Law degrees "useless" (2 Viewers)

[BronwynKate]

Thank you Moonlight, it's time someone stood up for arts.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Thank you Moonlight, it's time someone stood up for arts.

Indeed, there's nothing wrong with the arts. Political Studies falls under the faculty of Arts and it's most certainly not useless, unlike a law degree of course.

And Moonlight Sonata, I didn't think you were posting in here anymore, just couldn't keep away from us lowly maggots eh?

 

[Templar]

Having a university educate people on these matters seems to only cost taxpayers money for little reason. There is no reason for an expensive university course in law

Law isn't actually expensive to teach. It's significantly cheaper than the science degree you're taking, and is less of a burden to taxpayers. In comparison, you doing a science degree only to insult the law faculty with pitiful arguments is a waste of taxpayer money that could have been used on someone more willing to contribute to the society.

 

[zeozizblue]

Wow. My first time on this board. You guys have so much time your hands. 2000+ posts. What do you do with yourself?

May I say that Philosophy is really really really really hard. I'm having a brain explosion.

Who's the guy who keeps saying Law is useless? I say, bollocks. I found my Law courses helped me research my local council noise restriction laws and force my council to force my neighbours to get rid of their 3 horsepower air-con wall unit which hummed non-stop all day and all night like some space station. Hah! No air-con for you, my friend, while I'm around.

What's with Logic 101 here? I like ad hominem attacks. e.g. "John Howard. A short man. A short-sighted man."

(Btw, Michaelis is cool).

 

[turtleface]

Yeah I guess law does make you think, but then so does everything else

I do Accounting and that stuffs your brain up from all the rules and regulations you have to get your head around (though I guess Accounting is really similar to Law anyway)

All the above discussion about uselessness of degrees and professions is totally academic given that they all exist in our society, and Scientists, Accountants and lawyers they are obviously paid for their services.

I'd argue about whether law is cheaper to teach. Although salaries for academics across faculties are the same, law faculties usually provide very high tech, technologically advanced, and up to date libraries and facilities, whilst Science at our uni is stuck with crappy 1800s buildings which are dark, dirty, partly underground, and constantly smell of formaldehyde (not sure if thats how you spell it)

Who's the guy who keeps saying Law is useless? I say, bollocks. I found my Law courses helped me research my local council noise restriction laws and force my council to force my neighbours to get rid of their 3 horsepower air-con wall unit which hummed non-stop all day and all night like some space station. Hah! No air-con for you, my friend, while I'm around.

Thats amazing that you were able to do that, personally even though I spent a semester learning contract law, I still seem to get ripped off by internet companies and their dodgy contracts (e.g. surely if I'm not being provided with a service, and still getting charged, there is a complete failure of consideration) yet you could only contest the legality of their practices with them if you actually specialised in that area of law and knew the ins and outs of it...laws so complex that no way just cause you studied law you'd know what went on in anything besides your area of specialisation. Just like if I was to work as a Technical Accountant, I wouldn't know the first thing about Cost Accounting. I guess this reiterates my previous point that everyone serves their place in society and all are important. we need Corporate Lawyers, Intellectual Property Lawyers, Criminal Lawyers etc. just like we need Scientists, Accountants, Economists, Engineers and Teachers

sorry that was a bit of a convoluted waffle on my part.

 

[erawamai]

Trust me, it is well recognised that the costs of running a law school are much much much less than what is required to run science, engineering and med.

 

[santaslayer]

omg aviation costs a sexy heap

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Trust me, it is well recognised that the costs of running a law school are much much much less than what is required to run science, engineering and med.

But are they more beneficial to the population of the world? That is the question that is constantly being asked. From a law students perspective, of course they are. From what seems to be a perspective of anyone but a law student, the answer is no.

 

[Dellaware]

But are they more beneficial to the population of the world? That is the question that is constantly being asked. From a law students perspective, of course they are. From what seems to be a perspective of anyone but a law student, the answer is no.

I bet you would complain and seek recourse to the law if someone decided to stab you and rape your wife.

If you would prefer to live in a lawless society then I'll accept your view that law and the law students that write it and argue it are useless to society. Until that occurs I think it's pretty obvious to most people that you are few cents short of a dollar.

 

[santaslayer]

But are they more beneficial to the population of the world? That is the question that is constantly being asked. From a law students perspective, of course they are. From what seems to be a perspective of anyone but a law student, the answer is no.

What are you bitter about?

 

[Frigid]

What are you bitter about?

law reject. or maybe got a costs order against him.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

I bet you would complain and seek recourse to the law if someone decided to stab you and rape your wife.

