Tertiary and Continuing The Law Thread

[DTRAIN87]

No shit, but it's not getting 'looked down upon' as a uni for that reason. Students are just aware (or should be aware) of the risks involved when other universities haven't adopted a similar model.

The model is a good idea in theory (and will imo turn out better lawyers for the sole reason of its students being more mature) but it's going to struggle to attract some of the best talent straight out of school when they can get a guaranteed med or comm/law place at Monash.

I don't know a huge amount about it, but it seems crazy to me to risk not getting into postgrad law or med just to get a more well-rounded education/greater university experience that the Melbourne Model purportedly offers.

It's definitely a brave move from Melbourne.

There is no proof that it will turn out better lawyers or medical professionals based on maturity. Academically it might, but practically it won't have much difference as practice experience is greater than your education in determining the ability to suceed. For example, surgeons are tested mainly theoretically, however the ability to know anatomy inside out has a limited relevance to surgical ability. Hence this is why you see the majority of academic medical professionals move into areas like Endocrinology or similar because it is a data based and theoretical based area of medicine.

The Melbourne model is heavily criticised as it limits student's ability to start off with what study they can do. The courses are very narrow and breadth turns alot of people off. Hence why I chose to go to Deakin for my commerce bit when I could have gone to Melbourne or Monash as the school is superior and offers far broader material.

 

[checkraiseulite]

I don't agree with anything you said in your last post. Especially the last paragraph.

 

[slashin_velvet]

I chose to go to Deakin for my commerce bit when I could have gone to Melbourne or Monash as the school is superior and offers far broader material.

You sir, are a fool. I had a friend doing Deakin commerce when I was doing the same degree at Melbourne. By the end of most subjects we were 3-4 weeks more advanced (in that what they were studying in week 12, we had covered in week 8 - and this was not due to mismatch or timing differences).

 

[jonoman89]

Lots of talk in this thread about the G8/non-G8 divide between unis. In my experience, with regards to law the divide is more sandstone/non-sandstone. UNSW and Monash are the second-choice law schools in their respective states by a pretty wide margin (UNSW by a long way), and ANU is mostly only advantageous if you want to work for the government.

Definitely not in VIC.

Melbourne Model has seen the brighter school kids jumping on board the Monash train rather than sit it out for a Melbourne JD. The best graduates over the next 2-3 years will be Monash qualified for the most part.

 

[jonoman89]

Cheers, thought that might be the case. I'm going to everything atm as you do when you first start but will definitely start condensing things once I figure out which lectures aren't important. I'm not doing straight Law so some Arts subjects might get the flick.

And yeah it's a pretty vibe-less sort of place. Was getting kind of excited for O-week etc and then see shit is happening in Knox City and what have you, **** that. Would really have preferred to go to Melbourne but hate the model.

Monash LSS events are fantastic for first years. Go to them.

Law school is a tight knit place. Easy to make friends. Do it.

 

[cartel]

There is no proof that it will turn out better lawyers or medical professionals based on maturity. Academically it might, but practically it won't have much difference as practice experience is greater than your education in determining the ability to suceed. For example, surgeons are tested mainly theoretically, however the ability to know anatomy inside out has a limited relevance to surgical ability. Hence this is why you see the majority of academic medical professionals move into areas like Endocrinology or similar because it is a data based and theoretical based area of medicine.

The Melbourne model is heavily criticised as it limits student's ability to start off with what study they can do. The courses are very narrow and breadth turns alot of people off. Hence why I chose to go to Deakin for my commerce bit when I could have gone to Melbourne or Monash as the school is superior and offers far broader material.

I cannot tell you how wrong you are, what you have written makes no sense and is not reflective of reality at all.

Surgeons have to complete thousands of hours of supervised operating, starting from assisting to then progressing to completing full complex operations themselves. This is how surgical ability is developed. Knowing anatomy is vital to surgeons, moreso than virtually any other speciality. I am unsure why someone would think knwoing anatomy would be somehow of limited importance to surgeons: they do need to know what they are cutting into, the consequences can quickly become fatal if they don't.

And, are you saying that surgeons (or psychiatrists, pathologists whatever) aren't academic? I think your description about Endocrinologists is also wrong. The specialty is not data based, doctors treat people not numbers.

 

[DTRAIN87]

You sir, are a fool. I had a friend doing Deakin commerce when I was doing the same degree at Melbourne. By the end of most subjects we were 3-4 weeks more advanced (in that what they were studying in week 12, we had covered in week 8 - and this was not due to mismatch or timing differences).

When were you at Melbourne and what unit(s) are you referring to? My friend who just did introductory accounting as bredth laughed at how easy his course was compared to ours, pinched my stuff (I got a D) and managed to walk away with a credit after failing both assessments. I am pretty sure unis have to offer identical course structure in aspects such as accounting and law that are professional degrees regulated by outside organisations and this is why students in these areas can relate easily to the course conduct when discussing it across institutions.

I cannot tell you how wrong you are, what you have written makes no sense and is not reflective of reality at all.

Surgeons have to complete thousands of hours of supervised operating, starting from assisting to then progressing to completing full complex operations themselves. This is how surgical ability is developed. Knowing anatomy is vital to surgeons, moreso than virtually any other speciality. I am unsure why someone would think knwoing anatomy would be somehow of limited importance to surgeons: they do need to know what they are cutting into, the consequences can quickly become fatal if they don't.

And, are you saying that surgeons (or psychiatrists, pathologists whatever) aren't academic? I think your description about Endocrinologists is also wrong. The specialty is not data based, doctors treat people not numbers.

Endocrinologists analyse blood samples and the data they produce to determine if a patient has diseases such as diabetes among others. This is a very pure theory based medicine that has none of the hands on work that a colorectal surgeon has for example. They refer you onto another specialist to get work done to fix problems because they simply don't deal with the surgical side but rather they analyse traits a person possesses and make advanced medical diagnoses. As for the anatomy bit, my oral surgeon made numerous references to how bad he did at subjects like anatomy when the exam asks you to write their term and that it was his shit government high education that makes him forget terms all the time. Yet he got to where he was due to his skills as a surgeon and not on academic merit. He made the point about the irony that he is allowed to train and lecture surgeons by Melbourne but couldn't even pass their course the first time. He said when discussing it that the course is all about wrote learning these names and not about simply knowing what's what in a surgery as in practice. I had science suggested to me as a course because there is scope to do well with a strong memory alone. They might work on people, however their course has a heavily academic structure to it where like many of the other courses has no real bearing in the extent it is conducted to the world. A girl I know who is going to do medicine after a heavy microbiology degree and post grad is doing med and is almost certainly going to go down this path when she completes it.

 

[checkraiseulite]

You are for sure trolling this thread.
Judging the difficulty of an entire degree on the difficulty of an introductory accounting subject? Really?

I cannot imagine a subject easier than MAA103 at Deakin (the introductory accounting subject).

Another thing I'd urge you to consider is that it is probably irrelevant the actual differential in difficulty/quality of commerce degrees between Deakin and Melb/Monash.

As clearly demonstrated throughout this thread, Melbourne & Monash are perceived to have a deeper and more difficult curriculum than Deakin. In cases such as this perception is reality.

BTW, congrats on the D in MAA103, you must be a real high achiever!

Edit: It's also pretty difficult for Deakin to offer identical content to Melbourne & Monash when they run on the trimester system where the teaching period is much much shorter.

 

[DTRAIN87]

The trimester system makes the course one week shorter. That week is now taken away from swot vac and lecturers lose a week for revision per say unless they decide to cram the course weeks together. Many of my HR units did weeks 1 and 2 together for that reason. MAA103 was no different to Melbourne, Monash or RMIT's courses as I could do the same exams with ease from the other units. I think if you actually bothered to look that Deakin does offer the same content, as if they didn't their course would not be accredited for the CA course. Thanks for the words of wisdom. Considering I did it by merely doing the tute questions I was happy. Also maybe you should look at Monash's other degrees such as business offered at Gippsland and see how really different and harder their course is perceived to be. One of the guys I know who runs a finance company laughs at such suggestions when he looks at graduates and realises that a guy with a 69 enter at Gippsland has done better than a 95 Commerce student at Claytom. He says that says alot about the course.

 

[jonoman89]

Well, this has turned into an off-topic shit fight quite quickly.

Degrees ain't degrees.

Each one at each university can be very different. As I have said way back in this thread, I was an ambitious Melbourne Model kid who (at the time) forsake the opportunity to get a Monash LLB in hope of getting a Melbourne JD. After 2 weeks of class I realised I made the wrong decision and changed universities ASAP.

I made the right decision. However, the quality of teaching I experienced at Melbourne for my Arts component was significantly better than anything I experienced at Monash. Poles apart in fact.

If I was in a position to hire persons who are expected to have a BA, I wouldn't hesitate in putting Melbourne grads at the top of the pile. I'm sure it's true for a lot of degrees. I know it is for the law, no matter how much bullshit spin an HR rep or your deakin/la trobe/VU mates will tell you.

