Jump to content


Global Moderator
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


TykeDragon last won the day on April 20 2019

TykeDragon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

358 Master of the IBS Masters


About TykeDragon

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Exams
    May 2013
  • Country
    United Kingdom

Contact Methods

  • Skype

Recent Profile Visitors

9,354 profile views
  1. I'm really sorry to hear that mate (and I don't think you sounded rude - it seems very infuriating). It definitely sounds unfair and congratulations for doing as well as you are. Have you tried talking to the teachers about this? Surely they will sympathise? After all, it reflects well on them if their student(s) make it to unis like Cambridge. Otherwise is there any chance you could report your school to the IB? I'm sure they'll care if your school is doing nothing to prepare you for TOK, especially if they make meaningless predictions. As for the predicted grades, I'm afraid that is in your teachers' control, but you should try talking to them about it. Best of luck, hang in there
  2. I believe it is the JD that you will need to do. Look up the Bar website for the State that you would like to practice in, eg if you want to be in Wall Street I believe you'll need to look into the New York Bar (sorry if I'm wrong, my geography of America is not very good!) But I believe it is a JD you would need. Have a look at this site, it may help as well - http://www.aspiringsolicitors.co.uk/interested-new-york-bar/ @American Author, whilst that is a good set of subjects for law... who exactly are you talking to?
  3. I wouldn't think it as much a problem as boys not being equally restricted, my stance is that I don't think girls should be restricted as much as they are. I mean if they turned up to school in underwear alone (age depending I'm sure the other guys wouldn't mind, but nevertheless) they would be berated for it being inappropriate, just as if a male turned up in his underwear. But the 10cm rule is possibly too harsh, if they wish to wear that, and it isn't as short as their underwear, then why not? Are they to be punished for what they like to wear? Surely the problem lies with those who find it inappropriate or can't control themselves around it? Obviously there would be extremes to this, for example if a girl wears short shorts and a crop top then arguably that's too far, but I've seen girls told off for wearing a sleveless button up shirt because it shows their shoulders, and how come the first 10cm of thigh above the knee is acceptable but that last 2cm crosses the line? But for the record there are some equivalences - my school banned male hair to be below the collar whereas girls were not restricted in this manner
  4. (about law) Hi everyone! I don't know if there's much demand for this at the moment but here it is - I'm a law student, so at some point someone on this site will be interested in studying law (or will have already signed up for it but now want a little more info about what they signed up for!) I remember seeing a similar thread done on here a couple years ago by my good friend (and mentor) Arrowhead, and I seriously recommend you to look for that if you have the time and questions, but now it's my turn, so any questions about studying law or anything relevant, ask away Be sure to quote me when you ask questions to draw my attention to this thread, especially if it's been a while since I posted it. Best wishes guys.
  5. I would say that some level of English is necessary, but not HL at IB or even total fluency - they have the IELTS to test your English capabilities. I would say English is useful for law due to its similarity in terms of the skill needed for analysis and essay writing. This could be achieved through a number of subjects - economics, history, philosophy, politics to name but a few. Other subjects are surprisingly relevant due to the analytical mindset required - eg maths and chemistry. So I would say no subjects are essential, let alone at HL, however make sure there is at least one subject that is essay based to show your capability for writing analytical essays as this is vital for law!
  6. Cool! Well I think if law is not the profession for you then you can afford a little less weight to the factor of reputation! Go for the place that you like best and think you'd excel at imo.
  7. Hey, you're exactly right to say that location isn't the only thing you should look at, although if given the chance to see all of your options I recommend you do as I personally went for the Uni that I thought felt right for me, where I thought I would excel best at, and I don't regret my choice. Others I know (such as Arrowhead on here) didn't let location be his deciding factor, and he decided to go for a very prestigious (non-campus) London uni over a less prestigious campus uni as he recognised the importance of prestige (especially in law) over location. I know that contrasts with my decision (I turned down Warwick for Southampton), but everybody's different and having visited both I decided I really liked Southampton - the place AND the degree which is important, and I disliked Warwick, thought it was a dull day when I went there personally. If you want to be a lawyer after your degree, it's worth noting that it's a pretty snobby profession when it comes to where you studied so it's important to go to a respected uni. From your post, I would say if Bristol is an option (and providing you had the chance to visit, you did and liked it) definitely go there as it is the highest ranked. I'm not sure how it stands between Kent and Leeds, I thought Leeds would be more prestigious but a quick look at one league table (which ofc varies not even from year to year but between different tables in the same year, so conduct some research!) seems to say that Kent comes over Leeds. If one is clearly ahead of the other, probably go for the prestigious one unless you have an objection to that place having visited both. If they're very similar in terms of reputation, go for the place you like most. If Leeds is Russell Group and Kent is not, however, I would say that's a strong swing in favour of Leeds in terms of reputation...
