Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Hoffman)
    To address your last paragraph, your point was not that non-RG LLBs can get you places as an RG LLB can. Your point went further and talked about the sole assessment, and any distinction, being based only on the marks applicants received on their previous quals and not on the standing of the awarding institution. You have tried to prove this by saying that if Lincoln firsts were not superior you'd not be on an LLM at a top 50, when in fact people with low 2:1s get on such courses all the time. The argument you made through your success on your securing an LLM is a weak argument.

    You are to be a teaching assistant at London Met, from what I can see, leading seminar groups. This is a very common activity for PhD "students" to undertake. You were awarded this role for your demonstrated understanding of the law which the college in question thinks you'd be quite good at conveying to UG students, and indeed some PG students. However, you were not awarded the position for your knowledge of PG apps; or for your understanding of comparative UG assessment. The X and Y we are talking about are not at all relevant to the reason you were given this job. Therefore, your chortling and guffawing, and the hilarity you see in this thread, and indeed your arrogance, are somewhat misplaced. As ever.
    Christ. I'll be teaching at City University not London Met. Yes it is a common activity but to be awarded a full graduate teaching assistantship is not common. Most PhD students pay tuition and teach a little to have a bit of income.
    Shall we agreed to disagree because I also thin you and ORW are arrogant with wildly incorrect assertions? I consider myself well versed in navigating the law schools of the UK but you seem to disagree and insist I'm wrong at every step.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Yes if you like academic law, get into a decent enough uni for it and are prepared to work your butt off. Otherwise, you're better off applying for a non-law degree (which will most likely be less competitive), and gaining the right profile to be competitive for training contracts/pupillage.

    I would only choose Law if you genuinely enjoy it, otherwise it's a pretty tough slog.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexgilder)
    (Maitland Chambers only takes Oxbridge). For the most part though it is not impossible for a non-RG graduate to get a good training contract or pupillage in the city or at a good set.
    Do you mean that Maitland Chambers will only take Oxbridge, or that they have as a matter of past fact only taken Oxbridge? If the former then what is your evidence for that proposition? I do not think it is *impossible* for a non-RG graduate to get a pupillage anywhere including Maitland, but it will be much harder for them than for an Oxbridge graduate.

    LLMs yes can be less competitive but it depends where. Some specific LLM programmes are cut throat.
    In the UK I would say that only the BCL and to a much lesser extent Cambridge are remotely "cut-throat" to get on. I've just finished my LLM at UCL and entry onto that programme was not competitive. I have no idea about LLMs overseas.

    The studentships and graduate teaching assistantships (research council bursary rate + tuition fee waiver) are highly competitive and there are very few each year. We are talking less than 20 spots nationwide that god knows how many people compete for
    There are four per year at UCL alone paying full tuition plus an £18,000 bursary per year without any requirement that the successful candidate do any teaching (although they can do, if they want more cash). There are five at KCL paying tuition plus £20,000. I don't have the inclination to go around each university adding them up but I found nine at the first two unis I checked, so "less than 20" in total looks rather unlikely.

    I implore you to ask some law school academic staff about that because they'll tell you you're wrong. I know a lot of academic staff and they don't look at marks like that and think someone with a first from a non-RG might not be as good as an RG with a 65. I literally had a head of school say, "a first is a first and is treated as such."
    I did my LLB at BPP (whether or not that is "better" than Lincoln I have no idea). I am absolutely certain that someone with a 65 from BPP would not get close to 65 at UCL. I'd be slightly surprised if they managed to get a 2:1 at all. I am equally certain that someone with 70 from BPP would not get 70 from UCL (but I think they would almost certainly get a 2:1). The idea that a "first is a first" is some nonsense that is bandied about to make people feel better about decent degrees from mediocre universities.

