BF2S Forums Good things that have happened in your life lately

It is a meme now. Not a movement.

Even though it's for comedy, walking proof that it doesn't mean shit.

you should put it on the cv

today i just got my marks back for law

80 contracts
75 crim laws
74 torts
62 ethics

LOL ETHICS.

for americunts 75+ is an A whilst the 62 would be a B- or C+

Dilbert_X wrote:

Found a very tired bat in a flower pot.

The bat rescue people took it away and are confident it will make a full recovery.

uziq wrote:

so basically you failed at the exam where you have to think & argue for yourself, rather than copping 50% of your marks on the 2eze option of memorising cases and statutes

yes. I really don't want to think. blackletterlaw4lyfe.

oh it's all open book exams so we don't memorize shit. apply dat law mang.

Last edited by Cybargs (2015-12-10 16:39:35)

Pocshy2.0 wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

uziq wrote:

so basically you failed at the exam where you have to think & argue for yourself, rather than copping 50% of your marks on the 2eze option of memorising cases and statutes

yes. I really don't want to think. blackletterlaw4lyfe.

oh it's all open book exams so we don't memorize shit. apply dat law mang.

Fuck man, what school do you go to? I've never heard of ANY law school that allows open book exams. I work with several lawyers daily from schools around the world (Canada, UK, Australia, US) and all they do is complain about the bad years of cramming info for exams. You don't go to Bond, do you?

UNSW and its pretty much top ranked lawl.

The premise is there's no point making people cram to remember common law and statutes since it turns it into a rote memory game. They want to see if you can apply the law learned during semester. So if you don't make notes you're competing against people who know their shit and can apply it.

I've had friends who went to U Syd which is closed book and they said it was a really horrible system and you get marked based on rote memorization not on your actual legal writing.

Protip: It's harder to get into my lawschool than U syd lawl. It was 99.7 ATAR for UNSW and 99.6 for U Syd. And we're going to introduce an LSAT like exam for those applying for law in 2017.

Last edited by Cybargs (2015-12-10 17:37:31)

Pocshy2.0 wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Pocshy2.0 wrote:

Fuck man, what school do you go to? I've never heard of ANY law school that allows open book exams. I work with several lawyers daily from schools around the world (Canada, UK, Australia, US) and all they do is complain about the bad years of cramming info for exams. You don't go to Bond, do you?

UNSW and its pretty much top ranked lawl.

The premise is there's no point making people cram to remember common law and statutes since it turns it into a rote memory game. They want to see if you can apply the law learned during semester. So if you don't make notes you're competing against people who know their shit and can apply it.

I've had friends who went to U Syd which is closed book and they said it was a really horrible system and you get marked based on rote memorization not on your actual legal writing.

Protip: It's harder to get into my lawschool than U syd lawl. It was 99.7 ATAR for UNSW and 99.6 for U Syd. And we're going to introduce an LSAT like exam for those applying for law in 2017.

I get that. But so much of being a lawyer is needing to know an accurate answer off the top of your head. Nobody in a meeting is going to wait for you to open the text and figure out what it says. They're going to expect you to instantly know, and then for the analysis to follow. You learn to apply that vast body of knowledge while articling. Or at least that's how they all did it...

In real life you get a lot of time to prepare for a case, you're not going to exactly know the specific statute. Generally when you see clients, you interview them and they wait around 20-30mins till you figure out solutions for them. Lawyers generally have a team of paralegals researching shit. When you specialize in an area you generally know all the common law/statute involved in the area. Most lawyers generally know the rules/law in the area but they'd hardly quote you the specific case/statute unless it's super common.

somewhat ridiculously literature exams are mostly closed book. good luck quoting an important passage or referring to a key scene in a play without the book there in front of you. only exams in which we were allowed to take the texts in were old and Middle English, because fuck being expected to memorise and quote passages from a language that no one even uses anymore.

for the latter two years of my undergrad I opted for courses that were examined wholly by essay or oral. the whole exam thing nowadays is so rigged by performance enhancing drugs at pretty much all top colleges, anyway. it's like riding the Tour de France or something when everyone is openly juiced.

the coolest and only acceptable exam in the world is the All Souls entrance exam.

Last edited by uziq (2015-12-11 00:44:02)

Cybargs wrote:

yeah what dilbs and zique said. gg bro

Just saying man, the lawyers I work with get asked all kinds of random questions working in intergovernmental relations. Nobody has time to let them run away for 30min to go look something up. They also show up in teams of at least 3 so if 2 of them don't know, hopefully the 3rd does. Maybe it's just that speed and accuracy are important in what I do, I don't know.

Why is speed so important? In my experience asking someone to solve an issue on the spot in a meeting often backfires - that's not what meetings are really for.

If you need to take 3 lawyers to a meeting you're really doing meetings wrong.

so i got offered to work as an account manager for a billion dollar real estate developer and the student lawsociety wants me to work as a the activities director for international students.

fuck yeah cunts.

gonna do both. crank up that cv