UNSW vs UWS Law (2 Viewers)

[Monsterman]

a person from my school says that their dad is batman.

but seriously, i wouldn't take that as a reliable source of information.

1) has the person from school known to highly exaggerate?
2) are you sure the actual cousin finished the degree and graduated? (and not just dropped out after first year?)
3) does the cousin OWN the plumbing/electrical firm?
4) was it like the first graduating year? so around.. 2006?

1) no
2) graduated
3) no
4) I dont know

 

[darkprincess28]

In all unis - whether it be Sydney Uni or UNSW or UWS, there is always an average of a 5% unemployment rate for lawyers. Good lawyers have good marks - if they dont, of course they wont get employed.

There are so many people who have graduated from UWS law school and have gone on to do great things. Sandra Dill did law at UWS and she's adressed the United Nations and World Health Organisation just to name a couple of world organisations she's addressed. UWS has produced the youngest barrister in NSW, Kellie Stares whose incredibly successful at just the age of 23. And there are many more.

Prestige is not what it used to be. Now the majority of law firms rely on a person's intelligence, not which school they went to.

UWS won the Moot Championship in 2008 - so that means they beat Syd and UNSW. And for a young uni, that's saying a damn lot. UWS is only excelling year by year. The discrimination it faces is purely due to the fact that it is such a young uni compared to UNSW which is 60 and Syd which is a sandstone uni. It took TIME for Sydney and UNSW to build their prestige; UWS is quickly building up its prestige in such a short amount of time.

If you're a smart person, who would rather trade 15 hours of travel a week (especially if you live in the Greater Western Sydney region) for more study and relaxation time, then you're going to be a whole lot happier and enjoy going to law school a lot more. And if you enjoy it, you'll be more passionate. And a passionate lawyer equals success.

 

[UAI30orless]

In short:

It doesnt matter.

Once you leave uni, your marks and your university mean about as much as what your UAI meant when you left High School, i.e they're good for getting you entry, but wont save you if you slack off.

People who harp on about their university and their marks have the eternal first year syndrome. Honestly some of the most odious people I've met.

 

[flamearrows]

In short:

It doesnt matter.

Once you leave uni, your marks and your university mean about as much as what your UAI meant when you left High School, i.e they're good for getting you entry, but wont save you if you slack off.

People who harp on about their university and their marks have the eternal first year syndrome. Honestly some of the most odious people I've met.

Way to miss the crucial point about getting the job after leaving university...

 

[darkprincess28]

Way to miss the crucial point about getting the job after leaving university...

Who says that a person who works hard in UWS law wont become a great lawyer? If you work hard in any uni then you're going to become a great lawyer. A person who goes to UNSW or USyd and slacks off won't get anything lol.

Really, there are some idiots who go into law thinking that, just coz they have the marks then they can do it. Those people and the passionate law students will be distinguished pretty early on.

 

[flamearrows]

Who says that a person who works hard in UWS law wont become a great lawyer? If you work hard in any uni then you're going to become a great lawyer. A person who goes to UNSW or USyd and slacks off won't get anything lol.

Really, there are some idiots who go into law thinking that, just coz they have the marks then they can do it. Those people and the passionate law students will be distinguished pretty early on.

Being a great lawyer is enormously facilitated by the environment you're working in. It's much easier to be a great lawyer working in a top-tier firm than it is clawing your way up from the bottom from a suburban practice.

No one is saying that the university is everything. But the university certainly helps.

Also, if you want to be a great investment banker or great management consultant then going to UWS would make fulfilling that particular dream extremely difficult to the point where I'd be surprised if those firms took more than a couple of graduates between them.

 

[dste6]

Being a great lawyer is enormously facilitated by the environment you're working in. It's much easier to be a great lawyer working in a top-tier firm than it is clawing your way up from the bottom from a suburban practice.

lol. Top-tier firms are an environment that produces great lawyers? Really?

