What do employers think of UWS? (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

Whoever is believing that UWS = Usyd/Unsw etc especially in the field of law is kidding themselves and knows nothing about the industry. Speak more to your teachers (ones whom actually are currently practicing law), ask them if which uni you go to counts...

 

[sikeveo]

I guess its expected from Law students. And also the fact that they have to fight for jobs when the finish their degree compared to med school grads who have one straight away after completing their degree.

But UWS generally doesn't have that a good reputation (which may not be reflective of the quality of the graduates), but i guess the new med school will increase the reputation?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No UWS will not have an increased reputation because we have a stupid admin, little pride in our uni (and for good reason), the lowest entrance marks possible (some uni has to take those whom are not good enough for the others), etc..

It has nothing to do with the courses.

 

[melsc]

I still think the attitude will extend to the med degree

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It will... but there will be less discussion about it. Law is an industry where there is alot of pompus university bias, I dunno about med, maybe overseas it's a bit more like that but here I think you get the same sort of job no matter which uni you come from.

 

[LaraB]

Firstly, no one said it was ill-fated, they were talking about the current state of affairs.

Secondly, I thought the point of what people opposing UWS was that it wasn't the same level of education that Easterners 'pride' themselves for.

Thirdly haven't people kept saying in this thread that high-tier firms weren't their goal, that the bar was, and that UWS was perfectly able in that area.

i think you misinterpret what some of use meant... by saying the bar was my goal.. me speaking for myself and a few others who i know on this board... the bar is just the 1st goal... obviously its useless aiming for a top tier firm if you haven't passed the bar yet... it'd be like worrying about your Green P's test if you can't even put a car in gear yet (lame analogy i know..got my green p test soon... so yeah 1st thing that came to mind)

we're simply taking it a step at a time...

 

[sikeveo]

The median UAI of successful applicants will still be exceptionally high anyway, so I guess it wont matter.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

i think you misinterpret what some of use meant... by saying the bar was my goal.. me speaking for myself and a few others who i know on this board... the bar is just the 1st goal... obviously its useless aiming for a top tier firm if you haven't passed the bar yet... it'd be like worrying about your Green P's test if you can't even put a car in gear yet (lame analogy i know..got my green p test soon... so yeah 1st thing that came to mind)

Um, what? The typical path is that you goto a firm first and then after building up contacts and experience there, then you goto the bar

You need connections at the bar - no one will send you briefs if they don't know who you are!

 

[hYperTrOphY]

Well, no employer is going to openly say that you weren't hired because you went to UWS.

But it does happen.

It works like this:

Assume each person makes a rational choice about what uni they want to go to: the best one they can get in to.

UWS has lower cutoffs than other universities. Therefore, the candidates are weaker. That means you will have trouble getting a job, because you are a weak candidate.

I don't see how that argument is valid. If you're an employer, are you going to be more interested in the university they went to (because it might be an indication of their intellectual capacity), or the marks they have achieved in the field they are applying for during university? I believe the latter is a far better representation of an individual's ability.

I will not say whether UWS graduates are disadvantaged when applying for jobs in top tier law firms, simply because I do not know. I am not a law student (yet), and I doubt employers would openly admit that they are prejudice. In saying that, I do believe that if you have good marks, involve yourself in mooting competitions, work experience, employment etc and present yourself well in an interview, the influence that the university you attended has over your ability to gain employment should be at least diminshed somewhat.

 

[melsc]

I don't see how that argument is valid. If you're an employer, are you going to be more interested in the university they went to (because it might be an indication of their intellectual capacity), or the marks they have achieved in the field they are applying for during university? I believe the latter is a far better representation of an individual's ability.

