Missing a lecture but studying it through Moodle yourself?

PictureFrame

Hi all,

I'm a first year BBL (Business & Law) student and am just wondering about how possible (if even) it would be to miss a lecture every week but study it through Moodle instead?

I'm scheduled to have Contract Law at 10am on a Friday morning (and no other lectures ) but have prior commitments to my job to work on Fridays 8am-6pm. I have to give them an answer by the end of this week so i'm just wondering does anyone think it would be possible to miss this lecture each week and catch up through the notes on moodle?

This may be a preposterous idea, i'm just wondering if anyone thinks it's possible or just silly? Thanks.

plumpote

PictureFrame wrote: »

I'm scheduled to have Contract Law at 10am on a Monday morning (and no other lectures ) but have prior commitments to my job to work on Fridays 8am-6pm.

I don't see what the difficulty is-think i'm missing something here?

freeze4real

yes you can. Business is very easy. last year I had 4 business modules and I attended on the 1st and the last classes of all of the them and I came out with an average of 68.5%.

In short its do able but I wouldn't advise you to do it.

jonevin

PictureFrame wrote: »

Hi all,

I'm a first year BBL (Business & Law) student and am just wondering about how possible (if even) it would be to miss a lecture every week but study it through Moodle instead?

I'm scheduled to have Contract Law at 10am on a Monday morning (and no other lectures ) but have prior commitments to my job to work on Fridays 8am-6pm. I have to give them an answer by the end of this week so i'm just wondering does anyone think it would be possible to miss this lecture each week and catch up through the notes on moodle?

This may be a preposterous idea, i'm just wondering if anyone thinks it's possible or just silly? Thanks.

Yes you are supposed to build your part time work around your college life not the other way around. Missing every lecture for that one subject is not a good Idea.

XxMCRxBabyxX

I'm fairly sure that attendance is now compulsory at all law lectures and of all lectures I would advise not missing Prof. Gopalan's.

Kiwi_knock

I really would not advise it, particularly if Professor Goplalan is teaching Contract law due to the fact he does not put up detailed notes on Moodle. He will only put up the names of the cases, and really little else. Personally I had to go to the lectures because otherwise I would not have a clue what was going on.

Paczini

Kiwi_knock wrote: »

I really would not advise it, particularly if Professor Goplalan is teaching Contract law due to the fact he does not put up detailed notes on Moodle. He will only put up the names of the cases, and really little else. Personally I had to go to the lectures because otherwise I would not have a clue what was going on.

I agree, do not skip contracts. It is the hardest law module for you this semester (although you just have 2) and for many people I know and who did BBL it was their hardest module altogether. Professor Goplalan also likes to deduct 20% from your final grade if you missed more than 3 lectures what is understandable as you would be lost after skipping even one lecture.

PictureFrame

Paczini wrote: »

I agree, do not skip contracts. It is the hardest law module for you this semester (although you just have 2) and for many people I know and who did BBL it was their hardest module altogether. Professor Goplalan also likes to deduct 20% from your final grade if you missed more than 3 lectures what is understandable as you would be lost after skipping even one lecture.

Really? :O.. Ok, I think i'll have to inform work about not being able to make it Fridays! Thanks guys!

brianclown

It really irks me when I see people asking questions like these. Unless you are studying your course on a part time basis then you are obliged to study on a full time basis. No wonder degrees are watered down and easier to obtain these days. If you didn't intend to study for five days a week then why bother applying to the cao etc in the first place?

PictureFrame

brianclown wrote: »

It really irks me when I see people asking questions like these. Unless you are studying your course on a part time basis then you are obliged to study on a full time basis. No wonder degrees are watered down and easier to obtain these days. If you didn't intend to study for five days a week then why bother applying to the cao etc in the first place?

