[Bea492]

(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

[gethsemane342]

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 )

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.

[nulli tertius]

(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)

[Tsunami2011]

(Original post by Bea492)
Ditto! I guess I'll see you next Wednesday

I guess you will It will blow Nottingham out of the water

[Bea492]

(Original post by Tsunami2011)
I guess you will It will blow Nottingham out of the water

Haha I hope you're right!

[GStevens]

(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.

This worries me just a little bit. You say your lecturers aren't very good and if they have failed to explain the importance of this subject than I'd have to agree.

If you want to go on to practice you need to understand law, not just be able to quote law and play word games. Understanding law isn't just playing Top Trumps with cases, if that's how you view it (and I'm not suggesting you actually do) then we can replace lawyers with flow charts. It has already started with the consoles in Smiths. You speak into them and someone at the other end, probably a recent law graduate, answers your questions by using a script/flow chart, just like any other call centre.

If you don't understand the philosophical aspects of law, what is law, what is a good law etc, then you will be operating at the lowest level, possibly next to the call centre guy.

Do you have any idea of which area you would like to work in?

[GStevens]

(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).

Then don't rely on him, go outside the course for your info, don't let bad lecturers bugger up your chances and certainly dont let a bad lecturer put you off one of the most fascinating areas of law.

If other students feel the same then perhaps it should be mentioned to the uni, we had a similar problem with a very quietly spoken, heavily accented Chinese lecturer at OU. It's not a complaint, it's useful feedback for them and the lecturer could take some lessons.

[GStevens]

(Original post by ateafeline)
sometimes one must listen to moving cars before touching the tongue with one's nose

That's deep, man, very deep.

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by GStevens)
It has already started with the consoles in Smiths. You speak into them and someone at the other end, probably a recent law graduate, answers your questions by using a script/flow chart, just like any other call centre.

I hold no brief for the people in Smiths. The local franchise is one of my competitors. However, the people in the stores are essentially marketing staff. If they hold law degrees, that is purely coincidental. Their role is to sort the wheat from the chaff and pass on potential clients with viable work to the local franchise-holder. These are mostly well established, traditional but small High Street practices. A £15M television advertising campaign has been promised for many months but is yet to materialise.

[sammyria]

(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).

I think OBD is the main reason that you don't like the subject. He just over complicates everything and refuses to actually state any points, he prefers to imply everything. The questions we get in the exam are better but he doesn't teach us contextually.

I really liked my jurisprudence module in A-Level law, it was mainly about the same theories, but in a context. You had to answer a question say on law and morality, and you'd argue whether or not they should be separate (obviously using Natural law v positivism).

I was seriously considering taking the third year module in it, but we were discussing it yesterday and I think I'll just be avoiding all the subjects he teaches and stalking Emma and Paul instead. XD

Ha and he's just sent us another four e-mails to go with the ten from earlier in the week.

[GStevens]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
I hold no brief for the people in Smiths. The local franchise is one of my competitors. However, the people in the stores are essentially marketing staff. If they hold law degrees, that is purely coincidental. Their role is to sort the wheat from the chaff and pass on potential clients with viable work to the local franchise-holder. These are mostly well established, traditional but small High Street practices. A £15M television advertising campaign has been promised for many months but is yet to materialise.

I stand corrected.
It's worse than I thought, people with no legal knowledge, except as you say coincidentally, are deciding on the merits of your case, probably with a checklist , and deciding whether to pass on the lead. I wonder how wheat and chaff are sorted.

[Rascacielos]

(Original post by GStevens)
This worries me just a little bit. You say your lecturers aren't very good and if they have failed to explain the importance of this subject than I'd have to agree.

If you want to go on to practice you need to understand law, not just be able to quote law and play word games. Understanding law isn't just playing Top Trumps with cases, if that's how you view it (and I'm not suggesting you actually do) then we can replace lawyers with flow charts. It has already started with the consoles in Smiths. You speak into them and someone at the other end, probably a recent law graduate, answers your questions by using a script/flow chart, just like any other call centre.

If you don't understand the philosophical aspects of law, what is law, what is a good law etc, then you will be operating at the lowest level, possibly next to the call centre guy.

Do you have any idea of which area you would like to work in?