I will not say whether UWS graduates are disadvantaged when applying for jobs in top tier law firms, simply because I do not know. I am not a law student (yet), and I doubt employers would openly admit that they are prejudice. In saying that, I do believe that if you have good marks, involve yourself in mooting competitions, work experience, employment and present yourself well in an interview, the influence that the university you attended has over your ability to gain employment should be at least diminshed somewhat.

well said

 

[LaraB]

Um, what? The typical path is that you goto a firm first and then after building up contacts and experience there, then you goto the bar

You need connections at the bar - no one will send you briefs if they don't know who you are!

no you misinterpreted what i meant...
so don't talk down at me like i'm a moron because you're not the only one who is thinking about a career path..

what i was referring to was the fact that marks and understanding the content are most important at the moment because if you end up at a top tier firm but don't know family law from torts you have no hope of passing the bar... you can get a job at a top tier firm after passing the bar more easily than passing the bar just because you found yourself a top tier firm....

EDIT : being a member of a top tier firm doesn't help if you don't have the qualifications to do the job...

just as with uni - contacts and prestige doesn't mean shit unless you know the content of the actual profession

it may surprise you that names don't mean everything - if you're good at what you do people will know who you are. If you're some bottom level pleb at a top tier firm no one will know who you are. I'd much rather be top level at a recognised 'mid-tier' firm than a crappy bottom level bum at a top tier firm.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Something I wrote some time ago:


Law Degrees - Does it make a difference?

It does make a difference where you get your law degree, all else being equal. To deny this would be wishful thinking. Some institutions have a better rep and will give you a better chance on the academic level of being appealing to employers. There is no question about this.

However, it is a matter of "to what extent". Experience, good grades, personal skills, character and participation in other activities are also extremely important factors which combined outweigh the importance of the degree. So degree is not everything by all means, but it does make a difference. Think of your academic degree as a weapon in your arsenal. Some might be finer balanced or sharper than others, giving an edge in the fight. But it doesn't determine the battle by itself.

 

[LaraB]

Something I wrote some time ago:


Law Degrees - Does it make a difference?

It does make a difference where you get your law degree, all else being equal. To deny this would be wishful thinking. Some institutions have a better rep and will give you a better chance on the academic level of being appealing to employers. There is no question about this.

However, it is a matter of "to what extent". Experience, good grades, personal skills, character and participation in other activities are also extremely important factors which combined outweigh the importance of the degree. So degree is not everything by all means, but it does make a difference. Think of your academic degree as a weapon in your arsenal. Some might be finer balanced or sharper than others, giving an edge in the fight. But it doesn't determine the battle by itself.

it would hold about 50 times more weight if it wasn't something you'd written yourself

 

[sikeveo]

There is discrimination. My mums patient is high up in a law firm, and expressed his dislike for Usyd grads. He much preferred UNSW grads. (cant remember the reason though)

 

[melsc]

why dont we just start a thread specifically for arguing...

 

[MoonlightSonata]

no you misinterpreted what i meant...
so don't talk down at me like i'm a moron because you're not the only one who is thinking about a career path..

An exclamation mark does not imply that you are a moron.

what i was referring to was the fact that marks and understanding the content are most important at the moment because if you end up at a top tier firm but don't know family law from torts you have no hope of passing the bar... you can get a job at a top tier firm after passing the bar more easily than passing the bar just because you found yourself a top tier firm....

EDIT : being a member of a top tier firm doesn't help if you don't have the qualifications to do the job...

What? I think you are mistaking practicing certificate for solicitors and bar exams for barristers. You don't need to pass the bar exams to become part of a law firm.

 

[LaraB]

why dont we just start a thread specifically for arguing...

it wouldn't work - haven't you noticed that to attract arguing you have to pose a question about the quality of UWS?

if you posted up a thread saying "The only people who should be allowed to be doctors are white anglo saxon males" you'd get 1000 times less argumetn.....

 

[melsc]

just to let you know, the person who started this thread is interested in Criminology

 

[MoonlightSonata]

it would hold about 50 times more weight if it wasn't something you'd written yourself

What is your problem? I am not allowed to voice my opinion?

 

[LaraB]

An exclamation mark does not imply that you are a moron.
What? I think you are mistaking practicing certificate for solicitors and bar exams for barristers. You don't need to pass the bar exams to become part of a law firm.

then you think wrong.

i said 'to do the job' i didn't say "to be a member of a law firm"

if i am talking about the bar, obviously i am talking about becoming a barrister so in that case you do need to pass the bar to have the qualifications to do the job...