More Law Facul-Tea

#MoreLawFaculTea1268 Ranking of 1st year law lecturers: Janet O'Sullivan OUR QUEEN. Would go to war for Janet. Hend Hanafy- the BEST handouts, underrated. made tricky stuff SO clear Shona Stark - super engaging! Joe Sampson - had him for like 2 lectures but ICON Egg - another icon and queen Findlay Stark - big hype around him, seems cool. Suffers from lecturing awful topic. Helen Scott - underrated, GREAT handouts Stefan Theil - strong bow tie game. suffers from being at 9am. Jonathan Morgan - controversial placement bcs super engaging but also i don't understand what he's yapping about :((( Peter Candy - he seems like a really sweet, lovely little guy. he does however suffer from the fact he teaches civ. Antje Du Bois Pedain - i emerge from her lectures dazed and confused. She does however write a BANGING article

#MoreLawFaculTea1267 boring culs election year no discourse needed

#MoreLawFaculTea1266 why is it so hard for certain papers (cough cough EU and Equity in particular) to understand that the more unrealistic the 'core reading' list is, the less likely I am to attempt any of it, there's no good reason to set whole cases when the whole thing isn't relevant, no one is reading that i promise

#MoreLawFaculTea1265 CAN WE START A CULS ELECTION DISCOURSE

#MoreLawFaculTea1264 you have to be a crazy level of arrogant to walk into a lecture 30 minutes late - and the way the person doesn’t even need to be named bc everyone knows who it is. outrageous

#MoreLawFaculTea1263 Chat, tracing is so much fun

#MoreLawFaculTea1262 Tort PQ you can drop either OLA or product liability

#MoreLawFaculTea1261 Wait do 1st and 2nd years not clap at the end of every lecture anymore??

#MoreLawFaculTea1260 #MoreLawFaculTea1252 It really varies annually: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ba_law_part_ii_dissertation_mark Do one if you want to write 12,000 words on something you're actually interested in not because you don't want to sit an exam or prepare for a supo. The people most well awarded tend to be the people who care lots about the idea of writing long form about an issue they felt needed academic attention. Also, the lack of supervision and feedback means you don't go into submitting the dissertation with any good idea of how it will fare when being marked.

#MoreLawFaculTea1259 #MoreLawFaculTea1257 Please also take this with a pinch of salt. Very few parts of first year are completely ignorable in the way that later optional papers can be. So 'dropping' for many subjects looks more like tailoring your revision to the stuff you're interested in and having a full understanding of these areas, so you can write something in depth and nuanced on a given q rather than having to be really vague because you've streched yourself too widely trying to engage with all of every single course. But also it means making sure you have at least a few comprehensible notes on the basics, especially because overrarching basic things (eg. Parliamentary sovereignty; negligence; actus reus) cannot be ridded of - no matter how much you may hate breach or Miller. Tort: all of first term is critical + the remedies stuff at the end - you cannot 'drop' any of this for pqs. Occupiers Liability is often a discrete question you can rehearse an answer for. We were told to stay clear of tort essays unless you really cared about the issues at hand so I did no essay prep and have no advise on this (I also doubt if this advice is true). Civil: essays wise, if there is a topic you are disinterested in of the history chunk, lex acquilia, property and contract, you cld probably 'drop' 1, but on this, even if you dont like broad essays, I was terrified of these in first year, it's probably helpful to look at the overarching stuff for each topic, as part of the course is an understanding of the 'bigger picture' of roman law. I prefer essays so I don't think I did or revised civil PQs so I have no advice on approaching civil PQ revision. Consti: all of first term is quite critical. Even if you prefer writing about the more discrete topics covered this term, I would still make sure you know all the conceptual first term principles stuff. For the discrete topics (JR; Human rights; Devolution), you can probably drop 1 of them (eg. Judicial review PQ) and focus on the others or even 2 of the discrete topics if you are really into and good at the conceptual first term stuff. Crim: Is probably the easiest topic to drop stuff in. Have pq notes with the basics of each offence - because it is not uncommon for a property offences q to also have an OAPA 1861 issue thrown in - but you can focus on 3 or 4 of the topics and only have detailed pq notes for those 3 or 4. SOA 2003 PQs are most likely to be entirely discrete so as to allow people - for whatever personal reason they may have - to not have to look into sexual offences in an exam context. Thus, if you liked this topic, you can probably revise it in depth on its own reliant on it not cropping up with lots of mixed issues. Essays in crim are also quite repetitive, you can probably look into past papers and decide which debates you found interesting/understood throughout the year and then tailor your revision to a few topics. Having a few topics you understand through and through in an essay context is really helpful in crim because, imo, since the issues are conceptually more simple than eg. consti, if your goal is to score highly, your arguments really benefit from nuance. This is really only gained from a few bits of secondary reading that you have properly engaged with rather than skimming through everything to try to have something to say on every aspect of the course. Unless you have a world of time and motivation to have something nuanced to say about the whole course, then pick the bits that you like - you will probs do better. I don't think dropping topics leads to spending less time revising, but it definitely ups the quality of what you have revised.