This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Edexcel A-Level FP1 and FP2
- Edexcel A-level further mathematics grade boundaries 2024
- Probability or Numerical Analysis for Second Year?
- Exams in University vs Coursework, Lab work and Assignments
- AQA A level physics module rankings? (Hardest to easiest)
- failed 2 our of 3 of my year 1 exams
- queen mary maths bsc
- How should I pick my university modules?
- Freshers, how's uni going so far for you?
- does anyone else not really enjoy law?
- Psychology
- UCL BASc - Science & Engineering (Major)
- get caught of writing after exam finished
- Changing uni course. Advice needed.
- Getting kicked out of LSE
- What's the 3rd year at Uni like?
- How do you find the quality of the Geography BA (L700)
- How can I get a grade 7+ in GCSE Spanish?
- Why do I keep getting 2.1?
- Durham - Finance BSc
Hardest Module
just wanted to know which options u thought were hardest on the law course.
Originally I found Contract Law the hardest to get my head around. But now I quite enjoy it and don't really find any of the modules harder than another- each module has confusing elements which just take a while to work through until you understand it.
In our January mock test most people didn't do as well in the Criminal Law module as they did in the others so maybe that could be seen as the hardest in terms of exams.
In our January mock test most people didn't do as well in the Criminal Law module as they did in the others so maybe that could be seen as the hardest in terms of exams.
Why are contract/administrative law in the same option? They're not at all similar...
But the hardest module I've done so far is commercial law - although that's been the most enjoyable. I found the most boring module to be administrative law.
I haven't sat the criminal law exam yet, but I have a feeling that's going to be a tough one.
But the hardest module I've done so far is commercial law - although that's been the most enjoyable. I found the most boring module to be administrative law.
I haven't sat the criminal law exam yet, but I have a feeling that's going to be a tough one.
I reckon Constitutional is the hardest.....but i'm only in first year so have only done that, criminal, roman and tort...
Personally, I found Land Law and Trust to be excruciatingly difficult. Though, this may be partly (if not wholly) due to the incoherent and patchy teaching method adopted by my noble institution. Somehow, many many years ago a vengeful course convenor was struck by a bolt of rarefied genius: why not fuse the two subjects together into one single module called "Property" ? And, whilst we are it, why not replace the immensely more productive lecture method with the idyllically advanced, though practically ineffective, interactive/seminar method?
The result: two hours a week of pretentious buffoons asking all sorts of permutations of dreaded "what if" questions, the overly generous seminar leader attempting to answer all of them whilst simultaneously having to fulfil his raison d'etre by asking more pedantic questions himself, and the inexorable impossibility of covering even half the set seminar task. All in all, a prime example of wasteful exercise, something that should have no place at all in very tight university teaching schedules.
The result: two hours a week of pretentious buffoons asking all sorts of permutations of dreaded "what if" questions, the overly generous seminar leader attempting to answer all of them whilst simultaneously having to fulfil his raison d'etre by asking more pedantic questions himself, and the inexorable impossibility of covering even half the set seminar task. All in all, a prime example of wasteful exercise, something that should have no place at all in very tight university teaching schedules.
otnemem
Personally, I found Land Law and Trust to be excruciatingly difficult. Though, this may be partly (if not wholly) due to the incoherent and patchy teaching method adopted by my noble institution. Somehow, many many years ago a vengeful course convenor was struck by a bolt of rarefied genius: why not fuse the two subjects together into one single module called "Property" ? And, whilst we are it, why not replace the immensely more productive lecture method with the idyllically advanced, though practically ineffective, interactive/seminar method?
The result: two hours a week of pretentious buffoons asking all sorts of permutations of dreaded "what if" questions, the overly generous seminar leader attempting to answer all of them whilst simultaneously having to fulfil his raison d'etre by asking more pedantic questions himself, and the inexorable impossibility of covering even half the set seminar task. All in all, a prime example of wasteful exercise, something that should have no place at all in very tight university teaching schedules.
The result: two hours a week of pretentious buffoons asking all sorts of permutations of dreaded "what if" questions, the overly generous seminar leader attempting to answer all of them whilst simultaneously having to fulfil his raison d'etre by asking more pedantic questions himself, and the inexorable impossibility of covering even half the set seminar task. All in all, a prime example of wasteful exercise, something that should have no place at all in very tight university teaching schedules.
Which university was this, if you don't mind me asking?
Not at all, surely those old sods at the faculty won't mind a bit of (somewhat deserved) negative publicity. The place with, by far, the most unique (and probably worst) land/equity course in the country, which, coincidentally also happens to be my university, is UCL. Actually, I did the Property II exams about a week ago, so, for the sake of superstition, I really should limit my lambasting to a minimum.
I don't find the chancery modules to be that bad, probably because I'm interested in that kind of thing. My pet hate is Torts, which I'm revising at the moment - a horrible module which I'm trying to rationalise by viewing it as a kind of merger between property law and criminal law - suffice it to say that it's not working! I find the whole ethos of tort, or at least how its put into practice, quite repulsive.
~Juris~
~Juris~
And yes - the whole seminar format is an issue that seems to be increasingly common in law. At least in yours people have the confidence to ask expansive questions. At my uni, unless the tutor rewards creative thinking (which most of them don't), you are only ever given a useless overview of the basics - something I could get from a text. There is no scope to enter into any critical discussion and if you do the moronic individuals in the group look at you as if you are a weirdo. I look forward to facing some of them in court one day and tying them up in knots.
