Results...

...are in and I have joined the huge huge number of Law graduates with a 2:1 degree.

In a previous post I detailed which subjects I thought I had performed well in and which I had performed not so well in. Ommitting my dissertation from the equation, I thought I did best in Trusts Law and worst in I.P. Law with Jurisprudence and Employment in between those subjects in that order. Well, I was right, here's the final order:

Dissertation (1st)
Trusts Law (2.i)
Employment Law (2.i)
I.P. Law (2.ii) / Jurisprudence (2.ii)

Starting with the best result, that's for my dissertation. I am very pleased with this result and glad that all the work that I put into it paid off. Undoubtedly I spent too much time on my dissertation, which meant too little time revising for my other subjects (especially during the Easter holiday period), but its good to see that I was awarded a good mark for it.

Trusts is just Trusts: boring, tedious and Property Law in another guise. But, yeah, pleased I got a 2:1 in that.

Employment Law - my only true love in life - when did you think I stopped loving you that you thought I shall give him the lowest possible 2:1 to deliver the final blow to a passionless lover?

I.P. Law - I'm sorry we never really got to know each other. I thought you were my type, I thought we had a future together. When I looked into your eyes and saw registered trademarks, when I held your tender patents for all the good they were going to do in the world, I didn't know you were going to damn me with a groundless threats claim for copyright infringement.

Jurisprudence - Yes, I'm the one with the head stuck up my arse because I got a 2:2 in Jurisprudence, aren't I? Not you damn feminists, no; you think you've gotten it all figured out with your ideas that the world is fair and all peoples should be equal. Well God knows I ain't supporting your cause no more: go iron some shirts.

So, in all, a few surprises: an unexpected First, some Firsts gone unrewarded and more 2:2s than I had hoped, but a 2:1 overall nonetheless. My overall degree classification was calculated through using this years' exams and last year's exams too. I had a pretty solid foundation for a 2:1 last year. I always figured that I would perform to the same standard at least and get that 2:1. Surprisingly and largely due to my dissertation mark, I surpassed last year's average, which is good to know too.

Exams are finished!

So my third and final year exams are finally finished and I couldn't be more pleased. I'm glad that I can take a definitive break away from work - which is something that I have found really hard to do throughout all of the past three years of my course. I have this sense of relief that I haven't felt in a long time. Perhaps it was post-A Levels when I was wondering whether my time in education will continue. Well it did and on the whole its been a very enjoyable experience.

As to how my exams went - well, not all that great, actually. My best exam was probably Trusts Law - which was a contender from the start for this position. The reason that I think I did well in Trust was because throughout the exam I felt like I was very familiar with the areas that I was answering - a consequence of being well-trained in answering similar questions in the recent past. So that was all good.

Next best - and very surprisingly - is Jurisprudence. This was the subject that I thought I would have to go through the most pain to revise for but that actually turned out to be something else (see later). The questions weren't as bad as I expected. One question - which was the first exam question I answered - was very broad. For that one, I felt like I was being more descriptive rather than analytical - which, for Jurisprudence especially, is bad.

Of my remaining two subjects - I.P. Law and Employment Law - the biggest surprise was Employment Law. For Employment Law I hadn't revised a particular part of the syllabus: employment status, i.e. deciding whether X is an employee or not etc. I hadn't looked at the case-law relating to agency workers etc; nor was I able to recall the case-law on what factors were to be considered in deciding whether X was employed under a contract of service or a contract for services. In contract law terms, the part of the syllabus that I omitted to learn was the law relating to offer and acceptance. In tort law terms, the parralel is with negligence and whether X owes a duty to Y. Basically, I didn't revise this area because I didn't find it interesting enough. What this area and the other example areas I have stated have in common is that they are the: "how are things put together" part of the law. Me, I'm a "things are falling apart around me" type of guy. Accordingly, I concentrated my revision on Unfair Dismissal, Wrongful Dismissal, Redundancy, TUPE etc. Unfortunately, every question seemed to test something about employment status, of which I knew nothing about. So that was one big gaping hole in my exam. The other one, for Employment law, was one particular problem question which tested two of the aforementioned areas (which I had revised) but in a very obscure (there was a lot of cross-over in terms of what claims could be brought) and lengthy (there were six parties to consider!) way. To make matters worse, whilst answering this question, my nice black pen finished on me. Lacklustre being my middle name, the only other pen I had on me is better characterised as a thick marker pen with an unfriendly nib. So, from an examiner's point of view, the last few pages of my exam script are indicative of a disturbed and thoughtless undergraduate law student. Sorry Mr./Mrs. Examiner.

