what is the real difference (1 Viewer)

[Marmalade.]

What is the real difference that a student would find when moving from a more respected uni to a less respected uni (when studying law)? You can say that the older uni will have better qualified teachers and a bigger library, but what will the student actually notice when it comes to their own studies?

 

[amaccas]

If you have crappy teachers, becoming a better independent learner is the best solution. More easily said than done.

 

[Marmalade.]

thanks but I wasn't indirectly asking for advice about my situation

 

[Frigid]

probably not much. i mean you lose the uni rep, and that's probly about it.

 

[amaccas]

Marmalade - I wasn't saying "you" as in "you personally". I just meant, generally, if one were to find themselves in that situation the 'real difference' would be that you would probably want to learn to be a better independent learner if that makes sense.

But yeah, what Frigid said - just 'rep'.

 

[subdued123]

at a personal level, there is not much difference. You read law, you do exams, you fuss over marks.

A LLB is a LLB.

However, where rep does matter, it is in the sphere of employment - which matters not an insignificant amount. If you are at Sydney Uni, you have a greater chance than someone at a smaller uni in getting a clerkship. (e.g. Most Top tier firms are 40% Syd; 40% UNSW; and 20 % Misc. unis)

Or grad offer. Or chambers on a leading barristers' floor. Sucks, but it's true.

 

[Frigid]

in the sphere of employment - which matters not an insignificant amount.

spoken like a true law student.

*love the double negative.

 

[Frigid]

Wouldn't a true law student express themselves clearly and consicely rather than emulating the defects of legislators?

touche. i guess you got me there.

edit: although, i think there's a theoretical difference between 'significant risks' and 'not insignificant risks'. in practice, nah.

 

[subdued123]

Wouldn't a true law student express themselves clearly and consicely rather than emulating the defects of legislators?

Well, I am all for the plain language movement, and I was speaking like a wanker intentionally.

But before you get on your high horse Zimmerman, Frigid is right - s. 5B(1)(B) of the CLA 2005 was drafted using an intentional double negative. Probably overkill to go into here, but the IPP report explains it more.

And you know what, the double negative makes me sound eloquent and somewhat old-world (i.e pompous). If it's good enough for judges of the HCA, it's good for me.

 

[amaccas]

there was some guy running around on these forums with the sig from that section of the CLA.

 

[Frigid]

that would be hfis. and it's actually the Victorian Wrongs Act to which he refers.

 

[amaccas]

I was going to mention that it may have been the equivalent. thanks for clearing it up

 

[hfis]

'Sup

 

[amaccas]

hehe. legal tongue twisters for the win

 

[melsc]

I remember being quite confused in first year, first semester when doing torts when I asked. "Well its a double negative right so it means significant right" and the answer was no. I wasn't thinking enough like a lawyer lol