Considering law at uni but really unsure. Please help! (1 Viewer)

[choke]

I've finished the HSC with an ATAR of 96.95. I know that means I can't get directly into law courses at the top universities (UNSW or USYD) but I'm considering it. I went to a school that is considered "disadvantaged", so I am eligible for the "five bonus points scheme". I was also thinking about combining law with commerce, however, I'm really unsure! :S

Just a few things that I want/need to know... please help! And sorry for re-asking the same questions!

* say for example I do get into law, will I be disadvantaged because I didn't get 99+ whilst competing with the top students who DID achieve that score? I felt very dissuaded by a friend of mine because she insisted it would be impossible to catch up with the work load etc... I'd really like to hear some advice and opinions!
* is law really hard?? I heard there is A LOT of reading involved :S
* what level of English is required? I studied Advanced English with a band 6, although I've also heard that that doesn't indicate you'll be any good in law =/
* is it a boring course? is it rewarding?
* what are the job prospects like?

Thanks!!

 

[Ethanescence]

In all reality, one of the main reasons law is 99+ for UNSW and USyd is because of the high demand for the course, and the limited number of places. Therefore there is usually a high ATAR/UAI cut-off. It has nothing to do with the actual difficulty of the course itself.

If you look at law at UOW it is similar content to UNSW or USyd law - albeit it is less competitive. And I think you only need around 90-95 for UOW law, last time I checked.

If you managed to get 90+ in the HSC, you won't be disadvantaged, per se. It might be difficult achieving marks close to the students that were able to gain near-perfect ATARs, yet you'll still be able to grasp the content and if you work hard enough you'll be able to catch up with the top students.

That being said, to do well in law you have to be passionate about it. My brother did a commerce/law double degree, and he never mentioned wanting to do law and had minimal interest in law prior to completing the HSC. Although he loved commerce, law wasn't his forte. But he chose to do law also, for whatever reason.

Do some research and ask some past/current law students to find out if you'll enjoy it.

 

[dste6]

I'll attempt to answer these questions, however, some of them are quite subjective so thesee are not absolutes.

1) Don't listen to your friend. Not to be rude, but she doesn't sound like she knows what shes talking about with a statement like that. There will be no such thing as 'catching up' when you start law. It is a very different discipline to anything else, and everyone (natural ability aside) starts from the same level of knowledge; it is a great 'leveler'.

My personal opinion is that ENTER/ATAR is not a good indicator of academic ability in university: I've seen too many lower scoring people excel in uni, and high scoring people fail.

I believe that people who are able to score in the 90's in high school have the capacity/potential to do any university degree, including law.

2) Law is hard. It's a different way of thinking, that you have to adjust to. There is a massive amount of reading; you cannot rely on rote learning, you have to understand concepts. You must learn to manage your time and identify important information.

3) Good English skills are important, as law involves alot of fine analysis and interpretation of language. If you did well in advanced english, this will not be the limiting factor for you in law.

4) This is absolutely subjective. Personally, I enjoy law because at it's core it is problem solving that is applicable to every day life. Ask yourself: what interests you? why do you want to do law? If you are able to, sit in on a couple of law lectures.

5) Job prospects depend on a huge number of factors. First and foremost, your own performance (marks). Also, what areas your interested in, what your goals are, what university you finish. Most graduates are employable as there is demand for legal roles in wide range or industries and sectors.

A statistic that has been thrown at me is that only 40% of graduates will end up in 'legal practice' (ie solicitors and barristers). This is not necessarily a bad thing, as the rest enter industry or public sector, with job being quite interesting and overall employment rates being quite high. However, if your goals are narrow: working as a solicitor in the Big 6, then prospects are slim, as competition is fierce. My advice is to be realistic and flexible.

 

[philphie]

I've finished the HSC with an ATAR of 96.95. I know that means I can't get directly into law courses at the top universities (UNSW or USYD) but I'm considering it. I went to a school that is considered "disadvantaged", so I am eligible for the "five bonus points scheme". I was also thinking about combining law with commerce, however, I'm really unsure! :S

Just a few things that I want/need to know... please help! And sorry for re-asking the same questions!

