Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'll be starting law in september, and firmly intend to come away with a 1st degree. I've heard that law is among the subjects with the lowest 1st degree graduates. I was just wondering why that is?

    Obviously there is a lot of simple memorisation, and of course it would be impossible to obtain a 1st without a lot of hard work. But in the end, is it some natural talent for the law that separates them from the rest. I'm kind of confused about how important a role it plays in studying law. Some people tell me innate skills are essential whereas others just say its all down to memorisation and nothing more. Anybody care to enlighten me?:rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Good analytical skills are a must, a lot of questions ask you to "critically analyse" the given statement. It is important to learn cases, but it is equally important to use those cases to support your arguments.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Obviously there is a lot of simple memorisation

    Woah.... that is a very minor factor - the majority is application. Of course remembering facts of cases etc is important (to be honest, you pick these up as you go along). Simply memorising facts, cases et al will really get you nowhere.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raphy87)
    Obviously there is a lot of simple memorisation,
    My bf is doing law and I would say ( from a close look at his notes, textbooks and study style ) that memorisation is almost irrelevant to his course. The skills he needs on a scale of 1 to 10:

    Inherent skills
    Comprehension of complex passages: 9/10
    Seeing the application to new and highly complex scenarios: 8/10
    Analysis: 7/10
    Ability to build and demolish complex arguments: 7/10
    Interest and appreciation for abstraction and linguistic philosophy: 5/10

    Learned skills
    Legal research skills: 7/10
    Writing skills: 3/10
    Memorisation: 1/10
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kaisersalsek)
    Obviously there is a lot of simple memorisation

    Woah.... that is a very minor factor - the majority is application. Of course remembering facts of cases etc is important (to be honest, you pick these up as you go along). Simply memorising facts, cases et al will really get you nowhere.
    I did law A-level and the girl who sat next to me spent hours and hours each week memorising stuff. She knew the ins and outs of every case we studied, the dates of all the relevant acts, the sections, subsections and clauses of everything....

    She didn't get a very good mark. She spent hours on each essay (I spent half an hour max on each one because I knew that's how long we would have in the exam) and was furious that I did better than her every time. Especially seeing as I went to sleep in most of the lessons.

    So if the A-level is anything to go by, memorising stuff helps, but only if you have the ability to apply it.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The major problem with Law at most universities is the quality of the cohort, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of students are really focused. However, this observation also applies to subjects like Economics, which do not have nearly as low first percentages.

    The explanation is that once certain requirements have been fulfilled, Law is a qualitatively assessed subject; there is certainly no single route to a first, and no golden nuggets which assure your mark rests there. I've had most of my work so far at the high 2.1 end, with several firsts and two (low) 2.2 grades. I'd say first of all to remember all the things you learn in school. Answer the question set! Make sure you refer to, but also expand up on critics.

    Problem questions can be trickier; they are certainly more polarised- both of my 2.2s, but also 2 of my firsts, are from problem exercises. I find sub-headings really help. As has already been said, stating the law gains very few marks. It is the application of the law which lifts you through the class range.

    If you want a first, it is essential that you are industrious. I haven't worked as hard as I should this year, the result being I've got quite patchy notes in areas of all subjects. You also need to really spend time thinking about the important issues, and working out your own viewpoints. This is a really helpful technique as it helps to encourage the flow of coherent arguments in exam questions. The other thing of course is revision; and remember that you will not have nearly as long as you did at A2. UCL Law exams, for example, are in the first fortnight of May, and we have coursework to be done over April. It is essential to be well-organised.

    Regarding aiming for a first, I'd be careful. Most people's first year is a time for adapting, and settling into the course. Very few people obtain a first in the 1st year - even at Cambridge it is just around 5%.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by susiemakemeblue)
    I did law A-level and the girl who sat next to me spent hours and hours each week memorising stuff. She knew the ins and outs of every case we studied, the dates of all the relevant acts, the sections, subsections and clauses of everything....

    She didn't get a very good mark. She spent hours on each essay (I spent half an hour max on each one because I knew that's how long we would have in the exam) and was furious that I did better than her every time. Especially seeing as I went to sleep in most of the lessons.