    Where it gets difficult is comparing "high firsts" at the Lincolns and BPPs of the world with lower firsts (or high 2:1s) at "better" universities. I don't doubt for a moment that someone who got, say, 76% at Lincoln would have at least a good shot of getting a first of some kind at a RG-Uni.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    So me and LordHoffman are labelled 'arrogant' by alexgilder, but we are simply trying to get across that a 1st in an LLB from a non RG is not of the same worth as a mid-high 2:1 from an RG. A first is not a first. If it was comparing a 1st from London Met v a 1st from Exeter, Exeter would win everyday. This is where university reputation comes into play, and in academia they may not care as much where your degree is from, which as alexgilder has pointed out, they do not at his law school. Some universities are harder to get a 1st or good 2:1 at than others, for example Nottingham University (RG uni) is notorious for it being hard to get a good 2:1. With all due respect to Forum User, BPP's LLB is still rather new and like the University of Law's LLB. Both are private unis and let people in with low grades as they need the money and cannot compete with RG's etc. I know people doing it and they are putting in small efforts compared to my friends doing an LLB at top RG's yet are getting firsts and high 2:1's in their modules. Those at the RG have to put in an enormous amount of work in comparison to just get a 2:1. At the end of the day I know those at the RG will have a well respected LLB because unlike ULaw's LLB, it is not the level of A level law...

    City University Law school is very good for the BPTC, not sure about the LPC, but the LLB there is marked ABB and they let a lot of people in with BCC etc, someone in my A level Law class got that and still got in...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Forum User)
    Do you mean that Maitland Chambers will only take Oxbridge, or that they have as a matter of past fact only taken Oxbridge? If the former then what is your evidence for that proposition? I do not think it is *impossible* for a non-RG graduate to get a pupillage anywhere including Maitland, but it will be much harder for them than for an Oxbridge graduate.



    In the UK I would say that only the BCL and to a much lesser extent Cambridge are remotely "cut-throat" to get on. I've just finished my LLM at UCL and entry onto that programme was not competitive. I have no idea about LLMs overseas.



    There are four per year at UCL alone paying full tuition plus an £18,000 bursary per year without any requirement that the successful candidate do any teaching (although they can do, if they want more cash). There are five at KCL paying tuition plus £20,000. I don't have the inclination to go around each university adding them up but I found nine at the first two unis I checked, so "less than 20" in total looks rather unlikely.



    I did my LLB at BPP (whether or not that is "better" than Lincoln I have no idea). I am absolutely certain that someone with a 65 from BPP would not get close to 65 at UCL. I'd be slightly surprised if they managed to get a 2:1 at all. I am equally certain that someone with 70 from BPP would not get 70 from UCL (but I think they would almost certainly get a 2:1). The idea that a "first is a first" is some nonsense that is bandied about to make people feel better about decent degrees from mediocre universities.

    Where it gets difficult is comparing "high firsts" at the Lincolns and BPPs of the world with lower firsts (or high 2:1s) at "better" universities. I don't doubt for a moment that someone who got, say, 76% at Lincoln would have at least a good shot of getting a first of some kind at a RG-Uni.
    With regards to Maitland I mean the latter. Budding barristers use this database of pupils and juniors so look here, http://www.indx.co.uk/pupilbase/?mod...d=636830303233.

    PhD studentships and GTA-ships are different things. A studentship won't have required teaching while a GTA-ship will as a part time member of staff. The Higher Education Funding Council found that around 250 law PhDs are started each year and around 15-20% are funded by an institution. Yes I admit that is more than 20 but it still isn't many at all. Leicester had 2 GTA-ships this year, Surrey had 2 studentships, City had 2 GTA-ships. Many unis had none. Exeter, Birmingham, Reading, Sheffield all didn't have any for example. There are also Research Council (AHRC, ESRC) funded studentships that are not included in the HEFC's stats but they are notoriously difficult to get with applicants from 4-8 universities all competing for the same limited spots.