I think it's a bit early to decide yet. I'm enjoying both contract law and public law at the moment but I'd like to keep my options open for a while.

Of course I understand the basic principles of hard cases and all the problems with statutory and common law interpretation which stem from that. I appreciate the importance of understand that. But that still isn't helping me understand why I need to know that, for example, according to natural law theorists, a law isn't a law at all if it is not compatible with this natural, higher order law.

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by gethsemane342)
Interestingly, in my Uni, juris is meant to be one of the more difficult papers but Criminology is meant to be easy

Which university is this? What are you taught within this module? I suspect you're only being taught rudimentary scholarship that criminology students do in their first year for a few weeks, which is more of a tribute to the development of criminology as a subject (Ferraro, Ferri, Quetelet, Bentham, Foucault?), most of which derives from the Positivist School. Either that or you learn Administrative Criminology, which is heavily reliant on Home Office publications? I wouldn't expect you to learn Chicago School, Anomie Theory or Critical Criminology as a student outside of criminology. You might learn Abolitionism though. Sometimes specific theories can be easier to relate to depending on your sociopolitical disposition and/or interests. Sometimes it makes interesting discussion in seminars when there is a conflict.

Edit: Forgive the intrusion from a non-law student. I did think about looking into jurisprudence to see if I can study it in some capacity as an MA but combined with areas from philosophy. It is a great shame that my subject largely neglects its philosophical background as I've encountered a lot of material that overlap in academic scholarship that is not reflected in lessons. I have quite a few publications from the series, Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice.

[jjarvis]

(Original post by nulli tertius)
Restitution (because this is the cutting edge)

Your thoughts more or less jibe with what I would have said. I've certainly found unjust enrichment/restitution tough this year. Really interesting, but tough.

[Forum User]

(Original post by jjarvis)
Your thoughts more or less jibe with what I would have said. I've certainly found unjust enrichment/restitution tough this year. Really interesting, but tough.

What main textbooks are you guys using for restitution?

I'm trying to teach myself it from Burrows - The Law of Restitution (3rd Edition) since there is no module on restitution/unjust enrichment at my uni and I'm very interested in it. Is the cases and materials book by Burrows worth buying as well?

[greekguy]

I am going to Northumbria University this September to study law!! I am very excited! Does anyone study law there? What are the modules like?

[gethsemane342]

(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
Which university is this? What are you taught within this module? I suspect you're only being taught rudimentary scholarship that criminology students do in their first year for a few weeks, which is more of a tribute to the development of criminology as a subject (Ferraro, Ferri, Quetelet, Bentham, Foucault?), most of which derives from the Positivist School. Either that or you learn Administrative Criminology, which is heavily reliant on Home Office publications? I wouldn't expect you to learn Chicago School, Anomie Theory or Critical Criminology as a student outside of criminology. You might learn Abolitionism though. Sometimes specific theories can be easier to relate to depending on your sociopolitical disposition and/or interests. Sometimes it makes interesting discussion in seminars when there is a conflict.

Edit: Forgive the intrusion from a non-law student. I did think about looking into jurisprudence to see if I can study it in some capacity as an MA but combined with areas from philosophy. It is a great shame that my subject largely neglects its philosophical background as I've encountered a lot of material that overlap in academic scholarship that is not reflected in lessons. I have quite a few publications from the series, Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice.

Cambridge - it's Criminology, Sentencing and the Penal System so it isn't as intensive as a full degree in it would be and is done with policy and law in mind (as the Politics students share the paper).

I did it last year. Let me see:

Introduction to criminology, themes and sources (including Chicago school theory, Anomie theory and Critical criminology but in outline)

Crime data, statistics, media influence, government influence, street policing and punishment

Judges and sentencing

Theories of punishment

How to sentence (substantive law, would be surprised if this came up on a full criminology course)

Neoliberalism - the move towards surveillance etc

Pathways in and out of crime.