    So if the A-level is anything to go by, memorising stuff helps, but only if you have the ability to apply it.
    No, you cannot go by A-Levels. A-levels are very different from university study. A-levels are inherently memory skills tests. Despite you having this depiction that you have "memorised" much less than the person sat next to you, if you progressed to a degree in Law, you would notice a fundamental difference between the examination systems. Your final statement, however, is true for degree study but as a general rule is false of A-level study. The difference between you and this girl will be academic ability rather than the ways in which you study (which I agree is part of academic ability but you know what I mean)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomcoolinguk)
    Regarding aiming for a first, I'd be careful. Most people's first year is a time for adapting, and settling into the course. Very few people obtain a first in the 1st year - even at Cambridge it is just around 5%.
    Does anyone know a definitive answer as regards to degree classing at universities? I would assume, that it would probably be very unlikely, if not impossible for someone going to a very standard university to obtain a first class degree in Law from a top uni (in the first year I mean) despite all universities using the same marking scheme given by QAA.

    However, it is the case that every university must give 1's, 2i/2ii, 3rd and a few fails. Would I be right to assume that there is a set percentage of people who get a class eg at Cambridge is is around 5% 1:1, 55-60% 2i 25-30% 2ii 5-10% 3/Fail.

    This would mean that obtaining a first class is effectively, coming top of your cohort and since the cohort of the 'top' unis is, inherently better academically (due to the selection process) than standard universities, it would be easier to obtain a better class in a 'standard' university than in 'top' university.

    Please excuse the way I have differentiated between the two, but it would be difficult to make the point otherwise. It would be helpful if someone with knowledge of the system to enlighten us undergradutates and prospective undergraduates.

    Regards
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Here it works on a percentage system and different weight is given to each module; 70% and above = 1st, 60-70% 2:1, 50-60% 2:2, 40-50% 3, under 40% fail.

    Quotas for people who get firsts etc seem a little silly to me. Person A who gains a 2:1 in year X may well be of the same standard of Person B who gains a First in year Y.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by raphy87)
    I'll be starting law in september, and firmly intend to come away with a 1st degree. I've heard that law is among the subjects with the lowest 1st degree graduates. I was just wondering why that is?

    Obviously there is a lot of simple memorisation, and of course it would be impossible to obtain a 1st without a lot of hard work. But in the end, is it some natural talent for the law that separates them from the rest. I'm kind of confused about how important a role it plays in studying law. Some people tell me innate skills are essential whereas others just say its all down to memorisation and nothing more. Anybody care to enlighten me?:rolleyes:
    Memorising stuff, as other posters have pointed out, is not relevant - it is about understanding and applying what you are studying. You must be able to explain and discuss every aspect of the syllabus in order to get a 1:1.

    Its ridiculously hard work, and in my opinion, maybe the reason 1:1s in law tend to be less common is because of personal skills such as organisation, dedication and consistancy - its great that you "firmly intend" to get a 1:1 now, but the test will come when you're away from home for possibly the first time, partying, having fun and sleeping in late. You have to work hard from day 1, its not a subject you can "cram" for, and despite what people might tell you about the first year "not counting" and "you only need 40%" you must attend all your lectures and seminars, because you will learn invaluable ways of studying the law, and get used to the intracacies and indivdual quirks that make law interesting and challenging to study, study as specific legal research skills, how to write your essays in a legalistic style etc. These skills will pay dividends in years 2 and 3, when the workload literally doubles

    Its a really rewarding subject, Im in my final year and still as enthusiastic and interested as I was on my first day

    Any specific queries feel free to PM me x
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kaisersalsek)
    No, you cannot go by A-Levels. A-levels are very different from university study. A-levels are inherently memory skills tests. Despite you having this depiction that you have "memorised" much less than the person sat next to you, if you progressed to a degree in Law, you would notice a fundamental difference between the examination systems. Your final statement, however, is true for degree study but as a general rule is false of A-level study. The difference between you and this girl will be academic ability rather than the ways in which you study (which I agree is part of academic ability but you know what I mean)
    That's weird, because as far as I can see I've largely echoed the same sentiments expressed by people on this thread, including yourself. The only reason you're not taking me seriously is because I dared to mention the words "law A-level". :rolleyes:

    Please stop patronising me. I'm an undergraduate, and well aware that university study is different from A-level study.

