We wrote to the Chair of the Council of Australian Law Deans, Professor Jill McKeough, to ask her whether she still believes (as per her comments to us earlier this year) that the jobs market remains healthy for law grads. Professor McKeough responded:
At this point of time the employment situation for law graduates seems to be still healthy. Obviously if an over-supply of law students is forecast and there is evidence for that then law schools will feel a responsibility to respond in order to ensure that the opportunities for graduates are as good as they can be. Most law schools do that already in a variety of ways.
We also asked Professor McKeough what her thoughts were about the Mallesons’ outsourcing agreement and what it means for graduates. She replied:
The fact that Mallesons are off-shoring discovery work does not affect the vast bulk of employment of law graduates. There are many factors at work with respect to employment of law graduates, and as I said before, for the last 40 years the idea that everyone practises law, let alone at a big firm, has not been the reality… I doubt that endless hours spent on discovery is regarded as a ‘core legal skill’.
While we agree that views may differ on whether discovery experience is a necessary attribute of a competent lawyer, on the more important point – namely the fact of that work being offshored and potentially diverted away from grads – we think this is likely to place downward pressure on the graduate recruitment market. Perhaps if wont affect the vast bulk of students, but certainly if all major law firms start off-shoring junior lawyer work, then it can’t be good news for graduates. Maybe we’re not there yet, but, perhaps linearly with each concluded outsourcing agreement, we’re getting closer to the critical point where there’ll be too many grads, and, coextensively, too many law students.
Which gets us to the revelation that two brand new law schools are starting up or have started – Central Qld in 2011, and Australian Catholic University, which is recruiting for a dean to start in 2012. We asked Professor Greg Craven, the Vice Chancellor of ACU, what market research, if any, indicated the need for the law faculty. We also asked him how many students he expects in the law faculty’s first cohort to contain and whether, given the state of the graduate legal jobs market, he fears those ACU graduates will find difficulty obtaining graduate employment.
Thanks to Vice Chancellor for the following response:
Market research indicates that there is significant unmet supply for places in Law in the States where we operate. The intention of the University would be to open a relatively small School, though exact numbers are not yet set. We are interested in quality, rather than quantity, and Law as a discipline fits the academic profile of the University perfectly. The Faculty will open in Melbourne in 2013, and Sydney in 2014. Employment will depend upon the quality of graduates and the perceptions of the profession. So far, judging by the quality of the practitioners and members of the judiciary on our planning board, interest is high. My own personal experience in this field is that, when as Foundation Dean of Law at Notre Dame in Perth I graduated my first class in 2000, they all received jobs, the only graduating class in WA that year to do so.
I always am a little amused when there is a suggestion that Australia should not have more Law Schools, given the number that already exist. The real question is how good those Schools will be, and whether they will be better than those currently existing, not simply whether they will be additional. One might just as easily argue that we should lose a couple of existing institutions, or that some very large Schools might care to contract their own numbers. In the event, the market will make its own judgement and we are quite confident on this point.
It’s an excellent point – perhaps we should get rid of a few crap law schools? As to which, we invite your comments below. It’s worth also noting here that the federal government next year is deregulating student places and this will mean, subject to a few conditions, universities can enrol as many students as they want in any course, including law. Law schools may grow and proliferate even more, more than the 28,000 the Australian Law Students’ Association currently estimates there to be.
Professor McKeough, this time wearing the hat of Dean of Law at the University of Technology Sydney, made the following comments about what impact deregulation will have her faculty’s law student numbers:
At UTS numbers of law students are expected to remain stable into the future as the University does not wish the law school to get any larger, for funding and quality reasons.
Thanks very much to Professor McKeough. Now over to our readers. What do you think? Have we reached a stage where, similar to their British counterparts, Law Deans should apprise high-school graduates seeking to enrol in a law degree of the increasing difficulties they will face in finding a graduate job? Or should the government just limit the number of law students?
Send the Firm Spy your news and views!
Loading...
If the grad job market is so damn healthy then perhaps Professor Jill McKeough can find me a job?
I’ll set a challenge. If you’re a firm with a vacancy feel free to leave a note in the comments – i’ll be in touch. (As will most likely every other unemployed grad that reads this site).
I bet by days end, the number of jobs posted will be far less than the number of grads looking… prove me wrong FS. But I bet you can’t.
/FWIW I’m going to bet 0 jobs get placed in these comments – in that highly likely event I win by default and it will be proof that Professor Jill McKeough is full of rubbish!
Law is a big money spinner for the universities and I don’t think that you will see the intake being cut back whilst they can (still) use the tuition fees paid by law students (and the government) to cross-subsidise the far less popular courses (think Classical Hebrew and its ilk).
Having graduated law school doesn’t give you an entitlement to a job at all, much less a lawyer. I’d like to know what grades those complaining about being unemployed got. Those who got top grades, behave rationally in interviews, don’t make themselves look like an idiot on Faceboox, and do the right career development activities, don’t seem to have any trouble.
Get rid of Edith Cowan law school if you’re looking to shut down crap law schools. I have yet to meet a quality law graduate from there.
What sucks the most about the oversupply of law graduates is that the kids can’t just enjoy their university experience because they know they must start building their resume straight away to get a job post-uni. They work at a law firm for 2-3 days a week, volunteer at a community legal centre, raise money for kids in Africa etc, as well as study. They are turned into robots from the time they get into law and start uni. Ambition over doing what they actual want to do, merely to distinguish themselves from others.
I appreciate this is just a fact of a competitive world/doing what you have to do to get ahead.
It is just sad that they feel like they can’t just have a good time whilst at uni. I’m sure a lot look back and wished they got pissed and laid more whilst they were at uni.
Agree with Anonymous – if you work hard in Uni it really isn’t that hard to get a “good” job. If you’re not willing to study hard don’t expect a job at a national firm and don’t be complaining about it. Look at smaller firms, boutiques and other areas of law
This is an interesting and complex issue.
If there is a move to limit the number of law graduates, then that means someone who wants to do law misses out. The criteria that will be applied are 1) TER (or enter, or ATER or whatever they change it to) and 2) money – for full fee paying students.
On this basis, the law is going to revert back to favouring kids who have parents who will buy them a place at Uni, or who have parents who have bought them a good ATER by buying them expensive schooling or tutoring, or the nerds who spend all their time studying and never develop any real life skills.
