[Zoedotdot]

(Original post by Tortious)


Thank yooooooou.

Damn you got there before I edited, can't actually change the subjects of the other posts! But it's fine

[swird]

(Original post by Tortious)
I dunno, I don't think Virgo wrote that report, but he strikes me as the kind who likes a good chuckle. I might get away with it if he's marking the paper this year, but I won't be using that method unless I'm really stuck for things to say.

I'm not planning on taking Admin since I can't stand Consti - that's why I'm up now, actually; I was intending to do some revision for it but erm...less progress has been made than was hoped. Not good since my exam is in about a fortnight. Oops.

Any recommendations on papers? I haven't had chance to look at the full list in detail, but I'm told that International can only be done in second year, CPE (I think) is one to avoid, and I'm quite curious as to what Family entails.

(If you decide to reply, it's probably best to PM me - I don't want to incur Zoe's wrath for derailing this thread! )

PMed but posting here as well in case other people are interested!

I HATED CONSTITUTIONAL SO MUCH. But I loved Admin. And I ended up doing an Admin dissertation this year!

I only took Admin because I have mad love for Professor Forsyth, and wanted to spend another year with him. I hated how fluffy and airy fairy and generally ****ing wishy washy Consti was. But Admin isn't like that at all--it's solid and principled and genuinely interesting. I seriously adored it. Really give it some thought. Don't discount it just because you hate Consti. Admin focuses on judicial review specifically, so ti's real, grounded law. But, at the same time, the conceptual aspect of it is gourgeous--it's driven by strong foundation principles, not bull**** politics/jurisprudence/philosophy the way that Consti is. Admin was the best.

International has god-awful lectures and reading, but the upside is that you can make **** up in the exam and get away with it. I also took Legal History in my second year, which was a lot of reading, and mindblowingly dull.

[gethsemane342]

To be fair, for international, you just need common sense. My friend dismissed my argument for whether use of force law is adequate today when I said "Yes, because if they have nukes, so do we and we'll just destroy the world" and said I wasn't thinking about the issue properly and needed to be more abstract.

My supervisor disliked my essay until i brought up the issue of everyone having nukes Apparently, this is a "realistic and well-considered" point.

[Doughnuts!!]

I think that International and Consti sound interesting.

[Tortious]

(Original post by Doughnuts!!)
I think that International and Consti sound interesting.

...



It's all very abstract and a lot of the articles are quite long without having much useful content, or so I've found. Here's a flavour - I can see it without being logged into anything but I might be IP recognised as coming from Cambridge so I don't know if you can...

[Doughnuts!!]

(Original post by Tortious)
...



It's all very abstract and a lot of the articles are quite long without having much useful content, or so I've found. Here's a flavour - I can see it without being logged into anything but I might be IP recognised as coming from Cambridge so I don't know if you can...

I like the abstract, theoretical stuff!

That extract seemed pretty interesting tbh. Quite long-winded (but isn't most of the stuff in a law degree like that?) but still pretty interesting.

[Tortious]

(Original post by Doughnuts!!)
I like the abstract, theoretical stuff!

That extract seemed pretty interesting tbh. Quite long-winded (but isn't most of the stuff in a law degree like that?) but still pretty interesting.

I don't know, having only studied a year of it.

Mind you, I think I prefer more substantive stuff in general, which is why I really enjoyed Crim at A Level and still haven't been put off it, even though large chunks of it were repeated this year. Thinking about it, I have three such papers - Tort, Criminal (which does have an evaluative component to it since you have to discuss reform proposals etc.) and Roman. Maybe that's why I don't like Consti?

[swird]

(Original post by Doughnuts!!)
I like the abstract, theoretical stuff!

That extract seemed pretty interesting tbh. Quite long-winded (but isn't most of the stuff in a law degree like that?) but still pretty interesting.

There's abstract theory that is grounded in solid principles and has a clear purpose and aim, and then there's abstract theory that has no ****ing point and goes nowhere. The former is a pleasure to engage with; the latter is a godamn pain, with International and Consti being, in my opinion, prime examples.

[Doughnuts!!]

(Original post by Tortious)
I don't know, having only studied a year of it.

