LAW114 Jurisprudence.... (3 Viewers)

[xeuyrawp]

If you don't care about being judged, why are you responding to my immature and catty barbs?

That would be like saying 'If you don't care about being judged, why do you argue with a person when noone else is around?' It's pretty self-explanatory, I'm sure you can figure it out.

You thought it was important enough to respond.

Again, I didn't realise that these forums were for important matters only.

I think it was pretty clear that I didn't use 'crime' literally.

Maybe you should be more careful with your use of idioms, then.

I'm sure you are aware of hyperbole as well as metaphor.

Actually, it's not a metaphor.

 

[wheredanton]

That would be like saying 'If you don't care about being judged, why do you argue with a person when noone else is around?' It's pretty self-explanatory, I'm sure you can figure it out.

If thats the case you are equally guilty of being scared about being judged since you keep responding. If you argument is that because I'm arguing with you here with no one around means I'm scared of being judged then perhaps you are correct.

The difference is that I didn't deny it like you did.

Maybe you should be more careful with your use of idioms, then.

Maybe you shouldn't take things that are clearly hyperbole literally. Or perhaps that was more convient for you?

Actually, it's not a metaphor.

Why are you pointing that out as if it's a crime?

'as if' not 'like'

It's a metaphor.

 

[xeuyrawp]

If thats the case you are equally guilty of being scared about being judged since you keep responding.

No, it's because I don't like you, and I think it's fun to playfully argue with you.

If you argument is that because I'm arguing with you here with no one around means I'm scared of being judged then perhaps you are correct.

Nope, how would I know why you're in here. I don't profess to know what you're thinking, and I never said that I do.

Maybe you shouldn't take things that are clearly hyperbole literally.

Do you mean 'Maybe you shouldn't take things literally that are clearly hyperbole', or 'take things that are hyperbole as literal'?

'as if' not 'like'

It's a metaphor.

For someone that doesn't know about basic syntax, I would say that you can't comment on the mechanics of language.

I think you're using the High School definition of metaphor -- you should look up tropes and other subsets of figures of speech in a more authoritative source.

(Edit: May I recommend Richard Lanham's book?)

As much fun as this is, you don't quote my entire messages, so you've already lost by default.

 

[MaryJane]

Woah, so didnt mean to make my comment into an argument. Just saying something which I thought was a legitimate comment. Dont just think you can deal out the crap and not be able to accept any back. Take responsibility for what you say, even if it is in apparent jest.

I didnt say she was a good lecturer (explains why I never listened to ilecture), I'm just saying that just because you dont find her to be a good lecturer doesnt justify your comment about her being deported. I just thought it was a bit extreme. She is an extremely knowledgeable source, as most lecturers are, I'm just asking you not to pass judgement.

And excuse me, I've been a bitch? I saw you once when you called out to *Steve* - not me; you didnt even say anything to me the whole time you were talking to him about your club. So excuse me for not being rude and interrupting your conversation

 

[xeuyrawp]

And excuse me, I've been a bitch? I saw you once when you called out to *Steve*

When you walked past the first time, I actually called out 'Yvy!' -- I assume you say it 'eye - vee'? You looked at me and kept walking....

 

[MaryJane]

The first time? I'm sorry but I dont remember that. I am pretty vague. Plus, you've had a haircut and looked v. different. I only saw you when I was with Steve and you talked about filmsoc.

And yeah, its pronounded e-vet. Literally. How yummy

 

[Tabris]

I am in Aleardo's tute, 2-4 on fridays in E6B325.... I am the only asian guy in thte tute, so it wouldnt be hard to ID me.

 

[xeuyrawp]

The first time? I'm sorry but I dont remember that. I am pretty vague. Plus, you've had a haircut and looked v. different. I only saw you when I was with Steve and you talked about filmsoc.

And yeah, its pronounded e-vet. Literally. How yummy

I yelled ai(eye)-vee... I'll try e-vet next time...

I am in Aleardo's tute, 2-4 on fridays in E6B325.... I am the only asian guy in thte tute, so it wouldnt be hard to ID me.

I'm in Denise's, Thursday at 2 in C5A404 , and I'm the only guy.

Denise is pretty nice, she said that she prefers emails, which is a good sign. I also love South African accents, it makes people sound so intellectual. She was also really straight-forward, which I prefer. She outlined the fact that we would be lost in many lectures, but it would be good in the long run with use of legal philosophy.