What does this mean – we end up with a less diverse legal profession. In my view, this is not a good thing.
The fact is that a law degree is now a general degree and is not a guarantee of a job as a lawyer. Most people I went through law school with (early 2000s) got this, and I’m sure its even more apparent now.
It’s still incredible to me that you can do law as an undergrad here. In the US, you can’t get into a law school without a previous degree (and for most ivy leagues they want at least a gap year or substantial work experience before they’ll even look at your application). Melbourne Uni is moving in this direction, which is great. It’s also helping to place that law school as the 10th best law school in the world. Imagine if a law school was only full of students who’ve held previous positions and have a welath of experience in the job market. I reckon it would produce extremely high quality graduates and it would be easier to find jobs if candidates came with that much more experience.
This isn’t to say that undergrads aren’t amazing and well prepared for law school, but to be honest, law degrees are professional qualifications. Many law students don’t even want to be lawyers and don’t even end up in law jobs half the time. It’s better if a student had time to realise that they never want to be a lawyer anyway, thus freeing up space for those that really want it.
ECU and Murdoch (WA) are both advertising an indicative required ATAR of 80. By my calculations, that equates to an average of just over 60%. Now I will admit, there will always be good examples of the kid who had extenuating circumstances to excuse his or her poor marks in Year 12 or simply lacked the maturity at 17/18 years old to pull his or her finger out… but you can’t tell me too many kids who can barely average over 60% in Year 12 are going to wind up doing well enough at university to even land a law job in the current climate, much less make a successful lawyer. Even if they do manage to score brilliant marks at uni, they risk those marks being consciously or unconsciously discounted during the recruitment process because the rest of their uni cohort lacks credibility. The main problem is that universities are so keen to get as many students as possible through the door that they are hardly going to go out of their way to make students aware of the harsh realities of the graduate job market. I count myself extremely lucky that I managed to figure this out for myself halfway through uni while I still had time to cut back on the partying and rescue my average.
While I feel for those that can’t find a job, have good grades and a good attitude, some responsibility needs to lie with the student who chooses to study law at University.
Do your research before you decide to make it your career and don’t just look at the money and prestige of the industry. Ask yourself “what’s the demand in the industry? Is there a skills shortage? What are my realistic prospects?”.
To be successful you have to make the right choices, with a little good fortune along the way. While Universities perhaps should shoulder some of the blame, they should not be entirely responsible for students choosing to study law.
@Anonymous [Posted November 2, 2011 at 9:36 AM]
“Having graduated law school doesn’t give you an entitlement to a job at all, much less a lawyer.”
Are you f***ing high? Of course we feel entitled, after all we’ve just racked up a measly $40K+ HECS debt and spent 4-5 years of our life studying our arses off. You honestly think if you dropped that kind of cash and spent that amount of time on something you wouldn’t want a little return on your investment?
Feel entitled? No, we are entitled. This isn’t some ‘Gen-Y feels like the world owes them a living’ crap! Law schools sell these students on the fact that they can and will work as a lawyer upon graduation, it’s in the first year lectures, it’s in the prospectus it’s on the ads. They show us their brilliant statistics of ‘X amount of students find full-time work within 12 months’ etc.
People who haven’t had to work hard to get where they are, or did so that long ago they’ve forgotten how hard it was, make those sorts of comments. I’m not saying that is you – how could I? I don’t know you or your circumstances, just stop being a tosser. It’s too easy to sit back once you actually have found some work and make those sort of comments and criticise, but try (if possible) to keep in mind that there are some seriously concerned people out there looking for work.
I wouldn’t be so quick to jump to the conclusion that everyone who didn’t get a job was a complete loser either. Yes there are some, others are distinction students. It’s a tight job market for grads/junior lawyers – places don’t open up until you have minimum 2 yrs PAE. You’ve got good graduates out there competing against a lot of other good grads not to mention the obvious nepotism that eats up a lot of positions.
The line that ‘the LLB is the new BA’ doesn’t wash with me. The law degree is not some magic wand you can wave at non-legal employers: competitive jobs get taken out by suitably specialised graduates of other disciplines over those with dubiously relevant legal credentials. Even if the LLB was a viable generalist degree for entrance into a whole range of non-legal professions, is it worth paying three times as much and studying for twice as long?
Serious questions need to be asked about why the following institutions are allowed to, or bother, offering law degrees:
- VU
- Murdoch
- Edith Cowan
- UWS
- UniSA
- Latrobe
- UC
- Griffith
- James Cook
- RMIT
- Southern Cross
- New England
- Newcastle
- Wollongong
These universities are basically engaging in false advertising and negligence, building false hopes up of people have a chance of embarking on a successful legal career.
There is definately too many lawyers and graduate. 1. there are obviously too many graduates 2. this means its hard for everyone to get a job 3. it pushes salaries down given the over supply and the bargaining is in favour of the firms even more so that i t should be.
Look at medicine, the AMA and other organisations ensure that the number of graduates are low so that overall doctors are well paid and there is no oversupply.
This is what law should be doing. Also people wanting to do law should be made aware of this competition and the mental health issues in the profession. I dont think students are properly informed, the degree almost needs a disclaimer: you may not get a job at the end, it will most likely be only reasonably paying for the work you do until you make partner, you have at least a 33% chance (or is it 50%) of developing a mental health issue whilst working as a lawyer and you may be subjected to boring work for the first couple of years of practice…
i agree with what others have already said. the question of why the last decade has seen an explosion in the number of law schools (and why the job market is so tight now) comes down to cash. law is cheap to teach (a few lectures and one big exam, no labs, pracs, equipment, etc) but is the most expensive course through HECS. having had funding cuts, unis understandably milk their profitable areas. at the end of the day, if glorified TAFEs like central qld uni, western syd, university of canberra, vic uni, etc, can find enough kids who honestly think their course will get them somewhere, who is going to stop them. capitalism at work.
Mr Craven mentions all the class of 2000 got jobs, I’d like to know whether these were jobs as Articled Clerks.
