Butterworths Series (1 Viewer)

[Rorix]

smh...no matter how hard instructors try to get students to be able to read and understand judgments, some will always resist....

 

[MiuMiu]

Haha Brown et al was a shit book LaraB, the reason we used it was cos our course coordinater was Luke McNamara who had a hand in writing it, I thought it was far too philosophical with not enough about the basics in it.

And erawamai I said before that we used the Butterworths tutorial series like Melsc is this year.

 

[wheredanton]

UNSW makes you read Brown et al cover to cover. I liked the book I can flick through the book and admire that every page is marked or highlighted. Then again that also applies to for property and contracts. I also have the feeling that this will also happenin Business Associations and Litigation 1 and 2.

I would have assumed that the tutorial series would be a bit light on for torts alone. The lecturer would have to give you extra reading.

 

[melsc]

Yep thats why we have a Case book and a reader with articles from other textbooks

 

[wheredanton]

Yep thats why we have a Case book and a reader with articles from other textbooks

Whats your casebook?

 

[melsc]

Cases on Torts - Swanton and someone cant remember

 

[MiuMiu]

UNSW makes you read Brown et al cover to cover. I liked the book I can flick through the book and admire that every page is marked or highlighted.

Haha I came third in crim and barely opened that book, except to do an assignment question that was based on an extract of it....and those awfully thin pages.....anything you did highlight made the paper go all yukky!

 

[Frigid]

Haha I came third in crim and barely opened that book

yeah i agree... that book was shit, i read all of it, all i got for crim were 73 and 74.

 

[wheredanton]

I loved that book and I got 83 for Crim 2! Marks are silly anyways. We all know that its all curved marked. I got my property paper back today and to see that she had initially given me a D, she later (most probably during the scaling stage) knocked 2 marks off me. They can't give everyone D's

I think you need a good teacher for crim. It would be gawdawful if you teacher is booring.

 

[Frigid]

I loved that book and I got 83 for Crim 2! Marks are silly anyways.

the problem of the internet is that one can't express sacarsm properly. i wasn't bitching about my marks.

 

[wheredanton]

yeah i agree... that book was shit, i read all of it, all i got for crim were 73 and 74.

I read it as if you were associating, in your opinion, the shitness of the crim book wth your High Credit marks. Which I believe you think is ordinary due to the way you preface your statement with 'all I got'. Ie you were winging about your marks.

My response was to talk about how silly marking is in law school with a personal anecdote and how it really isnt something to get all carried away about.

 

[MiuMiu]

I think you should have read it as Frigid having a stab at me actually.

I don't really understand what he was getting at, if he'd care to clarify that would be fantastic.

On an unrelated note my law school (my whole uni infact) did away with the bell curve awhile ago. The mark you get is what you get, which I think has its share of advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Frigid]

I don't really understand what he was getting at, if he'd care to clarify that would be fantastic.

i myself haven't an idea what i was getting at. perhaps i was posting while in a state of involuntariness, stunned that you did so well as a result of not reading the book.

 

[MiuMiu]

I said that book in particular, not any book

 

[santaslayer]

I liked the Crim book!

It was all airy fairy..
Too bad the questions in the exam never related to the airy fairyness...

 

[MiuMiu]

Yeah the exam was completely different to the book hey Santa, so many people came out whinging that they had studied all the themes in the book and it was all the substantive rules.

And here I was jumping for joy that I had ignored the themes. I took a punt but it worked out ok.

 

[wheredanton]

Yeah the exam was completely different to the book hey Santa, so many people came out whinging that they had studied all the themes in the book and it was all the substantive rules.

And here I was jumping for joy that I had ignored the themes. I took a punt but it worked out ok.

That's pretty mean of your teachers.

I don't think the book is devoid of substantive law, I mean there were plenty of cases. It was only the first half that was obsessed with readings and commentary.

 

[ManlyChief]

On an unrelated note my law school (my whole uni infact) did away with the bell curve awhile ago.

How do you know that the bell cure is not used? That is, does the official marking policies of the institution prohibit the scaling of marks to fit into pre-determined statistical models, or do the policies just not mention it? It's all very interesting, and I'd like to know more.

On another point, more related to the thread, I quite like the text, but I think the editors need lessons in pleasing book design. Naughty Federation Press for publishing something so poorly laid-out; they hit the mark with Cases on Torts but we so disappointing with Criminal Laws.

Edit: Naturally, nothing comes close to Butterworth's edition of Zines' The High Court and the Constitution for sheer typographical and otherwise bibliographic elegance. Not my personal opinion; rather, I feel it is an indisputable fact. Legal publishing should excite and awe. Such books should be as pleasurable a reading diversion as Walt Whitman's poetry and yet have the aura and majesty of a Lincoln address; the elegance and eloquence of the Song of Solomon and yet the power and permanence of the Ten Commandments; they should both popularise and sequester -- in the way postmodernism is represented in American culture simultaneously by both the trashy PoMo of Las Vegas and the highbrow capital-p Postmodernism of the Museum of Modern Art, but in a unified, a beautiful, a sublime way.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I quite like the text, but I think the editors need lessons in pleasing book design. Naughty Federation Press for publishing something so poorly laid-out; they hit the mark with Cases on Torts but we so disappointing with Criminal Laws.

Definitely. Worst layout ever. They need to learn how to use headings. Hell, even HC judges are doing it nowadays, academics have no excuse!

Not to mention the horrible, invisibly thin paper that ends up getting torn with every turn of the page.

 

[wheredanton]

All this hate!