MrTonySoprano
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
Hi All,

I previously posted this on Careers > Law, but was told to refer to this forum.

Today I received my GDL grade and I am devastated with the result. I only managed to get in the 50s mark for all of the exams I sat (part-time course).

Thankfully, I have the option of retaking them uncapped.

But, I am not sure where I went wrong and I would be so grateful if someone could help me understand how one goes from a pass mark to a commendation?

I honestly feel like breaking down right now and have no where else to go to ask for help.

Any help would be much appreciated!

T
0
reply
RV3112
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
(Original post by MrTonySoprano)
Hi All,

I previously posted this on Careers > Law, but was told to refer to this forum.

Today I received my GDL grade and I am devastated with the result. I only managed to get in the 50s mark for all of the exams I sat (part-time course).

Thankfully, I have the option of retaking them uncapped.

But, I am not sure where I went wrong and I would be so grateful if someone could help me understand how one goes from a pass mark to a commendation?

I honestly feel like breaking down right now and have no where else to go to ask for help.

Any help would be much appreciated!

T
Hi,

Firstly focus on the positives. You passed all the exams first time out. The GDL is in an intense course at the best of times, but especially so, this year. Plus, you have another chance to improve on the grades.

I think that TSR will struggle to provide you with any useful advice. Noone can really say where you went wrong without actually seeing your work/scripts. You might be overlooking issues in a problem question (in which case, practice past papers), you may lack the outside reading required for a high grade in an essay question, you might not be answering the specific question asked (e.g. discussing when you should be critically analysing), you might not be citing enough authority for your arguments, etc. There's dozens of possibilities why. Is it not possible to discuss with your lecturers?
Last edited by RV3112; 1 month ago
0
reply
MrTonySoprano
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#3
Hi RV3112,

Thank you for your response - honestly in need of some guidance.

I've been looking at what went wrong and I can see that I haven't applied the IRAC structure at all. Moreover, the A (application) part of IRAC wasn't applied properly and that's where the bulk of the marks come from.

Do you have any suggestions as to how I could improve my application i.e. applying rules/case law to the facts of the question?

T
0
reply
RV3112
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by MrTonySoprano)
Hi RV3112,

Thank you for your response - honestly in need of some guidance.

I've been looking at what went wrong and I can see that I haven't applied the IRAC structure at all. Moreover, the A (application) part of IRAC wasn't applied properly and that's where the bulk of the marks come from.

Do you have any suggestions as to how I could improve my application i.e. applying rules/case law to the facts of the question?

T
Every problem question will be a mix of legal issues that require resolving. The first step to tackling a PQ is to read the question thoroughly and spot these issues. A brief overview of the issues that need to be resolved will suffice as an introduction.

You then use the IRAC structure to resolve each issue.

Describe the Issue.
State the Rule or Law applicable to that issue - this is simply a summary of the law in this narrow area as it currently stands. The principles are taken from your lecture notes/textbooks. Ensure you cite the appropriate authority.
Apply the law to the facts of your problem question - the application stage is the opportunity for you to demonstrate your legal reasoning (see more below).
Reach a Conclusion

Application Stage

I'm going to keep this example as simple as possible, just to demonstrate the most basic form of legal reasoning.

Our facts are: Joe, a male, paints his rented house a honey colour (#EC9706) as a surprise for his wife on her birthday. His neighbour Mary lives half a mile away and detests the new color. She spends so much of the day in anger over the change that she completely forgets to cook husband John's dinner. A furious John reports to the matter to the police. Joe knew beforehand that his neighbour Mary hates the colour honey, and is virtually certain that she will be annoyed by his decision but he wants to make his wife happy and paints the house regardless. Discuss Joe's potential criminal liability under the Unacceptable House Color Act 2000.

Let's say that a rule exists as follow: The Unacceptable House Colour Act 2000, s.1 states that it is an offence for any male to paint his house orange, intentionally causing annoyance to a neighbour. s.2 of the Act defines 'neighbour' as someone who lives within one mile of the defendant. S.3 of the Act defines 'annoyance' as irritation and distraction from one's conscious thinking. Other terms are not defined in the Act.


The application stage involves applying this law to the facts of our problem. Think of this law as a checklist, breaking it down into the various components that must be satisfied in order for Joe to fall within the rule.

1. Defendant must be a male
2. Defendant must be painting his house
3. House must be painted orange
4. Annoyance must be caused to a neighbour
5. Defendant must intentionally cause this annoyance

Apply this to Joe:

1. Defendant must be a male - The facts specify that Joe is a male.
2. Defendant must be painting his house - Joe does not own the house. He is renting it. Does this make a difference? (Consider the principles of statutory interpretation)
3. House must be painted orange - The house was painted honey (#EC9706). Does this fall under the scope of the Act? (Again consider the principles of statutory interpretation)
4. Annoyance must be caused to a neighbour - Does Mary satisfies the definition of neighbour under s.2? Was annoyance caused to Mary under s.3? The answer seems to be yes in both cases.
5. Defendant must intentionally cause this annoyance - Did Joe intentionally cause Mary annoyance? He had foresight that it was virtually certain that she would be annoyed. (Consider past case law on the meaning of intention).

Once you have completed the application stage, you should then conclude whether Joe's behaviour falls within the rule or not.
2
reply
Pythian
Badges: 14
#5
Report 4 weeks ago
#5
Hello there,

I am very sorry to hear this. I would merely add to the sage words of RV3112 that you should look at every fact in the problem. Sometimes, if you're familiar with the case law you can draw inferences and contrasts. So, it's not just a case of applying the law to the facts - but looking for similarities and inviting the examiner to see other potential arguments that could have been adopted with this fact, or if it was that. Perhaps you are familiar with the problematic jurisprudential issues in the law, and the disputes. The meta-law.

I have been reading the Stoics this summer. I think it's important to bear in mind that failure and falling is a part of life. It's part of what makes us better and helps us grow.

A setback has often cleared the way for greater prosperity. Many things have fallen only to rise to more exalted heights. - Seneca.
1
reply
MrTonySoprano
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#6
Thank you so much RV3112 - I am extremely grateful for your comprehensive response!!! I will also be taking on board Pyhthian's comments - I appreciate it so much!
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (85)
14.05%
I'm not sure (27)
4.46%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (190)
31.4%
I have already dropped out (13)
2.15%
I'm not a current university student (290)
47.93%

Watched Threads

View All