 

[MaryJane]

Ha! I have Aleardo for my const tutor. He's quite odd.... Dont know whether I quite trust him with explaining the Australian constitution when he seems preoccupied with the Italian constitution. And everytime someone makes a comment, he kinda shoots them down which goes against the grain but I'm open to it.

Someone walked into our tute late, and Aleardo had written "Ale" on his nametag. And the guy called him ale as in ginger ale, rather than Ali. Quite funny

 

[Tabris]

I am stuck already,

What are the issues in Jurisprudence?

After a few pages in the first article, it gets neck deep into stuff like "social science" and "natural science", empirical tests and veers towards stuff that has now lost me. The questions "why should we obey the law?", can't find any part relating to it in the readings......

The second article, the history is easy to understand, but in terms of answering "what are the origins for australian law", its far too simple... just mainly egnlish customary, common and statute law.....

I hope I aint the only ones having problems..

 

[The Nick]

The Law 205 (Crim Law 1) lecture on Friday by Anne McGuigan had some people wishing they were listening to Archana instead. The reading from notes the whole time, mentioning The Bill and engagement didn't work too well. On the plus side it only went for one hour.

Some of the readings might take a couple of attempts to understand. Juris is great when you get to debating the moral validity of abortion and paying out feminists.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Some of the readings might take a couple of attempts to understand. Juris is great when you get to debating the moral validity of abortion and paying out feminists.

Yay, philosophical debates. You mayaswell just wear a name tag 'I'm Rob, a Catholic' and be done with it. Just saves a lot of time.

 

[MaryJane]

The Nick - Crim is yet another subject in which you *never* need to listen to the ilecture. Even Anne said this herself over and over again. She will post up the transcript of what she reads in her lectures including her final comments like "have a safe and happy holiday"

 

[xeuyrawp]

The Nick - Crim is yet another subject in which you *never* need to listen to the ilecture. Even Anne said this herself over and over again. She will post up the transcript of what she reads in her lectures including her final comments like "have a safe and happy holiday"

That just sucks. Surely there is someone in the world who is motivated and willing to convene that unit.

 

[MaryJane]

She is motivated, she seems to know what she's on about and she's really helpful with the extra material she gives to tutors to give to us students but... yeah, the lectures are just horribly boring. I never went to one (except to watch a movie on the Rodney King trial)...

I guess she is motivated in a way because she at least wrote the transcript...

 

[fluteyourtoot2001]

I have to say that in this case that I agree with Mary Jane.

I had archana as my tutor for juris last year and for some strange reason I feel almost maternal towards her, so when I was reading some of your comments I was a bit like 'umm?!'. But, then I remembered how at first I had hated Archana and how annoyed I was when I first realised that she was my tutor (has anyone else noticed the weired 'ah-hmm' noise she makes everytime she makes a point?)

Anyhow, I absolutely hated jurisprudence and still think that it was the most boring subject that I have and most probably ever will do. I didn't understand most of what was covered, rarely commented in class, and for the life of me can't remember the few things that I did learn. Despite this I (somehow) managed to get a distinction in the subject and I have to say that the reason I did is definetly due to Archana.

So how to pass juris (particularly if Archana is your tutor)

1) One don't bother with the lectures - if you do go don't get freaked if you don't understand all of the content. There are only 3!! lectures that you will ever need to know in detail - the one for your essay and the two your hand in exam will be based on. I-lecture these and write down everything that is said. MaryJane is right, what is being said is actually really informative, just extremely boring and the other 10 lectures aren't really necessary.

2) You only need to say one or two intellegent things every tute to get a credit or distinction grade for class participation. Archana didn't fail anyone (not even the guy who continually made sexist and racist comments and one day fell asleep in class). If in doubt tell her you are intimidated by the rest of the class (I did this once and managed to get a credit for class participation despite the fact I rarely said anything).

3) Ask her specifically how she wants you to lay out your essay. Most of the people doing law are smart and the content isn't the issue rather the lay out. Archana gives great advice on exactly what she wants. More to the point after getting back your essay, ask her about any improvements you can make so that you ace your take home exam.

Whew, long post - hope this helps

P.s. The Nick - I agree completely about crim law. I turned to my friend at one stage during the lecture and said I felt sorry for Anne because half the people had walked out. She said don't feel sorry for her she can't see them (which I found funny as there was no way she could have - I mean did she raise her head once?)

