[risteard]

Hi, as a teachr is my tuppence worth.

Do not do law A level if you want to get into law at university, it is considered as VERY BAD preperation.

In my experience they like you to have 'traditional' A levels including History and Englsih Literature. For 'non-traditional' A levels they prefer things like sociology and politics as these are discursie subjects where you have to weigh up different arguments against each other, this is good practice for law degrees unlike law A level which is seen as very 'black and white'.

Good luck with whatever you decide

[Tortious]

(Original post by risteard)
Hi, as a teachr is my tuppence worth.

Do not do law A level if you want to get into law at university, it is considered as VERY BAD preperation.

In my experience they like you to have 'traditional' A levels including History and Englsih Literature. For 'non-traditional' A levels they prefer things like sociology and politics as these are discursie subjects where you have to weigh up different arguments against each other, this is good practice for law degrees unlike law A level which is seen as very 'black and white'.

Good luck with whatever you decide

Do you have any experience with A Level Law itself? There are certainly discursive elements to them (back in my day, two and a half papers out of six were essay-based).

[Alkain1607]

(Original post by risteard)
Hi, as a teachr is my tuppence worth.

Do not do law A level if you want to get into law at university, it is considered as VERY BAD preperation.

In my experience they like you to have 'traditional' A levels including History and Englsih Literature. For 'non-traditional' A levels they prefer things like sociology and politics as these are discursie subjects where you have to weigh up different arguments against each other, this is good practice for law degrees unlike law A level which is seen as very 'black and white'.

Good luck with whatever you decide

Hope you don't teach English....

Also, I am very keen to dispel the myths about A-level Law. It is not a subject that Universities will instantly say- 'we're going to reject this candidate'. It is a subject which will help develop analysis and communicative skills, it teaches you to think synoptically- it gives you with strong transferable skills. The qualifications themselves are not over-riding deciding factors- the grades are. In your personal statement as long as you can show what skills you've derived from those A-levels, and how they will be useful for studying a subject at degree level you will be fine.

[risteard]

(Original post by Tortious)
Do you have any experience with A Level Law itself? There are certainly discursive elements to them (back in my day, two and a half papers out of six were essay-based).

Its not really how you are assessed at A level it has more to do with assesment objectives. Most A levels have AO1 outline, AO2, interpret give examples AO3, evaluate AO4 (psychology has this evalaute the procedure)

Some A2 level essay exam questions i have seen ask the student to EXPLAIN- explain is a lower order tinking skill, evalaute is a higher level thinking skill. i have seen these types of questions on law, film studies and business studies.

No disrepect to you, i'm sure you did well, i have not seen the paper you sat.

The point stands however that university lecturers in law do not think that law A level provides you with the right thinking skills and is taught very badly. Many teachers of law in schools and colleges do not have any real legal expereince, the same is not true for law lecturers in SOME universities

[risteard]

(Original post by Alkain1607)
Hope you don't teach English....

Also, I am very keen to dispel the myths about A-level Law. It is not a subject that Universities will instantly say- 'we're going to reject this candidate'. It is a subject which will help develop analysis and communicative skills, it teaches you to think synoptically- it gives you with strong transferable skills. The qualifications themselves are not over-riding deciding factors- the grades are. In your personal statement as long as you can show what skills you've derived from those A-levels, and how they will be useful for studying a subject at degree level you will be fine.

lol, very good, I'm typing in the dark.....

[Alkain1607]

(Original post by risteard)
lol, very good, I'm typing in the dark.....

Haha, just realise that might of come across as rude- merely trying to be facetious of course.

[Alkain1607]

(Original post by risteard)
Its not really how you are assessed at A level it has more to do with assesment objectives. Most A levels have AO1 outline, AO2, interpret give examples AO3, evaluate AO4 (psychology has this evalaute the procedure)

Some A2 level essay exam questions i have seen ask the student to EXPLAIN- explain is a lower order tinking skill, evalaute is a higher level thinking skill. i have seen these types of questions on law, film studies and business studies.

No disrepect to you, i'm sure you did well, i have not seen the paper you sat.

The point stands however that university lecturers in law do not think that law A level provides you with the right thinking skills and is taught very badly. Many teachers of law in schools and colleges do not have any real legal expereince, the same is not true for law lecturers in SOME universities

I recently sat my Law paper for A-level- mine didn't consist of any 'explaining' nonsense- which I agree is basic retention of facts and possibly basic reasoning- the easy stuff that's done at GCSE.