    You are much more reasonable in your first and 2:1 assessment. I agree than some students who got a first at a non-RG would probably have got mid or high 2:1 at an RG (some, not all). I also agree that if there were no other factors involved in an application (which is obviously never the case) then in a simple degree vs degree scenario then the RG graduate with a first will come out on top of a non-RG graduate with a first. What is categorically not true is that a non-RG first is always treated as an RG mid-2:1 which is what ORW is suggesting. ORW and Hoffman need to realise that non-RG graduates with a high 2:1 or first can and regularly do get the same training contracts etc that RG graduates with the same marks get. This isn't a science. An RG degree can give you a bit of an advantage of getting your foot in the door but after that there are tons of other factors. Number and quality of mini-pupillages/vacation schemes, other law activities such as mooting, clinics, journals etc. Non-RG graduates can easily have a much better, employable profile than a less active RG graduate. There are so many other factors that ORW's advice that a non-RG degree is not respected and sub-par is simply taking things too far.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexgilder)
    With regards to Maitland I mean the latter. Budding barristers use this database of pupils and juniors so look here, http://www.indx.co.uk/pupilbase/?mod...d=636830303233.
    I'm a "budding barrister" and I didn't find that site too useful. Indeed the chambers at which I now have pupillage was a deep and unwelcoming shade of red when I entered my qualifications.

    For what it's worth, I agree with you that it is not "impossible" to get a good TC/pupillage having attended a non-RG university. I agree with ORW and Hoffmann that degrees from non-RG universities are not as well respected as degrees from leading universities. It may well be that you have succeeded academically *despite* having attended Lincoln, rather than because you attended Lincoln.

    There is also some difficulty in separating two possible causes of the same effect. If few students from, say, Lincoln, get magic circle training contracts, that could indicate that (a) recruiters don't respect degrees from Lincoln; or (b) that recruiters treat all degrees roughly the same, but the applicants from Lincoln tend not to be as good as the applicants from Oxford, taking all parts of the application into account. Most likely some combination of (a) and (b) is the case, and I think the effect of (a) is probably a little stronger than "a bit of an advantage getting your foot in the door". All just my opinion, of course.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geek4ev15)
    I was planning on doing llb Law at university however I've been told that it is highly competitive and in demand by a lot of students who are doing it. There are some people I know who have these law degrees and cannot find work at law firms easily . The other option is to do a conversion course after a literature or history degree, as it would give a variety of qualifications , but is it really worth the time and fees? A joint honours would be good but i don't think there are many with law.

    I have a 2.1 from Surrey and to tell you the truth, it really is very competitive, especially if you want to do high-paid corporate work in London.


    On the other hand, you will probably have more luck with small local firms. I was extremely lucky to get a week's work experience in a local firm in my town which turned into an office assistant job, which after 7 months has turned into a fully funded LPC and TC.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by Forum User)
    The idea that a "first is a first" is some nonsense that is bandied about to make people feel better about decent degrees from mediocre universities.
    I repped you for your post. However can you elaborate on why the above is the case? Is it because the questions set at UCL is more tougher than the one set at BPP? Is it because UCL's marking scheme is more stringent than BPP? There has to be some sort of explanation other than 'UCL being a traditionally reputable uni'.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    I repped you for your post. However can you elaborate on why the above is the case? Is it because the questions set at UCL is more tougher than the one set at BPP? Is it because UCL's marking scheme is more stringent than BPP? There has to be some sort of explanation other than 'UCL being a traditionally reputable uni'.
    All imo of course:

    i) The syllabus will be slightly 'wider' at UCL than at BPP (i.e. there are more topics covered within each module).

    ii) The syllabus will be much 'deeper' at UCL. When a topic is covered it will be covered in more detail, with a wider reading list, and a greater understanding will be expected at UCL than at BPP.

    iii) The exams will be tougher. Where there is a problem question it will not usually consist of a series of fairly obvious short points and there will be more scope for discussion. The essay questions will be less "obvious" and require some kind of thinking on the spot rather than regurgitating a prepared essay. There will probably be more essays than problems at UCL than at BPP.

    iv) The discussion in class will be more involved and more participation will be expected at UCL. Seminars / tutorials at BPP are little more than revision of the lecture plus some extremely simple problem-type scenarios. If you are a good student you will get much more out of the classes at UCL. If you are a good student at BPP then you will be frustrated as the tutor explains some extremely basic proposition for the n-th time.

