Do I have an impressive education section of my CV? (Hypothetical)

Because in case you hadn't been following the news, the law isn't necessarily the line to go down if you want to be rich anymore...legal aid cuts, jobs being cut all over the place, plus the introduction of apprenticeships/more people studying law because they think it'll guarantee them a well paid job, means it's harder than ever to actually get yourself in. It's near on impossible to get to the Bar and now it's almost equally as hard to get a TC. I'm not saying don't do it for money because it's immoral or anything like that, and there was NOTHING about my post that indicated this, it was a statement which didn't claim that at all. If you're in it for the money there's definitely better professions to go into IMO.So really, it's obnoxious of you to assume I was saying that at all. Nice try though.

In fact, as far as I can see the only premise you could take from my post in relation to what I was replying to would be if you find something soul destroying, don't go into it just for the money. Which I maintain. If I found law soul destroying I wouldn't go into it, I'd go into something else which would be equally profitable but less soul destroying. That's not to do with monetary gain, that's more the fact that I'm sure there are other careers you would make a lot of money in that wouldn't make you miserable. I hated science at school so I didn't choose to go into medicine, where there is potentially a lot of money to be made, for example.

1. My assumption that you were lambasting my career choice for monetary gain is reasonable when taken in the context of what you responded to initially. AspiringGenius wondered why I would go into a career that was 'soul-destroying'; after I responded with 'money', you said to him 'This is what I don't understand', by all accounts appearing to sympathise with his rejection of doing something for reasons other than job satisfaction, then saying 'people in it just for the money shouldn't be doing it'; your inclusion of 'just' in 'just for the money' implies a deficiency not in the money itself but the reasons for choosing the career choice in the first place and from this it is very reasonable, hardly 'obnoxious', to conclude you disapprove of my monetary motivation. Whether or not you were making a moral judgement is one thing, but your wording is undeniably judgemental on some level, if not moral, and I maintain it is presumptuous to instruct on what basis someone should choose a career path because of your own feelings. I have already said that I was half-joking about it making me miserable.

2. There may be other lucrative careers out there but that doesn't mean I could potentially thrive in them. There is no way I could ever, for example, thrive in medicine. There is potential for some people to make money there, but not for me. Going along with the theme of you knowing nothing about me whatsoever, once again it is presumptuous of you to tell me that 'If you're in it for the money there's definitely better professions to go into IMO'; to succeed in a career you need certain skills and abilities. I am crap at maths and so could not do financial work, nor medicine. I would succeed in law however, and while these are, as you say, tough times there will always be work available for those prepared to work hard enough.

You are extremely arrogant for someone who isn't even at university yet. I see you were rejected from Oxford and UCL. Perhaps you should readjust your attitude before you attempt to enter the law - I will tell you this now, there is little room for arrogance and insults in legal argument. I expect the fact that your attitude stinks came across in your Oxford interview. Your "arguments" are also awful, you've read far too much into a basic objective statement.

You are extremely arrogant for someone who isn't even at university yet. I see you were rejected from Oxford and UCL. Perhaps you should readjust your attitude before you attempt to enter the law - I will tell you this now, there is little room for arrogance and insults in legal argument. I expect the fact that your attitude stinks came across in your Oxford interview. Your "arguments" are also awful, you've read far too much into a basic objective statement.

You call me arrogant, and provide no examples. You say I insult you, but fail to cite these. Nonsense. I have not been arrogant or insulting. I was indeed rejected from Oxford and UCL; how vindictive of you to incorporate that into this discussion as a slight against me. Nevertheless, I am proud of having been accepted into Bristol which, as it happens, is a good league above Southampton. How utterly presumptuous you are to make judgements about my character from a couple of posts on an internet forum! And how hypocritical; accusing me of arrogance and offensiveness but being the only one to toss insults and bring others' academic profiles down when yours are hardly worth reckoning. I have already explained how what I construed from your original post is perfectly reasonable considering what you responded to and how you worded it. If you want a rational argument then by all means; but I have no intention of being insulted and demeaned by some snotty-nosed loudmouth who thinks that because they're reading a law degree they are entitled to preach to others on the internet with a completely undeserved sense of superiority.

