Which University is good for B Law/(something) (1 Viewer)

[Raginsheep]

A half serious question: why the hell does Argonaut's posts keep disappearing?

 

[santaslayer]

A half serious question: why the hell does Argonaut's posts keep disappearing?

because they're being deleted by a mod. which one, i dunno.

 

[santaslayer]

??

uai cutoff is an indication of demand, which is surely linked with the level of the prestige of the degree. i think it's about as objective as an indicator for prestige can get.

lemme put it this way:

IT degrees were well into the 90's (in some unis) before the IT bubble bust. Now they're in the mere 80's. So r u saying the IT degrees in those USED to be prestigous but are not currently?

 

[Demandred]

Like everyone else, the main factor would be you're UAI really. Law degrees with higher UAIs usually correlates with quality. In keep mind about what degreees you're going to combine it with. UWS has a specialised B Criminlogy/B Law, and I heard Macq has top class commerce/account/acturial studies degrees. Anyways, in a gerneralised order:

Usyd
UNSW
ANU
UTS/Macq
UWS/UNE

Bit off topic, but I think the IT labour market is really in trouble. It's been shrinking a lot and universities are cutting down their courses and combining them with other schools.

 

[_dhj_]

You mean eastern suburbs residents

Them too, but since the original poster apparently lives on the North Shore, the full fee option is probably open to him.

I'm not rubbishing the North Shore btw, I live on its borderline.

lemme put it this way:

IT degrees were well into the 90's (in some unis) before the IT bubble bust. Now they're in the mere 80's. So r u saying the IT degrees in those USED to be prestigous but are not currently?

i think i understand what you are trying to say, that demand does not equate to prestige, but surely prestige is one of the big factors that influence demand. Keep in mind that we are comparing law degrees among different universities and not with other degrees. Also, law isn't one of these "booming" areas such as IT in the 80s, so your example is only mildly relevant.

 

[blackfriday]

prestige and how long the course has been around usually equates to eachother. the only reason usyd can puff its chest up is because its been around for such a long time and it has a great campus life because otherwise its not all that great (besides law, which rocks there). in 50 years club mac will be considered one of the best unis around simply because there will be more club mac alma mater in important positions (mainly commerce grads).

 

[Frigid]

in 50 years club mac will be considered one of the best unis around simply because there will be more club mac alma mater in important positions (mainly commerce grads).

in 50 years most of us will be retired.

 

[neo o]

in 50 years most of us will be retired.

RETIREMENT? Retirement is for women. I'll either be dead or working

 

[blackfriday]

i dont want to say 'dont go to club mac' because its a pretty nice place but theres a really good reason why its called club mac.

 

[santaslayer]

i think i understand what you are trying to say, that demand does not equate to prestige, but surely prestige is one of the big factors that influence demand. Keep in mind that we are comparing law degrees among different universities and not with other degrees. Also, law isn't one of these "booming" areas such as IT in the 80s, so your example is only mildly relevant.

If prestige is a major contributor to UAI's then ANU wouldn't have such low cutoffs for their law degrees. Proximity is also a factor. Just because the university is prestigous does not equate to massive UAI's.

The example was used to illustrate what I meant. It has served its purpose.

If you want a law example than you shall get one.

UWS's Parramatta Campus

B Health Science/B Laws:

CUTOFFS:

2002: 96.60
2003: 90.10

Are you proposing the idea that in 2002 the UWS Law program was extremely prestigous but in 2003 the prestige vanished?

Same idea, same question, different example.

 

[Tabris]

Three graduates waiting for an interview with a big law firm, one from USYD, one from UTS, one from UWS. However, there are only two positions availible.

Assuming that all students are equal in qualitative characteristics and same academic achievements (but from different uni's) and ceteris parabis. From the employer's perspective which student will be the most likely to miss out?

Those who have read "the market for lemons" will think that the USYD and UTS students will get the job... because of prestige and their signalling is far superior to the UWS student.

But on the other end, let us assume that the USYD student is on a Pass average, the UTS student on a credit average and the UWS student have a D average and a Uni medal. In this case it would seem the USYD student would miss out.