    I don't think the marking is much less stringent 'as such' at UCL, It is easier to get higher marks at BPP because the questions are easier, but if the same question had been set at UCL, I suspect the marks would be very similar. I can speak with a little authority on that point because I did my LLM at UCL after doing my LLB at BPP. I actually averaged slightly higher on the LLM at UCL (just over 80%) than I did on the LLB at BPP (just over 78%). The LLB mark scheme is roughly the same as the LLM mark scheme.
    Offline

    17
    Forum User
    You share an interesting perspective. But many of my friends who are/were scholars or otherwise from first world international countries currently studying in UK or have since graduated from UK unis told us that the the level of teaching quality in the London unis (UCL, LSE, KCL, Queen Mary, SOAS) and Bristol, Birmingham and Nottingham was shockingly low. For example, my friends had
    • European lecturers teach them UK constitutional law and being European, they did not possess the drive to fully explain the culturally rich history of the UK and simply chose to touch on the surface
    • European lecturers who gave biased lectures that favoured the existence of the European Union when clearly everyone but them knows that the EU is a disaster from conception to construction
    • female lecturers who were clearly embarrassed to discuss about the Sexual Offences Act or crimes within it and chose to gloss over the surface or use synonym phrases that merely compounded the students ability to understand
    • lecturers who were afraid to take questions and always made it a point to make a beeline to the exit as soon as the lecture ends
    • lecturers who took some questions but gave replies that were clearly lacking or chose to sidestep the actual issue contained in the questions
    • lecturers who seemed to have turned for the better towards that time of the term when students had to complete surveys about teaching quality etc and once thats over and done with, the lecturers return to their usual boring, lifeless self.
    • lecturers who do not teach students how to answer exam questions and only mention PEEL two weeks before the actual exams :eek:
    All these points above have led to students doing poorly in their exams or failing it unless they have been forewarned about such pitfalls to avoid. I could go on and on but I'm certain you get my drift.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    Forum User
    You share an interesting perspective. But many of my friends who are/were scholars or otherwise from first world international countries currently studying in UK or have since graduated from UK unis told us that the the level of teaching quality in the London unis (UCL, LSE, KCL, Queen Mary, SOAS) and Bristol, Birmingham and Nottingham was shockingly low. For example, my friends had
    • European lecturers teach them UK constitutional law and being European, they did not possess the drive to fully explain the culturally rich history of the UK and simply chose to touch on the surface
    • European lecturers who gave biased lectures that favoured the existence of the European Union when clearly everyone but them knows that the EU is a disaster from conception to construction
    • female lecturers who were clearly embarrassed to discuss about the Sexual Offences Act or crimes within it and chose to gloss over the surface or use synonym phrases that merely compounded the students ability to understand
    • lecturers who were afraid to take questions and always made it a point to make a beeline to the exit as soon as the lecture ends
    • lecturers who took some questions but gave replies that were clearly lacking or chose to sidestep the actual issue contained in the questions
    • lecturers who seemed to have turned for the better towards that time of the term when students had to complete surveys about teaching quality etc and once thats over and done with, the lecturers return to their usual boring, lifeless self.
    • lecturers who do not teach students how to answer exam questions and only mention PEEL two weeks before the actual exams :eek:
    All these points above have led to students doing poorly in their exams or failing it unless they have been forewarned about such pitfalls to avoid. I could go on and on but I'm certain you get my drift.
