Session 3 (Summer School) (1 Viewer)

[andyfg88]

For all those who are enrolled or have previously completed a unit at summer school (especially LAW ones):

• how intensive is it?
• What are the assessments like? Exams (open/closed book) or Assignments? Is there more than one or is it just one big one?
• How much time do they usually give you between teaching the unit and giving you assessments?

I've just enrolled in LAW317. This is my first summer school unit and I was advised that it's pretty full-on but no details of assessment structure or time frames were provided...

Thanks all

 

[Ritz1024]

Good luck, haven't done summer school before. It's tempting tho, since this year cost like normal unit. But going overseas > summer school.

 

[misericordia]

hey,
if shayne is teaching the unit its likely to be assessed through class participation (may include presentation), an essay and a take home exam because its been like that for all the units i had with her (including property and equity) and when i asked her about assessment structure of a different unit that she is convening during this summer she pretty much said the same thing. but if you want to know the correct information you might want to e-mail her.

 

[andyfg88]

hey,
if shayne is teaching the unit its likely to be assessed through class participation (may include presentation), an essay and a take home exam because its been like that for all the units i had with her (including property and equity) and when i asked her about assessment structure of a different unit that she is convening during this summer she pretty much said the same thing. but if you want to know the correct information you might want to e-mail her.

Thanks for your reply!

I actually did email Shayne asking if she could tell me anything - she is the current academic advisor. She told me that Peter Radan was the one who would be convening the unit so she couldn't offer any assistance. Although, she did suggest that I email him and ask.

So I did... he basically said I had to wait till he emailed the unit outline around which he said he would do this friday.

I'm hoping there are no sit-in exams, I can handle all the rest. I hate exams.

Is Shayne any good by the way as a lecturer? Also how did you find Law 316/317... would you say they are difficult subjects?

 

[Atlas]

Thanks for your reply!

I actually did email Shayne asking if she could tell me anything - she is the current academic advisor. She told me that Peter Radan was the one who would be convening the unit so she couldn't offer any assistance. Although, she did suggest that I email him and ask.

So I did... he basically said I had to wait till he emailed the unit outline around which he said he would do this friday.

I'm hoping there are no sit-in exams, I can handle all the rest. I hate exams.

Is Shayne any good by the way as a lecturer? Also how did you find Law 316/317... would you say they are difficult subjects?

Shayne is amazing! LAW316/317 - difficulty depends on what you like in law, Real property/torrens title etc in 316 is quite black letter - just statutes and cases without anything too conceptually difficult, just a fair bit of content. You will enjoy it if you like doing hypotheticals. For equity - 317, the concepts are complicated and not as clear-cut as black letter law, the principles are harding to pin down and apply, you will probably like this a little more if you like the critical thinking side of writing essays. Of course, these are generalisations, though - your experience with these courses may be different. But, both subjects are actually quite interesting.

If Shayne is teaching any electives when you pick your electives, do them. She's great at explaining things and presenting material in a logical way. lol, can't say enough positive things about her as a lecturer and tutor. Good luck with 317 in session 3, you may want to have a look at the pearson guide for the subject, if you haven't already looked at it for 316.

 

[andyfg88]

Shayne is amazing! LAW316/317 - difficulty depends on what you like in law, Real property/torrens title etc in 316 is quite black letter - just statutes and cases without anything too conceptually difficult, just a fair bit of content. You will enjoy it if you like doing hypotheticals. For equity - 317, the concepts are complicated and not as clear-cut as black letter law, the principles are harding to pin down and apply, you will probably like this a little more if you like the critical thinking side of writing essays. Of course, these are generalisations, though - your experience with these courses may be different. But, both subjects are actually quite interesting.

If Shayne is teaching any electives when you pick your electives, do them. She's great at explaining things and presenting material in a logical way. lol, can't say enough positive things about her as a lecturer and tutor. Good luck with 317 in session 3, you may want to have a look at the pearson guide for the subject, if you haven't already looked at it for 316.