Mind you, I think I prefer more substantive stuff in general, which is why I really enjoyed Crim at A Level and still haven't been put off it, even though large chunks of it were repeated this year. Thinking about it, I have three such papers - Tort, Criminal (which does have an evaluative component to it since you have to discuss reform proposals etc.) and Roman. Maybe that's why I don't like Consti?

Oh, so would you say that Law A-Level has been really helpful? Te only reason I didn't take it was because it had been hammered into me that it wouldn't really give you any sort of advantage!

(Original post by swird)
There's abstract theory that is grounded in solid principles and has a clear purpose and aim, and then there's abstract theory that has no ****ing point and goes nowhere. The former is a pleasure to engage with; the latter is a godamn pain, with International and Consti being, in my opinion, prime examples.

Abstract theory that goes nowhere can be quite fun to discuss!

Which category would you class jurisprudence in?

[Tortious]

(Original post by Doughnuts!!)
Oh, so would you say that Law A-Level has been really helpful? Te only reason I didn't take it was because it had been hammered into me that it wouldn't really give you any sort of advantage!

I think that the A Level is useful for two reasons:

1. It's been said many times that the worst thing you can do is to go to university to study law without knowing it's for you - doing an A Level over two years gives you an indication as to whether or not it's something you're interested in
2. It gives you a basic level of knowledge that, in my experience, is helpful to give you a bit of a head start when you're trying to find your feet in a new environment

The official policy is that the A Level "offers no particular advantage or disadvantage" to your application; I interpret this as meaning that the university won't favour people with it. That's not the same as the subject not giving you an advantage when it comes to reading law at university.

As part of the AS, I looked at the role of lay people and legal professionals within the legal system and learned about the court structure and appeal routes, which is useful when you're reading a case to know whether or not there's a chance that the decision was reversed by a higher court (the name "Court of Appeal" suggests to a layman that it's the highest court in the land, which isn't the case!). I also did a little bit of tort law (negligence) and some criminal (non-fatal offences); admittedly this wasn't a lot and was pretty superficial but it did help to whet my appetite for the A2.

For the A2, centres offer different subjects, with there being options in Tort, Human Rights, Contract and Criminal to name but a few. I did Criminal and therefore looked at homicide, non-fatal offences (in more depth), property offences, defences and a little bit of jurisprudence. The jurisprudence hasn't really been that useful yet, but contrary to the myth that "it only gives you a two-week advantage", I think the A Level - if taught well - gives you a good grounding. Of the eight supervisions I've had this year, I'd already covered the work for about five of them at A2 (although naturally more reading was needed to refresh my memory and deepen my understanding). I've only come across one fundamental area of contention with my supervisor from my existing A Level knowledge over the course of my study, which even then is an area over which academics are divided, whereas my peers still had to get to grips with the basic concepts. Becoming familiar with the language is good too - it just makes you feel more at ease.

I think that part of the problem is that with Law being a relatively new A Level, universities are still wary of it to an extent since the teaching is so variable. I actually started the AS as part of an evening class in Year 11 and the teaching was appalling - I got an E in my first exam (predicted an A) and an A and C in my others (the A was a sheer miracle because that was an essay paper; the C was on the substantive law that we hadn't really been taught). I then convinced my sixth form to allow me to self-teach a resit and take up the A2 in my first year, and they couldn't have been more helpful. Of the five papers I sat there, I got 100% on all of them thanks to their help. It just goes to show that there must be some value in the A Level, and I'd hope that my UMS marks would act as a testament to my understanding!


Sorry that this is quite a long post, but I can well see myself referring to it in future with the likes of I'm So Academic!

[gethsemane342]

(Original post by Doughnuts!!)
Abstract theory that goes nowhere can be quite fun to discuss!

Which category would you class jurisprudence in?

Nah, consti was awful - way too abstract. It is fun when you point out how useless the abstractness is. In my paper last year, I did an essay on a very theoretical point of constitutional law -

"Has the supremacy of European Union law been effectively entrenched in English law? What is the relationship, as a matter of constitutional theory or principle, between this doctrine of supremacy and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty?"

