The Student Room Group

Is jurisprudence by far the most difficult course?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
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.


Don't worry too much, you'll see it at some point in your career. Or so said my teacher :tongue:
He was a rather good teacher, except that he couldn't understand why we were not jurisprudence fanatics by the end of his first lectures.

IMO, it helped me understand all the complexity of our system (French legal system) and it was quite useful to have the reason behind main rules and principles. I guess it's pretty much the same in the English legal system (and lucky you, you don't have that b***dy Constitution).

But if you don't see a point to it, it might also mean that you had already understood, even intuitively, what you've been taught so cheer up, alright?

Original post by Norton1
On the list of things to worry about in your life jurisprudence ranks somewhere below alien invasion.


I LOL'ed!
Original post by Norton1
On the list of things to worry about in your life jurisprudence ranks somewhere below alien invasion.


But Hart's Minimum Content of Natural Law is built upon the fact that the subjects of law are human. An alien species with different physical attributes would have a different Minimum Content of Natural Law.
Original post by Norton1
On the list of things to worry about in your life jurisprudence ranks somewhere below alien invasion.


I have to say it's ranking a little higher than alien invasion at the moment, seeing as I have an exam in it. :tongue:
Am I the only one who likes this stuff? Its one of the things which have swayed me towards the Warwick course.
Original post by G8D
Jurisprudence is one of the easiest courses to fluke a good grade in. The teachers generally love waffle and you get extra marks for being creative in the absence of actual knowledge.


See, I am normally very good at waffle. It got me some pretty good GCSE/A-level grades. Waffle at university got me a 3rd. :getmecoat:
Original post by Tsunami2011
Am I the only one who likes this stuff? Its one of the things which have swayed me towards the Warwick course.


Have you studied it yet?

(I wouldn't know whether it is interesting - it might be - but I have an Israeli lecturer who can't put a sentence together in English).
Original post by Rascacielos
Have you studied it yet?

(I wouldn't know whether it is interesting - it might be - but I have an Israeli lecturer who can't put a sentence together in English).


lol that's unbelievable:lol: I do A-level Philosophy which is slightly linked, and kind of enjoy it. Have read lots of H. Hart/ Devlin and really liked it.
Original post by Tsunami2011
lol that's unbelievable:lol: I do A-level Philosophy which is slightly linked, and kind of enjoy it. Have read lots of H. Hart/ Devlin and really liked it.


You should hopefully enjoy it then (and be in the minority probably)!
Original post by G8D
It's been one of my best grades so far :pierre:

I hated it, just covered enough to rabble on about Fuller and Marx and somewhat impress the marker.


What do you do to get the high mark? I think my problem in the mock was that I just wrote down the theories of each theorist and didn't really form an argument out of it... but I have no idea what kind of argument I'm meant to be forming!
Original post by Rascacielos
What do you do to get the high mark? I think my problem in the mock was that I just wrote down the theories of each theorist and didn't really form an argument out of it... but I have no idea what kind of argument I'm meant to be forming!


Generally speaking jurisprudence papers come in two types.

One has a series of questions with one on each jurist; the other has a series of questions on "issues" and you are supposed to answer the question drawing on the views of all the jurists you have studied.
Reply 30
Original post by Rascacielos
I have to say it's ranking a little higher than alien invasion at the moment, seeing as I have an exam in it. :tongue:


Have you seen Independence Day? If not rectify this and then come back and tell me what you're more worried about. (Hint: The answer is alien invasion)
I really enjoyed Jurisprudence. I like philosophy and I like law so it was really the perfect intersection of the two subjects. It's always interesting to get an overview of the different schools of thought and approach to how the law should develop, what it is and what it should be.

Original post by Norton1
Have you seen Independence Day? If not rectify this and then come back and tell me what you're more worried about. (Hint: The answer is alien invasion)


But the lesson we learnt from that film is that technologically superior aliens don't carry up to date anti-virus software.
Reply 32
Original post by Ape Gone Insane

But the lesson we learnt from that film is that technologically superior aliens don't carry up to date anti-virus software.


They have Macs now. We're doomed.
Original post by nulli tertius
Generally speaking jurisprudence papers come in two types.

One has a series of questions with one on each jurist; the other has a series of questions on "issues" and you are supposed to answer the question drawing on the views of all the jurists you have studied.


My exam is a bit different in that the first section is dedicated to stuff about the legal system, e.g. writing a case summary from a given case. The 2nd part is the jurisprudential (?) bit... I think it focuses more on questions about each jurist, but what kind of things come up in the "issues" part?
Reply 34
sometimes one must listen to moving cars before touching the tongue with one's nose
Original post by Rascacielos
My exam is a bit different in that the first section is dedicated to stuff about the legal system, e.g. writing a case summary from a given case. The 2nd part is the jurisprudential (?) bit... I think it focuses more on questions about each jurist, but what kind of things come up in the "issues" part?


Classic questions concern whether unjust laws are law; whether it can be right to disobey the law; whether there is ever a duty to disobey the law; are there right answers to legal questions; how is a legal system created; what is the extent to which law should regulate morality; what is the extent to which law should regulated harmful but consensual behaviour; what is the extent to which private law should aim to bring about the social objectives of government and what is the extent to which law favours the interests of men/the rich/big business.
Reply 36
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.


What other papers do you think are among the more difficult (I won't ask you to select one which is the most difficult)?
Reply 37
Original post by Tsunami2011
Am I the only one who likes this stuff? Its one of the things which have swayed me towards the Warwick course.


Ditto! I guess I'll see you next Wednesday :biggrin:
I don't do juris but my friend is so into philosophy that, from the amount of philisophical discussions he wants to have with me, I feel I don't need to! (Admittedly, he began to realise I am not a philosopher when he asked me how I could ever know my morals are OK and my response was, "I haven't been called an immoral ***ch yet. If and when that happens, I will ask why and then adjust accordingly". Apparently this isn't a suitable philisophical approach :rolleyes:)

From what I've heard, it's not the most difficult but it *does* require a different approach than most law courses which is what makes it difficult for some people. Interestingly, in my Uni, juris is meant to be one of the more difficult papers but Criminology is meant to be easy: except people still do badly in the latter because they approach it like law students which is the wrong approach. It's the same thing with juris - you have to approach it like philosophy and not law. From what I've heard, that's what trips people up.
Original post by jjarvis
What other papers do you think are among the more difficult (I won't ask you to select one which is the most difficult)?


Succession
Restitution (because this is the cutting edge)
Personal property law (because this isn't-some of the principles haven't been looked at since the 18th century)
Taxation
Roman law (I don't mean the introductory Institutes course as properly taught at Cambridge and dumbed down at Oxford but the specialist Digest based courses as properly taught at Oxford and rapidly turning into European legal history at Cambridge)

Quick Reply

Latest