I couldn't help but notice this, and the fact you have taken it upon yourself to become the great crusader for the DipLaw in this thread.Jonathan A said:The course is more respectable among the profession than university degrees.
I'm not quite sure about my view on the producing better lawyers bit.. I'm sure there's arguments both ways, I haven't really thought about it. But yeah, it is more competitive nowadays.erawamai said:It's a lot more competitive. Some might say we produce better lawyers these days.
We produce better lawyers because we don't only get taught blackletter/chalk + board law. We get to learn stuff about the socioeconomic reasonings as a background to what we learn technically, thus allowing lawyers to be more sympathetic and stuff...BillytheFIsh said:I'm not quite sure about my view on the producing better lawyers bit.. I'm sure there's arguments both ways, I haven't really thought about it. But yeah, it is more competitive nowadays.
My point was in response to the comments above, about whether top lawyers have top UAIs.
I agree.Iron said:The HSC is still geared towards memorising and regurgitating -and hey, that suited me. People who can do this can get high UAIs, but law is sadly a different barrel of kettles.
"Blackletter/chalk+board law" ... What do you mean? When did you study law at other institutions? What gives you the authority to compare the teaching methods of your uni against any other? How do YOU know the way law is taught at UoW is any different to the way it is taught at USyd or UNSW or Macq or UTS etc etc etc???santaslayer said:We produce better lawyers because we don't only get taught blackletter/chalk + board law. We get to learn stuff about the socioeconomic reasonings as a background to what we learn technically, thus allowing lawyers to be more sympathetic and stuff...
It was even in the SMH...
I think it's a load of shit though........I don't wanna hear someone's life story...
um what?santaslayer said:I
I can honestly say that I did not deserve the UAI I got. (even though it still wasn't too crash hot )
Ok buddy you need to remove that defensive little stick from your backside and stop jumping to conclusions (because after all, good lawyers don't jump to conclusions ).ManlyChief said:"Blackletter/chalk+board law" ... What do you mean? When did you study law at other institutions? What gives you the authority to compare the teaching methods of your uni against any other? How do YOU know the way law is taught at UoW is any different to the way it is taught at USyd or UNSW or Macq or UTS etc etc etc???
The learning of what you have called "socioeconomic reasonings" is common throughout all law schools - it's nothing special nor unique to UoW ...
As for the "I know it's true because it was in the SMH" I know you really didn't mean it to come out like that because, after all, if we took as true (or even objective and independent) what we read in the newspapers, we wouldn't be very good lawyers, would we????
Geez I feel like Im the translator in this thread for people's hostile misunderstandings....erawamai said:um what?
.......
My comment about law schools putting out better lawyers today has nothing to do with the UAI. But rather the broader range of subjects that law students are required to do today plus the greater emphasis on teaching and better assessment.Ms 12 said:EDIT: Re-reading over the comments concerned I was right--Santa's comment was in response to the person who said we produce better lawyers nowadays because of the high UAI requirements to even be admitted into a law degree. Santa was arguing that we (as in society collectively) are producing better lawyers because law schools now teach not only what the law says, but how it operates in society.
That I may have misunderstood the context of the post saddens me, and if that is the case, I apologise.Ms 12 said:I believe Santa was referring the teaching of law in general when he made the comments about theory, in a diploma v degree sense....not once in any of his comments in this thread has he singled at UOW and said it has the best law school.
However if I am mistaken and Santa was referring to UOW specifically, he is conveying what he has read in a newspaper--no he has not attended another law school (just as you have not), he is using knowledge which has been put to him. There is no reason to get so goddam tetchy.
All it really took was 'Santa, they teach us the theoretical stuff too here at Viscount Shagnasty University'--your defensiveness and disregard for what he was actually trying to get at is not impressive.
EDIT: Re-reading over the comments concerned I was right--Santa's comment was in response to the person who said we produce better lawyers nowadays because of the high UAI requirements to even be admitted into a law degree. Santa was arguing that we (as in society collectively) are producing better lawyers because law schools now teach not only what the law says, but how it operates in society.
Gasp! You left unsw law for usyd law? *Faints*ManlyChief said:I have experienced teaching in other law schools, having done my first year of law at UNSW and having attended some law classes at the University of British Columbia while on exchange in Vancouver.
I think both are tops. UNSW has its charm, and so does USyd. I just feel better at USyd - there's not really any objective test for the change. That is why I know the bitchiness between the unis is all a bit silly, reallyerawamai said:Gasp! You left unsw law for usyd law? *Faints*
What teachers did you have in first year at unsw? Did part of the reason for chancging have to do with the lack of anicent history subjects in the arts faculty at unsw? Or were there too many com/law people at unsw?ManlyChief said:I think both are tops. UNSW has its charm, and so does USyd. I just feel better at USyd - there's not really any objective test for the change. That is why I know the bitchiness between the unis is all a bit silly, really
The differences in the (modern) history options was a little factor, but not decisive. The student body wasn't really a problem either. This sounds so irrational, but it was, generally, the "vibe". Teaching was fine, too.erawamai said:What teachers did you have in first year at unsw? Did part of the reason for chancging have to do with the lack of anicent history subjects in the arts faculty at unsw? Or were there too many com/law people at unsw?
Stop projecting your own life onto ours, you sexless trampMoonlightSonata said:Hmm the air is pretty hostile in here
must be the sexual tension
Yeah, that's correct. Thank you Ms 12.Ms 12 said:Santa was arguing that we (as in society collectively) are producing better lawyers because law schools now teach not only what the law says, but how it operates in society.
Thank you again.Ms 12 said:Geez I feel like Im the translator in this thread for people's hostile misunderstandings....
"I didn't deserve the UAI I got" = "My UAI suggests I worked a lot harder than I actually did"
Pretty simple.
Yep. LoLz.Ms 12 said:It wasn't you it was BillyTheFish
Santa got attacked by the other guy for posting a message that agrees with just what you said
Simply put, the teaching of pure legal technicalities without the consideration of social and economical constraints in society. (not just social and eco...there are other factors).ManlyChief said:Blackletter/chalk+board law" ... What do you mean?
That's true too.pwaryuex said:Stop projecting your own life onto ours, you sexless tramp
Thou cullionly flap-mouthed malcontent!PwarYuex said:Stop projecting your own life onto ours, you sexless tramp