This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Can I talk about philosophy in my law personal statement
- Oxford vs Cambridge Law
- BTEC accepted at Oxford???
- What Gcse grades are likely to be acceptable for oxford
- Difficulty of Course - Oxford BCL v Cambridge LLM
- Oxford and Cambridge Past Papers
- Outreach programmes for Year 12 and 13?
- Any help please
- BA (Hons) - Law (Jurisprudence) at Oxford only allows choice of 2 optional papers?
- Any questions about the Oxford BCL - ask away
- would a masters in Law in Oxbridge more appealing to top law firms
- Oxford college help urgent
- How many UCAS points do I have?
- Corpus Christi
- Is Oxbridge BA Law a qualifying law degree
- Urgent!!!：recommended reading list for law at Oxford Uni
- Senior Status Jurisprudence (Oxbridge) after RG LLB
- Which A-Level combination is strongest for Oxbridge Law?
- How best to prepare for the LNAT?
- Law with business employability?
Jurisprudence at Oxford
Scroll to see replies
I note an issue concerning the relevancy of Roman law has been raised.
Before I studied Roman law (and by Roman law I mean Roman civil law, not criminal or constitutional law) I had a very similar opinion to you. I felt I was being made to study an unnecessary subject due to an archaic tradition, and if I had been given the choice I would have been unlikely to have chosen the course. This view I discovered was wildly misconceived- I found that I greatly enjoyed the subject in its own right, but I also found that it is highly relevant. If I the course was not compulsory my interests in such matters would never have been spurred and I would be a different and probably more narrow minded lawyer.
The traditional reasons given for the study of Roman law is that it introduces you to the concepts of law- how different areas of law fit together. Students are taught land law, tort and contract in separate modules in their law degrees- Roman law shows you how these concepts fit together. A response to this would be that using another legal system such as English law would be equally appropriate, but given the wide area covered if one were to use English law for this it would be grossly oversimplified. Another of the traditional reasons for the study of Roman law is that it introduces you to another legal system and broadens your legal horizons. This too is true- but the cynics might respond why not use a modern legal system such as French law?
There is one overriding reason for the importance of Roman law- and it is one not often understood by people. I apologise for the gross oversimplifications here, time and space do not permit otherwise (I recommend Stein, Roman Law in European Legal History for a good introduction). Roman law was rediscovered and used albeit in a mutated form during the Middle Ages on the Continent as a (if not the- although this is controversial) legal system. It attracted a great degree of comment and its synthesis was applied as the learned law (again I apologise for the oversimplification). This in turn slowly mutated away from the original sources, before a wave of nationalisation of law occurred whereby a variety of states produced codified legal systems drawing of course upon the previously applied law- many synthesised Roman law. If one is to study say modern French contract doctrine, or the German law of obligations, knowledge of the sources is highly useful; and it helps to explain certainly similarities which are found across most legal systems. People who are focused solely on the English legal system will find that Roman law too influenced English law- particularly via institutional writers (I recommend Gordley, The Philosophical Origins of Modern Contract Doctrine).
Ancient learning can be useful and relevant- most courses on philosophy will cover the ancient writers in great depth, indeed one would be surprised if they did not. When one studies legal history- particularly legal history on the continent one realises that the Romans are to law what the Greeks are to philosophy. Knowledge of such matters will prove to be increasingly important given recent moves by the EU via funded projects investigating the harmonisation of various domestic legal doctrines such as contract.
Oxbridge are not the only institutions offering a course in Roman law- Bristol, and many of the Scottish Universities amongst others do likewise. Also if one wishes to see Roman law cited in the judgments of modern courts I recommend reading a few South African judgments.
Before I studied Roman law (and by Roman law I mean Roman civil law, not criminal or constitutional law) I had a very similar opinion to you. I felt I was being made to study an unnecessary subject due to an archaic tradition, and if I had been given the choice I would have been unlikely to have chosen the course. This view I discovered was wildly misconceived- I found that I greatly enjoyed the subject in its own right, but I also found that it is highly relevant. If I the course was not compulsory my interests in such matters would never have been spurred and I would be a different and probably more narrow minded lawyer.
The traditional reasons given for the study of Roman law is that it introduces you to the concepts of law- how different areas of law fit together. Students are taught land law, tort and contract in separate modules in their law degrees- Roman law shows you how these concepts fit together. A response to this would be that using another legal system such as English law would be equally appropriate, but given the wide area covered if one were to use English law for this it would be grossly oversimplified. Another of the traditional reasons for the study of Roman law is that it introduces you to another legal system and broadens your legal horizons. This too is true- but the cynics might respond why not use a modern legal system such as French law?
