Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered
What the other poster said was generally more helpful than what you said. What you said was akin to "when driving car you must open your eyes and watch the road". Correct, but not very helpful.
My own take on Part A:
At the risk of resuscitating that garbage about which university is better, it is generally an open secret that some UK universities are degree mills. Not every school a good school. I have met UK 2:1 grads who could not satisfactorily explain fully secret and half secret trusts to me, and even some who had to look up what an easement was.
Part A is also the rigour that they would have been subjected to had they studied at NUS. This is not elitist in anyway. Ask your friends that studied in the UK. There are people that attended school only once a year during exams; rest of the time doing god knows what. They can tell you which club will let you in, where to get 10 quid vodka, and all kinds of stuff that you couldn't or even wouldn't dare do in this country.
So yeah. Get your 2:1, but Part A is where you find out if it is worth the paper its printed on. It's not even to filter out who's ready for practice or not - it's literally to protect the profession and the public from incompetence. Legal practice, legal procedure, etc. you can all learn during TC and onwards. Its not a big deal and you have to be a thicko not to pick up on these things after doing it every day for a living.
But to tell me that director resign also means employment contract also terminated? Wtf. If anything, I interpret the Part A pass rates to mean that UK teaching and the quality of students going there is highly unsatisfactory. All these people posting here asking for help with Part A, maybe you should have paid attention in uni and not partied so much, or studied another degree instead.
I hope they keep Part A that way. No one is entitled to be a lawyer simply because they did a law degree, and the public ought to be protected from such incompetence. Its damn bloody disturbing. I'm not joking. Think of the time spent resitting as time you should've invested in studying properly instead of watching war horse in leicester square or going to the lake district or flying to croatia or whatever.
None of you would visit a doc who couldn't tell your liver from your heart, you all don't come and cry here when your legal fundamentals cmi. |
Yes and I also think there is an equal public policy in making Part B harder. There is no reason to have a mandated high failure rate of 50-70% at Part A and only 30% at Part B. If intellectual rigour is your cup of tea, make Part B have a 50-70% failure rate for parity.
No point defending high failure rates at Part A and low failure rates at Part B. This is inconsistent witb eradicating the incompetence you speak of. Unless, of course, there's something to hide. Last I heard from my juniors,
NUS kids who took ACP also had a high failure rate. What's the other one, mediation? Whatever. Quite funny that their schoolmates come on and diss Part A on an anonymous forum.
It is notoriously easy at Part B. This is unsatisfactory. Just get some senior's
NUS notes and study the day before and you expect to pass. Everyone knows, and the public should equally be protected from such incompetence.
I have met good lawyers from the degree mills you talk about and people from
NUS who can't get the law right as hard as they try. So I don't really understand your stereotype. I have also gone up against people from
NUS who don't know what they are doing.
Source: I also passed both on first try.