Uni law
What a levels should you take for studying law at a russell group university like oxford ? Is psychology good?
Original post by lolqwertyzxc
What a levels should you take for studying law at a russell group university like oxford ? Is psychology good?
There’s no real emphasis on what subjects to take. Obviously essay subjects look better and help in law.
Psychology is okay but is sometimes considered a soft subject
Just pick subjects you will do well in as it’s the grades that count in the end for law
As someone else said, pick subjects which require essay writing. That’s quite broad so pick what you’ll be good at. I would recommend history however, considering different sources and their reliability will be paralleled when reading law
(edited 5 years ago)
When you read law you have to compare sources and judge their reliability, the same is true in history. I'm not sure how I can make than any clearer.
You compare sources all the time at undergraduate, usually in the form of contrasting opinions from different academics. Obviously it’s not the exact same as history but there is a similarity
doesn't matter
take any combination of facilitating subjects
add a STEM subject incase you change your mind about careers
take any combination of facilitating subjects
add a STEM subject incase you change your mind about careers
Yeah I did one or two or fifteen. Maybe I didn’t develop good skills, that might be a real hinderance during my training contract and subsequent career
I'd really love for you to find where I've said that, that would be amazing.
What I've actually said is that during a law degree you'll be confronted with varying interpretations and opinions on matters of law and there is a similarity in history as there are often differing accounts of the same event. In both you can compare the reliability of the sources; the opinion of a 30 year old lecturer at the University of Bolton on CIF contracts is not going to be as reliable as the opinion of Thomas Krebs. In history you would say the opinion of a biased witness is not as reliable as clear video footage.
Sounds like someone's a bit bitter.
What I've actually said is that during a law degree you'll be confronted with varying interpretations and opinions on matters of law and there is a similarity in history as there are often differing accounts of the same event. In both you can compare the reliability of the sources; the opinion of a 30 year old lecturer at the University of Bolton on CIF contracts is not going to be as reliable as the opinion of Thomas Krebs. In history you would say the opinion of a biased witness is not as reliable as clear video footage.
Sounds like someone's a bit bitter.
Original post by Underscore__
I'd really love for you to find where I've said that, that would be amazing.
What I've actually said is that during a law degree you'll be confronted with varying interpretations and opinions on matters of law and there is a similarity in history as there are often differing accounts of the same event. In both you can compare the reliability of the sources; the opinion of a 30 year old lecturer at the University of Bolton on CIF contracts is not going to be as reliable as the opinion of Thomas Krebs. In history you would say the opinion of a biased witness is not as reliable as clear video footage.
Sounds like someone's a bit bitter.
What I've actually said is that during a law degree you'll be confronted with varying interpretations and opinions on matters of law and there is a similarity in history as there are often differing accounts of the same event. In both you can compare the reliability of the sources; the opinion of a 30 year old lecturer at the University of Bolton on CIF contracts is not going to be as reliable as the opinion of Thomas Krebs. In history you would say the opinion of a biased witness is not as reliable as clear video footage.
Sounds like someone's a bit bitter.
I agreed with you in the beginning, but I think the "comparison" is between primary sources of law. Looking at whether particular judicial expositions marry with one another and statute. You lost me when you started talking about the legitimacy of the Bolton lecturer: it does not matter where someone teaches but how they argue and if they provide adequate evidence from the primary sources in support of their argument. Between lecturers: that's not a comparison anyone is going to make nor be expected to make.
It would only be an ignorant undergrad who would favour Krebs' argument just because it was from an Oxford professor. Especially in commercial law where the best academics are scattered around the most random departments you can think of. Also, does Krebs talk about c.i.f. contracts? I have only seen his book review in LMCLQ of Paul Todd's book, but not really seen his name about elsewhere.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Law
- Help with uni choice
- Is it better to study Law LLB in the UK or Australia?
- Law with French Law at Birmingham or Warwick?
- A-Level Choices
- Law- Alevel subjects help
- Law
- english at a RG or law at a non RG
- Stuck on what to do next…
- Access to HE science for Law
- low predicted grades
- Bristol vs Warwick vs Glasgow
- is a law degree as bad as everyone says?
- Any help
- UoB Law / Law with Business admissions help - Urgent
- Law universities for 2025
- With a law and criminology degree how hard will it be to get into commercial law?
- Straight Law or conversion?
- Cambridge Law
- transferring universities
