Cambridge Law Students and Applicants

Alexander. A lot of people don't seem to know her and I'm not surprised considering how bad she is...

Nah, I would actually go through a lot of supervisions saying pretty much nothing. I made notes but I could never get everything done and she couldn't clarify anything that I was confused over.

I know Tortious also swears by Herring. He's less authoritative but maybe more up-to-date

I know that feel bro.

lol I went through one civil supervision having done an hour and a half's work for it in lent. Ffs, if it wasn't so easy to get through supervisions I'd be in a much better position right now.

edit: there's a lot for criminal, but the cases are mostly only like 8 pages long, so it's quite easy to get a good understanding in not much time through just reading cases.

edit 2: I second your comment above, the notes are fantastic.

Ooh, she was supposed to supervise me for IP, until I pointed out to my DoS that I'd swapped IP for Labour Law about 4 months beforehand

You can e-mail lecturers, you know. NP is absolutely lovely (apparently only if she likes you. She liked me though so ) if you want someone and she wrote a textbook. If you know anyone who has JS, he's brilliant (he supervises me this year. Have so much love for his supervising powers) so get them to ask him questions.

If you know all the updates in the law, have you tried looking at Ashworth's book? It's probably a bit out of date now (I think it was written in 2009) but it's very clear and concise. If he's written a new edition, that's even better

I know Tortious also swears by Herring. He's less authoritative but maybe more up-to-date

I hate life.

Regarding the emboldened, do you really think so? I'm currently going through the textbooks and my (very few) notes and then I plan on moving on to cases after getting a decent-ish grasp of the basics.



Emailing lecturers sounds like a quality idea, cheers for that!

Just had a quick flick through Ashworth and it looks so much easier to understand than the other textbooks I've used! I've got Herring and enjoyed using it, but the fact that it was a casebook and was less detailed than other textbooks scared me slightly as I thought that it might not contain enough information.

EDIT: Btw, I've spent the whole day learning homicide and corporate manslaughter seems like one of the most straightforward things. Why would you advise dropping it for revision?

I hate life.

Regarding the emboldened, do you really think so? I'm currently going through the textbooks and my (very few) notes and then I plan on moving on to cases after getting a decent-ish grasp of the basics.

PM me your email address and I'll send you my super-duper Roman Law notes.

Ok chaps, it's time to place my cards on the table. I haven't done any revision over the Easter (yet) and therefore I am in something of a conundrum.

I have a tort mock when I get back and then there's the issue of the 9th supervisions. Taking these into account that leaves me with having to work at a rate of one supervision per day up to the exams (9 hours worth of work and one exam question a day). Basically, the 9th supervisions are going to take a large chunk of time out of revision which I desperately need. Even though I've never been able to revise over long periods of time I am worried that with the amount of material I may have to resort fo cramming.

I am more than open to any suggestions on how to best organise my time from those who are undoubtedly more organised than I.

HELP MEH!

Any possibility of taking advantage of this gracious offer, Caesar?

Sorry to but in here with a random question, but I noticed that you were talking about criminal law text books. I'm not a Cambridge Law undergrad, but I'm doing some study of Criminal Law to see whether I might be interested in taking a GDL (I studied something else at Cam). I've been using Smith and Hogan and I'm finding it too heavy and confusing. I've looked at the Herring on amazon preview and the language seems to be simpler. Is the Ashworth simpler again?

Ok chaps, it's time to place my cards on the table. I haven't done any revision over the Easter (yet) and therefore I am in something of a conundrum.

I have a tort mock when I get back and then there's the issue of the 9th supervisions. Taking these into account that leaves me with having to work at a rate of one supervision per day up to the exams (9 hours worth of work and one exam question a day). Basically, the 9th supervisions are going to take a large chunk of time out of revision which I desperately need. Even though I've never been able to revise over long periods of time I am worried that with the amount of material I may have to resort fo cramming.

I am more than open to any suggestions on how to best organise my time from those who are undoubtedly more organised than I.

HELP MEH!

Firstly, ask yourself whether you want to do the last supervision in the exam. If you're following the same order I had, you've got:

Civil: Delicts?
Consti: Freedom of Assembly or something
Crim: Property offences: handling, criminal damage and something else along those lines...
Tort: Defamation.

For what it's worth, I'd keep delicts for Civil as it's the easiest topic. Consti, the freedoms are generally nice, easy questions but if you've already got other topics you'd prefer to do, don't keep it. Consti's nice and discrete like that. Criminal, you can get by without property offences in too much detail. Drop defamation.

Anyhow, once you've decided, work accordingly. If you're going to keep the topic, do in-depth reading now and nail a good set of notes as this will stick in your head. If you're going to drop it, I'd say do little bits in the evening - say 2 hours or so in the evening - and revise in the day. Just do it in outline.

Yeah Ashworth is more of a hybrid of law and sociology of law and it's a good choice. You won't be doing that kind of analysis on the GDL though, it will be very much memorising black letter law, more like Smith and Hogan.

Thank you! Don't suppose you could recommend a simpler counterpart to Smith and Hogan? Apologies again for ransacking your thread.

Yep you're right on all counts apart from tort, we did defamation supervision 8! Our supervisor said that people lost a lot of marks in tort last year because they simply failed to recognise when something was a defamation issue. Ah well, I don't intend to revise it heavily to be honest.

How much detail is enough detail with the property offences do you think?

Do you think that revising one supervision a day isn't going to let me cover enough? Starting to panic a bit now, I just can't work at home (thus the reason I'm going back to Cam early)!

On consti, and I'm taking some of this stuff directly from what my supervisor said to us:

You need to do sovereignty, and that includes the HRA supervision and the EU one, at least including the factortames and thoburn etc, and the rule of law supervision is very useful as it can to a limited extent mix with sovereignty, the rule of law being Dicey's second principle and all that, and there having been suggestions from e.g. Jowell that the Rule of Law as a principle is coming to displace sovereignty. These you need. Then, as per geth: separation of powers is non-essential, you need only a vague idea of conventions unless you want to do a question specifically on it, you don't really need to read the articles on whether we should have a written constitution from sup1 since you can answer those questions with the rest of the stuff, though it would be useful... judicial review might be useful to a limited extent with sovereignty questions, but the theory of it is non essential (the substance of it is also non-essential, but I hear it comes up always as a problem question, so might be useful.) It might be useful to know the stuff about judicial deference in judicial review, to allow assessment of the changes to the law made by the HRA (ss. 6,7)...

Anything else I said would just be repeating what geth told me, but I think I have quite a good grasp of the layout of the consti course, so anyway there's my $0.02.

And fwiw I think I'm going to drop everything except for obligations and an outline of property for civil.

So basically your supervisor is saying that, for Consti, it's only essential to have a detailed knowledge of the theoretical arguments surrounding sovereignty/rule of law etc? That doesn't seem like enough to me . If it is then great because that's probably my favourite part of the course.

I like property for civil but yeah screw sources and persons!

So basically your supervisor is saying that, for Consti, it's only essential to have a detailed knowledge of the theoretical arguments surrounding sovereignty/rule of law etc? That doesn't seem like enough to me . If it is then great because that's probably my favourite part of the course.

I like property for civil but yeah screw sources and persons!