Session 1 Results (1 Viewer)

[MuSaRuRWa]

i dont think qma is that hard ... srsly, i had a look at the syllabus. try doing 1151 for a change ...

 

[Constip8edSkunk]

hahaha not to mention the ppl doing law because they didnt get into med..........


Anyways 2HDs 1D 1C..........damn 84 for COMP....bleh deserved it for bludging the days before the test

 

[truly-in-bliss]

Yeah, but medcine weeds out the useless people through UMAT and the interview process ...

yeah i reckon they shoudl ahve that for law as well..

 

[mic]

Yeah, it would be interesting if they introduced an IQ sorta test for law entry like they do in America.

so tib, still haven't checked for your results yet?

seeing everyone else has put up their results:
========================================================
Session Course Title Result
========================================================
S1 ENGL1007 Canon of English Literature......80 DN
S1 FREN1011 French 1B: Interm. French 1......66 CR
S1 POLS1002 Power & Democracy in Australia...80 DN
S1 WOMS1003 Women, Gender & World History....77 DN


I'm thinking of dropping french next semester, cos i'm still aiming for my law transfer. This would probably belong in the transfers thread, but what are my chances with a 5.75 GPA and a 98.55 UAI? I'll try to improve on my GPA next semester though.

 

[addz]

I’m not sure what they would test? Logic and reasoning skills? I think it would be too difficult to test these things because everyone interprets judgements with their own logic and from their own perspective. People may lack formal logical reasoning but they may still make very good law students.

i agree with that, i've only done foundations but that wasnt too bad but i know its gonna get alot harder and well. even if people dont become lawyers, theres no particular kind of "person" or "logical reasoning" that you need. whereas with the umat (which i did with no intention of doing med....yes i wasted 100 bux or whatever), that test is based around shortcomings of people entering medicine who probably only did it because they got the marks and either dropped out because they didnt want to or couldnt continue the course, or if they did found that they weren't devoted enough or lacked the inter-personal skills required. the umat tests these percieved skills. with medicine, if the 'wrong' (prolly not right word) people go through and become doctors than that has potential and deadly consequences. As a result, the med UAI has dropped like to 94. sometihng.

with law though, its totally different - people usually weed themselves out, by not entering the legal profession, even after they graduate. sure a lot of people want to do law and alot of people dont get into it, but is there anything wrong with just doing law cause the mark was achieved? i know it takes away a place for a person who is 100% commited to doing law, but if someone wanted it that much, than there's always other options.

the 3 major rationales, i see behind doing law would be
a) Wanting to become a lawyer or practice law.
b) An Additional degree to enhance another degree (be it commerce, arts, science, etc.)
c) Doesnt know what to do, so they do it

i'm personally under a, but b sure as hell is one nice backup. i know people who do it because of b and few under c (though i know there are). if say some people under b and c chose something else, result would probably be a lower uai cut-off, but then you still might get the same kind of people doing it, so i guess in the end, it changes little. [random ramble over]