- and instead of being normal and answering it with all the abstract theories to explain why Parliament can trump anything, I decided to spend the entire essay informing the examiner that all of these theories are figments of our imaginations, the fact we can theoretically do stuff doesn't matter because we're not going to do it, ditto the fact we can't theoretically do other stuff and really, the entire thing was a waste of time in reality.

(I'd decided I must have failed the exam by this point and was in a very vicious mood when I did this question. I also started the question with "According to the reviewer of Young's recent book, every academic work must criticise Dicey for no real reason so I will too." I was genuinely shocked to discover I'd even passed the paper)

[Doughnuts!!]

(Original post by gethsemane342)
Nah, consti was awful - way too abstract. It is fun when you point out how useless the abstractness is. In my paper last year, I did an essay on a very theoretical point of constitutional law -

"Has the supremacy of European Union law been effectively entrenched in English law? What is the relationship, as a matter of constitutional theory or principle, between this doctrine of supremacy and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty?"

- and instead of being normal and answering it with all the abstract theories to explain why Parliament can trump anything, I decided to spend the entire essay informing the examiner that all of these theories are figments of our imaginations, the fact we can theoretically do stuff doesn't matter because we're not going to do it, ditto the fact we can't theoretically do other stuff and really, the entire thing was a waste of time in reality.

(I'd decided I must have failed the exam by this point and was in a very vicious mood when I did this question. I also started the question with "According to the reviewer of Young's recent book, every academic work must criticise Dicey for no real reason so I will too." I was genuinely shocked to discover I'd even passed the paper)

That is pretty epic! Also quite brave... What did you get in that paper?

Also, surely there must be some people that like the abstract stuff?

(Original post by Tortious)
I think that the A Level is useful for two reasons...

Ahhhhhhh. Kinda makes me wish that I'd done at least Law AS.

And you should definitely whip that out whenever somebody blindly disses A-Level Law. Have a link to it in your sig!

[gethsemane342]

(Original post by Doughnuts!!)


That is pretty epic! Also quite brave... What did you get in that paper?

Also, surely there must be some people that like the abstract stuff?

Mid 2-1

There are. Two of my closest lawyer friends adore it. We keep arguing when we discuss answers to questions because they look at the pure legal side and then I go "Yeah but look at the facts! They invented that point of law because of this fact! It's irrelevant." We actually had a 20 minute argument yesterday about whether a point of EU law being invoked originally because of WW2 service meant it couldn't apply, because I said no due to the facts and they said yes because of pure legal theory.

(I won )

[Tortious]

(Original post by gethsemane342)
Mid 2-1

There are. Two of my closest lawyer friends adore it. We keep arguing when we discuss answers to questions because they look at the pure legal side and then I go "Yeah but look at the facts! They invented that point of law because of this fact! It's irrelevant." We actually had a 20 minute argument yesterday about whether a point of EU law being invoked originally because of WW2 service meant it couldn't apply, because I said no due to the facts and they said yes because of pure legal theory.

(I won )

PRSOM.

[Cast.Iron]

(Original post by Doughnuts!!)
So dry, though.

Let's face it, the front cover does the book no favours . Reading pretty much half of it the day before I went down to Cambridge for my interview was pretty cream-crackeringly dry I must admit.

(Original post by Doughnuts!!)
I think that International and Consti sound interesting.

Don't worry Charles, I actually agree. However I am sure that my opinion will change once I (hopefully) start studying if the opinions on here are anything to go by!

(Original post by gethsemane342)
Nah, consti was awful - way too abstract. It is fun when you point out how useless the abstractness is. In my paper last year, I did an essay on a very theoretical point of constitutional law -

"Has the supremacy of European Union law been effectively entrenched in English law? What is the relationship, as a matter of constitutional theory or principle, between this doctrine of supremacy and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty?"

- and instead of being normal and answering it with all the abstract theories to explain why Parliament can trump anything, I decided to spend the entire essay informing the examiner that all of these theories are figments of our imaginations, the fact we can theoretically do stuff doesn't matter because we're not going to do it, ditto the fact we can't theoretically do other stuff and really, the entire thing was a waste of time in reality.