    Reading back, you say you agree with my final statement, but not the rest of it. That's even weirder, seeing as my final statement was merely summing up what I said. I wouldn't expect a good law student to completely miss the point like that. I also wouldn't expect an educated, intelligent person to pepper their posts with words used in entirely the wrong context, as you did. I suggest you look up "inherently" and "depiction" and learn what they actually mean and when and how to use them, rather than just guessing.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    i was told that the memory stuff comes easily once you master the analytical, persuading, arguing, skills.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I've had firsts for all my marks so far in the first year, and I am a part-timer. I think the quota thing is crap about the percentage of people who get firsts, as DMU had no people on the table listed on another thread who got a first. I believe it's down to the individual. If you work hard enough and question anything you don't completely comprehend then you will do well.

    I work full time and study part time and therefore have only 1/3 of the teaching the full time students get ... you get what you put into it is my theory - though I am sure people will correct me if they disagree!!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by killiefan)
    I've had firsts for all my marks so far in the first year, and I am a part-timer. I think the quota thing is crap about the percentage of people who get firsts, as DMU had no people on the table listed on another thread who got a first. I believe it's down to the individual. If you work hard enough and question anything you don't completely comprehend then you will do well.

    I work full time and study part time and therefore have only 1/3 of the teaching the full time students get ... you get what you put into it is my theory - though I am sure people will correct me if they disagree!!!
    What if technically, no one in the first year reached the standard of a first class mark, as outlined by QAA in university X. Does this mean that they must not award any first class marks? I think its more to do with the flexibility of the mark scheme in terms of interpretation of the requirements. I cannot accept the argument that all universities in the UK mark at the same standards as this would be catastrophic some universities in terms on retaining pupils.

    However there are certain ways universities can overcome this:

    1. Coursework components are easier to master and attain top marks.
    2. Mid-term examinations allow students to have longer time to prepare for shorter material which will count as towards the degree.
    3. More flexible readings of words such as 'critical' and 'cogent' with respect to the nature of responses in scripts and that of 'very good, sound' or 'excellent' with respect to the extent of the quality of the scripts.
    4. Fewer examinations, or components taken. Eg; many universities follow 3, 4, 4 = 11 subjects or 4, 4, 4, = 12 whereas note Oxbridge are generally 4, 5, 5 = 14 (Cambridge Tripos).

    Regards
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Godmaster)
    However there are certain ways universities can overcome this:

    1. Coursework components are easier to master and attain top marks.
    2. Mid-term examinations allow students to have longer time to prepare for shorter material which will count as towards the degree.
    3. More flexible readings of words such as 'critical' and 'cogent' with respect to the nature of responses in scripts and that of 'very good, sound' or 'excellent' with respect to the extent of the quality of the scripts.
    4. Fewer examinations, or components taken. Eg; many universities follow 3, 4, 4 = 11 subjects or 4, 4, 4, = 12 whereas note Oxbridge are generally 4, 5, 5 = 14 (Cambridge Tripos).

    Regards
    Such a terrible post!

    1. Most people find coursework components harder; easier to get a 2.1, but much tougher to get firsts on- they actually at university have the effect of pulling people down.

    2. Mid term examinations generally result in an increase in expected standards; of the top 10 Nottingham is the only law school to use semester exams, and the number of firsts they get for Law hothers around 2%. By comparison, UCL is 9%.

    3. There is an academic consensus that firsts should be given out only to the definably 'exceptional'.

    4. Oxford students do fewer examinations- 12. Most students do the equivalent of 14- this is not exceptional! Each course at Oxford is substantially larger; they study 3 over 2 terms.

    The real factors which matter are:

    -University expectations; at most universities the encouragement stops to get a good 2.1, you have to self-motivate to get a first. Speaking to friends at Oxbridge, many Oxbridge colleges differ in this respect.
    -Calculation method; many universities average, but some simply take the top grade of 5 exams. At UCL it would be possible to average 65% and still get a first, if you had 5 subjects at 70% and 5 at 60%.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomcoolinguk)
    Such a terrible post!

    1. Most people find coursework components harder; easier to get a 2.1, but much tougher to get firsts on- they actually at university have the effect of pulling people down.

    2. Mid term examinations generally result in an increase in expected standards; of the top 10 Nottingham is the only law school to use semester exams, and the number of firsts they get for Law hothers around 2%. By comparison, UCL is 9%.

    3. There is an academic consensus that firsts should be given out only to the definably 'exceptional'.

    4. Oxford students do fewer examinations- 12. Most students do the equivalent of 14- this is not exceptional! Each course at Oxford is substantially larger; they study 3 over 2 terms.