It was only a thought, I didn't say I was going to miss the lectures, just asking for opinions like. There really is no need to be hostile to strangers on the internet bro! :rolleyes:

Paczini

PictureFrame wrote: »

It was only a thought, I didn't say I was going to miss the lectures, just asking for opinions like. There really is no need to be hostile to strangers on the internet bro! :rolleyes:

Seriously, do not skip law lectures as you will get lost (unless you are prepared to do lots of boring and hard work at home to catch up)

PictureFrame

Paczini wrote: »

Seriously, do not skip law lectures as you will get lost (unless you are prepared to do lots of boring and hard work at home to catch up)

Is there a lot of individual study required when doing Law Paczini? I'm thinking 3-4 hours a day, 5 times a week for my 3 main subjects.

XxMCRxBabyxX

PictureFrame wrote: »

Is there a lot of individual study required when doing Law Paczini? I'm thinking 3-4 hours a day, 5 times a week for my 3 main subjects.

Make sure that you keep up with all the readings that you are given. Some lecturers totally work off you having already read them and will ask you questions based on them. They are what will get you through and you won't need massive amounts of study if you do them.

Paczini

PictureFrame wrote: »

Is there a lot of individual study required when doing Law Paczini? I'm thinking 3-4 hours a day, 5 times a week for my 3 main subjects.

Well it depends on how quick can you learn but telling the truth everyone plans to do 3-4 hours of study a day but I only know 1 person who stuck to her study hours. If you are a quick learner (I am for example) and you don't have much expectations (to get higher grades for example) you don't need to study much except for right before the exam time. For Contracts and Torts there aren't many formulas or theory you have to learn but you are advised to read all cases mentioned in lectures. If you want to do it you will need couple of hours a day as some cases are even 50 a4 pages long and very often the lecturers cover 5-7 during each lecture.

PictureFrame

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Make sure that you keep up with all the readings that you are given. Some lecturers totally work off you having already read them and will ask you questions based on them. They are what will get you through and you won't need massive amounts of study if you do them.

Thanks! What are 'readings' btw?

Paczini

PictureFrame wrote: »

Thanks! What are 'readings' btw?

Cases mentioned in lectures.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Paczini wrote: »

Cases mentioned in lectures.

This and also some lecturers will give you book references and articles to read too. Most will put what they want you to read up on moodle a few days before class (one of my lecturers already has!) or will announce it at the previous class.

You don't need to ready every word but know what it's talking about and be able to discuss it.

My personal preference study wise is to summarise all the cases and keep them together. It makes it really handy at exam time to have those and to not have to read all the cases again.

Finally, don't buy books unless they become really essential. All you need are nutshells and the library.

Paczini

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

This and also some lecturers will give you book references and articles to read too. Most will put what they want you to read up on moodle a few days before class (one of my lecturers already has!) or will announce it at the previous class.

To be honest I can't remember even one article for Tort and Contracts which are in first year.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Paczini wrote: »

To be honest I can't remember even one article for Tort and Contracts which are in first year.

I defo had a few for Contract anyway

Paczini

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I defo had a few for Contract anyway

It may vary every year

ahnowbrowncow

Paczini wrote: »

Seriously, do not skip law lectures as you will get lost (unless you are prepared to do lots of boring and hard work at home to catch up)

Ah now that is not true at all, only if you're a bit slow.

I never attended 1 law lecture for two modules and got sixties in both of them. But the lecturer had put notes up on moodle and I used them to study before exams

Paczini

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Ah now that is not true at all, only if you're a bit slow.

I never attended 1 law lecture for two modules and got sixties in both of them. But the lecturer had put notes up on moodle and I used them to study before exams

Did you mean Tort and Contract lectures?

ahnowbrowncow

Paczini wrote: »

Did you mean Tort and Contract lectures?

Yes I did, the op has two law of tort lectures a week and two contract law lectures a week, and only one law of torts lecture on friday.

I think people here are grossly exaggerating the difficulty of passing the module by missing the friday lecture. If you do decide to work on Fridays make sure to do your continuous assessment which is worth 20%

And it would seem Suzanne Scott is teaching the law of torts and not prof Gopalan.

Yes I know everyone should have a 100% attendance rate but that's not always possible, maybe the op needs those work hours to pay for college. So mr. brianclown get off your high horse

XxMCRxBabyxX

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Yes I did, the op has two law of tort lectures a week and two contract law lectures a week, and only one law of torts lecture on friday.

