• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Law degrees "useless" (2 Viewers)

humphreybear

New Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
25
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
on another note, don't you think law is more prone to rote learning? in commerce we have to understand intuitively why things are the way they are.

statutes and case law are influenced by so many factors and agendas that you cannot possibly make sense of any logical reasoning behind them, and any brave attempt to do so would be foolish due to the high risk of misinterpreting motives
 

humphreybear

New Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
25
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Ok this will be my last post here today I have to watch the news lol:

Regardless, they must have a knowledge of corporate law. They can either get that through their law degree or through some other method (I believe Accounting majors do a bit of corporate law).
Please PLEASE stop changing your posts and also, please stop copying my facts!


EDIT: and like the hypocrite i am, i'm changing this to add: we do all the corporate law law students do, but a dumbed down version. Essentially the same but not with all that philosophy/jurisprudence(?) side of it
 

erawamai

Retired. Gone fishing.
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Messages
1,456
Location
-
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
humphreybear said:
on another note, don't you think law is more prone to rote learning? in commerce we have to understand intuitively why things are the way they are.
Not what com/law people tell me. But results may differ from person to person.

statutes and case law are influenced by so many factors and agendas that you cannot possibly make sense of any logical reasoning behind them, and any brave attempt to do so would be foolish due to the high risk of misinterpreting motives
We might as well pack up and go home! This trying to law stuff is just stupid!
 

erawamai

Retired. Gone fishing.
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Messages
1,456
Location
-
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
humphreybear said:
Please PLEASE stop changing your posts and also, please stop copying my facts!
me said:
To be a CFO you would need a law degree or some knowledge of corporate law.
You read this as me saying that you need a law degree to be a CFO. Which was not what I said. You didn't read it carefully.

Therefore I'm NOT copying what you said.
 

erawamai

Retired. Gone fishing.
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Messages
1,456
Location
-
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2002
humphreybear said:
EDIT: and like the hypocrite i am, i'm changing this to add: we do all the corporate law law students do, but a dumbed down version. Essentially the same but not with all that philosophy/jurisprudence(?) side of it
We get to read most of the Corporations Act (Fun :rolleyes: ) plus the jurisprudence so that you understand the basis for the law.
 

humphreybear

New Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
25
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
oh dear. sorry partly my fault i should have been clearer.

you originally had :
"To be a CFO you would need a law degree of a self knowledge or corporate law."
hence my confusion.

with the copying issue, i referred to the fact that accountants have to do corporate law but i withdraw that comment i was being stupid

Now, to be honest: I didn't add this before, but the main reason I aint doing law is simply cause at my uni, if you do law you don't have enough commerce subjects to get into accounting honours with. (Yes my uni is melb uni the degree factory). But the arguments u raised do remind me that law is a good degree to do, usually cause u get such a better understanding of how society works, and what goes on in it. its just a bit overrated and more prestigious than it should be.

We might as well pack up and go home! This trying to law stuff is just stupid!
LOL i cracked up at that,
 

santaslayer

Active Member
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
7,816
Location
La La Land
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
humphreybear said:
By your logic, Economists, Accountants and Business people save even more lives than lawyers. Who ensures the efficient flow of funds in society to enable Lawyers, Doctors and a country to operate?

I quit Law to pursue a Commerce degree by itself because:
1. it takes too long to do ugrad law when a JD can be done in less than 2 years
2. you never see high status people having 2 undergraduate degrees (double degrees)
3. most law students are full fee paying snobs who think they are above everyone else
4. doing law statistically only gives you a 47% chance of ever becoming a lawyer (i mean solictor)


LOL dude since when did lawyers get heaps of money? you've been influenced by propaganda.
Take these figures:
Graduate solicitor: $45,000-$55,000
Graduate Investment Banker: $80-120,000
Graduate Accountant: $40,000-$55,000
and later on:
Partner at Law Firm: $500,000-$1,000,000
Partner at Accounting Firm: $600,000-1,600,000
Senior Investment Banker: like bloody millions
you're better off become an accountant or banker to get more money. stick with commerce mate!
Accountants, economists and Business people all turn to lawyers in one form or another. We save their arses from being whipped by other people or government authorities that hire the intellect of another lawyer.

Most law students are not full fee paying. lol

Just because high status people may not normally have a double undergrad degree doesnt mean there never will be. you really aren't the type to be able to take ur own path.

