[kanzaz]

Hmmm when i went on Cambridge Open Days and talked to tutors, they effectively said they couldn't give two hoots about how good you are at football/piano or whatever, and are purely concerned with your skills of analytical reasoning etc.

But on Work Experience:

I've been to the Royal Courts several times to watch appeals.

Shadowed a criminal barrister several times.

Shadowed a Human Rights Barrister, watched several asylum cases.

Aside from that i do lots of debating, doing Lamda Grade 8 in Public Speaking, Verse and Prose, and Reading. Am a E-sports (namely Starcraft 2 enthusiast) but i dont think i'll mention that in my PS, who knows maybe i will. I've posted it in the PS section, now waiting on feedback. And thanks for the advice, any more would be great, btw @casey are you at uni atm? or applying for 2012?

Also if it seemd that im pure grades or anything not really hehe, i was just putting my grades there as everyone else had been doing something similar xD.

Tbh im quite a relaxed, happy go lucky individual

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by Casey463)
having desirably varied abilities or attainments. Rather than only having good grades.

It makes no sense to introduce "desirably" into this definition. It reduces "well rounded" to meaning exactly as "rounded" as the tutors desire, which precludes any possibility of any tutors ever wanting anything but a "well rounded" applicant.

Nor does your giving "only having good grades" as antonymous to the phrase make any sense. A person could have read many, many books about law and law related topics, so that he would be able to debate in depth many facets of the subject. He would not be a "well rounded" applicant in the traditional sense.

What "well rounded" normally means is that the person has a diverse range of interests or pursuits. This, Cambridge tutors do not care about.

[Casey463]

(Original post by kanzaz)
Hmmm when i went on Cambridge Open Days and talked to tutors, they effectively said they couldn't give two hoots about how good you are at football/piano or whatever, and are purely concerned with your skills of analytical reasoning etc.

But on Work Experience:

I've been to the Royal Courts several times to watch appeals.

Shadowed a criminal barrister several times.

Shadowed a Human Rights Barrister, watched several asylum cases.

Aside from that i do lots of debating, doing Lamda Grade 8 in Public Speaking, Verse and Prose, and Reading. Am a E-sports (namely Starcraft 2 enthusiast) but i dont think i'll mention that in my PS, who knows maybe i will. I've posted it in the PS section, now waiting on feedback. And thanks for the advice, any more would be great, btw @casey are you at uni atm? or applying for 2012?

Also if it seemd that im pure grades or anything not really hehe, i was just putting my grades there as everyone else had been doing something similar xD.

Tbh im quite a relaxed, happy go lucky individual

My point exactly, you have additional strengths in from outside an academic focus.

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by kanzaz)
Hmmm when i went on Cambridge Open Days and talked to tutors, they effectively said they couldn't give two hoots about how good you are at football/piano or whatever, and are purely concerned with your skills of analytical reasoning etc.

Yep.

Here's my advice post re: law ECs in PSs. Hope it helps.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...64&postcount=7

[Casey463]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
It makes no sense to introduce "desirably" into this definition. It reduces "well rounded" to meaning exactly as "rounded" as the tutors desire, which precludes any possibility of any tutors ever wanting anything but a "well rounded" applicant.

Nor does your giving "only having good grades" as antonymous to the phrase make any sense. A person could have read many, many books about law and law related topics, so that he would be able to debate in depth many facets of the subject. He would not be a "well rounded" applicant in the traditional sense.

What "well rounded" normally means is that the person has a diverse range of interests or pursuits. This, Cambridge tutors do not care about.

Just stating that you read it wont suffice. Of course, its about what you learnt, what areas are questionable and maybe offering a differing perspective. Look the point i am trying to make is that many people say "I have straight A's will i get in?" Hoping that I will say yes when clearly its much more than that.

Be it extra curricular, live legal sector experience or any other feats, admissions will appreciate them and it will enhance your chances.

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by Casey463)
Just stating that you read it wont suffice. Of course, its about what you learnt, what areas are questionable and maybe offering a differing perspective. Look the point i am trying to make is that many people say "I have straight A's will i get in?" Hoping that I will say yes when clearly its much more than that.

Be it extra curricular, live legal sector experience or any other feats, admissions will appreciate them and it will enhance your chances.

Obviously just name dropping adds nothing. This is not a revolutionary point you're making.

I'm arguing pointing out that an ideal candidate for Cambridge law is not one who by his personal statement and interview etc demonstrates "well roundedness" on any proper definition.

[Casey463]

I do not see why you are arguing that 'well rounded' is a subjective term. It really isn't, look it up in the dictionary.

