Roll up, roll up!
The circus is about to begin!
See this year's contenders bear their souls for the ultimate prize!
Watch as the yearly royal rumble begins. Who will survive? Who has done enough? Who will be victorious, and who will lay exhausted and broken in the gutter of despair?
Only time will tell! Place your bets at the door!
How you'll laugh, how you'll cry, how you'll whoop with excitement!
Ladies and Gentlemen, it's that time of year again. Once a year, every year!
Pupillage applications have arrived.
Popcorn, anyone?
Thursday, 25 February 2010
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Scraping by
So, the exam results are in. The inevitable conclusion was that perhaps I need to work a bit harder. Whilst I certainly won't sneer at a VC for 3 of my 4 subjects, including the all important advocacy, they were disappointingly at the lower end of the spectrum. The one C I have so far obtained has left me concerned, particularly with the fact that drafting and opinion I find difficult. If nothing else, surviving the first exam period by the skin of my teeth ought to serve as a much needed kick up the proverbial.
Term 2 has already got worryingly under way, giving me the the joys of witness handling and negotiation to chew on. Luckily I seem to have at least some natural ability at witness handling. I am already growing to love the feeling of being on my feet, backing a class mate into an inescapable corner. Once again, having a good group makes a huge difference to the learning process. Having witnesses who are prepared to deviate wildly from the script as their closet-Thespian claws for freedom, eff, blind, talk inanely, try intensely to extract a snigger from your thin professional veneer and generally make the process as taxing as possible certainly forces you to bring out the best. That or gibber quietly as your brain tries agonisingly to coax the procedure for inconsistent statement out of the dark and cobwebby reaches of the mind, whilst the tutor stares deploringly at your quivering form.
Negotiation on the other hand is tedious, artificial and treated by many as a bit of a joke. Once the painful artificiality of the situation is overcome, it still remains ludicrous to reach a negotiation based on pre-determined lowest offers from 2 students, neither of whom is particularly willing to back down in case they breach their written "plan" and destroy their marks.
Now to return to my weekely ritual of completing the item marked as "work I really should have done during the week".
To coin a misquote, "Lead on, Macduff"
Term 2 has already got worryingly under way, giving me the the joys of witness handling and negotiation to chew on. Luckily I seem to have at least some natural ability at witness handling. I am already growing to love the feeling of being on my feet, backing a class mate into an inescapable corner. Once again, having a good group makes a huge difference to the learning process. Having witnesses who are prepared to deviate wildly from the script as their closet-Thespian claws for freedom, eff, blind, talk inanely, try intensely to extract a snigger from your thin professional veneer and generally make the process as taxing as possible certainly forces you to bring out the best. That or gibber quietly as your brain tries agonisingly to coax the procedure for inconsistent statement out of the dark and cobwebby reaches of the mind, whilst the tutor stares deploringly at your quivering form.
Negotiation on the other hand is tedious, artificial and treated by many as a bit of a joke. Once the painful artificiality of the situation is overcome, it still remains ludicrous to reach a negotiation based on pre-determined lowest offers from 2 students, neither of whom is particularly willing to back down in case they breach their written "plan" and destroy their marks.
Now to return to my weekely ritual of completing the item marked as "work I really should have done during the week".
To coin a misquote, "Lead on, Macduff"
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
Deceit Cookies
Ok, so term one was over, the holidays were ahead of me, looking to be filled in characteristic fashion a frantic mix of revision, sleeping and things I probably shouldn't have been doing when I had so much revision to do. All in all, a fairly standard affair.
The exam, as they are want to do, loomed ominously ahead of me. Given the (oh so justifiable) expenditure on the course that is the BVC, I thought that I really ought to try and do well. So I settled to the post festive spending season with with uncharacteristic fervour,. Considering myself not to be at home to Mr Cockup, I crammed, noted, studied and squinted until I felt prepared. I took the mock, racing through the questions like a hot knife through butter, and tallied up more score.
Damn.
Apparently I knew nothing, and so I returned to the drawing board for round two. It was then my coffee addled brain received a confidence boost. Sitting, surrounded by the detritus of the ritual takeaway, I cracked open the fortune cookies supplied to sneer scornfully at their superstitious scribbles. Low and behold, I was greeted with the following:
"You will pass a difficult test that will make you happy"
Questionable English aside, this small act of clairvoyances was at least close to the money. Not bad for a fortune cookie. Onto number two.
"You should think before you answer questions on Thursday".