Not doing a law degree or LPAB course gives you NO chance at all in becomming a lawyer. ahaha...dohh..lol..that was stoopidly funny..lol




the law commerce students learn is actually very brief and easy...i have checked the difference quite thoroughly...


lawyers is the general term for people practicing law...u forgot to mention the income of barristers...court appearences of certain barristers may accumulate to more than any IB, accountant, whateva..
 

santaslayer

Active Member
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
7,816
Location
La La Land
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
santaslayer said:
Accountants, economists and Business people all turn to lawyers in one form or another. We save their arses from being whipped by other people or government authorities that hire the intellect of another lawyer.

Most law students are not full fee paying. lol

Just because high status people may not normally have a double undergrad degree doesnt mean there never will be. you really aren't the type to be able to take ur own path.

Not doing a law degree or LPAB course gives you NO chance at all in becomming a lawyer. ahaha...dohh..lol..that was stoopidly funny..lol




the law commerce students learn is actually very brief and easy...i have checked the difference quite thoroughly...


lawyers is the general term for people practicing law...u forgot to mention the income of barristers...court appearences of certain barristers may accumulate to more than any IB, accountant, whateva..
i get the feeling this person was bored and had no basis of argument..

he's starting to agree with everything asqy said..
 

humphreybear

New Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
25
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
lawyers is the general term for people practicing law...u forgot to mention the income of barristers...court appearences of certain barristers may accumulate to more than any IB, accountant, whateva..
dude it was just an example. If you want to get into detail, you also forget that not all top accountants are partners. Other types of Accountants include:

Theres the auditor generals with their crappy government wages yet other benefits

theres the liquidators earning who knows what out of a failed company's finances

theres the CFOs earning the low millions

theres the CEOs (of whom accountants make up more of, than any other profession >according to a biased source, CPA Australia) earning the multi millions

theres the auditors, theres the treasurers, theres the tax partners with their $1000 per hour charge out rate, theres the forensic accountants, theres the system accountants etc etc.


however, I agree that 'ordinary' lawyers earn more than 'ordinary' accountants on average.
 

humphreybear

New Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
25
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
santaslayer said:
i get the feeling this person was bored and had no basis of argument..

he's starting to agree with everything asqy said..
dude...you quoted yourself lol

EDIT: Dont edit your post...its a classic stuff up!!!
 

humphreybear

New Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
25
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Oh by the way, to further prove my point, the CEO of Minter Ellison is a Accountant.

No way will a lawyer ever be allowed to become the CEO of an Accounting Firm - hopefully not anyway... lol
 

santaslayer

Active Member
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
7,816
Location
La La Land
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
humphreybear said:
dude it was just an example. If you want to get into detail, you also forget that not all top accountants are partners. Other types of Accountants include:

Theres the auditor generals with their crappy government wages yet other benefits

theres the liquidators earning who knows what out of a failed company's finances

theres the CFOs earning the low millions

theres the CEOs (of whom accountants make up more of, than any other profession >according to a biased source, CPA Australia) earning the multi millions

theres the auditors, theres the treasurers, theres the tax partners with their $1000 per hour charge out rate, theres the forensic accountants, theres the system accountants etc etc.


however, I agree that 'ordinary' lawyers earn more than 'ordinary' accountants on average.
1) Differentiating Barristers from Solicotors is hardly detail. Esp for an auditor wannabe.

2) Your examples initally only included people who were earning the most in their field. Eg. The top earning accountant, the top earning solicotor. Involving the top earning Barister is not detail but gross omission on your part and essential correction/addition on mine.

3) I have included a potential example on top earning barristers because it it comparable, unlike your unecessary examples.

4) lalalala
 

pete_mate

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
596
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: New UNSW Law building

MoonlightSonata said:
Without rules and laws we would never have advanced from caves. Without law we would not have a system under which we can live together in freedom and pursue our desires and interests in as much safety as practicality allows.
Rules and laws helped us advance from caves? It's amazing how one stupid statement ruin your credibility completely.

i think what nebakanezzer (or whatever) was saying was that law is reactionary. Eg. there is a new portable defibrillator developed by scientists to be used by surf life savers for people having heart attacks on the beach.

Lawyers come in after this technology has been developed and try and regulate it, (which usually hinders it's use i might add.)

Although the proper regulation of new technologies, eg. food, spaceflight etc. is important, it comes as a result of the achievement of science.

Medieval europe was a bloody place, sure it wasn't anarchic, but im sure with the kind of technology we would be far better off than having the scientists of the day divert their energy towards whether clubbing someone to death with a mace or cutting their head off should warrant the same penalty.

