Tertiary and Continuing The Law Thread

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

I am now leaning towards Southern Cross University if I am going to do my LLB externally. I will just have to see if they have a 2nd semester intake for 2010.

I've heard OK'ish things about Southern Cross University particuarly about their external LLB.

 

[Hill2Pav]

I've heard OK'ish things about Southern Cross University particuarly about their external LLB.

How do they compare to CDU in regards to their external LLB program?

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

How do they compare to CDU in regards to their external LLB program?

Not sure to be honest, I'd say they would at least be on par?

Both schools are outside the G8.

Deakin/Latrobe in VIC, QUT/Griffith in QLD, and UTS/Macq in NSW are also outside the G8 and are rated higher IIRC.

However those rankings are for Bachelor of Laws - and don't take into account that not all of those universities offer distance/LLB.

 

[DTRAIN87]

What part does the individuals drive and intelligence play in all this?

I have met people without law degrees that have won high court cases off their own back.

There is two strand to law. One being the theory/academic side and the other being the argument side. There are some lawyers who are good at both some good at one and not the other. Depends what you want to practice as some of the best courtroom lawyers are some of the worst students. This is why they will often have a theoretical expert solicitor working for them/with them.

I am now leaning towards Southern Cross University if I am going to do my LLB externally. I will just have to see if they have a 2nd semester intake for 2010.

How do they compare to CDU in regards to their external LLB program?

CDU's ext LLB is number one in Australia apparently. They offer lectures and tutorials online to students unlike some other schools which give you a lecture recording and that's about it. It is a lot like being at an on campus university without actually having to go.

 

[jonoman89]

LOL this is the biggest load of junk ever.

"Biggest load of junk ever" yet you go on to say i was right that there is still some elitism present? Right.

I go to a law school which is has been voted in the "elite" bracket, and i have experienced it myself. Tell others that people don't discriminate between universities all you wish, but that definitely is not my experience.

From the 4 years i've done these are the impressions/stereotypes i have received:

Melbourne: large emphasis on legal philosophy and academia
Monash: large emphasis on practical legal skills
Deakin: large emphasis on commercially focused law
La Trobe: large emphasis on international law
Victoria: the law school people go to if they can't get into any of the above

Not to suggest any of those are correct appraisals, but that is the impression i have been presented with along the journey.

It has changed a bit though. A lot of my fellow Monash students now look down on Melbourne due to their Melbourne Model program not teaching as much. When students my age are partners at firms even Melbourne may be discriminated against!

It's hard to avoid it when there are a lot of graduates from a relatively small pool of law schools.

 

[DTRAIN87]

Your point was that it couldn't be further from the truth which in fact can be interpreted as saying that it is still present everywhere as a deciding factor when it clearly is not. The example you gave clearly shows that you are implying an extreme context as was sseen in the 60s and 70s compared to what is seen in 2011. Maybe you should also revise what a Sandstone University is as I guarantee you do not go to one and your point is very incorrect.

 

[jonoman89]

Your point was that it couldn't be further from the truth which in fact can be interpreted as saying that it is still present everywhere as a deciding factor when it clearly is not.

No, you've just read my post wrong. You said it wasn't a problem anymore. I said it still is, though in lesser quantities than it was previously and confined to certain circles.

From my experiences, discrimination is still alive and well in certain sectors. And the majoirty of the people i am studying with have experienced some level of prejudice, or at least perceived it. Mainly by older lawyers.

The example you gave clearly shows that you are implying an extreme context as was sseen in the 60s and 70s compared to what is seen in 2011.

Not really. I gave an example of my own experience. That has nothing to do with the 1960s or 1970s.

Maybe you should also revise what a Sandstone University is as I guarantee you do not go to one and your point is very incorrect.

Well, you've proven my point entirely all by yourself with that arrogant comment. You seem like the typical law student. Good work.

Revise my definition? Why? I haven't even given one. Nor would i consider Monash a sandstone university for that matter, if that's what you incorrectly inferred from my post.

And for the record, i have been to a sandstone university before. Fail.

