Law school rankings (1 Viewer)

[scotthill]

according to the good university guides and other source how does UWS Law school rank in realtion to others.

please add links and so on

thankyou

 

[MiuMiu]

I don't think law schools are ranked by any source out there.

And it is impossible to create law school league tables because there is no standardised academic test that all law students take.

 

[melsc]

It would be hard to rank law schools because there are so many things to consider and what one person percieves to be important another might not. As far as I know (from briefly having a browse through a copy at school) The Good University Guide would tell you about various aspects of each uni but not a lot comparing the courses so it would be up to you to draw your own conclusions.

In terms of uai: (which is an indication of demand I guess)

USYD
UNSW
UTS
Macquarie
ANU
UWS
UNE

Did I forget any?

 

[MaryJane]

Miu Miu is right, there isnt a law ranking out there, but there are general rankings across uni's... Its called the good uni guide or something similar.

Just a hint, if you want to do law, start researching yourself rather than requesting that it all be done for you

 

[...]

Oxford rocks my socks

 

[melsc]

A girl in my school got into Oxford Law, I am green with envy

 

[= Jennifer =]

A girl in my school got into Oxford Law, I am green with envy

how is that possible?

 

[Frigid]

don't be jealous. she's just gone to do a Bachelor of Artshttp://denning.law.ox.ac.uk/undergraduate/ba1.shtml anyway

 

[MiuMiu]

In terms of uai: (which is an indication of demand I guess)

USYD
UNSW
UTS
Macquarie
ANU
UWS
UNE

Did I forget any?

Awww you forgot UOW, my school!

In terms of percieved prestige I guess it would go

USYD
UNSW
ANU
UTS

And then I think in terms of perception by the general public UOW, UWS and Macquarie would all be about the same. I don't think UNE even really has a reputation.

As I said above, I go to UOW so in ranking the schools above I obviously don't mean that I think UOW is at the bottom of teaching standards, quite the opposite, but in terms of prestige, thats how I see it.

 

[GoodToGo]

Awww you forgot UOW, my school!

In terms of percieved prestige I guess it would go

USYD
UNSW
ANU
UTS

And then I think in terms of perception by the general public UOW, UWS and Macquarie would all be about the same. I don't think UNE even really has a reputation.

As I said above, I go to UOW so in ranking the schools above I obviously don't mean that I think UOW is at the bottom of teaching standards, quite the opposite, but in terms of prestige, thats how I see it.

I think perception in the industry is a lot more important than public. But then again marks and extra curriculars are also more important than anything else.

Having said that, I know only USYD has a better rep than Macquarie amongst the judiciary. Macquarie is on the second tier with UTS overall.

UOW I hear from all accounts, is a top law school, but suffers from being in the gong...which to a lot of Sydneysiders, is in the middle of nowhere.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Having said that, I know only USYD has a better rep than Macquarie amongst the judiciary.

Care to justify this statement?

 

[phrred]

Id say UNSW ANU USYD are the presitiogus 3 for NSW/ACT then

Macq UTS

UOW UWS UNE

 

[GoodToGo]

Care to justify this statement?

Macquarie has a strong reptuation amongst judges at the high court, federal and state level. I'm not entirely sure if it's one of these reasons or a combination of all of them.

All law schools give a different legal education, and the judiciary seem to like the theoretical, critical and interdiscplinary approach at MQ. The focus on the "why's" and "why-nots" as opposed just what law currently is. Heck, our first subject ever is Jurisprudence. In a way they like the non practical background. Our uni started out as a university for the research and teaching of humanities as opposed to UNSW which focused on science/engineering and UTS, which was a tafe. Michael Kirby was chancellor of Macquarie for a number of years.

MQ churn out top tipstaffs.

Mac is the number 1 place for legal history in Australia. There are also 4 scholarly law journals published at MQ, which judges are the patrons of. That kinda stuff seems to matter to them.

Judges like mooters and MQ takes mooting seriously, as opposed to say UTS who didn't have an internal mooting comp last year. Macquarie gives academic credit for intervarsity moots more often than any other university (there's a subject called 'National and International mooting', which the uni attaches to any obscure moot they like). The Macquarie intervarsity mooting teams receive a shitload of funding from the law school. The most out of NSW lawschools, and possibly in Australia.

Less students are interested in and end up practicing corporate law from MQ than UNSW/USYD/UTS which I personally think is a negative. In fact MQ absolutely pwned by USYD/UNSW come clerkship time each year .

 

[Frigid]

Judges like mooters and MQ takes mooting seriously, as opposed to say UTS who didn't have an internal mooting comp last year. Macquarie gives academic credit for intervarsity moots more often than any other university (there's a subject called 'National and International mooting', which the uni attaches to any obscure moot they like). The Macquarie intervarsity mooting teams receive a shitload of funding from the law school. The most out of NSW lawschools, and possibly in Australia.

what the fuck man!?! when did UTSLSS not have an internal mooting comp!?! >.<

UTS is a great mooting school. in 2004/2005, this included 5 national victorieshttp://www.uts.edu.au/new/releases/2005/February/25.html, including twice at Harry Gibbshttp://www.law.uts.edu.au/news/news_detail.html?ItemId=2776&ItemDate=2005-11-29.

candy-coat MQ by all means, but do not do so at the expense of other universities, especially if they pwn MQ with less funding and training.