A fundamental mistake University of Notre Dame Australia made was working on its “Australian identity connected but independent” from Notre Dame in the US. Should they have worked on an identity intrinsically connected and dependent on Notre Dame US, they would have come a long way. Mr Craven should have replicated the American structure to the extent statutorily possible, given that their American sister constantly ranks as a top law school.
In Australia, keep the Go8 law schools and scrap the rest. It’s for the greater good.
Geez Six Minutes, I usually have a lot of time for your comments, but limiting it to the Group of 8 is a bit much!
I know some pretty good lawyers from Deakin, and one or two decent ones from Latrobe and Flinders too.
If we are going to cut it down to Go8, why not go the whole hog. Let’s limit ourselves to boys who went to Scotch or Melb Grammar (no scholarship kids) and then Melbourne Uni!
@six minutes
Amen
@Six Minutes, note that Mr Craven didn’t tell us how many students graduated in 2000, either.
Its pretty much agreed these 2nd rate law schools are a useless scam.
Can’t we as members of a legal profession somehow vote to protect the future generation by discrediting certain law schools?
What about if we sue them for unconscionable conduct? Class Action?
Frankly, I’m sick of all this discrimination against non-Go8 law schools. Why should non-Go8 students be disadvantaged just because we couldn’t get the 99+ UAI/ATAR to get into a Go8?
I’m proud to be going to a non-Go8 where the competition isn’t as fierce and it’s easy to breeze to a distinction average. In the end, it should just be your marks which matter and not the uni’s reputation. Since I go to a non-Go8, I’ve been able to get good marks and still have a life!
@ Nasty Cyril
True, there are good lawyers coming out of non-Go8 universities, but if you look at the grad intakes from the top tier firms (and I’m basing this upon Melbourne, but I suspect a similar situation in Sydney) in the last 5 years, it’s predominantly Monash & Melbourne, with perhaps 1 or 2 from other universities. In any event, not proportional to, say, the number of law students produced by Deakin/Latrobe/Vic Uni/RMIT compared to those graduating from Monash/Melbourne.
Whilst it’s a bit harsh to say that it’s for the “greater good” for other schools to be scrapped, but it would at least be a fair call to say that a graduate’s chances of getting a top end legal job would be greatly benefitted from graduating from a Go8.
@US perspective
1. Having done another degree is not a guarantee of quality of candidates. Completing an arts/commerce/science degree with an HD/H1A average is pretty easy.
2. In recent years, we were in a similar position with the US, with universities requiring those graduates coming straight out of high school to undertake double degrees cf. straight law (and usually structured so that students finish the non-law degree first). Melbourne has recently adopted the us approach of requiring an undergraduate degree first.
3. Perhaps a small sample size to be making an assessment generally, but based on the past 4 years of graduates coming into the top tier firm at which I work, the best ACs/graduates and to a lesser extent, the seasonal clerks rotating through the group have been those that went straight into law, and at the same time, the worst graduates to have rotated through the group have been mature age students who had done other degree and had worked elsewhere beforehand (and I can say that this is a general view of the practice group as based on the formal reviews circulated upon their departure, and not just my individual view). I appreciate that it’s from a limited sample size of ~ 60 people, but take from it what you will.
@Imran Khan
Entirely agree that the AMA has done a better job of representing their profession (compared to the various law societies). The main reasons for this have been:
(1) the state by state regulation, as opposed to a national body representing all legal practitioners;
(2) lack of engagement (read – coercion) by law societies in respect of the universities – although the AMA has bargaining power due to the practical component of the training, which they can simply refuse to provide spots for, whereas admission requirements for law can be satisfied by universities eg. pdlp and external providers eg. leo cussens, college of law;
(3) therefore, for successful control of numbers, we would need a nationally consistent admission approach, requiring practical or post graduate training capable of being offered only by the regulator of the legal profession (in economic terms, operate as a monopoly, just as the AMA is). Otherwise, it is in the interest of universities to offer more spots, and thereby generate more fees.
“I’m proud to be going to a non-Go8 where the competition isn’t as fierce and it’s easy to breeze to a distinction average. In the end, it should just be your marks which matter and not the uni’s reputation. Since I go to a non-Go8, I’ve been able to get good marks and still have a life!”
Good luck with that, Karceno. Problem is, recruiters know that a D average from Sydney Uni is worth a whole lot more than a D average from the Uni of Western Nowhere.
There has been plenty of press in Above the Law and Roll on Friday lately about law schools in the US and UK promoting their courses (much more expensive than Oz) with statistics about employment outcomes, but failing to mention that a large chunk of those grads they claim are in “legal” employment are paralegals, sweat-shop contract attorneys or secretaries. Seems it’s a universal problem.
@ Tom Hanks 6:26,
That’s correct, I think it was less than a dozen. For all we know, Greg Craven may have done fierce lobbying and string pulling on behalf of the handful or so students – assuming they all got Articles.
The reality is 1989/1990 was the last good year for the Western Australian legal fraternity. In this year all the graduating law students (all from Go8 UWA) got jobs in law firms. In this decade too, partnership was an entirely different ball game. Plenty of lawyers would be made partners anywhere between 2-5 years.
During this period, there was also an influx of lawyers from South Africa who escaped South Africa as soon as emancipation of South Africa’s black population gained international momentum. Perth, in particular, was chosen as a point of relocation perhaps due to the visible lack of racial diversity in 1980s Perth – being in stark contrast with Melbourne and Sydney. In addition to this, Perth also had a lot of lawyers coming in from the eastern states, Tasmania, Northern Territory and the UK.
To make matters worse, Murdoch, Notre Dame and ECU creeped onto the scene with their second class degrees spitting out law grads. The state of affairs has been deteriorating since and it is only a matter of time before Curtin University unveils it’s brand new law school and nothing will ever be the same again.
Close the law schools that churned out the hacks that make up the FS editorial team.
Subject to the caveat noted below, I don’t understand why FS has (and assorted disgruntled posters have) chosen to direct its (their) ire at the universities. As another poster has pointed out, law gets universities lots of HECs and offering a law degree makes a teritary education look all grown up (they speak Latin don’t they?). There would appear to be an insatiable demand from high school leavers to study law. In the circumstances, it would be foolish for a university NOT to offer a law degree.