There's only been three modules where the tutor has really rewarded this kind of thing - Comparative Law, Criminal Law and Constiutional Law and History... all the tutorials in other modules are either taught by deadweight faculty members or farmed out to 'teaching assisstants'.
There's only been three modules where the tutor has really rewarded this kind of thing - Comparative Law, Criminal Law and Constiutional Law and History... all the tutorials in other modules are either taught by deadweight faculty members or farmed out to 'teaching assisstants'.
jurisprudence
I don't find the chancery modules to be that bad, probably because I'm interested in that kind of thing. My pet hate is Torts, which I'm revising at the moment - a horrible module which I'm trying to rationalise by viewing it as a kind of merger between property law and criminal law - suffice it to say that it's not working! I find the whole ethos of tort, or at least how its put into practice, quite repulsive.
~Juris~
~Juris~
Then I'm sure you would consider Woodhouse's inexplicably successful reforms, or Atiyah's ambivalent position on the matter, to be the right way to go for a tort system, i.e. not to have a tort system (well, for the most part anyway).
There is obviously a need for tort in some regard, but so much of tort law is either addressed by other areas of law or else manifestly incompatible with human rights law that it needs to be drastically reformed.
I think that private actions could be minimised, divorcing fault from compensation and things like that, especially in the health-care field (regulation by tort is absurd). Other torts are just out-dated and could be better served by statutory regulation - trespass against the person, nuisance etc. Nothing too radical - all the usual criticisms, but worthy ones I think.
I think that private actions could be minimised, divorcing fault from compensation and things like that, especially in the health-care field (regulation by tort is absurd). Other torts are just out-dated and could be better served by statutory regulation - trespass against the person, nuisance etc. Nothing too radical - all the usual criticisms, but worthy ones I think.
jurisprudence
There is obviously a need for tort in some regard, but so much of tort law is either addressed by other areas of law or else manifestly incompatible with human rights law that it needs to be drastically reformed.
I think that private actions could be minimised, divorcing fault from compensation and things like that, especially in the health-care field (regulation by tort is absurd).
I think that private actions could be minimised, divorcing fault from compensation and things like that, especially in the health-care field (regulation by tort is absurd).
Pretty much along Woodhouse's lines then: regardless of whether anybody was at fault or not, the state will compensate for the victim's losses, provided that they originated from an accident and not from a "naturally occurring" disease. One truly wonders exactly how this system managed to work so well over the past 30 years in New Zealand that all political parties are in full support of it, and don't even dare discuss its abolition.
Atiyah used to think along similar perspectives -- he even participated to the second Woodhouse commission, whose (failed) objective was to spread the same scurrilous gospel to Australia -- but, somehow, after repeatedly thumping his head against his desk somewhere in Oxford's murky basements, he completely changed his mind: let's abolish tort and not replace it with any alternative form of public compensation (apart from a meager "safety net" provided by social security); we'll leave everything to the indisputable fairness of the market forces -- if you are privately insured you get your well-deserved compensation, if not you can wheel your sorry ass around Peckham with your £200 monthly disability cheque and don't you dare complain -- it’s all your fault anyway, you lazy sod. You should have worked harder so that you could afford private insurance, or, alternatively, you should have plaid more lotto, you fool. I mean seriously, even conservative thinking has its boundaries.
Well, I would consider myself fairly left-wing on most issues, but somehow when it comes to law, especially civil topics, my conservative side manifests itself! However, what you say about Atiyah's stance goes a little too far. There should be state compensation, payable out of general taxation, but narrowly awarded and on a fixed scale. There should be no damages to reflect non-pecuniary injury and certainly no punitive damages or damages to 'make an example of the defendant'. Those are actual structural reforms - there are several torts that should be abolished... trespass being a prime candidate.
I have seen Atiyah's book on the library shelf - is it 'Tort Lottery' (or something like that?). When I get a chance i'll certainly take a look at it. After all, I'm still trying to pick a final year dissertation topic...
What I'm currently struggling with is a presentation I have to give at the end of term on defences to negligence, more specifically criticisms of those defences. Its quite a woolly topic, and not one that seems to have much commentary. I've posted in the main forum asking for any help and if you guys can think of anything interesting I'd be much obliged!
~Juris~
I have seen Atiyah's book on the library shelf - is it 'Tort Lottery' (or something like that?). When I get a chance i'll certainly take a look at it. After all, I'm still trying to pick a final year dissertation topic...
What I'm currently struggling with is a presentation I have to give at the end of term on defences to negligence, more specifically criticisms of those defences. Its quite a woolly topic, and not one that seems to have much commentary. I've posted in the main forum asking for any help and if you guys can think of anything interesting I'd be much obliged!
~Juris~
Related discussions
- Edexcel A-Level FP1 and FP2
- Edexcel A-level further mathematics grade boundaries 2024
- Probability or Numerical Analysis for Second Year?
- Exams in University vs Coursework, Lab work and Assignments
- AQA A level physics module rankings? (Hardest to easiest)
- failed 2 our of 3 of my year 1 exams
- queen mary maths bsc
- How should I pick my university modules?
- Freshers, how's uni going so far for you?
- does anyone else not really enjoy law?
- Psychology
- UCL BASc - Science & Engineering (Major)
- get caught of writing after exam finished
- Changing uni course. Advice needed.
- Getting kicked out of LSE
- What's the 3rd year at Uni like?
- How do you find the quality of the Geography BA (L700)
- How can I get a grade 7+ in GCSE Spanish?
- Why do I keep getting 2.1?
- Durham - Finance BSc
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 weeks ago
Where would I have a better chance of getting in for Law? Oxford or Cambridge?Law
3
5
