alas it's that time of year

[FnG]magnolia;19108351 said:
I've just worked out that for the OP to be 17 he'd have been born in 1994.

That's terrifying.
Click to expand...

Why is that terrifying? People are being born right now! RIGHT NOW!
 
Ahleckz said:
Did you go early, or are you counting your Bachelors and Masters as two different ones?
I was meant to have my Honours when I was 20. I then got arthritis and it all went down the pan.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sort of cheating :p

Did a three year undergraduate degree (BSc) then a two year MA that was a qualifying law degree (law degree in 2 years rather than 3). I'm also a year group youngster which helps significantly :p
 
Nitefly said:
Well, I'm sort of cheating :p

Did a three year undergraduate degree (BSc) then a two year MA that was a qualifying law degree (law degree in 2 years rather than 3). I'm also a year group youngster which helps significantly :p
Click to expand...

I see, noticed you've been on about law for a while and was always wondering.
Good effort!
I have a friend who did a Meng and then did a Masters in Business or something or other over a few months and he claims he has 3 degrees. I don't have any of it. But your case is fair enough.

On a related note, got any EU Law notes? Got my exam on Friday and struggling.
As long as Direct Effect, Supremacy and Citizenship comes up I should be so so...
I do law, but I hate the majority of it.
 
Ahleckz said:
On a related note, got any EU Law notes? Got my exam on Friday and struggling.
As long as Direct Effect, Supremacy and Citizenship comes up I should be so so...
I do law, but I hate the majority of it.
Click to expand...

The big topics in EU law are IIRC:

Direct effect
Supremacy (this and direct effect come under 'effectiveness')
Free movement of goods (TFEU Art.34)
General principals of law (e.g. Mangold)
Fundamental rights

Then two areas involving member state sanctions (Art.58...?!) and ... individual complaints which I can't remember much about :p

I think if you divide it up like that (with 20-30 cases each) then it's pretty easy to visualise each area.

Obvious, obvious, obvious essay fodder is the horizontal direct effect issue, which is a bit of a joke. Personally I think the ECJ just makes it up as it goes along and pretends that it is vaguely relying on precedent, which is strange to us British lawyers but more in line with continental practice. The ECJ is also clear that it wants to skirt around areas that make little sense (e.g. it permits the horizontal direct effect of directives under another name, then denies that it's doing it - Unilever case IIRC). Something else that I concluded was that the legal sanctions against member states was actually far less effective than political accountability, but I'm afraid I can't remember by arguments for it in depth.

I haven't got any notes to assist you I'm afraid, all I have is LPC notes surrounding me (fear not, the LPC is a relative doddle).

Generally speaking, in my opinion law is only interesting to study when you understand the topics in depth at an academic level. Because the reading is so dry, the only time (if you have a normal attention span) than you can appreciate it and get very stimulated by it is close to exams and you start to draw similarities between topics and come up with original ideas. When you get to that level, it can become more interesting than something which is more interesting at face value, such as science. That's my view anyway.

Best of luck Sir :)
 
Aye, ploughing through it. I just can never remember cases when it comes to exam. Hence why I prefer more theoretical law. Hated criminal, competition and EU law. Give me Public International Law and Legal Theory though, and I'll walk it. I'll never be going down the solicitor/barrister path.

Because of my time off (because of illness) I've really lost all momentum and any interest that I did have in law. It's a PITA, but only I can turn it around.
Cheers.
 
Moses said:
Worked for a couple of years --> went to college for a couple of years --> uni (four year course). I really don't think I'll go down the solicitor/barrister route, it's more likely I'll go down the academic pathway, doing some international law, or something! But if I do ever apply...

A law degree in two years, but you only got to do the really boring stuff, ha! It's all about doing four years, then you can spend the first two doing all the stuff the SRA say you have to, then you can spend the next two doing interesting stuff :p.
Click to expand...
Hmm I took about as much of it as I could take :p

I'm most definitely not an academic in the research sense. I get excited by broad principles rather than nitty gritty. I get too distracted by boobs and shiny things :D


Ahleckz said:
Aye, ploughing through it. I just can never remember cases when it comes to exam. Hence why I prefer more theoretical law. Hated criminal, competition and EU law. Give me Public International Law and Legal Theory though, and I'll walk it. I'll never be going down the solicitor/barrister path.

Because of my time off (because of illness) I've really lost all momentum and any interest that I did have in law. It's a PITA, but only I can turn it around.
Cheers.
Click to expand...
My one saving grace is that I do have a fairly good memory, but it's perfected with technique. I came up with some ridiculous methods for remembering cases. Most of the time I arrange case names into symmetrical diagrams with lines and rings connected them, which then I reduce just the drawings, which I then reduced to numbers representing how many cases there were per 'row' of my diagram.

So I'd just go into the exam and write down something along the lines of:

473629
442397923
998736
etc

Allowing me to remember a perfect set of 200+ cases. I remember one lecturer seeing it in an exam and giving me a very strange look :p :o
 
Nitefly said:
My one saving grace is that I do have a fairly good memory, but it's perfected with technique. I came up with some ridiculous methods for remembering cases. Most of the time I arrange case names into symmetrical diagrams with lines and rings connected them, which then I reduce just the drawings, which I then reduced to numbers representing how many cases there were per 'row' of my diagram.

So I'd just go into the exam and write down something along the lines of:

473629
442397923
998736
etc

Allowing me to remember a perfect set of 200+ cases. I remember one lecturer seeing it in an exam and giving me a very strange look :p :o
Click to expand...

Bloody 'ell. If it works, it works! :)
 
27 to 35 were my favourite ages. I had a great time then :D

I wouldn't want to go back to being 17 again. I'm going through a bit of a difficult stage in life with a lot of stress at work and at home but at least with a lot of life experience (I'm nearly 42) I can cope with it and not much fazes me now. At 17 I was too young and inexperienced to make the most of things. But 27 to 35 I was young enough to enjoy life, young enough for things to still be a new experience, and yet old enough to be confident and have enough life experience to make the most of it.

No offence intended at all. But most 17 year olds still are children really.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom