UCD monopoly

FERGAL7

Does anyone know why UCD has such a monopoly on judicial appointments and the office of Attorney General??

hullaballoo

It's the largest third level institute in the State.

There really is no conspiracy there.

endacl

Disappointing thread title. I expected a game. 'Go directly to Arts Block. Do not pass Go'..

Bepolite

TCD students go abroad and make way more money. We're left with the Hollister wearing, dort pronouncing 'cream of the Irish'.

I jest but it's about as well thought out as this thread deserves.

Ashashi

Possibly because it has the best law school in the country?

endacl

Ashashi wrote: »

Possibly because it has the best law school in the country?

234

Ashashi wrote: »

Possibly because it has the best law school in the country?

But it's not. TCD is somewhere between 51-100, UCD is 101-150.

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2012/law-and-legal-studies

234

And personally I would rank UCC ahead of UCD.

FERGAL7

endacl wrote: »

Disappointing thread title. I expected a game. 'Go directly to Arts Block. Do not pass Go'..

haha very good.. :L

ardmacha

Because UCD has the newest law school in the country?

Mint Aero

Doesn't matter how good tcd and ucd think they are. Tosser students.

hullaballoo

Do not use that language on this forum.

FERGAL7

Mint Aero wrote: »

Doesn't matter how good tcd and ucd think they are. Tosser students.

ah now this is all getting a bit heated

234

FERGAL7 wrote: »

ah now this is all getting a bit heated

The oft quoted comments comes to mind: academic debates are so fierce because there is so little at stake.

Pat Mustard

Mint Aero wrote: »

Doesn't matter how good tcd and ucd think they are. Tosser students.

Ashashi

As a DCU grad, it sickens me to say it but I do consider UCD to be the best law school in the country probably along with UCC.

TCD seems to be the place to go if you want to be an academic.

Bepolite

As you can see from the list of credentials of most of the Supreme Court Judges, if you're bothered about going to a good law school, you do exactly that; by leaving Ireland and going to one in the US or Cambridge.

Worrying about where you're Irish law degree comes from is a tad pointless in all honesty. The only people who care are not going to be worth bothering with anyway. Do the best you can, graduate where you land and focus on extra circular to make you more employable as a solicitor, or your drinking skills if you're going to be a barrister.

234

Bepolite wrote: »

As you can see from the list of credentials of most of the Supreme Court Judges, if you're bothered about going to a good law school, you do exactly that; by leaving Ireland and going to one in the US or Cambridge.

Worrying about where you're Irish law degree comes from is a tad pointless in all honesty. The only people who care are not going to be worth bothering with anyway. Do the best you can, graduate where you land and focus on extra circular to make you more employable as a solicitor, or your drinking skills if you're going to be a barrister.

I think that judges are a very bad measure of the quality of a degree for a whole host of reasons.

1. Practice - Likelihood of appointment to the bench is based overwhelmingly on your success in practice. At the point at while you might be considered, that is after at least 20 years or so, you have forged your own achievements in a way that is completely detached from your university education.

2. Law Degrees? - If you look at the current SC and much of the HC you will see that most of them didn't do law degrees. They often graduated with BAs or BScs. That was the done thing in their day, you did an arts degree and then went down to the Inns. So again, there is a strong disconnect between third level education and success leading to a career on the bench.

3. The Religious Issue - This only really applies to the older members or the bench but it would apply to much of the SC and senior HC who would have entered third level before 1970. If you want to make this a TCD v NUI issue, Catholics were forbidden by the bishops from attending TCD in the absence of special dispensation, which would not be forthcoming if there was a perfectly good 'Catholic law school' down the road. So, considering that in the 1970s the vast majority of the country identified as Roman Catholic there was no real scope for most potential lawyers to attend TCD.

This is all just to say that the idea that where you studied as an undergraduate has any substantial influence on a possible future career on the bench is completely ludicrous.

Bepolite

I agree completely, hadn't realised your point 3 though which is quite enlightening.

Looking back at the spelling in my last post makes me sad. :pac:

234

Bepolite wrote: »

I agree completely, hadn't realised your point 3 though which is quite enlightening.

Looking back at the spelling in my last post makes me sad. :pac:

Well I wasn't going to mention that rogue "you're" but since you bring it up .........