* say for example I do get into law, will I be disadvantaged because I didn't get 99+ whilst competing with the top students who DID achieve that score? I felt very dissuaded by a friend of mine because she insisted it would be impossible to catch up with the work load etc... I'd really like to hear some advice and opinions!
* is law really hard?? I heard there is A LOT of reading involved :S
* what level of English is required? I studied Advanced English with a band 6, although I've also heard that that doesn't indicate you'll be any good in law =/
* is it a boring course? is it rewarding?
* what are the job prospects like?

Thanks!!

don't judge a course by its cutoff, a cutoff just signifies demand, nothing else, even professors at universities have pointed out the somewhat flawed nature of this. and if you actually plan on becoming a lawyer you have to go to law school so you can still major in law in an arts degree then go to law school rather than taking pre-law. and there is no such thing as catchup work when you haven't even started uni.

english is an indicator to your interpretive and analytical skills, nothing more.

the course is what you make of it. if you're interested in public policy, crime, human rights, international affairs, corporate regulations then by all means do it, don't do the course just for the career prospects, you'll end up in a job you hate.

doing a law degree can lead onto anything you want. solicitor, real estate agent, barrister, magistrate, policy advisor, politician, etc.

 

[dude01]

don't judge a course by its cutoff, a cutoff just signifies demand, nothing else, even professors at universities have pointed out the somewhat flawed nature of this. and if you actually plan on becoming a lawyer you have to go to law school so you can still major in law in an arts degree then go to law school rather than taking pre-law. and there is no such thing as catchup work when you haven't even started uni.

What does this mean? I didn't know it was possible to major in 'law' in an arts degree. There's no such thing as pre-law in Australia. Law at university starts from the very basics and everyone will be in the same position. It is also completely different to HSC legal studies.

Law is a lot of work, but it's actually not that hard if you're happy with passes and credits. IMO even students with a UAI of 80+ would be able to do decently in a law degree, as long as they work hard and have above average english skills.

I admit that I (and many other people in my course who I've spoken to) see law as just an 'advanced' arts type degree, which will improve employability in many areas - whether it be in government or corporate career.

 

[mpack]

Whilst 96.95 is a good mark, you need to put it in context.

Now I can only talk from experience about Law at Syd Uni, but I can assume that UNSW is quite similar.

Will you struggle? - In short, Yes.

You have to remeber that the majority of the kids at Syd are 99.5+ standard and come from selective schools. Competition is in their nature and this doesn't stop just because they get to uni. In fact it gets worse.

I actually transferred in after a year, and so know first hand how high the standard is and how hard it is to compete for the good marks. Yes you may be lucky to get a few Ds in subjects you work very very hard at, but if you do choose to go there, be prepared for a lot of Cs and Ps. Especially now Syd Law has introduced a stupid bell curve system to make life even tougher for its graduates.

So my advice - Go somewhere that suits your academic ability. It is much better to be towards the top of your cohort rather than scraping by. The fact that there are just too many law grads means that employers now rely quite significantly on raw uni marks. Prestige, which Syd has, no longer means what it used to. So do yourself a favour and choose a uni that will give you the best possible marks.

 

[Domm]

I disagree with the above.

I'm a postgrad but I had a class with undergrads last semester, admittedly at UTS, and you're talking on the whole about a complete bunch of spuds. They still needed high UAIs to get where they were, many came from elite private and selective schools. With the exception of a few of them they're were all spoon fed by their schools to pass an exam and nothing more. They couldn't apply the real skills needed for law to a standard required for escape for a large, faculty building shaped paper bag.

The drop out rate for uni, and particularly law is huge. These are kids that come from selective schools and elite private schools and in general have a really high opinion of themselves, are not immune from this. Law requires an analytical, social and language ability that competitive cramming really won't necessarily give you. I believe it when people say that law school is the great eqauliser.

Further, noone, or at least noone that matters, gives a shit about your UAI after you walk into the uni gates. It's completely meaningless. If you can put in the hard work to learn the skills involved in law you can succeed at it.

Don't be discouraged.

 

[mpack]

Like I said I am only talking about Syd Uni, which is the only place I have first hand knowledge of.

