The Student Room Group

Is jurisprudence by far the most difficult course?

:frown::confused::confused::confused::confused:

Scroll to see replies

Possibly.

Possibly not?
Not as such. It's just not what most law students sign up for.
Reply 3
Ξ™ am asking this because in some law schools like northumbria, leeds, ucl, essex, birmingham, bristol, queen mary etc, jurisprudence is a compulsory module.
Reply 4
Original post by greekguy
Ξ™ am asking this because in some law schools like northumbria, leeds, ucl, essex, birmingham, bristol, queen mary etc, jurisprudence is a compulsory module.


I guess it is not that hard to argue that it should be a compulsory module at every law school.
Reply 5
Original post by greekguy
Ξ™ am asking this because in some law schools like northumbria, leeds, ucl, essex, birmingham, bristol, queen mary etc, jurisprudence is a compulsory module.


I don't understand why that might indicate that it's difficult.

I think they probably just want you to know a bit of philosophy, read some heavy books and answer some questions that aren't "Bob and Mick get drunk and set fire to a painting that is held in trust for Rachel by Jim"
Reply 6
Original post by Clip
I don't understand why that might indicate that it's difficult.

I think they probably just want you to know a bit of philosophy, read some heavy books and answer some questions that aren't "Bob and Mick get drunk and set fire to a painting that is held in trust for Rachel by Jim"


oh, i dont know. Someone told me that and i wanted to clarify, if its true.: I just wanted to ask all those who do law at the uni. :smile::smile:
Reply 7
Original post by greekguy
oh, i dont know. Someone told me that and i wanted to clarify, if its true.: I just wanted to ask all those who do law at the uni. :smile::smile:


If you're interested in philosophy, I suppose it's not that hard. It's just different from most of the rest of LLB modules. If I had the choice, I wouldn't do it - but I don't.
Original post by greekguy
:frown::confused::confused::confused::confused:


No. It is not by far the most difficult. It is one of the more difficult and it is perhaps the one in which it is hardest to hide. A weak scholar can't get through jurisprudence by diligence and effort alone.
We have it in Southampton (well it's called Legal System and Reasoning but it involves studying positivist, natural law, formalist, feminist theories etc) and I bloody hate it. I get the impression the content wouldn't be too bad, I just happen to have terrible lecturers and don't understand it at all.
Original post by Y__
I guess it is not that hard to argue that it should be a compulsory module at every law school.


Could you tell me exactly what the point of jurisprudence is, for a law student that is? I'm sure it has a point but I haven't quite figured out how being able to say that "X judgement indicates a natural law approach to reasoning" is going to help me at all when it comes to being a lawyer.
Reply 11
Original post by nulli tertius
No. It is not by far the most difficult. It is one of the more difficult and it is perhaps the one in which it is hardest to hide. A weak scholar can't get through jurisprudence by diligence and effort alone.

yes but why? do you have to learn things by heart? is it very theoritical?
Original post by Rascacielos
Could you tell me exactly what the point of jurisprudence is, for a law student that is? I'm sure it has a point but I haven't quite figured out how being able to say that "X judgement indicates a natural law approach to reasoning" is going to help me at all when it comes to being a lawyer.


First of all a law degree isn't supposed to be a technical training but an understanding of the science of law.

If you end up in practice, your role will be to advise people. If you don't understand whether you are going with or against the grain of the law, your advice is not likely to be valued. An understanding of jurisprudence helps one to see that grain.
Original post by greekguy
yes but why? do you have to learn things by heart? is it very theoritical?


You don't have to learn much by heart. What you have to do is understand various thinkers' views on the law and apply those opinions to the questions being asked.
Legal realism FTW. And no, trusts is death incarnate.
Reply 15
Ξ™ dont know, but it sounds interesting...
At university some subjects are essay-based and some subjects are problem-based. Essay-based subjects test your ability to display critical thought. You need to be able to understand different points of view, understand the points made by long essays and criticise the law. These subjects are tested mostly by essay questions like "The law in this area should be changed, discuss". Problem-based questions test your ability to analyse facts. You need to be able to understand complicated areas of law, draw fine technical distinctions and apply technical law to a set of hypothetical facts.

Different subjects suit different people. Sciency-people are often better at problems and artsy-people are often better at essays. In most subjects you have a combination of both so people can play to their strengths, but jurisprudence is exclusively an essay-based subject. Accordingly people who are good at problems find that jurisprudence is their hardest subject.
(edited 12 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
First of all a law degree isn't supposed to be a technical training but an understanding of the science of law.

If you end up in practice, your role will be to advise people. If you don't understand whether you are going with or against the grain of the law, your advice is not likely to be valued. An understanding of jurisprudence helps one to see that grain.


True, but I find it isn't/hasn't helped me to do that. The fact I see no point in jurisprudence worries me because I understand it must have a point.
Reply 18
i think the whole point of the subject is all about trying to teach law in context and its place in society, by highlighting the issue of what the law is vs what it ought to be,In thinking about the law making process, for example in theory Parliament sometimes writes laws based on the lobbying and influence of certain people.
The law claims to be fair(moral) and just but is that so in reality or do policy issues and the need for stability ,sometimes take precedence over law being just , However, imprudent or even stupid laws are they are still valid.To think about the law not as just rules and principles but its purpose or what it should be(positivism vs morality) is i think the essence of jurisprudence and i think it is worthwhile if you engage with it
Reply 19
Original post by Rascacielos
True, but I find it isn't/hasn't helped me to do that. The fact I see no point in jurisprudence worries me because I understand it must have a point.


On the list of things to worry about in your life jurisprudence ranks somewhere below alien invasion.

Quick Reply

Latest