Thanks for your input. I haven't actually done 316 yet as you might have gathered so I'm not familiar with the Pearson guide or any other guides/readings yet, but I will most certainly check it out.

I've been hearing some great things about Shayne, so I look forward to taking some of her units. I really wanted to do Commercial Law in Session 3 (I know she's convening it), but alas, the prerequisites prevented me lol.

I would say I'm more partial to subjects such as contracts and crim. I actually hated torts - I just finished doing it this semester, still waiting for the marks to come back, but if I get a pass I'll be happy. Needless to say I didn't really enjoy it or do to well in it. On the other hand, I did pretty well in Contracts and Crim, I got 81 in Crim and 73 in Contracts (and I didn't even answer the last question worth 20 marks in the exam).

Where would you say 316/317 fall in terms of likeness and characteristics... are they more on the contracts side of things or torts? Also have you ever had Peter? I know he used to be the Dean... how is he?

PS: I'm supposed to be doing LAW 317, LAW 314, LAW 459 and LAW 214 next semester, followed by LAW 315, an elective, LAW 456 and LAW 214...

any suggestions on the elective?

 

[aussienerd]

I always thought summer school was only a thing they had in America. You learn something every day! Good luck with summer school.

 

[misericordia]

i agree with what Atlas stated above. law 316 is more like contracts compared to law 317 cause it more clear cut. law 317 is more like torts because equity is really waffly (thats what i felt like when i studied it). both are quite different so i dont think not having done law 316 disadvantages you in any way. and Peter is good at teaching things but i still prefer Shayne.

 

[Atlas]

Where would you say 316/317 fall in terms of likeness and characteristics... are they more on the contracts side of things or torts? Also have you ever had Peter? I know he used to be the Dean... how is he?

PS: I'm supposed to be doing LAW 317, LAW 314, LAW 459 and LAW 214 next semester, followed by LAW 315, an elective, LAW 456 and LAW 214...

any suggestions on the elective?

I agree with misericordia - but personally, I found torts and contracts quite alike in that they were both somewhat black letter/hypotheticals-based. Have you done constitutional/admin law? I see 316 as more contracts/torts, and 317 as constitutional/admin. I didn't like torts when I did it, the cases where interesting but each area had its own principles which meant a lot of learning and memorising, but I think afterwards when you do other areas of law, you appreciate tort more.

They've changed a lot of the law unit numbers, so you will have to use the names rather than the numbers. For electives, pick anything that Shayne is teaching - commercial law can be quite dry in terms of the subject itself, Shayne really highlights the interesting aspects of each case, it might not completely ignite your passion for law, but with a reasonable amount of effort, is definitely a subject that should get you decent marks. As for other suggestions, what kind of law do you like? Black letter or waffly/essays/jurisprudence?

 

[andyfg88]

I agree with misericordia - but personally, I found torts and contracts quite alike in that they were both somewhat black letter/hypotheticals-based. Have you done constitutional/admin law? I see 316 as more contracts/torts, and 317 as constitutional/admin. I didn't like torts when I did it, the cases where interesting but each area had its own principles which meant a lot of learning and memorising, but I think afterwards when you do other areas of law, you appreciate tort more.

They've changed a lot of the law unit numbers, so you will have to use the names rather than the numbers. For electives, pick anything that Shayne is teaching - commercial law can be quite dry in terms of the subject itself, Shayne really highlights the interesting aspects of each case, it might not completely ignite your passion for law, but with a reasonable amount of effort, is definitely a subject that should get you decent marks. As for other suggestions, what kind of law do you like? Black letter or waffly/essays/jurisprudence?

Firstly, thank you both for your contribution guys, you've been so helpful thus far!

I think I just had a really bad experience with Torts, the waffly nature of it was for me, unbearable. To that extent, I preferred contracts a lot more, once I finally got my head around equitable estoppel it was like a breeze for me - everything in contracts was a lot more straight forward. As for Torts, I couldn't really understand how everything fell into place until I was doing the take home exam. That, for me, was really frustrating, I felt completely lost for a majority of the time and concepts didn't click quite as easy.

