Tertiary and Continuing The Law Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

checkraiseulite said:
You're failing to differentiate between remote chance of being capable to do the job, and remote chance of getting the job. We are talking about the latter, not the former given efficiency considerations as noted above by jo.

It's efficient and entirely reasonable to cut people based on their marks and testing scores, because these filters are quantitative and can be uniformly applied.

Cutting people based on personal value-judgements based off of limited info is where Caesar's statement breaks down imo.

Obviously the very best of the applicants are going through regardless, but the next layer may well include people that will have a remote chance of getting a job provided they get an opportunity to present.

Determining which of these candidates gets a shot at presenting in a first-round interview is where the luck comes into it.

\nittery.
Click to expand...

Wait what? Caesar himself stated that they use marks as a criteria to cull. It is not efficient to cull based on marks as they differ from institution to institution and then again they pose the same problem as the other criteria. It is proven in HR material that using marks as a basis to cull is a risky and limited practice. It is a poor and flawed system that is one dimensional.
 
They are not awarding positions based on marks.

The big banks and accounting firms have a huge number of applications and for time and cost reasons they need to cut the size of the pool down as much as possible.

It's entirely reasonable to conclude that people with averages <65 will not usually have the intellectual capacity or commitment to command a position at such a firm ahead of the remainder of the pool (which is still substantial) that has achieved >65 average.

This is not a particular hard requirement to satisfy (unless you are really stupid, or really lazy).

Once the initial culling (love that word) has been done then you can take a more holistic approach and begin evaluating candidates on a wider variety of factors at an interview/AC level.

If HR had to review each application on its merits and bring in every good bloke with a 53 average for an interview the recruitment process would take 18 months. No-one (except perhaps Caesar) pretends the recruitment processes at such firms are perfect but given these firms' constraints they happen to be pretty good imo.

That is not to say I believe that every candidate with a remote chance of getting a job, progresses to interview stage 100% of time ;-).
 

Log in to remove this ad.

checkraiseulite said:
They are not awarding positions based on marks.

The big banks and accounting firms have a huge number of applications and for time and cost reasons they need to cut the size of the pool down as much as possible.

It's entirely reasonable to conclude that people with averages <65 will not usually have the intellectual capacity or commitment to command a position at such a firm ahead of the remainder of the pool (which is still substantial) that has achieved >65 average.

This is not a particular hard requirement to satisfy (unless you are really stupid, or really lazy).

Once the initial culling (love that word) has been done then you can take a more holistic approach and begin evaluating candidates on a wider variety of factors at an interview/AC level.

If HR had to review each application on its merits and bring in every good bloke with a 53 average for an interview the recruitment process would take 18 months. No-one (except perhaps Caesar) pretends the recruitment processes at such firms are perfect but given these firms' constraints they happen to be pretty good imo.

That is not to say I believe that every candidate with a remote chance of getting a job, progresses to interview stage 100% of time ;-).
Click to expand...

The assumption you make regarding people's averages is utterly amazing and is devoid of any logic whatsoever. I know plenty of people who are absolute dropkicks that have averages above 65 in uni and I know people with high intellectual capacity that have averages below 65. As forthe work factor there are many factors such as full time work that can effect someone's academic output. A law graduate's average is well below 65 on mean. Then there is the issue of your school you went to for your course. Deakin for example you can attend a 100% exam which requires knowledge from 4 topics to get your assessment done. Other universities require you to be assessed on every topic progressively thus making it harder to fudge performance abilities as many have mentioned in this thread. VCE took this approach originally with the marks and many universities established the middle band because the evidence blatantly showed that the system was flawed when you undertook some subjects and that a self created equalisation method called the middle band was bought in to make the system somewhat more equal for students who did what the private school kids label the dummy subjects and did well overall but may have fallen short by a whisker of getting into their first preference due to the VCE. I don't discount your suggestion that firms need to work out who they want to interview somehow but to do this based purely on marks is a dangerous precedent to set that often leads to side HR issues such as satisfaction and retention that are grossly inefficient as well.
 
