What's it like to do a law degree?

erm... not quite.

Yeah, it means that the motivations behind a particular argument are clear i.e. not well disguised as pure academic musings. The sooner you recognise that academic writing is often politically rhetorical the better. During my LL.M we focused a great deal on critical analysis, the keep driver of which is to ascertain the motivations of the author.

*Sorry for the typo.

Well, diaphanous certainly doesn't mean 'the motivations behind a particular argument are clear', which in itself is not 'unconvincing' like you originally stated. When you start using 'diaphanous' to mean 'clear in motivation' you may as well just make up a word entirely because the words you are using convey no sensible meaning at that point. And, having read a lot of law books, I have not noticed any writers deliberately using obscure / incorrect words to make their arguments seem more impressive. If you have an impressive argument then you should just come right out and say it, not hide it.

I think your comment that most academic writing is 'politically rhetorical' is likely wrong in most areas of law but if you are doing an LL.M. in Administrative Law or Employment Law then perhaps more likely to be true. But again, being 'politically rhetorical' has nothing to do with randomly sprinkling words like 'diaphanous' in your writings.

So you have read "law books", to be honest it sounds like text books for those still learning the trade.

Well, diaphanous certainly doesn't mean 'the motivations behind a particular argument are clear', which in itself is not 'unconvincing' like you originally stated. When you start using 'diaphanous' to mean 'clear in motivation' you may as well just make up a word entirely because the words you are using convey no sensible meaning at that point. And, having read a lot of law books, I have not noticed any writers deliberately using obscure / incorrect words to make their arguments seem more impressive. If you have an impressive argument then you should just come right out and say it, not hide it.

I think your comment that most academic writing is 'politically rhetorical' is questionable in most areas of law. Anyway, being 'politically rhetorical' has nothing to do with randomly sprinkling words like 'diaphanous' in your writings.

For someone who graduated with a 2:1 from an average university you have a pretty unwarranted condescending attitude.

"To be honest it sounds like text books for those still learning the trade" - you are hardly an emeritus professor yourself. Maybe if you spent more than six weeks studying throughout the three years of your LL.B. you would have more of an idea what legal writing is like, and what the difference between 'you're' and 'your' is, or between 'it's' and its. Nor is the usage of 'diaphanous' in your example sentence correct, it is not a synonym for 'unclear' no matter how many times you claim it is.

Your grammar nazi insults would be more scathing if they weren't coming from a snotty little 18/19 year old. I'll have you know, I got a distinction in my LL.M. Whats more Queens, is top 30 at least. Your maths is pretty sloppy if you think <30 is "distinctly average". I actually have 3 A's in my A levels (before A* grades existed) and the reason why I studied in Queens is because it's a respected Uni that is close to home. I enjoyed my time at the university immensely and find your dismissive comments about the university, particularly from an undergraduate, downright insulting.

Nowhere have I said diaphanous meant unclear... please read, and then try to understand before you start slabbering.

Excuse me If my post graduate professional opinion offended the expert knowledge and understanding of a teenager with a superiority complex.

Well actually I'm 33, and my A-level grades are better than yours (I have 6 A's, again before A*s came out), and I have a Maths degree from Cambridge so my Maths is probably okay.

But if you want to turn this into an ad hominem battle I'm really not interested, I completely disagree with your comments about the use of language in legal writing and you clearly disagree with mine so let's leave it at that.

If your Maths were OK, you would recognise that <30th is not average.

Secondly, you were insulting my degree and University. Don't accuse me of instigating the first ad hominem attack.

Thirdly, why are you commenting on what it's like to do a law degree if you studied Maths?

Twice you failed to understand my usage of the term diaphanous.

However I do agree in that we disagree.

I apologise for insulting you.

I found your comments "The sooner you recognise that academic writing is often politically rhetorical the better", and "So you have read "law books", to be honest it sounds like text books for those still learning the trade" incredibly condescending: but I still should not have denigrated your university or your achievements in getting a 2:1 and a distinction on the LL.M.

I am currently studying Law.