 

[Supra]

I have to say that in this case that I agree with Mary Jane.

I had archana as my tutor for juris last year and for some strange reason I feel almost maternal towards her, so when I was reading some of your comments I was a bit like 'umm?!'. But, then I remembered how at first I had hated Archana and how annoyed I was when I first realised that she was my tutor (has anyone else noticed the weired 'ah-hmm' noise she makes everytime she makes a point?)

Anyhow, I absolutely hated jurisprudence and still think that it was the most boring subject that I have and most probably ever will do. I didn't understand most of what was covered, rarely commented in class, and for the life of me can't remember the few things that I did learn. Despite this I (somehow) managed to get a distinction in the subject and I have to say that the reason I did is definetly due to Archana.

So how to pass juris (particularly if Archana is your tutor)

1) One don't bother with the lectures - if you do go don't get freaked if you don't understand all of the content. There are only 3!! lectures that you will ever need to know in detail - the one for your essay and the two your hand in exam will be based on. I-lecture these and write down everything that is said. MaryJane is right, what is being said is actually really informative, just extremely boring and the other 10 lectures aren't really necessary.

2) You only need to say one or two intellegent things every tute to get a credit or distinction grade for class participation. Archana didn't fail anyone (not even the guy who continually made sexist and racist comments and one day fell asleep in class). If in doubt tell her you are intimidated by the rest of the class (I did this once and managed to get a credit for class participation despite the fact I rarely said anything).

3) Ask her specifically how she wants you to lay out your essay. Most of the people doing law are smart and the content isn't the issue rather the lay out. Archana gives great advice on exactly what she wants. More to the point after getting back your essay, ask her about any improvements you can make so that you ace your take home exam.

Whew, long post - hope this helps

P.s. The Nick - I agree completely about crim law. I turned to my friend at one stage during the lecture and said I felt sorry for Anne because half the people had walked out. She said don't feel sorry for her she can't see them (which I found funny as there was no way she could have - I mean did she raise her head once?)

best. post. ever.

of course it was helpful!

 

[xeuyrawp]

I have to say that in this case that I agree with Mary Jane.

I had archana as my tutor for juris last year and for some strange reason I feel almost maternal towards her, so when I was reading some of your comments I was a bit like 'umm?!'. But, then I remembered how at first I had hated Archana and how annoyed I was when I first realised that she was my tutor (has anyone else noticed the weired 'ah-hmm' noise she makes everytime she makes a point?)

Anyhow, I absolutely hated jurisprudence and still think that it was the most boring subject that I have and most probably ever will do. I didn't understand most of what was covered, rarely commented in class, and for the life of me can't remember the few things that I did learn. Despite this I (somehow) managed to get a distinction in the subject and I have to say that the reason I did is definetly due to Archana.

So how to pass juris (particularly if Archana is your tutor)

1) One don't bother with the lectures - if you do go don't get freaked if you don't understand all of the content. There are only 3!! lectures that you will ever need to know in detail - the one for your essay and the two your hand in exam will be based on. I-lecture these and write down everything that is said. MaryJane is right, what is being said is actually really informative, just extremely boring and the other 10 lectures aren't really necessary.

2) You only need to say one or two intellegent things every tute to get a credit or distinction grade for class participation. Archana didn't fail anyone (not even the guy who continually made sexist and racist comments and one day fell asleep in class). If in doubt tell her you are intimidated by the rest of the class (I did this once and managed to get a credit for class participation despite the fact I rarely said anything).

3) Ask her specifically how she wants you to lay out your essay. Most of the people doing law are smart and the content isn't the issue rather the lay out. Archana gives great advice on exactly what she wants. More to the point after getting back your essay, ask her about any improvements you can make so that you ace your take home exam.

Whew, long post - hope this helps

P.s. The Nick - I agree completely about crim law. I turned to my friend at one stage during the lecture and said I felt sorry for Anne because half the people had walked out. She said don't feel sorry for her she can't see them (which I found funny as there was no way she could have - I mean did she raise her head once?)

So I guess, whilst you seem to like Archana, you disagree that Jurisprudence has an important role? Or are the lecturers just totally uninformative (ie, she's a bad lecturer)?

I mean, either 1. jurisprudence is imporant, her lectures are important,
2. jurisprudence isn't important,
3. jurisprudence is important, her lectures (besides three) are unimportant (bad lecturer).