 

[DTRAIN87]

No, you've just read my post wrong. You said it wasn't a problem anymore. I said it still is, though in lesser quantities than it was previously and confined to certain circles.

From my experiences, discrimination is still alive and well in certain sectors. And the majoirty of the people i am studying with have experienced some level of prejudice, or at least perceived it. Mainly by older lawyers.



Not really. I gave an example of my own experience. That has nothing to do with the 1960s or 1970s.



Well, you've proven my point entirely all by yourself with that arrogant comment. You seem like the typical law student. Good work.

Revise my definition? Why? I haven't even given one. Nor would i consider Monash a sandstone university for that matter, if that's what you incorrectly inferred from my post.

And for the record, i have been to a sandstone university before. Fail.

I think I misinterpreted your post on the first issue, not read it wrongly and I agree generally with your sentiments.

So the fact that you don't get your degree from a sandstone university means that you might get looked down upon according to you? So therefore by your logic as stated below in your initial post, you will be looked down upon for going to ANU instead of going to University of Tasmania? Your logic is blatantly flawed for one of two reasons, as you either don't know what the definition of a Sandstone University is, or you have placed a fundamentally wrong argument into your post. You are now backtracking and trying to defend your point which is wrong.

Could not be any further from the truth. I was in a conversation with a person working at Allens the other month. I was asked where i was studying and when i said Monash they s******ed. Then of course the "..i graduated from Melbourne..." line after it.

If you don't get a degree from a sandstone university you may very well be looked down upon.

Also the fact that you haven't given a definition of a sandstone university is also clearly irrelevant as it can be reasonably interpreted using the "mischief rule" that based on the context of your argument and your intent when utilising that term, you clearly did so to puport Sandstone uNiversities as superior to other universities (being non-sandstone universities). Therefore this degrades your point that you must go to a Sandstone University to avoid being looked down upon in the professional world.

 

[checkraiseulite]

I think I misinterpreted your post on the first issue, not read it wrongly and I agree generally with your sentiments.

So the fact that you don't get your degree from a sandstone university means that you might get looked down upon according to you? So therefore by your logic as stated below in your initial post, you will be looked down upon for going to ANU instead of going to University of Tasmania? Your logic is blatantly flawed for one of two reasons, as you either don't know what the definition of a Sandstone University is, or you have placed a fundamentally wrong argument into your post. You are now backtracking and trying to defend your point which is wrong.



Also the fact that you haven't given a definition of a sandstone university is also clearly irrelevant as it can be reasonably interpreted using the "mischief rule" that based on the context of your argument and your intent when utilising that term, you clearly did so to puport Sandstone uNiversities as superior to other universities (being non-sandstone universities). Therefore this degrades your point that you must go to a Sandstone University to avoid being looked down upon in the professional world.

His example was that you may be discriminated against if you don't go to a 'Sandstone University'. He then provided an example of an Allens partner s******ing when he said he went to Monash (which is not a SU but is a G8 university) seemingly representing that Melbourne>Monash. If that partner was responsible for a hiring decision, would it be fair to say that he might have a SU bias? Probably. This is probably not nearly as prevalent as preference for G8 LLBs though, which is really what the last part of this thread has been about.

Pretty clear that G8>Non-G8 in a vacuum. Although I don't think you're going to acknowledge that in the near future.

 

[jonoman89]

So the fact that you don't get your degree from a sandstone university means that you might get looked down upon according to you?

Yes, that is what i have said.

So therefore by your logic as stated below in your initial post, you will be looked down upon for going to ANU instead of going to University of Tasmania?

By my logic, as you have stated, people might be looked down upon for not going to a sandstone university. Might.

Of course there are circumstances where they will not, such as where a person goes to ANU. Or where an employer does not care for which university their applying candidate studied at. I have not suggested otherwise.

you clearly did so to puport Sandstone uNiversities as superior to other universities (being non-sandstone universities).

Sorry, what? Stop putting words in my mouth. I do not agree with that at all.

As i have said, i previously went to a sandstone university and am now at Monash. If i thought sandstone unis were better in every single circumstance i never would have changed.