Gender and Racism in crime systems

Youth crime

Community Punishments

Prison

I hope that answers your ... er, question? I can't tell if you're snapping at me or not. I never said *I* found it particularly easy and I do think that while getting a 2.1 on the paper (here) is very easy, it's not easy to get above a low 2.1 purely because the course requires a sociological standpoint (apparently). It also required a large amount of reading (I enjoyed the topic which set several book chapters and articles ... and a 350 page book. To be read within 2 weeks. As well as 4 other subjects. The book got skim-read by me. I suspect my friends just didn't bother)

(And the need for a different approach showed in the marks. Apparently my friend and I who got around mid 2.1s were among the upper bracket of the people who sat the paper. I reckon, if it really is that easy to get a first in it, why weren't we in the middle or low bracket?)

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by gethsemane342)
Cambridge - it's Criminology, Sentencing and the Penal System so it isn't as intensive as a full degree in it would be and is done with policy and law in mind (as the Politics students share the paper).

I did it last year. Let me see:

Introduction to criminology, themes and sources (including Chicago school theory, Anomie theory and Critical criminology but in outline)

Crime data, statistics, media influence, government influence, street policing and punishment

Judges and sentencing

Theories of punishment

How to sentence (substantive law, would be surprised if this came up on a full criminology course)

Neoliberalism - the move towards surveillance etc

Pathways in and out of crime.

Gender and Racism in crime systems

Youth crime

Community Punishments

Prison

I hope that answers your ... er, question? I can't tell if you're snapping at me or not. I never said *I* found it particularly easy and I do think that while getting a 2.1 on the paper (here) is very easy, it's not easy to get above a low 2.1 purely because the course requires a sociological standpoint (apparently). It also required a large amount of reading (I enjoyed the topic which set several book chapters and articles ... and a 350 page book. To be read within 2 weeks. As well as 4 other subjects. The book got skim-read by me. I suspect my friends just didn't bother)

(And the need for a different approach showed in the marks. Apparently my friend and I who got around mid 2.1s were among the upper bracket of the people who sat the paper. I reckon, if it really is that easy to get a first in it, why weren't we in the middle or low bracket?)

I wasn't snapping. I was curious as to the content of criminology modules in law degrees out of interest. Full three year courses in the subject can vary a lot so I wondered how much focus on academic theories a law degree would have for criminology given that, if it is a module taught in a law degree, there will be an amount dedicated to substantive issues, such as penology. Sentencing does come up in full criminology degrees but not for all courses. This tends to be reflected on how much involvement law lecturers at the universities have with the teaching of the subject. I tended to use labelling theory and cultural criminology at my university (Durham). The latter is only really taught at Kent. I never really liked youth crime or racism as academic topics. Preferred to look at class, e.g. Sutherland, Quinney.

What's the book? I might have read it. If you liked the media influence, David Garland's "Culture of Control" is an epic text on that. I'm guessing you'd have used two books edited by Paul Mason "Captured by the Media" and "Criminal Visions", and may be one on sex crime by Chris Greer?

[gethsemane342]

(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
I wasn't snapping. I was curious as to the content of criminology modules in law degrees out of interest. Full three year courses in the subject can vary a lot so I wondered how much focus on academic theories a law degree would have for criminology given that, if it is a module taught in a law degree, there will be an amount dedicated to substantive issues, such as penology. Sentencing does come up in full criminology degrees but not for all courses. This tends to be reflected on how much involvement law lecturers at the universities have with the teaching of the subject. I tended to use labelling theory and cultural criminology at my university (Durham). The latter is only really taught at Kent. I never really liked youth crime or racism as academic topics. Preferred to look at class, e.g. Sutherland, Quinney.

What's the book? I might have read it. If you liked the media influence, David Garland's "Culture of Control" is an epic text on that. I'm guessing you'd have used two books edited by Paul Mason "Captured by the Media" and "Criminal Visions", and may be one on sex crime by Chris Greer?

It was "Principled Sentencing: Theories and Policies".

I read Culture of Control - we had to read it for the course. I think I read the sec crime one as well. But our core texts were Easton and Piper, and the Oxford Handbook on Criminology.

[NDGAARONDI]

(Original post by gethsemane342)
It was "Principled Sentencing: Theories and Policies".

I read Culture of Control - we had to read it for the course. I think I read the sec crime one as well. But our core texts were Easton and Piper, and the Oxford Handbook on Criminology.

Heh. I have Easton and Piper and von Hirsch and Ashworth's text. Some people prefer Tim Newburn's Criminology text to the Oxford Handbook but I have both, because I like to have my own library.