How tough and demanding is law? (1 Viewer)

[D94]

Given that many universities now sell themselves under the guise of preparing students for real world practise, my argument really does stand. If these 2 options are the purpose for examinations, how can you argue that it's not backwards practise to do that?

You were arguing that it was backwards because the exams are closed book.

usyd has this backwards system where their exams are closed book when nothing in the legal profession is closed book

But sure, I agree with you.

 

[anomalousdecay]

But sure, I agree with you.

Were you subtly saying that as bashing USyd lol?

 

[Crobat]

I would say that engineers would be terrible if they couldn't apply fundamentals from their field with their eyes shut and no reference material, but tbh a lawyer who couldn't memorise a large amount of cases and what not off the top of their head would probably be equally as useless.

But it's unreasonable and unnecessary to ask a lawyer to do that. First of all because far as the public citizen is concerned, a lawyer's/solicitor's job is to tell you what rights are available to you and what courses of actions are available to you, not necessarily where they come from. Just as if you were to go to an engineer for advice on a project you would expect them to explain to you why it would or wouldn't work, not the formulas behind it. You would assume they understood the formulas and knew how to apply them, the same way a lawyer would say "the law provides that..." or "there have been cases where..." without mentioning the specific case/law names because it's irrelevant to you. The lawyer/solicitor would know where they came from through having applied it in their studies or in previous cases (because you don't forget them easily once having done that) but ultimately, what difference does the case name make for you as long as you can trust the lawyer knows it or is able to find it? Every lawyer will always do their proper legal research before litigation or giving their clients a formal letter of advice, so having to know it from the top of their head is unnecessary. Furthermore, there are a limited amount of laws that will give definite answers to any case since cases are all subject to their own facts, which is why in training they are taught that everything has to be phrased as a "likely" or "unlikely" outcome, and to never get technical with clients. In that way, knowing a case and law is not enough in pretty much all cases if you can't prove that they should be applied. It's guaranteed that any half competent lawyer will know cases and what not from the top of their heads, but given that everything they do doesn't require it until after the initial meeting with the client it's completely unnecessary.

Secondly because unlike the laws of physics, laws do actually change - regularly too. This is why there is such an emphasis on being able to apply your knowledge of the legal system and your legal research skills. So what's the point of being able to rattle off laws and cases if you don't need it when communicating to clients and if you're going to have to do legal research in every single case you handle? Isn't it more important to know how to apply the laws that you will find (because seriously using legal databases are retard-proof once you figure it out), and more to the point being able to actually find the relevant laws?

Something else to consider is also how previous cases has been considered in previous cases. This is not something you learn in your studies, but something you come across when you do your legal research. So when it really does come down to it, the most important thing a lawyer needs to be able to do is research.

 

[wannaspoon]

I would say that engineers would be terrible if they couldn't apply fundamentals from their field with their eyes shut and no reference material, but tbh a lawyer who couldn't memorise a large amount of cases and what not off the top of their head would probably be equally as useless.

a practising barrister or solicitor does not go in to court with an empty revolver and expect to find bullets...

much of what they do is based on months of preparation and hard work (especially big cases, probably even years with big cases)... Exams are based on unknowns and speculation of what you believe will be on it... if you walked into court with the intention of just winging it eg: read the brief 5 mins before going in to court, don't expect to win (unless it is something small, like a plea hearing in the magistrates court of something...)

In fact, if you make that a habit, I'm absolutely certain the Legal Services Board will want a chat with you...

If anything, exams in a law degree are unnecessary and do not reflect the skills you would need when practising as a solicitor or barrister... Admittedly, you can tell I don't like exams; however, I do concede, they are necessary, to an extent in law...

 

[anomalousdecay]

Secondly because unlike the laws of physics, laws do actually change - regularly too. This is why there is such an emphasis on being able to apply your knowledge of the legal system and your legal research skills. So what's the point of being able to rattle off laws and cases if you don't need it when communicating to clients and if you're going to have to do legal research in every single case you handle? Isn't it more important to know how to apply the laws that you will find (because seriously using legal databases are retard-proof once you figure it out), and more to the point being able to actually find the relevant laws?

Laws of Physics don't change. Theories of Physics do....

 

[Crobat]

Laws of Physics don't change. Theories of Physics do....

That actually sounds pretty interesting! How does it work? Shows how much I know about Physics

 

[flashyGoldFish]

That actually sounds pretty interesting! How does it work? Shows how much I know about Physics

Its basic science. Or the basic science that is never taught at schools.

