LAW114 Jurisprudence.... (1 Viewer)

[xeuyrawp]

So how is everyone going with juris?

Does anyone do the complete prescribed+supp. readings? or just the prescribed?
The readings are so tedious, Meyerson does an excellent job in her book, but trying to decipher what Fuller or Hart is saying when first reading it is pretty damn confusing.

Did anyone read the whole imaginery trial with the fake judges and that? or read every bit of Dworkin? At times it is very hard to hold your attention to the work before your eyes and mind start wandering off. Right now I am coping with the prescribed readings, but some of the supplementry readings especially with the postmodernism, CLS and CRT are just too long to do.....

Has anyone finished reading the feminist jurisprudence chapter? I am starting to think that Mackinnon is far more than a radical feminist... I guess to her, any objectification in any form, of women is sexual discrimination....

I read them in this order: Meyerson, Prescribed, Supplementary. Frequently, I only read Meyerson, and that's it.

I really don't think it'll be necessary to read all the primary sources unless they feature in the take-home exam. I read all the readings up to week 5 for my critiques, and I'll do something similar for the take-home.

Personally, I find the primary sources impossible to read (you're not alone), and I occasionally give up on one and move on.

 

[Smokin'Squirrel]

I have to admit I havn't done all the readings. I read most of the early ones and I've read the latests stuff on feminism and rights. Although, there's a big gap in the middle. Some of the primary sources are just too difficult to read, sometimes due to the language used and also grammatical or spelling mistakes in copying it.

Did you notice that Hart's interstitial legislator is spelt 'inte(r)sticial'? Those little things make a huge difference and sometimes a commar would be really helpful in a sentance that you find youself reading 6 times to no avail.

Is anyone prepared to reveal their results for the essays?

edit: it seems like this forum has kind of died since they segregated it.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I have to admit I havn't done all the readings. I read most of the early ones and I've read the latests stuff on feminism and rights. Although, there's a big gap in the middle. Some of the primary sources are just too difficult to read, sometimes due to the language used and also grammatical or spelling mistakes in copying it.

Did you notice that Hart's interstitial legislator is spelt 'inte(r)sticial'? Those little things make a huge difference and sometimes a commar would be really helpful in a sentance that you find youself reading 6 times to no avail.

Is anyone prepared to reveal their results for the essays?

edit: it seems like this forum has kind of died since they segregated it.

Er, it's interstitial legislation - and why would the R be confusing when it's in intermediary, internet, inter-state, intermittent, etc?

I was very happy with my mark. But I still hate law.

 

[Smokin'Squirrel]

Ok... interstitial... it was a hurried post.

edit: I just re-read my post and I spelt it correctly the first time. It was spelt wrong when referencing what was in the text.

Did you notice that Hart's interstitial legislator is spelt 'inte(r)sticial'?

Having said that, my point was that these sort of errors are common throughout the primary sources as they have been re-typed for the law114 volumes.

With the less than contemporary nature of the language used, you can't judge the correct spelling of the word based on similar words. eg. intestine doesn't have an r... neither does intestate. This argument is frivolous though. You've missed my point that the lack of correct grammar and spelling exacerbates the difficulty of reading 40+ year old academics writings. Although, I suppose it may have defeated my purpose by spelling interstitial incorrectly.

I was told by my tutor that there was only one HD out of her three classes. I wasn't far off so I'm happy with my result too. I don't think that they were giving marks away.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Ok... interstitial... it was a hurried post.

edit: I just re-read my post and I spelt it correctly the first time. It was spelt wrong when referencing what was in the text.


Having said that, my point was that these sort of errors are common throughout the primary sources as they have been re-typed for the law114 volumes.

With the less than contemporary nature of the language used, you can't judge the correct spelling of the word based on similar words. eg. intestine doesn't have an r... neither does intestate. This argument is frivolous though. You've missed my point that the lack of correct grammar and spelling exacerbates the difficulty of reading 40+ year old academics writings. Although, I suppose it may have defeated my purpose by spelling interstitial incorrectly.

I was told by my tutor that there was only one HD out of her three classes. I wasn't far off so I'm happy with my result too. I don't think that they were giving marks away.

Intestine comes directly from a Latin word for gut (intestii or something), as does intestate; literally from in (no) testati (wills), rather than inter--- (middle of---) which is in interstitial (middle of forms) and inter-state (middle of state). Intestines, intestates, and interstitial are not related stemmically. Let us never mention them in the same sentence ever again.