 

[Caesar]

Definitely not in VIC.

Melbourne Model has seen the brighter school kids jumping on board the Monash train rather than sit it out for a Melbourne JD. The best graduates over the next 2-3 years will be Monash qualified for the most part.

Rightly or wrongly, I don't think anyone regards the quality of the legal education at Monash as being as good as Melbourne. It just doesn't have the pedigree.

That's not to say that it's bad. It's probably the most highly regarded non-sandstone.

 

[slashin_velvet]

When were you at Melbourne and what unit(s) are you referring to? My friend who just did introductory accounting as bredth laughed at how easy his course was compared to ours, pinched my stuff (I got a D) and managed to walk away with a credit after failing both assessments. I am pretty sure unis have to offer identical course structure in aspects such as accounting and law that are professional degrees regulated by outside organisations and this is why students in these areas can relate easily to the course conduct when discussing it across institutions.

I was there 2007-2009.

Specific subjects:
- 2nd year business finance (e.g. the students didnt even get to look at derivatives in any detail)
- 3rd year investments
- 2nd year Intermediate Financial accounting
- 3rd year Financial Accounting (Not the audit subject, but the other one required for an audit major - the name escapes me)

In terms of trimester, this only affected the 3rd year subjects in my cohort as it didnt start until the end of 2008. This however is no excuse. If trimesters decrease the content of a subject, then it just adds that a student from Deakin will not have the breadth of knowledge compared to student from a different uni.

Out in industry, this difference is clearly noted (be it perception or otherwise) - and can guarantee that the larger firms take on more students from Melb/Monash than Deakin/Latrobe.

 

[DTRAIN87]

I was there 2007-2009.

Specific subjects:
- 2nd year business finance (e.g. the students didnt even get to look at derivatives in any detail)
- 3rd year investments
- 2nd year Intermediate Financial accounting
- 3rd year Financial Accounting (Not the audit subject, but the other one required for an audit major - the name escapes me)

In terms of trimester, this only affected the 3rd year subjects in my cohort as it didnt start until the end of 2008. This however is no excuse. If trimesters decrease the content of a subject, then it just adds that a student from Deakin will not have the breadth of knowledge compared to student from a different uni.

Out in industry, this difference is clearly noted (be it perception or otherwise) - and can guarantee that the larger firms take on more students from Melb/Monash than Deakin/Latrobe.

I did business fin in 07 and we had to do derivatives as it was required to meet the financial services post graduate programs. As for the rest of finance AI did nothing else apart from that core unit which like all comm units is a piece of rubbish year 13 type unit. One of my management units I know was nowhere near what the Melbourne students were doing as when I was asked for the exams deakin set to use as tolls he was amazed at how hard the exam was compared to his past papers especially on direct issue questions. Finance I know is weak at Deakin. Especially in the later years of the unit.

As for the Monash bit, Latrobe and Deakin have it over them in terms of comparing their commerce course to the Business course and this is why I was advised to overlook Monash when I knwe what I wanted to do by people I know involved in recruitment.

 

[slashin_velvet]

As for the Monash bit, Latrobe and Deakin have it over them in terms of comparing their commerce course to the Business course and this is why I was advised to overlook Monash when I knwe what I wanted to do by people I know involved in recruitment.

This may depend on the field you wanna work in. For accounting and finance based roles, I stick with my original comments. I cant say im too familiar with other areas

 

[DTRAIN87]

Y

This may depend on the field you wanna work in. For accounting and finance based roles, I stick with my original comments. I cant say im too familiar with other areas

And I generally agree in relation to commerce and with your finance comment.

 

[jonoman89]

Rightly or wrongly, I don't think anyone regards the quality of the legal education at Monash as being as good as Melbourne. It just doesn't have the pedigree.

That's not to say that it's bad. It's probably the most highly regarded non-sandstone.

Monash has a very large emphasis on practical skills and practise. Melbourne, from what I have heard, is more academic and policy driven. Again, this is hearsay, but I have heard certain firms do lend more favour towards Monash graduates e.g. Slaters and Morris Blackburn (this seems to be restricted to the more "plaintiff law" type firms though).

No doubt many would still put Melbourne on top of the pile however.

 

[DTRAIN87]

Monash has a very large emphasis on practical skills and practise. Melbourne, from what I have heard, is more academic and policy driven. Again, this is hearsay, but I have heard certain firms do lend more favour towards Monash graduates e.g. Slaters and Morris Blackburn (this seems to be restricted to the more "plaintiff law" type firms though).

No doubt many would still put Melbourne on top of the pile however.

