My potential interviewer at Cambridge wrote the book I put in my personal statement!!

Slightly different, but I named dropped my supervisor (MPhil), and rather than hating me, I'm now his supervisee. Apply to whatever college you want.

Reply 2

Devolved-Alchemist

5

Just make sure you've read the book - you may even earn brownie points if you can refer to her ideas. Otherwise, you'll look foolish. Best to be prepared, wherever you're applying.

Reply 3

Mithra

2

As long as it isn't some obscure book you'll be fine. If it is they might slightly think "did they just read this because I'm an interviewer?" but not much more.

Reply 4

Devolved-Alchemist

Just make sure you've read the book - you may even earn brownie points if you can refer to her ideas. Otherwise, you'll look foolish. Best to be prepared, wherever you're applying.

at best...and sycophantic at worst!

I'd mention whichever part of the book you found most interesting. If it's not the part that the interviewer wrote, they probably won't mind - they might be glad of a break from discussing the same things! :p:

Is the book "What About Law?", by any chance? :holmes:

Reply 5

RamsFanNo1

11

As long as you have read the book thoroughly then you will be fine. It could very well end up going in your favour.

Reply 6

anoushka1

OP

2

Tortious

at best...and sycophantic at worst!

I'd mention whichever part of the book you found most interesting. If it's not the part that the interviewer wrote, they probably won't mind - they might be glad of a break from discussing the same things! :p:

Is the book "What About Law?", by any chance? :holmes:

Yes it is! It is Janet O'Sullivan so the chapter on contract law
Well, in my personal statement I just mentioned the chapter on criminal law so I could just expand on that

Reply 7

anoushka1

Yes it is! It is Janet O'Sullivan so the chapter on contract law
Well, in my personal statement I just mentioned the chapter on criminal law so I could just expand on that

To be honest, everybody has read "What About Law?" and "Letters to a Law Student" - especially at Pembroke, since Nick McBride is the DoS! :p:

I doubt they'll mention it because it's not particularly unique. In my General interview, the interviewer barely referred to my PS; it was a case of "I can see you're clearly interested in Law. Tell me about a book you've read." (I deliberately picked one from the SAQ form which wasn't about Law.) As for the Law interview, they were more interested in my Law Test and the scenarios I'd been given to look at 15 minutes before.

Have you studied Law before? :smile:

Reply 8

Kevin J

You better get reading that God damn book.

Reply 9

The West Wing

18

I doubt they will bring it up or care really. I really like the Ruxley chapter of that book though. Janet O'Sullivan is pretty amazing, probably my favourite lecturer of all time.

Reply 10

The West Wing

I doubt they will bring it up or care really. I really like the Ruxley chapter of that book though. Janet O'Sullivan is pretty amazing, probably my favourite lecturer of all time.

Hi there.

If you're at Cambridge, you must be an English lawyer, right? I've got a quick tort question - any chance you could answer it?

I'm not interested in academic debate at this point, but are public wrongs torts? I've been reading the start of Nick McBride's textbook and he implies that they're not. I was happy with that idea until he started talking about public nuisance - from the web, I think that because public nuisance is a crime, it's also likely to be a tort, so his point is that it's anomalous because it's a public wrong and so "shouldn't be" a tort (all of this discussion took place under the heading of "residual wrongs model" ). As a general rule, though, it's only private wrongs that are torts. Does that sound right to you?

Thanks very much. :hugs:

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 11

Dadeyemi

13

This should not affect your decision in any way.

Reply 12

LawBore

Just read the damn thing. You could read the chapter in the time it takes to have a dump.

Reply 13

Doughnuts!!

Tortious

To be honest, everybody has read "What About Law?" and "Letters to a Law Student" - especially at Pembroke, since Nick McBride is the DoS! :p:

I doubt they'll mention it because it's not particularly unique. In my General interview, the interviewer barely referred to my PS; it was a case of "I can see you're clearly interested in Law. Tell me about a book you've read." (I deliberately picked one from the SAQ form which wasn't about Law.) As for the Law interview, they were more interested in my Law Test and the scenarios I'd been given to look at 15 minutes before.

Have you studied Law before? :smile:

Quick question(s)

The DoS at the college I'm applying to just so happens to specialise in the area of Law that I'm most interested in (Constitutional). Two things:

Will it appear as if I'm saying that I'm interested in Constitutional Law just so that I can suck up to him? I just ask 'cos I remember my teacher saying that people researched the areas that their DoS' were interested in and then said that they were interested in it (she also actively encouraged me to do so =\)

Secondly, will it count against me massively if he proves me wrong regarding several views that I hold when it comes to Constitutional Law?

