Jury Duty (1 Viewer)

[Jonathan A]

What would the point of doing that be? Doing the same subjects twice?

I wouldn't. If you read my post again, I made reference to the option of doing the later units in the DipLaw course.

I would auggest that the 'massive' failure rate of LPAB is because it accepts students with lower uais (66 and above). The screening process isn't as tough.

I think that argument is flawed. Law studies are so much different than the HSC. A good lawyer isn't one with a good UAI, it is one who is motivated and passionate about the law - UAIs don't determine that.

I also don't think that having 100% exams (the big law schools do too for most subjects well 80% exams) makes much of a difference in terms of diffculty. Some may feel, like me, that having one big assessment/exam is easier. Less assessment. Less Work.

Well its not like that at all. You still need to do three assignments. The Diploma in Law course is taught by the Law Extension Committee, the exam is by the LPAB. The LEC will not let you sit an exam unless you have a cumulative mark of 50% in the assignments. So it's not just one big assessment in the end to make it easy for you.

From my observations it has more practical subjects (Conveyancing). However the problem questions in the exams seem watered down just a tad. As in there are different fact scenarios that target different sections of the law. Rather than big problems that cover everything.

That's not true. My lecturer at university noted that the LPAB course was difficult. COntracts for example is very expansive. You may think that larger problems are better, but believe me, the way some questions are formulated expect you to look at one sub-part of a contract, example acceptance through the PAR and pull it to pieces in an in-depth analysis. To compare, in university, one session will give you an overview of about perhaps at most ten cases. If you view the guide for equivalent at the LPAB, the lecturer may go into about 20+ cases.

Overall I don't think there is such a large difference.

That's because your university and you, have to show the LPAB after you 5 years, that you have fulfilled the requirements to become a legal practitioner.

I wouldnt say, from looking at what has been said, that the LPAB is 'MUCH' harder than other law degrees. Others may suggest that the lack of jurisprudence is bad. Certainly all the law schools are moving away from teaching just black letter. They may not assess it but its there in the LLB courses.

The LPAB do teach Jurisprudence, it is the 24th Subject. Furthermore, it is of no relevance to a judge in your submission if you know what the feminists think about your argument. I will also note the LPAB has actually stopped many graduates from becoming practitioners for the lack of legal ethics in their courses.

 

[erawamai]

I wouldn't. If you read my post again, I made reference to the option of doing the later units in the DipLaw course.

OK

I think that argument is flawed. Law studies are so much different than the HSC. A good lawyer isn't one with a good UAI, it is one who is motivated and passionate about the law - UAIs don't determine that.

I think UAI may be a factor. It's currently the best judge we have for how well someone will perform at uni. As such all the unis use it. It's not the perfect judge. But I would suggest someone with a uai of 66 generally will not do as well as someone with a 90+uai. I stress general.

Also other factors, as mentioned by ms 12, come into play. The higher failure rate, which you expressly referred to, could be because of the independent nature of the study that is required under the LPAB.

Passion for the law is but one of the factors which go into making a good law student and good lawyer. So is UAI. Neither are determinative.

Well its not like that at all. You still need to do three assignments. The Diploma in Law course is taught by the Law Extension Committee, the exam is by the LPAB. The LEC will not let you sit an exam unless you have a cumulative mark of 50% in the assignments. So it's not just one big assessment in the end to make it easy for you.

I understand now that you have clarified.

That's not true. My lecturer at university noted that the LPAB course was difficult. COntracts for example is very expansive. You may think that larger problems are better, but believe me, the way some questions are formulated expect you to look at one sub-part of a contract, example acceptance through the PAR and pull it to pieces in an in-depth analysis. To compare, in university, one session will give you an overview of about perhaps at most ten cases. If you view the guide for equivalent at the LPAB, the lecturer may go into about 20+ cases.

I noted that the LPAB question have separate fact problems for different sections of the course. Large law schools, I suspect, prefer big problems where the student has to pick out the issues rather than have the exam set them out for you by having individual problems for each section of the course. This is perhaps the only difference.

You lecturer may be of one opinion another may be of another. I tend to think identifying the issues within a larger problem with more facts is more difficult. Of course this difficulty is subjective.

As for the number of cases that are taught at uni. I'm pretty sure we do more than 10 cases over two sessions of contracts!