Thursday was my exam day. I was, I must confess, at least slightly disturbed by this point. Not being the superstitious type, I was at least amazed by the chance involved in the presence of these particular two sayings, in my bag of sweet, free, crunchy goodness.
The exam day came and went, despite the best efforts of the snow to postpone the impending event.
It did not go well.
Apparently, I had been deceived by the cookies! These biscuity soothsaying deserts had led me astray! I had been misled by confectionery!
Shrugging my poor performance aside, term began once more. Hoping for a pick-me-up, I waited eagerly for the return of my mock drafting exercise.
It did not have the desired effect.
Ah, Mr Cockup. We have the penthouse room available. I'll have your bags sent up, along with my self-respect, immediately.
Oddy
The exam, as they are want to do, loomed ominously ahead of me. Given the (oh so justifiable) expenditure on the course that is the BVC, I thought that I really ought to try and do well. So I settled to the post festive spending season with with uncharacteristic fervour,. Considering myself not to be at home to Mr Cockup, I crammed, noted, studied and squinted until I felt prepared. I took the mock, racing through the questions like a hot knife through butter, and tallied up more score.
Damn.
Apparently I knew nothing, and so I returned to the drawing board for round two. It was then my coffee addled brain received a confidence boost. Sitting, surrounded by the detritus of the ritual takeaway, I cracked open the fortune cookies supplied to sneer scornfully at their superstitious scribbles. Low and behold, I was greeted with the following:
"You will pass a difficult test that will make you happy"
Questionable English aside, this small act of clairvoyances was at least close to the money. Not bad for a fortune cookie. Onto number two.
"You should think before you answer questions on Thursday".
Thursday was my exam day. I was, I must confess, at least slightly disturbed by this point. Not being the superstitious type, I was at least amazed by the chance involved in the presence of these particular two sayings, in my bag of sweet, free, crunchy goodness.
The exam day came and went, despite the best efforts of the snow to postpone the impending event.
It did not go well.
Apparently, I had been deceived by the cookies! These biscuity soothsaying deserts had led me astray! I had been misled by confectionery!
Shrugging my poor performance aside, term began once more. Hoping for a pick-me-up, I waited eagerly for the return of my mock drafting exercise.
It did not have the desired effect.
Ah, Mr Cockup. We have the penthouse room available. I'll have your bags sent up, along with my self-respect, immediately.
Oddy
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
I am assessed....
Tomorrow, weather permitting, is the 3 hour long slog that is the multiple choice test on civil and criminal so far.
It's fair to say.... I'm bricking it.
It's fair to say.... I'm bricking it.
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Returning from the wilderness
I have, it must confess, been somewhat lax in my blogging. Once term kicked in, I rarely found the time as things became more chaotic. Moving to the Big Smoke, the BVC's constant workload and generally trying to swim not sink means that I have failed to post.
And when I fail, I like to fail with flair.
So, now that the Christmas horror is upon us, I intend to return to this venture with renewed gusto, and hopefully some will carry on to the next term.
Since my last post, much has happened. In fact, the majority of the first term has slipped by with an alarming speed. There has been much rumbling in the criminal world too, and Labour's intended bills for the coming year will no doubt have attracted some attention to those interested. I will hopefully post on some of the highlights of the last few weeks that caught my eye n due course. I have also finished another mini, and will post up my idle ramblings shortly on mini's.
For now however, a few thoughts on the first term of the BVC...
Term 1 has been, for the most part, enjoyable. It is however, a mountain of work from week to week. I think it can perhaps best be described as 'relentless'. That is not to say that it isn't manageable, and spending a working week in the library means that it can more or less be done without eating into weekends or evenings. Unfortunately, I failed to be quite so organised after a few weeks, and soon slipped back into the student ways of slipping off for coffee (ahem, beer) at lunchtime with friends similarly inclined.
The abhorrent legal research in particular drove many to the early stages of alcoholism. For any pre-BVC students reading these ramblings, I should warn you now of the horrors of legal research. Being asked to produce the answer to a legal problem is, in itself, interesting. However, being forced to provide along with it upwards of 20 pages of "research trail" is mind numbing to say this least. What is this "research trail" I hear you cry? Is it a fun foray into the woods of knowledge? By calling it a trail, it sounds almost like a weekend activity for the under 12s at Butlins, complete with kendle mint cake, a compass that you won't use and green wellies half a size too big.