His example was that you may be discriminated against if you don't go to a 'Sandstone University'. He then provided an example of an Allens partner s******ing when he said he went to Monash (which is not a SU but is a G8 university) seemingly representing that Melbourne>Monash. If that partner was responsible for a hiring decision, would it be fair to say that he might have a SU bias? Probably. This is probably not nearly as prevalent as preference for G8 LLBs though, which is really what the last part of this thread has been about.

Pretty clear that G8>Non-G8 in a vacuum. Although I don't think you're going to acknowledge that in the near future.

This, there's nothing more to say really.

There is still some level of elitism in the industry in regards to which uni you studied at. That is my personal experience, and from what i have heard from recent graduates.

If DTRAIN87 thinks otherwise he is entitled to his opinion, but from my experience he is incorrect.

I would agree that the G8 over non-G8 prejudice is a lot more prevelant than sandstone G8 over non-sandstone G8. But that's not to suggest it doesn't exist at all.

 

[DTRAIN87]

Yes, that is what i have said.



By my logic, as you have stated, people might be looked down upon for not going to a sandstone university. Might.

Of course there are circumstances where they will not, such as where a person goes to ANU. Or where an employer does not care for which university their applying candidate studied at. I have not suggested otherwise.



Sorry, what? Stop putting words in my mouth. I do not agree with that at all.

As i have said, i previously went to a sandstone university and am now at Monash. If i thought sandstone unis were better in every single circumstance i never would have changed.



This, there's nothing more to say really.

There is still some level of elitism in the industry in regards to which uni you studied at. That is my personal experience, and from what i have heard from recent graduates.

If DTRAIN87 thinks otherwise he is entitled to his opinion, but from my experience he is incorrect.

I would agree that the G8 over non-G8 prejudice is a lot more prevelant than sandstone G8 over non-sandstone G8. But that's not to suggest it doesn't exist at all.

Ahh so here we qualify our argument with new information and in a format not stated in the initial post. I was only responding to what you posted originally. Whether you agree with it or not, they were your facts and my response was based upon them. As a law student, you should know that ambiguous wording can lead to misguided interpretations and adverse outcomes being reached. Seems clearly this was the case here. Anyway can't wait for the HR researcher's report on law school and selection to workplaces and effectiveness survey. Will really solve and quash a lot of myths while embarrassing a few industry people.

 

[jonoman89]

Ahh so here we qualify our argument with new information and in a format not stated in the initial post.

What on earth are you talking about? From my first post:

If you don't get a degree from a sandstone university you may very well be looked down upon.

I never said you will always be looked down upon. That's simply not true. I have offered no new reasoning for that statement in my following posts.

 

[cAsEy_18]

Hey guys, I'mm currently doing Arts/Commerce at Clayton 1st year. Did Legal in year 12 and was definately my best/most enjoyable subject, and I got just high enough to do Law at Monash if I wanted to, but wasn't sure that was the exact path that I wanted to go down. I've been pretty deadset on walking out of Uni with more than 1 career path option.

Anyway, under commerce I'd assume I'd major in Accounting because I'm fairly good at it, but its hell-boring. However, I'm doing Business Law this semester and really enjoying it, been very similar to year 12 legal so far. Just curious, has anyone done a minor/major or possibly have a job in Business Law? I have no doubt that I would enjoy majoring in Business Law far more than Accounting, or economics, marketing, management etc... but my only concern is I have no idea about the employment opportunites with a major in Business Law?

 

[DTRAIN87]

Hey guys, I'mm currently doing Arts/Commerce at Clayton 1st year. Did Legal in year 12 and was definately my best/most enjoyable subject, and I got just high enough to do Law at Monash if I wanted to, but wasn't sure that was the exact path that I wanted to go down. I've been pretty deadset on walking out of Uni with more than 1 career path option.