The real issue is not an oversupply of law grads, it’s an oversupply of naive, greedy school leavers. I would be extremely surprised if the ratio of law grads to quality legal jobs has changed to a material extent over the past decade. (A cogent argument can be made that things are GOING to change – the major firms are getting leaner. Against this, the Aussie market has seen lots of new entrants of late, so I’d argue that the two effects will probably balance themselves out, other than to an extent that represents a rounding error.)
If you start a law degree at an institution outside the Go8 you are either a gambler or an idiot. (No doubt someone will complain that this is desparately unfair because some people have no choice but to attend the University of Western Nowhere because they need to live at home to look after their dying albino tortoise. I accept this, but I suggest these kindly/unfortunate souls are in the minority, another rounding error.)
I’ve worked with some truly excellent lawyers from outside the Go8, but they were the unusual – exceptional even – guys (and girls) who worked their arses off to get stellar marks without which they wouldn’t have been noticed/employed by major firms. I’ve also worked with some dross from the Go8. But it was the good fortune of the latter to have received a degree from a Go8 uni. The interview process (two, maybe three interviews of an hour and a half each?) is simply incapable of overcoming the inherent bias in favour of these candidates.
Caveat: Universities can (and should) legitimately be cirticised for “bigging up” the employment prospects of grads. But does anyone – even the most delusional school leaver with dreams of partnership at Mallens & Freehutz – believe (or even read) the stuff that universities say about the prospects of their grads?
I am surprised that the apparent “oversupply” of law grads hasn’t led to the usual market response to oversupply, i.e., a collapse in the “price” of grads and a corresponding reduction in the price of legal services in Australia. The fact that the big firms can keep generating rent suggests either market failure and/or that there is no single market for law grads (because there is a separate market for law grads from Go8 institutions).
You don’t have to work for a major law firm (or any law firm!) to be a good lawyer. Ambition is a wonderful thing, but a sense of entitlement is repugnant. I would advise all of your posters who rage against the system’s inability to find them the job of their dreams to grow up and find some other means of repaying their HECs debt.
Sorry – makes a “tertiary educational institution”.
So which non-Go8 law school produces the best grads?
No one has mentioned the infamous Bond Uni yet. I would say I have seen some of the sharpest grads out of Bond, but also some of the absolute worst. We have one Bond grad now where I am who is an absolute turnip.
That is because Bond is made up of two types of law student:
1) Dumb children of rich parents who paid full fees for their child to do law at Bond.
2) Smart poor people on full/a good portion paid scholarship.
And when I say dumb, I mean really dumb.
@Anonymous (7.42pm)
You are right – the intakes at the big firms are skewed towards Melbourne and Monash. The thing is, not everyone wants to go to one of the big firms (despite they hype) and there are actually a lot of jobs out there beyond those firms that require legal skills.
Go8 may get you past HR at a big firm, but as a lawyer who has conducted plenty of interviews at a smaller firm, I definitely don’t discount grads from other Unis.
Six minutes,
So where is your data to back your claims here? On what do you base your comments that ECU, Murdoch, ND’s quality of the degree (an academic teaching and a student learning) is ? Just because you may be surrounded by clowns as students (those with dubious Yr 12 marks) does not mean that the teaching is any better or worse than UWA (which you are obviously comparing these other institutions to).
There is no doubt that Top Tier and other International law firms in Perth are performing a cut off filter across applicants based on marks as the swathe (or is it tidal wave?) of clerkship . I would be very interested to know out of all grads taken on by top tiers/international law firms in Perth this year what the percentage split is across law schools. Does anyone have this data at the firms?
Do a simple law graduate Perth search on LinkedIn and you will VERY plainly see that not just UWA students are getting grad positions.
In Perth, Murdoch law grads do very well when vacation clerkship/grad season comes around. The UWA law students just study theory and more theory, they don’t really get any practical skills as part of their law course, eg mooting.
In Queensland it doesn’t really matter where you go. Each of the firms seem to value different universities but if you’re getting good grades (minimum GPA 5.5) you have a fairly good shot at grad positions from any of the ‘top 6′ as well as Norton Rose, Corrs, Gadens or Dibbs Barker.
Hi All
I was one of those students who was extremely jaded and felt mislead by my university for allowing so many students to study.
I have a 6.0 GPA for law and 7.0 for arts with stellar cocurriculars (and even a handful of clerkships) at a non Go8 and was unable to get a job. With a lot of patience and persistence I have recently got an excellent grad position and have to agree with Simon and Anon in saying that if you work hard, avoid stupid Facebook pranks etc and persist then you should be OK in the end.
At the end of the day it is a tough market in a tough economy so it will be a challenge but those who are passionate about the profession and willing to stick at it should get there in the end.
Anon (3 above). Very nice subtle trolling. Everyone knows that UWA grads who learn more legal theory are actually advantaged by that, and miss out on nothing from the fact that they don’t do as many moots as Murdoch.
For those that say the graduates are entitled: http://i.imgur.com/YqUif.jpg
Do a google search on ‘Murdoch law’ – the spiel says it all:
“A progressive outlook and a total committment to quality…”
Tee hee.
But seriously, I’ve always felt that the fact I was denied the opportunity to participate in the International Maritime Law Arbitration Moot Competition has held me back…
having gone to a Non-Go8 uni, in fact the University of Western Nowhere, I think this law school could be readily shut down, and the big wigs in the city wouldn’t care or notice. However, the graduates who want to work for suburban mum-and-dad style firms in the west would certainly notice. Crappy unis still serve a purpose – their lawyers might not be the top tier variety (there are exceptions of course), but they can still do the job, and should be allowed to do it.
Also, for all those grads out there who say they can’t find a job, maybe you need to diversify where you look. As mentioned I went to a crappy uni, graduated with very average grades, but was willing to move to canberra where i got a good government job and got 2 job offers (as a solicitor) with firms that did our legal work. These were mid (or one might be top) tier firms that never would’ve looked at me had I applied for their clerkship/grad programs.
The article cites the dean from UTS. UTS falls outside Go8 but how do people view it?
There are a lot of whingers on this site. I went to a non Go8 uni. Got good marks, did lots of extra stuff, have life experience, and have a job at a top tier. If you work hard, can get along with people, and can stand out from the 700 others who also have good marks, work hard and get along with people, you may also get a good job. But for goodness sake, lose the sense of entitlement, and all-over whingeyness. Doesn’t matter which uni you go to. HR people aren’t that stupid, at least not at my firm.