I'm looking at my folder of notes for contracts last year and I see 41 cases. Since Contracts is only once a week first session and twice a week in 2nd session you can assume in 2nd session we cover more than 41 cases.

That's because your university and you, have to show the LPAB after you 5 years, that you have fulfilled the requirements to become a legal practitioner.

Yep.

The LPAB do teach Jurisprudence, it is the 24th Subject. Furthermore, it is of no relevance to a judge in your submission if you know what the feminists think about your argument.

But you said they didn't? I think its pretty spurious to suggest that all jurisprudence is what feminists think about so and so an issue. Everything is persuadsive. It may even be an article by so and so professor about the importance of freedom of contract. Are you going to tell me that that isn't important?

I'm not bagging LPAB. Just getting the facts straight.

 

[011]

I think that argument is flawed. Law studies are so much different than the HSC. A good lawyer isn't one with a good UAI, it is one who is motivated and passionate about the law - UAIs don't determine that.

You can be passionate about law all you like, but aren't going to do well in it at all if you dont have a very good grasp of english and reasoning from arguments. To me, a UAI in the depths of 66 indicates that you work really hard but still don't have a good capacity for that sort of thing, or that you're just too damn lazy. The latter will have the same effect in law.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I am not attacking the LPAB here, just defending my uni.


The detail and number of cases

As has been mentioned, and I speak only for UNSW here, in subjects such as Contracts and Property, we study cases in number and depth to the fullest extent possible. I would estimate we read at least 70 cases/large case extracts throughout Contracts 1 and 2. In our learning methods we do not actually learn the basics of the case material in class. It is not a lecture where we get spoon fed the principles. We do all our reading at home and we go through it in class at a level of significant complexity to explicate and clarify it.

Our emphasis on going through and drawing out the reasoning and weight of cases in extensive detail is unquestionable. I would also note that it is a given that this level of detail is greater than such universities as USYD, since they only do 1 semester of it.


Regarding theoretical vs black-letter law

Contrary to what some may think, 'non-black letter law' is not merely about raving feminists. You would be very surprised at how much you learn in Criminal Law 1 at UNSW (largely theoretical/social context) that is highly relevant. I myself actually prefer black-letter law but I cannot deny how useful and valuable learning about the real-life effects, directions and impact of the law is. To always look at the law devoid of social context does not enable one to understand the law at anything more than a technical level. While the level of theory is more suitable to some courses, such as being more appropriate in Criminal Law as opposed to Contract Law, it is important.

Further, as my property lecturer always says, there are real-life reasons behind the law that ultimately drive and shape how the law is applied and the justifications for how it is. Much of the law regarding property is about sound conveyancing practice. To look at the technicalities and strict rules without keeping in mind the actual real-life purpose would mean spitting out graduates with a very limited understanding of the law. The law is not just a list of rules, it is far deeper than that.


Result of a wider view

It is also worth pointing out that there is not an overwhelming level of theory involved, at least at UNSW. It is more often than not the attitude of the lecturer and the ancillary issues that are drawn to our attention. In contracts for example, there is none. In property, it is more by-the-by comments. But where theory is manifest, studying the law in context does not inhibit a more in-depth understanding of the strict law itself for a number of reasons.

Firstly, our courses span more than other universities (we spend 2 semesters on Contracts, Land Law, Litigation and Criminal Law - whereas USYD only does one on each). This is achieved by increasing the number of law subjects required in a combined degree and reducing the number of alternate degree subjects (in an arts/law degree, for example, we do more law and less arts).

Secondly, where theoretical perspectives are looked at, these perspectives are interweaved with the substantive law. Thus we are able to look at the substantive law with a wider view and learn to understand its purpose and direction. This is important obviously because the law changes. Moreover, it augments actual understanding of the rules themselves.

 

[xeuyrawp]

You can be passionate about law all you like, but aren't going to do well in it at all if you dont have a very good grasp of english and reasoning from arguments. To me, a UAI in the depths of 66 indicates that you work really hard but still don't have a good capacity for that sort of thing, or that you're just too damn lazy. The latter will have the same effect in law.

Exactly. To an extent, Jonathan is right. The UAI=intelligence stigma is overrated, but unfortunately holds some ground.