    Although I would agree there is talk of some Russell Group unis as seen above of having some poor teaching in places despite their reputation I would not mark these universities (apart from SOAS), as overall bad, especially for Law. The experiences of the people you know could just have been unlucky and experiences are subjective and vary between people. If your post was to suggest BPP and ULaw is better for UG law than the unis you mentioned that is quite a wild suggestion to make. At any uni some lecturers are good, some are downright awful. But in contrast to Forumuser's post who I agree with, I do not agree with your hinted idea that BPP's could be better than Bristol's and the top London unis. Before you shoot me down on that I know people doing Law at top RGs (Warwick & Exeter), and those at ULaw. The course at ULaw and teaching is very low level, even A level standard, as opposed to proper HE levels at Warwick & Exeter. At ULaw it is also easier to get a higher grade, equally demonstrated by Forumuser in their comparison of UCL and BPP.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    Forum User
    You share an interesting perspective. But many of my friends who are/were scholars or otherwise from first world international countries currently studying in UK or have since graduated from UK unis told us that the the level of teaching quality in the London unis (UCL, LSE, KCL, Queen Mary, SOAS) and Bristol, Birmingham and Nottingham was shockingly low. For example, my friends had
    • European lecturers teach them UK constitutional law and being European, they did not possess the drive to fully explain the culturally rich history of the UK and simply chose to touch on the surface
    • European lecturers who gave biased lectures that favoured the existence of the European Union when clearly everyone but them knows that the EU is a disaster from conception to construction
    • female lecturers who were clearly embarrassed to discuss about the Sexual Offences Act or crimes within it and chose to gloss over the surface or use synonym phrases that merely compounded the students ability to understand
    • lecturers who were afraid to take questions and always made it a point to make a beeline to the exit as soon as the lecture ends
    • lecturers who took some questions but gave replies that were clearly lacking or chose to sidestep the actual issue contained in the questions
    • lecturers who seemed to have turned for the better towards that time of the term when students had to complete surveys about teaching quality etc and once thats over and done with, the lecturers return to their usual boring, lifeless self.
    • lecturers who do not teach students how to answer exam questions and only mention PEEL two weeks before the actual exams :eek:
    All these points above have led to students doing poorly in their exams or failing it unless they have been forewarned about such pitfalls to avoid. I could go on and on but I'm certain you get my drift.
    I'm at Bristol and have found teaching absolutely amazing... Your points aren't particularly persuasive. For example, being a European lecturer doesn't mean you can't be passionate about Uk constitutional law - that's a terrible generalisation.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by ORW)
    Although I would agree there is talk of some Russell Group unis as seen above of having some poor teaching in places despite their reputation I would not mark these universities (apart from SOAS), as overall bad, especially for Law. The experiences of the people you know could just have been unlucky and experiences are subjective and vary between people. If your post was to suggest BPP and ULaw is better for UG law than the unis you mentioned that is quite a wild suggestion to make. At any uni some lecturers are good, some are downright awful. But in contrast to Forumuser's post who I agree with, I do not agree with your hinted idea that BPP's could be better than Bristol's and the top London unis. Before you shoot me down on that I know people doing Law at top RGs (Warwick & Exeter), and those at ULaw. The course at ULaw and teaching is very low level, even A level standard, as opposed to proper HE levels at Warwick & Exeter. At ULaw it is also easier to get a higher grade, equally demonstrated by Forumuser in their comparison of UCL and BPP.
    I merely used BPP as an example because Forum User used it to contrast with UCL. Nowhere in my post does it suggest that I agree with his comparison.