DTRAIN87 said:
The assumption you make regarding people's averages is utterly amazing and is devoid of any logic whatsoever. I know plenty of people who are absolute dropkicks that have averages above 65 in uni and I know people with high intellectual capacity that have averages below 65. As forthe work factor there are many factors such as full time work that can effect someone's academic output. A law graduate's average is well below 65 on mean. Then there is the issue of your school you went to for your course. Deakin for example you can attend a 100% exam which requires knowledge from 4 topics to get your assessment done. Other universities require you to be assessed on every topic progressively thus making it harder to fudge performance abilities as many have mentioned in this thread. VCE took this approach originally with the marks and many universities established the middle band because the evidence blatantly showed that the system was flawed when you undertook some subjects and that a self created equalisation method called the middle band was bought in to make the system somewhat more equal for students who did what the private school kids label the dummy subjects and did well overall but may have fallen short by a whisker of getting into their first preference due to the VCE. I don't discount your suggestion that firms need to work out who they want to interview somehow but to do this based purely on marks is a dangerous precedent to set that often leads to side HR issues such as satisfaction and retention that are grossly inefficient as well.
Click to expand...

please-stop-posting.jpg
 
checkraiseulite said:
Contemplating making a new thread but thought i'd just post here instead.

Anyone a member of this 'Golden Key Society' or whatever?

My resume in terms of societies, scholarships, professional memberships, academic awards etc is pretty bleak, so I'm considering joining this to use as filler on my resume in the future when I'm looking for a job.

(A) Is it worth it?
(B) Will I e perceived as a self-important tosser for joining and including it on my resume?
(C) Should I just not join and put this (or other clubs/societies that I haven't necessarily been a member of) on my resume anyway?

I can't see myself in the near future attending any of the functions or networking events or anything. I am also aware of the whole idea of this particular society itself being a load of wank so I don't necessarily need to hear about it (I know I'm not special etc etc).
Click to expand...

I registered to become a GK member. A bit of a wankfest but it's something that stands out on a resume/cover letter that demonstrates your academic achievements.
Also, my chapter runs multiple networking events (Free booze) and community work throughout the year, which I tag along on the odd occasion my friends decide to go.
 
j2kboiz said:
What's the deal with articles now?

It's not called articles and you can do it at places like Leo Cussen. For some reason I thought merely the name had changed but I was told differently today.
Click to expand...

Often confused with the modern-day clerkships, to the best of my understanding, they have no relation to one another. Clerkships are vacation work undertaken by undergraduate students (glorified work experience).

Pretty sure they got rid of the term "articled clerks" and replaced them with "trainee solicitors". That is, they've basically changed the title of a graduate who is being shown the ropes via various rotations, pre-admission.

Would like to hear other thoughts? I know a couple of my lecturers gained admission through the article clerk process.
 
Coming to the end of my first semester in law... **** Contract. Seriously, **** it. Thought I'd got my head around it and then have tried to do a practice exam question where you have to actually apply knowledge to a hypothetical situation and am completely stumped.
 
getthefooty said:
Coming to the end of my first semester in law... **** Contract. Seriously, **** it. Thought I'd got my head around it and then have tried to do a practice exam question where you have to actually apply knowledge to a hypothetical situation and am completely stumped.
Click to expand...

Hate to break it to you, but Contracts is generally one of the easier subjects you'll do.

But give it time, it should come together for you.
 
jo172 said:
Hate to break it to you, but Contracts is generally one of the easier subjects you'll do.

But give it time, it should come together for you.
Click to expand...

Get ****ed it is. Found constitution and Admin 10 times more straight forward.
 
jo172 said:
Anecdotally I'd suggest your experience is unique. But each to their own.
Click to expand...

That's what the lecturer said to me. But having said that I apparently made good practical arguments and understanding but was hopeless theoretically :eek:.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

DTRAIN87 said:
Get ****ed it is. Found constitution and Admin 10 times more straight forward.
Click to expand...