There is no reason to say why such a shit UAI (66), a reflection of (yes, among other things like your environment) hard work would change its equivalent the next year. Why would someone get 66 in year 12, but all HDs in Uni?

It's just silly saying that no lawyer needs a good UAI. I bet you at least 95% of good lawyers had UAI/TERs of far over 90.

That being said, the DipLaw is very, very tough. It's not only an exercise in practical theory, but also an exercise in your ability to be independent. They offer no outside-class help for students, which really is a test in its own. Apparently most people that do well in the DipLaw have done uni, which implies again that (when students could have done grad law) it accepts poorer students. If you've done a Bachelor's degree, why do a DipLaw when you can go into grad law? Grad law's a shorter course and is much more recognised.

The answer would be that most students of the DipLaw who have done a Bachelor's degree have not had good enough marks at university to get into grad law. Poorer UAIS + Poorer marks at uni = poorer students. Simple. I'm sure you'll now argue that university marks don't equate goodness as a lawyer

 

[ManlyChief]

A Dip Law done through the LAB and USyd is very tough because you basically have to do EVERYTHING by yourself. If you don't understand something - you need to teach yourself.

There are many folks who have done the Dip Law via LAB who became highly respected lawyers and legal academics, e.g. the former NSW Premier John Fey and USyd contract law academic Dr Greg Tolhurst.

Let us aslo remember that McHugh J did didn't get an undergrad law degree either

 

[Jonathan A]

But you said they didn't? I think its pretty spurious to suggest that all jurisprudence is what feminists think about so and so an issue. Everything is persuadsive. It may even be an article by so and so professor about the importance of freedom of contract. Are you going to tell me that that isn't important?

No I didn't. I will clarify what I mean. Jurisprudence in the LPAB is taught a unit by itself. You will find universities teach grey areas of law. An example: In Criminal Law, universities tend to critically analyse the law from differing perspectives. The DipLaw does not go into this.

 

[Jonathan A]

Exactly. To an extent, Jonathan is right. The UAI=intelligence stigma is overrated, but unfortunately holds some ground.

There is no reason to say why such a shit UAI (66), a reflection of (yes, among other things like your environment) hard work would change its equivalent the next year. Why would someone get 66 in year 12, but all HDs in Uni?

It's just silly saying that no lawyer needs a good UAI. I bet you at least 95% of good lawyers had UAI/TERs of far over 90.

That being said, the DipLaw is very, very tough. It's not only an exercise in practical theory, but also an exercise in your ability to be independent. They offer no outside-class help for students, which really is a test in its own. Apparently most people that do well in the DipLaw have done uni, which implies again that (when students could have done grad law) it accepts poorer students.

I think your statement is based on an idea of protecting the intellectuals, rather than being concerned with reality. I did not get a UAI over 90, however I manage to get very good marks in law. There is a correlation between good UAIs and good lawyers, but a good UAI does not mean a good lawyer at all.


You bet 95% had a good UAI/TER. I bet 99% didn't. My claim is just as valid as yours. The good old gambler's fallacy already makes you a bad logician, I don't think it would be hard detesting that argument if it were a legal argument in court.

If you've done a Bachelor's degree, why do a DipLaw when you can go into grad law? Grad law's a shorter course and is much more recognised. The answer would be that most students of the DipLaw who have done a Bachelor's degree have not had good enough marks at university to get into grad law. Poorer UAIS + Poorer marks at uni = poorer students. Simple. I'm sure you'll now argue that university marks don't equate goodness as a lawyer

I disagree with your statement. Some people do DipLaw because it is flexable given they have a stable job. Grad Law is not more recognised. Nothing is more recognised than the Diploma in Law. It is the original way of attaining admission into legal practice.

And as for your last sentence than good uni marks = good lawyers. Again, that's garbage. Many lawyers fail because they pull rank. Lawyering is a skill, and unfortunantely sticking your academic transcript on the back of your business card wont get your client a result.

I respect your arguments. But I have to say if you go into the profession with that attitude, you may come across some major hurdles at first (I sday at first because you seem intelligent to get around them).

 

[xeuyrawp]

I think your statement is based on an idea of protecting the intellectuals, rather than being concerned with reality. I did not get a UAI over 90, however I manage to get very good marks in law. There is a correlation between good UAIs and good lawyers, but a good UAI does not mean a good lawyer at all..