But yeah, the spelling mistakes annoy the hell out of me. Also what shits me is how they leave out the footnotes, which is not only rude to the original author, but must be some form of plagiarism.

I was actually weirded out by my mark vs comments - 'You write excellently. Your essay was a pleasure to read. 81.' There was one negative comment on the entire thing, and they gave me an 81 :/

 

[Smokin'Squirrel]

Intestines, intestates, and interstitial are not related stemmically.

But dear Watson, when they fail to include the r, it may give the illusion of deriving from the same root word when used in the context of ye old English. I won't pick on your use of 'stemmically'.

I don't think that they were inclined to give full marks. I got 32/40 which equates to an 80 and I got a similar response in respect of comments. That's strange how you got an 81 though (31.4/40).

I suppose if you went to the original text it would be easy to find the references. Although, I thought it was annoying too that they put in the foot note number but fail to cite the footnote. Just be glad they didn't try to make more money out of us by expanding the pages in the volumes... lol.

 

[Tabris]

i got 71, which equates to 28.4/40

My two pieces are based on Hart and Schauer.

Tehy wrote heaps of comments, mostly "reword this", "clarify that" and crossed out several sentences they though it was uneccesary. Aleardo's writing can sometimes be very difficult to read.

Looks like i have to boost the class participation mark to make up for the shortfall in the assignment

 

[xeuyrawp]

Sorry, but I remember everything in terms of total percentages. I can't work with too many numbers. I actually had to go look at the paper to remember what 81% was

I got 32.4 which equates to 81%.

Prof. Meyerson said the weird marks were because she finds it to easier to mark out of 100 and then change that into a percentage of 40. I'd be the same, I'm sure...

I won't pick on your use of 'stemmically'

But you just did!

Sometimes Swedish (stammen) and English (stemically) words gets confused in my head, especially when I've had no sleep or have been day-dreaming out my window.

*still waiting for holidays*

 

[xeuyrawp]

i got 71, which equates to 28.4/40

My two pieces are based on Hart and Schauer.

Tehy wrote heaps of comments, mostly "reword this", "clarify that" and crossed out several sentences they though it was uneccesary. Aleardo's writing can sometimes be very difficult to read.

Looks like i have to boost the class participation mark to make up for the shortfall in the assignment

Seriously, if you consider 71% for that assignment a shortfall, you're doing well for yourself.

 

[Smokin'Squirrel]

Sorry, but I remember everything in terms of total percentages. I can't work with too many numbers. I actually had to go look at the paper to remember what 81% was

I got 32.4 which equates to 81%.

Prof. Meyerson said the weird marks were because she finds it to easier to mark out of 100 and then change that into a percentage of 40. I'd be the same, I'm sure...



But you just did!

Sometimes Swedish (stammen) and English (stemically) words gets confused in my head, especially when I've had no sleep or have been day-dreaming out my window.

*still waiting for holidays*

I still think it's weird to finish with that marking system without full marks. I mean, their not exactly going to give you a final mark of 73.4 when we get the course results. (I would have marked out of 100 and then rounded to the nearest full mark... although, I'm an accouting student so that's normal practice... lol)

But you just did!

Don't you like how subtle I was... (like a herd of elephants... or a penguin with a peg leg...)

 

[xeuyrawp]

I still think it's weird to finish with that marking system without full marks. I mean, their not exactly going to give you a final mark of 73.4 when we get the course results. (I would have marked out of 100 and then rounded to the nearest full mark... although, I'm an accouting student so that's normal practice... lol)

Yeah, I agree. I think it's because there were a lot of students around the same mark-range -- between low 70s and low 80s -- and that made them ensure that there was a big spread.

If they had rounded either way, they would have had too many students pegged on one mark, especially between 80% (32) and 70% (28) range. Only 4 marks difference for 15 whole percents (high Cr - low D) would have been really bad for the bellcurve, I'd say, considering 80-70's got one side and the peak of the bellcurve.

or a penguin with a peg leg...)

I've never heard that before. Poor penguin.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Alternatively, they could have just marked out of 100 and wanted to keep the precision, pwar.

 

[monique66]

Alternatively, they could have just marked out of 100 and wanted to keep the precision, pwar.

Haha!



I don't want the take-home exam Why does it have to be just before exams!

 

[xeuyrawp]

I don't want the take-home exam Why does it have to be just before exams!

Can I be the one to say 'Oh Jesus Christ, I think I'm going to die!' ?