can one do a full LLB Lawyer degree at Unisa

the unisa website is out of date.
[www.unisa.ac.za]
this is the only document i can find.

anyone know if one can actually become a lawyer by studying through unisa?
any other catches?

Im not sure if this answers your question but my grandfather did become supreme court judge and was at unisa.

Adults are always asking little kids what they want to be when they grow up because they are trying to get ideas.
- Paula Poundstone

My brother got his LLB from UNISA - and he is now practising successfully as an advocate.

 
  ,= ,-_-. =.
 ((_/)o o(\_))
  `-'(. .)`-'
      \_/

[ilanpillemer.com]
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Yes, I also know someone who became a lawyer through Unisa. A good one too.

Anybody know what the full time duration is? or if u do 6 modules a year ho long it would take?

You need to complete 40 modules, no prerequisites other than a poor matric pass
for all 40 modules (which actually explains a great deal about the reason for so many
stupid lawyers existing!).

You also need the willingness to communicate properly - if using legal language is
an effort for you (not a normal part fo your life, that is), then perhaps speaking in
a court may not be the best career choice for you

"M'Lud, I beg the court to grant an order of 'U GAY TBAGGER' to plaintiff"
"M'Lud plaintiff responds with testimony 'PWNED!!!'"
"M'Lud, we ask plaintif 'ORLY?'"



--
Learn something new - updated weekly

mmm...mkay!
So it's easy to obtain...compared to B.Sc.

Law is insanely easy, you need good short-term memory (remember things for only 3 days and then forget
about it after the exam, as none of the modules have prerequisites).

With BSc. you need to know your stuff for the next year ...

--
Learn something new - updated weekly

Quote

Law is insanely easy, you need good short-term memory (remember things for only 3 days and then forget
about it after the exam, as none of the modules have prerequisites).

With BSc. you need to know your stuff for the next year ...

The way UNISA do most there exams I would disagree on that. You could do the same for a Bsc at UNISA.
Especially if you take mostly INF subjects.

--
"Knowledge has much better uses than self-pity and superiority"

Well, sure, but I'd hardly call INF a science, now would I

Anyway, at least the INF courses tell you beforehand - you need more than simply
high-school to pass 3rd-yeard INF subjects. The hardest law subjects simply need
matric with a bad pass.

--
Learn something new - updated weekly

Quote
goose
Law is insanely easy, you need good short-term memory (remember things for only 3 days and then forget
about it after the exam, as none of the modules have prerequisites).

But that implies that you're getting the degree only for the sake getting the degree. When you're done you won't be a good lawyer because reasoning (ie. general mental ability) is worth much more than knowing the latin words and other legalese terms. The problem is that unisa tests how good your memory is, not how good the rest of your brain is.

Quote

Anyway, at least the INF courses tell you beforehand - you need more than simply
high-school to pass 3rd-yeard INF subjects. The hardest law subjects simply need
matric with a bad pass.

That's because schools actually teach something that INF needs. Schools don't teach critical reasoning and general thinking. That's why law degrees don't ask for prerequisites because no prerequisites exist in school, except maybe english.

malberts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Law is insanely easy, you need good short-term
> memory (remember things for only 3 days and then
> forget
> about it after the exam, as none of the modules
> have prerequisites).
>
>
> But that implies that you're getting the degree
> only for the sake getting the degree. When you're
> done you won't be a good lawyer because reasoning
> (ie. general mental ability) is worth much more
> than knowing the latin words and other legalese
> terms.

I agree, but that wasn't the question being asked - the question is "is it easy to get an LLB", the answer
is "vocational schools have more stringent requirements before handing over the qualification".

Whether that counts as easy or not is open to interpretation - I consider it easy. Ask 5 different lawyers
from 5 different law schools in SA the same question - you'll get 5 different answers (6 if one went to
UNISA ) - this is because there are no hard answers - you wait for the judge to go one way or another.

I've been with good lawyers (like my divorce lawyer) who quotes chapter and verse, and tends to know
even the most arcane bits and is therefore worth the money ("If she does this, you will hurt in the short
term but have a better argument for court", was one particular piece of advice he gave me), while others
will cost you more (like the one who did not realise that the maternity preference rule is no longer a
judicial rule to be enforced).

A great lawyer is one who is a good lawyer, but with the ability to induce cognitive dissonance into
the person under cross-examination. I'm certainly quite good at that sort of thing (now), but I had
no idea that it could be so useful (after having seen it in action, and having used it myself to successfully
make the cross-examiner emotionally break down in court )

Is LLB easy? Well, the requirements are less than that required for 3-year vocational school, so what do
you think? Is being a good lawyer easy? Hell no! Having a fundamental grasp of the language, as well
as the ability to introduce nuances into correspondence to sway any ambiguity into your favour is a hard
thing to do, and is also an indicator of high IQ - so even just working hard won't make you a great lawyer,
maybe just a fair one.