If you would prefer to live in a lawless society then I'll accept your view that law and the law students that write it and argue it are useless to society. Until that occurs I think it's pretty obvious to most people that you are few cents short of a dollar.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Of course I respect the law. Not once have I complained about a society having law, that would be moronic. Law does provide a "folder" if you will, for all the rules of a society to function under, the law is very important. I do however suggest that law students are for the most part (as demonstrated in this thread, and elsehwere) egotistical, self righteous, self indulging snobs who believe for some reason that they're above everyone else at university. There are some cases in which that isn't true, like at the Bob Carr lecture tonight, I met a law student who was friendly and such and didn't reek of the egotism and idiocy that you students seem to display.

The bitterness that I display is due to the fact that for some bizarre reason, the general population believes that law is the best thing that you can do at a university, when most things within law, to me, seem to be simple common sense. I've been through this over the thread, and I certainly won't be repeating myself for a bunch of deluded law students. I suggest you read through what I've said before making such idiotic and wild accusations such as me beleiving that a society can function without rules to govern it.

What I have been saying is that law is a money wasting faculty at all universities, which provides an education that could be taught in to all people for a much cheaper price should it not be done at a university for a number of years. If you wish to become a lawyer, it pays to know a little bit about what you're doing, but I most certainly doubt that requires a 5 year course of reading books when that 5 year course could all be done at home by correspondance.

Not only this, but the law hasn't exactly proven itself to be flawless, like many of you would believe. Then again, nor is science but I don't believe I ever once said science was flawless. Science is based on the future, and learning to use the world for the better of our human race. Law is based on the little parts of life that hold the world together to allow science to operate. However, in 25 years when oil begins to well and truly run out, poverty hits and the world is thrown into chaos, it will not be law that will be able to maintain order, it will only be a scientific breakthrough into a different form of energy that may not occur.

Law will have no real effect on the world in 500 years time. Indeed, progress would be slow without a set of rules to hold us all together, but do you really need an expensive degree to learn the stuff that can be learnt by reading a textbook and not much else? It will be revolutions in science & engineering that will move our world foward in the long run, not law. But that definition, studying law is useless.

There may be a few disjointed arguments in there, but then again, I don't learn great practical skills that law students do

 

[santaslayer]

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Of course I respect the law. Not once have I complained about a society having law, that would be moronic. Law does provide a "folder" if you will, for all the rules of a society to function under, the law is very important. I do however suggest that law students are for the most part (as demonstrated in this thread, and elsehwere) egotistical, self righteous, self indulging snobs who believe for some reason that they're above everyone else at university. There are some cases in which that isn't true, like at the Bob Carr lecture tonight, I met a law student who was friendly and such and didn't reek of the egotism and idiocy that you students seem to display.

The bitterness that I display is due to the fact that for some bizarre reason, the general population believes that law is the best thing that you can do at a university, when most things within law, to me, seem to be simple common sense. I've been through this over the thread, and I certainly won't be repeating myself for a bunch of deluded law students. I suggest you read through what I've said before making such idiotic and wild accusations such as me beleiving that a society can function without rules to govern it.

What I have been saying is that law is a money wasting faculty at all universities, which provides an education that could be taught in to all people for a much cheaper price should it not be done at a university for a number of years. If you wish to become a lawyer, it pays to know a little bit about what you're doing, but I most certainly doubt that requires a 5 year course of reading books when that 5 year course could all be done at home by correspondance.

Not only this, but the law hasn't exactly proven itself to be flawless, like many of you would believe. Then again, nor is science but I don't believe I ever once said science was flawless. Science is based on the future, and learning to use the world for the better of our human race. Law is based on the little parts of life that hold the world together to allow science to operate. However, in 25 years when oil begins to well and truly run out, poverty hits and the world is thrown into chaos, it will not be law that will be able to maintain order, it will only be a scientific breakthrough into a different form of energy that may not occur.

Law will have no real effect on the world in 500 years time. Indeed, progress would be slow without a set of rules to hold us all together, but do you really need an expensive degree to learn the stuff that can be learnt by reading a textbook and not much else? It will be revolutions in science & engineering that will move our world foward in the long run, not law. But that definition, studying law is useless.

There may be a few disjointed arguments in there, but then again, I don't learn great practical skills that law students do

1) That's just your perception on law students as a whole. Have you ever considered the way you treat other people? Surely, you may treat the majority os people with respect, but your biases towards most law students may lead to your distorted perception.

2) If you can pull the good law students from the bad ones then what is the point of your posts? Either approach those who are egotistical or don't talk about it at all. You don't know the law students on BoS personally so what are you judging by?

3) Just because you don't think law is challenging or rewarding doesn't mean others have to share your same point of view. The point of your posts still confuses me?? To some people, law MAY well be the best thing at uni for them. SO? Does it really have anything to do with yourself? Stop trying to control everyone's thoughts.

4) The issue you have about the structure of law courses concerns the university, not us mere students. Law in itself does not take 5 years to complete. I suggest you research more about your chosen area of topic before posting in future. It has also been recognised that a class particapatory structure is well recommended for the study of law. Principles aren't as general as they first appear to be. Correspondonce study is detrimental.