There is one overriding reason for the importance of Roman law- and it is one not often understood by people. I apologise for the gross oversimplifications here, time and space do not permit otherwise (I recommend Stein, Roman Law in European Legal History for a good introduction). Roman law was rediscovered and used albeit in a mutated form during the Middle Ages on the Continent as a (if not the- although this is controversial) legal system. It attracted a great degree of comment and its synthesis was applied as the learned law (again I apologise for the oversimplification). This in turn slowly mutated away from the original sources, before a wave of nationalisation of law occurred whereby a variety of states produced codified legal systems drawing of course upon the previously applied law- many synthesised Roman law. If one is to study say modern French contract doctrine, or the German law of obligations, knowledge of the sources is highly useful; and it helps to explain certainly similarities which are found across most legal systems. People who are focused solely on the English legal system will find that Roman law too influenced English law- particularly via institutional writers (I recommend Gordley, The Philosophical Origins of Modern Contract Doctrine).
Ancient learning can be useful and relevant- most courses on philosophy will cover the ancient writers in great depth, indeed one would be surprised if they did not. When one studies legal history- particularly legal history on the continent one realises that the Romans are to law what the Greeks are to philosophy. Knowledge of such matters will prove to be increasingly important given recent moves by the EU via funded projects investigating the harmonisation of various domestic legal doctrines such as contract.
Oxbridge are not the only institutions offering a course in Roman law- Bristol, and many of the Scottish Universities amongst others do likewise. Also if one wishes to see Roman law cited in the judgments of modern courts I recommend reading a few South African judgments.
Fair enough, guess its all personal. People I know from Bristol all say it was rubbish, but perhaps they aren't taught it as well as ppl from oxbridge who knows! I see where ur coming from with the history thing, how the various jurisdictions work and I guess its relevant for all that, but I was coming purely from the perspective of an english lawyer ... and thats where I see its value lacking. However, I do see more relevance now someone has taken the time to fully explain.
Thanks.
Oh and I accept the point made by John Gardner, that the course needs to be different and obviously not all are the same, but I do not accept that this necessitates a different name for the course. Also, for all we know thats someone just called John Gardner ... I could come on here called Lord Whatever and you wouldn't know it wasn;t him.
Thanks.
Oh and I accept the point made by John Gardner, that the course needs to be different and obviously not all are the same, but I do not accept that this necessitates a different name for the course. Also, for all we know thats someone just called John Gardner ... I could come on here called Lord Whatever and you wouldn't know it wasn;t him.
True, I could be someone else, but I'm not.
As for course names: Some universities may have forestry, some plant sciences, some botany, some arboriculture. Courses under all these names could conceivably secure the same professional exemption, and they might well have a lot of content in common, and yet they might have different emphases and attitudes that their names help to convey. Would you object to the diversity of these names, Lewis?
Do you also object when a supermarket sells spanish-style spicy sausage under the name chorizo?
As for course names: Some universities may have forestry, some plant sciences, some botany, some arboriculture. Courses under all these names could conceivably secure the same professional exemption, and they might well have a lot of content in common, and yet they might have different emphases and attitudes that their names help to convey. Would you object to the diversity of these names, Lewis?
Do you also object when a supermarket sells spanish-style spicy sausage under the name chorizo?
What a chopper...
Well I can sort of tell, since you appear to be about the only person on here who uses correct language at every turn that you could be older. I will take your word for it, but it doesn't mean that you are going to be able to roll me over and persuade me on this purely by virtue of your professorship.
Well I can sort of tell, since you appear to be about the only person on here who uses correct language at every turn that you could be older. I will take your word for it, but it doesn't mean that you are going to be able to roll me over and persuade me on this purely by virtue of your professorship.
Lewis-HuStuJCR
it doesn't mean that you are going to be able to roll me over and persuade me on this purely by virtue of your professorship.
Yes, appealing to authority is a fallacy.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html
However, JH was not the one who pointed out his exalted status ( I did ).
Instead, JH put forward sensible and relevant points.
You have consistently failed to respond to the substantive issues that he raises.
One of the things that you will learn, if you ever bother to study philosophy, is how to argue without making an ass of yourself.
