Which Univeristy and Course did you get into this year?
-
What exactly constitutes a tier 1 law school in your view?Originally posted by rmyfrm:2) In addition to having a crazy high GPA and straight-A studies leading to this point your life, you would have to undertake the LSAT; for a tier-1 american law school, roughly, you would have to rank between the 97th-99th percentile.
Just to add on, the American law schools - even the very top ones - adopt a far more relaxed and flexible approach with regard to admissions. Unlike doing law in the British system (though it's understandable given law is done at the undergraduate level) where a disproportionately high emphasis is placed on the A levels grades, law schools in the US seek a more diverse group and tend to consider other factors - personal and professional achievements (ie.activities/internships) notwithstanding - more significantly than British ones. -
I don't think you understand how admission to law schools are based. Indeed in America, for undergraduate studies, more emphasis is placed on extra/co-curricular activities which the candidate partakes in.Originally posted by walesa:What exactly constitutes a tier 1 law school in your view?
Just to add on, the American law schools - even the very top ones - adopt a far more relaxed and flexible approach with regard to admissions. Unlike doing law in the British system (though it's understandable given law is done at the undergraduate level) where a disproportionately high emphasis is placed on the A levels grades, law schools in the US seek a more diverse group and tend to consider other factors - personal and professional achievements (ie.activities/internships) notwithstanding - more significantly than British ones.
For admission to law schools however, it is a much more strictly regulated process. Fairly, candidates would have to submit inter alia, complete transcripts of results, past work experience, testimonials, multiple essays etc however, nothing weighs quite as heavily as results and LSAT scores.
If the law school which you are applying for has a 165 LSAT cut off with a 3.75 GPA minimum, achievements might compensate for a 164 LSAT score with a 3.72 GPA.
However, as the law is a postgraduate course in America, most of the candidates would be coming from not only brilliant academic backgrounds, but have extensive practical experience. Some people who choose to do law at a later stage in their life would be coming with life/work experience that would easily go on for pages and pages, but that's nothing unexpected.
LSATs on the other hand are the definitive guide to how one will perform in law school; the teaching method is very different - the socrates method of learning by asking is the predominant medium of instruction and there's no better way to filter out those who will "get it" from those who won't, than the LSATs.
I don't decide what's tier one; the US News & World Reports publishes the definitive guide to law schools - and of course, your alma matter is part of the tier one law schools.
In relation to UK law schools, grades are foremost for Oxbridge, as well as the top few universities, including (non-exhaustive) the LSE, Durham (currently ranked top law school in the UK), and UoL (note UoL's prestige is sliding fast, so arguably, this is no longer a top university). However, all the other second rate institutions such as Uni of Newcastle, Uni of Manchester etc., you'd get by with average A level grades, and it would not take alot to graduate with 2nd upper class honours.
However, whilst the Singapore bar is very very lenient and tender towards UK universities and law schools (the list is incredulous), they are much meaner to US and Australian legal graduates. Last I checked, only the top 4 law schools in the States were approved, and you would have to rank in the top 40% of your graduating cohort; for Australia, more law schools are recognised (but again, these are only the best each state has to offer - e.g. New South Wales - UNSW and UniSyd), but you would have to rank in the top 30% - and this is much harder to achieve.
In fact, the Singapore bar has recently made a move to recognise Aus graduates who rank in the top 70% but again, this is no easy feat to achieve when everyone around you came in with a HSC score of 99.0/100. Further, they only recognise these Aus grads if they have 3 years of practical experience in a legal field, but seeing that they cannot be associates, this often means that these grads have to be clerks, drawing minimal pay.
What happens then? Alot of people as far I know leave Singapore; no point being second rate in this country - they easily find employment with large-megafirms in Hong Kong, Australia or the UK; PR comes just as easy. I say this with no offence to our government which I greatly respect for excellent governance.
Unless the Singapore Bar reconsiders its harsh stance towards our locals from US/AU law schools, we will end up with not only a shortage of lawyers, but find that our better talents are leaving for greener pastures. -
I will stress again, that medicine/law/dentistry/architecture etc. - the professions would usually have much more stringent guidelines for admission. It's very much different from a general degree like that in philosophy, or business management etc. Of course, if you have a b.a. from yale, you'd probably be hard pressed to think of a reason why you should put yourself through another 3/4 years of hell with law school, or even worse, 5 years with med school.Originally posted by walesa:What exactly constitutes a tier 1 law school in your view?