    The real factors which matter are:

    -University expectations; at most universities the encouragement stops to get a good 2.1, you have to self-motivate to get a first. Speaking to friends at Oxbridge, many Oxbridge colleges differ in this respect.
    -Calculation method; many universities average, but some simply take the top grade of 5 exams. At UCL it would be possible to average 65% and still get a first, if you had 5 subjects at 70% and 5 at 60%.
    Yes I think you will find your post is quite leaning towards the first class mark. You concede that it is easier to gain a 2.1 in coursework modules and a 2.1 mark is the expected class for a person wishing to pursue a legal career in a good law firm/chambers. If you look at the 2.1 mark the words 'critical' and 'cogent' are described...it is this area which I think some universities are far more lenient in with their marking...

    Again your second point is in reference to first class mark results, which would be undeniable harder to attain during mid-term than end of term because the pupil has only spend half the year improving his skills.

    I accept your last point regarding calculations, which seems quite a good point to raise, only I am still uncertain with regards to how classing is done in the first year, if no pupils can reach the 70% . Would this mean no one is given a first?

    My argument is that it is quite unfair to suggest a 2.1 from all universities is the same, because of the different ways in which this 2.1 is awarded and normalised across each university. While a First Class mark is indeed difficult to obtain irrespective of the university I would argue that there is a tendency to use the above examples I have mentioned as ways of making students life easier.

    Finally, with regards to the quantity of examinations, it could be said that one could take double the number of that at Oxbridge and still not cover all the content that is covered at Oxbridge or a top uni. My numerical illustration is evident because I know friends at university X that only take three subjects and 'legal skills' in the first year, and increase to four in the second year whereas at Cambridge we take 4 and increase to 5, so there is both a quantitative and qualitative discrepancy between universities in this respect.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomcoolinguk)
    The real factors which matter are:

    -University expectations; at most universities the encouragement stops to get a good 2.1, you have to self-motivate to get a first. Speaking to friends at Oxbridge, many Oxbridge colleges differ in this respect.
    -Calculation method; many universities average, but some simply take the top grade of 5 exams. At UCL it would be possible to average 65% and still get a first, if you had 5 subjects at 70% and 5 at 60%.
    I agree with this.

    At my university, nobody ever mentions 1:1s, its all about the 2:1 :rolleyes: I have taken it upon myself to push myself for a 1:1, and one less-than-fabulous lecturer actually asked me why I was pushing myself so hard when "you only need 60 to get a 2:1 and you've already got a TC so why bother, relax a bit!" :eek: :confused:
    (Ok I take the point, but what about personal achievement :rolleyes: )

    Our calculation method also hugely affects grades.
    They take an average, and also use a profiling method - there are 32 marks to be taken into account overall, and if 17 of more of these marks are one grade, this is the grade you receive for your degree. This means you could have 16 2:2s and 17 1:1s and so end up with a 1:1 rather than the 2:1 your average would throw out.
    The uni give you the classification that is highest once both calculation methods have been done, although usually it ends up being the same.
    My average is 68.5 but I have just one more 1:1 than 2:1s ... so Im hanging on by the skin of my teeth, results on Friday from semester 1, v scared now!!!!!! :eek:
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Godmaster)
    Yes I think you will find your post is quite leaning towards the first class mark. You concede that it is easier to gain a 2.1 in coursework modules and a 2.1 mark is the expected class for a person wishing to pursue a legal career in a good law firm/chambers. If you look at the 2.1 mark the words 'critical' and 'cogent' are described...it is this area which I think some universities are far more lenient in with their marking...

    Again your second point is in reference to first class mark results, which would be undeniable harder to attain during mid-term than end of term because the pupil has only spend half the year improving his skills.
    The fact is most universities offer ample opportunities for assessed essay courses; and as we have the freedom to choose our universities it is not really for us to complain. Further, most universities (Oxbridge aside) seem to settle at a base line balance, with opportunity for students to then tailor their degree to their preference. It is the prerogative of students to utilise that advantage.

    As I've said before, and I think you have not comprehended, the pre-1992 group of universities moderate one another in such a fashion that there is a parity of standards. Certainly, this must be the case given the widespread consensus in legal circles that a first from say Warwick or Birmingham is superior to a 2.1 from Oxford or Cambridge. This is not the case in all subjects.

