NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Completely Off-Topic => Topic started by: Harmonius on August 18, 2006, 12:17:43 pm
-
Kingston Law School
*Sings, Oh happy day*
-
That's lovely. Congradulations.
-
Cool! Congrats! Get ready to become a hermit. lol
-
For the Americans in this thread: In most of the world, law is an undergraduate degree. The US is somewhat weird in that law is generally a first professional doctorate.
-
Really? That's interesting.
-
Thank you guys. I'm already a Hermit :lol:
-
What?
-
Yeah, cause I looked at his post and then his age and I was confused, like "woah, law school at 18?" Haha. Well I think that makes sense. Here you have to go and get a bachelors in something irrelevant, or just basically involved, before you can actually train for the law career you want.
The world is smarter than America in this I think =D
-
I'm not quite sure about America but in the UK, the choice to study Law as a subject is also available. The education system here is a little different fom the US. We first have 5 years of secodnary school (whereas you guys get 7 years of high school). After secondary school, we enroll in either a college or a sixth form for 2 years. Whether we go to college or sixth form depends on our GCSE results we get from Secondary school. At this point we are 16 and are free to leave education for good.
College and sixth form are basically the same thing, although a sixth form takes place in a current secondary school. College is a seperate educating system just only for A-levels. A levels are the equivalent of SATs. A-levels determine whether we go to university or not. University to you guys means college.
During A-level studies at college or sixth form, we have a choice of what to study, most take 4 "AS or half subjects". At the end of the first academic year, we can drop one AS and carry on with the remaining. Many people choose not to drop any subjects and continue for a full course AKA A levels.
University depends on how well our A-level results are. University system for A-level is provided by UCAS:
A = 120 Points
B = 100 Points
C = 80 ""
D = 60 ""
E = 40 ""
U = Fail 0 points
-
Here you have to go and get a bachelors in something irrelevant, or just basically involved, before you can actually train for the law career you want.
The world is smarter than America in this I think =D
I think it actually makes sense. The idea is that you have knowledge in a field other than law and that gives you a broader view of things. Also, even if your undergraduate degree has nothing to do with law, it will teach you how to think more clearly, allowing you to get more out of law school.
-
(whereas you guys get 7 years of high school).
Nope. High school in the US is generally four years.
A levels are the equivalent of SATs. A-levels determine whether we go to university or not.
Yes and no. The SATs are not that important on their own. They are just one part of the college application. For example, my high school GPA really sucked. However, I got into the university that I did because my SAT score was very high. There are also people I know who had very high GPAs that made up for low SAT scores. Some schools (some of which are considered to be very good) don't even require the SAT exams. In England, the A-levels seem to be one of the primary hurdles to admission at a school, with many schools making an admission offer contingent on the student achieving a certain set of scores.
Also, the SAT is nothing like the A-levels in form and content. The SAT was formerly an IQ test that is now confused as to what it is. The College Board, who administers the exam, says that scores on the exam have a very strong correlation with freshman GPA and that is why they claim that it is useful for admissions committees to look at. The SAT IIs test knowledge in subject areas like the A-levels. However, they are not very rigorous at all. The closest thing that US students take in form and content to the A-levels are the Advanced Placement (AP) exams that many high school students take for early college credit. They cover specific subject areas and are generally considered to be quite rigorous. However, I know of no school who actually requires them for admission, although they can be a major plus for admissions.
-
I'm not quite sure about America but in the UK...
woah, stop right there....Scotland has a completely different education system than England.
-
I think it actually makes sense. The idea is that you have knowledge in a field other than law and that gives you a broader view of things. Also, even if your undergraduate degree has nothing to do with law, it will teach you how to think more clearly, allowing you to get more out of law school.
Rosie and I fight about this all the time. College/University in the European system is more like a technical school and they never focus on the liberal arts background that US schools prefer.
-
I think the fact that universities in the U.S. require so much more "core curriculum" to produce more "well-rounded" graduates is one of the main things that makes so many students not finish. Plus, it's very common for professional degree holders to earn better salaries than bachelor's degree holders, and professional schools focus entirely on the professional field the student wants to enter.
-
(whereas you guys get 7 years of high school).
Nope. High school in the US is generally four years.
Yes, but I think he was referring to what we also call middle school possibly. Middle and High school are both secondary schools in the US.
And where I understand that a clearer understanding in general studies would help in a graduate law degree in some ways, education is too expensive in my opinion to "possibly" help, or "kind of" help. If I wanted to be a lawyer I would prefer not to have to spend $80,000 on a liberal arts degree before I go spend anoter $80,000+ on a graduate law degree... Idk, maybe that's just me. And I am just spouting those figures, etc.
And my school is a liberal arts college and I do agree that we have too many "gen eds", or core classes. I don't see how taking chemistry and biology with labs is going to make my career any easier once I graduate (I'm an English major)... maybe if I remembered everything I learned, but I really won't. I just BS my way through gen eds, most students do.
-
And where I understand that a clearer understanding in general studies would help in a graduate law degree in some ways, education is too expensive in my opinion to "possibly" help, or "kind of" help. If I wanted to be a lawyer I would prefer not to have to spend $80,000 on a liberal arts degree before I go spend anoter $80,000+ on a graduate law degree... Idk, maybe that's just me. And I am just spouting those figures, etc.
Well, lawyers generally make more than enough to pay back loans and such. Most professional degrees are major money makers for the holders. The expense is small compared to the monetary benefit.
Also, consider this particular facet of the post-graduate law degree. I am currently an engineering major. One of my possible options after I finish my undergrad is to go to law school and become a patent lawyer. In other countries, I'd have to get two undergraduate degrees to pull this off.
-
Will, you're going into Law too? This is pretty cool stuff. I'm not sure how much law you know already but it's an amazing subject. I was very fortunate enough to take it as one of my A-levels, of which I gained a B grade for it.
It's complicated but very interesting.
-
Law interests me, but I don't know if it interests me more than electromagnetism or mathematics. I also don't know if I want to work the long hours needed. But, I am considering it.
-
good luck in school remember its alot of reading and memory
and be prepared for a question from the teacher and if you dont know,
he wont ask u again,my oldest brother did law school 6 yrs ago, he missed ther bar exam by points but was able to pass it the 2nd time!
windycity
-
And where I understand that a clearer understanding in general studies would help in a graduate law degree in some ways, education is too expensive in my opinion to "possibly" help, or "kind of" help. If I wanted to be a lawyer I would prefer not to have to spend $80,000 on a liberal arts degree before I go spend anoter $80,000+ on a graduate law degree... Idk, maybe that's just me. And I am just spouting those figures, etc.
Well, lawyers generally make more than enough to pay back loans and such. Most professional degrees are major money makers for the holders. The expense is small compared to the monetary benefit.
Also, consider this particular facet of the post-graduate law degree. I am currently an engineering major. One of my possible options after I finish my undergrad is to go to law school and become a patent lawyer. In other countries, I'd have to get two undergraduate degrees to pull this off.
Ok, well think of my situation. To be a college professor or even a librarian I am supposed to have at minimum a Masters. Professors usually have their doctorate, too. Neither of those two professions would pay me enough to make up for the cost of graduate school quickly.
-
I think the fact that universities in the U.S. require so much more "core curriculum" to produce more "well-rounded" graduates is one of the main things that makes so many students not finish. Plus, it's very common for professional degree holders to earn better salaries than bachelor's degree holders, and professional schools focus entirely on the professional field the student wants to enter.
Yeah.... the only time a professional school graduate make more than a university student with a liberal arts degree is if the university student majors in like English or Poli Sci. If he or she majors in anything useful, that simlpy doesn't happen. The statistics show over and over and over that, on average, graduating from a 4 year university means you make more.
And it's a GOOD thing if the liberal arts background chases the slackers, the weak and the stupid out of our college systems. That's the point.
And the result? The U.S. has the highest standard of living and like the 2nd highest GDP per capita. The #1 IIRC is like Norway and is entirely because of their oil.
-
And where I understand that a clearer understanding in general studies would help in a graduate law degree in some ways, education is too expensive in my opinion to "possibly" help, or "kind of" help. If I wanted to be a lawyer I would prefer not to have to spend $80,000 on a liberal arts degree before I go spend anoter $80,000+ on a graduate law degree... Idk, maybe that's just me. And I am just spouting those figures, etc.
Law is a job based on your ability to make convincing arguments, do research, compose intelligent opinions, etc etc etc. All skills that are learned in a ton of different classes. History is a major component of law. Being able to communicate well is very important to law. In fact, being able to relate to people and speak intelligently about a variety of subjects is very important to law.
Law, more than almost any other degree, takes advantage of the liberal arts degree.
And my school is a liberal arts college and I do agree that we have too many "gen eds", or core classes. I don't see how taking chemistry and biology with labs is going to make my career any easier once I graduate (I'm an English major)... maybe if I remembered everything I learned, but I really won't. I just BS my way through gen eds, most students do.
Because when you graduate, and you get into a conversation with someone who is in the field of chemistry, you can speak intelligently about it.
Also, in that chemistry class, you learned how things work. Even if you don't remember the details, you remember the concepts. So you don't sit around wondering why water is H20.
And most importantly, you are LEARNING HOW TO LEARN. If all you do is take classes you are comfortable with or good at, then you will be less likely to learn more interesting or challenging things for the rest of your life. It forces you out of your comfort zone. It's like asking "Why should I do thigh exercises? I don't need those muscles to walk." Well, no, but it's good exercise, makes you look better, and improves your overall physical health.
And if your school lets you coast through the gen ed classes, you need a new school.
-
Ok, well thanks for being quite condescending, saying english and poly sci majors are useless! There are uses for every major out there, and just because having an english major means I probably won't strike a fantastic salary, that doesn't mean whatever job I take on will be useless.
:roll:
Oh and I learned why water is H20 in middle and high school. Actually, probably in elementary school.
-
Ok, well thanks for being quite condescending, saying english and poly sci majors are useless! There are uses for every major out there, and just because having an english major means I probably won't strike a fantastic salary, that doesn't mean whatever job I take on will be useless.
:roll:
Oh and I learned why water is H20 in middle and high school. Actually, probably in elementary school.
Right. Salary isn't a direct measure of your value to society or anything. That's clearly not how free markets work.
Also, thanks for proving my point with the later comment.
-
Oh, then I guess anyone in an underpaid job isn't really valuable to society. I guess teachers are useless, huh?
And my point was that I didn't learn anything in my gen ed Chemistry class that I didn't already know... And I'm also not trying to say that the classes are altogether pointless with no benefit, just that I don't think in a lot of cases they are worth the thousands of dollars in tuition they each cost.
-
Andrew i agree that that learning is extremely important. In fact i feel very strongly about your statement regarding the comfort zone. However in regards to salary vs importance to society comment; As much as it can be generally stated and true, is not always the case imo. Such as Noelle said, teachers are extremely valuable, and your hypothesis on schooling supports this issue. Its pretty well known that teachers recieve a rather subpar income.
-
As much as it can be generally stated and true, is not always the case imo. Such as Noelle said, teachers are extremely valuable, and your hypothesis on schooling supports this issue. Its pretty well known that teachers recieve a rather subpar income.
No... society does not especially value teachers. Teachers may be very important to society as a whole, however, their average salary is a clear indicator that society does not value them that much. The value vs. importance distinction is a very important one.
-
Will, you are right, but that isn't the way Grakthis presented his argument because at first he was saying those majors (English and Poly Sci) were also "useless". He thinks they are both useless and unvaluable to society. When he said those things in conjunction it pretty much showed that he must not think they are important, whether that was his intention or not.
