Quote:
Originally Posted by FreshOffTheBoat  sure torts is torts as u say. but different unis have different methods of delivery, levels of funding, quality of lecturers, facilities etc. these all play a part in determining the quality of the course. [i think this is where the disagreement lies]
the content may be the same, but the methods of teaching, assessment, and facilities vary greatly. the courses are not clones of each other. as long as a course covers the content in a appropriate manner, it will be accredited. some are on the boderline, some are well above it.
again, with the analogy of the resturuants. they all provide food, but the quality of the food varies.
ANU is a top notch uni no doubt. but u need to realise that ANU isnt the best uni in australia for its teaching of law. it is for research/science, completely different. |
Those differences have nothing to do with prestige and vary from subject to subject, faculty to faculty. Being someone who has seen the difference between UWS and MQ, MQ has a better rep for law (which it does not deserve) yet the majority of its law lecturers are bad and the courses focus way too much on theory and jurisprudence, of course UWS had some bad lecturers but in the end the majority were excellent and their balance between jurisprudence and practical elements, I also found their assignments more testing than MQ as they are trying to prove themselves. The point being, even USYD will have crap lecturers or a lack of funding (esp as most uni's suck the money out of law because it does not attract much funding and international students, thus does not make them much money) in certain subjects and this is not that important.
The subjects are strictly regulated, everyone must do the prescribed cores,while some uni's add extras this is not really that important as electives give us the choice to take whatever else they want (even if they do it at another uni), its not like however you can go and find all this out i.e. how well the uni's cirriculum mirrors the 'prisley 11' and reputation cannot tell you that!
Most of these things you have mentioned in terms of quality cannot be accessed by a prospective student, of course you can believe what they say but in the end you wont know what its like until you try it out.
Don't take prestige or reputation for granted, it does not tell you teaching quality, how well the course rated in its accreditation or the amount of funding.
Those of us who know our uni's reputation is not great work hard to counter balance it with good marks, work experience and other activities, I would watch out and not get complacent with the reputation of the institution, not only can it change and be misguided but hard work will not go completely un-noticed!