Manach

234 wrote: »

3. The Religious Issue - This only really applies to the older members or the bench but it would apply to much of the SC and senior HC who would have entered third lever before 1970. If you want to make this a TCD v NUI issue, Catholics were forbidden by the bishops from attending TCD in the absence of special dispensation, which would not be forthcoming if there was a perfectly good 'Catholic law school' down the road. So, considering that in the 1970s the vast majority of the country identified as Roman Catholic there was no real scope for most potential lawyers to attend TCD.

In a historical context, TCD had prior to this not allowed Catholic students for a period, hence there was not a built up tradition of attendance. As well, it being a vestige of a former colonial era, it would have been more engaged within the wider Commonwealth world and perhaps not as focused on the more domestic legal issues.

234

Manach wrote: »

In a historical context, TCD had prior to this not allowed Catholic students for a period, hence there was not a built up tradition of attendance. As well, it being a vestige of a former colonial era, it would have been more engaged within the wider Commonwealth world and perhaps not as focused on the more domestic legal issues.

I agree, while the formal ban on Catholic attendance ended in 1793, with certain restrictions until 1873, it was never a Catholic friendly atmosphere. For most of the 19th century TCD was seen as a key supplier of men to staff the colonies.

However, the main thrust of what I was saying that that undergraduate degrees have little to no bearing on a career on the bench. While they can be used to explain certain statistical issues, there is no real qualitative link. Despite the many flaws of the independent Bar, we can largely rest assured that success does require real talent and ability; this is what makes for success on the bench.

schemingbohemia

Manach wrote: »

In a historical context, TCD had prior to this not allowed Catholic students for a period, hence there was not a built up tradition of attendance. As well, it being a vestige of a former colonial era, it would have been more engaged within the wider Commonwealth world and perhaps not as focused on the more domestic legal issues.

Very historical, stating that TCD didn't allow Catholic students in a discussion about current High Court, Supreme Court and AG positions is frankly, foolish. I know some of them are quite elderly but given the dates in the post below, I think it can safely be said it shouldn't come into the equation.

234 wrote: »

I agree, while the formal ban on Catholic attendance ended in 1793, with certain restrictions until 1873, it was never a Catholic friendly atmosphere. For most of the 19th century TCD was seen as a key supplier of men to staff the colonies.

However, the main thrust of what I was saying that that undergraduate degrees have little to no bearing on a career on the bench. While they can be used to explain certain statistical issues, there is no real qualitative link. Despite the many flaws of the independent Bar, we can largely rest assured that success does require real talent and ability; this is what makes for success on the bench.

234

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Very historical, stating that TCD didn't allow Catholic students in a discussion about current High Court, Supreme Court and AG positions is frankly, foolish. I know some of them are quite elderly but given the dates in the post below, I think it can safely be said it shouldn't come into the equation.

You can't deny that the bishops' ban (until 1970) would only have contributed to the dominant atmosphere of middle/upper class Protestantism which pervaded the university.

Even if it was effectively something of the Catholic Church's own creation, it would still have dissuaded Catholics.

As to the age issue, the current Chief Justice would have graduated from Trinity circa 1970, presumably entering in 1966. She is by no means the oldest member of the SC. So the dates prove that the religious issue would have been relevant at the time many of the older members of the SC and HC were doing undergraduate degrees.

Also, while the bishops' ban was lifted in 1970 it's not unreasonable to suppose that there was still a certain perception of Trinity as a Protestant university for a while after that.

Bepolite

234 wrote: »

Also, while the bishops' ban was lifted in 1970 it's not unreasonable to suppose that there was still a certain perception of Trinity as a Protestant university for a while after that.

43 years and counting :pac:

coylemj

Mint Aero wrote: »

Doesn't matter how good tcd and ucd think they are. Tosser students.

johnnyskeleton

100% of Supreme Court judges studied at kings inns. c. 92% of high court judges did too.

Makes trinity and ucd seem like a bunch of jokers in comparison.

Bepolite

While I don't personally agree with the proposed breaking of the Kings Inns monopoly on training barristers, it's at least worth a mention here I think.

johnnyskeleton

Bepolite wrote: »

While I don't personally agree with the proposed breaking of the Kings Inns monopoly on training barristers, it's at least worth a mention here I think.

The point being that while a preponderance of UCD grads is perhaps just random, the fact that most HC and all SC judges are barristers, as opposed to solicitors, is not.