This is a daunting topic to write about, not merely because it is a question that crosses the minds of many law students, but also because I am unqualified to be giving conclusive advice to prospective law students. As such I am under a duty to state what this article is, and what it is not.
It is:
(i) A formulation of my opinions from my experiences.
(ii) An aggregate of different views I have heard anecdotally from both local and UK university students, and lawyers in the industry.
(iii) An article to encourage you to do your own research and reach out to seniors!
It is not:
(i) A conclusive or exhaustive guide.
(ii) The gospel truth.
(iii) Done in a caffeine-fuelled fever dream as I drown in my readings.
The focus of the article will thus be on the one thing I am most qualified to talk about: the content of the syllabi and its implications, teaching methods, and overall education structure. I must admit that it is inaccurate and perhaps even unfair to lump all SG/UK universities into one group, so I will talk generally and highlight the differences that I know.
It is also useful to know what the UK really is. Even if not immediately relevant to this article, it will potentially save you the embarrassment of your Constitutional Law tutor finding out that you don’t even know the geography of the place you professed to love to study at.
Great Britain versus the United Kingdom[1]
Substantive content of the syllabi
The substantive content of each course will depend on your university. However, as a base, all undergraduate law courses will teach the requisite subjects in view of preparing one for practice. Therefore, all UK universities’ core curriculum will teach the subjects required to be able to become a solicitor or barrister in the UK, and all SG universities’ core curriculum will teach the subjects required to be able to be called to the Singapore Bar. In any case, if you study in the UK but choose to practice in Singapore, you will need to go through a conversion course - creatively called Part A of the Singapore Bar Examinations.[2] There is no material difference in the course content that will inhibit you if your ultimate aim is to practice back here in Singapore, as both the UK and Singapore are common law jurisdictions (same type of legal system).
If we possess the same type of legal system, then what difference is there really? Should there not be a Schengen Agreement for law students between the UK and Singapore then? My wallet and my loathing for ANOTHER set of examinations AFTER I graduate say yes, there should be. However, there is a fair amount of difference. The key is found in our independence from 1965, as well as the doctrine of Stare decisis leading to case law, used in common law systems. Our independence assured that we would be allowed to legislate for ourselves - that is, pass laws through Parliament. Given that we have our own Parliament, we create new laws for ourselves. Case law is the collection of past legal decisions, where the principles of each cases’ decisions are binding on future cases.[3] It follows then, that Singapore would follow Singaporean case law (though it does follow some UK case law), and the UK would continue following UK case law. Furthermore, if things are not changed, you will also have to contend with EU law in the UK. If you are in Oxbridge, you will have the immense pleasure of learning Roman Law and when Titius has lost ownership of his peacock. TLDR, in the UK you learn UK (and EU and possibly Roman) law, while in Singapore you learn Singapore law.
That being said, the concepts are largely the same. So, a legal education in the UK is not a useless effort. The difference lies in these concepts’ application.
This has importance for more social areas of law. Insofar that laws (and therefore your legal education) are influenced by societal values and political realities, different societies will influence the application of law differently. Things that are legal or permissible in some countries would not be in others, due to the public view of the issue. To give a homely example, the loving hidings I was given at a great frequency in primary school may have possibly landed my parents multiple life sentences in Sweden. More seriously, it is important to consider the effect of learning the law in a place with different values, especially during the formative years of your legal education.
In totality, the differences in the substantive content of the courses isn’t prohibitive, but do be aware of its implications on how you think, legally.
Teaching methods to impart legal wisdom
Both the UK and SG make full use of the lecture-tutorial system. The bulk of the content is delivered in the lecture, and the nuances and key issues within each topic are honed in tutorials. This killer combo is reliant on your personal tutors/lecturers as well as class size. Oxbridge, for instance, places more emphasis on the tutorial (or supervision in Cambridge, giving it a more Professor Snape watching Harry struggle with Torts vibe). Of course, your tutors are free to be as pedagogically creative as they wish, with some holding debates or other forms of knowledge production. Nonetheless, I believe that the teaching methods are materially the same. I have yet to hear of a university who has decided to hold their teaching through solely Socratic seminars or learning through osmosis.