Well the way you said it you made it sound like that should be enough and that I should just go home. "You do know who X is" is just like saying "do you know who my father is?" if ur rich and expecting that to get your way!!
Also, all of those points are indeed fair but I don't see their relevance to the question at hand. The question of what a supermarket calls its sausage, or what universities call degrees called "forestry" which shouldn't even be degree, isn't relevant to the topic.
Your tactics in argument appear to resort to personal insults and assuming that you are better, which I would submit makes you, not me, the ass.
My points are perfectly relevant also as to why the name shouldn't be different, but I guess its tradition and universities like oxford are steeped in tradition and some things like this will never change! So either way, even if they did reform the course and become less philosophical, they would probably still call it jurisprudence rendering this entire debate superfluous.
Its actually probably a good thing that Oxford offers a course offering a different dimension to the traditional degree as it ensures that their graduates have something different, which is of specific relevance to academia... if not so to practice. But I guess at an undergraduate level degrees shouldn't be geared to practice. Out here at NUS though, they are constantly asking us to treat the subject as if we are lawyers and assume that everyone is going to practice! Makes some of the modules quite good though.
Also, all of those points are indeed fair but I don't see their relevance to the question at hand. The question of what a supermarket calls its sausage, or what universities call degrees called "forestry" which shouldn't even be degree, isn't relevant to the topic.
Your tactics in argument appear to resort to personal insults and assuming that you are better, which I would submit makes you, not me, the ass.
My points are perfectly relevant also as to why the name shouldn't be different, but I guess its tradition and universities like oxford are steeped in tradition and some things like this will never change! So either way, even if they did reform the course and become less philosophical, they would probably still call it jurisprudence rendering this entire debate superfluous.
Its actually probably a good thing that Oxford offers a course offering a different dimension to the traditional degree as it ensures that their graduates have something different, which is of specific relevance to academia... if not so to practice. But I guess at an undergraduate level degrees shouldn't be geared to practice. Out here at NUS though, they are constantly asking us to treat the subject as if we are lawyers and assume that everyone is going to practice! Makes some of the modules quite good though.
fundamentally
Wrong.
Try reading my post again.
Your comprehension skills are rather limited.
I do not think that you need to worry your little head about the differences between Oxbridge Law and other universities, since you are so obviously not suitable for anything challenging.
Try reading my post again.
Your comprehension skills are rather limited.
I do not think that you need to worry your little head about the differences between Oxbridge Law and other universities, since you are so obviously not suitable for anything challenging.
You are such a *****r. I've seen your posts before. You might be self-satisfied and smug enough to think that going to Oxford makes you better than other people, but everyone else just thinks you're a big minging loser.
Why are you posting in the Law forum anyway? You do Computer Science [like, eww]. Do you really have so much time on your hands to be typing rude messages in a really patronizing tone on a course forum that barely concerns you?
Well all that may be, but you shouldn't stoop to dissing his subject ... thats tantamount to my "do you know who my dad is?" point above.
But yeah, get back to your programming.
But yeah, get back to your programming.
well if thats how she acts off this board then sooner or later she will have serious problems. Just ignore her, shes obviously after the attention so please don't lower yourself to her level.
John Gardner
A common view here on the TSR: Universities should all adopt broadly similar approaches, conventions, procedures, objectives, etc., and offer broadly similar student experiences, accommodation, modules, etc.
But why?
But why?
Precisely. If an institution does something well then it should run with it. Surely one of the benefits of the expansion of higher education is meant to be increased choice - and thus a range of specialisms with it?
If courses were a little more different then maybe it would actually make life for students applying easier? Tell that to the admissions tutor who is worrying about getting enough applicants for this years course though and I would imagine that this would be a fairly secondary concern! Then there are other demands like the RAE, student satisfaction surveys and the like...
*wanders off feeling depressed at the state of higher education....*
Lewis-HuStuJCR
Its actually probably a good thing that Oxford offers a course offering a different dimension to the traditional degree as it ensures that their graduates have something different, which is of specific relevance to academia... if not so to practice. But I guess at an undergraduate level degrees shouldn't be geared to practice. Out here at NUS though, they are constantly asking us to treat the subject as if we are lawyers and assume that everyone is going to practice! Makes some of the modules quite good though.
For once I agree with Lewis!
Law is both an academic and a practitioner subject and both aspects need to be catered for in legal education. Of course, Oxford is not unique in having a more academic approach. Other major English law schools, including several of the London schools, are no less academic in their outlook. Anyway the differences among law schools that we are talking about are all matters of degree. Lewis's own law schools, Nottingham and NUS, are very academic law schools compared to some I know.