Some commentators have suggested that it is a year 12 student’s fault for choosing an oversupplied industry. Do they really expect a kid fresh out of high school to be able to forecast and analyze where the legal industry is headed? They may be smart enough to qualify and complete the degree, but at age 17/18 the level of responsibility can hardly be placed on them. Especially considering that the universities should know better about supply and demand of law graduates.
Maybe its time for the oldies to pick up a little bit of responsibility rather than shafting it on to kids. The student needs to worry about good grades and some co-curricular activities, not whether capitalistic greed is screwing the supply demand ratios.
I fail to see how anyone can comment on the educational quality of an institution unless they have attended there as a student. The elitist crap is still alive and well – there are good and bad from all unis.
Sometimes people just need to realise that no matter how “stellar” their cocurriculars (is that a word?) are, how high their GPA is or how many friends they have that wear tweed and attend polo matches they are still dorks that no one in their right mind would want to work/socialise with. Enjoy the attitude readjustment!
This is a great article and I applaud Firmspy for bringing it to the fore.
I have long been discussing the simple economic irrationality of an oversupply of law students. There are, without doubt, a limited amount of places and too many students already.
Good, smart and talented kids will miss out. The market decides who gets positions. If our firm wants 20 grads, it doesn’t matter that there are 200 good applicants. We will take 20. Fin.
To add more students to the mix is merely to exacerbate an already terrible situation of oversupply.
ACU is committing a terrible injustice on its students by accepting their applications with the knowledge that it’s unlikely that they will get anything resembling the careers that they desire. Yes, they might be pretty good graduates…but ‘pretty good’ means nothing when you understand that recruitment is completely comparative – the firms will take the kid who speaks three languages, attained an ENTER of 99.5 at a top private school and did Law at Melbourne Uni with strong marks.
marco, the 3 languages thing is a good point… i am soooo sick of reading job ads for lawyers which insist the applicant must be able to speak/read/write chinese/korean etc. while i don’t doubt that their clients appreciate somebody being able to communicate in their language, it feels like reverse racism. want a guaranteed job? study law and asian languages, and don’t worry about the law grades.
Re anon: I agree. It is discrimination in an abstract way.
Don’t be naive – it’s business. Top law firms are often seen by clients as being fungible (i.e. all excellent) so being able to put forward someone with language skills and understanding of cultural issues makes a huge difference. Non-English languages skills may be a nice to have in OZ, but emerging markets where many clients speak only passable English is another thing.
We have been looking to hire good lawyers fluent in English / Mandarin for the better part of a year at more than double standard Aussie top-tier pay but no luck. It’s always one or the other not up to par. Anyone fitting this background will have no shortage of offers from MC / US firms in HK.
Note being able to chat up someone in a bar in halting Mandarin doesn’t mean you’re fluent . Have interviewed far too many claiming to be “fluent” when they could barely talk about their weekend…
In my experience this is all bullshit, at my regional non-GO8 university at least 20 students that I know of got top tier clerkships. I’m unsure of the reasoning that GO8 universities are better for learning law, don’t all universities teach the same curriculum essentially?
In my opinion it’s more satisfying to learn from a lecturer who has significant practice experience, not some Dr/Prof who may have published the most eminent text book in that subject but has no real world exposure.
Meh. Please don’t discount suburban firms in your job hunting.
I went to Deakin. Had clerkships at well known Melbourne CBD Mid tiers. Volunteered at a CLC and managed to get First Class Honours with a D average.
Had about 4 interviews with firms (mix of mid and top CBD tier) for grad positions and got through to second round on all of them, but fell short.
Decided I wanted to upskill a little more and did Leo Cussen. Very good decision. Not intending to plug Leo’s or anything, but let me tell you, if you can walk into a job interview at a suburban firm and know how a sale of business/conveyance is done, know how to do a Will/Probate etc (basically bread and butter money making), know how to do get a plan of sub/s173/consolidation through council and LTO then YOU WILL GET A JOB.
Similarly, the experience you gain in suburban firms of repute (and there are NUMEROUS in Melbourne which hold good reputation with courts, magistrates and partners) is second to none – you become well balance very quickly. The conditions are great, too.
Moving on from suburban to big city is not that big of a jump if you’re marketable. The work I do on a daily basis is often also done by mid tiers as well as top tiers (minus wills and probate
).
Moral of the story: look everywhere for a job, big city is always going to be tough. We leaned this watching Home Alone 2 Lost in New York.
Actually. anon@7.42pm and Nasty Cyril, Monash should not escape scrutiny. Much of the depression in the Victorian legal profession is surely attributable to the terrifying effects of a Monash “legal education” on students, from the drab Soviet-style suicide-inducing campus architecture to the perennial bitterness Monash students retain from not being good enough to get into Melbourne or Sydney. Monash law students also tend to have an embarrassing and mediocre fashion sense that crystallises on the interview circuit when you see the phenomenon of the dero in a suit with scruffy hair and cheap make-up/hair product parading around as though they’re Rhodes Scholars.
Little wonder that they feel the need to prove that they can get jobs at top-tiers whilst Melbourne and Sydney graduates are in demand globally.
@Deakin First Year Lawyer
End of the day it comes down to what the student is after, if they want to practice basic property law, then that is a great option open to them, and as you say, it matters very little which university they went to as Leo Cussens doesn’t particularly care.
If the student want to, for example, do capital markets work, large private equity acquisitions, IPOs on the ASX and other stock exchanges overseas, then the number of such jobs open to people coming straight out of Leo Cussens is low to non-existent, as the firms that do this type of work rarely recruit first years (cf. 3rd year +). In these cases, the university that you attend affects your prospects.
Does this mean that you have to attend a Go8 university? No. But the gripe appears to be that the non-Go8 universities do not clarify this disadvantage to prospective and current students, and whilst the standard of education that they provide may be equal to (or even better than) some Go8 universities in some areas, this is a weakness in their offering, and an important one to some students.
@ anon and Elephant Seal
There is no such thing as “reverse racism” or “discrimination in an abstract way” in the terms you suggest. They are apologist statements, and for my mind, offensive in their own right.
