How tough and demanding is law? (1 Viewer)

[Sherlock]

I'm just curious to know how tough and demanding law is.

 

[nerdasdasd]

It makes people cry.

 

[rumbleroar]

Put it this way, no matter how tough something is, as long as you're passionate, it will pull you through.

 

[wannaspoon]

It's a piece of piss; don't listen to these chaps...

If you can last without sleep for about 3-4 weeks, twice a year; take things on board and get them things in your knoggin; you'll be alllrrriight

 

[strawberrye]

I think if you have a browse through the titles of the threads in this sub-forum as well as in the relevant law sub-forums of various universities, you will have an idea of law being quite an intellectually rigorous and challenging disciplines that is distinguished by uncertainty and ambiguity. If you don't like Law, you will find it not only tough and challenging, but incredibly boring and difficult. Passion is an important consideration-if you are passionate enough, even if it was tough and demanding, you will love the study of it

However, just to clarify, did you meant specifically how tough and demanding the study of law is or how tough and demanding to find a job within the legal profession after you graduate from uni or did you meant both?

 

[flashyGoldFish]

So easy that it has one of the highest drop out rates

 

[Sherlock]

I think if you have a browse through the titles of the threads in this sub-forum as well as in the relevant law sub-forums of various universities, you will have an idea of law being quite an intellectually rigorous and challenging disciplines that is distinguished by uncertainty and ambiguity. If you don't like Law, you will find it not only tough and challenging, but incredibly boring and difficult. Passion is an important consideration-if you are passionate enough, even if it was tough and demanding, you will love the study of it

However, just to clarify, did you meant specifically how tough and demanding the study of law is or how tough and demanding to find a job within the legal profession after you graduate from uni or did you meant both?

How tough and demanding the study of law is!

 

[Crobat]

How tough and demanding the study of law is!

Put it this way - I have 2 1000 page textbooks for 1 subject + a 400 page SUMMARY book for the same subject. My friend's notes for the subject are 300 pages long. Not only do you need to know the rules by heart, you need to know where these rules came from and the specific circumstances in that case that lead to the decision, as well as the exceptions to those rules, and the cases/circumstances for those exceptions. Each week, you walk away with a good 150+ pages of readings to do (that's a low estimate).

Once you know all of these, you have a chance of passing, because knowing all of these rules and cases doesn't help shit if you don't know how to apply them on-the-spot to problem cases in a manner of hours for your exams.

 

[nerdasdasd]

Put it this way - I have 2 1000 page textbooks for 1 subject + a 400 page SUMMARY book for the same subject. My friend's notes for the subject are 300 pages long. Not only do you need to know the rules by heart, you need to know where these rules came from and the specific circumstances in that case that lead to the decision, as well as the exceptions to those rules, and the cases/circumstances for those exceptions. Each week, you walk away with a good 150+ pages of readings to do (that's a low estimate).

Once you know all of these, you have a chance of passing, because knowing all of these rules and cases doesn't help shit if you don't know how to apply them on-the-spot to problem cases in a manner of hours for your exams.

This is uts law too... Not usyd. Usyd is much worse.

 

[flashyGoldFish]

The sarcasm is strong in this one.

Everyone drops out because its just too easy that its too boring. I mean studying the law, memorising cases and all that type of stuff is such a piece of cake.

It certainly has nothing to do with how hard the course is or how too many people go into the course having not been adequately prepared for by taking weaker subjects and then they cant cope in a law degree. Nah its certainly because law is super easy.

I think I went too far now

 

[nerdasdasd]

Everyone drops out because its just too easy that its too boring. I mean studying the law, memorising cases and all that type of stuff is such a piece of cake.

It certainly has nothing to do with how hard the course is or how too many people go into the course having not been adequately prepared for by taking weaker subjects and then they cant cope in a law degree. Nah its certainly because law is super easy.

I think I went too far now

Mate.

 

[Crobat]

This is uts law too... Not usyd. Usyd is much worse.

yeah jesus christ

usyd has this backwards system where their exams are closed book when nothing in the legal profession is closed book

 

[wannaspoon]

yeah jesus christ

usyd has this backwards system where their exams are closed book when nothing in the legal profession is closed book

never look at my books anyway... I just write a quick guide on a few pages before exams and roll with that... Lets face it, you don't have any time whatsoever to trawl through books and look for something that isn't there... Although, I don't look at them, admittedly, I have used them in some instances and they have saved my bacon... they're good to have around, but, having a open book exam can create a reliance on those books... if so, guaranteed you will not finish your exam; you won't even get close...

still, they got rocks in their head if they make it closed book...

 

[D94]

yeah jesus christ

usyd has this backwards system where their exams are closed book when nothing in the legal profession is closed book

But how is that any different to any other course? Nothing in the real world engineering is closed book, yet we are expected to remember a shit load of formulae, seemingly random content (from things like tolerances in design to chemical compositions) and whatnot. Not saying there is a clear parallel between what needs to be memorised in law, and what needs to be memorised in engineering, but the overall practice of closed book examination does not reflect what is actually done in the workplace, and therefore should not necessarily be considered a backwards system.