  8. Hey! 1) IMO, whilst SL Mathematics is of course better given the same grade, and MAYBE at a push even the grade below, my advice would be to drop to Studies and maximise your grades. This is because these places have very high requirements and that point or two can make all the difference. Also, despite transferrable skills etc (maths showing an analytical mindset and a challenge and ability to find solutions to problems blah blah blah) it isn't really essential for law, and I might even tentatively suggest that I doubt they'll even really notice/understand the difference between you saying SL Mathematics and SL Mathematical Studies unless they know about the IB and it's ways... even those who recognise it probably won't even care if your IB score rocks. My advice - drop to studies. 2) Debating skills are of course great for lawyers and you would want to get any experience of this that you can - definitely go for the MUN either way! I didn't really have any debating skills on my personal statement (apart from one mock trial for history club that I probably embellished a bit...) and I would say it's less of an obstacle to lack debating skills to study a law degree, than it is when you want to apply to law firms to actually be a lawyer. For THAT, definitely arm yourself with debating experience - I did speed mooting (mock advocacy) and negotiation/dispute resolution competitions at uni to beef up my CV for law firms. Again, more prestigious unis like LSE/KCL might want to see a bit more debating experience, but I don't think it's vital/bad not to have it, like it wouldn't be fatal if the rest of your application is great. It would just help to have it there, so if you can, go for it. I think the fact that you are an international student is a separate issue and I recommend you see the above posts in relation to becoming a lawyer as an international student, but for the purposes of your uni application I don't think (arrowhead may need to better advise you on this point...) being international will hinder you - especially at LSE which I think is predominantly international unless I'm wrong.... Plus, if you're international you have to pay them more so yay them! It's the entire opposite scenario to when you actually want to be hired afterwards! Lol. Hope this helps!
  9. Hey King. a) Yes you can do law after economics. The way that would work is that you would do your undergraduate degree, and after that do a GDL (Graduate Diploma in Law) which basically converts you to law (ie, catching you up on law as you didn't do a law degree.) Only thing with this, naturally, is that it'll take another year and over £10k of your money. Also, you would only really do this degree if you wanted to be a lawyer afterwards, whereas doing a law degree as your undergrad doesn't necessarily mean you have to be a lawyer as it's a very marketable degree which gives you plenty of options. I would say only really go for a law degree if you're sure you're interested in, as it is not the only way to become a lawyer and it is 3 long, difficult years so you will need genuine interest. b) Yes those subjects are absolutely fine for law, in fact I'd say they're a fairly common route into law with those HLs - English for language skills/essay writing; History for lots of reading and analytical essay writing; and even economics is surprisingly good for law as it means you can think analytically and understand how economics work - 'commercial awareness' and understanding businesses and the economy is vital to be a commercial solicitor. c) A lot of both. You will need to memorise case names, the principles in the cases, perhaps academic comment for essays (much like historiography for history) - basically anything which isn't in a statute book (books of the laws passed by Parliament as opposed to legal principles created by judges in courts - this is 'common law' and you need to memorise this), you can normally take statute books into exams. Furthermore, analysis is everything, just like in history. Imagine just writing a memorised timeline in your history essay - it would get you absolutely nowhere. In law exams, essay questions will require you to not just remember the law but also analyse how it has developed, critique it (how could it be improved, has it succeeded in meeting prior injustice etc?), and use the law to answer the essay question you have been given. eg if your question is 'to what extent is the law relating to offer/acceptance in contract law outdated?' it would be meaningless to just say 'well currently the law is X, Y, and/or Z.' You would have to say instead, 'well on the one hand you have the postal rule, which means that in <this> situation, <this> is the outcome. It would be very true to say that this is outdated because it was created at the time to promote use of the new postal service and in the context of there not being any other, faster means of communication over distance. However, it is entirely possible to justify its continuing application by modifying when it is applicable, for example, in X situation (perhaps as in the case of A v B) the postal rule was still necessary and achieved the fair/practical outcome. Additionally, the law has in fact moved on from depending on this role, as the case of C v D outlines the legal principles in cases where modern, instantaneous forms of communication such as email or phone calls are used. Thus, as the old postal rule has been confined