[risteard]

LOL, no worries. I was asked to teach English once, I turned them down, I've only got a GCSE in it!

[risteard]

(Original post by Alkain1607)
Haha, just realise that might of come across as rude- merely trying to be facetious of course.

LOL, no worries. I was asked to teach English once, I turned them down, I've only got a GCSE in it!

[wolf-pack]

(Original post by zeezee180)
I've decided to go down the law route lol and i was wondering what sort of subjects should I consider taking?

And also, what is the deal with A level Law, is it seen as a soft subject or is it ok if I take it? I want to be able to get into one of the top unis! :P

Apaarently A-Level law isn't held in high regard with universities when you choose to study law- it gives a- level students a knowledge before they start the proper course which may influence their skills in a bad way and cloud their judgement, (teachers have actually told me this I haven't made it up :P)

[risteard]

(Original post by Alkain1607)
I recently sat my Law paper for A-level- mine didn't consist of any 'explaining' nonsense- which I agree is basic retention of facts and possibly basic reasoning- the easy stuff that's done at GCSE.

Nonsense? Have you had access to law papers over a number of years?

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by risteard)
Its not really how you are assessed at A level it has more to do with assesment objectives. Most A levels have AO1 outline, AO2, interpret give examples AO3, evaluate AO4 (psychology has this evalaute the procedure)

Some A2 level essay exam questions i have seen ask the student to EXPLAIN- explain is a lower order tinking skill, evalaute is a higher level thinking skill. i have seen these types of questions on law, film studies and business studies.

No disrepect to you, i'm sure you did well, i have not seen the paper you sat.

The point stands however that university lecturers in law do not think that law A level provides you with the right thinking skills and is taught very badly. Many teachers of law in schools and colleges do not have any real legal expereince, the same is not true for law lecturers in SOME universities

When law was a rare A level universities could afford to be prejudiced against it.

However, its modern availability means that many of the students who have the greatest commitment to studying law, have chosen to do it at A level because that was the first opportunity they had to study it.

As a result most universities are indifferent to it and would be severely draining their talent pool if they were not indifferent to it, regardless of the private opinions of law lecturers as to its value.

Something similar has happened with biology and medicine. 25 years ago, the classic subject combination for medicine was maths, physics, chemistry. Not any more.

[Alkain1607]

(Original post by risteard)
Nonsense? Have you had access to law papers over a number of years?

You misunderstand, I merely meant to say that doing explanation on an exam paper is 'nonsense', in the sense that it's useless. It's not rigorously testing academic skill. It's just showing you can write down a bunch of facts on a piece of paper in timed conditions.

[risteard]

(Original post by Alkain1607)
You misunderstand, I merely meant to say that doing explanation on an exam paper is 'nonsense', in the sense that it's useless. It's not rigorously testing academic skill. It's just showing you can write down a bunch of facts on a piece of paper in timed conditions.

My mistake. I apologise. What other A levels did you do?

[Tortious]

(Original post by risteard)
Nonsense? Have you had access to law papers over a number of years?

In case you're interested, here is the June 2010 paper, and here's the mark scheme. I reckon you (read: one) would find it tough to answer Section A properly, with reference to cases, in an hour. I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of nulli - arguably he's the most qualified to comment as someone who's currently practising!

As you can see in Section C, it asks you to "critically analyse" - I'd say that's synonymous with evaluation!

[Alkain1607]

I did History and Politics- so big focus on analysis etc etc. What do you teach?

[risteard]

(Original post by Alkain1607)
I did History and Politics- so big focus on analysis etc etc. What do you teach?

Nice choices.

I teach sociology, psychology and a bit of economics and from September dropping economics to teach philosophy.

psychology os the most straight forard of these, we use an easy exam board as well.

[risteard]

oops, typos...

[nulli tertius]

(Original post by Tortious)
In case you're interested, here is the June 2010 paper, and here's the mark scheme. I reckon you (read: one) would find it tough to answer Section A properly, with reference to cases, in an hour. I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of nulli - arguably he's the most qualified to comment as someone who's currently practising!

As you can see in Section C, it asks you to "critically analyse" - I'd say that's synonymous with evaluation!

I am not really the best person to comment on this. The mark scheme is so full of pedagogic mush that it isn't possible to tell what is actually required. There are just lists of buzzwords. It is much easier to deal with a model answer. Moreover, it is very hard as an outsider to know what proportion of the syllabus is covered and to what extent the answers are contained in the textbook.

[zeezee180]

Ok so i guess law is a bad choice :P how about biology, psychology,philosophy and english lit??