I got to agree with Jo. Contract is one of the easiest subjects in law. Personally, I found Constitution and Admin to be a snorefest, so my judgment might be a little biased. But I really enjoyed doing Contract, with those fun cases ... Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball; Leonard v Pepsico ... :)
 
getthefooty said:
Any advice on how to approach it?
Click to expand...

Which part of contract are you struggling with, specifically? If you've identified an area or areas where you're struggling, then speak to your lecturer or to other students about it. Tell me which part of the unit you're having difficulty with and I may be able to help you out with some pointers.
 
DTRAIN87 said:
That's what the lecturer said to me. But having said that I apparently made good practical arguments and understanding but was hopeless theoretically :eek:.
Click to expand...

I thought contract was very straight forward conceptually, especially relative to a subject like admin.

Getthefooty, my advice for contract would be to just try and practice issue identification.

Have a look at http://www.australiancontractlaw.com/ it's pretty good for a broad, general overview.
 
getthefooty said:
Any advice on how to approach it?
Click to expand...

The beauty of contract is that it's not rocket science, you can almost appreciate it like a checklist (i've almost certainly forgotten things):

1. Intention to create legal relations (presumed in commercial context)
2. Offer?
3. Acceptance?
4. Consideration?

Once you have those you've got your contract. Just need to teach yourself those steps tbh.
 
jo172 said:
The beauty of contract is that it's not rocket science, you can almost appreciate it like a checklist (i've almost certainly forgotten things):

1. Intention to create legal relations (presumed in commercial context)
2. Offer?
3. Acceptance?
4. Consideration?

Once you have those you've got your contract. Just need to teach yourself those steps tbh.
Click to expand...

LOL they were 20% of our contract course. We had a whole lot of questions on implied terms, breach of contractual obligations, and the consumer code in ours. Maybe I have done a much harder course compared with yours. I know I laughed at how simple the contract assignment worth 40% at Deakin was when our comparative assignment was worth 15 and the same length in words.
 
DTRAIN87 said:
LOL they were 20% of our contract course. We had a whole lot of questions on implied terms, breach of contractual obligations, and the consumer code in ours. Maybe I have done a much harder course compared with yours. I know I laughed at how simple the contract assignment worth 40% at Deakin was when our comparative assignment was worth 15 and the same length in words.
Click to expand...

I did it 6 years ago champ ;) I did say I was giving the bare bones of contract law.

Not really sure if you expected me to recount an entire Law subject on BF
 
getthefooty said:
Coming to the end of my first semester in law... **** Contract. Seriously, **** it. Thought I'd got my head around it and then have tried to do a practice exam question where you have to actually apply knowledge to a hypothetical situation and am completely stumped.
Click to expand...
Feeling exactly the same way, to be honest, and it's beginning to make me incredibly anxious.

I agree with some here in that Contracts appears to be more straight-forward than other subjects - there are issues that need be identified, and once identified certain principles need be applied and explored but the sheer number of principles to be applied, and the depth of knowledge of cases is overwhelming.

And thats without having even finished all of the course content yet (there is perhaps 10% left)...
 
j flex roo said:
You'd be amazed at how little of the knowledge you obtain in a law course you actually use when practicing.

I estimate about 15%.

It's the less tangible (for want of a better word) skills you pick up that matter.
Click to expand...

You do need the background knowledge though. Without understanding how the whole thing works you'd be a worthless practitioner.
 
jo172 said:
You do need the background knowledge though. Without understanding how the whole thing works you'd be a worthless practitioner.
Click to expand...

Fair point but when you are told by a criminal lawyer you know that 70-80% of his cases involve finding technicalities to get charges dropped and most of these aren't taught in the course it seems about right. Many don't ever use units like Constitutional law in any great deph for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wormkilla
Any teachers out there changed careers or considering doing so?
Replies
0
Views
244
Wormkilla
Wormkilla

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top