And just let me add that I know he must actually think teachers are important, at least some of them- but he comes off with such a smug attitude about everything that I couldn't help but point the above out. My real point is that there are other careers/job positions that fit into the same categories of what he would call useless and unvalued and those are really the types of things I am trying to defend.
-
As much as it can be generally stated and true, is not always the case imo. Such as Noelle said, teachers are extremely valuable, and your hypothesis on schooling supports this issue. Its pretty well known that teachers recieve a rather subpar income.
No... society does not especially value teachers. Teachers may be very important to society as a whole, however, their average salary is a clear indicator that society does not value them that much. The value vs. importance distinction is a very important one.
The distinction between value and importance? Oh um let me look up "value" in the dictionary....
1. relative worth, merit, or importance
-
OWNED!
-
The distinction between value and importance? Oh um let me look up "value" in the dictionary....
1. relative worth, merit, or importance
Let's check with a real dictionary, the OED.
value, n. I. 1. a. That amount of some commodity, medium of exchange, etc., which is considered to be an equivalent for something else; a fair or adequate equivalent or return. Phr. value for money (freq. attrib.).
value, v. I. 1. trans. To estimate or appraise as being worth a specified sum or amount. Const. at, to, or with inf.
In any case, when talking economics, the above definition is the only one used.
-
The distinction between value and importance? Oh um let me look up "value" in the dictionary....
1. relative worth, merit, or importance
Let's check with a real dictionary, the OED.
value, v. I. 1. trans. To estimate or appraise as being worth a specified sum or amount. Const. at, to, or with inf.
In any case, when talking economics, the above definition is the only one used.
Lets check with the statement i was referring too "Salary isn't a direct measure of your value to society or anything"
And now with importance "Salary isn't a direct measure of your importance to society or anything"
Pretty much proves that what you were trying to derail my statement with is incorrect. I'm not so sure he meant "Salary isn't a direct measure of your monetary value to society or anything" because that would be a completely redundant and pointless statement.
You pulled the word out of the context of the argument to attempt and debunk me! GG
Sorry, I meant to reply and I hit edit instead. I think I got your original post back. Sorry for me being stupid. :-p - Will
-
I'm quite sure the good 'ol OED would have defined "Value" as more than what you said. In fact, let me take a look for myself. Straight out of the compact OED online. And it's the word 'value' alone. Not any of the prefixed variations I'm sure you found.
• noun 1 the regard that something is held to deserve; importance or worth. 2 material or monetary worth. 3 (values) principles or standards of behaviour. 4 the numerical amount denoted by an algebraic term; a magnitude, quantity, or number. 5 Music the relative duration of the sound signified by a note.
• verb (values, valued, valuing) 1 estimate the value of. 2 consider to be important or beneficial.
— DERIVATIVES valueless adjective valuer noun.
— ORIGIN Old French, from Latin valere.
And I understand what you are saying about the economic definition, but Grak didn't make that especially clear. Like I said, he called them unvaluable and useless!
-
What has become of my thread?
:cry:
-
I know, I'm sorry, but I had to defend myself and my major!!
-
Lets check with the statement i was referring too "Salary isn't a direct measure of your value to society or anything"
And now with importance "Salary isn't a direct measure of your importance to society or anything"
Pretty much proves that what you were trying to derail my statement with is incorrect. I'm not so sure he meant "Salary isn't a direct measure of your monetary value to society or anything" because that would be a completely redundant and pointless statement.
It doesn't matter. Salary, by definition, is the value society ("the market") gives to a person. If you're talking economics (salary was the topic of discussion), it isn't unreasonable to assume that you're using economic terms.
Edit: "To estimate or appraise as being worth a specified sum or amount." That sum or amount being determined by what Will?
The job market is what dictates that.