You are arrogant because you seem to think your opinion is above mine regarding monetary gain as the sole purpose for your career. You accuse me of being judgemental when you in fact are yourself judgemental. I happened to have offers from UCL, Southampton, Warwick, Nottingham (which was even the AAB reduced offer) and York. I chose Southampton as I wanted to be closer to my home in London rather than going up north - not all of us base important decisions on monetary gain. Going to Southampton has not prejudiced me as yet. You have no idea as to my academic profile, an example of yourself being judgemental. I could have A*A*A* at A level for all you know, so you are yourself being presumptuous as you accuse me of being. You are clearly incapable of rational argument as you have already proved; I don't need to be told by some A level child that I am incapable, when I have proved academically through my written work and mooting that I am capable. Your standards mean nothing to me. I suggest you stop giving crap advice to people online who may actually be naive enough to take what you say seriously, you clearly do not have a clue. Bristol will not help you any further than Southampton would until you rid yourself of your attitude.

The emboldened text exposes you as a liar and undermines everything you have said about your academic profile and otherwise.

As for being arrogant because I think that my opinion is above yours 'regarding monetary gain as the sole purpose of your career', what does that sentence even mean? My career is my business, the fact that you think your opinion is at all important on my personal affairs is laughable. I don't think my opinion regarding my personal affairs is above yours any more than I think it is above everyone's, as it should be. As for being judgemental, I was merely retaliating against your own intrusion on my academics by pointing out your own downfalls. But then I doubt we will ever be able to really know what's going on there for sure now that you have shown your word cannot be relied on. The person who has proven themselves incapable of rational argument is the one that needed to introduce personal abuse into their posts to compensate for their logical incoherence. My attitude? What are you talking about? I have said in this thread that I would like to make money from my career and that I disagree with your assertion that law is no longer lucrative. You then introduced personal insults and I very understandably retaliated. Have you no perspective?

I'm not a liar at all. I was pressured into applying to UCL by my grammar school sixth form as I achieved an average of 95% in two of my AS levels and 100% in the other. I hated the university itself, I went to visit four times and just didn't get a feel for the place at all. I couldn't imagine myself being happy studying there and I didn't want to be miserable for 3 years. So that left the remaining four, and clearly Southampton was the closest one to where I live. It might've boosted my academic profile, yes, but I'm not prepared to make myself miserable for three years just to do so. The law building itself actually put me off. The fact that I didn't explain this in my original post doesn't make me a liar, I omitted it, I didn't LIE about it. Your posts absolutely reek of superiority and this will be your downfall when you try to enter the legal world. I expect once you get to uni and realise you're a small fish in a big pond you will start acting and thinking like a reasonable person. Bye!

You are certainly disingenuous. You give the impression that you voluntarily dismissed UCL:



Yet on other posts in this website it is clear that in fact you did have preference towards UCL:



By your own admission you failed to meet your UCL offer, something you failed to mention above when you attempted to mislead us into believing you just 'didn't want to be miserable for 3 years' so implicitly dismissed them.



The above post can be found in Post 19 here:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=40536929&highlight=

You have not merely misled, you have lied shamelessly. I have better things to do than gabble with abusive and dishonest people. Have a pleasant evening.

Please point me to where exactly I ever claimed to MEET my UCL offer? Yes I put it first, the main point I was making that I could've gone somewhere better...my Southampton offer was AAA, Nottingham which is far above it in the league tables is AAB. I have not "lied shamelessly", if you dug that far you would see also that I said over a year ago I didn't like UCL and didn't want to get in there...I have definitely said that on these forums. As I said, there was a lot of pressure from my school and indeed my parents as I'm sure you can imagine when getting an offer from somewhere like UCL. I highly doubt you will ever be a lawyer because your ability to critically read and to select the important bits of information from others is just completely out of whack. English literature will not help you with that.

----------------------------------------------

Apologies to the OP for taking over your thread. I hope you found the information you wanted. Be wary of people like this person who will be quick to tell you not to go to the lesser unis, if you want to work in Dorset then Bournemouth is a perfectly viable option for you for the LPC as there isn't a College of Law or the like down here. If in doubt though it's worth emailing any firms you had your eye on and asking them what they think, they will usually be willing to help you out.

Please point me to where exactly I ever claimed to MEET my UCL offer? Yes I put it first, the main point I was making that I could've gone somewhere better...my Southampton offer was AAA, Nottingham which is far above it in the league tables is AAB.I have not "lied shamelessly", if you dug that far you would see also that I said over a year ago I didn't like UCL and didn't want to get in there...I have definitely said that on these forums. As I said, there was a lot of pressure from my school and indeed my parents as I'm sure you can imagine when getting an offer from somewhere like UCL.

I highly doubt you will ever be a lawyer because your ability to critically read and to select the important bits of information from others is just completely out of whack. English literature will not help you with that.

Be wary of people like this person who will be quick to tell you not to go to the lesser unis