to playing a smaller role in the overall law of offer/acceptance than before, (going as far to say as it actually being the fairer principle in those situations), and in light of the fact that modern principles govern the modern practices, it can be submitted that the law is not outdated.' (Apologies for anyone who read all that, and forgive my shady memory of contract law...) As you can see, that's basically an entire paragraph of analysing the law, memorising what the law actually is, is the bare minimum. Furthermore, problem questions in exams will give you a long factual scenario and then ask you to advise any of the part(y/ies), for these questions you need to memorise the legal principles (and maybe even the facts of some cases to draw analogies between the facts in the problem), and apply the law to the facts to determine the (probable) outcome - again this is entirely analysis, so I can't stress analysis enough. Hope this helps!
  10. Hey! I'm not international myself so I can't really say from experience, just what I've heard/observed. Whilst firms are not allowed to obviously discriminate against you for being international, in practical terms I would say it does have an impact to some extent because international students are a bit more of a risk/investment to them - higher fees, maybe have to sponsor you etc. I don't know much about it but it seems that this does mean that if it comes down to being between you and someone who is not international if all else is the same they'll go with the other person imo. Obviously I don't think they'd make that same choice if you're the best candidate as they would want the better option, international or not, but it's definitely worth keeping in mind that they're essentially investing in you so they'd need reason to believe you're the better investment, which puts you at a disadvantage. That said, to the best of my knowledge there are schemes etc to counter this and achieve diversity in the profession by creating opportunities for international students such as SEO and Prime. Furthermore, 'CV Blind' interviews are on the rise, having been created by Clifford Chance (a Magic Circle firm) and implemented by Macfarlanes (a silver circle firm) and other firms planning to start implementing it. The objective behind this of course is to take the candidates based on their performance on the day, not info in their CVs such as their nationality, grades, university etc (whilst you may be thinking 'nationality may be more obvious than educational background....' I would like to point out the obvious, which is that appearance is not necessarily evidence of nationality of course!) On this topic, this article from Summer 2014 may be of interest to you: http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/aug/22/law-firms-importance-of-diversity On a separate note, don't let any of this hold you back from studying law if you have a genuine interest in it! Studying law does not mean you have to be a lawyer, heck I think nowadays it's only about 50% of trainee lawyers in london who studied a law degree, with the rest studying something else and converting to law via a one year postgrad course known as the GDL (graduate diploma in law) - which, though costly, is an option to you. So basically I'd say study what you are interested in. If the law interests you - and having researched it you think you would be happy/could cope with the vast amount of reading and essay writing that will be expected of you - go for it I would say. Sorry i couldn't have given you a personal insight into the international-employability situation!
  11. Hey! Literally two things: (1) read your textbook/syllabus. (2) exam technique - ask your teacher to provide you with some markschemes so you can understand what they're looking for. In my first yr of ESS I did not thoroughly go through the content with discipline, nor did i understand the exam technique, I would waffle through all the questions and hope it got me through it - it doesn't. But ESS is pretty easy - I did those two things I mentioned above and got a level 7 without too much difficulty!! That's literally all you need for ESS, a bit of common sense and a lot of regurgitation, supplemented by exam technique! Especially the longer Qs (20 marks or whatever) at end of paper 2. see how they get split up into like 4/6/8 mark parters. that means you need a separate point of info for each mark - bullet point plan them, make sure you have enough points needed and then write it out - you get the last 2 marks for writing it in prose. I would also suggest bullet pointing the 3-5+ mark questions in paper one, allows the examiner to tick your points off the markscheme instead of sifting through waffle and deciding theres only one or two substantive points worth crediting.
  12. Whilst I agree that getting into a serious relationship is probably a bad move for focusing on your studies (plus, many relationships don't pass the test of distance when it comes to Uni...), I don't think you should be as strong as saying only date when you are ready to marry - live a little!! Have fun, have flings, have passion and romance! Plus, whilst its possible you're unlikely to find your destined spouse first time you try dating someone! Just enjoy yourself. And yeah, stay safe
  13. No no, I said all BUT the first five months. I was single for the first 5 months, and then for basically half of IB1 and all of IB2 I was in the relationship. Probably wouldn't recommend it though - it was good fun but it often got very stressful particularly around exam time, plus it proves to be a big distraction from your work. You have decades for romance, but your grades are decided in these few years, so I'd focus on that. Doesn't mean you can't have a bit of fun, just saying relationships tend to distract you more ^^
  • Create New...