-
You know what? All I want is Grakthis to come back and just apologize for calling certain jobs or majors in college useless. And actually it doesn't even matter if he apologizes, it just frustrates me that he would say something like that, as if he's better than somebody else. :evil:
-
Lets check with the statement i was referring too "Salary isn't a direct measure of your value to society or anything"
And now with importance "Salary isn't a direct measure of your importance to society or anything"
Pretty much proves that what you were trying to derail my statement with is incorrect. I'm not so sure he meant "Salary isn't a direct measure of your monetary value to society or anything" because that would be a completely redundant and pointless statement.
It doesn't matter. Salary, by definition, is the value society ("the market") gives to a person. If you're talking economics (salary was the topic of discussion), it isn't unreasonable to assume that you're using economic terms.
Edit: "To estimate or appraise as being worth a specified sum or amount." That sum or amount being determined by what Will?
The job market is what dictates that.
Well i interpreted his use of the word value as importance. So it does matter. Value can be used in such a way and if Andrew meant value in a monetary sense im not even sure his statement makes sense. Excuse me while i find a dead horse.
-
Well to be honest im not sure Andrew's statement was meant as a 100% scenario regarding those majors being useless. I know some very well paid IT directors who never even went to college. Im not sure but he may have been stressing that people who typically just get those degrees are those incapable of or too lazy to endure a more difficult major.
-
They are not necessarily easy majors. It depends on what school you go to. At my school, for example, the hardest major is Biology. I'm sure I would not do so well in upper level Math and Chemistry either, but most of the other majors available after that: including (among others) English, Philosophy, Psychology, Education, Art, Art History, Theater, History, Music, Sociology, and Anthropology are all pretty much equally difficult in my opinion. I majored in English because I have always loved it, it is what I am best at, not because I'm lazy or incapable of anything else. I have also taken a number of upper level philosophy and psychology courses just because it interests me. Just because someone may not excel in math and science does not mean they are not as smart as somebody who does. My best friend from school is a biochem major and she is good at that, but she never looked down on me or my other friends who are English majors as slackers. The amount of reading and writing she saw us having to do alone gave her respect for our major.
-
Oh, then I guess anyone in an underpaid job isn't really valuable to society. I guess teachers are useless, huh?
Teachers aren't USELESS, teachers are easily replaced :teach:
It's a job that lots of people can do and would do. Therefore, it has a low value. Which is exactly what I said.
And my point was that I didn't learn anything in my gen ed Chemistry class that I didn't already know... And I'm also not trying to say that the classes are altogether pointless with no benefit, just that I don't think in a lot of cases they are worth the thousands of dollars in tuition they each cost.
Good for you. That's because you are a smart person. Most people get more out of those classes.
-
Will, you are right, but that isn't the way Grakthis presented his argument
You know, that old legend about teachers not getting paid enough is bogus in most counties now. Starting teacher salaries are like 40G at public schools in most cities.
It's private school teachers who don't make shit.
-
You know what? All I want is Grakthis to come back and just apologize for calling certain jobs or majors in college useless. And actually it doesn't even matter if he apologizes, it just frustrates me that he would say something like that, as if he's better than somebody else. :evil:
1) I am sorry. English majors are not useless. I minored in English and would have majored had I been in school longer. I love studying literature and there are some jobs to which it is advantagous. In fact, when I made that post I didn't realize you were an Eng major cause I missed that in your previous post. It was intended to be hyperbole... English majors are low income degrees, but not completely useless.
2) I am better than you. You have to learn in life that some people really ARE better than other people. It's why Bill Gates has billions and I don't.
-
8O That last comment was a little bit uncalled for. What makes you better than me? How would you know?((I don't think money makes someone better than another)))
-
2) I am better than you.
No, she is much better than you.
-
Bill Gates has his billions because of his mother rich mother working at IBM getting him in the right place at the right time.
-
congrats! when you become a lawyer, don't be one of those guys that advertises how well they defend child molesters and sex offenders, k?
-
What has become of my thread?
