No Money in Law !? (3 Viewers)

[TehAzner]

dentist wasn't hot, law girl was a patient.

and yeah my god, if my dentist had huge bewbs and everything imagine her leaning over n shit to play with ur teeth

gomgogmmoasjkdha

Rep-worthy + 1

Anyways, my two cents: The main reason people do law (given that they are intellectually capable of getting in the first place) is for the money. That's pretty much what most of the people who got 99+ in my school provided as their reason. To those that do, good luck to them when they fail in applying for jobs which give you great pay but the success rate is minute (overly high expectations => reason for suicides). Give me any shot in the legal world and I will work my way up.

However, some people choose to do law because of self-interests. Money or no money, I would take up a legal career because it overlaps with my Commerce degree. The only legal background I have is the information soaked up during my time at university, and writing fluent/critical/reflective essays are only a small part of being a future lawyer. So it doesn't matter. I had to complete an assignment for a third year accounting subject the other week, and I hated it (did well though). The chances of me succeeding in Accounting are just as great as Nigeria winning the World Cup.

Thus, in summary TL : DR, Law for me = what I enjoy.

 

[Existential]

i can see why people criticise subjects like english, arts ect. i understand in a very unconscious way why they're compulsory (as i'm good at them) ... i guess what i'm saying is that i see both sides to the argument.

BUT when people say "science is for the future" i think to myself
'yes, science IS for the future, because science includes the SCIENCES (bio, chem, phys) along with the SOCIAL SCIENCES (geography, history, economics, legal, business).'

these are very important subjects.

the more subjective subjects (english, arts ect.) are not less-important, but involve a different approach. an approach that may seem to many impossible in application in the "real world". so my comment is 'it depends on the person'.

and since im fairly well-rounded and can do both, i see no problem here.

 

[Existential]

Law is for the morally depraved, the things some do just to get there money, and the scum that some of them defend, i could never live with that.

you are just stereotyping.

that's like saying all chiropractors are scammers, and all priests are child molesters.
it's just not true for a majority of cases.

see? if you dont then i cant help you.

besides lawyers are by no means so deprived of work that they would accept every client. if they dont believe they have a case ie. they think they're guilty, they won't represent them. it's as simple as that.

 

[Existential]

How did a thread on Law turn into a battle between Arts and Science?

Anyway, I think that an LLB has the ability to prove that you have certain level of intelligence, analytical skill, and determination. If nothing else, it shows that you can stick with something for 5-6 years. Those things may be what gives you an edge over the competition in a job outside of traditional careers.

i don't know - perhaps the engineers are a bit sensitive.

LOL

engineers control the economy now

nice!

no i was referring the scientists, which can be sub-branched into maths, then economists ie. wallstreet fails like misprints of numbers.

 

[Existential]

you say that as if science/engineering or whatever other courses dont whinge and so on.

i could say i have mates doing engineering and they say its piss easy and pointless. theres no objectivity in that or point.

get off your high horse and stop regarding youself so highly.

+1

Everything is subjective guys... some people like engineering some like law some like science etc...

As for me personally, I believe Law is boring and dry and the only thing worth doing is engo/science/com

Again Subjective

yes - SUBJECTIVE. it's all personal. for example, those you stereotype jobs lack the personal qualities to appreciate them.

so ignorant, lololol

no u

I dunno how people can be saying humanities is easy. The amount of books/research you need to do for some professors is unbelievable.

+1

My father is a civil engineer- senior project manager... he doesnt drive a clubsport unfortunately.

In my opinion, you can make a good earning in most career fields so long as you know what you are doing and are driven by success. To those who say Law isnt intellectually challenging with no coherent arguements can Jam themselves up the ass with whatever txtbook they use in their "intellectually" challenging degree, because trust me it is difficult to complete a law degree.

+++1

 

[Existential]

yeah you gotta sign up but unfortunately they don't give specific pay scales for engineering ( for each discipline that is)

i recall law being around 55k graduate.

is money really that big an issue to you tat your'e willing to undergo law to get it?

i simply cannot imagine doing something i hate for 'money'

that's your personal opinion. i'm not taking sides but someone could say the same for engineering AND it would be just as valid as your claim.

 

[Existential]

thus, in summary tl : Dr, law for me = what i enjoy.

+1

 

[ptrgrgry]

Might I direct people to this question (I'm thinking of signing up as I do so many essay-based subjects, but it's very expenisve):

http://community.boredofstudies.org/851/general-discussion-2010-hsc/247643/ferghsc.html

 

[tommykins]

hahaha you fuckin fail to see the irony in here

 

[Omnidragon]

Rep-worthy + 1

To those that do, good luck to them when they fail in applying for jobs which give you great pay but the success rate is minute (overly high expectations => reason for suicides). Give me any shot in the legal world and I will work my way up.

