Way back in 2004, I did one pre-admission checkup so I knew roughly what to expect. In fact, I had it simpler this time around as I was a PR and didn’t need to get a blood test for the student pass.

The process was a tad chaotic though. I suspect they hired students to run the simpler stations such as the vision test and ferrying the documents from the urine test centre to the X-ray centre. As such, instructions were not clear at times. I had no idea how to wear the hospital gown because I’m accustomed to the ones that overlap and tie at the side, but they used the old-style ones which tie in the back.

At some point, the young man next to me was told that they couldn’t find his urine sample… and it’s not as though many of us can provide another sample so soon after emptying our bladder. They found it in the end, so it turned out well for him.

I was assigned to Dr Catherine Chua for the last part of the checkup. She asked if I was still being followed up for my lymphoma, and after I said yes, she ticked the “fit for admission” column so I could rest easy. I told her my specialist was at NUH, and when I gave her his name she related some anecdotes. It was fun. I’m sure she found my medical history interesting and a welcome diversion from the run-of-the-mill students she gets 90% of the time.

She was kind enough to enquire about the course and wished me well, so that’s one hurdle crossed for me. I did have my worries if they might consider me unfit for admission but I guess I was worrying for nothing, as usual.

NUS informed me of my interview slot via SMS. However, the details were restricted to date and time – I didn’t know where, I didn’t know what I was supposed to do… something must have gone wrong with their email because the email with the details finally arrived 1 week after the SMS. Which is strange, of course, because email is near-instantaneous – why did it take so long? They sent a hardcopy letter as well, which is just the same as the email.

My interview was for Saturday morning at the Bukit Timah Campus, and the written test on Sunday morning, along with 800 other shortlisted applicants. Applications for the LLB and GLP are assessed together. For all intents and purposes, GLP students are the same as undergrads except that the course is one year shorter.

The interview takes place with 2 interviewers from the faculty. With the large numbers of post-JC students being interviewed, they must have taken me for one of them as well. No matter, since they asked me to elaborate on what I had been doing since I graduated from JC, and I have more than 10 years of experience on that matter…

After the preliminary “getting-to-know-you” questions, they moved on to asking me what I knew about the legal landscape in Singapore, or something to that effect. I referred to the Singapore International Commercial Court, and then sheepishly admitted that I didn’t know the technical details, only that it existed… I saved my skin, however, by pivoting to the fact that I had been reading up on the Family Justice Courts as my interests lay more in that direction. I also brought up my degree in Psychology as “evidence” of a deep-rooted desire to be in the more personal realms of law, instead of corporate law and the like.

(Later I would find out that my interviewers were, respectively, the Director of the Centre for Banking and Finance Law, and the Director of the Centre for Maritime Law. Eeeep.)

I also brought up the 8 British universities again (I might as well, since I had built up new arguments from the SMU interview the previous week) and pointed out that with the SICC starting up, there was likely to be more work for lawyers, not less. Also I may have pointed out previous government efforts to boost Life Science and Psychology enrolment that did not necessarily work out the way they wanted. Hence I was wary that this latest effort, coupled with the necessary lag time between reducing the number of foreign graduates and the market demand, would also be a bit of a damp squib.

At the very end of the interview, as she moved to open the door to let me leave, Professor Dora Neo asked offhand about the Cat Museum, which I had listed as one of my hobbies. I told her about my volunteer work there, and why we needed to have a space where people could interact with cats and correct their misperceptions. All in all, I felt the interview went well and I left the place beaming.

The written test the next day was for just one hypothetical case, with 3 paragraphs of evidence: a statute, a wiki article, and a news article. We were supposed to argue for or against the application of the parents of a mentally disabled woman for permission to have her undergo a complete hysterectomy.

I argued against, mostly for the simple reason that a complete hysterectomy would remove not only her uterus, but also her ovaries, and send her into premature menopause before the age of 30. I just thought it was unnecessarily drastic when birth control devices or tubal ligation would have got the job done without the long-term hormonal side effects. All this I tied back to the Mental Capacity Act given, using the law to support my view (she was capable of deciding, she had decided no, there were alternatives available).

The wiki article was about the state-mandated sterilisation of institutionalised “imbeciles” in the US, back in the 1930s or thereabouts. It was not stated in the wiki that these people were born that way, whereas our hypothetical lady in the case had become so as the result of an illness. The 1930s state sterilisations were to prevent the mentally challenged from continuing to perpetuate their “faulty” genes. In short, it was a form of eugenics. As this was not stated in the wiki, I assumed that they had been sterilised because they were not able to care for any resulting children. I could have rebutted this evidence more strongly but instead I pointed out that the law requiring sterilisation had since been repealed, indicating that it was legally considered to be unnecessary and cruel and it was not right to subject our hypothetical lady to the same treatment.