No such joy. It is, in short, cutting and pasting from the material you find. Worse still, proof of hardcopy research means that you have to copy verbatim text from hard sources, and edit to show that you can do so. Of course, photocopying the relevant passage and highlighting is not acceptable! It does not show the required editing. Apparently. Most infuriating of all, is the fact that the question is stolen wholesale from a real case. Many, like myself, quickly found the case and were therefore painfully aware that despite knowing the answer, the correct authority, and everything you need to answer the question, that you then had to spend several days slumped in front of the computer producing the trail of hell. Propped up on coffee, and gibbering slightly to myself, I did hand the answer in, complete with its research trail, loving crafted from a range of sources despite knowing the relevant ones within 10 minutes.
Adding salt to the wound, we were informed that we were to be the last year to suffer this task set by beelzebub himself. So, if this prediction comes true, then I state for the record that you are all lucky, lucky people.
Whilst mostly enjoyable, I have found the course incredibly frustrating. The questions often prevent thinking outside the box, the subjective nature of the marking of the oral skills can drive one to distraction, and the penchant for leaving students blundering in the dark is nothing short of infuriating. It is the last which is the most painful. On many occasions, we were tasked with something for advocacy and would then proceed to give it our (collective) best stab. We would then be criticised for having done X or Y wrong, and have it explained how it should be tackled. Often, we would have a lecture after the week's seminars explaining how our esteemed provided want said blunder to be approached or even a seminar in a separate skills subject covering it. The worst was the assessment. Required to edit a draft order for an interim injunction, I found myself fumbling inanely as to the best way of editing their provided version. My wild stab in the dark complete, I handed it in on time. The following day, we had a drafting seminar on how best to produce draft orders for interim injunction which was, most painfully of all, on almost an identical topic. This left myself, along with a fair few others, seething and ultimately left unable to do anything but await our fate in the marks apportioned for this with the assessment still a week away.
For now, I shall return to the laborious task of cleaning the detritus of a terms chaos. Negotiating the treacherous path from my desk to the kitchen is still of labyrinthine difficulty, and is a minefield of papers, cups of half drunk tea and notes that look like the inept scrawling of the insane.
Let the holiday begin.
Oddy
And when I fail, I like to fail with flair.
So, now that the Christmas horror is upon us, I intend to return to this venture with renewed gusto, and hopefully some will carry on to the next term.
Since my last post, much has happened. In fact, the majority of the first term has slipped by with an alarming speed. There has been much rumbling in the criminal world too, and Labour's intended bills for the coming year will no doubt have attracted some attention to those interested. I will hopefully post on some of the highlights of the last few weeks that caught my eye n due course. I have also finished another mini, and will post up my idle ramblings shortly on mini's.
For now however, a few thoughts on the first term of the BVC...
Term 1 has been, for the most part, enjoyable. It is however, a mountain of work from week to week. I think it can perhaps best be described as 'relentless'. That is not to say that it isn't manageable, and spending a working week in the library means that it can more or less be done without eating into weekends or evenings. Unfortunately, I failed to be quite so organised after a few weeks, and soon slipped back into the student ways of slipping off for coffee (ahem, beer) at lunchtime with friends similarly inclined.
The abhorrent legal research in particular drove many to the early stages of alcoholism. For any pre-BVC students reading these ramblings, I should warn you now of the horrors of legal research. Being asked to produce the answer to a legal problem is, in itself, interesting. However, being forced to provide along with it upwards of 20 pages of "research trail" is mind numbing to say this least. What is this "research trail" I hear you cry? Is it a fun foray into the woods of knowledge? By calling it a trail, it sounds almost like a weekend activity for the under 12s at Butlins, complete with kendle mint cake, a compass that you won't use and green wellies half a size too big.
No such joy. It is, in short, cutting and pasting from the material you find. Worse still, proof of hardcopy research means that you have to copy verbatim text from hard sources, and edit to show that you can do so. Of course, photocopying the relevant passage and highlighting is not acceptable! It does not show the required editing. Apparently. Most infuriating of all, is the fact that the question is stolen wholesale from a real case. Many, like myself, quickly found the case and were therefore painfully aware that despite knowing the answer, the correct authority, and everything you need to answer the question, that you then had to spend several days slumped in front of the computer producing the trail of hell. Propped up on coffee, and gibbering slightly to myself, I did hand the answer in, complete with its research trail, loving crafted from a range of sources despite knowing the relevant ones within 10 minutes.
Adding salt to the wound, we were informed that we were to be the last year to suffer this task set by beelzebub himself. So, if this prediction comes true, then I state for the record that you are all lucky, lucky people.