Where does that fit in, between the policy of padding billables with pointless busy-work and other questionable billing practices? Or the hideous attrition rate:

'A recent report speaks of ‘churn’ rates in law firms of 20-40 percent per annum, which equates to a ‘complete renewal of a firm’s workforce around every five years or so’ (Charlesworth S, 2008, p19)

http://celrl.law.unimelb.edu.au/download.cfm?DownloadFile=51981EB8-BCD7-CFCD-1490ECEAC9E8A217

No, I don't think that top-tier firms are necessary good lawyering environment, and I don't think that top-tier firms really have that much to do with the production of 'great lawyers'. Also, I'm sure that there is a space to be occupied between top-tier and your bottom rung suburban firm.

 

[UAI30orless]

Way to miss the crucial point about getting the job after leaving university...

I didnt. I said:

i.e they're good for getting you entry

 

[ital101]

To be competitive in the major commercial law firms, you would need to be in the top 5-10% at UWS, whereas you'd get away with being in the top 20-30% at UNSW. You might also have a very hard time if your aspirations include investment banking or management consulting.

I don't know about the difference in the quality of the education, though I suspect that UNSW and USyd would be better.

Not necessarily true. Private practice is a definite option and going into business guarantees you a job. You don't need to be with a law firm to be raking in the cash. Or you could even go pro-bono (not-for-profit) which is what a genuinely helpful lawyer does. Helping clients for free shows that you really care and you're not in it for the big bucks. UWS Bachelor of Laws is my second preference.

Australian National University has the most well-regarded and respected Bachelor of Laws programme in Australia, not USyd or UNSW.

 

[UAI30orless]

Not necessarily true. Private practice is a definite option and going into business guarantees you a job. You don't need to be with a law firm to be raking in the cash. Or you could even go pro-bono (not-for-profit) which is what a genuinely helpful lawyer does. Helping clients for free shows that you really care and you're not in it for the big bucks. UWS Bachelor of Laws is my second preference.

Australian National University has the most well-regarded and respected Bachelor of Laws programme in Australia, not USyd or UNSW.

You need two years of practice before you go into private practice. And when you go in, expect to be dirt poor for the next few years and to be doing dividing fence act applications for at least half a decade. Unless you can steal some of your Firms' client's in which case youll get sued.

As for Pro-Bono. Its less satisfying when youre in court and you find out that your client lied to you. There are rarely ever any "just cases" you can ftruly feel good about representing.

In other words, throw the idealism in the bin, it aint worth squat.

 

[flamearrows]

Australian National University has the most well-regarded and respected Bachelor of Laws programme in Australia, not USyd or UNSW.

How on earth would you know? Did one of your teachers tell you?

I can tell you that in the pointy end of business - which, to forstall the inevitable argument, is where law students tend to aspire - ANU grads are outnumbered by UNSW, USyd, UMelb and so on.

No, I don't think that top-tier firms are necessary good lawyering environment, and I don't think that top-tier firms really have that much to do with the production of 'great lawyers'. Also, I'm sure that there is a space to be occupied between top-tier and your bottom rung suburban firm.

Go pick up a guide to legal practice in Australia, like the Chambers guides. Count how many solicitors who rate a mention in the major fields are outside of a large law firm.

 

[bored at work]

How on earth would you know? Did one of your teachers tell you?

I can tell you that in the pointy end of business - which, to forstall the inevitable argument, is where law students tend to aspire - ANU grads are outnumbered by UNSW, USyd, UMelb and so on.



Go pick up a guide to legal practice in Australia, like the Chambers guides. Count how many solicitors who rate a mention in the major fields are outside of a large law firm.

Brainwashed much?

 

[dste6]

Go pick up a guide to legal practice in Australia, like the Chambers guides. Count how many solicitors who rate a mention in the major fields are outside of a large law firm.

How do you reconcile this with the data on attrition rates in my last post? I'm not suggesting that top-tier law firms don't have great lawyers or senior field leaders, that would be absurd. But it is also absurd to suggest that all the leaders were raised in the top-tier, considering the attrition rates. I'm wondering, considering the attrition rate, how many of those solicitors were there since grad year, and how many were head hunted after they had established themselves?

