Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by allisandro)
    That's what i mean! A law a level isn't necessary for the law degree. from the university's point of view it's often easier to start everyone from scratch. Therefore it is beneficial from the student to take something like history or english where they learn to study evidence, argue different courses, write essays etc.
    But you do not have to take an A-level relevant to a law degree. You could apply with chemistry, physics and biology and be at no disadvantage.

    Im sure you learn to study evidence, argue and write essays during a law A-level...! and you certainly dont in the above science subjects, and yet they're acceptable...

    All my argument is redundent however, if a law A-level is relatively easy. But listening to Suzy and Lauren, it would appear that it is not so easy! Are the unis thus out of touch...?

    Or is there are fundamental difference between law and economics, that means that an economics A level puts you at no disadvantage to study a degree in economics, whereas a law A-level does (in that it is disregarded), DESPITE neither being compulsory for a law degree...

    Incidentally...whats up with your avatar Ali?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    At ucl they prefer students who do not have a level economics for the L100 degree because the students think they already know the answers when they get there. Not sure if this is true for law at LSE.

    The universities just see that traditional subjects such as chem/bio/physics/maths/french are more difficult then a levels such as law, hence the list containing the a levels that the university feels are easier => less respected.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would think that dissuading students from taking A-level law is more in the interests of the universities or professors rather than students. It's easier to teach those with a clean slate, but this doesn't really aid students.

    In my experience, the students who did A-level law - and had done well - had considerable advantage in the first year (and possibly subsequent years too) as they already knew how the system worked: not just the mechanics of the law, but that of law school. For instance regarding the mechanics, they don't have to waste time redoing the basics like precedent, statutory interpretation, English legal system (also a bit of contract or criminal law) as the understanding is there at a foundational level; the only thing to do is to build upon and amend this knowledge. The same goes for legal analysis methods. Those who were accustomed to anything else at A-level, be it arts-based or science-based subjects, will have to grapple with the all this at university first hand and in a year. The only thing that A-level law students have to bear in mind is to keep an open mind and rid themselves of any misguided preconceptions or bad habits during A-level; these aside, I would definitely say that doing law at A-level gives a large practical advantage. It's a pity that the admissions process largely disfavours those with A-level law.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do most schools offer Law A level? International school's here don't and everything alse is pretty much covered.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by susiemakemeblue)
    Just been reading the thread "What's wrong with new universities?" in general university discussion....

    Apparently Law A-level is on the LSE's list of what they basically consider to be mickey mouse subjects.

    Why??

    It's not. It doesn't belong with media studies, communication studies, sports studies et al...

    It's a proper, academic subject. Surely people can back me up on this? When I was at school and college I was considered to be one of the highest achievers, usually coming top or near the top grades-wise. I did law A-level and found it highly challenging; a truly intellectual subject. I also learned a lot of very useful and highly relevant information about English law, the criminal justice system, and even philosophy.

    The LSE should be ashamed of themselves!
    Most top universities prefer you not to have Law at A-level if you are interested in studying Law at university based on the way they teach it. With many subjects, like Law the teaching at A-level is very different from at University and a lot of the intricacies are ignored. I was told by someone at Cambridge studying Law that the Professors hate it when they are questioned based on what a Law A-level teacher said. They like a clean slate and also they do not like some of the things taught at A-level which for the purpose of an A-level are true but in practice are not (similar to things like GCSE Chemistry where at A-level they tell you that half of what you previously learnt was not technically true).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I've just finsihed my 1st year at KCL. In a conversation with my personal tutor (who is also an admissions tutor) the pros and cons of Law A Level came up. He suggested that as an admissions tutor he was wary of those offering Law A Level because in some cases people who had done the A Level thought that they already 'knew it all' and didn't achieve the grade they were capable of because they gave over simplified answers. He also suggested that those that had done the A Level find it hard to get motivated as they feel as if they are repeating alot of the A Level work.