Lol... what's this law job you keep talking about that gives great pay?

You're not talking about the one that the 50-year old bald barrister has after working 14 hours 6 days a week for 28 years to get yea?

 

[random-1005]

you are just stereotyping.

that's like saying all chiropractors are scammers, and all priests are child molesters.
it's just not true for a majority of cases.

see? if you dont then i cant help you.

besides lawyers are by no means so deprived of work that they would accept every client. if they dont believe they have a case ie. they think they're guilty, they won't represent them. it's as simple as that.

what bout all the wankers that represent serious criminals, what about the lawyer of the bali bombers, defending some smartass terrorists, that willing admit and laugh about their crime, anyone with morals would say "get fuked, im not going to defend a person with absolutely no remorse, even if i will get a nice big pay check"

 

[ptrgrgry]

what bout all the wankers that represent serious criminals, what about the lawyer of the bali bombers, defending some smartass terrorists, that willing admit and laugh about their crime, anyone with morals would say "get fuked, im not going to defend a person with absolutely no remorse, even if i will get a nice big pay check"

You don't understand our legal system. We give people a fair trial because it is just. There is no assumption of guilt.

 

[izzy88]

what bout all the wankers that represent serious criminals, what about the lawyer of the bali bombers, defending some smartass terrorists, that willing admit and laugh about their crime, anyone with morals would say "get fuked, im not going to defend a person with absolutely no remorse, even if i will get a nice big pay check"

our legal system works on the basis that everyone can get some kind of representation before a court- a lot of people who represent criminals etc are from legal aid etc They are not necessarily high-flying-rolling in money lawyers, they are doing their job, as employed by the government and required to make our legal system fair and equal. Yes its difficult, and not very nice, but someone has to do it.

Of course the other element, is that we still technically have a 'innocent until proven guilty' justice system.

 

[Existential]

what bout all the wankers that represent serious criminals, what about the lawyer of the bali bombers, defending some smartass terrorists, that willing admit and laugh about their crime, anyone with morals would say "get fuked, im not going to defend a person with absolutely no remorse, even if i will get a nice big pay check"

as i said, you are presenting minority cases. it's pretty obvious that only a minority of lawyers would do that. every career field has people with fail-morals, definitely not just law (which, as i've said, has only a minority).

 

[Existential]

our legal system works on the basis that everyone can get some kind of representation before a court- a lot of people who represent criminals etc are from legal aid etc they are not necessarily high-flying-rolling in money lawyers, they are doing their job, as employed by the government and required to make our legal system fair and equal. Yes its difficult, and not very nice, but someone has to do it.

Of course the other element, is that we still technically have a 'innocent until proven guilty' justice system.

+1

 

[ptrgrgry]

hahaha you fuckin fail to see the irony in here

Um.. was that in reference to me? But, seriously, can someone view this website for me and tell me what they think:

FergHSC :: HSC English Tutoring :: Tour of HSC Tutoring Online

I like the idea of my essays being checked before I hand them in. But, on the other hand, ~$20 to mark an essay is rather ridiculous.

 

[shuttle_bus5]

Um.. was that in reference to me? But, seriously, can someone view this website for me and tell me what they think:

FergHSC :: HSC English Tutoring :: Tour of HSC Tutoring Online

I like the idea of my essays being checked before I hand them in. But, on the other hand, ~$20 to mark an essay is rather ridiculous.

Fuck up

 

[flamearrows]

our legal system works on the basis that everyone can get some kind of representation before a court- a lot of people who represent criminals etc are from legal aid etc They are not necessarily high-flying-rolling in money lawyers, they are doing their job, as employed by the government and required to make our legal system fair and equal. Yes its difficult, and not very nice, but someone has to do it.

Of course the other element, is that we still technically have a 'innocent until proven guilty' justice system.

Well, everyone can get one. But there's not many situations in which one is required - no such thing as court-appointed attorneys in Australia (see Kable though).

And there's nothing technical about innocent until proven guilty. This is why Random's comments are so lulz-worthy - it is impossible for someone to be guilty until a court (and usually a jury) of competent jurisdiction says otherwise.

 

[shuttle_bus5]

Well, everyone can get one. But there's not many situations in which one is required - no such thing as court-appointed attorneys in Australia (see Kable though).

And there's nothing technical about innocent until proven guilty. This is why Random's comments are so lulz-worthy - it is impossible for someone to be guilty until a court (and usually a jury) of competent jurisdiction says otherwise.

OK so if I went and murdered you right now, infront of 5 people, I would not be guilty?
GTFO law fag.

 

[Existential]

OK so if I went and murdered you right now, infront of 5 people, I would not be guilty?
GTFO law fag.

i disagree with her statement "it's not technical", because technically you would not be guilty until the legal system said so.