 

[LaraB]

what the fuck man!?! when did UTSLSS not have an internal mooting comp!?! >.<

UTS is a great mooting school. in 2004/2005, this included 5 national victorieshttp://www.uts.edu.au/new/releases/2005/February/25.html, including twice at Harry Gibbshttp://www.law.uts.edu.au/news/news_detail.html?ItemId=2776&ItemDate=2005-11-29.

candy-coat MQ by all means, but do not do so at the expense of other universities, especially if they pwn MQ with less funding and training.

Exactly... just about every uni has an internal mooting comp and if anything, UTS's internal and external mooting comps are some of the more well known and revered... it's always a way bigger deal when the 'teams' from my uni beat UTS than if they beat any other NSW uni....

 

[LaraB]

All law schools give a different legal education, and the judiciary seem to like the theoretical, critical and interdiscplinary approach at MQ. The focus on the "why's" and "why-nots" as opposed just what law currently is. Heck, our first subject ever is Jurisprudence. In a way they like the non practical background. Our uni started out as a university for the research and teaching of humanities as opposed to UNSW which focused on science/engineering and UTS, which was a tafe. Michael Kirby was chancellor of Macquarie for a number of years.

MQ churn out top tipstaffs.

Mac is the number 1 place for legal history in Australia. There are also 4 scholarly law journals published at MQ, which judges are the patrons of. That kinda stuff seems to matter to them.

The Macquarie intervarsity mooting teams receive a shitload of funding from the law school. The most out of NSW lawschools, and possibly in Australia.

Funding isn't really a good argument as to why it is of a higher quality as services may be given greater funding because they are either high quality or very lacking in the view of the uni board so it could be one of either

Solicitors/barrister i work with have criticised the structure of the Macquarie course and said that students would be far better prepared if more appropriate foundational units were commenced first. Not sure what the exact recommended structured path is, but they were saying that the units don't follow on from one another as fluidly as at other unis... Perhaps judges do think differently, but that is what i have been told by a number of solicitors/barristers.

I would have thought that being 'non-practical" is not a positive, given that praise lately seems to go the the more practical courses from both university bodies and industry professionals, and i'm not referring to just law.

I don't see how what disciplines the uni initially focussed on really matters in determining the quality of the law students that are produced... i would think that it would in fact be a good thing that others have started from backgrounds not focusing on the area in which law falls but have yet managed to produce excellent results

Having 4 scholarly journals is no big deal really unless the achievements of the students reflect this culture. Plenty of uni's have plenty of journals and others, on top of such publications, house nationally and even world revered research organisations and the like, so i wouldn't say it makes MQ unique or of a higher quality.

I don't think any uni focuses solely on "what the law is" - all courses focus on the whys and why nots - it would be impossible to study law with the aim of becoming a legal practitioner if you didn't understand the whys and hows otherwise!

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Macquarie has a strong reputation amongst judges at the high court, federal and state level. I'm not entirely sure if it's one of these reasons or a combination of all of them.

Yes that is the proposition, but I asked for a justification.

All law schools give a different legal education, and the judiciary seem to like the theoretical, critical and interdisciplinary approach at MQ. The focus on the "why's" and "why-nots" as opposed just what law currently is. Heck, our first subject ever is Jurisprudence. In a way they like the non practical background. Our uni started out as a university for the research and teaching of humanities as opposed to UNSW which focused on science/engineering and UTS, which was a tafe. Michael Kirby was chancellor of Macquarie for a number of years.

MQ churn out top tipstaffs.

Mac is the number 1 place for legal history in Australia. There are also 4 scholarly law journals published at MQ, which judges are the patrons of. That kinda stuff seems to matter to them.

Judges like mooters and MQ takes mooting seriously, as opposed to say UTS who didn't have an internal mooting comp last year. Macquarie gives academic credit for intervarsity moots more often than any other university (there's a subject called 'National and International mooting', which the uni attaches to any obscure moot they like). The Macquarie intervarsity mooting teams receive a shitload of funding from the law school. The most out of NSW lawschools, and possibly in Australia.

Less students are interested in and end up practicing corporate law from MQ than UNSW/USYD/UTS which I personally think is a negative. In fact MQ absolutely pwned by USYD/UNSW come clerkship time each year .

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.

1. MQ has a theoretical, critical and interdisciplinary approach.

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.

2. MQ churn out top tipstaffs.

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.

3. MQ is the number 1 place for legal history.

You have merely stated this claim without justifying it.

4. MQ has 4 scholarly law journals.

Agreed this is a good thing (though I doubt senior judges are reading much of "Journal of International and Comparative Environmental Law").

5. MQ takes mooting seriously, gives credit for mooting, and funds it well.

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!

6. Less students focus on corporate law at MQ, which you think is a negative.

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.

 

[erawamai]

For gods sake moonlight, go get your books and go fishing!

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I'm going to go off and do some admin

I haven't even read chapter one yet

 

[melsc]

how is that possible?

She went and sat the entrance exam, she got a uai of 99.9 so I assume she was smart enough