Anyway, I really can't see how anyone can defend an academic when they, by choice (said Meyerson) take a unit and make the lectures unimportant. If a unit is 'jumped through the hoops' by students simply working the systems, there is something very wrong.

Ideally, lectures should, firstly, draw students in by interest and, secondly, be a mandatory and absolutely necessary part of the unit.

Just my two cents. *shrugs*

 

[fluteyourtoot2001]

So I guess, whilst you seem to like Archana, you disagree that Jurisprudence has an important role? Or are the lecturers just totally uninformative (ie, she's a bad lecturer)?

I mean, either 1. jurisprudence is imporant, her lectures are important,
2. jurisprudence isn't important,
3. jurisprudence is important, her lectures (besides three) are unimportant (bad lecturer).

Anyway, I really can't see how anyone can defend an academic when they, by choice (said Meyerson) take a unit and make the lectures unimportant. If a unit is 'jumped through the hoops' by students simply working the systems, there is something very wrong.

Ideally, lectures should, firstly, draw students in by interest and, secondly, be a mandatory and absolutely necessary part of the unit.

Just my two cents. *shrugs*

Hmm, I understand what your saying and I do kind of understand why Macquarie teaches juris and 104 as the two first year units. I mean, it probably is better to have an understanding of the theoretical nature of law before they can begin learning the substantive aspects of it. (That and the unit is actually quite good at weeding out the people who actually want to do law from the people who 'thought' they might want to do it and why not give it a shot if you know what I mean).

That being said, juris is just a boring, boring subject. I mean, it's extremely hard having the kind of lively discussion you would have about say child pornography (like this week in crim) about Mill's harm principle or Bentham's bloody principles.

I don't really know what kind of person would be interested by juris. For me and a lot of others it was purely a mandatory unit and that's the reason we did it. A bad reason for a unit to be in existence perhaps?

Anyway, my last post wasn't meant to be a critique of the unit or me forcing my opinions of the unit on you. I was just trying to give you some advice to help you pass it (advice you can freely take or ignore as you wish). I was just trying to make the point that even if you don't like juris just continue and find some way to pass as I've found that each semester the law units seem to get more interesting.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Hmm, I understand what your saying and I do kind of understand why Macquarie teaches juris and 104 as the two first year units. I mean, it probably is better to have an understanding of the theoretical nature of law before they can begin learning the substantive aspects of it. (That and the unit is actually quite good at weeding out the people who actually want to do law from the people who 'thought' they might want to do it and why not give it a shot if you know what I mean).

That being said, juris is just a boring, boring subject. I mean, it's extremely hard having the kind of lively discussion you would have about say child pornography (like this week in crim) about Mill's harm principle or Bentham's bloody principles.

I don't really know what kind of person would be interested by juris. For me and a lot of others it was purely a mandatory unit and that's the reason we did it. A bad reason for a unit to be in existence perhaps?

Anyway, my last post wasn't meant to be a critique of the unit or me forcing my opinions of the unit on you. I was just trying to give you some advice to help you pass it (advice you can freely take or ignore as you wish). I was just trying to make the point that even if you don't like juris just continue and find some way to pass as I've found that each semester the law units seem to get more interesting.

Meh, I'm just saying that it's a shame that the unit is almost destroyed, and that they don't make full use of their lecture time.

I think people who would be interested in LAW114 would be people who are interested in PHIL units, particularly the ethics and morality units (132, for example). I'm enjoying the 114 content, as I did the PHIL132 content. Personally, I think the two units really overlap a great deal...

I wasn't saying your advice was valid or invalid, and I chose not to take it. I would probably advocate going to all the lectures, rather than not going. Then again, that's because I live so close, and ilectures aren't a huge advantage over irllectures.

I don't see how you can't have lively discussions about philosophy, I mean ideological beliefs are the centre of philosophical debate. Really, the only let down in tutes is when people bring in really low-level stuff, or just answer with a really vague, unresponsive answers.

Furthermore, ideological beliefs are the easiest thing to mimic in argument form, for example, I could argue that jurisprudence isn't important (a view differing to yours). I doubt you could argue that contacts isn't important. Jurisprudence is supposed to be a second-order enquiry and, I think, any subject that has self-reflexivity at its heart is a good start!

That being said, I still stand by the fact that Archana is, objectively, a poor lecturer.

Edit: I just found transcripts of her lectures. I think I'll just read them.