Finally, I turn to I.P. Law. One immediate problem with this exam that springs to mind is the same as I had for Employment Law: two of the principal areas that I had revised very well were being tested through an obscure problem question. This wasn't lengthy but, if I have understood this area correctly, it was intended to catch out wary students because it was cleverly disguised as a question from one area but was in reality testing another. That description doesn't really do it justice, so perhaps I could use an example. In Tort law terms: this problem question would contain details including: a snail, a bottle of ginger ale and a cafe; but rather than being about consumer protection or negligence, the relevant tort was defamation. I hope that's not more confusing! The only other problem I had with I.P. Law was not recalling enough case-law. The names just completely slipped my mind, so I was mostly just detailing the law whilst providing little authority.

So, anyway, that's that. I had hoped that I would have a more favourable end to my undergraduate years but it appears that wasn't to be. So far I have managed to convince myself somewhat that things aren't as bad as I think they are. I say somewhat because there are strange points during the day when I recall something that I did wrong or should have added. I am realising that there's nothing more I can do now but that doesn't help me get to sleep on a night and I have being staying up late thinking about all these relatively small mistakes; which all makes for a tired Lacklustre Lawyer.

I have previously promised myself a nice enjoyable summer and hopefully I can deliver up on that!

Update on Revision

Why does revision seem so tough and impossible now? This is my third set of university exams and whilst there have been some definite improvements in my preparation style etc, I just can't understand why I can't motivate myself more. I mean: these are my last university exams and then, fingers-crossed, I am going to have an amazing summer doing lots of relaxing things.

Revision is tiring of me. There have been times, when sat in the last lectures of my subjects, that I have felt energised and encouraged by the opportunity to do well in the up-coming exams, but all those feelings just seem to go down the gutter shortly thereafter.

I must acknowledge though, that having started revision early, I have already covered a lot. I am comfortable with both Trusts law and Employment law; for my other subjects though - Jurisprudence and I.P. Law - I am not nearly as comfortable.

I have not taken the time to enjoy Jurisprudence this term. The topics that we have studied are absolutely dreadful; they are: Feminist perspectives on law; Foucauldian analysis of Law; Globalisation & the Law and a few others.

For all these areas in Jurisprudence, I have found my lecturers to be completely boring. These subjects have only a few interesting things to say and these can be easily summarised in a few short sentences. The lecturers at my university seem to have decided that lectures were going to be used to repeat and repeat those few senteneces. Its just so uninteresting. On top of that bore, I have had to work through the most disproportionate reading list imaginable. A lot of the reading is centred around trying to understand what, for example, Feminists think of the Law on rape; or, what somebody thinks Foucault would think about the law on privacy. It is not possible to miss a single element of the reading - not a single bit. A cursory glance at past examination questions demonstrates that although there is a choice of question, all the questions are really narrow in focus and so are very demanding in the knowledge that you are required to use. It is rumoured that each year the lecturer spends more time lecturing on a specific case-study that will be of much use in the exam. I don't know whether any of my peers have managed to detect any guidance in the aforementioned repetitive streaks of the lecturers, but I certainly haven't, which is worrying.

I have tried to interest myself in the reading and in parts that has been possible to the extent that I have finished reading a piece and thought it comprehensible. Most of the time, though, I can't even begin to understand what is being said and why. My lecture notes for the Foucauldian analysis on law and Globalisation & Law are slightly more readable than the same for Feminist perspectives on law. My lecturers were so bad that it took until well into this term to be able to put their thoughts to paper.

In terms of doing the reading. Some of it is more engaging than other areas. I have absolutely no interest in anything to do with Family law. Its an area of law that I would absolutely detest studying. But Feminists have picked-up on a lot of Family law areas to demonstrate gender-bias in the law. Rape, on the other hand, as a crime, is something I am far more interested in. Some of the reading in this area by some Feminists is very enjoyable. Feminists fall into different categories: Radical Feminists, Liberal Feminists, Difference Feminists and Post-modern Feminists are some of the ones I have read about. My favourite, are of course, Radical Feminists. I will share with you one particular quote by Catharine MacKinnon, a Radical Feminist, which made me sit up and take notice:

"man fucks woman: subject verb object"

Finally, and fittingly, I should end with mentioning I.P. law. For revision, the challenge that I have with I.P. law is that I have a tremendous amount of rote learning to do. There is very little in the way of controversy or difficult areas of the law that I need to spend time upon; instead, I need to familiarise myself with many many many statutory provisions and case names and details, that I seem to have forgotten all about. Its because, I find, that much of the I.P. law syllabus is relatively uncontroversial that I have spent so little time on it, in comparison to subjects like Employment law.

So, I am feeling the heat of revision, but it is hoped that I will manage to prepare myself sufficiently for the up-coming exams and then find something more interesting to share with you. Until then, spare a thought for Gordon Brown and recognise that no matter how hard you work to achieve something, sometimes its just not good enough.

Jurisprudence

Jurisprudence is a rather interesting subject to teach as part of a law degree. I fear that universities either teach it right and teach it well; or, teach it wrong and teach it disastrously. The disconcerting thing about my course is that there are elements of both!

The most interesting aspects of the course are when you read the works of the leading jurists: Hart, Dworkin, Raz etc. Once you get to grip with the basics, I for one found, that its actually quite enjoyable to read their complexly written works and try to distill what they are trying to say. There's no doubt about it though: there have been several occasions when I've spent ages reading a particular part of one of the aforementioned jurist's works and I'm just amazed as to why they don't opt for simplicity - especially when they were making some interesting and valid points - and, I believe, had they done so, they would have dramatically increased their readership.

So that was the interesting part of the course that was taught reasonably well. My essay marks in that area averaged around 65% which measured up quite well against the other marks in my year. There were only a handful of Firsts awarded and two-fist-fulls of 65%>70% marks.

Now for the uninteresting part.

Principally, this involves having to study jurisprudential issues in very specific areas: Moral Dilemmas in Medical Law; Foucauldian theory; and, feminist perspectives on jurisprudence.

Now, some of the issues in each of these subjects are interesting - especially in moral dilemmas in medical law, where it was nice to have recourse back to original judgments in cases in which these issues have arisen alongside the jurisprudential writings on them. The other two areas I have mentioned have not been so interesting. I quickly tuned-out of the feminist perspectives on the law because it was just so dry. I am definitely one that enjoys reading and studying black-letter law more, but I like to think that my analytical skills can be used elsewhere too. Like, for instance, on the works of Dworkin and Hart, which I did enjoy. But, for Feminist perspectives on Jurisprudence, nothing was happening for me.

Foucauldian theory is an interesting option to offer in itself and I am quite surprised at its inclusion. Michel Foucault of course was a French philosopher that died relatively recently. His works on the inter-relationship of power, knowledge and truth, was not limited to understanding a legal system or the law itself. No, it was much broader - it focussed on a whole range of things in life. We don't even hone in on the application of Foucault's work and what will be of interest to us as lawyers. And, it seems to me that all his views can be summarised in some nice and short statements that I simply have to regurgitate in an exam. I'm really less keen on going on to read his primary texts in full and am more likely, and not because of fault on my part - I gave him his chance, to rely on easy secondary texts where its all nicely laid out for me.

It seems therefore that unless my perspective changes, I have set a ceiling rising only to a mid upper-second class level. This, for a subject that I enjoy a lot and have performed well in up until know.

Thank you Foucault and thank you Feminists!