I think a lot of it was to do with the way it was taught. Penelope was the convenor and don't get me wrong she knew her stuff, but her delivery was really tough to grapple with at times. She over abbreviated case extracts to the point where they didn't make sense anymore, a lot of people I spoke to shared this view/frustration.

The other problem was the modular nature in which we learnt things; this made it really difficult to understand where everything fell into place, in fact I didn't even know at which point the CLA was to be used until the exam! And that was because we hadn't been taught how to use it directly at all. So i had all these cases on duty, all these cases on breach, all these cases on foreseeability and causation. And then to further complicate things, proximity - a now redundant approach was thrown into the mix.... and then on top of all of that the CLA just confused me, I couldn't work out when to apply the CLA and which cases to use.

Oh and did I mention the text book is horrible? Its riddled with mistakes.

Needless to say the entire ordeal was a frustrating experience that I hope to forget lol and I if I can just pass I'll be more than satisfied because I seriously struggled.

Having said that, I think I enjoyed contracts so much more because I got it and it just clicked. Torts on the other hand didn't quite have that effect on me. I like to waffle on, and I don't mind doing so if I understand what is going on. I did just complete my arts degree after all and waffling on is pretty much all you ever do in arts lol ahaha.

I think though if I have to choose, I'd rather do the cut and dry stuff. I'm a bit worried about Jurisprudence to be honest...

What electives have you guys done/can you recommend? I was thinking IP LAW, IT LAW, Trial Advocacy, Health Law (although George is teaching it - yuck) and Commercial... also who are the good lecturers/tutors to look out for?

Thanks again folks

 

[Atlas]

Firstly, thank you both for your contribution guys, you've been so helpful thus far!

I think I just had a really bad experience with Torts, the waffly nature of it was for me, unbearable. To that extent, I preferred contracts a lot more, once I finally got my head around equitable estoppel it was like a breeze for me - everything in contracts was a lot more straight forward.

I think a lot of it was to do with the way it was taught. Penelope was the convenor and don't get me wrong she knew her stuff, but her delivery was really tough to grapple with at times. She over abbreviated case extracts to the point where they didn't make sense anymore, a lot of people I spoke to shared this view/frustration.

The other problem was the modular nature in which we learnt things; this made it really difficult to understand where everything fell into place, in fact I didn't even know at which point the CLA was to be used until the exam! And that was because we hadn't been taught how to use it directly at all. So i had all these cases on duty, all these cases on breach, all these cases on foreseeability and causation. And then to further complicate things, proximity - a now redundant approach was thrown into the mix.... and then on top of all of that the CLA just confused me, I couldn't work out when to apply the CLA and which cases to use.

Oh and did I mention the text book is horrible? Its riddled with mistakes.

Needless to say the entire ordeal was a frustrating experience that I hope to forget lol and I if I can just pass I'll be more than satisfied because I seriously struggled.

Having said that, I think I enjoyed contracts so much more because I got it and it just clicked. Torts on the other hand didn't quite have that effect on me. I like to waffle on, and I don't mind doing so if I understand what is going on. I did just complete my arts degree after all and waffling on is pretty much all you ever do in arts lol ahaha.

I think though if I have to choose, I'd rather do the cut and dry stuff. I'm a bit worried about Jurisprudence to be honest...

What electives have you guys done/can you recommend? I was thinking IP LAW, IT LAW, Trial Advocacy, Health Law (although George is teaching it - yuck) and Commercial... also who are the good lecturers/tutors to look out for?

Thanks again folks

If you compare torts to contract, torts looks more complicated. But if you compare torts to other areas such as constitutional law, you might just find a renewed love of the subect again (there's an elective advanced torts). Yes, I completely agree with you though on the confusion about what law/legislation/tests to apply - there is a lot of content to go through in torts, but it isn't difficult once you get through it. (personally, I found equity worse, because after going through the stuff, I still didn't understand it)

Re bad textbook - sometimes I find that the "quality" of a textbook is a matter of personal preference. I find the most useful thing to do if you find the recommended text isn't helping you is to pick up another one. For an area like torts, there are plenty of other textbooks - different people will summarise areas of law different and lay out tests differently so it's good to get a second perspective.