Similar to ambulance chasers or parasites, lawyers feed on the misery (or achievements) of others.
 

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
humphreybear said:
on another note, don't you think law is more prone to rote learning? in commerce we have to understand intuitively why things are the way they are.

statutes and case law are influenced by so many factors and agendas that you cannot possibly make sense of any logical reasoning behind them, and any brave attempt to do so would be foolish due to the high risk of misinterpreting motives
There is so much philosophy behind this topic that I can't begin to bring you up to speed. However, I will just say that from a legal theory point of view, law is not necessarily about "interpreting motive". If you are interested in this then I recommend reading Ronald Dworkin's work.
 

santaslayer

Active Member
Joined
May 29, 2003
Messages
7,816
Location
La La Land
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
humphreybear said:
Oh by the way, to further prove my point, the CEO of Minter Ellison is a Accountant.

No way will a lawyer ever be allowed to become the CEO of an Accounting Firm - hopefully not anyway... lol
Uhhh Minter Ellison is actually a killer law firm in many countries...whih one are u talking about? london, HK, Australia, sa francisco, china?

coz the one u r talking about seems to be based in NZ?
 

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Re: New UNSW Law building

pete_mate said:
Rules and laws helped us advance from caves? It's amazing how one stupid statement ruin your credibility completely.
Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. They do not advance your argument.
pete_mate said:
i think what nebakanezzer (or whatever) was saying was that law is reactionary. Eg. there is a new portable defibrillator developed by scientists to be used by surf life savers for people having heart attacks on the beach.

Lawyers come in after this technology has been developed and try and regulate it, (which usually hinders it's use i might add.)

Although the proper regulation of new technologies, eg. food, spaceflight etc. is important, it comes as a result of the achievement of science.
I don't dispute this. I also don't see how it relates to my points whatever.
pete_mate said:
Medieval europe was a bloody place, sure it wasn't anarchic, but im sure with the kind of technology we would be far better off than having the scientists of the day divert their energy towards whether clubbing someone to death with a mace or cutting their head off should warrant the same penalty.
How about the systems of organisation under which human beings should live and interact?
pete_mate said:
Similar to ambulance chasers or parasites, lawyers feed on the misery (or achievements) of others.
Ad hominem rhetoric.
 

pete_mate

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
596
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
to drive the point home, jonathan swift in "gulliver's travells" has a hilariously true analogy of lawyers.

Here gulliver is explaining lawyers to the houyhnhnms, a horse-race ignorant of human society.

i'll highlight the funny/best bits in bold


I said, "there was a society of men among us, bred up from their
youth in the art of proving, by words multiplied for the purpose,
that white is black, and black is white, according as they are
paid.
To this society all the rest of the people are slaves. For
example, if my neighbour has a mind to my cow, he has a lawyer to
prove that he ought to have my cow from me. I must then hire
another to defend my right, it being against all rules of law that
any man should be allowed to speak for himself. Now, in this case,
I, who am the right owner, lie under two great disadvantages:
first, my lawyer, being practised almost from his cradle in
defending falsehood, is quite out of his element when he would be
an advocate for justice, which is an unnatural office he always
attempts with great awkwardness, if not with ill-will. The second
disadvantage is, that my lawyer must proceed with great caution, or
else he will be reprimanded by the judges, and abhorred by his
brethren, as one that would lessen the practice of the law. And
therefore I have but two methods to preserve my cow. The first is,
to gain over my adversary's lawyer with a double fee, who will then
betray his client by insinuating that he hath justice on his side.

The second way is for my lawyer to make my cause appear as unjust
as he can, by allowing the cow to belong to my adversary: and
this, if it be skilfully done, will certainly bespeak the favour of
the bench. Now your honour is to know, that these judges are
persons appointed to decide all controversies of property, as well
as for the trial of criminals, and picked out from the most
dexterous lawyers, who are grown old or lazy; and having been
biassed all their lives against truth and equity, lie under such a
fatal necessity of favouring fraud, perjury, and oppression, that I
have known some of them refuse a large bribe from the side where
justice lay, rather than injure the faculty, by doing any thing
unbecoming their nature or their office.

"It is a maxim among these lawyers that whatever has been done
before, may legally be done again: and therefore they take special
care to record all the decisions formerly made against common
justice, and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name
of precedents, they produce as authorities to justify the most
iniquitous opinions; and the judges never fail of directing
accordingly.