Whilst mostly enjoyable, I have found the course incredibly frustrating. The questions often prevent thinking outside the box, the subjective nature of the marking of the oral skills can drive one to distraction, and the penchant for leaving students blundering in the dark is nothing short of infuriating. It is the last which is the most painful. On many occasions, we were tasked with something for advocacy and would then proceed to give it our (collective) best stab. We would then be criticised for having done X or Y wrong, and have it explained how it should be tackled. Often, we would have a lecture after the week's seminars explaining how our esteemed provided want said blunder to be approached or even a seminar in a separate skills subject covering it. The worst was the assessment. Required to edit a draft order for an interim injunction, I found myself fumbling inanely as to the best way of editing their provided version. My wild stab in the dark complete, I handed it in on time. The following day, we had a drafting seminar on how best to produce draft orders for interim injunction which was, most painfully of all, on almost an identical topic. This left myself, along with a fair few others, seething and ultimately left unable to do anything but await our fate in the marks apportioned for this with the assessment still a week away.
For now, I shall return to the laborious task of cleaning the detritus of a terms chaos. Negotiating the treacherous path from my desk to the kitchen is still of labyrinthine difficulty, and is a minefield of papers, cups of half drunk tea and notes that look like the inept scrawling of the insane.
Let the holiday begin.
Oddy
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Abuse of police powers – s 5 POA 1986
There is always much controversy about the police, and abuse of their powers. As a general rule, this focuses around stop and search powers, and expansion under various pieces of terrorism legislation.
Today however, I am not focusing on this. I am instead looking at, in brief, S 5 Public Order Act 1986. In my opinion one of the most abused pieces of legislation under the expanding belt of police powers. I have always thought this is legislation which can be both defended and attacked depending on how it is used.
Of course, reading the act gives us the impression that it is intended to stop severely reprehensible behaviour in public that occurs “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress”. In other words, it should be used to stop the public being unduly concerned in their day by actions that go against that which is publically acceptable. A bit draconian, one might argue, but at least defensible in some respects.
However, my quibble is that it is used in such as a way as to be inconsistent with this. My annoyance has always been sparked whenever I have seen those appalling excuses for popular television that pass for cop shows. Police are frequently shown portraying a role of dealing (badly) with ASB in the public by going round and arresting drunkards on a Friday night in town centers.
I had the misfortune to catch one of these shows, and it neatly demonstrated why my anger at this is justified. I will recount what I saw:
A provocatively dressed young man (his jacket emblazoned with the intelligent slogan “fuck off”) broke up with his girlfriend in public, and, in an ill considered move played a quick round of fisticuffs with a wall. Marquis of Queensbury rules, naturally. No member of the public displayed any concern whatsoever.
An office then walked up to him, from behind, and grabbed his elbow. In response, the gent spun around and said “don’t fucking touch me”. The second officer restrained him forcibly, and they removed him from the train station. After a brief discussion where by the clearly dangerous youth (cough cough) asked politely what was going on, and was clear that he was just uptight due to his split from his now erstwhile girlfriend. His outburst he put as the result of being grabbed by surprise.
Frankly, the young man, despite his provocative dress, was intelligent and eloquent. He declined the penalty and was hauled off to the station. On route the police were forced to ignore a more serious call of a fight with one man being knocked out.
However, the crowning turd in the water pipe was this: he asked why he had been arrested, and the answer was (and I quote) “backchatting” as they drove to the station.
Now, I am pretty sure, “backchatting” doesn’t appear in the statue. Nope, it doesn’t. This is what infuriates me; it’s not an offence to annoy an officer by questioning what they are doing, provided it doesn’t stretch into the realms of obstruction. To be honest, using the power for this is clear abuse. The officer involved here ought to be disciplined, and very harshly. The statute has a legitimate public order aim, but arresting any individual you do not like is appalling. I was genuinely angered by this demonstration of police action, and continue to be infuriated by this statute’s public exercise. This needs a strong guideline on use, and police need to be forced away from doing this. I would go so far as to say current police practices are undermining the legitimacy of the police, as well as the legislation. Worse still, it wastes time and public money dealing with trivial issues that would have deflated had they been left well alone.
Not only this, but given that the words “fuck off” on his jacket were not sufficient to cause the offence, then surely him merely saying it an a manner audible only to his friends isn’t sufficient. Unless, of course, the officers were “person(s) likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress” by the expletive? Seems unlikely. In fact, I would say they can fuck off. Swearing does not really offend the public in most cases. Where a circle of people who regularly swear as a matter of course, to the extent that it is ingrained language, and no one else can hear, it must not be an offence. Therefore swearing in front of the officer is not an offence either, unless they fall under said category. Given that most policemen I have met swear like sailors, I find it unlikely.
