Now normally I would never condone such a practice, however it has come to my attention under the shear weight of jurisprudence revision, that it would be impossible to do more than 5 subjects coherently, for the exam.
This is a general agreement between all learned friends of my institution, that seeming it is obligatory to answer 4 questions, out of roughly 13 question, most of which contain an either or, so a perhaps a maximum of nearly 20 + questions. It seems quite apparent that it would be stupid to attempt more than 5 topics for revision, and is would be unnecessary to over do it, better to learn the topics in detail I say.
What I am slightly worried about is that I have delved into the exam papers past. The format was renewed in 2007, so that there were a lot more questions and choice why is good, seeming as we are taught something like 16 individual topics, that of course ALL interrelate because that's the jurisprudence world we live in (whereby learned professors write books, and never have to go into a real world of living, because they can simply make it all up and pretend to know what they are talking about, I call this the jurisprudence CONSPIRACY)
The 2007 paper had 13 questions, but only 5 of them were in part B of the paper, the 2008 paper had 6 topics, which accurately reflects how many topics were taught in the second term.
My worry is that unless they pick and choose which part of the paper has more questions, or it accurately reflects what is taught...
I am hoping that it is what is taught and the second half of the paper has 6 questions! For dear readers if it is FIVE, then I would probably be unable to answer a second question on that part of the paper.
So in conclusion - jurisprudence is hard and sucks.
9 comments:
Ah question spotting, a very dangerous game to play, but oh so satisfying when you win!
Swizz
The joy is completly orgasmic when you find out that the topics you have done have come up!
I have been fortunate in my exams that this has nearly always been the case :)
I question spotted throughout university (history and economics) and law conversion.
I got caught out only once in three years of history (we had to answer c 3 questions from between 10-20), once in economics (where there were 4 mandatory questions followed by a choice of 1 of 3 essay questions - I lost one of the mini questions at the beginning). For the GDL, in each subject exam we had to answer 3 questions, so I only revised 3 areas for each subject I only revised 3 topics. It worked well, except for land law, which was my weakest anyway.
I don't know if that helps you or not?
I should be pretty ok for my exam tomorrow (company law) and the day after (jurisprudence) I have done enough work for both of them, company law is open book (hazaar a bizare yet charming lecturer who is a bit of a lefty and doesn't believe in memorising stuff)
I shall inform you all how it goes...
I want my 2:1! If i don't get it and I don't post then assume that I am laying dead somewhere, after having drowned myself in alcohol
there is always a certain adrenaline rush when it comes to question spotting - I've always found it to be a shot in the dark - but if you know enough stuff that overlaps so you can blab - you're sorted. Besides one is always surprised by how much law you know.
Best of luck.
I always question spotted. In 3 degrees (2 undergrads and masters) at different calabre unis, frankly all the exam papers are the same.
Consumer law was the only one that caught me out. That was a pretty stressful couple of hours of literally making things up. And i dont mean remembering the odd thing from class. I mean honest to goodness writing anything. But I still passed. Admittedly not very well, but that still says a lot about keyword marking.
I had a similar problem with contract law, perhaps my worst ever exam, I was able to answer two questions, the rest was just a string of keywords, consideration, and misrepresentation!
Question spotting has worked out fine so far for Company Law and Jurisprudence, hopefully it will also work out for evidence and medical ethics too!
It's always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained! I'm sure you had fun writing this article.
Custom Essay Papers Writing Service
you've an amazing weblog here! would you prefer to make some invite posts on my weblog? online casino gambling
Post a Comment