Just to add on, the American law schools - even the very top ones - adopt a far more relaxed and flexible approach with regard to admissions. Unlike doing law in the British system (though it's understandable given law is done at the undergraduate level) where a disproportionately high emphasis is placed on the A levels grades, law schools in the US seek a more diverse group and tend to consider other factors - personal and professional achievements (ie.activities/internships) notwithstanding - more significantly than British ones. -
Well i am not settling for Dentistry just because i got rejected from med school. Like i said before i had no background in biology at all so i didnt expect to get into either of the faculties. I was praying hard that getting into either one will be good enough for me. Same thing i told the interviewers. I wont feel bad if i didnt get into medicine.Originally posted by rmyfrm:I cannot agree more with this statement. Don't settle for less.
In Singapore, we have two cultures running parallel but not against each other:
1) Go for as much value that you can get.
This is seen in every aspect of our life; from shopping to education - a student will make his choice of course and institution based on his results.
2) If you can't get the best, settle for second place.
Hence the stigma attached to dentistry as a reflection of society's perception.
-
While not in any way wrong, taking them to the extreme will only have you grumbling about your future like many Singaporeans. Do what you want to do and have no regrets about pursuing that course. Dentistry is indeed an honourable profession, but if you're undertaking it only because you didn't get into medicine, then please reconsider your decision. You will find that the course fees for medicine/dentistry in Singapore is not too far from medicine/dentistry overseas. This is not like any other faculty.
-
Get a life - I'd be amazed if you knew anything more than me going by what you're harping about. No offence, but it's really ridiculous for you to believe in "cut-offs" in the American education system. As a matter of fact, I've seen enough living proofs of my college mates going on to law schools and MBA programs which are hardly exclusively GPA-dependent (at least, not to the extreme adopted by the Commonwealth systems).Originally posted by rmyfrm:I don't think you understand how admission to law schools are based. Indeed in America, for undergraduate studies, more emphasis is placed on extra/co-curricular activities which the candidate partakes in.
For admission to law schools however, it is a much more strictly regulated process. Fairly, candidates would have to submit inter alia, complete transcripts of results, past work experience, testimonials, multiple essays etc however, nothing weighs quite as heavily as results and LSAT scores.
If the law school which you are applying for has a 165 LSAT cut off with a 3.75 GPA minimum, achievements might compensate for a 164 LSAT score with a 3.72 GPA.
I'm sure you will have little trouble accepting the fact Yale Law School belongs to Tier 1, if not the very best in the US, do you? The whole nonsense about cut-offs (be they for GPA or LSAT) just beggars belief. Just take a look at the profile of Yale's admitted classes for the last 3 years : http://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/howweevaluateapplications.htm . For those in the 3.25-3.49 GPA range, you might wish to note that 1 applicant was admitted with a LSAT in the 155-159 range and none from the 160-164 range. Of course, I'm not saying GPA's and LSAT's are insignificant to the extent that someone with a 1.00 GPA and 140 LSAT score should realistically believe he has a shot at YLS. What I'm driving home is the point that, unlike what would be the case in the British system, someone with a GPA of 3.70 and a LSAT score of 170 need not necessarily be admitted at the expense of someone with a GPA of 3.65 and a LSAT score of 165.
Indeed, it's widely regarded - by consensus or independent rankings from various sources - that Yale, Harvard, Stanford and Colombia are the top 4 law schools in the US. Even then, the prestige can hardly be quantified categorically simply because the different law schools have different niches - Yale's renowned for academia and those in the legal profession, while Stanford and Harvard produce more lawyers for the corporate world.
You may not be aware of this, but it's not really a case of people going to law schools just because they're prepared for another 3-4 years of "hell" as you claim. If you look at the bulk of Harvard's enrolment, more than 1/3 of its students at HLS have their undergraduate degrees from either Harvard or Yale college. The truth is, many genuinely want a legal education in the US simply because that's what they've always wanted to do - just like medicine. As you've pointed out, medicine and law being postgraduate courses in the US would render they'd still need to do a bachelor's in something en route to their JD's. Afterall, it's no surprise why a JD is as sought-after as a MBA in various prominent industries like investment banking... -
The cost of learning German would have killed me...Originally posted by eagle:Germany... Free education
Pay only miscellaneous sch fees, compulsory student insurance, hostel fees and food.