"In pleading, they studiously avoid entering into the merits of the
cause; but are loud, violent, and tedious, in dwelling upon all
circumstances which are not to the purpose. For instance, in the
case already mentioned; they never desire to know what claim or
title my adversary has to my cow; but whether the said cow were red
or black; her horns long or short; whether the field I graze her in
be round or square; whether she was milked at home or abroad; what
diseases she is subject to, and the like; after which they consult
precedents, adjourn the cause from time to time, and in ten,
twenty, or thirty years, come to an issue.


(to add a modern explanation: -lawyers get paid hourly)

"It is likewise to be observed, that this society has a peculiar
cant and jargon of their own, that no other mortal can understand,
and wherein all their laws are written, which they take special
care to multiply; whereby they have wholly confounded the very
essence of truth and falsehood, of right and wrong; so that it will
take thirty years to decide, whether the field left me by my
ancestors for six generations belongs to me, or to a stranger three
hundred miles off.

"In the trial of persons accused for crimes against the state, the
method is much more short and commendable: the judge first sends
to sound the disposition of those in power, after which he can
easily hang or save a criminal, strictly preserving all due forms
of law."

Here my master interposing, said, "it was a pity, that creatures
endowed with such prodigious abilities of mind, as these lawyers,
by the description I gave of them, must certainly be, were not
rather encouraged to be instructors of others in wisdom and
knowledge." In answer to which I assured his honour, "that in all
points out of their own trade, they were usually the most ignorant
and stupid generation among us, the most despicable in common
conversation, avowed enemies to all knowledge and learning, and
equally disposed to pervert the general reason of mankind in every
other subject of discourse as in that of their own profession."


eg. man robbing house falls off house, sues owner for negligence

you can't deny his genius
 
Last edited:

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Re: New UNSW Law building

MoonlightSonata said:
I don't dispute this. I also don't see how it relates to my points whatever.
Your points were illogical, unlinked and flawed. Nothing here relates to your points.

I look foward to the law folks attempting to insult me again. First I was a "spoon fed commerce student", which was incorrect. Then I was a "Roundhouse visiting science student", which was wrong. Then I was an "idiot" which was wrong :p. I must say, the UNSW law graduates seem to have about as much chance of coming up with a convincing argument as they do having a chance of getting a job once their pathetic degree is over, or indeed, coming up with some form of compelling argument in a case once they do "score" that "dream job" with a law firm.

Also to that person that said that Med> everything. I concur, you may have 10 points. If there's a degree that deserves more respect than it gets (although I believe MBBS is the most respected degree(s)), it's any medical degree.
 

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Your qualms are with the practice of some lawyers and some laws that are or have been in force. In recent times these are bad, albeit relatively petty things, which society has tried to smooth out. Law reform is ongoing and many organisations exist towards the advancement of justice, in order make our legal system and its practioners fairer.

However, there is no denying the important function of lawyers or the importance of law itself.

(Additionally, many of these scruples are enforced and exaggerated by film, media, popular culture and upbringing, and can be quite distinct from real life. Laypeople also often have little understanding of the law, including its history and its operation. This can result in public backlash, mistrust of lawyers, the perpetuating archetype of the greedy, mischievous lawyer type, a fear stemming from ignorance, or a generalisation based on a personal experience. The 'riches' thought of by some when regarding lawyers also overlook the excessive amount of hours involved and the extraordinary intellectual rigors involved in some areas of practice.)

Similarly, as Frigid has pointed out, Science has given rise to all sorts of deadly inventions that have consequently been used to destroy large portions of the human race. But you have to look to the goals of science and the many good things science has done and continues to achieve too.
 

MoonlightSonata

Retired
Joined
Aug 17, 2002
Messages
3,645
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Re: New UNSW Law building

Nebuchanezzar said:
Your points were illogical, unlinked and flawed. Nothing here relates to your points.
If that were the case, you should demonstrate why. That is a lot more persuassive than saying "you're wrong."
Nebuchanezzar said:
I look foward to the law folks attempting to insult me again. First I was a "spoon fed commerce student", which was incorrect. Then I was a "Roundhouse visiting science student", which was wrong. Then I was an "idiot" which was wrong :p. I must say, the UNSW law graduates seem to have about as much chance of coming up with a convincing argument as they do having a chance of getting a job once their pathetic degree is over, or indeed, coming up with some form of compelling argument in a case once they do "score" that "dream job" with a law firm.
Ad hominem arguments again.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top