With regards to UTS I can only tell you what I have heard from friends that attended there. From there accounts things are not that much different. Perhaps things are different as a grad or perhaps you just look at them in a different light.

With regards to UAI, employers can and do take this into account. I am assuming that you are not at that stage in your degree, but for me it has come and gone, and yes it was very surprising that exams I sat 5 years previously were inquired about at half the interviews.

Delude yourself if you like, or even totally disregard all I have said. It does not effect me. I am just trying to shed some light on the situation as a person who has ACTUALLY experienced the scenario enquired about.

If you get 96.95 and go to Syd Uni you will find it tough. That does not mean you will fail, but the odds are highly against you getting the university medal.

 

[Domm]

I've had a lot of job interviews and noone has asked about my UAI. In fact, if they did, I would worry that I had failed to highlight more important or relevant aspects of my experience, or that the interview had drawn to a point where it's almost small talk asking about my HSC results.

I promise you OP that UAI or ATAR or whatever you kids call it these days, is not a measure of your intelligence, it is not a measure of anything about you at all. Mentioning it after you've just graduated is in fact only a measure of your egoism. A few points here or there is not going to determine how good you're going to be at law at Sydney or anywhere else or anything else for that matter. If you can handle the analytical skills and the English and ploughing through boring shit then you can do law. Those are the determinants, not UAIs. UAIs measure how much you were spoonfed in school, how much you crammed and how good you are at regurgitating information. The skill sets are compeltely different.

We're only talking about a few points anyway. Its almost as if I'm saying this to someone who got at 75 or something. But I think it would be equally true even if I were.

 

[melsc]

I've finished the HSC with an ATAR of 96.95. I know that means I can't get directly into law courses at the top universities (UNSW or USYD) but I'm considering it. I went to a school that is considered "disadvantaged", so I am eligible for the "five bonus points scheme". I was also thinking about combining law with commerce, however, I'm really unsure! :S

Just a few things that I want/need to know... please help! And sorry for re-asking the same questions!

* say for example I do get into law, will I be disadvantaged because I didn't get 99+ whilst competing with the top students who DID achieve that score? I felt very dissuaded by a friend of mine because she insisted it would be impossible to catch up with the work load etc... I'd really like to hear some advice and opinions!
* is law really hard?? I heard there is A LOT of reading involved :S
* what level of English is required? I studied Advanced English with a band 6, although I've also heard that that doesn't indicate you'll be any good in law =/
* is it a boring course? is it rewarding?
* what are the job prospects like?

Thanks!!

*Like many have said the ATAR is not indicative of ability and often many of those students with lower ATARs do better than some of those with higher ones because they work hard and enjoy what they do and in the end thats what its about. Your friend is wrong, sounds like she's taking a high school mindset and applying it at university.
*Law requires hard work and dedication, it is hard BUT it will seem a lot harder if its not something you want to do (i.e. doing it for the oooo ahhh factor or to please your parents).
*Good communication (oral and written), comprehension and analytical skills are needed. University English is entirely different and isn't a good judge, but given your HSC mark in advanced you must have these skills and their application to university level work is learnt in the first year.
*It will be boring if you don't have the interest but that said you may still find it boring on occasion because there are some subjects you have to do that you may not want to but I generally find it interesting, in particular when you start with electives. Also you will find that its broken up by the other degree subjects you are also doing which is sometimes a nice change.
*job prospects depend on the effort you put in at uni, extra curriculars and the work experience you get. Also how far you cast your net, you can work in law firms, govt departments, as a barrister...many companies also have in house legal roles as do community organisations, its competative but there are a lot of things you can do with the degree

Good luck

Like I said I am only talking about Syd Uni, which is the only place I have first hand knowledge of.

With regards to UTS I can only tell you what I have heard from friends that attended there. From there accounts things are not that much different. Perhaps things are different as a grad or perhaps you just look at them in a different light.

With regards to UAI, employers can and do take this into account. I am assuming that you are not at that stage in your degree, but for me it has come and gone, and yes it was very surprising that exams I sat 5 years previously were inquired about at half the interviews.

