[neo o]

Law is actually very, very easy, law students just whine alot. In my honest opinion, the only undergraduate courses easier than law courses are humanities, marketing, management and accounting courses.

Law students don't spend much time at university. Law students have about half the load of engineers and scientists and sometimes even less than humanities students. I have about ten hours of lectures per week, and as a first year (if you're combining with arts) you'll have one, or if you're lucky two days off class completely. I don't even go to the class for three-quarters of my courses, I only go when I know a lecturer is going to be particularly good.

Law students overstate the amount of time they spend reading. You don't need to read every case fully, if you did you'd go mad. All you need to do, particularly in first year courses is derive an essential principle from a case i.e. a sentence. You only really need to consider minority judgements and other nuances in theoretical courses or for essays, not for exams, which is where most content is assessed (at most universities anyway). If you study hard (but effectively) I can't imagine you spending more than two to three hours per week on each course, outside of exams, which you'd spend reading, preparing notes and preparing for tutorials.

Good marks are easy to get. At 'top tier' universities law faculties throw around distinctions and high distinctions like Kevin Rudd throws around stimulus money. The University of Sydney has a rule that as a MINIMUM 40% of students must get high distinctions and distinctions combined. Of course, if you're unfortunate enough to enrol in a university with standards, you may not get high distinctions at all (like MAQ) or there may be a rule that a maximum of only 15% of students can get high distinctions and distinctions combined (like ANU). Even at those universities through, credits are easy to maintain.

Law exams are easy. They're all take-homes and open book.