If you read what I said, you would have noted that I think most good lawyers had a good UAI. Of course some good ones had bad UAIs, but that's not what I'm saying. Don't try to turn what I said against me.

You bet 95% had a good UAI/TER. I bet 99% didn't. My claim is just as valid as yours.

If you would like to bet on this, I would dedicate a whole day to surveying say top solicitors and barristers and comparing UAIs.

The good old gambler's fallacy already makes you a bad logician, I don't think it would be hard detesting that argument if it were a legal argument in court.

I'm sorry, I'll collect real evidence to support my argument . I would still bet, just from the huge amount of people I've met through a huge amount of lawyer family friends my family has, as well as browsing the net, as well as just the general reasoning that people prefer to do an LLB, as well as the general reasoning that a lot of people can't handle school because of academic reasons that most sort-after lawyers did well in the HSC. It just makes sense. Don't you think?

Why would a lot of people go into LLBs if they didn't have to? I know popularity is not a thorough argument (don't mention teh 'world is flat' thing, or I'll kill you), but why would so many people be advised to do it if it wasn't worth it?

It does not make sense to say that 99% of lawyers had bad UAIs (your bet): there is the factor that, really, a lot of lawyer skills are applied in teh HSC. There is also the fact that the UAI, to an extent, measures general intelligence. Of course none of this is definitive, I've never said it is, but it's not a bad reflection. Someone significantly dumber than you will usually get a worse UAI than you. Yes, 'dumb' includes being lazy, having poor time management, procrastinating, etc.

Someone who gets a worse UAI than you might not, however, be dumber than you- they might be being beaten by their dad, or have shit teachers or something. I'm not moving my logic that way, I'm moving it the other way- with a good UAI as a reflection of a good student.

I disagree with your statement. Some people do DipLaw because it is flexable given they have a stable job. Grad Law is not more recognised. Nothing is more recognised than the Diploma in Law. It is the original way of attaining admission into legal practice.

A lot of unis have very flexible law degrees. Not only do a lot of them have part time options, but they have night time options.

It may be the original way, but the fact that it's so popular shows that it's not the best way.

And as for your last sentence than good uni marks = good lawyers. Again, that's garbage. Many lawyers fail because they pull rank. Lawyering is a skill, and unfortunantely sticking your academic transcript on the back of your business card wont get your client a result.

I totally agree that lawyering is a skill. I think doing a uni degree, where you can get involved in debating, public speaking, mooting, rugby, firetwirling, etc etc all make you a better lawyer. Not only does the DipLaw not have any outlet for practical activities like mooting and class discussions, but it doesn't have any uni life which impacts so much on a profession.

I respect your arguments. But I have to say if you go into the profession with that attitude, you may come across some major hurdles at first (I sday at first because you seem intelligent to get around them)[/quoet]

Well thanks, but I don't see what my attitude is... If I were a recruiter, then maybe my attitude against the DipLaw would affect me, but I don't see what my attitude is, let alone what it would do... :S

That being said, we clearly agree that the DipLaw is a tough degree. I think anyone thad does it has a lot of merit, dare I say there are DipLaw people who have more merit than LLB people? The requirements for independent learning is huge and shows that someone with good DipLaw marks is a very competent person.

However, I would never say it's a good first option. A straight HSC leaver would have a lot of trouble with it (like most of us probably did with the first few weeks of uni), and a Uni grad should look at grad law. I think that a uni grad should look at a grad LLB because of the experience they gain for it. As an employer, though, the DipLaw does show that someone's hardworking.

Anyway, this has *totally* gone on a tangent.

 

[Frigid]

no offence guys, but what you guys are saying is pretty much a moot point this Sunday afternoon.

 

[xeuyrawp]

no offence guys, but what you guys are saying is pretty much a moot point this Sunday afternoon.

I know... Why does forum talk always result in tangent taking?

 

[melsc]

You guys certainly like to argue don't you *cough* typical law students...
I am going to object as this is all irrelevant and lets get back to talking about jury duty

 

[Frigid]

I know... Why does forum talk always result in tangent taking?

coz people like proving their point and often enjoy writing lengthy arguments against their e-learned friends.

but seriously, whether DipLaw is better or worse is a non-issue to undergrads.