Delude yourself if you like, or even totally disregard all I have said. It does not effect me. I am just trying to shed some light on the situation as a person who has ACTUALLY experienced the scenario enquired about.

If you get 96.95 and go to Syd Uni you will find it tough. That does not mean you will fail, but the odds are highly against you getting the university medal.

I respect your opinion but I do not agree in the slightest, ATAR means crap all once you get to uni and the ONLY reason the cut off is that high is supply and demand, the dean of USYD law school said when I went to an open day that someone of ATAR of 80 would cope fine, you'll find a tone of usyd students are transfer students with much lower ATARS than 99+

 

[mpack]

Domm it is dangerous and misleading to speak of things that you do not know about, but pretend to be an authority on. You do not go to Syd Uni you go to UTS.

Might I remind you that the individual initially asked about USYD and UNSW, not UTS. UTS has an average UAI entry of 97.7 for law and UYSD has 99.55 as a cut-off. Perhaps it is easy to get spoon fed enough at school to obtain the required 97.7 to get into UTS, not sure as Idid not attend UTS so cannot comment on their cohort.

So perhaps you should leave the comments regarding USYD and UNSW to people that ACTUALLY attend those institutions, instead of making unfounded allegations.

Moreover, I challenge you to find an individual that received a UAI mark in excess of 99.6, which the majority of USYD got and convince anyone that actually knows them that they are not smart, but were merely spoon fed.

On the point of UAI, maybe you didn't apply for Hunt & Hunt (anual revenue last year of $46 million, so not a small fry). Check out there application form. Not only does it require UAI to be stated it also requires a certified copy. Try dodging that one with your 'I'm so wonderful and a team player, blah blah blah.' Stick to what you know, not what you can make up.

 

[dste6]

If you get 96.95 and go to Syd Uni you will find it tough. That does not mean you will fail, but the odds are highly against you getting the university medal.

Your argument relies on the assumption that performance in high school as reflected by UAI reliably correlates with performance at university. You are assuming that:

a) Choke reached the absolute ceiling of her potential in scoring 96.95 b) That her ability will remain static, and that she will never be able to do any better than this. c) That a difference of 2 UAI points is enough of a margin to predict who will struggle and who will not.

All of the above assumptions are flawed for a number of reasons:

a) We have no idea of the circumstances that caused Choke to score 96.95, maybe she chose the wrong subjects which require a different set of skills to success than law (adv. maths). But I don't want to speculate, my point is that a score of close as makes no difference to 97 can not be used to dismiss a person's ability.

b) People's abilities do not peak at the age of 18. Individual's improve through maturity and practice, or diminish through burn out or misc (re: drop out rate).

c) 2 UAI can be used to exclude people from a course simply by necessity of limiting places (which the system is based on). Back in the day, full fee places would allow people with a score as much as 4 or 5+ point short to enter the course confirms this. You cannot say with any certainty that a person who is 2 points short, particularly from a disadvantaged situation, will not be competitive in the future.

So, simply by looking at Choke's situation, it is not possible to tell with certain that she will be unable to perform well. The tone of your arguement and the the weak assumption on which it is based suggests that your answer is based more on prejudice than logic or experience.

Mpak, for someone who claims to have passed through the university and even post-university system, your views are startlingly like that of a high schooler: UAI-centric. This does not match reality of university or the job market.

Choke, in short, if you want to do law and can get into USyd or UNSW, do it. Don't let anyone tell you what you are or aren't capable of.

 

[choke]

I figured that I'd get conflicting responses lol =/ but thanks anyways to all!! I really appreciate it

 

[mpack]

Mpak, for someone who claims to have passed through the university and even post-university system, your views are startlingly like that of a high schooler: UAI-centric. This does not match reality of university or the job market.

If it helps you sleep at night.

I do not have to justify my qualifications to you. If you do not like what I have to say, ignore it. It was not intended for you. However, for those that are looking for some insight, I did attend Syd Uni and am a graduate lawyer.

If you wish you can listen to people that did not attend the institution you are seeking information about. That is an individual's prerogative. But I would warn against that. Because all of their information is based on what they have heard, not what they have experienced.

Choke, in short, if you want to do law and can get into USyd or UNSW, do it. Don't let anyone tell you what you are or aren't capable of.