5) Law is not 'little'. It hovers over every facet of our lives. Law is not law without enforcement. I don't get what you are talking about.

6) You seem to have a crystal ball. Law will only be redundant if every member of society avoids actions or omissions that are percieved to be in breach of what was originally law.

7) Your arguments are only disjointed if they are illogical and incomplete, which most of them are. This has nothing to do with being a law student or not. If your arguments are disjointed, it only shows a lack of thought processes, not a lack of great practical skill.

 

[sikeveo]

I dont see how any degree is useless?

 

[Frigid]

i think Nebuchanezzar is entitled to his opinion. i'll be happy to see him win a Nobel Prize or something - don't you love how he reiterates, "but hang on, science is for the betterment of all mankind!! it will solve energy crises, cut pollution, make poverty historyhttp://www.makepovertyhistory.org/ AND rescue innocent kittens aloft trees!! why should all you law kids get the glory?!"

i guess we'll just have to admit defeat to this awesome argument of his (summarised by 'law is basically commonsense, science rocks coz it'll save the future, law students suck coz they think their topshit'). i simply cannot think of flaws in such reasoning.

and what's the most awesome about his argument is that i think he'll stick around for another 500 years to evaluate the uselessness of our degrees

*clapclap for Nebuchanezzar*

[btw, dude, no biggie, I can't argue either. we don't learn great practical and world-saving skills that science students do in lab sessions.]

 

[El Misterio]

What a hilarious thread. Nothing brings on the laughs like a bunch of first-to-third year students telling each other what it's "really like" in various professions (including quoting wildly inaccurate pay figures) and lecturing each other on the social utility of various degrees.

 

[Omnidragon]

I'm sorry if this realisation has shattered your dream. This country is going to be run by lawyers for now and forever. Our politicians, our bureaucrats, the big corporate players running the scenes... somehow they are all closely connected to lawyers or have studied law. Even if they studied commerce, chances are they came across business law. You don't hear them studying the human anatomy. O well... there goes your politicial aspirations. Try harder in HSC in your next reincarnartion.

 

[turtleface]

Try harder in HSC in your next reincarnartion.

oh just come to melb uni where you only need like only 78% first year average to transfer to commerce/law from commerce (I don't know many people who actually got below this average for first year, so theres heaps of law students at melbourne)

in any case straight law is 97% full fee paying and combined law is like 30%

 

[xoa]

I haven't studied any law, but I spent a year in combined science/business. I can't imagine law being totally useless, and it is tough to be accepted into most law programs.

In my opinion, from what I was exposed to in that first year, both the science and business components were close to useless. The science units warehoused hundreds of students in a gigantic lecture theatre while the lecturer recited the material. Watching my lecturer from about 50 metres away was my only real contact with academic staff for most units. But it didn't matter, because the material was so rudimentary anyway. Assessment for science was largely comprised of computer graded multiple choice exams and laboratories which seemed to involve following a recipe more than learning anything, or the scientific processes behind what we were doing. We were told to use the 2B pencil with care when completing exams because if the computer failed to process our paper that was too bad. The post-graduate science students who supervised our laboratories seemed to be visibly depressed. It was clear that most of them were supervisors because they couldn't get work anywhere else.

That's not to say that scientists are useless of course. It's an indictment on the quality of the education given today and not the profession. I know some universities in the southern states have "advanced" science degrees on offer - I wish I could have tried that.

Business was even worse. I wasn't studying an accounting major so I can't speak for that. My major (management) was aimless and much assessment was clearly designed just to help international students with limited English language skills pass. It felt much like highschool. Most tutors were decent considering what they had to work with. But I didn't feel like I was learning anything, or improving my career prospects.

I'm happy with the science/business degrees for one reason though - I was able to get the GPA and rank score (97) necessary to transfer into my current medical imaging major. I can't emphasise how much happier I am now. A few weeks ago I found what I thought was an error in my textbook, so I emailed my professor and she happily emailed me back and she actually tracked me down in the next lecture to chat about it. Three weeks ago the Queensland Director for Gynecological Oncology gave an interesting two hour lecture about the treatment of cancer, and we were able to chat with him. I get the kind of attention from teaching staff that I couldn't have dreamed about before. Laboratories are well equipped and well administered. The laboratory supervisors actually laugh and smile and interact with us. Students engage with each other far more - by the end of our degrees all 70 of us will probably be a very close bunch. And importantly, I have a decent chance at a decent paying job after I leave academia. But in an ideal world, and if it was better respected in Australia, I'd like to have studied pure science rather than a vocational degree.

 

[phrred]

Trust me, it is well recognised that the costs of running a law school are much much much less than what is required to run science, engineering and med.

How?
Im sure they would all cost more to run than law