What I'm saying is that, evidently, great lawyers are not necessarily raised in large commercial firms, because most people worthy of entry into them (and therefore likely to become very good) will leave quite quickly; I don't think you can become a great lawyer within 5 years of grad entry, the time take for renewal of workforce. To rebut this arguement, we need need to assume that the only great lawyers out there are those few senior associate and partners of the big 6...which would be silly.

 

[flamearrows]

What I'm saying is that, evidently, great lawyers are not necessarily raised in large commercial firms, because most people worthy of entry into them (and therefore likely to become very good) will leave quite quickly; I don't think you can become a great lawyer within 5 years of grad entry, the time take for renewal of workforce. To rebut this arguement, we need need to assume that the only great lawyers out there are those few senior associate and partners of the big 6...which would be silly.

If 20% of the workforce left every year, with no recruitment (absurd assumption) then there'd be ~32% of the workforce remaining after five years. So you might want to check that math?

Great lawyers are those who have had a lot of experience in their area. Even after six weeks of reviewing standard form contracts I was much much better at spotting potential legal issues for clients. I can't imagine how good you'd be after 15 years. So, yeah, great lawyers are mostly going to be those who have been on the job for a while.

The attrition rate is high in any environment where you have staff working to deadlines under pressure, with the expectation of high hours. Those people who come to acquire a reputation in the industry and earn promotion are going to be those who can tolerate that. If that's what you're going to put yourself through, then the vast majority of those commercial lawyers will try and place themselves in an environment where they're rewarded for those skills. That tends to be mid or top tier firms.

 

[mpack]

But it is also absurd to suggest that all the leaders were raised in the top-tier, considering the attrition rates.

I used to work in a big mid-tier firm that is mentioned on the chambers website. I know personally of 5 individuals listed there as 'industry leaders'. All of them started their working life in top-tier or major mid-tier.

I highly doubt many (if any) of those individuals listed as 'industry leaders' came from anything lower than a substantial boutique practice. Absurd as this is, it is just the way it is.

This does not mean you cannot lead a fulfilling legal career having come from a suburban sole practitioner firm. Just don't delude yourself or set unrealistic expectations. Sorry to say, but most 'industry leaders' are born and bred in top or large mid-tier environments. At least that has been my experience.

Anway, what's wrong with being a successful, non-industry leader?

 

[dste6]

All of them started their working life in top-tier or major mid-tier.

I highly doubt many (if any) of those individuals listed as 'industry leaders' came from anything lower than a substantial boutique practice. Absurd as this is, it is just the way it is.

Did you even read my previous post: 'I'm sure that there is a space to be occupied between top-tier and your bottom rung suburban firm.'

You yourself have just mentioned no less than 2 sources OTHER than the large top-tier firms (ie Big 6) where industry leaders could, and according to you DO, come from (major mid-tier and boutique)...you've reiterated my point without even realizing...

 

[bored at work]

Being in the Chambers guide isn't definitive of being a good lawyer...

 

[flamearrows]

Being in the Chambers guide isn't definitive of being a good lawyer...

Yeah? Gimmie two other objective metrics.

 

[dste6]

Yeah? Gimmie two other objective metrics.

erm...I don't think you could 'objectively measure' how good a lawyer is...

It's kind of a case of the 'right tool for the job'...ya know, like with most things in the real world.

EDIT: On second thought, yeah i suppose there is something to be said for the quality of the tool, so to speak. None the less, I think you'll run into trouble trying objectively measure what makes a good lawyer. Just like those idiots arguing which Go8 law school is objectively better by an inch.

 

[bored at work]

Yeah? Gimmie two other objective metrics.

Objective metrics? Wow you're going to be a great lawyer there.

Being someone who has had more involvement with a top tier firm than just a couple of months over summer I can tell you that most lawyers couldn't give a stuff about what Chambers list, the fact that you have to apply for it and that not all companies answer the survey makes it laughable that people take it as gospel.