How good to u have to be to pass law? (1 Viewer)

[FinalFantasy]

Btw. how do those guys cope with the level of reading if they're int'l students?

I'm interested in that too!

 

[Omnidragon]

Yep definitely... the exams are more about pikcing up on important things in the question. At my uni (Melb Uni), the exams are usually composed of 75-80% hypothetical scenario, where you're expected to advise clients and pick up on nitty-gritty stuff. The remaining 20-25% is some silly theory question that you can pretty much have pre-written answer for (if you're that keen on getting H1s/HDs).

I find that most int. students don't cope well with readings. But the same goes for a lot of local students. They get away with it because if you have the right lecturer you will get very good lecture slides which pretty much summarises a lot of the key points in law. True it is that reading the cases help you pick up other lesser reasonings in the judgments. But these aren't really important b/c you cover a lot of cases in a semester and I'm sure you won't get a chance to utilise those smaller reasonings in the exam.

Also... at Melb Uni, our papers are marked by the lecturer whose stream we are enrolled in. So the key is to 'enrol' in a crappy lecturer with a crappy CV and crappy qualifications... definitely not an Ivy League or Oxbridge postgrad. They usually churn out students with better marks. Some guy who just taught law at Vic and Swinburne gave out heaps of H2As (75%-89%) and H1s (HDs) when he took Contract law last semester at Melb. Presumably there was large discrepancy in the standards between the 3 unis... this is just a widely-accepted observation made by Contracts students last semester. In contrast, all other classes had marks hovering around 60-76%. And the friggin co-ordinator, who is the BEST lecturer, gave out 73% as his highest mark and failed heaps of students. He's too smart for our own good.

 

[FinalFantasy]

^ wow thats cool! and the picking a crappier lecturer sounds interesting... but i didn't know u can choose which lecturer u want?

 

[FinalFantasy]

hmmm so it all depends on luck lol

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

Can you actually select a tutor/lecturer at UNSW?
Even if some lecturers mark more harshly, doesn't everything have to be standardised? What's the point if one lecturer gives 60% to one script, while another gives the same script 90%?

Btw. do examinations test you on cases that you have already studied, or would you be required to read through an unseen case during the actual exam and provide a response?

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

Selecting a lecturer...so I guess it's virtually random for 1st year students then. Which lecturer/s would you recommend for 1st semester subjects?

So with law exams, are you tested on how you respond to a particular case or to legislation in general? Coz when you say, "obscure cases will earn you extra marks", does that mean that you're basically using a precedent to support your argument in a hypothetical situation?

And on a slightly different note...what kind of legislation do you study in first year at UNSW? Does it just give you a broad overview of the law? i.e. business law, consumer law, civil law etc?

Btw. are marks at all standardised or do they remain as is, in spite of different lecturers marking to varying degrees of difficulty?

 

[011]

I've known teachers who are not that good to actually mark reasonably hard to very hard. At new south HD's and borderline passes are cross marked. As such the teacher will mainly give C's and a few D's so that other more able teachers don't see the (lower) standard of the students.

Thats right, cross-marking is employed so that you don't get a situation where one lecturer gives out a ridiculous amount of HDs comparatively. That unfairness is screened out for the most part.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I didn't really find that good English was a prerequisite for law...

I have heaps of LLB friends who are international students. They seem to get by with passes, credits and the occassional low distinction.

Yes, English is not a prerequisite for law. Anyone with high enough marks can take law on. But English ability is one of the primary tools that makes it far easier to be good at law.

"Getting by" with passes and credits is not exactly good. You should generally never get a pass for a law subject...

 

[Omnidragon]

It depends. I mean that is often the attitude of many people. Just pick a crapper lecturer (thats usually attracts the lower standard students as the super enthusiastic students usually go for the better teacher) and they will mark easy.

This isn't always the case. Pick a good teacher and back yourself to be able to work hard and know the law well enough to get a decent mark in his or her class. I've found this is a better way of getting decent marks, not to mention actually understanding the law better. Nothing worse than coming out of a course knowing jack all. This applies in relation to the 1 and 2 courses. Crim/Contracts and Property. Essentially if you have a crap teacher in first session and you don't learn the law in 1st session you will struggle in 2nd session. I found this with contracts. Totally hopeless contracts 1 teacher that happened to mark hard. For contracts 2 I had a great teacher. But the building block knowledge needed to do well for contracts 2 was missing - No matter how hard I worked for contracts 2 I wasnt going to get a D. The base knowledge that is meant to be learnt in contracts 1 is not there.

I've known teachers who are not that good to actually mark reasonably hard to very hard. At new south HD's and borderline passes are cross marked. As such the teacher will mainly give C's and a few D's so that other more able teachers don't see the (lower) standard of the students.

Yep he's got a point.

So one strategy is to enrol in a crappy lecturer's stream, then attend the good lecturer's stream. But the risk with this is that the lecturers might teach different things or emphasise different issues.

This hasn't been a problem for me though. The lecturers DO get together and draw up the course. And everybody sits the same, common exam... and the marking scheme is agreed on by the lecturers, presumably with the co-ordinator wielding the most influence. A lot of teachers probably really don't give a damn. They've got research to do etc etc... so whatever the co-ordiator says.

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

Thats right, cross-marking is employed so that you don't get a situation where one lecturer gives out a ridiculous amount of HDs comparatively. That unfairness is screened out for the most part.