    Your argument regarding mid-year exams defeats itself, as it would surely also be harder to get a 2.1, given you've only had half a year to master those skills. The reality, of course, is that this is more than compensated for by having a smaller body of material to learn and having a shorter distance from being taught to being examined.

    (Original post by Godmaster)
    I accept your last point regarding calculations, which seems quite a good point to raise, only I am still uncertain with regards to how classing is done in the first year, if no pupils can reach the 70% . Would this mean no one is given a first?

    My argument is that it is quite unfair to suggest a 2.1 from all universities is the same, because of the different ways in which this 2.1 is awarded and normalised across each university. While a First Class mark is indeed difficult to obtain irrespective of the university I would argue that there is a tendency to use the above examples I have mentioned as ways of making students life easier.
    People can get a first in the first year- I've not said that they can not. At most universities first year exams are on the normal 50/60/70 scale (2.2/2.1/1).

    The fact remains that you have not proved conclusively that the 2.1 is easier to obtain. Essays offer opportunities for more students to obtain 2.1 marks, but not all. Furthermore, no law degree enables a very high proportion of coursework assessment.

    (Original post by Godmaster)
    Finally, with regards to the quantity of examinations, it could be said that one could take double the number of that at Oxbridge and still not cover all the content that is covered at Oxbridge or a top uni. My numerical illustration is evident because I know friends at university X that only take three subjects and 'legal skills' in the first year, and increase to four in the second year whereas at Cambridge we take 4 and increase to 5, so there is both a quantitative and qualitative discrepancy between universities in this respect.
    Yes, but at Cambridge you take Roman Law. And don't fib- everyone I know does the tiniest amount of work for that subject! I think you are being ignorant of what 'legal skills' actually constitutes; UCL used to have such a course and it looks incredibly boring. It requires very thorough knowledge of English Legal System etc. Further, you fail to appreciate that there can be quantitatively greater value to a course. In my final year at UCL I could do 7 courses instead of 5, but as 4 of these would be half papers my workload would- ta da- be the same!!!


    (Original post by Ellewoods)
    The uni give you the classification that is highest once both calculation methods have been done, although usually it ends up being the same.
    My average is 68.5 but I have just one more 1:1 than 2:1s ... so Im hanging on by the skin of my teeth, results on Friday from semester 1, v scared now!!!!!! :eek:
    Good luck- you'll be fine!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomcoolinguk)
    The fact is most universities offer ample opportunities for assessed essay courses; and as we have the freedom to choose our universities it is not really for us to complain. Further, most universities (Oxbridge aside) seem to settle at a base line balance, with opportunity for students to then tailor their degree to their preference. It is the prerogative of students to utilise that advantage.

    As I've said before, and I think you have not comprehended, the pre-1992 group of universities moderate one another in such a fashion that there is a parity of standards. Certainly, this must be the case given the widespread consensus in legal circles that a first from say Warwick or Birmingham is superior to a 2.1 from Oxford or Cambridge. This is not the case in all subjects.

    Your argument regarding mid-year exams defeats itself, as it would surely also be harder to get a 2.1, given you've only had half a year to master those skills. The reality, of course, is that this is more than compensated for by having a smaller body of material to learn and having a shorter distance from being taught to being examined.



    People can get a first in the first year- I've not said that they can not. At most universities first year exams are on the normal 50/60/70 scale (2.2/2.1/1).

    The fact remains that you have not proved conclusively that the 2.1 is easier to obtain. Essays offer opportunities for more students to obtain 2.1 marks, but not all. Furthermore, no law degree enables a very high proportion of coursework assessment.



    Yes, but at Cambridge you take Roman Law. And don't fib- everyone I know does the tiniest amount of work for that subject! I think you are being ignorant of what 'legal skills' actually constitutes; UCL used to have such a course and it looks incredibly boring. It requires very thorough knowledge of English Legal System etc. Further, you fail to appreciate that there can be quantitatively greater value to a course. In my final year at UCL I could do 7 courses instead of 5, but as 4 of these would be half papers my workload would- ta da- be the same!!!
    Yes my point is in the first year if no student reaches 70%, then the university cannot simply award 'no firsts', they will massage the scores to allow for a few firsts...this means that at places like Oxbridge where students are actually marked down in order to maintain a cap in the first two years of classing, students are marked up at some other universities to maintain a sufficient number of people in the 1:1,2:1, 2:2 level. It is not arrogance but a fact that some students at these unis being awarded 2.2's would effectively fail altogether at places like Oxbridge and get kicked out.

    If you honestly believe you have the same workload at UCL as that of an Oxbridge student, good luck to you in believing that...you will discover when you leave uni that this is not entirely the case. They are close but not the same.

    You haven't proved its the same to gain a 2.1 from every university either...If universities provide flexibility for students, that makes them easier as you say to tailor their degree to their needs and therefore easier for them to pick a better style of assessment to which they are better at. In reality, most of the top law firms are far more impressed by the depth and pressure of examination assessments as oppose to students 'manufacturing' part of the assessment process to draw out their strengths.

    With regards to freedom of choice, that point is a very true one but it will be very difficult for a student to argue 'I chose university X over Y which happens to be more coursework assessed than Y, but that was my choice (my life was less stressful) now hold my degree to be the same as that of university X. If university is for your own academic development then irrespective of your university you should do well. However, in the real world, where people want a job, differentiation matters and the name counts. Just like GCSE's did when preselecting applicants for your university, so they will alongside A-levels and your university be used to preselect and I think you'll find the top law firms will only consider AAA/AAB students and a first class degree from uni Y won't be enough to compensate this I'm afraid.

    I apologise for digressing of the main post topic...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Godmaster)
    Yes my point is in the first year if no student reaches 70%, then the university cannot simply award 'no firsts', they will massage the scores to allow for a few firsts...this means that at places like Oxbridge where students are actually marked down in order to maintain a cap in the first two years of classing, students are marked up at some other universities to maintain a sufficient number of people in the 1:1,2:1, 2:2 level. It is not arrogance but a fact that some students at these unis being awarded 2.2's would effectively fail altogether at places like Oxbridge and get kicked out.

    If you honestly believe you have the same workload at UCL as that of an Oxbridge student, good luck to you in believing that...you will discover when you leave uni that this is not entirely the case. They are close but not the same.

    You haven't proved its the same to gain a 2.1 from every university either...If universities provide flexibility for students, that makes them easier as you say to tailor their degree to their needs and therefore easier for them to pick a better style of assessment to which they are better at. In reality, most of the top law firms are far more impressed by the depth and pressure of examination assessments as oppose to students 'manufacturing' part of the assessment process to draw out their strengths.

    With regards to freedom of choice, that point is a very true one but it will be very difficult for a student to argue 'I chose university X over Y which happens to be more coursework assessed than Y, but that was my choice (my life was less stressful) now hold my degree to be the same as that of university X. If university is for your own academic development then irrespective of your university you should do well. However, in the real world, where people want a job, differentiation matters and the name counts. Just like GCSE's did when preselecting applicants for your university, so they will alongside A-levels and your university be used to preselect and I think you'll find the top law firms will only consider AAA/AAB students and a first class degree from uni Y won't be enough to compensate this I'm afraid.

    I apologise for digressing of the main post topic...

    Most of what you say is correct; and I'm not refuting it. It is for individual students to decide whether to tailor their degree towards exams or coursework, although you will normally find that corporate firms favour options which are inherently examined via exam because they are the more 'black letter' topics. I dont think you appreciate that there is no obligation for universities to give firsts- and remember that every first class paper is subject to moderation. A UCL first, a Sheffield first etc must have some relative merit about an Oxbridge 2.1 for Oxford to prefer such candidates for the BCL course. Whilst yes, Oxbridge students do work hard, they also have forums for the development of skills which assist them greatly. It sounds to me like you are struggling/uncertain of your progress. This is perfectly natural, but I do think you need to remember that law firms operate in a real market place just like Oxbridge does. In the same way as I know people who only got into a few public schools who got into Oxbridge, so too will Oxbridge rejects get jobs at the top of their game.

    Furthermore, you ignore completely the interview (which is incredibly ironic) and for law firms this is even more important than at university. There are many people studying Law at Ox/Cam (I'd say a comfortable 40%) with worse grades at least 30% of my year group. But they did not have the right set of skills for Oxbridge. In the same way, an Oxbridge blue with a 2.1 could be pipped by a Bristol 2.1 who has attributes not of much value from an academic perspective.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: February 9, 2006

University open days

  • Southampton Solent University
    All faculties Undergraduate
    Sun, 18 Nov '18
  • University of Bradford
    All faculties Undergraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
  • Buckinghamshire New University
    All Faculties Postgraduate
    Wed, 21 Nov '18
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

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.