“Racism” and “discrimination” are not one-way concepts: i.e., it is not only an English speaker who can be racist towards an “asian languages” speaker. Similarly, to prefer candidates with asian languages skills is not “discrimination in an abstract way”: it is simply “discrimination”. And there is nothing wrong with that, unless it is unlawful discrimination. There is nothing wrong with discriminating against candidates without a particular skill, whether it be language skills or a particular standard of degree, if that is what the job calls for.
Yes, the pollyanna’s on this board are right, if everybody just makes sure they get good marks, then everyone will get a job!
The fact is there’s a ridiculous oversupply of law graduates, due to university and faculty greed, and the majority of grads will never get a job in law.
And no, no matter how you spin that ‘law is a broad degree’ and they can work in other areas, charging someone 40k plus for a degree so they can get an entry level job in the public sector is not ethical.
Firstly this article reads like a fear mongering beat up you’re likely to find at a major paper.
It fails to take into account just how many students will finish their respective law course. Then, of those who finish, how many pursue careers in the profession.
To hazard a guess, the final figure would be bit less than the 28,000 students suggested.
Is there really an oversupply of law students or just an oversupply of top tier/city firm dreamers wearing rose coloured glasses?
This perpetuating idea, that top tier is the be all and end all in the legal profession, will always lead to an exaggerated over supply.
There is more to the legal market than a top tier firm. Rural and regional firms need people.
There are also roles in government agencies, the police and defence force and Ausaid programs to disadvantage countries offer a wonderful opportunities for those with a law degree.
The delusion on this board is frightening. It boils down to: if all the 28000 just finish in the top 10%, they will be right!
The comment above by Troh at 5.52pm similar trots out about how things might be difficult at the top tier but there are still ‘plenty of jobs’ in smaller firms and in the bush.
Leaving aside that there are very few of these jobs, has anyone ever experienced working in these small bush or suburban firms? 30k if you are lucky, nothing but criminal and family law (and regular death threats).
Are we really sticking people through four years and 40k plus plus so they can try for jobs in the public sector – ‘try’ is the operative word, as these jobs are virtually impossible to get.
Government, police, defence, Ausaid/charity groups – why would you bother getting a law degree to work at any of those places?
I think that the forum should keep in mind the words of C Rice when bagging out non-Go8 law schools:
“I knew that as a black woman, I had to be twice as good in order to get anywhere.”
I remember in my clerkship cohort we had THREE non-’top’ law schools. Each of these people expressed the same sentiment as Condoleezza Rice.
Law is a demanding profession. Give me the ones that really want it and know that they have to ‘prove’ something to others any day over someone who has, as the forum has noted, ‘bought’ their law degree. They’re the ones that will stay hungry for it and last longer anyway.
And 28,000 law students… So what? Honestly. Kids make an informed choice and most of them are smart enough to get the **** out if they realise that there are better prospects out there. To mandate numbers would be illiberal.
So let’s all just relax and focus on your own path and your own success.
Thanks
@stop the spin… because some of us enjoy those jobs…. and if you think you don’t need to have a law degree to do them, you don’t realise there is more to being a lawyer than going to court and dealing with clients. I don’t think my job as a legal researcher in a gov dept could be done by a non-law grad. I don’t practice but I use my skills in interpreting legislation and case law everyday, and love it.
@hector, public service jobs virtually impossible to get? you’re kidding right? if they’re virtually impossible i’m doing pretty bloody well then!!
MG just to answer your point above – I went to a G08 university! There were no jobs for us graduates either !
Law schools in this country have been pushing up the numbers for years, and telling everyone that ‘the economy will improve’ and ‘law is a broad degree anyway’. Neither of these comments is true.
Its time to stop the ridiculous overenrolment of law students, before more lives are destroyed.
@deakin first year lawyer – that’s exactly the right attitude.
Not sure how, but hit me up when you are looking for a job in the CBD.
@Hector @stopthespin
AusAid jobs will start at around 50k for a graduate for a 37hr ish week, and the pay will rise as you progress. Not to mention the allowances you will receive if you are posted somewhere.
Being regional/rural, you’ll do the same B&B work as you would city. You may not take part in multi-million dollar projects for large corporates, but that does not mean your work will be any less satisfying.
Working in a smaller firm will also have its advantages over the bigger firms.
You’ll find yourself acting on matters that your counter parts in the bigger firms haven’t even started or won’t be doing for a few years or more.
You may even find yourself taking more of a leading role in the day to day operations of the firm much earlier on as well. But, only if you have the courage to do so.
@ Anonymous
Posted November 4, 2011 at 8:47 PM
” Completing an arts/commerce/science degree with an HD/H1A average is pretty easy.”
ummmm Anonymous are you serious… do u not know the bell curves they mark to for commerce and science, especially at unis such as Sydney. At an elitist university like Sydney Uni, getting an HD average for all four subjects when studying degrees such as commerce, law or science is almost IMPOSSIBLE. For accounting only 1.5% of the 700 enrolled earn a mark in the HD range. I know law students at Sydney Uni who achieved UAIs of 99.6 + who struggle to get a distinction average in the courses you listed…. so please don’t crap on about how an HD average across a students entire degree / combined degree is easy because only a few achieve those kind of marks
sorry i meant to say an atar of 99.6 +
@Anonymous
Posted November 10, 2011 at 6:31 PM
Law subjects were never included that original statement, quite the opposite, it was a reference as to how much easier it is to obtain an HD average in arts/commerce/science subjects, in comparison with how it difficult it is to do so in a subsequent law degree, and therefore, the arts/commerce/science degree being a good indicator of suitability of a candidate for a law degree.
Having gone through both an arts degree & a commerce degree at a Go8 uni with only the minimum compulsory attendance and allocating less than a third of the study time to those subjects at the law subjects, i’ve still managed to finish both with an HD average, as compared to a 75 average or law. In my experience this is not an uncommon result for people who have done a a law degree and a arts/com and/or science degree.
Add to that, over 75% of the 35 or so ACs in my year finished with an HD average in their non-law degree, compared to those that got first class honours in law – less than 30%, (and noting that first class honours in law can be quite a bit lower than an HD average a).
Clearly there are things easier, like breathing and maybe learning your times tables from 1×1 to 1×9, but in the grand scheme of things, it is rather easy.
