This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- How are my first year law grades and constitutional law advice please!
- Getting a first average in law
- I need some serious advice
- PPE then law conversion??
- Bar Course
- How to score a magic circle training contract (Non RG uni + poor A Levels)...HELP!
- Work experience for Vacation Schemes at law firm
- Is this a good EPQ topic?
- Two Future Magic Circle Trainees: Ask Us Anything!
- Advice for Oxford BCL
- Has anyone got a training contract with a 2:2?
- Leicester University Law
- Studying Law at University - Ask Me Anything!
- Student finance
- Kings - English law and French law degree
- Cambridge as a transfer student
- Should I study law or do a conversion course after a different degree?
- Edinburgh Law Admissions
- Law Clearing
- Switching from Theology to Law at Cambridge?
Scroll to see replies
Read around, try not to use just the one textbook.
Make sure you understand the topics, go to all your seminars and if you don't understand something then don't be afraid to ask.
Make sure you keep up with the work.
If you have assignments try and do your very best as they are a great way to obtain marks towards your final grade.
And I suppose don't have a life for a couple of months on the run up to exams. If you want to do well you have to put a lot of effort and commitment into it.
All the best.
Make sure you understand the topics, go to all your seminars and if you don't understand something then don't be afraid to ask.
Make sure you keep up with the work.
If you have assignments try and do your very best as they are a great way to obtain marks towards your final grade.
And I suppose don't have a life for a couple of months on the run up to exams. If you want to do well you have to put a lot of effort and commitment into it.
All the best.
Reply 2
Which uni are you doing Law at?
What i've learnt after receiving my Law coursework back, do not waffle, you can't afford to waffle in Law, stick to the point, always relate the Q back to everything, if you quote a case, mention how the result or the case relates to the Q etc, it was my first go at Law ever and it sucked big time 
And reading around did no favours, but i do a Business Law module so it doesn't apply to you, i talked about mistake when i should have talked about frustration, which is not in the course...but the lecturer said 'you read around, good for you' lol.
And reading around did no favours, but i do a Business Law module so it doesn't apply to you, i talked about mistake when i should have talked about frustration, which is not in the course...but the lecturer said 'you read around, good for you' lol.
Reply 6
Purple
Would anyone recommend those Q&A books?
No no no. It isn't GCSEs. This is a degree with no CGP quick guides.
Purple
Would anyone recommend those Q&A books?
We have been given a structure for problem questions but actual essay questions scare me.
We have been given a structure for problem questions but actual essay questions scare me.
If you're stuck on a topic a quick glance at them might help. But I looked at a couple around exam time once, and found that their answers were nothing like essays on the same topics which I'd written myself in terms of structure and content. And seeing as my own approach was getting pretty good marks, I didn't look at them again. I wasn't terribly impressed with the standard either; I'd put most of them at around the high 2.2 or low 2.1 mark.
Reply 8
The problem with the small nutshells/Q&A books and the like isn't that the format is fundamentally bad. The problem is that all the nutshells/Q&A books are absolute rubbish. The ones I saw and attempted to use in my first year had giant omissions, over-simplified when there was no need and were often legally inaccurate. Getting good textbooks is important though, don't stick with rubbish ones that you don't understand or which don't make things at least tolerably clear.
This is my opinion on how to get a first.
1) Get concepts clear in your mind. The people who write rubbish essays/problems are those who just vaguely rant on for a bit about the general issues and general case law pertaining to the question.
These are also people who put quotes in their essays. NEVER use quotes, especially if they come from Lord Denning.
You need to be able to write like this, particularly in problems, also in essays (lets say its a problem where a wife wants to sue her husband under a contract):
X wants to claim for breach of contract. This has four requirements. First, that there be an objectively viewed agreement, Smith v Hughes. This is clearly met. Second, that there be consideration, some random case name here. This is clearly met. Third, that there be intent to create legal relations, Balfour v Balfour. Whether this is met is unclear. There is a presumption in cases concerning family arrangements that there is no such intent, Balfour v Balfour. Although this is a family case, there is evidence here that may displace the presumption: namely that there was writing to give evidence of the agreement, and the nature of the husband's promise appears to show an intent to be legally bound. <insert discussion on whether the courts would be likely to, and whether they should, hold that the presumption is displaced>
The point is, you need to be very clear. You need to be able to write in almost list-format, making your points clear, and in problems the requirements of whatever it is very clear as well. This is also how you need to revise to have a hope in hell of being focused and doing well in essays. Most people don't do well because they employ a scatter-gun approach and just write everything they know on a topic in no particular structure. It HAS to be structured. DONT just rant and cite some cases.
2) Be controversial.