I think people here are grossly exaggerating the difficulty of passing the module by missing the friday lecture. If you do decide to work on Fridays make sure to do your continuous assessment which is worth 20%

And it would seem Suzanne Scott is teaching the law of torts and not prof Gopalan.

Yes I know everyone should have a 100% attendance rate but that's not always possible, maybe the op needs those work hours to pay for college. So mr. brianclown get off your high horse

Suzanne Scott is only the PA, Prof. Gopalan is still lecturing. He told me himself.

The OP doesn't have the choice to skip the lectures as attendance for them is now compulsory and he could be risking losing marks or failing entirely.

Paczini

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Suzanne Scott is only the PA, Prof. Gopalan is still lecturing. He told me himself.

The OP doesn't have the choice to skip the lectures as attendance for them is now compulsory and he could be risking losing marks or failing entirely.

That's true, they introduced it last year as too many people were shipping lectures. They called in people who skipped lectures and took away marks from them. Professor Gopalan was lecturing Contracts and I think Gerard Kelly is going to lecture Tort this year (I might be wrong though) They both like to ask people that were absent on the last lecture for the summary.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Paczini wrote: »

That's true, they introduced it last year as too many people were shipping lectures. They called in people who skipped lectures and took away marks from them. Professor Gopalan was lecturing Contracts and I think Gerard Kelly is going to lecture Tort this year (I might be wrong though) They both like to ask people that were absent on the last lecture for the summary.

It's Robert someone for Tort this year. You're missing out on the great Brian!

Paczini

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

It's Robert someone for Tort this year. You're missing out on the great Brian!

Brian was a great lecturer, I just had Gerard for last few weeks so I thought he will be staying for this year.

Thwip!

Just gonna say this now, no more mentioning the lecturer's names (I know we're all giving compliments now, but it only takes one grumpy a$$ to take a negative view and start badmouthing a professor which will just get people into trouble)

Also Siomha what were the cases we studied in first year that we couldnt stop laughing at when we heard the name?

dienbienphu

Paczini wrote: »

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

It's Robert someone for Tort this year. You're missing out on the great Brian!

Brian was a great lecturer, I just had Gerard for last few weeks so I thought he will be staying for this year.

What happened the Flange?

Paczini

dienbienphu wrote: »

What happened the Flange?

He is going to US but I cant remember what is the reason. I guess some research but I will check it out in a sec.

XxMCRxBabyxX

dienbienphu wrote: »

What happened the Flange?

I was gonna call him that but thought I'd get into trouble! He got a Fulbright scholarship to research in NYU for the year

Paczini

His quote from http://law.nuim.ie/staff/dr-brian-flanagan

I am currently undertaking research into the notion of collective legislative intentionality at New York University School of Law as a Hauser Research Scholar, supported by a Fulbright Scholar's Award.

XxMCRxBabyxX

jpcarlow wrote: »

Just gonna say this now, no more mentioning the lecturer's names (I know we're all giving compliments now, but it only takes one grumpy a$$ to take a negative view and start badmouthing a professor which will just get people into trouble)

Also Siomha what were the cases we studied in first year that we couldnt stop laughing at when we heard the name?

No mentioning names and you mention mine? Bad form :P

Well there was defo the McGee case, the mature first years that we (*cough* you) were!

Paczini

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

No mentioning names and you mention mine? Bad form :P

Well there was defo the McGee case, the mature first years that we (*cough* you) were!

McGee v National Coal Board (1973) haha the only case name I remember since first semester.

dienbienphu

Paczini wrote: »

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

No mentioning names and you mention mine? Bad form :P

Well there was defo the McGee case, the mature first years that we (*cough* you) were!

McGee v National Coal Board (1973) haha the only case name I remember since first semester.

Was that the case where the guy contracted dermatitis? Ya that was hilarious.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Paczini wrote: »

McGee v National Coal Board (1973) haha the only case name I remember since first semester.