    What went on to suprise me when talking to my tutor is that he viewed Government and Politics A Level with an equal suspicion as he felt that sometimes people attempt to rely on their A Level knowledge to get them through public law.

    Having done Government and Politics for A level myself I find this particularly ridiculous as especially in the first term I found my pre exisiting knowledge of poltics to be a huge advantage in what many others found to be quite a daunting subject. I can only presume that the majority of those that did Law A Level felt the same.

    Despite the comments of my tutor I presume that in the admissions process not that much weighting is given to whether you did Law or Politics A Level as I know plenty of people that did both subjects. I also know several people at LSE that did Law A Level (one of which also did media studies and IT!!!)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think that students who go to university believing they already know it all do so because of their own bad attitude and superiority complex......not because they have law A-level. Based on that argument, English students should not have English A-level, history students should not have history A-level etc. Admissions tutors who reject a candidate who has law A-level because they think that candidate will act like he or she already knows all the answers are then effectively judging the character and personality of an applicant theyknow very little about, based on an untrue stereotype, rather than assessing them on true merit.

    As for the person who said A-level law teachers may be poor because they don't have law degrees......well I'd like to know where you got your information from. I had three A-level law teachers. Two of them had law degrees, and the third had a history degree and law conversion. One was an ex-barrister and the other two were ex-solicitors. All three were highly competent, dedicated and inspirational teachers. I think they know their stuff.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by susiemakemeblue)
    I think that students who go to university believing they already know it all do so because of their own bad attitude and superiority complex......not because they have law A-level. Based on that argument, English students should not have English A-level, history students should not have history A-level etc. Admissions tutors who reject a candidate who has law A-level because they think that candidate will act like he or she already knows all the answers are then effectively judging the character and personality of an applicant theyknow very little about, based on an untrue stereotype, rather than assessing them on true merit.

    As for the person who said A-level law teachers may be poor because they don't have law degrees......well I'd like to know where you got your information from. I had three A-level law teachers. Two of them had law degrees, and the third had a history degree and law conversion. One was an ex-barrister and the other two were ex-solicitors. All three were highly competent, dedicated and inspirational teachers. I think they know their stuff.
    Apparently you get mislead at A-Level when taking law. It's apparently like GCSE Chemistry and A-Level Chemistry (at GCSE you are told "lies" so-to-speak). I feel it's a little unfair that you inparticular, work your ass off and it's not really acknowledged. I feel for you, and wish you the best of luck in University, because by the sounds of things you are a dedicated hard-worker.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by supervin)
    I would think that dissuading students from taking A-level law is more in the interests of the universities or professors rather than students. It's easier to teach those with a clean slate, but this doesn't really aid students.

    In my experience, the students who did A-level law - and had done well - had considerable advantage in the first year (and possibly subsequent years too) as they already knew how the system worked: not just the mechanics of the law, but that of law school. For instance regarding the mechanics, they don't have to waste time redoing the basics like precedent, statutory interpretation, English legal system (also a bit of contract or criminal law) as the understanding is there at a foundational level; the only thing to do is to build upon and amend this knowledge. The same goes for legal analysis methods. Those who were accustomed to anything else at A-level, be it arts-based or science-based subjects, will have to grapple with the all this at university first hand and in a year. The only thing that A-level law students have to bear in mind is to keep an open mind and rid themselves of any misguided preconceptions or bad habits during A-level; these aside, I would definitely say that doing law at A-level gives a large practical advantage. It's a pity that the admissions process largely disfavours those with A-level law.
    I love you!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lissy)
    I've just finsihed my 1st year at KCL. In a conversation with my personal tutor (who is also an admissions tutor) the pros and cons of Law A Level came up. He suggested that as an admissions tutor he was wary of those offering Law A Level because in some cases people who had done the A Level thought that they already 'knew it all' and didn't achieve the grade they were capable of because they gave over simplified answers. He also suggested that those that had done the A Level find it hard to get motivated as they feel as if they are repeating alot of the A Level work.