The news article was from a UK paper which I recognised as being a tabloid, so I unhesitatingly tore it apart. I blatantly wrote that “this is a sensationalised news article with little to no bearing on this case”. Of course I didn’t stop there! I continued to point out how mental illness was not the same as mental disability, and that our hypothetical lady did not suffer from delusions or violent impulses, unlike the woman in the news article. So, go ahead and put down contrary evidence, but make sure you have a better basis than just “this is rubbish” 😀

The written test is to see your reasoning ability and to evaluate how well you articulate your points. So, good paragraphing, logical sentence flow and LEGIBLE HANDWRITING should be skills to hone for this part of the admissions process.

The SMU JD interview and test were held on the same day. I had the first Saturday morning slot.

It would appear that they group all the re-applicants together, because I peeked at the attendance sheet in front of one of my interviewers and the re-applicants had been highlighted, along with the years in which they previously applied. The line next to my name said “Direct to interview”. I didn’t see anyone else with that memo. (Also, cultivate your reading-upside-down skills if you’re the snooping type.)

My interview partner was a Japanese paralegal from Rajah and Tann <insert impressed sound here>. My interviewers were Kelvin Low (who had also interviewed me in 2014, and he remembered me) and Goh Yihan. I later found out that Mr Goh was himself new-ish to SMU, having left NUS Law faculty at the end of the 2013/2014 academic year. If I had known this fact during the interview, I would have taken the opportunity to ask his opinion on the two different schools…

The interview was quite routine – they asked for our opinion on current affairs, both legal and non-legal. We discussed the removal of the 8 British universities from the Approved Universities List, as well as Singapore’s over-reliance on cheap foreign labour. Interviewers will ask you for your opinion if you are quiet or if your interview partner is hogging the limelight 🙂

Our writing test consisted of a summary below 200 words, on sexual harrassment cases, and a hypothetical case involving conspiracy to cause financial loss. I felt the hypothetical case was quite straightforward, in that I could not see how I could possibly argue for the plaintiff as the facts of the case did not fit the alleged crime. I did add in a line or two about how the details, if different, could result in a much stronger case for the plaintiff.

Again, please note that you do not need to have legal knowledge for the test, just common sense. Throwing in “mens rea” and “actus rea” or whatever legal jargon will not be an advantage. Personally I find such showing off worthy of an *eyeroll*. Latin terms do not a lawyer make.

After the interview and test, I went off for the Street Food Festival at Bugis and then to Sim Lim Square to buy PC parts. Rebuilding my PC to watch TV and take my mine off the horrible anxiety of waiting for results.

In 2013 we had a 10th anniversary reunion for the 2003 ASEAN batch and I was the honorary 2002 batch attendee. My ex, the law student, was now a financial lawyer and doing very well for himself. I almost regretted letting him go, because wouldn’t it be nice to marry a lawyer (which was the original plan)?

But why go to all the trouble of finding and marrying a lawyer? Why not just become one myself? I’ve always been a big fan of the DIY ethos. And so I looked up the 2 law schools in Singapore and to my delight found that they explicitly welcomed mid-career changers into law.

Unfortunately, I found this out only after applications had closed for AY 2013/2014, necessitating a wait of nearly 1 year for the next application window.

Nevertheless, February 2014 rolled around and my supervisors wrote me testimonials, all of which secured me a place on the SMU JD programme shortlist. (NUS did not shortlist me.)

At this point, I was still ambivalent, given the worrying pronouncements from MinLaw about the glut of law graduates, and the attrition rate from the profession. All the same, I was shortlisted, and rolled up to SMU one Saturday morning to do the test and interview.

I still remember the article we had to summarise (it was about wearable fitness trackers) and the hypothetical case (texting while driving). The interview went well. Less than 2 weeks later, the email came in while I was at home, and I stared at the laptop screen in shock for a while. I was accepted.

Unfortunately, in the time between the application and the offer, family matters occurred which made me less certain of this path. Faced with 3 (or more, if you include the training period) years of no income, and a possibility of becoming a huge burden on my family, I wrote to SMU to request a deferment.

They could not hold my place, the best they could do was to guarantee me a place on next year’s shortlist. I gave up my spot and decided, for the time being, to focus on my career, in case I didn’t make it in the following year.

From micro-blogging to longer-form forum posts back to blogging. Sometimes when you have something to say and 140 characters isn’t enough, and you don’t want random strangers on the internet judging you.