First of all, you sounded extremely like an agent pushing his/her course in your previous posts - I think it was 3 posts in 3 seperate threads all extolling the virtues of UOL external LLB. I've made no secret the fact that I dislike agents in general. IMO, they're far too happy to promote their courses with half-truths and even lies, catching unwary students and their parents.
So since you're not an agent, I apologise if I cam across as a bit harsh. But I still stand by what I said - maybe the tone could be lowered a little. Anyway, it's hard to get the tone of voice across on the internet. But I digress.
i never said UOL internal is a piece of cake. same standard. different places. this is UOL we are talking about. not some university of eastern or western london ciplak. definitely their internal programs command some standard.
i know for a fact that their reluctance in giving first class (degrees) and also the limited number of second uppers to external students are due to them grading the external students based only on a 3 hour unseen written exam. there is no coursework or assignments. hence the reluctance of giving a first class or second upper. and that is why to obtain a first or a second upper u need to write really well.
You need to write really well to get a first or 2:1 in the internal programme as well. And anyway, coursework and assignments in general count for very little in most law degrees (excluding US/Canada). I actually disagree with that but this is irrelevent here. My point is that the 100% exam is less of a disadvantage than you make it out to be.
I think the external students' disadvantage comes from their lack of access to top academics. The people who mark trial papers at ATC, Brickfields whatever are simply not in the same league as the UCL, KCL etc lecturers who mark and grade the internal students year round. And these people will be the ones who mark the final exam for both the internal and external LLB. So the internal students have the advantage of gauging their standards against the expectations of the pros, so to speak. And if they fall below the mark, they know they have to improve. External students lack this.
And then, there's the lower standard of external students on average as well.
and i never meant to have the external UOL course compared to the internal UOL course. but if u compare the UOL external in Malaysia to the myriad of twinning programmes by private universities and colleges, it is WAY harder. their course content is lesser and standard is lower. well i never studied in UM b4 but we can see its no longer in the top 200 best Us now... nor are any other local Unis.
You have to make yourself clearer then. What was I to expect when you pulled up the names of UCL etc to lend support to the external LLB? And there wasn't even a shred of mention of the twinning programmes in your earlier post.
As for UM and other local universities, you don't give them enough justice. First those international rankings are heavily biased towards certain countries. Secondly, ranking are always debatable and not infaliable. And thirdly, I bet those STPM 4.0 students in UM's LLB have a decent chance of getting a 2:1, if not a first, in the law programmes of the so-called top UK universities. Not so for the average external student. It's not fair on UM and other local uni sudents to dismiss their course and all the hadwork they've put in simply on the basis of some 'world rankings'.
the reason UOL allows for easier admission is because they were established that way, since the old times, as an option for those who are not 'upper middle class' who cannot afford to go to Oxford or Cambridge (wikipedia). Easier admission for UOL external NEVER meant easier passes. but its true, lousier students. and hence the high failure rates. that is why it is difficult. imagine doing what the 'elite' internal students are doing.
I never said that it's easier to pass the external programme. What I did say is that I can't imagine it being harder.
It would help if you read the Wikipedia articles you quoted a little more closely. The first 2 colleges of the UOL were UCL and KCL. UCL (known as "London University at that time) was established as a non-religious university, to educate non-Anglicans (as feymann stated) of the "middling rich people".
KCL was then established in opposition to UCL's secular nature. In other words, KCL was an institution founded on Anglican principles. It did however, admit "non-conformists".
It was only after the merger of the two when the newly-formed University of London began to operate for the benefit of the less-wealthy.
No where in the history of the institutions is there any provision for easier admissions. In those days, admission would have been "easier" anyway, relative to the present, because few people even finished school and the advent of grade-inflation had not arrived. It is quite likely that the lower admission standards remained simply because there was no need to limit the number of students, resource allocation being less of an issue.
i know someone who is teaching in the UOL LLB external and have taught in the internal 'twinning circles' before. and also part-time tutored inti internal students. lets just say a 55 marks at UOL external LLB is worth a 70 over there. or so the story goes.
I'm not surprised. Since they're driven for money and thus the need to pass students.
but o cos, my friends all say im stupid to choose UOL because its hard. UOL gotta do much more but still have to sit for CLP in the end. better choose the easier option. but i like to have a challenge. i think its known the the legal circle of the diff standards between degrees from diff unis from what i gather. erm, maybe if im too dumb i ll switch somewhere else.
I think it's not quite accurate to say that UOL is hard. More like the twinning programmes are easy.
The way I see it, UOL's standards are in keeping with proper standards whereas the others are lower than they should be. If you work, hard, you should be ok.
The disadvantage with the UOL external programme is that you won't get a chance to go overseas. The one year's exposure, even in an 'inferior' uni, has the potential to be very very beneficial. Unless going overseas is not an option for you?
btw, in addition to wornbook reply, i just got to know that to do the BAR in UK, all internal Unis LLB graduates have to have at least a second upper but for UOL external LLB, a second lower will suffice. but this is also what i heard. gotta check with the UK peeps if wanna know better.
No. According to the BSB website, the minimum is a 2:2. But a vast majority of students who undertake the BVC will have firsts. Pupillages for barrister training are very very very very competitive and seriously, a student with a 2:2 even from Oxford hasn't a hope in hell of landing a pupillage. The prohibitive cost of the BVC will keep ou students who don't fance their chances from taking it - no point going into massive debt if you won't succeed in the end.
And that's assuming the student even gains admission into the BVC, which is also competitive. They consider more than just grades at the admission stage. It might be different for international students. But as a general rule, BVC applicants and students have either firsts or high 2:1s.
Added on August 20, 2007, 8:16 am
QUOTE(feynman @ Aug 19 2007, 11:18 PM)
No one says one is from UOL.......If one studied at King's, one will say I am from King's.
Incidentally UCL, KCL, and LSE all have degree-granting powers and intend to exercise them from this year onwards. They might soon follow the footsteps of Imperial and leave the UOL entirely.This post has been edited by wornbook: Aug 20 2007, 08:16 AM