If I was grabbed from behind on a Friday night, my response would have been along the same lines. In all honesty I would have responded more viciously as a matter of instinct, and suffered the consequences as a result. That aside, I seriously question the use of this legislation for behavior such as this.
What is worse is the fact this can lead to an on the spot fixed penalty notice. The police get to act as the judiciary as well, even where they may very well be in the wrong as to the application of the power. Given that this event is on film, including the abhorrent “backchat” moment, I am sure a competent barrister would have made a meal out of this. Yet most people will no doubt take the fine rather than be required to waste a day at the Mags court. But that is a whole other kettle of fish, for another day.
My point here is that this statute is misused. It has become, in my opinion, a farce. Being arrested for a section 5 offence has become synonymous with not really having done anything, and probably just annoyed an officer at the end of a long day.
Friday, 9 October 2009
It has begun!
Ok, so I have been away from the blawgosphere for a while. Starting at BPP as a lifer, moving down to the Big Smoke and starting the next stage of my life has been a very busy experience.
The second part to my series on my failed application experiences will come later, but I just wanted to get a quick word in first about having at last started the BVC.
A few first impressions
I arrived, fresh faced and rosy on the first day, ready for all that the world had to offer.
Ok, that's a lie. I arrived late, red faced and feeling like a massive idiot already. My subconscious desire for a more glamorous memory of my arrival has therefore kicked in, and has not so much applied rose-tinted spectacles for the viewing but fired the previous director, hired a script writer, taken on a more handsome model to play me and re-shot the whole opening scene. Ah, much better...
The first week was much as I had expected; the usual gloriously tedious introductory lectures, gratuitous queuing to hand in forms to allow one times to become intimately acquainted with the nearby wall, and other pleasures of equally dubious nature.
Life on the inside is divided into two principle ways. There are the imaginatively titled LGSs (or large group sessions) that are the few lectures we have for each module, and SGSs (small group sessions) that are the seminars. Much time is devoted to the latter this is the focus of "student orientated learning", and fortunately so.
The usefulness of the LGS has ranged from integral to ones survival, to an hour of pointing out the inanely obvious. However with the hoop-jumping attitude of the attendance requirement, being present at all of these sessions is an unfortunate necessity. I have been one of the few who has had their name called out to check attendance, and had luckily decided not to slope off to a nearby watering hole with a friend in the area that day.
The SGSs are equally varied, and the subject and lecturer have huge impacts on how interesting these can actually be.
Criminal and Civil feel too much like undergraduate seminars for comfort, just with longer reading lists. Presented with a long reading list from either the CPR or Blackstone's and a list of questions makes for a dull day in the library knocking out the two. Fortunately I really like my criminal tutor, and this makes the process more enjoyable. As a wannabe criminal hack however, civil is doubly tortuous; it seems so irrelevant to what I want to do. Most of my group are the other way round, and find doing criminal almost an insult. The feeling is mutual!
Advocacy and conference are the highlights of the week. The first advocacy session, despite my insatiable incompetency at the exercise finally made it all feel worth while. For any reader who is at that stage in their degree where they wonder why the hell they are in the library again, this is why. The first 5 seconds on my feet speaking and I knew why I was here. Why the hell isn't advocacy in some form part of the undergraduate experience? My own annoyance is that some of my group are already easily getting outstanding, and my competitive nature is chomping at the bit as a result of only achieving a mid VC. Conference is fun, but thanks to my group rather than anything done by the lecturer. Role play can be made less tedious if your client is played by someone witty and imaginative enough to keep the exercise alive. The marking of the exercises however appears random, and some of my class mates who are clearly performing better are not scoring so, much to their frustration. I for one don't blame them.
Legal Research - Just....No.
Professional Ethics - This has been taught surprisingly well, and role playing your answers to the client (played by the lecturer who was determined to be difficult) made the experience a challenge rather than a tedious hoop-jump exercises.
Opinion (and drafting) - made bearable by the tutor who understands the reality of student life, and would rather go through things in an intelligent fashion and explain what you should be doing to get good marks rather than hammer someone who hasn't fully prepared that week. When she said in the first SGS that she understands that how much you get done each week for each topic is a matter of priority rather than saying "opinion comes first" meant she was getting a standing ovation if my head.