If you are controversial and critical, this is a short-cut to getting a first. Good legal knowledge and citing a load of cases will generally only get you a 2:1 unless your knowledge is absolutely exceptional. You need to put forward opinions on things: that is, you say that the law in this area is wrong, this is an unjust result, or the law in this area is right despite the way in which it has been criticised; and then justify that.
This is where the textbooks are deficient. You NEED to read journal articles. Cite them, engage with what the author says, and use their criticisms/viewpoints to inform your discussion. I don't think its possible to get a first class mark in most subjects only using textbooks: they tend not to cover legal controversies properly.
This is my opinion on how to get a first.
1) Get concepts clear in your mind. The people who write rubbish essays/problems are those who just vaguely rant on for a bit about the general issues and general case law pertaining to the question.
These are also people who put quotes in their essays. NEVER use quotes, especially if they come from Lord Denning.
You need to be able to write like this, particularly in problems, also in essays (lets say its a problem where a wife wants to sue her husband under a contract):
X wants to claim for breach of contract. This has four requirements. First, that there be an objectively viewed agreement, Smith v Hughes. This is clearly met. Second, that there be consideration, some random case name here. This is clearly met. Third, that there be intent to create legal relations, Balfour v Balfour. Whether this is met is unclear. There is a presumption in cases concerning family arrangements that there is no such intent, Balfour v Balfour. Although this is a family case, there is evidence here that may displace the presumption: namely that there was writing to give evidence of the agreement, and the nature of the husband's promise appears to show an intent to be legally bound. <insert discussion on whether the courts would be likely to, and whether they should, hold that the presumption is displaced>
The point is, you need to be very clear. You need to be able to write in almost list-format, making your points clear, and in problems the requirements of whatever it is very clear as well. This is also how you need to revise to have a hope in hell of being focused and doing well in essays. Most people don't do well because they employ a scatter-gun approach and just write everything they know on a topic in no particular structure. It HAS to be structured. DONT just rant and cite some cases.
2) Be controversial.
If you are controversial and critical, this is a short-cut to getting a first. Good legal knowledge and citing a load of cases will generally only get you a 2:1 unless your knowledge is absolutely exceptional. You need to put forward opinions on things: that is, you say that the law in this area is wrong, this is an unjust result, or the law in this area is right despite the way in which it has been criticised; and then justify that.
This is where the textbooks are deficient. You NEED to read journal articles. Cite them, engage with what the author says, and use their criticisms/viewpoints to inform your discussion. I don't think its possible to get a first class mark in most subjects only using textbooks: they tend not to cover legal controversies properly.
Reply 9
I'd agree with jacket, especially his point about journal articles. Generally textbooks are telling you what the law is and only scratch the surface of criticism. On the other hand, articles very rarely describe the law as their object (although a brief description is normally included to aid criticism) but focus on critique. Ultimately, it is critique that gets you the top marks at law. Even on problem question, an ability to critique the law is vital.
I just found that over the years of my degree I eventually got the hang of what was useful to remember for the exam and what was just useful to read as background and not focus on. You learn how to analyse articles, skim read them for the key points and read the key passages in detail, and the same for cases and textbooks etc.
Ultimately, however, the best part of reading articles is that they give you the concepts. When I see a concept, I think about it, rather than the particular scenario in which it is being applied. If you can pick up concepts then generally you can see the criticisms for yourself, and simply use articles and the like to bulk it out. Once you can pretty much predict what an article is going to say before you read it you're doing well. Of course, there will be some intricate details in there you can't stop, but those are all you need to remember. After all, if you worked out the main arguments for yourself you don't need to remember them. They're always in your head.
I just found that over the years of my degree I eventually got the hang of what was useful to remember for the exam and what was just useful to read as background and not focus on. You learn how to analyse articles, skim read them for the key points and read the key passages in detail, and the same for cases and textbooks etc.
Ultimately, however, the best part of reading articles is that they give you the concepts. When I see a concept, I think about it, rather than the particular scenario in which it is being applied. If you can pick up concepts then generally you can see the criticisms for yourself, and simply use articles and the like to bulk it out. Once you can pretty much predict what an article is going to say before you read it you're doing well. Of course, there will be some intricate details in there you can't stop, but those are all you need to remember. After all, if you worked out the main arguments for yourself you don't need to remember them. They're always in your head.
Reply 10
good info here, thanks
I am in my first year and I also am a tad confused! I have recieved two formative pieces of work back from my supervisor over the course. The Contract Law problem question that I thought I had done pretty badly was awarded a 1st, whereas the Public Law essay which I thought was by far the better answer got a mediocre 2:2. The feedback was pretty generic and I am unsure of what they are looking for in the essay question.