Cool story bro

Doughnuts!!

Quick question(s)

The DoS at the college I'm applying to just so happens to specialise in the area of Law that I'm most interested in (Constitutional). Two things:

Will it appear as if I'm saying that I'm interested in Constitutional Law just so that I can suck up to him? I just ask 'cos I remember my teacher saying that people researched the areas that their DoS' were interested in and then said that they were interested in it (she also actively encouraged me to do so =\)

Secondly, will it count against me massively if he proves me wrong regarding several views that I hold when it comes to Constitutional Law?

1. Not necessarily - if you can engage in intelligent discussion about the topic beyond the basics, it'll help to convince them that you're genuinely interested. A good way of doing that might be to look at any developments in that area of law. For instance, if I were to discuss Criminal, I could refer to the Law Commission's proposals for reform of homicide (assuming I knew a little about the problems with the current law); someone who knows that murder is "intending to kill someone and killing them" wouldn't be able to do that.

2. There's no "proving wrong" at interview - unless you've read all of their books, you probably won't know what views they hold and they'll always argue the opposing case anyway. It shouldn't matter what your opinion is if you can argue your case convincingly, which is what they're really interested in.

Honestly though, you're worrying about this a little too much. :smile:

They won't have time to waste on asking you about stuff in your PS because they want to see how you cope under pressure and think on your feet, not how well you can deliver rehearsed answers. :wink:

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 16

The West Wing

18

Tortious

Hi there.

If you're at Cambridge, you must be an English lawyer, right? I've got a quick tort question - any chance you could answer it?

I'm not interested in academic debate at this point, but are public wrongs torts? I've been reading the start of Nick McBride's textbook and he implies that they're not. I was happy with that idea until he started talking about public nuisance - from the web, I think that because public nuisance is a crime, it's also likely to be a tort, so his point is that it's anomalous because it's a public wrong and so "shouldn't be" a tort (all of this discussion took place under the heading of "residual wrongs model"). As a general rule, though, it's only private nuisances that are torts. Does that sound right to you?

Thanks very much. :hugs:

You'll find that Nick McBride has some very unorthodox views on tort, which he admits in his introduction. If you're supervised by him you'll get set different cases in a different order to everyone else, and he doesn't follow the scheme of the lectures. I think it's really useful to read his book because of his interesting ideas but I would also recommend having one of the 'traditional' text books like Winfield, Salmond and Heuston or Markensinis.

Regarding your question, I can see what he means. If we define torts as a branch of private law (obligations between individuals), and public law as being about obligations between the individual and the state then most torts fit into the former category.

I would say however public wrongs can be torts. You can sue for things like assault, false imprisonment which are obviously acts of criminality but also bring about actions in tort between private individuals. Public nuisances are always criminal but often can bring about private law remedies as well, such as the Corby litigation. Another example is car crashes etc. which can sometimes lead to criminal charges but you're pretty likely to have claims against their insurers.

There are other examples too, like the Crossman diaries litigation, which involved a spy publishing memoirs revealing state secrets, which had litigation in both the public law and contract law contexts.

I'm not in Cambridge right now but I am going back soon and I am happy to have a read of the McBride text book too see how explains it and I will give you an update once I can see the context he describes it in (if you give me a page reference).

Hope that helped :smile:

, tort is my favourite subject in law and I got a first in it, I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 17

The West Wing

18

Doughnuts!!

Quick question(s)

The DoS at the college I'm applying to just so happens to specialise in the area of Law that I'm most interested in (Constitutional). Two things:

Will it appear as if I'm saying that I'm interested in Constitutional Law just so that I can suck up to him? I just ask 'cos I remember my teacher saying that people researched the areas that their DoS' were interested in and then said that they were interested in it (she also actively encouraged me to do so =\)

Secondly, will it count against me massively if he proves me wrong regarding several views that I hold when it comes to Constitutional Law?

I don't think they'll perceive it as sucking up. Public law is a vital part of law and it's very good that you're interested in it. Almost every college will have a fellow in public law so I doubt they will see it as sucking up. I would be prepared for them to argue with you about it and you should be able to attempt to defend yourself in arguments about the constitution.

Reply 18

Angela_Beth

9

If you know the book well and are comfortable talking about it, it shouldn't be a problem.

Reply 19