I agree if you have a passion for law, pursue it. You have the potential to be an excellent lawyer in the future. But the take home message is PICK YOUR UNI WITH CARE.

Out of the 30 of my friends and acquaintances that received first class honours in law, not one of them received a UAI (as it was in the day) of less than 99.55. I am not saying do not do law, rather choose an institution that will place you at the top of the group, not the bottom.

Because irrespective of what anyone tells you (such as prestige of the Uni or extra curricular activities) the single largest determining factor it getting you a clerkship place is marks.

 

[chewy123]

If it makes you feel any better, my uai is worse than yours (96.00) and I got into unsw law with eas. Currently I am on a Dn average (whether or not i can maintain this next yr is another story).
But frankly my first yr at uni isn't the best experience in my life..though everyone will experience it differently.

 

[dste6]

I do not have to justify my qualifications to you. If you do not like what I have to say, ignore it. It was not intended for you. However, for those that are looking for some insight, I did attend Syd Uni and am a graduate lawyer.

I couldn't care less about what you have to say, my aim here was merely to intercept a fairly malignant arguement on it's way to Choke: that she should not attend the best law schools in the state (be it uSyd or UNSW), which she clearly is interested in doing, because shes not good enough, even if she gets in.

It would be fine if she had gotten an 80 or something. But in the situation that we're talking about, this doesn't not seem rational, for the reasons i've outlined above.

Now, when all that your arguement is backed up ONLY by is the authority of your qualifications (which it is), as oppose to sound logic or facts, then yes, of course you have to justify them.

This'll be my last post on the arguement.

 

[Domm]

Domm it is dangerous and misleading to speak of things that you do not know about, but pretend to be an authority on. You do not go to Syd Uni you go to UTS.

Might I remind you that the individual initially asked about USYD and UNSW, not UTS. UTS has an average UAI entry of 97.7 for law and UYSD has 99.55 as a cut-off. Perhaps it is easy to get spoon fed enough at school to obtain the required 97.7 to get into UTS, not sure as Idid not attend UTS so cannot comment on their cohort.

So perhaps you should leave the comments regarding USYD and UNSW to people that ACTUALLY attend those institutions, instead of making unfounded allegations.

Moreover, I challenge you to find an individual that received a UAI mark in excess of 99.6, which the majority of USYD got and convince anyone that actually knows them that they are not smart, but were merely spoon fed.

On the point of UAI, maybe you didn't apply for Hunt & Hunt (anual revenue last year of $46 million, so not a small fry). Check out there application form. Not only does it require UAI to be stated it also requires a certified copy. Try dodging that one with your 'I'm so wonderful and a team player, blah blah blah.' Stick to what you know, not what you can make up.

I'm Sydney Uni alumni. But even were I not I think this advice whether coming from me or from the postman would be equally correct. Like the postman (probably) I've also got a lot of academic and life experience. There's no allegations about anyone and what I said is hardly misleading and certainly not dangerous.

Given that I don't know you its difficult for me to point to individuals like that but rest assured that if I did I'd be able to. This is like a year 7 school debate.

Those of us that are older, undergrads and postgrads for example, need to be looking at our present and our future, not some number from when we were 18. You're putting a lot of emphasis on the latter and your one experience with some company that I've never heard of (though maybe that's an indication of my ignorance, I think it's you clutching at straws) hardly convinces me (or anyone else I assume) of anything.

 

[mpack]

Now, when all that your arguement is backed up ONLY by is the authority of your qualifications (which it is), as oppose to sound logic or facts, then yes, of course you have to justify them.

This'll be my last post on the arguement.

As opposed to the extensive list of factual references you have made through the course of your comments. I am glad you have taken such a mature approach. heaven forbid you meet someone in your professional life that disagrees with your point of view.

As per Domm, I used the Hunt and Hunt example as a situation where no one, no matter how good they are at twisting the situation, could avoid answering what UAI they got. If you want bigger names I have examples of them too, although I do not think that will be necessary. The facts I provide are to appease those such as dste6.

I personally do not think employers should ask for UAIs as I think what is in the past should be left there. However, it does not change the fact that it does happen. Take it from someone with more experience than yourself.