Anyway, under commerce I'd assume I'd major in Accounting because I'm fairly good at it, but its hell-boring. However, I'm doing Business Law this semester and really enjoying it, been very similar to year 12 legal so far. Just curious, has anyone done a minor/major or possibly have a job in Business Law? I have no doubt that I would enjoy majoring in Business Law far more than Accounting, or economics, marketing, management etc... but my only concern is I have no idea about the employment opportunites with a major in Business Law?

I did my u/grad in commercial Law as part of my commerce degree and I can tell you there are jobs available such as advising on tax law for private firms and the ATO, working in trade unions, helping with contracts for orgas etc. Firms will often use someone inhouse to assist them with the legal side, especially when they hold a uni major in another discipline such as accounting or financial planning because it enables them to do certain things without having to consult a lawyer and pay for it. My advice is to do it with Accounting and you will reap rewards for it. I did mine with HR and so I am fairly limited in what I can do with it. If you do it with accounting though then your window is massive.

 

[Chief]

First day of uni the lecturer suggested that high school legal studies and Uni law were completely different. Legal studies being a new thing, I cannot say if he's right.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Shelve the arts degree and transfer into an LLB or BComm/LLB. Keep an accounting or finance major.

Business Law as a major in a commerce degree is pretty useless IMO. Given the saturation of law grads who will struggle to find jobs, you'll be competing against them.

Without an LLB your scope for progression will be fairly limited as well unless you go into say tax at big4 and get a CA (who even then prefer grads with a law degree too).

 

[jonoman89]

First day of uni the lecturer suggested that high school legal studies and Uni law were completely different. Legal studies being a new thing, I cannot say if he's right.

Incredibly different.

 

[DTRAIN87]

Incredibly different.

Agree. Legal studies is morr about analysis of the social aspects of law and why law exists. Law is learning real laws.

 

[jonoman89]

Yep. Legal studies analyses the legal system as a whole. Principles, history, foundations etc. It's more like a social studies course. I found it interesting in high school.

Law teaches you the law. How to apply it, how to interpret it, how to present it. Of course you do some legal studies as well (you'd be lost if you didn't), but i'd say it'd be no more than 5-10% of the course.

 

[deeman12]

Year 12 Legal Studies was pretty useful for me coming into my law degree. It's good to have that background on parts of the constitution, ADR processes, foundations of the legal system, etc. Definitely gave me and other school-leavers a bit of a leg-up on the graduate students who basically had to learn those foundational principles from the ground-up. Completely useless when you tackle the black-letter law subjects though.

Having done a legal studies subject last semester, it was just ridiculous how much the lecturer/students/department had a chip on their shoulder. The entire subject was basically a critique on the failings of law schools and the importance of legal studies.

 

[jonoman89]

Yep legal studies does help with consti, that's for sure.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Year 12 Legal Studies was pretty useful for me coming into my law degree. It's good to have that background on parts of the constitution, ADR processes, foundations of the legal system, etc.

I remember in one of my foundation subjects (basically an overview of the legal system) I didn't bother to buy the assigned text and took my yr 12 legal textbook into the exam. I copied verbatim out of it for a couple of the short answer questions lol.

Drew some funny looks, but ended up getting pretty good marks from SFA study.

 

[jo172]

Going back a while but for me Legal Studies was pretty good in terms of teaching you everything you need to know (except the jurisprudence gaff) in the introduction to australian law (or variations) subject. Also gives you a pretty decent grounding for your public law subjects i.e Con and Admin.

 

[BomberFletch31]

Yep legal studies does help with consti, that's for sure.

Constipation?

I did uni level legal studies, and from my experience, it also focussed a lot more on the social aspect of law rather than the law itself. That's not to say it didn't focus on the law at all, though. Yes, it does help having done legal studies before going into law, as it gave me some grounding on the Australian legal system, doctrine of precedence etc. We also had a few hypothetical case scenarios to solve, just like law students ... just that the legal studies exams had far fewer legal issues in any given hypothetical than a law exam. So in that sense it was more like "law lite".

 

[jonoman89]

I found year 11 VCE 1/2 was a lot more "law-like" than year 12 3/4. They actually taught you some crimes in year 11, whereas in year 12 i think i spent half of the year learning what representative and responsible government were.