Consider this -- Is all you need a degree? (2 Viewers)

[Suvat]

He'll go to usyd law :uhhuh:

CM tutor's description is grossly inaccurate, for all I know we ARE encouraged to think freely for ourselves and are even indirectly assessed on it in our class participation marks!

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by Constip8edSkunk
0.05 means 40 extra ppl beat you... out of like 60000+

edit: Honestly, scholarships aside, how many ppl would go2 UOW for science if they got 97s? and if Bob got 99.6 would he go to UNSW or Maq Law?

eh?.......its UWS where're talking about......read...

and i know Raiks, a forum member is doing UOW commerce and he got 96.00 + UAI if i wasnt mistaken ...........WITHOUT A SCHOLARSHIP!

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by Suvat
He'll go to usyd law :uhhuh:

CM tutor's description is grossly inaccurate, for all I know we ARE encouraged to think freely for ourselves and are even indirectly assessed on it in our class participation marks!

CM_Tutor's POV is unbiased...unlike yours mofo


plz remove that manipulative sig

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
But you're justifying miles by "Missing out on the course they wanted" which is a silly definition where we can see the 99.55 ISN'T miles and the 33.25 IS MILES.

Tell me the whole idea behind the UAI..?

If i wasn't mistaken, the whole idea of the UAI is to rank indivduals so they may be admitted into tertiary education right?
So, if you were 0.65 under the cutoff, than yes, it was miles...

beating someone in a swimming race by 0.01 of a second is seen as miles...

just like u beat me in the hsc.....it was miles!
(im just happy the UAI does not measure intelligence.......or some people should not of gottn 99.75

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
God you lawyers, you're not following.

Here's the gist.

It's a combination of both, thus the UAI provides insight into neither singularly, only both as a whole.

ahhhhh......but u didnt say that from the beginning!

u just said

'its a combo of both but gives insight into neither'

and yes, 'lawyers' tend to be picky about what someone says and how they say it

its too bad some people cannot articulate what they wanna say properly

 

[KeypadSDM]

Originally posted by santaslayer
ahhhhh......but u didnt say that from the beginning!

u just said

'its a combo of both but gives insight into neither'

and yes, 'lawyers' tend to be picky about what someone says and how they say it

its too bad some people cannot articulate what they wanna say properly

Every heard of implied? I'll see if your superior language skills can pick up on what I'm implying now.

It's strictly logical:

A is both B & C. But A =/=> B, and A =/=> C.

HOWEVER, from the initial statement, I've already stated that:

B,C ==> A

Use your brain for a second and stop being so anal.

 

[KeypadSDM]

Originally posted by santaslayer
Tell me the whole idea behind the UAI..?

If i wasn't mistaken, the whole idea of the UAI is to rank indivduals so they may be admitted into tertiary education right?
So, if you were 0.65 under the cutoff, than yes, it was miles...

beating someone in a swimming race by 0.01 of a second is seen as miles...

just like u beat me in the hsc.....it was miles!
(im just happy the UAI does not measure intelligence.......or some people should not of gottn 99.75

Originally posted by santaslayer
2) Well yes, if you were comparing only these 2 people , 33.25 and 66.35, then the latter was miles ahead of Mr 33.25.!

But you're using the word in completely differing contexts, and saying I'm using it incorrectly when I'm clearly using it in one of the contexts you've used it in.

Can you even see your own hypocrisy?

 

[CM_Tutor]

Originally posted by Suvat
CM tutor's description is grossly inaccurate, for all I know we ARE encouraged to think freely for ourselves and are even indirectly assessed on it in our class participation marks!

Thank you so much for your opinion. I'm sure you are far better qualified than I to judge whether my description of the USyd Law school was an accurate description of my experiences. Obviously, I should have asked you first.

Since you are studying law, might I suggest that it is always a good idea to check on your facts? For the record, this is what I said (and this quote is verbatim, in case you are thinking it has been edited in any way):

Originally posted by CM_Tutor
The quality will still vary greatly from Uni to Uni - I started out in Science / Law at USyd, and HATED the USyd Law faculty. It was taught in an extremely rigid way, opinion and critical thought were discouraged. This is the reason that UNSW and ANU Law grads are (or at least, were) better regarded by people I know in the profession. It may only require pen and paper, but also resources (library, good internet / database availability) and more importantly, good teaching - teaching that develops good skills in careful, logical analysis and critical thinking , and preferably teaching that is designed with the constructivist nature of learning in mind.

I did not state that the situation has not changed since my experiences - in fact, I deliberately allowed for the possibility that change has occurred by including the "or at least, were" caveat in my statement.

