Look beyond school and rankings, urges uk singapore law students society
First, let me give a brief summary of the article. The author main purpose of this article, is to represent the view of the UK singapore law students society(SLSS), but it also gives us the points of views of other personal, that contradicts the view of the SLSS. The context, is the delisting of eight british law universities recognized in Singapore. The SLSS thinks that the delisting will cause lesser students to be able to appreciate british culture, and cause second tier perception when applying for a job, with a lesser known university. However the other views presented thinks that it is natural due to the shortage of job openings, and it is important to ensure top quality lawyers get into singapore, and is thus correct. Now, let me move on to my thoughts on this article.
Firstly, I think that the delisting is Incorrect. First, let's look at the disadvantages of delisting. The delisting will cause lesser foreign lawyers to go to singapore, and lesser Singaporeans to be able to go to Britain. Britain is a very developed country, with a very developed system. It is important to learn from other countries, especially countries more developed than us. Britain has a law system much earlier than singapore, so it will definitely be more developed, and thus better than singapore. Even though there are still many universities it is definite that dropping universities will reduce the number of people being able to learn from Britain, and in my view, it is definitely a bad thing.
Secondly, delisting will further strengthen the perception that a top school has a huge advantage over a lesser known, or lower class school, a perception that the government is trying to change. Parents rush to send their children to the supposed top schools without considering whether it is really beneficial, and it is a wrong perception. However, this move would indirectly show parents how getting into a school which has a high level of recognition is so important, as getting into a lesser known school would mean being "second class" and thus indirectly strengthen a wrong perception.
Thirdly, I think that the points for delisting is invalid. I don't think that it is logical for the government to decide for the company who to employ. A better school in no ways guarantee a better lawyer. A company can learn more about the applicant through careful selection processes and interviews, much more than a simple degree. This restricts the choices of applicants for the company, and thus is incorrect. Same goes for the top quality lawyers, the government can in no way know whether the lawyer is good or bad by a degree, and is thus incorrect. I would suggest implementing policies on companies, or in the case of the government run law organizations, a stricter selection process to ensure you get the real top quality lawyer. However, I understand that the government needs to care for its citizens, but restricting foreign talents is not the solution. Singapore is known for its welcome of foreign talents, and it has made singapore the country it is today. Rather, policies can be implemented to secure the rights of citizens, like restricting the number of foreign workers in a company, or giving priority to citizens and such. To restrict foreign talents would cause the problems mentioned above, and is thus incorrect.
In conclusion, I don't think delisting the schools is correct, as it causes less people to be able to learn from Britain, and strengthen a wrong perception that a graduate from a school not as highly rated as the top schools are "second class", and does not directly bring benefits, so it is incorrect.