Admittedly what is desirable can be questioned but it does not take an idiot to figure out what looks good on your application.

In response to the question posed earlier yes i am a student at the university of birmingham.

[Casey463]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Obviously just name dropping adds nothing. This is not a revolutionary point you're making.

I'm arguing pointing out that an ideal candidate for Cambridge law is not one who by his personal statement and interview etc demonstrates "well roundedness" on any proper definition.

You don't realize that 'well rounded' encompasses what you are saying.
The ability to think critically, thing logically, to reason, all are varied traits are they not ?

In a way, what you are saying that they have a very narrow criterion..... What i am saying coincides with you're point. Yet its being objected to ?

[Casey463]

(Original post by Casey463)
You don't realize that 'well rounded' encompasses what you are saying.
The ability to think critically, thing logically, to reason, all are varied traits are they not ?

In a way, what you are saying that they have a very narrow criterion..... What i am saying coincides with you're point. Yet its being objected to ?

Then how would you explore differences and suitability out of 10 straight A applicants ?

[Cast.Iron]

(Original post by Casey463)
It's kinda what I meant, not just reading and talking about stuff you learn from the confines of a classroom but engaging with the subject as a whole. Demonstrating passion etc.

By the way I have known many applications to be rejected due to them not talking about other achievements or experiences. It is not an established criterion but they do look out for it. Whats the point of taking someone on that can regurgitate material to get an A when no exploration or reasoning is evident in that person ?

Do you not have to write argumentative essays with interrogatives ? :/

No.

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by Casey463)
I do not see why you are arguing that 'well rounded' is a subjective term. It really isn't, look it up in the dictionary.

Admittedly what is desirable can be questioned but it does not take an idiot to figure out what looks good on your application.

In response to the question posed earlier yes i am a student at the university of birmingham.

Your definition is purely subjective. That's what I was arguing against. Christ, my points are really not difficult to comprehend. You're also using a bizarre definition of "academic" - i.e. that things are only academic that are related to qualifications - but I'm not even going to go there; I've better points to spend excessive amounts of time arguing, elsewhere.

I'm taking the course with regards to which I'm giving PS advice, btw.

[Casey463]

(Original post by Cast.Iron)
No.

That is bad legal writing

[Cast.Iron]

(Original post by Casey463)
That is bad legal writing

What expertise can you claim to possess which make you an authority on proper legal writing?

[Casey463]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Your definition is purely subjective. That's what I was arguing against. Christ, my points are really not difficult to comprehend. You're also using a bizarre definition of "academic" - i.e. that things are only academic that are related to qualifications - but I'm not even going to go there; I've better points to spend excessive amounts of time arguing, elsewhere.

I'm taking the course with regards to which I'm giving PS advice, btw.

I am not even arguing anything, I cant understand why you're getting wound up about it.

The questions posed was 'should I apply here or not?' and 'what are my chances of getting in with these grades?'. I am pointing out to them what you are giving sound advice on.

I have just read some of your advice and they mention exploring other areas outside study that are inter related to you're field.

Just because you go Cambridge doesn't make you right all the time ya know :P

[Casey463]

(Original post by Cast.Iron)
What expertise can you claim to possess which make you an authority on proper legal writing?

No authority, but by not posing problematic terms as an interrogative in you're essays and exploring them I know for a fact that you will end up with a 2:1.

[tehforum]

(Original post by Casey463)
That is bad legal writing

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by Casey463)
I am not even arguing anything, I cant understand why you're getting wound up about it.

The questions posed was 'should I apply here or not?' and 'what are my chances of getting in with these grades?'. I am pointing out to them what you are giving sound advice on.

I have just read some of your advice and they mention exploring other areas outside study that are inter related to you're field.

Just because you go Cambridge doesn't make you right all the time ya know :P

I'm getting wound up because this is hugely frustrating. A person who has read books about law, even one who has done work experience, is not a well rounded person. That doesn't mean grades alone are enough, or that an applicant with a PS which doesn't discuss law outside of A level would stand a chance. I'm playing semantics, basically.

And no, it doesn't; but it does mean I have managed, in the past, to write a PS which is good enough for entry to the course, which would suggest I have some idea what I'm talking about. That's the only reason I mention it.

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by tehforum)

well played sir.

[Cast.Iron]

(Original post by Casey463)
No authority, but by not posing problematic terms as an interrogative in you're essays and exploring them I know for a fact that you will end up with a 2:1.

Syntactical and grammatical errors aside, I am intrigued. What could possibly make you think that?

[tehforum]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
well played sir.

ty

btw this is bad l4g4l writinnggg