QUOTE(schizophrenic @ Apr 19 2013, 05:59 PM)
Not the way the discussion is heading. After all, it is all a matter of opinion expressed and should be left to be discussed elsewhere, say in a career related thread and not education.
Employment prospects and the nature of legal practice are things that prospective law students would want to know. The cost of legal studies is not cheap. The least is to know what you are getting into.
If subjective opinions are to be refrained, then there is very little to discuss in this thread. I cannot tell someone that X University is better than Y University, or which areas of the law have good prospects.
The only "objective" (or "factual", to be more precise) bits left are the admission requirements. Prospective students should just read post no. 1 or call the LPQB in case of doubts.
"The practice of law is a noble profession".
How would you approach this statement? Assuming that we must assess it objectively, do we refer to the collective attitude of lawyers towards this statement, or the collective attitude of society towards this statement? Even using these apparently objective approaches, they are informed by subjective opinions of individuals forming those groups.
I quote part of post no.1 by you:
QUOTE
1.0 Objective and purpose of this thread
This thread was started due to my interest as a student and it is meant to act as a point of reference for legal studies as well as to consolidate relevant questions. Its object among other things is to reduce the confusion and misconception as regards to the profession as well as to the legal studies. As the admission procedures and requirements differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, I will be concentrating on the admission as an Advocate and Solicitor to the High Court of Malaya.
Therefore, feel free to discuss relevant questions or experiences in this thread so as to improve and build upon the wealth of knowledge in the Education Essentials section.
I submit that all that I have said fell within the objective and purpose of this thread as stated in para 1.0 in post no.1. Or perhaps not. What appears to be the objective definition may have to be interpreted in light of your subjective opinion. You may want to rework your definition so that people like me can understand.
Perhaps you are not happy that I am trashing your (no longer so) noble profession. If this is the case, then perhaps we could discuss about it. Discussion and opinion-sharing are essential parts of legal study, no?
Since you are the thread starter, I have no intention to usurp your supreme position in this part of the universe. But as a member of the legal profession (I assume), perhaps you may want to demonstrate some ability to reason when trying to constrain another's freedom of expression.
This post has been edited by academiclawyer: Apr 19 2013, 08:00 PM