    What went on to suprise me when talking to my tutor is that he viewed Government and Politics A Level with an equal suspicion as he felt that sometimes people attempt to rely on their A Level knowledge to get them through public law.

    Having done Government and Politics for A level myself I find this particularly ridiculous as especially in the first term I found my pre exisiting knowledge of poltics to be a huge advantage in what many others found to be quite a daunting subject. I can only presume that the majority of those that did Law A Level felt the same.

    Despite the comments of my tutor I presume that in the admissions process not that much weighting is given to whether you did Law or Politics A Level as I know plenty of people that did both subjects. I also know several people at LSE that did Law A Level (one of which also did media studies and IT!!!)
    Lol... have no idea why KCL gave me an offer - I did Law AND Govt and Politics - oops! x
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Whizz Kid)
    Apparently you get mislead at A-Level when taking law. It's apparently like GCSE Chemistry and A-Level Chemistry (at GCSE you are told "lies" so-to-speak). I feel it's a little unfair that you inparticular, work your ass off and it's not really acknowledged. I feel for you, and wish you the best of luck in University, because by the sounds of things you are a dedicated hard-worker.
    Thank you

    An English admissions tutor at Exeter told me that they have to teach first years to forget everything they learnt at A-level too, as it's done completely differently at degree level. (Which is why they favour the AEA.) The A-level is still an entry requirement though, and they still respect it as an academic discipline. I'm not asking for A-level law to be an entry requirement, but merely that it should get the respect it deserves.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by susiemakemeblue)
    Thank you

    An English admissions tutor at Exeter told me that they have to teach first years to forget everything they learnt at A-level too, as it's done completely differently at degree level. (Which is why they favour the AEA.) The A-level is still an entry requirement though, and they still respect it as an academic discipline. I'm not asking for A-level law to be an entry requirement, but merely that it should get the respect it deserves.
    Out of interest, why do you think law should be respected more than say ICT which is also included in the list.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    To be fair, I have first hand experience of law, and none of ICT.....although I do know someone who teaches it and thinks it's a load of crap. But hey...

    I think it's the fact that law is grouped with subjects such as dance and home ec.... I mean, COME ON!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by susiemakemeblue)
    To be fair, I have first hand experience of law, and none of ICT.....although I do know someone who teaches it and thinks it's a load of crap. But hey...

    I think it's the fact that law is grouped with subjects such as dance and home ec.... I mean, COME ON!
    My A level Law teacher invited one of the Cambridge Directors of Studies in Law who interviewed me last year to come and sit in on some of our lectures (after she had a go at me about taking it at A level). As far as I know she has not replied - but I really wish these prejudiced people would actually come and get first-hand experience of Law A level rather than basing their opinions on what is largely myth.

    As far as I can see, the main arguments proposed in disfavour of Law A level are:

    1. Some of those who teach it are poor or lack the proper qualifications
    2. People who take it think they know it all at Uni
    3. It is different from a Law degree
    4. People who take it are hard to teach because they already have pre-formed opinions

    Regarding (1) - this applies to all A levels, and in no way can it be particularly attributed to Law

    Regarding (2) - I'm sure not everyone who has done Law A level thinks they 'know it all' at Uni - and if one of the reasons for disliking the A level is that it is very different from degree level, then surely this argument is redundant anyway?

