Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
WW isn't eccentric. Company has the highest failure rate because its the most substantive and content heavy Part A subject, followed by Evidence.
And I think its really telling of how unequipped the foreign grads are in an academic sense. Most of them are hardly used to that level of academic rigour that the NUS or SMU kids are used to.
The UK law schools teach law in a very touch and go fashion; hit all the right points and you'll get an "A" in your exams. At NUS, if you just hit all the right points without any critical analysis, you'll be lucky to get a B - or C+ on the bell curve.
I've seen the Part A syllabus and papers. Its really touch and go, due to time constraints obviously. Overseas grads don't grapple with the subject material half as much as the NUS or SMU kids did in their 1st or 2nd years. |
WW is a good prof and he is clear, concise and to the point. His hypotheticals are what you deal with as a corporate lawyer in practice.
Part A and Part B should be difficult because of many reasons.
Chief of the reasons are that standards should be set very high to retain the prestige and competency of a Singapore qualified lawyer. Won’t go into other jurisdictions but some have very questionable admission standards.
There is no eccentricity in any of the course setters. U go in you have to be competent which also means being knowledgeable. It’s applied knowledge rather than copying prose.
Failure in Part A and B means that individual need to relook at studying methods and strategy.
UK has to be touch and go because the exams are closed book.
I’m sure you are probably not aware.
When you do an open book, everyone has the same material in front of them.
If you give a tick all the points, what value add do you have? Everyone will write the same thing by virtue of open book exams.
Understand the context first before comparing.