Perhaps add up to 400 euros a month... I didn't bother to fully check it out.
But you will have to spend the first year (or 2nd if u cannot pass) learning German before going on to uni. -
Who is ms wee?perhap i might need help her...Originally posted by RETARDED_MORON:It just so happens that Yale College has the lowest admission rate too.
But our lovely Ms. Wee made it there...
-
I will not deny that GPA is subject to the college attended; again, referring back to what I said, it's better to have an average GPA from a recognised institution, than to graduate magna cum laude from a shythole. However, the use of LSATs IS and will be the most important determining factor. Indeed exceptions are made from time to time, but the LSATs nonetheless are always looked at and considered. If you're seeking a full/partial ride through any of the tier1s, you must have an LSAT of at least 168 - sure there'd be minority scholarships etc, but the LSAT score is always the frontrunning method of evaluating a potential candidate's aptness for a legal education.Originally posted by walesa:Get a life - I'd be amazed if you knew anything more than me going by what you're harping about. No offence, but it's really ridiculous for you to believe in "cut-offs" in the American education system. As a matter of fact, I've seen enough living proofs of my college mates going on to law schools and MBA programs which are hardly exclusively GPA-dependent (at least, not to the extreme adopted by the Commonwealth systems).
I'm sure you will have little trouble accepting the fact Yale Law School belongs to Tier 1, if not the very best in the US, do you? The whole nonsense about cut-offs (be they for GPA or LSAT) just beggars belief. Just take a look at the profile of Yale's admitted classes for the last 3 years : http://www.law.yale.edu/admissions/howweevaluateapplications.htm . For those in the 3.25-3.49 GPA range, you might wish to note that 1 applicant was admitted with a LSAT in the 155-159 range and none from the 160-164 range. Of course, I'm not saying GPA's and LSAT's are insignificant to the extent that someone with a 1.00 GPA and 140 LSAT score should realistically believe he has a shot at YLS. What I'm driving home is the point that, unlike what would be the case in the British system, someone with a GPA of 3.70 and a LSAT score of 170 need not necessarily be admitted at the expense of someone with a GPA of 3.65 and a LSAT score of 165.
Indeed, it's widely regarded - by consensus or independent rankings from various sources - that Yale, Harvard, Stanford and Colombia are the top 4 law schools in the US. Even then, the prestige can hardly be quantified categorically simply because the different law schools have different niches - Yale's renowned for academia and those in the legal profession, while Stanford and Harvard produce more lawyers for the corporate world.
You may not be aware of this, but it's not really a case of people going to law schools just because they're prepared for another 3-4 years of "hell" as you claim. If you look at the bulk of Harvard's enrolment, more than 1/3 of its students at HLS have their undergraduate degrees from either Harvard or Yale college. The truth is, many genuinely want a legal education in the US simply because that's what they've always wanted to do - just like medicine. As you've pointed out, medicine and law being postgraduate courses in the US would render they'd still need to do a bachelor's in something en route to their JD's. Afterall, it's no surprise why a JD is as sought-after as a MBA in various prominent industries like investment banking...
With regards to people going to law school, I never mentioned that people going into law school were doing so based on the fact that they were prepared for hell. All I said was that law school is no walk in the park. Everyone who goes through law school genuinely wants a legal education, but for reasons varying.
This is the internet, I may be hiding behind a moniker just like you, but trust me, I'm in a position to comment about law schools; as you'll see, I've never discussed any other faculty because it is not my place .. but law schools ..
Did you attend law school? Universty and graduating class? -
At NUS, there's no need to bother much abt GPA as long as u can be within first class honours. Any higher is still a first class.Originally posted by rmyfrm:I will not deny that GPA is subject to the college attended; again, referring back to what I said, it's better to have an average GPA from a recognised institution, than to graduate magna cum laude from a shythole. However, the use of LSATs IS and will be the most important determining factor. Indeed exceptions are made from time to time, but the LSATs nonetheless are always looked at and considered. If you're seeking a full/partial ride through any of the tier1s, you must have an LSAT of at least 168 - sure there'd be minority scholarships etc, but the LSAT score is always the frontrunning method of evaluating a potential candidate's aptness for a legal education.