I didn't mind Penelope in Family Law. If you find that a lecturer's style isn't quite your cup of tea, try to find a tutorial with another tutor who should be able to go through the material in a different way.

As I said before, anything by Shayne = do the subject. IP = content isn't difficult to understand, the unit is well organised, some interesting cases, Niloufer was a decent lecturer/tutor and was superbly organised. IT = similar to IP, slightly different content, interesting topics, fair assessment structure, if Niloufer is teaching it, it's worth doing. Health...the subject matter was very fascinating, loved the content, but *hint hint* the assessments and overall it was *cough cough* Speak to others who have done the subject, the style may be suited to some but may not be suitable for someone looking for the 'cut and dry stuff' - think jurisprudence. But having said all that, the subject was one of the most interesting, heck I'll read the book even if I wasn't doing the unit.

Consider doing the placements as an elective, they're great to give you a feel for the industry/courts etc. Lots of fun.

Good luck!!!

 

[andyfg88]

If you compare torts to contract, torts looks more complicated. But if you compare torts to other areas such as constitutional law, you might just find a renewed love of the subect again (there's an elective advanced torts). Yes, I completely agree with you though on the confusion about what law/legislation/tests to apply - there is a lot of content to go through in torts, but it isn't difficult once you get through it. (personally, I found equity worse, because after going through the stuff, I still didn't understand it)

So basically constitutional is law makes torts look like a pansy in terms of difficulty?

Re bad textbook - sometimes I find that the "quality" of a textbook is a matter of personal preference. I find the most useful thing to do if you find the recommended text isn't helping you is to pick up another one. For an area like torts, there are plenty of other textbooks - different people will summarise areas of law different and lay out tests differently so it's good to get a second perspective.

This is exactly what I ended up doing. I couldn't believe the amount of mistakes, in fact I recall reading one case extract 3 times because I was reading the dissension of the majority in an appeal and then at the end of it says that the judges upheld the appeal. It confused me for a good one hour before I finally looked up the actual case on CaseBase and read the judgement.

I didn't mind Penelope in Family Law. If you find that a lecturer's style isn't quite your cup of tea, try to find a tutorial with another tutor who should be able to go through the material in a different way.

Penelope is good, she was also a great tutor. I think it's more the expansiveness and content of torts that made it substantially difficult to follow. I wouldn't mind giving her another shot.

As I said before, anything by Shayne = do the subject. IP = content isn't difficult to understand, the unit is well organised, some interesting cases, Niloufer was a decent lecturer/tutor and was superbly organised. IT = similar to IP, slightly different content, interesting topics, fair assessment structure, if Niloufer is teaching it, it's worth doing. Health...the subject matter was very fascinating, loved the content, but *hint hint* the assessments and overall it was *cough cough* Speak to others who have done the subject, the style may be suited to some but may not be suitable for someone looking for the 'cut and dry stuff' - think jurisprudence. But having said all that, the subject was one of the most interesting, heck I'll read the book even if I wasn't doing the unit.

Consider doing the placements as an elective, they're great to give you a feel for the industry/courts etc. Lots of fun.

Good luck!!!

I'm super keen on doing the placements, but from what I know they're really competitive to get into... Particularly the access to justice unit. I guess I'll just have to try. I wonder if being a PAL leader is worth it too... I mean can I put that kind of thing on my resume?

Thanks so much, you've been so helpful.

 

[misericordia]

i actually think torts make constitutional law look like a pansy in terms of difficulty when i did it students were only assessed through 2 essays so basically you only needed to do readings that are relevant to your essay topic (plus your own research) so it didn't require much time/effort.

you might not enjoy the unit if you prefer problem questions over essays but even then it's not that horrible because you don't have to keep up with all the readings (provided that the assessment structure stays the same). if you like this sort of assessment structure try enrolling in units like indigenous peoples & the law and international trade & finance.