But I guess there will still be discrepancies then...
Doesn't the fact that markers mark so differently undermine the integrity of the system? At least the HSC is generally fair in terms of scaling/aligning etc, but no such system is in place at universities, which is kind of worrying.

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

Yes, English is not a prerequisite for law. Anyone with high enough marks can take law on. But English ability is one of the primary tools that makes it far easier to be good at law.

"Getting by" with passes and credits is not exactly good. You should generally never get a pass for a law subject...

When you say "You should generally never get a pass for a law subject", are you implying that law is of a certain degree of difficulty (or ease) such that one shouldn't attain any less than a credit average? Or are you implying that someone who merely gets a pass obviously doesn't have the english ability necessary to cope with the course content?

Personally, I'm not bad at English but I don't actually like it as such. It's not the type of subject that I necessarily enjoy going to or that I look forward to...I'm not too sure whether that pretty much defines how my attitude to law would be as well, were I to do it.

 

[Omnidragon]

When you say "You should generally never get a pass for a law subject", are you implying that law is of a certain degree of difficulty (or ease) such that one shouldn't attain any less than a credit average? Or are you implying that someone who merely gets a pass obviously doesn't have the english ability necessary to cope with the course content?

Personally, I'm not bad at English but I don't actually like it as such. It's not the type of subject that I necessarily enjoy going to or that I look forward to...I'm not too sure whether that pretty much defines how my attitude to law would be as well, were I to do it.

Like I said, having good English is a bonus. But it's not all that important. You can get distinctions without good English. All you need is the capacity to communicate lots of relevant information - picking up on pointers in hypothetical scenarios. That doesn't equate to good English. From the looks of it, your English is fine.

A note on getting passes: if all you do is get passes, you can forget about looking for a job in a good law firm... I can assure you WON'T EVEN LAND AN INTERVIEW unless you already worked over 70 hours per week in a law firm as a paralegal and you were President of the Student Union. Even then, your chances are slim.

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

Like I said, having good English is a bonus. But it's not all that important. You can get distinctions without good English. All you need is the capacity to communicate lots of relevant information - picking up on pointers in hypothetical scenarios. That doesn't equate to good English. From the looks of it, your English is fine.

A note on getting passes: if all you do is get passes, you can forget about looking for a job in a good law firm... I can assure you WON'T EVEN LAND AN INTERVIEW unless you already worked over 70 hours per week in a law firm as a paralegal and you were President of the Student Union. Even then, your chances are slim.

Can you get by with passes if you don't intend to work in a law firm? I personally don't intend on practising law as either a solicitor or a barrister (though things may change), but law sounds interesting as a supplement to commerce.

 

[011]

HD - it's party time.

It had better be, because most likely you weren't doing much of that earning it.

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

Passes are not good law grades. Passes imply that you hardly know anything. However law marking can be oddly all over the place.

But certainly a pass isn't a good mark.

A Credit is so so/par for the course and pretty underwhelming in some circumstances - expecially if you feel you worked hard.

A Distinction is good but leaves you wanting MORE!.

HD - it's party time.

So in your opinion, is a credit or a distinction something that you have to have the natural ability to attain (i.e. good speaking and communication skills, good expression, the ability to argue a point both in a written and oral form), or is it something that you will achieve by simply working hard? I'm personally a hard worker and my english is fairly good but I don't know if I'd be able to match the higher-level English students who read a lot and have a strong enthusiasm for the english language.

Could an int'l student who isn't the best communicator (written, oral or otherwise) still reach the higher echelons of the law cohort if he/she worked hard on understanding the course content?

 

[velox]

I'd imagine in Law, communication is a very important skill.

 

[santaslayer]

1) The only way to 'communicate' as people have put it, is in English, since we live in Australia. So yes, English is fairly vital. Someone who is not well spoken or written is going to find it overly difficult to gain those extra marks for a HD. 'Working hard' is only going to get you to a certain point in terms of grades. Natural ability in English and analytical skills is much more benefical. Staying to the word/page limit is a real test of ones communicating abilities.

2) The idea of picking lecturers based on their 'ability' is just plain stupid. Lecturers aren't the ones who determine your results. You are the only one to blame if you fail/borderline.

3) Yes, international students are extremely hard working. They probably spend more than 2x the amount of time we do to decipher everything the judges say.

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

So when you're going through cases, do you virtually need a giant Oxford dictionary next to you?

 

[Omnidragon]

Law is indeed a good complement for commerce. But is it worth it if you're going to get poor grades? Probably not. You will still need to devote some time to law, so you'll drag commerce down. That means you're getting passes/credits in both degrees. Okay... but nothing spectacular. Doesn't separate you out from the average unis.

If you were applying for ACCOUNTING in Big 4, then I think you can get by. Corporate Finance, probably not. I'm sure if you wanted to get into Investment Banking, poor law marks will make that nearly impossible. Areas of law such as 'Contract Law', 'Tort Law', 'Equity', 'Property Law' are things that commerce and consultancy firms do look at a bit.. and they are very useful just as skills for the rest of your life.

Having said that... is it actually hard to get credits and distinctions? Not really. I've seen people get by pretty easily. Marking in law is pretty random. If your UAI gets you into law, I'm sure you will get credits/distinctions if you put the effort in.

 

[santaslayer]

Moonlight once likened it to reading Jane Austen. I've never any of her books!

Yep, the bit about boring and tedious reading.

Except Austen's chapters go for a whopping 4 pages only.