QUOTE(edennature @ Dec 10 2009, 10:02 AM)
i want to practice in sarawak in future.Between Australia and UK,which country is better?If i go to UK,i might fail to secure a BPTC place and have to come back to do CLP.However if i pursue my degree in australia,i can straight away apply for pupilage as long as i admit as Barrister@solicitor of the supreme court of any state in australia.Is it a wise choice to go to australia?
imo
btw australia and uk, being in west malaysia, I'd choose UK hands down for law even though i much prefer australia as a place to spend 4 years of student life.
Amongst the reasons why, well, UK has better law schools, much of our laws here are influenced by english principles, a large number of successful lawyers here in malaysia are uk law grads, and im not for open book exams. But since u intend to practice in east malaysia, you have an added benefit which is worth considering. I would honestly say in your situation, go for what you think is best. There is no real drawback of doing an aussie law degree over a uk law degree as long as it's from a reputable and recognised uni (other than cost and duration factors). People can go on and on about how this prog is harder, and that prog better prepares you and what not, but what is important is how you learn and develop yourself and apply what you have learnt in practice.
Just fyi, your Sarawak CM graduated from Adelaide with an LLB.
QUOTE(z21j @ Dec 10 2009, 11:57 AM)
hi all ex-uol llb intermediate student. Im finding that which topic should be prevail in PUBLIC LAW... I mean those subject should be given extra effort to pass this subject. Basically, is the update news important in putting in the exams..? Im a bit scare when were told "never run out of the fact" and "originality"... these 2 "conditions" always confusing me... for me, originality is sth could not be found in the book... bt sth could not be found in the book will be irrelevant/run out of the fact... So difficult... any advice? Im too tired to study PUBLIC LAW right now, I hope to get the "essence" from the forumer b4 i can reli start with it... Thanks
1) TOPICS which should be given extra effort?
I would like to think that Public law is divided into the major topics and those mosquito topics that seldom come up as questions on their own, but may be relevant to other questions in short paragraphs. Though exam focus changes over time, try to focus on topics like Parliamentary Supremacy, SOP, HRA (which are actually quite easy to score). Other easy to score topics though are not usually considered sure questions are Constitution and EU. I'll elaborate further via pm if time permits. I thought elections and ministerial responsibility were boring.
2) Is updated news important?
YES. Always try to apply the latest cases or at least mention them in your exams. It is always important to be relevant and up to date in the legal field (along with any other industry actually). Furthermore, most of the time, where there have been significant recent changes to the law, the examiners usually use this to develop questions relating to these changes. Hence if you know about the facts of a recent major case, it is likely that you will have to apply it in the exam.
3) Originality
This relates to your own personal opinions and views on the issue at hand. As long as you don't stray out of facts, this is where you get your marks. This is where you have to think out of the box so to speak, sit back and think for yourself, do you think this case has been decided correctly, or whether this reform should have been done another way, or whether this academic is right in saying something. Just because it's not in your book, doesn't mean it cant be relevant. If you feel Dr Ewan Mckendrick or Prof Atiyah or Hillaire Barnett is wrong, just say so and justify it. If you need help in learning how to criticise well, this is where your tutor should be helping you with.
This is my reply for now, hope i helped somewhat.
Dec 6 2009, 01:22 AM
Quote
0.0311sec
0.29
6 queries
GZIP Disabled