If you would like to state that your experiences differ from mine, or perhaps suggest that some change has occurred in the last several years, then I would have no problem with that. However, don't tell me that my description of my experience is grossly inaccurate, or that my opinion is wrong when I was there and you weren't. I will provide some details of my experience, if you would like to see evidence to support my contention, but I have no doubt that the faculty - at that time - was incredibly rigid and bureaucratic in its approach to teaching and administration, and was not even slightly interested in fostering skills like critical thinking in its students. There was only one allowed opinion - the lecturers - and deviation from it was (for the most part) not permitted - there wer exceptions, but that is exactly what they were - exceptions.

Originally posted by santaslayer
CM_Tutor's POV is unbiased...unlike yours mofo

I wouldn't agree - my opinion is certainly coloured by my experiences, and I would have difficulty in claiming that my POV is unbiased.

 

[Suvat]

CM tutor, I'm sorry if I offended you in anyway with my imprecise statements, but it was obvious to me that certain individuals were using your recount of your experiences to attack (probably playful banter) the usyd law of *today*.

But you're right, I should've specified that it is a grossly inaccurate description of usyd law today as I have no idea what it was like the time you were there.

And santaslayer, are you trying to suggest that your opinions on UoW are not biased

 

[Raiks]

Originally posted by Suvat
And santaslayer, are you trying to suggest that your opinions on UoW are not biased

Santa's views aren't biased, UOW definitely is the best uni on the face of the planet and I can't see any bias in anything he says, because being one of the articulate excelling scholars of such a fine tertiary institution, santa has no need to see things with such a rosy tint, because UOW is really that good that if anything, Santa and the others who are fortunate enough to experience the privalage of studying at Wollongong, are not sharing how great the University of Wollongong truly is. :rofl:

 

[freaking_out]

Originally posted by Raiks
Santa's views aren't biased...

that turns me off from reading ya post...already.

 

[Raiks]

I guess it'd be enough to turn anyone off

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
Every heard of implied? I'll see if your superior language skills can pick up on what I'm implying now.

It's strictly logical:

A is both B & C. But A =/=> B, and A =/=> C.

HOWEVER, from the initial statement, I've already stated that:

B,C ==> A

Use your brain for a second and stop being so anal.

It is Law that makes the world go round these days, it pervades every aspect of society. If you cannot articulate properly and precisley the thoughts that come out of your little brain then I am very sorry for you.
Everything you say will be disected piece by piece, by turds like me so to purley 'imply' is not good enough. That is how litigation tends to start! So next time, please do not 'imply' or you may get hammered by bitches like me.

BTW, why are you becomming so defensive for? I thought this was suppose to be a civilised conversation. Please do not make distasteful remarks like the one above.

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
But you're using the word in completely differing contexts, and saying I'm using it incorrectly when I'm clearly using it in one of the contexts you've used it in.

Can you even see your own hypocrisy?

But it was YOU who asked me 2 very different questions, in 2 very different contexts if i have not mistaken!

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by Suvat
CM tutor, I'm sorry if I offended you in anyway with my imprecise statements, but it was obvious to me that certain individuals were using your recount of your experiences to attack (probably playful banter) the usyd law of *today*.


And santaslayer, are you trying to suggest that your opinions on UoW are not biased

1) ahaha...well i guess it kinda pays to go over what other people have said instead of relying on a UNRELIABLE third party source like me u lawyer! ......

2) I cant say anything except look at Raiks superiorly unbiased response! :rofl:

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by Raiks
Santa's views aren't biased, UOW definitely is the best uni on the face of the planet and I can't see any bias in anything he says, because being one of the articulate excelling scholars of such a fine tertiary institution, santa has no need to see things with such a rosy tint, because UOW is really that good that if anything, Santa and the others who are fortunate enough to experience the privalage of studying at Wollongong, are not sharing how great the University of Wollongong truly is. :rofl:

Gawwwddd that just deserves some quoting!!!!!!!!!

Talk about excelling scholars!!!!!

 

[CM_Tutor]

Originally posted by Suvat
CM tutor, I'm sorry if I offended you in anyway with my imprecise statements, but it was obvious to me that certain individuals were using your recount of your experiences to attack (probably playful banter) the usyd law of *today*.

But you're right, I should've specified that it is a grossly inaccurate description of usyd law today as I have no idea what it was like the time you were there.

Thanks for the response, Suvat. I can see what you mean by my comment about then being used to attack the situation as it exists now. If the USyd Law faculty has been dragged, kicking and screaming into the late 20th/ early 21st century, then I'm glad. It was certainly overdue. On reflection, perhaps my response was a little strong - last week was pretty stressful, so I probably have less patience than normal at the moment.

 

[santaslayer]

Thats a very vauge sorry.....