I now have an assessed essay to write over the Christmas holidays on remoteness of damages (a topic not covered in lectures), and although I have done a first draft I'm not really sure what they are looking for. Currently, my feeling is that I have too many references; I have cited loads and loads of journals and some cases, and obviously have actually shown relevance/analysis for each item I have cited. Yet, I'm not sure if I should be answering the question in the form; "Professor Burrows opinion is...whereas Lord Scarman in x v y stated...these two opposing opinions highlight the confusion over the point at which losses become too remote for damages" or whether it should be more "my view is that the rules relating to remoteness of damages are very clear...I disagree to an extent with Treitel..." etc. Currently I have adopted the former approach, but the more I think about it, the more I think that the essay wants a personal response with appropriate evidence analysed on both sides of the argument to show my opinion is valid. I don't see how I could have more of a personal response in my essay without removing some of the (what I feel are relevant) articles.
I obviously want to do as well as I can in this essay as it is worth 25% of the contract module, but am somewhat baffled by the whole thing -I understand the topic and concepts, I just don't know the appropriate style of the response!
I now have an assessed essay to write over the Christmas holidays on remoteness of damages (a topic not covered in lectures), and although I have done a first draft I'm not really sure what they are looking for. Currently, my feeling is that I have too many references; I have cited loads and loads of journals and some cases, and obviously have actually shown relevance/analysis for each item I have cited. Yet, I'm not sure if I should be answering the question in the form; "Professor Burrows opinion is...whereas Lord Scarman in x v y stated...these two opposing opinions highlight the confusion over the point at which losses become too remote for damages" or whether it should be more "my view is that the rules relating to remoteness of damages are very clear...I disagree to an extent with Treitel..." etc. Currently I have adopted the former approach, but the more I think about it, the more I think that the essay wants a personal response with appropriate evidence analysed on both sides of the argument to show my opinion is valid. I don't see how I could have more of a personal response in my essay without removing some of the (what I feel are relevant) articles.
I obviously want to do as well as I can in this essay as it is worth 25% of the contract module, but am somewhat baffled by the whole thing -I understand the topic and concepts, I just don't know the appropriate style of the response!
Reply 13
Choosing the right subjects depending on what you are good at definitely helps. For example, some modules are fully exam based, some are coursework based, and some are a mixture. If you hate to write under stress, perhaps a coursework based one is better for you?
Reply 14
iamorgan - you should use a combination. state what various commentators say, then say who you prefer and why. you can't just venture a raft of academic opinion and at the same time you can't just venture your own. the key is to combine the two.
remoteness of damages rules aren't too bad if i remember. well, the principles are well stated but application is a bit dubious lol.
remoteness of damages rules aren't too bad if i remember. well, the principles are well stated but application is a bit dubious lol.
Reply 15
iamorgan
Lol, you're on my course!
yes I am, my topic is mistake, should be finished in a few days,
Reply 16
iamorgan
I am in my first year and I also am a tad confused! I have recieved two formative pieces of work back from my supervisor over the course. The Contract Law problem question that I thought I had done pretty badly was awarded a 1st, whereas the Public Law essay which I thought was by far the better answer got a mediocre 2:2. The feedback was pretty generic and I am unsure of what they are looking for in the essay question.
I now have an assessed essay to write over the Christmas holidays on remoteness of damages (a topic not covered in lectures), and although I have done a first draft I'm not really sure what they are looking for. Currently, my feeling is that I have too many references; I have cited loads and loads of journals and some cases, and obviously have actually shown relevance/analysis for each item I have cited. Yet, I'm not sure if I should be answering the question in the form; "Professor Burrows opinion is...whereas Lord Scarman in x v y stated...these two opposing opinions highlight the confusion over the point at which losses become too remote for damages" or whether it should be more "my view is that the rules relating to remoteness of damages are very clear...I disagree to an extent with Treitel..." etc. Currently I have adopted the former approach, but the more I think about it, the more I think that the essay wants a personal response with appropriate evidence analysed on both sides of the argument to show my opinion is valid. I don't see how I could have more of a personal response in my essay without removing some of the (what I feel are relevant) articles.
I obviously want to do as well as I can in this essay as it is worth 25% of the contract module, but am somewhat baffled by the whole thing -I understand the topic and concepts, I just don't know the appropriate style of the response!
I now have an assessed essay to write over the Christmas holidays on remoteness of damages (a topic not covered in lectures), and although I have done a first draft I'm not really sure what they are looking for. Currently, my feeling is that I have too many references; I have cited loads and loads of journals and some cases, and obviously have actually shown relevance/analysis for each item I have cited. Yet, I'm not sure if I should be answering the question in the form; "Professor Burrows opinion is...whereas Lord Scarman in x v y stated...these two opposing opinions highlight the confusion over the point at which losses become too remote for damages" or whether it should be more "my view is that the rules relating to remoteness of damages are very clear...I disagree to an extent with Treitel..." etc. Currently I have adopted the former approach, but the more I think about it, the more I think that the essay wants a personal response with appropriate evidence analysed on both sides of the argument to show my opinion is valid. I don't see how I could have more of a personal response in my essay without removing some of the (what I feel are relevant) articles.