Trohling, your comments about rural and regional firms are really really great, but the fact is, these jobs are virtually impossible to get, and pay 30k if you are lucky. The way you talk its as if law graduates can simply get one of these jobs really easily, where the cruel fact about law degrees is that you are basically cast out on the street and its impossible to get a job.
I have no doubt that a good legal education is provided at most non-GO8 Universities. However, it is difficult to rank non-Go8 students against GO8 students. Whilst there is always a bad apple in every bunch employers are more likely to get a better law student from a GO8, overall, if they were to pick one at random from each pool.
It is impossible to know whether a top non- GO8 student is as good as a top GO8 student – is the non-GO8 student at a lower level in the GO8 system?
in melbourne:
- la trobe
- deakin
- VU
these are all rubbish law schools that can close down. if you’re doing law at la trobe dont complain your lecturer is never there or is rubbish because they obviously couldnt get a job teaching in monash or melbourne law school. if you have a law degree from la trobe, deakin or VU then it’s not a real law degree. you got less than 95 for your ATER, you’re not smart enough to handle ‘real law’, so dont complain that you have no job at the end of it.
a good student doesn’t make a good lawyer
@ the f**ktard who said this: “you got less than 95 for your ATER, you’re not smart enough to handle ‘real law’, so dont complain that you have no job at the end of it.”
The basic premise of what you’re saying is that your ability in legal reasoning and determination in research is either or both of dependent on your high school mark or proportionate to your high school mark.
The final score for high school does not offer an indication of the students intelligence which is without qualification. As you should be aware the final score for each unit is weighted, so physics for example is worth more than general maths or perhaps more poignantly legal studies. In order to get a TER which guarantees entry into an ivy league uni you need to arrange your units so that they have the best weight and excel in them. Because of this a student who is gifted in english, literature, legal studies and history with no aptitude for science or maths does not have the same chance of entering a top-tier uni. This supports the assertion that a high school final score does not constitute an absolute proof of intelligence.
The crux of your argument fails here; law is the study of logic and reason, there is not a single subject taught at high school which even remotely resembles it. Because you’re saying that intelligence or the capacity to handle, as you put it, ‘real law’ is dependent on your high school performance, to some extent you must accept that the understanding of the substantive material taught in high school is relevant or indicative of your ability to learn the law. As the discipline of law is both unique and discrete in this sense it cannot be said that a complete understanding of a field of study at a high school level is correlates to a capacity to comprehend the law.
Just for next time though, here’s a little lesson they teach at the university of canberra, think about what your going to write before you do it and at the very least ensure there is some tenuous strand of internal consistency to it.
Uni of Canberra teaches law?
@stefan russell, I was agreeing with you and enjoying your rant, but I wish you’d used the right “your/you’re” when saying others should think about what they’re writing first! Bit of a pet hate that lawyers cannot get grammar right, we do mostly rely on words afterall!
I do agree that high school marks do not reflect a student’s ability to practice law. I was just barely 17 when I sat the HSC, and still 17 when I started uni. Since then I’ve demonstrated intelligence and an aptitude for working in law, but this wasn’t really reflected in my HSC or even my uni marks to some extent. I’m lucky that in jobs I’ve gone for, I haven’t been too heavily judged for what I studied when I was basically still a kid a decade ago. Must be my personality
@close down the law schools
I must say, your punctuation and grammar leave much to be desired. If you’re going to be an ambassador for elitism, it would be wise to ensure that you actually come across as “elite”, because right now, you come across as a complete joke.
FYI, I actually DID get an ENTER score over 95. In fact, it was closer to 98 (I also attended one of the worst public school’s in Victoria). When I applied for law, both Melbourne and Monash were ever so slightly out of reach (both required 98+ in my graduating year) and as such I went with, what I considered, the best option for me.
Can you please explain to me what “real law” is? I only ask because I’m terrified that I’m billing clients for pretend law, and that’s unethical.
I’m also terrified that I’ve been put on the Supreme Court roll incorrectly. Someone should tell those registrar boobs that they’ve been doing it wrong for 20 years! In fact, why don’t you run down there now? It can’t be far from your office on the 35th floor of 100 Douchebag Lane.
@kels: “we do mostly rely on words afterall!”
afterall is 2 werds, u need a space.
We’re all missing the point on this thread as usual. Its not about G08 schools versus non G08 its about the fact that THERE ARE NO JOBS.
We have gone from 7.5k law students in 1990 to 28k (and climbing) in 2010. The number of law students has QUADRUPLED in 20 years. This is insane.
And this deluded nonsense about a ‘shortage’ of lawyers in the country and suburbs- no there is not. It is slightly easier to get a job out there because the pay is so low – 30k if you are lucky, but still the jobs are very very few.
Stop the ludicrous law school industry now – shut ALL the law schools!
Keep clutching at straws Stefan. Realising where my strengths lay, I focused on the humanities in Year 12 and opted for only the most basic maths and science (in which I performed well). In spite of my subject selections (and attending a public school which often copped a raw deal with scaling) I ended up with an ATER of 99.8 and got into a Go8. If you were silly enough to persist with physics and calc due to academic snobbery or unfounded fears about ‘weighting’ or scaling, and your ATER suffered as a result, then you have only yourself to blame. When it comes to ATER calculations, top of the class in history will leave you far better off than middle of the road in chem.
Jeez there are a lot of wankers above.
Law students need to lose their sense of entitlement. Medicine is just as competitive, but the competition is greater at a different stage – on entry. You may be almost guaranteed an auditing/marketing job with a commerce degree, but those jobs aren’t as well-paying or highly regarded as a job at a leading law firm. There will inevitably be competition for anything highly sought after.
I agree, it would be nice to get pissed more instead of being under constant pressure to achieve. But it’s a classic law student attitude to complain about such things. Maybe law students should venture less to Europe and more to China, India and the like and learn about real stress.
As to the talk about the non-G08 unis: The best students from those universities will probably get jobs, and the average ones won’t even make it to the interview stage. This should not make it more difficult for the so-called ‘deserving’ students from G08 universities, as they are not competing against the bulk of students from the ‘lower’ universities.