    I know nothing about BPP's standard of teaching or anything else apart from the fact that it is a specialist law school. My personal opinion is that there are too many law schools in UK but very few training contracts. This is why thousands of British law graduates have to go down further east into Asia such as Hong Kong, Brunei and Singapore to earn a living as a legal professional.

    There are simply very few legal jobs available in the UK. Like several other things, the British government failed to manage this situation. But this is another topic for another day.

    You have jumped the gun on me unnecessarily. If anything, you should have jumped at Forum User but you won't because he is an established figure here on this forum. So the next best thing is to attack me, a nobody :rolleyes:

    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    I'm at Bristol and have found teaching absolutely amazing... Your points aren't particularly persuasive. For example, being a European lecturer doesn't mean you can't be passionate about Uk constitutional law - that's a terrible generalisation.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Ah, you again. You once said that you would be returning to your home country Greece upon graduation to try and clear up the mess left behind by Tsipras and others. Is this still the case or has it reached a point where its difficult to leave the UK given that you're comfortable with the life here?

    Anyways, my points were not intended to be persuasive. I am merely stating the views of my scholar (high performing students who have to go through stringent interviews before they are given full scholarships by their respective governments to study in the tops UK unis before they return to their home countries and be trained before they take up jobs in the civil service) friends from around the world who have studied law or are studying for it in the UK.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    Anyways, my points were not intended to be persuasive. I am merely stating the views of my scholar (high performing students who have to go through stringent interviews before they are given full scholarships by their respective governments to study in the tops UK unis before they return to their home countries and be trained before they take up jobs in the civil service) friends from around the world who have studied law or are studying for it in the UK.
    Were your points intended to be factual or were they just conjecture on your part? How can you be so confident in asserting this about European lecturers (on Constitutional Law):

    being European, they did not possess the drive to fully explain the culturally rich history of the UK and simply chose to touch on the surface
    This strikes me as a ridiculous conclusion to come to. How does being European exclude one from fully explaining the UK's history?
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    Ah, you again. You once said that you would be returning to your home country Greece upon graduation to try and clear up the mess left behind by Tsipras and others. Is this still the case or has it reached a point where its difficult to leave the UK given that you're comfortable with the life here?

    Anyways, my points were not intended to be persuasive. I am merely stating the views of my scholar (high performing students who have to go through stringent interviews before they are given full scholarships by their respective governments to study in the tops UK unis before they return to their home countries and be trained before they take up jobs in the civil service) friends from around the world who have studied law or are studying for it in the UK.
    You're seriously getting on my nerves repeating that crap. I never said that, and have explained it to you ten times now. Get off your imaginary horse and stop being so invasive.

    Well, the points of your 'scholar' (let's say I accept that) are just subjective, unfounded claims. The one about European lecturers is actually simply idiotic. Nothing more.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by SinsNotTragedies)
    Were your points intended to be factual or were they just conjecture on your part? How can you be so confident in asserting this about European lecturers (on Constitutional Law):

    This strikes me as a ridiculous conclusion to come to. How does being European exclude one from fully explaining the UK's history?
    You
    • haven't even gone to university
    • clearly have no friends from first world international countries
    • have no idea how crazy the workload is at law school especially at the top 'uni of london' colleges
    • will be shocked when you find out you have so little time to grasp legal theories and doctrines
    • will find yourself in moments where your lecturers will not make any sense
    • will be baffled as to how these lecturers ain't really that good
    • will quickly realise that your batch mates will not help u (the less you know the higher the probability of them acing the exams)
    • will feel helpless and you will come to this forum to ask for help
    • will post things here similar to what i've posted
    • will receive replies of similar nature to the one you posted in reply to me above
    • will then realise I was right
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    You're seriously getting on my nerves repeating that crap. I never said that, and have explained it to you ten times now. Get off your imaginary horse and stop being so invasive. Well, the points of your 'scholar' (let's say I accept that) are just subjective, unfounded claims. The one about European lecturers is actually simply idiotic. Nothing more.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    In the past, you have been one of the most 'dirtiest' forum members I've ever seen. Whenever you disagreed with another forum member you would rally up support from your other online friends and take turns to report that forum member. And that poor forum member will then be handed suspensions and then get a permanent ban.

    I saw this happen when you were rejected by the top unis for law and you had to settle for Bristol. Some members had harsh words for Bristol's law school and when they posted their views online, you quickly rallied your online troops to get that poor forum member banned.

    Could you please answer the question once and for all and this time please think before you decide? In the past, you told some members here the following but you have now distanced yourself from that position. Upon graduation from Bristol, will you be returning to Greece your home country to clear up the mess your Prime Minister Tsipiras left behind? Yes or no.

    There is a reason why my friends are government scholars and you are not. If you are asking me to believe your viewpoints over those of these government scholars from efficient, prosperous and safe first world countries who have either graduated from Oxbridge and the London colleges or currently studying there, that is a tall order.

