LAW114 Jurisprudence.... (1 Viewer)

[xeuyrawp]

Uh-oh.

Has everyone seen the juris essay question?

 

[GoodToGo]

I like Anne. She's really helpful with anything law related (from getting waivers or getting her to stay back and judge client interviews). Not the most engaging lecturer though.

From all reports, crim's never been the same since Andrew Sharpe left in 2004. Do they even still have transgender stuff at all, let alone weeks of it?

 

[Supra]

Uh-oh.

Has everyone seen the juris essay question?

yeh...haven't really thought about it too much though...due date is same time as my brother's wedding so I'll be busy that week. What do you think of it?

For some reason, LAW114 reminds me of Module B in Adv. Eng...the analysis of the different interpretations of King Lear

 

[MaryJane]

From all reports, crim's never been the same since Andrew Sharpe left in 2004. Do they even still have transgender stuff at all, let alone weeks of it?

I have to agree that Anne is a lovely, patient person, just isnt a great lecturer!

Yep, there is still the transgender stuff, I used it in one of my assessments, but its only briefly mentioned, you have to do most of the research yourself. There is a lot of time spent on domestic violence, which I suppose is to be expected from our law faculty!

For some reason, LAW114 reminds me of Module B in Adv. Eng...the analysis of the different interpretations of King Lear

I think you just hit the nail on the head!! Most of those theorists are about as crazy and delusional as the old King himself!

 

[xeuyrawp]

Most of those theorists are about as crazy and delusional as the old King himself!

What I don't understand is whether they actually believe in their extreme views, or just feel like they have to present them to have any merit. :S

 

[sly fly]

^I think you'll find it's generally both

anyway, I've only been to one lecture by archana and I didn't think she was that good of a lecturer.........however, she is my tutor and she's awesome in tutes, I really like her

 

[Cyan_phoeniX]

i did mine on american realism. Usually if i do an assignment i can remember most of it even years later... but with the law114 essay, ive already fogotten all about the topic.

 

[xeuyrawp]

i did mine on american realism. Usually if i do an assignment i can remember most of it even years later... but with the law114 essay, ive already fogotten all about the topic.

When they say that we only have to use the reader and the texts, do they actually mean it? :/

 

[monique66]

I'll be taking a trip to the lib shortly, I don't know which ones I want to critique as yet though :S

 

[MaryJane]

When they say that we only have to use the reader and the texts, do they actually mean it? :/

Yep, they do mean it... Its not a research essay, its a critique where you have to present your own argument and display your understanding of the issues. So dont waste a second reading outside the course notes (and text because I assume you have one now).

 

[xeuyrawp]

Yep, they do mean it... Its not a research essay, its a critique where you have to present your own argument and display your understanding of the issues. So dont waste a second reading outside the course notes (and text because I assume you have one now).

Excellent. Some markers are impressed with an inundation of research, despite the true nature of the task!

Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[MaryJane]

Not a problem!

What are the questions?

 

[xeuyrawp]

Here it is. Basically, a critique of two of these:

Your two critiques must be chosen from the following list:
• D Lloyd, ‘Law and Custom’, Course Materials, pp 33-39
• HLA Hart, The Concept of Law, Course Materials, pp 44-52
• L Fuller, ‘Positivism and Fidelity to Law – A Reply to Professor Hart’, Course Materials, pp 84-102
• F Schauer, ‘The Concept of Formalism’, Course Materials, pp 148-154
• R Dworkin, Law’s Empire, Course Materials, pp 156-171
• M Davies, ‘Race and Colonialism: Legal Theory as “White Mythology”’, Course Materials, pp 261-270 only. (Note that you are not required to critique the whole of the Davies reading as contained in volume 1 of the Course Materials but pp 261-70 only).

 

[MaryJane]

Ooh, right, so its not really a question like they used to do it... Thats a really interesting way of going about it actually. Much more room to move... hmmm...

Great! Thanks for that!

 

[Butterfly Kissz]

is anyone in thurs 4-6 tute
with simon rice..

i missed the very first tut so i went to archanas tutorial and i must admit. she seemed really good even for an intro tute..

she seems to know her stuff and seems quite lenient..

i dnt kno much about simon but he seems to be a good lecturer.. his tutes r very laid back and more like.. "what is ur opinion on this and juistify" while archanas tends to actually drill content into you.

so far, i find the readings to be tedious! and too much lol.. only cuz i hate reading..

 

[xeuyrawp]

so far, i find the readings to be tedious! and too much lol.. only cuz i hate reading..

Oh dear.

 

[Tabris]

How is everyone else progressing with the critiques?

i think 800 words for the limit is reasonable, but it has to be a very tight knit argument.

Simon says that a summary regarding the source should be about 150 words and the rest should be the critique, so i guess that means proving your source is better than everyone else but saying theres is crap.....

SO what are your choices? Hart? Lloyd? Fuller? Schaur? Dworkin?

 

[xeuyrawp]

How is everyone else progressing with the critiques?

i think 800 words for the limit is reasonable, but it has to be a very tight knit argument.

Simon says that a summary regarding the source should be about 150 words and the rest should be the critique, so i guess that means proving your source is better than everyone else but saying theres is crap.....

SO what are your choices? Hart? Lloyd? Fuller? Schaur? Dworkin?

I'm doing Lloyd, so I can talk about customary law, power, and a bit of morality.

Doing Schauer so I can talk about formalism, morality, and functionalism.

I'll have to wait to do Schauer in depth (next week's lecture will be relevant), but I'm hoping to start my plan for Lloyd tomorrow.

 

[Smokin'Squirrel]

How'd everyone find the assignment?

I don't think it was that bad but a question would have been fairly valuable, rather than simply picking a tangent and running with it.

 

[Tabris]

So how is everyone going with juris?

Does anyone do the complete prescribed+supp. readings? or just the prescribed?
The readings are so tedious, Meyerson does an excellent job in her book, but trying to decipher what Fuller or Hart is saying when first reading it is pretty damn confusing.

Did anyone read the whole imaginery trial with the fake judges and that? or read every bit of Dworkin? At times it is very hard to hold your attention to the work before your eyes and mind start wandering off. Right now I am coping with the prescribed readings, but some of the supplementry readings especially with the postmodernism, CLS and CRT are just too long to do.....

Has anyone finished reading the feminist jurisprudence chapter? I am starting to think that Mackinnon is far more than a radical feminist... I guess to her, any objectification in any form, of women is sexual discrimination....