 

[andyfg88]

i actually think torts make constitutional law look like a pansy in terms of difficulty when i did it students were only assessed through 2 essays so basically you only needed to do readings that are relevant to your essay topic (plus your own research) so it didn't require much time/effort.

you might not enjoy the unit if you prefer problem questions over essays but even then it's not that horrible because you don't have to keep up with all the readings (provided that the assessment structure stays the same). if you like this sort of assessment structure try enrolling in units like indigenous peoples & the law and international trade & finance.

Haha I hope you're right about torts v constitutional...

I do prefer essay type questions, but I have no real interest in the units you suggested. Having said that though, I've done a lot of essays in my Arts degree and now that that is over I think I'd much rather do hypotheticals/practical type questions. Although the prospects of not having to do all the readings certainly does sound promising.

As a bit of a side question how did you guys find Jurisprudence and Business Organisations...? Are they tough in terms of comprehension or are they just a lot of readings?

 

[RohanZ]

I'm doing Busl320 in summer school.. not sure how intensive it'll be, but I think I should be ready for it. :S

 

[F2001]

doing mktg309

 

[Atlas]

when i did it students were only assessed through 2 essays so basically you only needed to do readings that are relevant to your essay topic (plus your own research) so it didn't require much time/effort.

if you like this sort of assessment structure try enrolling in units like law and international trade & finance.

+1 in terms of the assessment structure - for constitutional law, the 2 essay assessment means that you can choose to only focus on two narrow areas of the course and get good marks without exposing your complete lack of understanding of the area. In terms of strategically getting good marks in this course, it is great. In terms of the content being difficult, I found constitutional law more difficult to understand conceptually than torts. Only thing with constitutional law, is that it can pop up in other law subjects.

If you like units which let you bludge all semester, and you can just submit 2 essays to get a good mark without understanding anything in the unit, do the unit suggested.

 

[Atlas]

Penelope is good, she was also a great tutor. I think it's more the expansiveness and content of torts that made it substantially difficult to follow. I wouldn't mind giving her another shot.

I'm super keen on doing the placements, but from what I know they're really competitive to get into... Particularly the access to justice unit. I guess I'll just have to try. I wonder if being a PAL leader is worth it too... I mean can I put that kind of thing on my resume?

Penelope is good in Family Law, if you are interested in the subject, give it a go - there are placements available in the subject as well.

Re PAL leader/resume - anything can be put into your resume, provided you know how to use it to sell yourself and it is relevant to the position that you are applying for. E.g if you put PAL leader on your resume, you can say that it shows your leadership skills, willingness to participate/contribute back towards the organisation's community, time management, etc etc.

 

[Atlas]

As a bit of a side question how did you guys find Jurisprudence and Business Organisations...? Are they tough in terms of comprehension or are they just a lot of readings?

Jurisprudence - still don't know what hit me. It's actually a very interesting subject and if you like reading/philosophy/critical thinking etc - you will really enjoy it. But it's quite hard to understand what the assessments want from you and difficult to write a strong essay arguing something when the whole subject can be quite fluffy. Most law students complete the unit and try not to think about it again. Tip - if you read the actual extracts themselves, many of them can be quite difficult to understand since they some of them were written decades/centuries ago, go look up jurisprudence guide books - they generally explain them more simply... Yes, there are lots of readings, then again, I don't think I can list a single Law unit that hasn't made us read until we dropped dead.

Business Organisations - yes, if you've been hearing the rumours/complaints, you would know why people generally complain - it's not so much the content of the unit, it's quite black letter and if you follow the legislation/cases and apply accordingly, the content isn't hard (in some ways similar to contracts, except a little more complex). Suffice to say that the complaints are around how the unit is delivered

Oh, and if you don't like tutorial participation or being asked questions during class - meet your nemesis

Once you complete those two units, you'll be glad and relieved.

 

[misericordia]

Oh, and if you don't like tutorial participation or being asked questions during class - meet your nemesis

this. lol. he picks on some students more than others, and he moves some students that he thinks aren't contributing to the front row and picks on them all the time. it just puts students on more pressure than they need to.