:cry:
haha its ok. we've just got some very opinionated nessaholics. and thats not bad, cos i disagree with half the things people say on these boards, and what could be more fun than arguing with a bunch of people you've never met?! ;p hehe
-
And where I understand that a clearer understanding in general studies would help in a graduate law degree in some ways, education is too expensive in my opinion to "possibly" help, or "kind of" help. If I wanted to be a lawyer I would prefer not to have to spend $80,000 on a liberal arts degree before I go spend anoter $80,000+ on a graduate law degree... Idk, maybe that's just me. And I am just spouting those figures, etc.
Well, lawyers generally make more than enough to pay back loans and such. Most professional degrees are major money makers for the holders. The expense is small compared to the monetary benefit.
Also, consider this particular facet of the post-graduate law degree. I am currently an engineering major. One of my possible options after I finish my undergrad is to go to law school and become a patent lawyer. In other countries, I'd have to get two undergraduate degrees to pull this off.
Not true about the 2 undergrad degrees-here you can do a normal undergrad degree in whatever you like and then you do a law conversion course where you 'convert' your degree into a law qualification. It costs £10,000 (about $20,000) and takes a year. A quicker and cheaper option of becoming a lawyer than the American system while still maintaining the 'broad perspective' you seem to love.
May i also congratulate the Nessaholics on having the first decent debate i've seen on here in ages!
-
Not true about the 2 undergrad degrees-here you can do a normal undergrad degree in whatever you like and then you do a law conversion course where you 'convert' your degree into a law qualification. It costs £10,000 (about $20,000) and takes a year.
I find it hard to believe that one could learn all they need to be a lawyer in a single year, especially since English law is quite a bit more complicated than US law. What you're talking about sounds more like a paralegal training course.
-
Not true about the 2 undergrad degrees-here you can do a normal undergrad degree in whatever you like and then you do a law conversion course where you 'convert' your degree into a law qualification. It costs £10,000 (about $20,000) and takes a year.
I find it hard to believe that one could learn all they need to be a lawyer in a single year, especially since English law is quite a bit more complicated than US law. What you're talking about sounds more like a paralegal training course.
Lmao, i love how you're telling me i'm wrong about something you know NOTHING about. How hard is it to understand? You complete this course after your degree and you become a qualified lawyer (after pupilage of course). No need to take two degrees and no need to spend $80,000.
"Common Professional Examination (CPE) courses (most of which award a diploma and are thus often titled Graduate Diploma in Law or GDL) allow non-law students in England and Wales to convert to law after university (exceptions exist for non-graduates depending on circumstances). It is commonly known as a 'law conversion course'.
Some law students study for four years (rather than three years, although this is usually only the case for students taking a combined law degree with the LPC, or for those whose courses include study abroad), making it possible for both non-law and law graduates of the same starting year to finish at the same time, with the CPE providing the 'foundations of legal knowledge'. The CPE is regulated by the Law Society of England & Wales with admissions handled through the Central Applications Board. After completing the CPE a graduate must continue onto the Legal Practice Course should they wish to become a solicitor, or the Bar Vocational Course should they wish to become barrister. This course can be taken over one year (full-time), or up to three years (part-time) during evenings or on weekends.
-
Lmao, i love how you're telling me i'm wrong about something you know NOTHING about.
I NEVER said you were wrong. I only said that I find it hard to believe that such a thing because law is a complicated subject and it is impossible to touch on all the major topics in substantial depth in three years, let alone one. It turns out the UK really does have low standards in legal education.
-
Lmao, i love how you're telling me i'm wrong about something you know NOTHING about.
I NEVER said you were wrong. I only said that I find it hard to believe that such a thing because law is a complicated subject and it is impossible to touch on all the major topics in substantial depth in three years, let alone one. It turns out the UK really does have low standards in legal education.
I'm not even going to bother on this one with you, Will. I find it hilarious that you can pass judgement so quickly and with so little factual evidence. The UK has some of the best lawyers in the world and one of the oldest legal systems in the world (a system that America, might i add, based its legal system on). 'Low standards in legal education' or less of an obsession with spending as much money as physically possible and assuming you'll come out educated?
-
congrats :thumbsup: