What's it like to do a law degree?

if you don't mind me asking, which university did you attend? This may sound snobby but I can't imagine that technique working at any of the 'top' universities.

Your post got me thinking...

Is it really true that lower ranked universities (to an extent) are generally lenient compared to 'top' ones in terms of workload? I know that there is a reason why they have a low ranking, just not sure what to make of it.

Depends how you work I think. I know a girl who did Law at Oxford and got a First but didn't go to many lectures. Just worked better by herself.

That's probably true. However, the poster said they did 6 weeks' worth of work in 3 months, which is a different thing.

There has been so much bull**** written in this thread, it's cringe worthy.

I'm currently a masters student, law is no way near the hardest course. It's a fair amount of reading to do, but no more programming than a computer programming course or research for a science degree.

It's very easy to get a 2;2, a fair amount of work for a 2.1 but a lot of work for a first. The gap between upper second and first is huge.

That's probably true. However, the poster said they did 6 weeks' worth of work in 3 months, which is a different thing.

To be honest I did like six weeks of work over three years, think I went to <5% of lectures and tutorials. You just have to bust your balls when it comes to exam time.

Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Lies.

I wasn't lying. I met my current GF whilst studying law, she can attest to the fact. I found that in law, you were more often than not, marked on the verbose use of language whilst simultaneously maintaining a clear argument rather than reading broadly on a topic. Oh, and being opinionated doesn't hurt.

TBH I wish I had have worked harder during my LL.B, I reckon I would have found the degree somewhat more engaging. I really just "cracked it out".

I went on to do an LL.M in Corporate Governance. I found the masters to be much more engaging and less "production line" in nature than the LL.B. Which is to be expected I suppose.

instead of "improves upon" say "ameliorates"

There has been so much bull**** written in this thread, it's cringe worthy.

I'm currently a masters student, law is no way near the hardest course. It's a fair amount of reading to do, but no more programming than a computer programming course or research for a science degree.

It's very easy to get a 2;2, a fair amount of work for a 2.1 but a lot of work for a first. The gap between upper second and first is huge.

I wouldn't call it waffle, but rather it's the use of less common phraseology. Instead of saying "self-evident" say "axiomatic", instead of "improves upon" say "ameliorates". An excuse or reasoning isn't "unconvincing" it's "diaphonous". Stuff like that.

Hmm, I haven't heard anyone suggest that before. To be honest I would have thought it was better to write as clearly as possible, unless you haven't got anything definite to say, in which case it might well be better to obscure that fact with some fancy vocabulary. 'Diaphanous (not diaphonous) doesn't really mean unconvincing anyway, it means 'thin to the point of translucence', like the wing of a moth or fly, for instance.

Yes, in my very limited experience it's true. I go to a pretty low-ranked university and you could probably get a first with about 10-12 hours work a week if you 'worked smart'. That's not to say that more work doesn't reap more rewards because it's always possible to improve your grade somehow even at a lesser uni. I think there are several reasons that certain universities have a low ranking:

1) The quality of the teachers is generally lower. At Oxbridge, LSE, UCL, etc, you will be taught by people doing world-class research in the topic they are teaching you, and they will have written top textbooks on those subjects. At lower ranked unis most of the teachers will have the odd journal article or maybe a less well-regarded book but some might not be active in research at all, or be published in comparatively more lowly journals, etc. Of course that's not always true, and indeed the majority of my teachers so far have been more than competent - but still I suspect the Oxbridge ones are even better.

2) The breadth of teaching is going to be less. If I pick randomly the Cambridge syllabus for Contract Law, and compare it, my university doesn't cover 'undue influence' or 'unconscionability' at all in the Contract module, nor does it cover non-disclosure, except for the mere mention that there is such a thing in the context of a contract of insurance, nor is rectification mentioned at all.

3) The depth of teaching is less. To continue with the contract law example, interpretation is barely covered in the contract law module (but is mentioned in a later module). Remedies are barely mentioned beyond damages. For example 'action for the price' is mentioned solely in the context of one case, White & Carter v McGregor. No mention of it in the more obvious example of s.49 of the Sale of Goods Act.

Thanks for your very detailed, in-depth response to my question. I can
4) Law is presented as a series of black and white propositions. That is, lesser universities may teach law as though you apply a series of tests of universal applicability to the facts and get an objectively right answer, when that is often not the case. Indeed if it was, then few cases would ever get to court - it is not as though the solicitors/counsel for one of the sides are too stupid to apply the correct test.

5) The wider reading you are expected to do may be less. I'm sure at the top universities you cannot get by just reading the text book and a couple of key cases, but you probably can at lesser universities. At my own uni, it is rare to be set a journal article to read, no doubt at better unis it is commonplace. Most students don't read widely voluntarily - in fact I'm sure that several students at lesser unis get to the end of their degree without ever having read a single case, or a journal article that wasn't specifically set.

6) Less work is needed for tutorials / seminars. The preparation may be a few pretty bog-standard questions to test whether you have understood the basics of the area, it is less likely to be something that tests whether you have understood the fine distinctions that are relevant. You are unlikely to be told to write an essay for a tutorial/seminar.

7) The quality of fellow students is lower. If a university accepts students with, say, BBB, then, on average, the ability of those students is going to be lower than those at a university where the entry is AAB, and lower still than Oxbridge. To some extent the quality of your fellow students impacts your own learning experience because it means that more time is spent in tutorials/seminars going over the basic stuff and less time is left for a deeper discussion. The work set also depends on the quality of the students because there is no point setting things they simply won't understand, but that is covered in the earlier points.

8) Class sizes will be larger. I don't know about UCL, LSE but at Oxbridge the tutorials are going to involve a small number of students. I assume not two like in Mathematics, because Law necessarily involves discussion, but I suppose three-five is common. At lower ranked unis you may have tutorials with more than a dozen students in them. Again that means that less time is spent on each individual student, and makes it more likely for particularly dim-witted students to slow the class down for everyone else.

Thanks for your detailed, in-depth response to my question. I appreciate it which uni do you attend?

Hmm, I haven't heard anyone suggest that before. To be honest I would have thought it was better to write as clearly as possible, unless you haven't got anything definite to say, in which case it might well be better to obscure that fact with some fancy vocabulary. 'Diaphanous (not diaphonous) doesn't really mean unconvincing anyway, it means 'thin to the point of translucence', like the wing of a moth or fly, for instance.