So far the workload has been unproblematic. Treating it like a 9-5 job everyday has meant I have had very few late evenings or busy weekend. Given that Friday's are off, I barely even have to work on them to be easily 24-48 hours ahead of my timetable. Much of my group work this way, and we can often be found en masse in the library working away. If you can work like this, I would suggest it. For the first time in my academic career, I am on top of my work. Shame about everything else in my life!
Finally...my group. I am yet to characterise them fully, although they will doubtless appear from time to time. What I will say now is that they have made the course. They allow the tedious elements to be enjoyable, provide worthy adversaries in advocacy and conference, and the good-natured humour between us has given the experience a much needed lift.
The experience has begun. I am on the inside. I am a lifer.
The second part to my series on my failed application experiences will come later, but I just wanted to get a quick word in first about having at last started the BVC.
A few first impressions
I arrived, fresh faced and rosy on the first day, ready for all that the world had to offer.
Ok, that's a lie. I arrived late, red faced and feeling like a massive idiot already. My subconscious desire for a more glamorous memory of my arrival has therefore kicked in, and has not so much applied rose-tinted spectacles for the viewing but fired the previous director, hired a script writer, taken on a more handsome model to play me and re-shot the whole opening scene. Ah, much better...
The first week was much as I had expected; the usual gloriously tedious introductory lectures, gratuitous queuing to hand in forms to allow one times to become intimately acquainted with the nearby wall, and other pleasures of equally dubious nature.
Life on the inside is divided into two principle ways. There are the imaginatively titled LGSs (or large group sessions) that are the few lectures we have for each module, and SGSs (small group sessions) that are the seminars. Much time is devoted to the latter this is the focus of "student orientated learning", and fortunately so.
The usefulness of the LGS has ranged from integral to ones survival, to an hour of pointing out the inanely obvious. However with the hoop-jumping attitude of the attendance requirement, being present at all of these sessions is an unfortunate necessity. I have been one of the few who has had their name called out to check attendance, and had luckily decided not to slope off to a nearby watering hole with a friend in the area that day.
The SGSs are equally varied, and the subject and lecturer have huge impacts on how interesting these can actually be.
Criminal and Civil feel too much like undergraduate seminars for comfort, just with longer reading lists. Presented with a long reading list from either the CPR or Blackstone's and a list of questions makes for a dull day in the library knocking out the two. Fortunately I really like my criminal tutor, and this makes the process more enjoyable. As a wannabe criminal hack however, civil is doubly tortuous; it seems so irrelevant to what I want to do. Most of my group are the other way round, and find doing criminal almost an insult. The feeling is mutual!
Advocacy and conference are the highlights of the week. The first advocacy session, despite my insatiable incompetency at the exercise finally made it all feel worth while. For any reader who is at that stage in their degree where they wonder why the hell they are in the library again, this is why. The first 5 seconds on my feet speaking and I knew why I was here. Why the hell isn't advocacy in some form part of the undergraduate experience? My own annoyance is that some of my group are already easily getting outstanding, and my competitive nature is chomping at the bit as a result of only achieving a mid VC. Conference is fun, but thanks to my group rather than anything done by the lecturer. Role play can be made less tedious if your client is played by someone witty and imaginative enough to keep the exercise alive. The marking of the exercises however appears random, and some of my class mates who are clearly performing better are not scoring so, much to their frustration. I for one don't blame them.
Legal Research - Just....No.
Professional Ethics - This has been taught surprisingly well, and role playing your answers to the client (played by the lecturer who was determined to be difficult) made the experience a challenge rather than a tedious hoop-jump exercises.
Opinion (and drafting) - made bearable by the tutor who understands the reality of student life, and would rather go through things in an intelligent fashion and explain what you should be doing to get good marks rather than hammer someone who hasn't fully prepared that week. When she said in the first SGS that she understands that how much you get done each week for each topic is a matter of priority rather than saying "opinion comes first" meant she was getting a standing ovation if my head.
So far the workload has been unproblematic. Treating it like a 9-5 job everyday has meant I have had very few late evenings or busy weekend. Given that Friday's are off, I barely even have to work on them to be easily 24-48 hours ahead of my timetable. Much of my group work this way, and we can often be found en masse in the library working away. If you can work like this, I would suggest it. For the first time in my academic career, I am on top of my work. Shame about everything else in my life!
Finally...my group. I am yet to characterise them fully, although they will doubtless appear from time to time. What I will say now is that they have made the course. They allow the tedious elements to be enjoyable, provide worthy adversaries in advocacy and conference, and the good-natured humour between us has given the experience a much needed lift.
The experience has begun. I am on the inside. I am a lifer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)