Law school rankings (1 Viewer)

[GoodToGo]

Yes that is the proposition, but I asked for a justification.
Right, your argument is this:

1. MQ has a theoretical, critical and interdisciplinary approach.
2. MQ churn out top tipstaffs.
3. MQ is the number 1 place for legal history.
4. MQ has 4 scholarly law journals.
5. MQ takes mooting seriously, gives credit for mooting, and funds it well.
6. Less students focus on corporate law at MQ, which you think is a negative.
7. Judges like all the above, hence MQ has a higher reputation amongst them.

I don't want to start a uni war here, but with respect I think that some of these claims aren't very tenable, or do not advance your conclusion. Let me explain.

You have a suppressed premise here: "Other law schools do not." Have you studied at the other law schools? I do not think you can speak for all the other approaches with any great accuracy beyond what you've heard from word-of-mouth. In particular, UNSW is well-known for analysis of social issues and theory interwoven with the substantive law. The uni also offers "Legal Theory" / "Law & Social Theory" courses as mandatory subjects.

I can assure you that "theoretical and critical" approaches are taken at our uni, and most likely at other unis.
What do you define as "top"? Do you mean skilled? If so, then that is highly subjective. I might just as validly allege that USYD tipstaffs are "top." If you mean that more MQ students are appointed to judges that are higher up in the judiciary than are students from other law schools, then please provide some sort of evidence of this. From personal experience, I've noted many tipstaffs and associates from a variety of institutions.
You have merely stated this claim without justifying it.
Agreed this is a good thing (though I doubt senior judges are reading much of "Journal of International and Comparative Environmental Law").
Again, your suppressed premise is that other law schools do not. I cannot speak for other unis, but it has been written above that you are wrong regarding UTS. As for my own uni, UNSW has a very extensive competitions programme. These are all the competitions we run within the uni:

• Beginners Mooting - Torts
• Junior Mooting - Torts, Contracts
• Intermediate Mooting - Torts, Contracts, Crim, Property
• Senior Mooting - Torts, Contracts, Crim, Property, Federal Constitutional, Corporations
• Witness Examination Comp
• Client Counselling Comp
• Negotiation Comp

UNSW also gives subject credit for mooting in the following competitions:

• Jessup International Law Court Competition
• Jean Pictet International Humanitarian Law Competition
• Manfred Lachs Space Law Moot Competition
• Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot Competition
• Sir Harry Gibbs National Moot Competition

We participate in all sorts of national and international mooting competitions, and have had many victories and high achievements. Do not presume MQ is the only law school to do serious mooting!
You may see it as a negative, but that is not the issue. The issue is the reputation in the judiciary. Do you know how many High Court judges have commercial law backgrounds?

So with respect, I am not persuaded by the claims you put forward. Don't get me wrong - I am not attacking MQ in any form. Rather I am effectively defending all the other law schools you indirectly criticised. I think the bottom line that I would like to convey here is not to presume.

I seem to have a lot of premises which I never knew I had!

If you bothered to read what I said at the start, I never said MQ was superior to UNSW or UTS. My belief is that it's equal to UNSW and UTS and only USYD is superior. I am coming from the opinion that MQ is generally considered inferior to at least USYD and UNSW and probably UTS in the opinion of the private firms/general public and that the judicial opinion bucks the trend.

The tipstaff comment is along the above lines... I am constantly surprised to hear of MQ students getting tipstaff jobs with top judges. By "top" I am suggesting they are of very high quality...not necessarily superior to others.

There's a couple of clinical subjects at MQ, but these are a recent development. MQ students aren't as able to slot into a corporate, or even general law firm role as grads from say UNSW or UTS...that is fact easily discernible from the courses that are offered. Compare Business Organisations at MQ to Business Associations at UTS and UNSW and you'll see what I'm talking about. While I think MQ students miss out a lot in terms of black letter law, the different focus of the courses means we have gained in other areas, say critical legal thinking for e.g.