My experience from graduating from a good top 10 law school with a 2:1 was that it is easy to become overwhelmed with the sheer amount you're expected to read. If it's for an essay then fair enough, but as far as exams in Contract etc are concerned, you can cut a lot of effort out by studying "smart" as the guy above stated.
Although your Tutors will disagree, the exams are a memory game and applying principles to specific examples.
Get all your precendent/case-law/statutes etc sorted. Don't spend hours wading through text books highlighting etc, go straight for your lecture notes and memorize them. I found the loci mnemonic memory method worked wonders come exam time. It takes a little while to learn but pays dividends and will make it easy for you to memorize all case-law with specific judge's opinions as well if you want. Use your seminar notes to see how principles learnt in lectures are applied. This will cut your workload significantly and is the sort of level you need for a 2:1 if you want a social life. The difference between what's expected for a 2:1 and a 1st can be huge so don't expect this approach to get you a 1st but this is pretty much how I got through my first 2 years of law school.
Oh, and don't use ostentatious language, keep it to the point and don't sound like an ass.

Oh okay, good look with next year then And thanks! If you have any questions next year, hopefully i will be able to help abit

Hi I’m going to be doing law at NTU this September I'm worried it might be too difficult and I have a few questions. I would be grateful if you could answer them to the best of your knowledge.

1. In general how difficult is the course?
2. How much reading and research is involved?
3. Do you have to buy any books in the first year and if yes how much would they cost in total?
4. How many exams are there at the end of the year and how much memorisation is involved to prepare for them?
5. Is there anything you would recommend before beginning the course?

Thanks very much

1. Difficult.
2. Lots
3. I spent about £120 in first year, £75 in second year, but regret spending this as most textbooks are available in the library
4. I have 4 exams each year and 12,000 words in coursework. A lot of memorisation.
5. Nothing to recommend really, but you will have more contact hours than friends on arts and humanities courses.

I realise the answers to 1) and 2) are one word and maybe not that helpful, but it's true - the course is difficult, stressful, and often tedious. I have just completed my second year at King's College London.

This response may attract negative feedback but I've clearly had a different experience from others here and thought I'd share it!

It's not about the amount of hours you put in, it's about how you work. You can easily spend hours in the library with the suggested reading but providing you understand the substantive law (which can take a bit of time and reading, as with any subject) then anything else you read is additional and stuff you will likely not even use. I know many of the "I spent three consecutive nights reading hundreds of articles in the library" types who end up getting a 2.2 on the essay since 90% of their time spent in the library was useless.

Law is all about finding what is relevant and being as concise as possible. This applies to both essays and studying. So, yes, many Law students do spend hours in the library. But you do not need to in order to get a good mark. I've yet to read a full case and often just read the conclusion of articles and I've just finished my second year, on track for a high 2.1.

Just wanted to share this to say don't fall in the trap of thinking you need to read 24/7 if what you're reading just isn't helpful. Some people need to focus less on knowing everything and more on knowing how to get a good mark.

1. Difficult.
2. Lots
3. I spent about £120 in first year, £75 in second year, but regret spending this as most textbooks are available in the library
4. I have 4 exams each year and 12,000 words in coursework. A lot of memorisation.
5. Nothing to recommend really, but you will have more contact hours than friends on arts and humanities courses.

I realise the answers to 1) and 2) are one word and maybe not that helpful, but it's true - the course is difficult, stressful, and often tedious. I have just completed my second year at King's College London.

This response may attract negative feedback but I've clearly had a different experience from others here and thought I'd share it!

It's not about the amount of hours you put in, it's about how you work. You can easily spend hours in the library with the suggested reading but providing you understand the substantive law (which can take a bit of time and reading, as with any subject) then anything else you read is additional and stuff you will likely not even use. I know many of the "I spent three consecutive nights reading hundreds of articles in the library" types who end up getting a 2.2 on the essay since 90% of their time spent in the library was useless.

Law is all about finding what is relevant and being as concise as possible. This applies to both essays and studying. So, yes, many Law students do spend hours in the library. But you do not need to in order to get a good mark. I've yet to read a full case and often just read the conclusion of articles and I've just finished my second year, on track for a high 2.1.

Just wanted to share this to say don't fall in the trap of thinking you need to read 24/7 if what you're reading just isn't helpful. Some people need to focus less on knowing everything and more on knowing how to get a good mark.