    Regarding (3) - Most A levels are different from their degree counterparts. Christ - we wouldn't pay thousands to take the flippin' degrees if they were similar to A levels! Just because an A level is not comparable to a degree subject does not mean that the A level should be avoided; especially when the same admissions tutors speak of a fondness for 'well-rounded' and 'open-minded' students

    Regarding (4) - Perhaps some people who have done Law A level are a bit stuck in their ways. But, surely the top academics who work at the reputable universities which dislike Law A level are good enough to change these pre-formed opinions? People who have done English may have pre-formed ways of writing essays, people who have done Politics may have strong party views - this doesn't mean that they would be a worse student for it. For universities which often rattle on about the importance placed on students developing their own ideas, it seems slightly hypocritical to turn round and say that having some previous legal knowledge is a disadvantage

    Overall, I think the arguments against Law A level are unbelievably weak; and invariably can be applied to many other A levels. It still surprises me that the top academics in the country/world who work at places like LSE are unable to see beyond these stereotypes; hopefully things will change for future applicants.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It may well be academic snobbery i.e. that admissions tutors, who for law degrees will be legal academics, do not ascribe any value to the A-Level. By all accounts it does offer an advantage in certain situations and perhaps in the Oxbridge interview, however such advantages may be offset by the percieved weaknessess of the A-Level course irrespective of how well founded that perception is.

    I suspect the value of the A-Level may depend on the student. If you regard yourself as having the knowledge to breeze through first year then you're unlikely to do well given that as I've said before there is a noticeable 'step-up' between A-Level study generally and most law degrees. Law schools perhaps see lots of students getting below average marks and put this down to A-Level law. Perhaps if students themselves recognised that while the A-Level provided them with a foundation for legal study, it was not enough in its own right and that they should put some effort in when the topics cropped up at university.

    As you'll be taught everything you need to know at university to at least get you into a law firm or chambers, you should regard A-Levels as simply a means to get to where you eventually want to go. A-Level law it seems may hinder you and while WE may regard is having some value, if admissions tutors don't then that should be a big incentive for you to choose another A-Level subject!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I can see where they are coming from. I did GCSE law as part of a gifted and talented scheme and that made the first year of A level very easy.

    I was always told it wasn't a hinderance, it wasn't a help
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Some people say universities view it as a soft 'A' level but I see law as comparable to government and politics and history. They say it's watered down but well der what do you think happens for those studying GCE 'A' level physics who hope to study BSc Physics? :rolleyes:

    'A' level law has helped me in the sense of knowing things regarding law at university other than the academic study to it in the sense of what you will study such as law reports, moots etc.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phonicsdude)
    is there are fundamental difference between law and economics, that means that an economics A level puts you at no disadvantage to study a degree in economics, whereas a law A-level does (in that it is disregarded), DESPITE neither being compulsory for a law degree...
    I thought you needed maths to do an economics degree?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lissy)
    I've just finsihed my 1st year at KCL. In a conversation with my personal tutor (who is also an admissions tutor) the pros and cons of Law A Level came up. He suggested that as an admissions tutor he was wary of those offering Law A Level because in some cases people who had done the A Level thought that they already 'knew it all' and didn't achieve the grade they were capable of because they gave over simplified answers. He also suggested that those that had done the A Level find it hard to get motivated as they feel as if they are repeating alot of the A Level work.

    What went on to suprise me when talking to my tutor is that he viewed Government and Politics A Level with an equal suspicion as he felt that sometimes people attempt to rely on their A Level knowledge to get them through public law.
    Lissy has good info *reps*

    I did both and KCL let me through the door..

    I think Law A level has given me a nice little base to start work upon. I did make it explicitly clear in my Personal Statement that I intended to "build upon the foundations" or something equally sickening in order to eradicate long-held Admission views. If you know the reservations about Law A level - challenge them! Write in your PS it has given you a basis/foundation/taster for what's to come. *Tell them* it's a thoroughly academic and challenging subject - We've all got tongues in our heads.

    Dreama xxx
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i understand that universities may prefer students to have not taken the law a level as this may contradict with their way of teaching, however i do not think that the credability of the course should be that of a 'micky mouse' subject. i have just finished the course and found it stimulating, exciting and very interesting and would disagree with anyone who argued that this course is less intellectual or somehow easier than any other a level.
 
 
 

2,867

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

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.