A scientific law is something that is the same all the time under the same conditions. A theory is something is an explanation with such a wealth of evidence that we can accept it as fact as it is consistently reobserved.

 

[anomalousdecay]

Its basic science. Or the basic science that is never taught at schools.

A scientific law is something that is the same all the time under the same conditions. A theory is something is an explanation with such a wealth of evidence that we can accept it as fact as it is consistently reobserved.

It doesn't need to be taught. Its just common sense to look at how English easily twists words to give them different meaning.

A Law is not changed. A theory is.

Hence when people say the legal system is all wrong, they mean it in this manner as everything is just a theory

 

[Crobat]

Its basic science. Or the basic science that is never taught at schools.

A scientific law is something that is the same all the time under the same conditions. A theory is something is an explanation with such a wealth of evidence that we can accept it as fact as it is consistently reobserved.

It doesn't need to be taught. Its just common sense to look at how English easily twists words to give them different meaning.

A Law is not changed. A theory is.

Hence when people say the legal system is all wrong, they mean it in this manner as everything is just a theory

Yeah it's just semantics but my question was really just asking for examples where theories of physics have changed

 

[anomalousdecay]

Yeah it's just semantics but my question was really just asking for examples where theories of physics have changed

Relativity

 

[Dolorado]

It makes people cry.

I would definitely have to say that this is the most accurate answer, although, I must add the correct posture that you would adopt as a law student while you are doing the crying. The foetal position.

 

[Crobat]

I would definitely have to say that this is the most accurate answer, although, I must add the correct posture that you would adopt as a law student while you are doing the crying. The foetal position.

that's when you're not in an exam or studying at the library - then it's one elbow on the table, head leaning on that hand, fingers stretched out in the format of a facepalm across your forehead, and tears streaming onto your work while you constantly shake your head

 

[Futuremedstudent]

Just like others have said, unfortunately it's tough and the drop out rate for 1st year law is nearly 20%, so u have to do well and enjoy it.

 

[Crobat]

Just like others have said, unfortunately it's tough and the drop out rate for 1st year law is nearly 20%, so u have to do well and enjoy it.

Law school is very strange in that way too because 1st year law subjects don't adequately reflect the demands of law school (and that's something I can say only studying 1 real law subject atm) and I think more people drop out of Law due to boredom than as a result of actual coursework. A lot of people I know who have dropped out of the course have a flair for critical/lateral thinking and a solid work ethic and would succeed in Law school but were discouraged simply from the crappy structure of the foundies to law. But then of course if you hang around for another year in Law and find that it really just is not for you, you run the risk of having prolonged your stay at uni unnecessarily which won't have any serious impact on your progression beyond a larger course fee and maybe a year where you could have applied for and done some internships/vaccies programs/etc for the other side of your degree.

this degree i swear to god

 

[Futuremedstudent]

If u get into law u have to prepare yourself for a lot of work, the workload is huge. Like I said before, the drop out rate hovers around 20 to 40 percent, this is largely due to the amount of work required to make it through your first year. Mostly, people fail not due to their lack of understanding, but rather, due to their lack of preparation. Law school is a three-year practice in self-discipline. Once you are able to discipline yourself to actually put in the requisite amount of studying, the rest will follow.

 

[wannaspoon]

In all seriousness, law students have to be the biggest primadonnas I have seen... the only thing I see when I go to uni is students:

- Whinging about how "hard" an assignment it;
- Taking the piss out of teachers (I'm guilty of this one) ;
- Moaning and groaning about not being able to find volunteer positions and/or clerkships (they probably haven't even tried, I found one with my second application);
- Sneaking in durries around the non smoking breezeway areas when it's raining; getting caught; then being really "apologetic" (also guilty of this one);
- Having a whinge about why the library is so loud (to those people, there's fucking private study rooms, they are not going to survive in offices);

There is one thing I like; watching the paranoia eat away at people when the lecturer takes his time handing out results... (yes, I can be a bit of a sadist at times)

 

[neo o]

Law is a piece of piss to pass. Law students just like to whine about how difficult it is to make themselves feel special. It's harder to get the higher marks because most law schools distribute their scores along a bellcurve, so if 50 Michael Kirbys took a Foundations of Australian Law class, only about 10 would get a distinction and about 20 would get a pass mark.