Jaysus, there was two McGee cases! I'm talking about the Constitutional case McGee v Attorney General (we did Const and Admin first year instead of Tort)

Paczini

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Jaysus, there was two McGee cases! I'm talking about the Constitutional case McGee v Attorney General (we did Const and Admin first year instead of Tort)

Now I'm looking forward to this one.

Thwip!

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

No mentioning names and you mention mine? Bad form :P

Well there was defo the McGee case, the mature first years that we (*cough* you) were!

ha you're not a lecturer plus you've previously released your name in Know your Maynoothians....legal precedent :P

ha thats the one...also was there a Norris one?

XxMCRxBabyxX

jpcarlow wrote: »

ha you're not a lecturer plus you've previously released your name in Know your Maynoothians....legal precedent :P

ha thats the one...also was there a Norris one?

Yup, Norris's case to decriminalise homosexuality.

@Paczini, McGee is all about contraception. Not as funn as it sounds.

What you really want to look forward to is R v Slingsby in Criminal Law (if you get to do it!). Now that's... interesting... though has even gotten me in trouble!

Thwip!

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Yup, Norris's case to decriminalise homosexuality.

@Paczini, McGee is all about contraception. Not as funn as it sounds.

What you really want to look forward to is R v Slingsby in Criminal Law (if you get to do it!). Now that's... interesting... though has even gotten me in trouble!

That's what i was thinking of, i knew we had a norris one. Ah those were the days. All nighters writing out cases right before exams :P

XxMCRxBabyxX

jpcarlow wrote: »

That's what i was thinking of, i knew we had a norris one. Ah those were the days. All nighters writing out cases right before exams :P

Ah those study sessions! I may find new sessioners for this year!

Thwip!

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Ah those study sessions! I may find new sessioners for this year!

MOAR DUNNE'S RED BULL

PictureFrame

Are Law exams hard guys? I looked at past exam papers and it looks like nonsense to me, i've actually no idea about any of it! Please tell me you learn everything from scratch? :eek:

Paczini

PictureFrame wrote: »

Are Law exams hard guys? I looked at past exam papers and it looks like nonsense to me, i've actually no idea about any of it! Please tell me you learn everything from scratch? :eek:

You do everything from scratch but ONE lecturer which name I cannot mention always gives a question where anyone is able to write more than few sentences that make sense. Otherwise it is just filling the pages hoping that something is relevant.

XxMCRxBabyxX

PictureFrame wrote: »

Are Law exams hard guys? I looked at past exam papers and it looks like nonsense to me, i've actually no idea about any of it! Please tell me you learn everything from scratch? :eek:

They look like nonsense because you haven't studied anything yet. Calm down. There is no way you should be looking at past papers already! Give yourself some time to settle in!

XxMCRxBabyxX

Paczini wrote: »

You do everything from scratch but ONE lecturer which name I cannot mention always gives a question where anyone is able to write more than few sentences that make sense. Otherwise it is just filling the pages hoping that something is relevant.

Lets not start scaring the firsties just yet!

XxMCRxBabyxX

jpcarlow wrote: »

MOAR DUNNE'S RED BULL

That stuff was dangerous!

Paczini

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

Lets not start scaring the firsties just yet!

I hate to lie but I'm just saying that everyone will be on the same boat as nearly no one can do these questions.

Thwip!

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

That stuff was dangerous!

i passed law, i will endorse the crap out of that stuff :P

How so Joe

My favourite cases from my three years of undergrad law:

AG v X (seminal abortion case, studied in Constitutional)
R v Lipman (criminal case regarding intoxication)
R v Brown (tort case regarding consensual sadomasochism)
R v Bedingfield (evidence case regarding dying declarations)
Van Gend en Loos (EU case, forget what it was about, just liked the name)
Cassis de Dijon (AKA France v Germany) (EU case about Creme de Cassis)
Woolmington v DPP (because of the 'Golden Thread')
Donoghue v Stevenson (the basis of all torts)
R v Dudley and Stevens (Cannibalism!!)

XxMCRxBabyxX

How so Joe wrote: »

Van Gend en Loos (EU case, forget what it was about, just liked the name)

I remember hating that case (as with pretty much all EU cases) but I will never forget the name for some reason!