So a UNSW/UTS student might be better equipped to to write me an airtight contract now, but a MQ student might be better in telling me the developments in the law, and what it will be like in 20 years time. Yes I'm sure you're gonna say "my uni does that too"..."that shit's not as important"...(which seems to be the gist of most people's comments)...blah blah...I don't care. This is what academics who have taught at the different unis and barristers have said. Maybe they were just being nice, whatever. I have heard of some judges seemed to like this approach...but then there were a few who didn't even know MQ taught things differently (and there is no doubt they do) .

Yes, UNSW does a lot of mooting - a lot more mooting than at MQ. Their results are a bit up and down at the intervarsity level...but both UNSW and MQ pwned the other unis at last year's Vis Moot. And yes I did know UTS have done ridiculously well in moots in that golden period. MQ do okay as well...we finished as the best team in Sydney at last years Jessup.

My comment about mooting is that MQ is that the level of the moots is perhaps too high for some (for e.g a 3rd year student who has to do senior mooting with 4th and 5th years). There is a high standard, especially at the Grand Finals... I'm sure the standard is high at other unis...so don't get too worked up about it folks.

Above all my belief is based on the MQ Law school's close interactions with the judiciary for comp judging, talks, teaching and attending random things we ask them to (especially certain HC and Supreme Court judges) compared with what friends actively involved in other law schools have told me. My premise is that MQ is not inferior to UNSW/UTS in terms of its rep and its relationship between with the judiciary. This rep goes against the trend of the pwnage with corporate law (though that has been changing of late...a lot of my friends have clerkships at top-tier firms). And sure there were few playful jibes in the original post, nothing wrong with that.

I'm going on personnal, circumstantial evidence along with what academics, barristers and judges who have experience at other unis as well as Macquarie have told me....it seems to be no worse than any official ranking (I don't care how many times Good Uni Guide tell me Bond is hands down the best law school in Australia!).

 

[miss_unsquiggle]

Newcastle University has a proffessional program you can get into for 4th and 5th year law which when you finish gives you all the qualifications to be a practising lawer without going and doing the 6 month course. Someone told me this is only offered in Newcastle but for all I know it could be a standard thing. Anyway if its only our law school that's pretty good. Supposedly our legal centre has worked on some cases that became pretty high profile, forget which ones now.

 

[melsc]

UWS allows you to complete some of your PLT as does UTS and UOW unless I am mistaken. I'm not sure about the others

 

[MiuMiu]

UOW offers the complete thing.

I think most schools are beginning to do it now though.

 

[LaraB]

UOW offers the complete thing.

I think most schools are beginning to do it now though.

yeh so does UWS... i think what Mel meant though was that you cover some of the requirements even if you don't do the actual complete thing via the uni so just about every law student has fulfilled some requirements prior to doing the copmlete thing

 

[melsc]

^ :uhhuh: I think students who want to complete the PLT elect to do specific electives that count towards it, or so I have been told.

 

[MiuMiu]

yeh so does UWS... i think what Mel meant though was that you cover some of the requirements even if you don't do the actual complete thing via the uni so just about every law student has fulfilled some requirements prior to doing the copmlete thing

The UOW course has the entire thing built in. You graduate completely qualified.

 

[Frigid]

bah humbug.

notwithstanding this thread, just coz your law school pwns my law school doesn't mean i can't pwn you.

 

[LaraB]

The UOW course has the entire thing built in. You graduate completely qualified.

From what i was told at open day times when i was in yr 12 and from what i read on the site - that is an option you pick after you finish the compulsory component of the course.. i would copy n paste the part of the handbook that quotes this but it won't work atm so i'll try later..

It doesn't say anywhere that you will automatically get it built in to a law degree per se - it says that it is one of 3 options you can take once you have copmleted the compulsory 1st couple of years... from memory its something like PLT+electives or electives or research...

So its the same diff as UWS really - only difference seems to be UWS doesn't have it as 3 official 'pathways' you can take, rather you take less 'strict' recommended pathways and end up with the relevant 'qualification'

One would think if it was something unique and different to other unis they would make a big point of it but the handbooks etc are worded pretty well the same as ours at UWS... it's probably the closest i've seen to UWS's actually...