Spry
Don’t you think regional areas need lawyers? Or do the ‘lowerclasses’ not have that right? They need law schools you idiot because city lawyers refuse to move there. How many city graduates moved to regional areas to work for community legal centres or plaintiff law firms?
They have different programs focusing on family and criminal law because those below the low income threshold do not require complex banking or financial investment advice. This does not make those law schools irrelevant.
In Perth our top tiers all hired Notre dame students – some firms even hired more ND students that they did from the apparently prestigious supreme UWA
I got an ATAR to go to UWA but chose to go elsewhere UWA is on the down mass producing clones who can’t get jobs while other law schools in wa have 90% placement rates yes that may be because it is smaller but it’s quality over quantity
Just to answer the critics of nd class of 2000 many of them are partners in law firms including top tier!
I’m a recent law graduate and have just completed my GDLP and waiting for admission. I just want to share my experiences about the quality of law graduates. My marks are credit average or just below and I’m from a G08.
At the law firm where I did my placement, there was another student doing his as well. He was from a different university. He had higher marks than me and even had university awards for topping his law subjects. Yet he had no idea about anything when it actually came to putting all that knowledge into practice. He had no basic knowledge of how to draft pleadings or affidavits. Did not know how to use legal research tools, cite primary sources, or check if the law is current.
He was basically a potato and couldn’t do any of his task without help. He took no responsibility for any of his work. Both of us had no prior work experience at a law office. I was subsequently invited back and offered a position.
Also, the firm has just taken on a graduate lawyer to do some work experience as she has not been able to secure a position for almost a year. After speaking to her and observing her work, I’m convinced that law schools are more about quantity than quality.
For those complaining that there are too many law schools and that there is an oversupply of law graduates, it isn’t all bad really. Law firms will prefer the quality graduates and the turnips will just make you look better.
So LawGraduate, basically you got a job therefore there’s no problem with too many law schools.
Quadrupling the number of students in the last 20 years (when there were already too many students) is just a mad destruction of young human capital.
@ Anon – I think you need to go back and re-read what you wrote. You say that law kids should lose their sense of entitlement but yet you compare them to graduates in the fields of marketing and auditing and state that a lawyers role as at a top tier law firm is more ‘highly regarded’. Sorry to rain on your parade but outside the realm of a law degree a lot of the public has an extremely low opinion of lawyers and those top tier firms. Furthermore, you should check the salaries for auditors because i can assure you they can earn just as much if not more as a lawyer in a top tier lawyer.
“Add to that, over 75% of the 35 or so ACs in my year finished with an HD average in their non-law degree”
I don’t believe you for a second. 75% of ‘AC’ students finishing on an HD average. Your uni course must be a walk in the park! and I’m not sure how you would get that statistic anyway because unis don’t publish that kind of information. Furthermore, attendance requirements are the same for law and non law subjects…. well at the G8 uni i attend anyway.
Can we also call an end to this nonsense meme about how there’s plenty of jobs in the bush etc if only law graduates weren’t so snobbish. Jobs are slightly easier to get in the bush because of remoteness, but the compeition is still ferocious. With 6000 graduates a year coming out of law schools I’m sure the 100 jobs a year out in the bush (which are getting many applicants anyway) really isn’t going to make a dent.
All this distraction misses the single, central point – THERE ARE TOO MANY LAW GRADUATES FOR THE JOBS AVAILABLE. They have quadrupled law graduates in 20 years. This is madness – shut the law schools now.
@kels. “Bit of a pet hate that lawyers cannot get grammar right, we do mostly rely on words afterall……I do agree that high school marks do not reflect a student’s ability to practice law”
It should read “to practise law”. Practise = verb. Practice = noun.
As lawyers we are students of language. Prof Craven (above) said the market research showed “significant unmet supply for places in Law” – as universities now depend on fee-paying students, proliferation of courses, including law, for which there is a supply of prospective fees -sorry, students – is the logical consequence. Expect yet more law schools, in other words.
However Prof Craven didn’t say anything about demand for law grads in traditional law firm jobs.
Supply of law grads aside, cost cutting by even the biggest corporations, i.e. key customers of city firms, means more selective use of external law firms, and corresponding growth of in-house law departments. Plenty of experienced lawyers find in-house an attractive move from top tiers etc. The catch for law grads is that few in-house law depts are willing or able to train, other than PLT placements; government being an exception. Also in-house is mainly contract law and competition law, plus employment and privacy.
However per @kels and others, there are also interesting non-solicitor jobs in government and industry that require or strongly prefer legal qualifications, will take law grads, pay well and give you an insider’s industry expertise & contacts that law firms may well find attractive once you have a bit of experience under your belt (kels’ posting of 3 Nov).
So don’t despair, if you’re willing to look further afield, law is still regarded as a serious professional qualification in business, in fact arguably better than an MBA because everyone knows what law stands for.
On marks. My opinion, having experienced both academic highs and lows, is that top tiers do emphasise marks in initial graduate selection. Academic laurels are something they stress to their clientele in their branding, and fair enough. But as your graduation/admission date recedes into the mists of time, what you’ve done since becomes at least as important.
I bet no law firm, doing government work with @kels above, would dream of saying, “excuse me but before we start, we only accept paid work from customers who can prove a GPA of 6.5 or better” or words to that effect.
Don’t write yourself off. Exams are the admission gate to the ongoing learning required. Law is a difficult course no matter where you studied it. Non-G8 law schools must work extra hard to build a good reputation (e.g. Murdoch, ND, Bond above). Exams and exam results can be a useful predictor but even exams and exam methods vary between law schools – some do take-home law exams; others closed book. As the postings above also indicate, exam results are not the sole predictor of success in translating your academic law skills to the field. Working life requires additional skills to straight academic nous. This applies whether you work as lawyer, or as a business person who is also a qualified lawyer.
You see plenty of law grads and experienced solicitors working in non-solicitor business roles, in jobs that make good use of their law training. They’re not practising – that’s the down side. But they are employed gainfully and not starving either. If you want some good news, law qualifications are well regarded in business generally, so if various market forces are on the one hand driving oversupply of law grads but on the other hand, also driving shrinkage of the traditional law graduate employment market, your law studies are by no means wasted, now or potentially later.
Do a law degree, you will be destroyed for life. The lemmings just dont understand how disastrous a decision it is.