    I studied in an international school. We have a very strong alumni. Our seniors often came back to give a series of talks on
    • the pros and cons of studying in UK
    • the state of affairs in UK
    • efficiency of police force
    • job prospects and so much more.
    One thing many people on this forum needs to learn and learn quick is that there are so many things out there that we don't know and there will always be people out there who know more than us. Once we accept that reality only then can we progress as individuals in terms of gaining knowledge.

    I wish you well in your studies.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    You
    • haven't even gone to university
    • clearly have no friends from first world international countries
    • have no idea how crazy the workload is at law school especially at the top 'uni of london' colleges
    • will be shocked when you find out you have so little time to grasp legal theories and doctrines
    • will find yourself in moments where your lecturers will not make any sense
    • will be baffled as to how these lecturers ain't really that good
    • will quickly realise that your batch mates will not help u (the less you know the higher the probability of them acing the exams)
    • will feel helpless and you will come to this forum to ask for help
    • will post things here similar to what i've posted
    • will receive replies of similar nature to the one you posted in reply to me above
    • will then realise I was right
    Omfg. This made me laugh so much. :rofl:
    Again with your generalisations - oh how funny.
    • Have you?
    • Ermmm, I know people from 'first world international countries' (why does this matter?)
    • Trust me, I know... :facepalm:
    • I will not be shocked, and it is manageable, it isn't impossible. It might be hard but there is such a thing as time management - are you aware of this?
    • You don't know that. If I do find myself confused, then I will research on my own. You don't get spoon-feed at university, just to inform you.
    • You don't even know what lecturers will be teaching me, please, the conjecture is too much.
    • Ermmmm okay and?
    • No I will not. Lmao, there are law students out there that manage to complete a degree without coming to TSR for help. There are far better ways of getting help anyway.
    • No, I will never sink to that level. Lol.
    • No, I will not. Again, lol.
    • No... Just no.
    Are you trying your hand at fortune-telling?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Audrey18)
    You
    • haven't even gone to university
    • clearly have no friends from first world international countries
    • have no idea how crazy the workload is at law school especially at the top 'uni of london' colleges
    • will be shocked when you find out you have so little time to grasp legal theories and doctrines
    • will find yourself in moments where your lecturers will not make any sense
    • will be baffled as to how these lecturers ain't really that good
    • will quickly realise that your batch mates will not help u (the less you know the higher the probability of them acing the exams)
    • will feel helpless and you will come to this forum to ask for help
    • will post things here similar to what i've posted
    • will receive replies of similar nature to the one you posted in reply to me above
    • will then realise I was right


    In the past, you have been one of the most 'dirtiest' forum members I've ever seen. Whenever you disagreed with another forum member you would rally up support from your other online friends and take turns to report that forum member. And that poor forum member will then be handed suspensions and then get a permanent ban.

    I saw this happen when you were rejected by the top unis for law and you had to settle for Bristol. Some members had harsh words for Bristol's law school and when they posted their views online, you quickly rallied your online troops to get that poor forum member banned.

    Could you please answer the question once and for all and this time please think before you decide? In the past, you told some members here the following but you have now distanced yourself from that position. Upon graduation from Bristol, will you be returning to Greece your home country to clear up the mess your Prime Minister Tsipiras left behind? Yes or no.

    There is a reason why my friends are government scholars and you are not. If you are asking me to believe your viewpoints over those of these government scholars from efficient, prosperous and safe first world countries who have either graduated from Oxbridge and the London colleges or currently studying there, that is a tall order.

    I studied in an international school. We have a very strong alumni. Our seniors often came back to give a series of talks on
    • the pros and cons of studying in UK
    • the state of affairs in UK
    • efficiency of police force
    • job prospects and so much more.
    One thing many people on this forum needs to learn and learn quick is that there are so many things out there that we don't know and there will always be people out there who know more than us. Once we accept that reality only then can we progress as individuals in terms of gaining knowledge.

    I wish you well in your studies.
    This is the douchiest and most stuck up reply I've seen in a while.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.