 

[wannaspoon]

But how is that any different to any other course? Nothing in the real world engineering is closed book, yet we are expected to remember a shit load of formulae, seemingly random content (from things like tolerances in design to chemical compositions) and whatnot. Not saying there is a clear parallel between what needs to be memorised in law, and what needs to be memorised in engineering, but the overall practice of closed book examination does not reflect what is actually done in the workplace, and therefore should not necessarily be considered a backwards system.

memorising the law is the quickest way of getting a massive brain aneurysm...

 

[Crobat]

But how is that any different to any other course? Nothing in the real world engineering is closed book, yet we are expected to remember a shit load of formulae, seemingly random content (from things like tolerances in design to chemical compositions) and whatnot. Not saying there is a clear parallel between what needs to be memorised in law, and what needs to be memorised in engineering, but the overall practice of closed book examination does not reflect what is actually done in the workplace, and therefore should not necessarily be considered a backwards system.

I think it's a backwards system because in disciplines like law (and possibly engineering, I don't know because I'm not an engineering student) the emphasis is on application and not the rules specifically. I'm not sure about how much content there is in engineering, but in Law, there are an incredible amount of rules alone that need to be memorised, let alone their origins (cases and legislations) and the circumstances surrounding said cases (and their exceptions). Having a closed book exam benefits no one and serves little purpose other than to differentiate who has the better memory where in a discipline like Law, the superior students are not the ones with a better memory but the ones with a better understanding of the rules and legal system, and furthermore, a better ability to apply this knowledge to problem cases. Having a closed book exam means students are forced to waste time memorising cases and legislations where the time should be spent learning how to apply this knowledge (rather just having this knowledge) and thus learn in a more practical manner that is better suited for real world practise. Needless to say, given the chance to actually study this knowledge and apply this knowledge to example problem cases, students gain a better understanding of this knowledge and also memorise it in tandem. It is a better system of preparation for Law School as a whole, as all exams are focussed on your understanding and application of rules (regardless of what university you're in), and even somewhat insightful to the legal profession as whole. It is a system that even Ivy League Law Schools embrace (Harvard, for example) and if I'm not mistaken, something that UNSW embraces too, where their focus on learning is developing students with outstanding practical ability, as it is at UTS as well. So what benefits, if any, does a closed book exam hold over an open book? It's an old fashioned mechanism for a university to say "check out my prestige, where my exams are harder than yours" which partly ignores developing a student's actual practical skills.

I'm not saying closed book exams mean your uni doesn't care about developing your practical ability, etc, but I'm saying it is backwards to have them where they have little benefits over open book exams and as it is in fact an obstacle that prevents you for exercising your practical learning.

 

[D94]

I did not disagree with you. However, your argument is based on the claim that university exams are 'meant' to prepare us or reflect real world law or engineering or whatever. If this is not the case, then as I said, it should not be considered a backwards system. From what I gathered, the only reason why you are saying it is a backwards system is because it doesn't reflect real world practices, but that presupposes that exams are meant to reflect real world practices.

If they are meant to reflect real world practices, then sure, it is rather backwards. Sure we could argue that they are meant to prepare us, but it's up to the university to decide the true intention of their exams. Sometimes the intention is to pass as many students as possible, sometimes it is to test how well we paid attention in lectures, sometimes it is to test our real world understanding and applications of the content.

 

[Crobat]

I did not disagree with you. However, your argument is based on the claim that university exams are 'meant' to prepare us or reflect real world law or engineering or whatever. If this is not the case, then as I said, it should not be considered a backwards system. From what I gathered, the only reason why you are saying it is a backwards system is because it doesn't reflect real world practices, but that presupposes that exams are meant to reflect real world practices.

If they are meant to reflect real world practices, then sure, it is rather backwards. Sure we could argue that they are meant to prepare us, but it's up to the university to decide the true intention of their exams. Sometimes the intention is to pass as many students as possible, sometimes it is to test how well we paid attention in lectures, sometimes it is to test our real world understanding and applications of the content.

Given that many universities now sell themselves under the guise of preparing students for real world practise, my argument really does stand. If these 2 options are the purpose for examinations, how can you argue that it's not backwards practise to do that?

 

[anomalousdecay]

But how is that any different to any other course? Nothing in the real world engineering is closed book, yet we are expected to remember a shit load of formulae, seemingly random content (from things like tolerances in design to chemical compositions) and whatnot. Not saying there is a clear parallel between what needs to be memorised in law, and what needs to be memorised in engineering, but the overall practice of closed book examination does not reflect what is actually done in the workplace, and therefore should not necessarily be considered a backwards system.

Those crappy Physics formulae where you ask the lecturer after class whom says "I'm sorry you just have to memorise that".

But generally most things in any work you do is not closed book.

There may be the few cases where emergency situations kick in and test your response, but they aren't frequent, hence "emergency". Also, usually the stuff that is emergency type is taught in a manner where there are minimal material on it (WHS type stuff is more practical when getting a white card and the theory and worksheets are minimal, etc).

 

[brent012]

I would say that engineers would be terrible if they couldn't apply fundamentals from their field with their eyes shut and no reference material, but tbh a lawyer who couldn't memorise a large amount of cases and what not off the top of their head would probably be equally as useless.