(I'd decided I must have failed the exam by this point and was in a very vicious mood when I did this question. I also started the question with "According to the reviewer of Young's recent book, every academic work must criticise Dicey for no real reason so I will too." I was genuinely shocked to discover I'd even passed the paper)

I had a very similar question to this in, believe it or not, my AS Politics exam (there is a unit on the constitution and parliamentary sovereignty, albeit a very basic one) and I argued the very same thing .

[Tortious]

(Original post by Cast.Iron)

If you don't mind me asking, which colleges (Cambridge and Durham) are your offers from?

[Cast.Iron]

(Original post by Tortious)
If you don't mind me asking, which colleges (Cambridge and Durham) are your offers from?

Not at all. My Cambridge college is Homerton and my Durham college is Collingwood.

I initially applied to Emmanuel at Cambridge but I was pooled. However, I'm not complaining, everything about Homerton appeals to me apart from the distance (which isn't even that bad by general university standards) .

[Tortious]

(Original post by Cast.Iron)
Not at all. My Cambridge college is Homerton and my Durham college is Collingwood.

I initially applied to Emmanuel at Cambridge but I was pooled. However, I'm not complaining, everything about Homerton appeals to me apart from the distance (which isn't even that bad by general university standards) .

Interesting...

I ask because I sent my entire UCAS application by the Oxbridge deadline (I think there's something about you can apply to Oxbridge early and then apply again to others later...), applied to University at Durham and got pooled into St Cuthbert's Society. I don't know if they guessed that I was applying to Oxbridge, but it came as a bit of a surprise to be "fished out" by such a different college.

My friend and I tend to go for walks around Cambridge at night and we've been to most colleges, but not Homerton. However, a girl from my sixth form goes there and said that she applied to a college that isn't in the centre since she liked to think that she was "going home" from lectures and the like.

I'm sure you'll be just as happy at Homerton though. Besides, there's always someone worse off - you could be at Girton!

[Cast.Iron]

(Original post by Tortious)
Interesting...

I ask because I sent my entire UCAS application by the Oxbridge deadline (I think there's something about you can apply to Oxbridge early and then apply again to others later...), applied to University at Durham and got pooled into St Cuthbert's Society. I don't know if they guessed that I was applying to Oxbridge, but it came as a bit of a surprise to be "fished out" by such a different college.

My friend and I tend to go for walks around Cambridge at night and we've been to most colleges, but not Homerton. However, a girl from my sixth form goes there and said that she applied to a college that isn't in the centre since she liked to think that she was "going home" from lectures and the like.

I'm sure you'll be just as happy at Homerton though. Besides, there's always someone worse off - you could be at Girton!

Indeed

Interesting that you mention that actually because at the Durham open day they made a comment about people applying before the 15th October inasmuch as 'we can kind of guess the applicants applying to a particular couple universities.' Nearly made me add Durham to my choices manually after the Oxbridge deadline. I get the feeling that they don't like to feel 'second best'.

I can see the logic in that . It isn't a big issue for me really, just a mild irritation! I like the idea of being in a big college anyway and the architecture is very nice for such a 'new' college too. Good call on Girton, I hear it's miles away.

[Tortious]

(Original post by Cast.Iron)
Indeed

Interesting that you mention that actually because at the Durham open day they made a comment about people applying before the 15th October inasmuch as 'we can kind of guess the applicants applying to a particular couple universities.' Nearly made me add Durham to my choices manually after the Oxbridge deadline. I get the feeling that they don't like to feel 'second best'.

I can see the logic in that . It isn't a big issue for me really, just a mild irritation! I like the idea of being in a big college anyway and the architecture is very nice for such a 'new' college too. Good call on Girton, I hear it's miles away.

What annoyed me about Durham is that they messed me about ridiculously, although I won't go into it here since it's not worth the effort. Suffice it to say I felt like this:

Girton's actually so far away it's not in Cambridge - it's in the neighbouring town of Girton. Having said that, I've managed to walk there in half an hour before, so it's not impossible, especially since (I imagine) you'll have a bike. My mummy and daddy don't want me to get one though cos they think I'll get hurt, so I have to walk everywhere...