In the end its up to you to do well in the uni u really like, most of us here have only been to one law school so we dont really have much experience with other law schools, u have to go to their orientation lectures to see which one suits u

 

[santaslayer]

ahahha..where have i heard that from.

A Distinction won't get u a uni medal i don't think.


but yes, adding from tabris:

it also depends on the employer/recruiter's biases. they may have graduated from uws themselves. this is the HR department im talking about.

 

[Frigid]

If the academics at USyd are so much better, yet the USyd student managed to only perform to an equal 'academic performance' to the UWS student? Would this not make the UWS student better since her performance was 'exactly' comparable to the USyd student, yet achieved this using the 'worse' academics, and resources?

but that really depends what you mean by "'equal' academic performance".

you are assuming a certain academic grade at UWS is viewed on par with the same academic grade at USyd.

your argument, that therefore the UWS student is 'smarter', wholly fails.

 

[melsc]

also keep in mind 85 was the lowest UAI accepted for the course, not representative of all the UWS law students.

 

[Omnidragon]

Ceteris paribus ? (everything else the same)
Why, the USyd student would miss out of course.
If the USyd education is so beneficial, the USyd student should have been more easily able to secure additional work experience/casual clerkships/et cetera, making him the more suitable student for the role.
If the academics at USyd are so much better, yet the USyd student managed to only perform to an equal 'academic performance' to the UWS student? Would this not make the UWS student better since her performance was 'exactly' comparable to the USyd student, yet achieved this using the 'worse' academics, and resources?
If USyd law is full of 99.6ers, then the competitiveness throughout the undergrad law courses should have been higher, than compared to the (85uai ??) students going through the UWS law program. So for a UWS student to earn the same academic achievements as a USyd student, with the less motivation/competitiveness, then could you say they are 'smarter' ?

Law grads: USyd v. UWS, everything else the same?
UWS, every time.

But the argument could work the other way too.

If USyd is full of 99.6ers, then competition is higher at USyd than it is at UWS. Therefore, it is harder to score a D at USyd than it is at UWS. Therefore, where two people have identical marks, ceteris paribus, shouldn't the offer go to the USyd person?

This type of argument would have to be based on the quota theories, which suggest that the unis (even though they don't tell you) try to get between x-y% of students in between a certain mark.

Anyway, the original poster must have given up this thread a long time ago

 

[santaslayer]

If USyd is full of 99.6ers, then competition is higher at USyd than it is at UWS. Therefore, it is harder to score a D at USyd than it is at UWS. Therefore, where two people have identical marks, ceteris paribus, shouldn't the offer go to the USyd person?

Not really IMO.

Markers mark on the basis of criteria, not comparative skill/ability. If the 99.60'er cannot answer questions according to criteria, they won't be getting the high marks. That's what I always thought anyway.

 

[Omnidragon]

Not really IMO.

Markers mark on the basis of criteria, not comparative skill/ability. If the 99.60'er cannot answer questions according to criteria, they won't be getting the high marks. That's what I always thought anyway.

Yea I guess... but that depends if you subscribe to that quota theory.

Anyway, even at the same university, it is possible that someone receives a lower mark because his marker was 'tight'. I do believe that certain lecturers are harsher, so I'm guessing it's very unfair for some students.

 

[wheredanton]

UNSW law employs the curve.

 

[phrred]

But the argument could work the other way too.

If USyd is full of 99.6ers, then competition is higher at USyd than it is at UWS. Therefore, it is harder to score a D at USyd than it is at UWS. Therefore, where two people have identical marks, ceteris paribus, shouldn't the offer go to the USyd person?

This type of argument would have to be based on the quota theories, which suggest that the unis (even though they don't tell you) try to get between x-y% of students in between a certain mark.

Anyway, the original poster must have given up this thread a long time ago

Why would more competition make it harder to score a D? Its not based on rankings, isnt it based on raw marks?

 

[santaslayer]

Anyway, even at the same university, it is possible that someone receives a lower mark because his marker was 'tight'. I do believe that certain lecturers are harsher, so I'm guessing it's very unfair for some students.

Yea, point conceded.

X copied Y's essay.
X and Y's mark was a 5 point difference.
X's essay got the higher mark
X and Y didn't dare dispute the marks though.


True story.