Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.