Melbourne is very academic while somewhere like Monash is practical and Deakin is business orientated. There have neen some very good graduates from Melbourne, however when discussing a torts problem with a final semester student from Melbourne he said my assignment was a lot more practical and had real life scenarios chucked in which made it somewhat harder to advise on when contrasted to his assignment wihch was very much a case of do step 1, then do step 2 etc precisely in order.

 

[jonoman89]

How is Deakin more "business orientated" as they like to suggest? It's not like Deakin offers a wide variety of commercial electives that other universities don't...

 

[DTRAIN87]

How is Deakin more "business orientated" as they like to suggest? It's not like Deakin offers a wide variety of commercial electives that other universities don't...

If you look into the course they do. They offer numerous business law units that other institutions either have not or have started to recently. I'm not talking about your satandard core ones like Corp or electives like tax either. They have a reputation for students going into the corporate sector and many I know bitched or bitch about how many they have to do as undergrads to complete the degree. Guy I know who runs a commercial firm says that he prediminately hires Deakin graduates as they are most suited to work there with their theory courses they have done compared with a Melbourne or a Latrobe

 

[jonoman89]

If you look into the course they do. They offer numerous business law units that other institutions either have not or have started to recently. I'm not talking about your satandard core ones like Corp or electives like tax either. They have a reputation for students going into the corporate sector and many I know bitched or bitch about how many they have to do as undergrads to complete the degree. Guy I know who runs a commercial firm says that he prediminately hires Deakin graduates as they are most suited to work there with their theory courses they have done compared with a Melbourne or a Latrobe

http://www.deakin.edu.au/current-students/courses/course.php?course=M312

I can't see one subject offered at Deakin not offered at Monash.

The only difference I can see is that practical legal skills units such as trial practise, advocacy, mooting etc. is compulsory at Deakin but optional at Monash. One of the major problems with Monash is that, despite it offering a fantastic degree, to utilise it you have to really pick your subjects carefully. You can graduate with an LLB without being involved in any practical learning whatsoever.

A few people have a dig at Deakin's "business orientated" reputation as it simply offers no other types of electives....there might be some truth to that. I'd be bored shitless doing corporate electives every semester.

 

[checkraiseulite]

The 'business orientation' is just POD marketing. Perhaps a couple of subjects that are electives elsewhere but are core at Deakin may support it but that's about it.

The 'practical legal skills' component is a joke too, it's strictly pass/fail and all you have to do to pass is show up.

The one good thing however is the actual practical experience requirement you must satisfy prior to graduating. It is, however, very exploitable.

 

[DTRAIN87]

The 'business orientation' is just POD marketing. Perhaps a couple of subjects that are electives elsewhere but are core at Deakin may support it but that's about it.

The 'practical legal skills' component is a joke too, it's strictly pass/fail and all you have to do to pass is show up.

The one good thing however is the actual practical experience requirement you must satisfy prior to graduating. It is, however, very exploitable.

I can tell you now you don't have to show up to pass the practical skills bit. It doesn't count as a unit but rather it is an extra requirement.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Why are you tarding up this thread when it's clear you haven't even done law at Deakin?

You have to show up to the moot/mediation/witness examination whatever in order to pass.

The PLS tasks are integrated into particular subjects (moot into contract, arbitration into land law, witness examination into evidence etc) but they lack any genuine structure that would make them realistic or beneficial to practice (other than a minimal amount of public speaking).

The PLS tasks are listed on your transcript but are not recorded as credit points. You will get an ungraded pass for each PLS task you complete.

 

[Donners]

In terms of G8, it is definately an advantage to getting into the top tier groups.

Most partners I spoke with used the perspective of: High achievers go to the universities that are harder to get into. In Melbourne this means Melbourne or Monash instead of Deakin or Latrobe for a commerce/law style degree

I and many of my fellow Deakin students got articles interviews at top-tier legal practices.

It may not be the most prestigious uni, but you can get your foot in the door if you're good enough.

Oddly enough, for all Deakin's business focus, I wound up in criminal law. After a couple of years out in the real world, uni means little. I wasn't even asked for an academic transcript for my second job.

 

[slashin_velvet]

I and many of my fellow Deakin students got articles interviews at top-tier legal practices.

It may not be the most prestigious uni, but you can get your foot in the door if you're good enough.

Oddly enough, for all Deakin's business focus, I wound up in criminal law. After a couple of years out in the real world, uni means little. I wasn't even asked for an academic transcript for my second job.

Not saying it strikes you out, but how many interviewees were from Deakin vs Melb/Monash?

And agreed on the second point - my transcript wasnt used for my second job either.