 

[MiuMiu]

When selecting the 4 year course, you are automatically enrolled in the PLT course. You can change it over the course of your enrolment, but if you elect not to do honours (the other choice) you are not given your LLB until you have done your PLT. Therefore its essentially built in.

 

[melsc]

I assume when you say four year course, its just an LLB? As far as I understand it if you complete the UTS 4 year course you complete the whole PLT as well, at least thats what they told me at open day.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

If you bothered to read what I said at the start, I never said MQ was superior to UNSW or UTS. My belief is that it's equal to UNSW and UTS and only USYD is superior. I am coming from the opinion that MQ is generally considered inferior to at least USYD and UNSW and probably UTS in the opinion of the private firms/general public and that the judicial opinion bucks the trend.

Yep I get that, however the points you raised to suggest a differentiation between MQ and other law schools imply that the other law schools do not have the strengths mentioned. That is, you suggest MQ is distinctive for X. By that very claim, you are suggesting X is not present at other law schools (or at least not as strong), regardless of how 'equal' or what rank they may be. My response just addressed the extent of the purported differentiation. I wasn't really concerned about rankings or anything, sorry if I didn't make that clear.

While I think MQ students miss out a lot in terms of black letter law, the different focus of the courses means we have gained in other areas, say critical legal thinking for e.g.

This is what I mean. While raising this is a substitute for black letter law, it is implied that there is a greater level of critical thinking being gained. As I mentioned previously, this is not unique to MQ. UNSW, for one, places much emphasis on how the law fits in society, and has mandatory legal theory subjects. Moreover all law schools thesedays would provoke careful analysis and critical thinking, rather than rote, pure black-letter learning of the law.

So a UNSW/UTS student might be better equipped to to write me an airtight contract now, but a MQ student might be better in telling me the developments in the law, and what it will be like in 20 years time. Yes I'm sure you're gonna say "my uni does that too"..."that shit's not as important"...(which seems to be the gist of most people's comments)...blah blah...I don't care. This is what academics who have taught at the different unis and barristers have said. Maybe they were just being nice, whatever. I have heard of some judges seemed to like this approach...but then there were a few who didn't even know MQ taught things differently (and there is no doubt they do).

From what you have said I believe there would be less legal history for each substantive law area taught at UNSW than at MQ. I can't compare other unis. But it seems that a fair amount of senior judges are or were very much interested in legal history. You only have to read some HC transcripts to see some barristers getting shut down by some of the judges incredible historical knowledge of some random, obscure crevice of the law. So that would be a particular aspect of MQ's approach I think they may find pleasing.

Yes, UNSW does a lot of mooting - a lot more mooting than at MQ. Their results are a bit up and down at the intervarsity level...but both UNSW and MQ pwned the other unis at last year's Vis Moot. And yes I did know UTS have done ridiculously well in moots in that golden period. MQ do okay as well...we finished as the best team in Sydney at last years Jessup.

My comment about mooting is that MQ is that the level of the moots is perhaps too high for some (for e.g a 3rd year student who has to do senior mooting with 4th and 5th years). There is a high standard, especially at the Grand Finals... I'm sure the standard is high at other unis...so don't get too worked up about it folks.

lol, if I thought you bit your thumb at me, it's just because advocacy is close to heart, that's all

We all have to be careful with our fellow kinsmen, we're such a litigious lot :burn:

 

[Not-That-Bright]

*cough*

 

[MoonlightSonata]

lol

You even added a reflection

 

[= Jennifer =]

*cough*

hahahahaa that is very creative of you

lol the uws symbol has arms

 

[santaslayer]

OMFG...u killed uow..!

 

[GoodToGo]

*cough*

Love your work.

 

[erawamai]

It's nice to see unsw didn't get a role in the university punch up.

I don't see unsw's wigged lion.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

It's nice to see unsw didn't get a role in the university punch up.

I don't see unsw's wigged lion.

I was lazy so I coloured the Usyd lion blue :/

 

[MiuMiu]

I assume when you say four year course, its just an LLB? As far as I understand it if you complete the UTS 4 year course you complete the whole PLT as well, at least thats what they told me at open day.

Sometimes I feel like Im not speaking English.

4 year course. Broken down into 3 years LLB, 1 year PLT.