 

[erawamai]

I think your statement is based on an idea of protecting the intellectuals, rather than being concerned with reality. I did not get a UAI over 90, however I manage to get very good marks in law. There is a correlation between good UAIs and good lawyers, but a good UAI does not mean a good lawyer at all.

- What is 'very good marks in law'? and for how long have you maintained these marks?

- By talking yourself up like that I hope you have nothing less than a solid D to HD average in the law subjects you have done and for at least 3 years.

- OH and BTW. What's a good lawyer?

And as for your last sentence than good uni marks = good lawyers. Again, that's garbage. Many lawyers fail because they pull rank. Lawyering is a skill, and unfortunantely sticking your academic transcript on the back of your business card wont get your client a result.

It depends what end of town you are at. It also depends what you think a good lawyer is.

A local suburban guy might be a good lawyer in his world of law. Great with clients. A good man. But to people sitting on the 40th floor of Farrar place he is nothing. Vice versa when it comes to Corporate types and having to interact with different clients.

 

[melsc]

coz people like proving their point and often enjoy writing lengthy arguments against their e-learned friends.

but seriously, whether DipLaw is better or worse is a non-issue to undergrads.

and you guys live to argue :uhhuh: I guess it's good practice don't you get to moot enough at uni that you have to e-moot over the internet???
I often find myself arguing over nothing LOL - especially defending my right to be an Anthony Callea fan

 

[Frigid]

i've two assignments due this week, a moot tomorrow night and i'm jigging work to do the assignments =\

it really doesn't matter to me, as someone already in undergrad law, that the DipLaw course is better or not. i'm in law. Jonathan's in law. melsc's in law (ok, maybe not yet, but soon).

it's all good. after this coming week, 2 weeks of hardcore revision, then full charge to finals.

 

[santaslayer]

UoW's student magazine titled Student Matters had something about Jury Duty this month. (They have a million other magz out...i just got hold of this one yesterday-).

Jury Duty and Special Consideration

The Jury Act 1977 s69 requires all employers to
release employees without any penalty for jury
service. Although the Act does not contain any
provisions for students it is generally an
expectation of the courts that students be given
support to attend to this community responsibility.
Students are largely obliged to attend to calls for
jury service and the University is obliged to make
reasonable adjustments to allow them to do so
and ensure that they are not significantly
disadvantaged as a result. Because of that the
University's special consideration policy makes
provision for students to obtain special
consideration for jury or other court related
participation.
It is recognised that there will be certain times of
the academic year or for particular parts of
programs such as clinical or practical placements
or field trips, where it will be highly difficult for
the Faculty to make satisfactory alternative
arrangements for a student without significantly
disadvantaging the student. Where a student is
seeking exemption from jury service the University
will write a letter advising the Court of the
student’s course of study and that the student
may be disadvantaged academically or financially
if their studies were disrupted.
Please contact the Academic Registrar’s Division
(ARD) if such a letter is required



In conclusion...UoW rox.

The End.


EDIT: Ms12 leads such an interesting and weird life.

 

[erawamai]

Hell, I know I've worked my arse off (read: crammed my arse off) to (hopefully) end up with Honours...

Not all the law schools offer honours as a result of WAM. You can have a wam of 90 for the LLB component at unsw and you get an LLB just like someone with a wam of 55.

 

[BillytheFIsh]

Sorry to dredge up the tangential argument... but just a quote from one of the barristers around here:

"If you needed the OP (our UIA equivalent) you need to get into law now back when we did law, half the people in this building woudln't be here."

Just like if you notice, many MANY partners of law firms, all shapes and sizes don't have (Hons) at the end of their name...

My conclusion: You don't need high academic results to be a great lawyer, but unless you sacrifice your social life and your networking and social skills suffer in order to get those results, it can't hurt can it?

Hell, I know I've worked my arse off (read: crammed my arse off) to (hopefully) end up with Honours...

 

[erawamai]

Sorry to dredge up the tangential argument... but just a quote from one of the barristers around here:

"If you needed the OP (our UIA equivalent) you need to get into law now back when we did law, half the people in this building woudln't be here."

It's a lot more competitive. Some might say we produce better lawyers these days.

Just like if you notice, many MANY partners of law firms, all shapes and sizes don't have (Hons) at the end of their name...

did all the law schools offer honours in the old days (as in the honours as it is todat ie wam honours rather than research honours)