of course UWS had some bad lecturers but in the end the majority were excellent and their balance between jurisprudence and practical elements, I also found their assignments more testing than MQ as they are trying to prove themselves. The point being, even USYD will have crap lecturers or a lack of funding (esp as most uni's suck the money out of law because it does not attract much funding and international students, thus does not make them much money) in certain subjects and this is not that important.

The subjects are strictly regulated, everyone must do the prescribed cores,while some uni's add extras this is not really that important as electives give us the choice to take whatever else they want (even if they do it at another uni), its not like however you can go and find all this out i.e. how well the uni's cirriculum mirrors the 'prisley 11' and reputation cannot tell you that!

Most of these things you have mentioned in terms of quality cannot be accessed by a prospective student, of course you can believe what they say but in the end you wont know what its like until you try it out.

Don't take prestige or reputation for granted, it does not tell you teaching quality, how well the course rated in its accreditation or the amount of funding.

Those of us who know our uni's reputation is not great work hard to counter balance it with good marks, work experience and other activities, I would watch out and not get complacent with the reputation of the institution, not only can it change and be misguided but hard work will not go completely un-noticed!

[trickx]

Omg, I love melsc

[04er]

Originally Posted by Lucid Scintilla

USyd:
+Timetabling is preeetty awesome.

I concur, I have had a 2 day a week timetable for most of my degree, with the odd 3 day a week timetable. Not sure how it is at other unis.

[circusmind]

Originally Posted by FreshOffTheBoat

sure torts is torts as u say. but different unis have different methods of delivery, levels of funding, quality of lecturers, facilities etc. these all play a part in determining the quality of the course. [i think this is where the disagreement lies]

Of course. But I suggest the difference in this regard between individual lecturers/courses within a given faculty would be far greater than that between different faculties considered as a whole. The quality of facilities is not so much an issue with a law school--all you need is a law lib. Sure, shiny buildings and moot courts are nice, but the actual value added to a legal education with this sort of investment is much less than it would be in, for example, a science or medical degree where labs etc. really go to the core of the learning process.

(disclosure: ANU law student disillusioned with less-than-sexy law school buildings)

the content may be the same, but the methods of teaching, assessment, and facilities vary greatly. the courses are not clones of each other. as long as a course covers the content in a appropriate manner, it will be accredited. some are on the boderline, some are well above it.
again, with the analogy of the resturuants. they all provide food, but the quality of the food varies.

Again, the variety within a given faculty negates the notion that a more 'prestigious' uni will consistently have a superior standard of courses. You should remember that many criticisms have been levelled at sandstone institutions at various times about their reticence to move forward in their teaching methods. Age and ivy is not necessarily conducive to enlightened teaching. Likewise top researchers are not always crash hot lecturers, and vice versa. As you rightly note, prestige is not necessarily based on undergrad experience, and indeed rarely is.

ANU is a top notch uni no doubt. but u need to realise that ANU isnt the best uni in australia for its teaching of law. it is for research/science, completely different.

Indeed. And that is precisely my point. Students should choose their degrees based on a finer apreciation of what various institutions have to offer. I didn't choose ANU because I thought: 'ANU > everyone else'. I thought that, for me, with an interest in public policy/govt. work, and a focus on public/constitutional/international law, ANU was the best uni for me. Making this sort of decision is harder than just saying Uni X > Uni Y, but it is also far more accurate.

To take your restaurant analogy: you don't order seafood at a steakhouse in Alice Springs. The choice of restaurant should be tailored towards what you are specifically looking for in a meal.

[cottoneye]

Originally Posted by circusmind

Indeed. And that is precisely my point. Students should choose their degrees based on a finer apreciation of what various institutions have to offer. I didn't choose ANU because I thought: 'ANU > everyone else'. I thought that, for me, with an interest in public policy/govt. work, and a focus on public/constitutional/international law, ANU was the best uni for me. Making this sort of decision is harder than just saying Uni X > Uni Y, but it is also far more accurate.

As has been elaborated, a prospective student coming out of high school cannot really know the quality of a prospective faculty outside of what can be (often mistakenly) extrapolated from entry requirements that do not reflect quality but demand.

I would argue, as has been touched on above, that the best way to decide the right university for you is to consider more basic elements than nebulous notions of prestige. It is a mistake to follow prestige over practicality. Consider your needs, can you get there easily, is the campus serviced by public transport, does it have well maintained student facilities, an active campus life, affordable housing, etc. An unhappy student is not going to be a successful student. Nice buildings do not necessarily influence educational outcomes, but if you cannot access material because a terrible library, or you cannot get to the campus easily, I would think twice about your choice.

Regarding employment, I would not be too concerned about the 'prestige' element being the primary determinant. Most employers know that different universities attract different students and assess them differently. They take this into account when assessing an application. A poor performing student at an 'elite' university will not get a position ahead of a stellar performer at a notionally weaker institution.

[Marmalade.]

Originally Posted by bell531

Formally, but employers would subconsciously notice the Uni attended, and factor this into their final decision.

I think that's total bull. Some employer may prefer certain universities, but you cannot say that all employers consider university. I would guess that, for most employers, the reputation of a candidate's university may only be relevant where the candidates are practically identical in terms of grades, work experience, extra-curricular and interview performance. These are the important factors.

It may be different when applying for overseas positions, however.

[Marmalade.]

Originally Posted by cottoneye

Regarding employment, I would not be too concerned about the 'prestige' element being the primary determinant. Most employers know that different universities attract different students and assess them differently. They take this into account when assessing an application. A poor performing student at an 'elite' university will not get a position ahead of a stellar performer at a notionally weaker institution.

What about if the two students weren't so extremely different? What if, instead of one being crap and the other great, they were fairly similar in terms of performance? (I'm guessing that performance refers to grades?) Uni reputation won't save a terrible student, but what about an average student who is compared to a slightly better than average student at a university with a somewhat worse reputation?