Cambridge Law Students and Applicants

FFS, my DoS has set me such high standards for Consti that when I got a borderline 1st in an essay, I felt a twinge of disappointment.

That's just so wrong...

*shrugs* If you consistently do well in something, you tend to have higher standards. For example, my mate views his getting anything below a first as not up to his standards and has even said he should be getting better than low firsts in his essays. I know another guy who thinks he's done badly if he's not near a first.

I would just warn you not to get cocky though. Doing well in supervision essays doesn't translate to exam performances. I know quite a few people who ace supervision essays and barely scrape a 2.1 in the exam...

Yeah, I could never be like that...



Oh no, I'm perfectly aware of that! So much could happen that could cause me to mess up in the exam so I'm certainly not expecting that I'll definitely do well in the exam. That being said, I've had a glance at a few past papers and reckon I could do pretty decently if those questions came up. I just need to get this arduous revision out of the way first...

FFS, my DoS has set me such high standards for Consti that when I got a borderline 1st in an essay, I felt a twinge of disappointment.

That's just so wrong...

"I've not done any work this year, if I don't spend all day in the library I'll literally fail, I'm going through all the supervision sheets from scratch..."

I'm on to you

edit: does Elliott supervise you?

That's crazy! Are you working in the MC?

Yup, Elliott does indeed supervise me. Absolutely love him.

You luckiest of bastards.

On the other hand, we're in the same boat re: civil and tort (I'm ok on criminal, it's the one I find most interesting)

:vom:

I despise Crim. Absolutely hate it. Spent the majority of today trying to understand basic things.

Example: "The definition of intent in the Draft Code Bill might (in certain, admittedly unlikely, circumstances) mean that a person intended a result which it was his purpose to avoid.

WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?! HOW IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE?!

Ha ha, what's the intent for? If it's accessory liability, you could do what I did and skip every question on it in the exam (I did revise it - but I got to the problem question and thought, "What are you doing? You've *never* understood this. Do the CJA 2009 instead!")

I despise Crim. Absolutely hate it. Spent the majority of today trying to understand basic things.

Example: "The definition of intent in the Draft Code Bill might (in certain, admittedly unlikely, circumstances) mean that a person intended a result which it was his purpose to avoid.

WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?! HOW IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE?!

Ha ha, what's the intent for? If it's accessory liability, you could do what I did and skip every question on it in the exam (I did revise it - but I got to the problem question and thought, "What are you doing? You've *never* understood this. Do the CJA 2009 instead!")

Oh, I was just reading about reforms for intent in general but that sentence actually makes no sense at all...

Erm, I don't even know what the CJA 2009 is... *sigh* I have a LOT to do.

There are reforms for intention? What was wrong with the ones they had, except that no one understands oblique intention and the examiners hate anyone mentioning it?

CJA 2009 = Coroners and Justice Act 2009. When I sat the paper, the Bill had just been enacted but the partial defences for homicide hadn't come into force so they set a problem question on the answer under the "current" law then asked how it would change if the CJA 2009 was fully in force.

(Someone tells me that the cases on it have interpreted it differently to how we were told it would go. This annoys me. What if I got marked down for my interpretation which might have been correct!)

They do? Why do they? How do you know they do?

There are reforms for intention? What was wrong with the ones they had, except that no one understands oblique intention and the examiners hate anyone mentioning it?

Erm, well, first, read pedain's article, the terrorist example one, and norrie's (I'm assuming we have the same supervision sheets, since pedain's, who supervised us (for a term, before she went on sabbatical) all claimed to be authored by Virgo in the info section of the properties of the doc) for the theory of what intention should be defined as. as to your question, it's quite simple--it's quite possible to imagine scenarios where I see something to be a virtually certain consequence of my actions where I intend precisely that they don't occur on ordinary language and in all sensible moral judgment; for instance (to use an example of Norrie's) if I throw my child out of a burning building, it may be virtually certain that he'll die, but it would be absurd and offensive to suggest that I intend him to. Then there are scenarios like Steane where, arguably, the term "intend" is inappropriate--can I really intend a result when I see it to be virtually certain when I only do the action that I foresee will bring it about because I'm scared that my family will be killed if I don't? (I forget the precise circumstances of Steane, but it was something like that).

lol, it's even worse now, you didn't have to deal with Gnango

Yup, just the ones setting out an actual definition of what intention is.

And why exactly do the examiners hate people mentioning oblique intention?!

To be fair, they can ask for random things. I answered a question on criminal law and children, despite having never thought about it in much detail. (I also had a stomach ache at the time and you can tell EXACTLY when my stomach was hurting. When I wasn't in pain, I was arguing we're too harsh on kids. Stomach aches and I'm suddenly suggesting all kids are little demons )

As you can tell, I know absolutely nothing about Crim. Hence my panic and me starting all the way from Supervision 1.