I obviously want to do as well as I can in this essay as it is worth 25% of the contract module, but am somewhat baffled by the whole thing -I understand the topic and concepts, I just don't know the appropriate style of the response!
It sounds to me like you are approaching this the wrong way round.
When you study a topic for the first time, forget about journal articles. Your absolute priority is to get the law right, so you can write about it in a methodical manner. Your essays need to be law-led not journal/opinion-led: i.e. you state what the law is and state what cases/statute it comes from, then go on to explain any controversy in how the law is applied or controversy over how the law is. This is particularly important in problems: I suspect you got a 2:2 because you got the law wrong, because you weren't methodical in how you approached it or because you made a fairly large omission.
What I'm trying to say is that journal articles are supplementary.
That is, a decent knowledge of the law, which means a basic but clear (i.e. not confused) understanding of the most important cases, which doesn't omit any key points pertaining to the essay/problem, will get you a 2:1. This is absolutely necessary to get a 2:1.
Journal articles are a great way to raise your game and raise your essays up from a 2:1 to a first, which would otherwise only be possible through having a ridiculously encyclopedic knowledge of all the cases. But, they are not substitute for getting the law right and understanding the key cases.
Reply 17
Just a quick question on how you might go about incorporating such critique of the law - I mean, would you include it following the application of the law in a particular problem scenario and then go on to appraise such critique?
Would you include this in the main body of the text, or could you, for example, include such in a footnote?
If in the main body of the text - this could be unpractical. As stated in the above post, generally my answers are obviously filled with the actual implementation of the law - should I be thinking about trying to push this into an essay? I'm thinking about word count avoidance when using footnotes etc really...
Would you include this in the main body of the text, or could you, for example, include such in a footnote?
If in the main body of the text - this could be unpractical. As stated in the above post, generally my answers are obviously filled with the actual implementation of the law - should I be thinking about trying to push this into an essay? I'm thinking about word count avoidance when using footnotes etc really...
Reply 18
jacketpotato
You NEED to read journal articles.
the most important piece of advice so far...
not only do most of them go through the 'problem' but they introduce arguements from other areas of law, and jurisdictions.
use textbooks to get the overview of the subject, journals and commentary to help you really get into the nitty gritty of the subject.
Often the easiest way of finding the important quotes from judges on the subject as well (so you dont have to read every judgement of every case yourself - noting you should read the key cases through -)
i probably spend as much time listening to the lectures and reading the text book now as I do reading them babies...
Reply 19
Bobby T
Just a quick question on how you might go about incorporating such critique of the law - I mean, would you include it following the application of the law in a particular problem scenario and then go on to appraise such critique?
Would you include this in the main body of the text, or could you, for example, include such in a footnote?
If in the main body of the text - this could be unpractical. As stated in the above post, generally my answers are obviously filled with the actual implementation of the law - should I be thinking about trying to push this into an essay? I'm thinking about word count avoidance when using footnotes etc really...
Would you include this in the main body of the text, or could you, for example, include such in a footnote?
If in the main body of the text - this could be unpractical. As stated in the above post, generally my answers are obviously filled with the actual implementation of the law - should I be thinking about trying to push this into an essay? I'm thinking about word count avoidance when using footnotes etc really...
I just mention the author of the idea, the main point he made....footnote the material citation, possibly elaborate on my application of the material a bit.
just remember most of the arguements - within reason - will already be known to the marker. citing the theory or approach by an author will do.
(but this all depends on the complexity of your application of the theory to your point. In general if you need to explain why your application works, you are trying to MAKE it fit, and should probably be part of your main arguement then)
Related discussions
- How are my first year law grades and constitutional law advice please!
- Getting a first average in law
- I need some serious advice
- PPE then law conversion??
- Bar Course
- How to score a magic circle training contract (Non RG uni + poor A Levels)...HELP!
- Work experience for Vacation Schemes at law firm
- Is this a good EPQ topic?
- Two Future Magic Circle Trainees: Ask Us Anything!
- Advice for Oxford BCL
- Has anyone got a training contract with a 2:2?
- Leicester University Law
- Studying Law at University - Ask Me Anything!
- Student finance
- Kings - English law and French law degree
- Cambridge as a transfer student
- Should I study law or do a conversion course after a different degree?
- Edinburgh Law Admissions
- Law Clearing
- Switching from Theology to Law at Cambridge?
Latest
Trending