With regards to people going to law school, I never mentioned that people going into law school were doing so based on the fact that they were prepared for hell. All I said was that law school is no walk in the park. Everyone who goes through law school genuinely wants a legal education, but for reasons varying.
This is the internet, I may be hiding behind a moniker just like you, but trust me, I'm in a position to comment about law schools; as you'll see, I've never discussed any other faculty because it is not my place .. but law schools ..
Did you attend law school? Universty and graduating class? -
I don't think you understand ..Originally posted by eagle:At NUS, there's no need to bother much abt GPA as long as u can be within first class honours. Any higher is still a first class.
At NUS, law school is an undergraduate degree. You take the A levels, and then you apply with your results, followed by interviews.
In the States, law school is a postgraduate degree; admission depends on a number of factors, amongst which, GPA, LSATs, personal achievements etc. Irregardless what level honours you achieve, your GPA will still be factored into the law school's evaluation of you; no doubt first class would probably and easily satisfy any of their requirements. -
Unless you're telling me you've sat on the adcoms of the tier 1 law schools, I don't think you know any more about admissions to American law schools than I do - I'm in the midst of preparing the applications myself, so I obviously know what I'm talking about.Originally posted by rmyfrm:I will not deny that GPA is subject to the college attended; again, referring back to what I said, it's better to have an average GPA from a recognised institution, than to graduate magna cum laude from a shythole. However, the use of LSATs IS and will be the most important determining factor. Indeed exceptions are made from time to time, but the LSATs nonetheless are always looked at and considered. If you're seeking a full/partial ride through any of the tier1s, you must have an LSAT of at least 168 - sure there'd be minority scholarships etc, but the LSAT score is always the frontrunning method of evaluating a potential candidate's aptness for a legal education.
With regards to people going to law school, I never mentioned that people going into law school were doing so based on the fact that they were prepared for hell. All I said was that law school is no walk in the park. Everyone who goes through law school genuinely wants a legal education, but for reasons varying.
This is the internet, I may be hiding behind a moniker just like you, but trust me, I'm in a position to comment about law schools; as you'll see, I've never discussed any other faculty because it is not my place .. but law schools ..
Did you attend law school? Universty and graduating class?
What you've suggested in your post is nothing more than stuff spun off the rumour-mill and common sense deductions which I've heard a thousand times over right from my undergraduate days - and I'm not saying you're lying, but your account hardly contradicts admission cases I've seen first hand.
Needless to say, by the law of averages, the better your GPA and LSAT scores are, the higher your chances of admission - that's not rocket science. The whole idea of there being a cutoff is just ridiculous - that's born out by people I know who have been admitted to 2 of those 4 law schools I singled out as being widely regarded as among the 4 finest law schools in the US. In essence, a strict correlation between GPAs and LSATs guarded by cutoffs dictating one's admission is just something I find completely ridiculous.
Likewise, what determines if law school is a walk in the park? It's all a matter of perception and aptitude and ultimately, it's all down to the individual.
For all your self-acclaimed expertise on the law school admission process, what law school(s) have you attended? -
US law schools are only offered at the postgraduate level.Originally posted by eagle:At NUS, there's no need to bother much abt GPA as long as u can be within first class honours. Any higher is still a first class.
The thing is for US law schools, they need you to submit your transcripts(among other things) for your undergraduate studies (regardless of field of study). That comes in the form of your GPA from your undergraduate studies.
Just like the system adopted widely, a high GPA would naturally translate to a higher class of honours. -
as u said, a first class would probably satisfy their requirements easily.Originally posted by rmyfrm:I don't think you understand ..
At NUS, law school is an undergraduate degree. You take the A levels, and then you apply with your results, followed by interviews.
In the States, law school is a postgraduate degree; admission depends on a number of factors, amongst which, GPA, LSATs, personal achievements etc. Irregardless what level honours you achieve, your GPA will still be factored into the law school's evaluation of you; no doubt first class would probably and easily satisfy any of their requirements.
maybe I was not clear in what i said, but I was trying to imply that as long as ur GPA falls within the first class range, it's safe, i.e. I do not need to bother much.
P.S. I know my standard of english is rather lousy.