I am not discouraging anyone from doing law, rather trying to help you finish with the best possible options available to you. In my opinion prestige does not weigh as heavily as marks do.

So if you were someone that through some misadventure scored lower than you should have, imagine the damage you could do at a lower uni, perhaps even university medalist. consider what options would be available to you at the end of your degree. You could work for any large corporate or even be at the top of the list of people to work for Legal Aid.

why trade the ability to leave uni with the best possible options for prestige and bragging rights.

Hey, but what would I know, I have just been through the whole system and had many friends at various other unis go through the same situation.

If you value the advice of someone that does not even go to the institution you are enquiring about so highly, then that is your choice. Select Syd Uni. There are some fantastic points about doing law at USYD.

But just remember that if it turns out not to be the walk in the park you were promissed, by the likes of people who were speculating on issues they did not have first hand knowledge of. Then remember you were warned and perhaps you will have better luck convincing the younger generations of the perils you encountered first hand. Or perhaps you will be ignored and drowned out by those with as much insight as to the internal workings of law at Syd Uni, as the postman.

 

[cottoneye]

OP: you will be in no worse a position than any other new university student because of your high school grades. Such scores are strongly dependent upon the school you attended and seeing as how yours is classed as 'disadvantaged' would incline me to posit that your score is more of an achievement than someone with a 99.9 that went to one of the state's top schools. You will be fine! Whether you enjoy it or not is entirely subjective.

 

[TehAzner]

I've finished the HSC with an ATAR of 96.95. I know that means I can't get directly into law courses at the top universities (UNSW or USYD) but I'm considering it. I went to a school that is considered "disadvantaged", so I am eligible for the "five bonus points scheme". I was also thinking about combining law with commerce, however, I'm really unsure! :S

Just a few things that I want/need to know... please help! And sorry for re-asking the same questions!

* say for example I do get into law, will I be disadvantaged because I didn't get 99+ whilst competing with the top students who DID achieve that score? I felt very dissuaded by a friend of mine because she insisted it would be impossible to catch up with the work load etc... I'd really like to hear some advice and opinions!
* is law really hard?? I heard there is A LOT of reading involved :S
* what level of English is required? I studied Advanced English with a band 6, although I've also heard that that doesn't indicate you'll be any good in law =/
* is it a boring course? is it rewarding?
* what are the job prospects like?

Thanks!!

So many interesting responses so far, I'm quite fascinated ^^

Anyway, I'll add a bit of my own thoughts to this open-minded OP.

(1) As others have posted, not getting 99+ will NOT disadvantage you. Like Mpack I got a lower UAI and transferred after one year and I'm getting my Distinction average as well. No offence to your friend, but there are many people who are currently studying law and did not obtain a UAI of 99+, and they're doing exceptionally well.
(2) Is law hard? Again this is subjective. Personally since I have a fondness for law readings I find it to be quite fascinating and, to the extent of being "intellectually enlightening". Yes on average you'll get around 30 pages of assigned reading each week, for some subjects it may be 50 pages. Like all university courses, as you progress onto higher level subjects the amount of readings will increase accordingly. I've posted before in another thread the following statement, be it, Engineering, Commerce, Science, Arts, every subject will have a chance of being perceived as difficult. I find Accounting hard, maybe I shouldn't have decided to major in it.
(3) Obtaining a band 6 in Advanced English will be a great foundation for legal writing. However, university level essays (and especially law) are a fine "art" as I like to put it. It'll take some time for you to get used to the style that lecturers want, but I'm sure like with anything else, practice makes perfect. In this case, experience
(4) Law for me is not boring, in fact I find it fun. Yes... I said it. Besides, it opens your mind in a different way and forces you to think about things differently especially in real life situations. You'd be surprised as to how relevant the concepts you study in law can be put to use straightaway after reading about them, unlike in Accounting where the things may never be of use to you at all.
(5) Job prospects...since most law courses are double degrees, you pretty much have a lot of variety in what you want to do when you graduate. Either a legal career, or a financial banking career, corporate law, politics...and the list goes on.

Well anyway, that's my two cents, and good luck with your future endeavours