The only reservation I have about what Lewis says is that he overstates the extent to which academic and practitioner approaches are rivals.
My late colleague Peter Birks was primarily a Roman lawyer. The great sweep of his intellect and his erudition on every legal topic enabled him to regroup numerous doctrines of English private law into previously alien categories, many of them borrowed from the Roman tradition. These alien categories were just what English law needed, at the time, to tackle a range of miscellaneous problems that were looming larger and larger in commercial life. For this reason Birks had tremendous influence on the judges. He thereby left a very great mark on the day-to-day work of practitioners working in private law, including commercial practitioners. If Lewis decides to work in one of the big London firms, or goes to the commercial Bar, he will be living and breathing Birks ideas (although he may not know they are Birks ideas).
Not all of us can aspire to this kind of greatness but the story reminds us that great legal acuity and great scholarly imagination can go hand in hand. I think Lewis is a bit too quick to assume that academic preoccupations dilute or distract from practitioner concerns. He should come and do the BCL (assuming he gets his first!) and find out how the two can be successfully married once one sufficiently masters the subject.
Danny5876
After reading your post, John Gardner, I can imagine that studying law at Oxford is very satisfying. Pity it's very competitive to get into. Nevertheless, i'm sure i'll enjoy my law degree at Cardiff.
I'm sure you will. A very fine law school.
John Gardner
My late colleague Peter Birks was primarily a Roman lawyer. The great sweep of his intellect and his erudition on every legal topic enabled him to regroup numerous doctrines of English private law into previously alien categories, many of them borrowed from the Roman tradition.
I know that Birks helped create the categories of Obligations and Restitution.
Were there any other new categories that he helped bring into English Law ?
Edit:
My friend who does law has just told me about Peter Birks' contribution to the concept to unjust enrichment and tells me that I was wrong about Obligations and Restitution being created by Birks.
In the US, the professional law degree is the JD: Doctor of Jurisprudence.
Actually John I was looking at the possibility of postgrad study before I go into practice and yeah I confess I was probably a little bit too quick to draw such a strong dichotomy. If I were to apply for postgraduate study the Oxford BCL would certainly be top of my list to receive an application even though, I assume, it is fiercely competitive and many people from all over the world with first class degrees will be applying.
However, this is some distance in the future and this year I am concentrating on enjoying myself (in and amongst these damn research papers they have set us) if that's possible whilst studying modules primarily targeted at Master's students whilst merely a 3rd year undergraduate!!
I think Birks did have something to do with restitution did he not? Infact, I would say he was a key player in the development in this field... Anyway, I have read texts by Birks and think he was a truly great academic lawyer ... I had no idea about his exploits concerning Roman Law and if dedication to such a subject can create such a distinguished academic then I am ready to surrender that I was wrong when I stated it was pointless.
However, this is some distance in the future and this year I am concentrating on enjoying myself (in and amongst these damn research papers they have set us) if that's possible whilst studying modules primarily targeted at Master's students whilst merely a 3rd year undergraduate!!
I think Birks did have something to do with restitution did he not? Infact, I would say he was a key player in the development in this field... Anyway, I have read texts by Birks and think he was a truly great academic lawyer ... I had no idea about his exploits concerning Roman Law and if dedication to such a subject can create such a distinguished academic then I am ready to surrender that I was wrong when I stated it was pointless.
Related discussions
- Can I talk about philosophy in my law personal statement
- Oxford vs Cambridge Law
- BTEC accepted at Oxford???
- What Gcse grades are likely to be acceptable for oxford
- Difficulty of Course - Oxford BCL v Cambridge LLM
- Oxford and Cambridge Past Papers
- Outreach programmes for Year 12 and 13?
- Any help please
- BA (Hons) - Law (Jurisprudence) at Oxford only allows choice of 2 optional papers?
- Any questions about the Oxford BCL - ask away
- would a masters in Law in Oxbridge more appealing to top law firms
- Oxford college help urgent
- How many UCAS points do I have?
- Corpus Christi
- Is Oxbridge BA Law a qualifying law degree
- Urgent!!!：recommended reading list for law at Oxford Uni
- Senior Status Jurisprudence (Oxbridge) after RG LLB
- Which A-Level combination is strongest for Oxbridge Law?
- How best to prepare for the LNAT?
- Law with business employability?
