+ is it hard? it must be really difficult, huh? (as compared to what?)

+ are you going to be a solicitor or a barrister? (solicitor)

+ are you going to practice? (yeah)

+ which type/area/kind of law are you going to specialise in? (don’t know yet)

+ do you have any advice for me? (read the fine print)

+ can you be my lawyer? (if you pay me)

+ do you like law? (yeah)

+ why are you studying law? (can we talk about this another time?)

and then there are also those people who’ve teased me relentlessly throughout my undergraduate days about doing law because it’s apparently as cop-out a degree as business or finance or accountacy, in that it is ‘vocational’ and that it almost guarantees a job upon graduation, and implying that i’ve got no intellectual curiousity and/or i’m playing it safe.

those people, they’re all doing law conversion courses now, and want my notes. tag-alongs. and, also, why do some people insist on pretending that law degrees are non-intellectual? they know that it’s very demanding, and they know that it’s not just regurgitation, so why do they carry on slagging it off? if they had to sit through some of the classes i took, they’d realise that it’s as intellectually high-falutin’ as international relations or philosophy.

idiots like these piss me off.

but anyway, having (almost) finished going through my pre-course reading for my LPC, i don’t think i’m going to like the course very much. it’s all very boring and ‘what does regulation 97459 say?’, all very practical and rote-learning. oh well, just one more year of hypothesising and then i can get down and dirty with reality.