The one difference that has been articulated frequently is the level of independence in learning allowed in the UK, as opposed to Singapore. True to our political nature (correlation not causation), one does feel a lot freer (read: lost) in the UK, as most learning is self-directed. Given the reading list, you are expected to go away and lose your social life in books and return the following week as an academic luminary in the topic. Learning seems to be more directed in Singapore, with closer supervision and help. While perhaps more stressful, there is comfort in knowing what you need to know exactly and knowing that if you trust the system that you will end up a good and solid legal product. While one’s libertarian instinct would incline one to heartily agree with the independence supposed in the UK, my personal experience would urge you to think carefully. It is not a fantastic feeling frolicking in the fields of weird case law not knowing where you are or what you are looking for.
However, to reiterate, this truly depends on the university you attend. For further information, please get in touch with a senior who is studying at your prospective universities.
Overall educational culture to foster sound lawyers
This is an inherently woolly area to cover, and my knowledge of culture has also been hampered by the abundance of COVID where I study. Logically, each university also has its own culture and focus, such as SMU providing good opportunities towards corporate and business aspects. Therefore, I will try and ground this as best as I can in the main issues I have heard.
One thing that struck me about studying in Singapore was the abundance of moots that were available. One could truly take their pick as to what area of law, and what mechanism of law to try their green hands at - from international arbitration, to mediation and good ol’ litigation. While it is still possible to do moots at a frequency that makes you feel like an actual barrister in the UK, the range and sheer availability of moots are relatively sparse. One point however, goes to the Kingsland Cup Moot for UK students where the actual prize is, you guessed it, a proper cup.
Nice cup[4]
The flipside of this is the oft-asserted notion that there is more vibrant discourse in the UK. There are two aspects to this: firstly, the level of intellectual debate; and secondly, the range of views that are represented. Intellectually, there is no difference between Singapore and the UK: Singapore has the highest average IQ globally, while the UK languishes at 17th, and not all of our smarties are in the UK and Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine.[5] Jokes aside, there is good vibrant intellectual conversation to be had in the UK, and your legal mind will stay as whetted here. With regard to the second limb, this is where I may concede that the UK may proffer a greater range of perspectives. This is not a dig at the current political environment at all, but a statement of reality. Especially with doing subjects such as Law at university, we are a very homogenous group of people that possess very similar perspectives. How does one truly have a radically different perspective if they have benefitted from the system which they came from? While I would hesitate to say that Singapore universities are less international than in the UK, there is value to be found in being the minority in the UK. Among those is the admiration one receives when they wear their admin tee and slippers to the dorm kitchen and the ensuing conversation about conscription begins. Nonetheless, one is very able to come across many different perspectives in Singapore with the increasing number of international students and lecturers taking post in universities.
Finally, there is the opinion that one stays in Singapore to know the law, and one goes to the UK to think about the law. Frankly, these two opinions are not mutually exclusive, and one can achieve a satisfactory level of both either going or staying. However, as discussed above, the structure of teaching may encourage a certain way of thinking. From anecdotal testimony, Singaporean students tend to know the law very well and are very disciplined in their application of it, knowing the case law front and back. This perhaps a result of their systemised teaching and having been steeped in Singaporean law from day one. The focus for some UK schools, such as Oxbridge, seems to be understanding the underlying principles and trends of the law. Though definitely part of legal education in Singapore, if the focus is more on the theoretical aspect of the law, it would foster a certain mindset. In practice, this may not be immediately relevant - a client would scarcely ask you to argue about an esoteric point of law, nor would the judge want to know whether you feel this area of law is replete with uncertainties and conflict. Nonetheless, the skills that are taught are valuable.
I feel it apt to conclude this article on neutral ground and say that wherever you may go, it is what you make of it. Both UK and Singapore law schools have produced amazing alumni. One need not “drink from the fount from which supplied our legal thought” (true quote I read in a personal statement once), and one need not disparage the other or feel that they have lost out by going or staying. What is valuable in legal education are the skills it teaches – analytical thinking, logical processes, ability to form informed opinions and arguments based on fact, ability to read and process vast amounts of information, and more substantively, a study of society through the lens of law.
コメント