> The problem is that unisa tests how good
> your memory is, not how good the rest of your
> brain is.
>

That's what all SA law schools do - people who have trouble remembering where they live pass law school,
people who can count their fingers twice and come up with different results have passed law school. Law
in SA these days is usually studied by those rejected by the other professions. Med-school, BSc, Vet-Science,
etc dropouts study law. Face it - no one every dropped out of Law school to major in physics, or botany, while
many of dropouts of the BSc turn to law.

Law is the easiest profession.

>
> Anyway, at least the INF courses tell you
> beforehand - you need more than simply
> high-school to pass 3rd-yeard INF subjects. The
> hardest law subjects simply need
> matric with a bad pass.
>
>
> That's because schools actually teach something
> that INF needs. Schools don't teach critical
> reasoning and general thinking. That's why law
> degrees don't ask for prerequisites because no
> prerequisites exist in school, except maybe
> english.

They also, btw, don't require students to display any "critical reasoning and general thinking",
which many other degrees require.

Law, as I said before, simply requires you to remember enough for a few days. They used
to require formal logic as a part of every law degree - they have since dropped the
requirement.

--
Learn something new - updated weekly

Quote
goose
the question is "is it easy to get an LLB", the answer is "vocational schools have more stringent requirements before handing over the qualification".

No, that wasn't the question either. The question was "can one do a full LLB Lawyer degree at Unisa". He wanted to know whether UNISA offers an LLB. Not how easy it is to gain admission, and not how easy the content is, and not how easy it is to pass the exams.

Quote

They also, btw, don't require students to display any "critical reasoning and general thinking",
which many other degrees require.

My point was that the abilities required to do an LLB aren't abilities that you have learned at school. Sure other degrees require critical reasoning and general thinking too, but they have other formal requirements that can be satisfied by things you need to have done in school. Law does not have formal requirements satisfiable by passing matric, except perhaps for being able to speak.

malberts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > the question is "is it easy to get an LLB", the
> answer is "vocational schools have more stringent
> requirements before handing over the
> qualification".
>
> No, that wasn't the question either.

Not the original one, but:
RiaanR Wrote:
> So it's easy to obtain...compared to B.Sc.

I took that as a question, perhaps it was just supposed to be a statement?


> The question
> was "can one do a full LLB Lawyer degree at
> Unisa". He wanted to know whether UNISA offers an
> LLB. Not how easy it is to gain admission, and not
> how easy the content is, and not how easy it is to
> pass the exams.
>
>
> They also, btw, don't require students to display
> any "critical reasoning and general thinking",
> which many other degrees require.
>
>
> My point was that the abilities required to do an
> LLB aren't abilities that you have learned at
> school. Sure other degrees require critical
> reasoning and general thinking too, but they have
> other formal requirements that can be satisfied by
> things you need to have done in school. Law does
> not have formal requirements satisfiable by
> passing matric, except perhaps for being able to
> speak.

I am seriously trying to understand what it is you are saying here. I've
twisted it every which way in order to make it fit /some/ meaning, but
still don't know what it is you are saying.

You cannot be saying that law entrance and graduation requirements,
which apparently cannot be satisfied by highschool, are equal to or higher
than the entrance/graduation requirements for many other professions?

Law has less selection criteria when admitting/graduating students than
the other disciplines - this is why I called it "insanely easy" IIRC. Just because
it has less stringent requirements, it is a major leap to go from that to "It
has requirements that aren't satisfied by high-school" - I would love to hear
what these unique requirements for law school are that make it so special.

--
Learn something new - updated weekly

goose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > My point was that the abilities required to do an
> > LLB aren't abilities that you have learned at
> > school. Sure other degrees require critical
> > reasoning and general thinking too, but they have
> > other formal requirements that can be satisfied by
> > things you need to have done in school. Law does
> > not have formal requirements satisfiable by
> > passing matric, except perhaps for being able to
> > speak.
>
> I am seriously trying to understand what it is you
> are saying here. I've
> twisted it every which way in order to make it fit
> /some/ meaning, but
> still don't know what it is you are saying.
>
> You cannot be saying that law entrance and
> graduation requirements,
> which apparently cannot be satisfied by
> highschool, are equal to or higher
> than the entrance/graduation requirements for many
> other professions?

Since my informal communication is a bit lacking, let me use some crude formal logic:

p1. passed(matric) v passed(similar_to_matric) -> canDo(maths) v canDo(english) v canDo(compskills) v canDo(science) v canDo(art)
p2. know(maths) ^ know(compskills) -> mayEnrollFor(BSC)
p3. know(english) ^ know(critical_thinking) -> mayEnrollFor(LL

1. passed(matric)
2. canDo(maths)         [p1 + for illustrative purposes only]
3. canDo(compskills)    [p1 + for illustrative purposes only]
4. canEnrollFor(BSC)    [2,3,p2]

1. passed(matric)
2. canDo(english)       [p1 + for illustrative purposes only]
3. dontKnowIfCanDo(critical_thinking)
4. dontKnowIfCanEnrollFor(LL

And so they do not make "critical_thinking" a formal requirement for enrolling for LLB because that formal requirement cannot be satisfied by subjects taught in school and the list of formal requirements for modules are all based on school or school-alternatives. And so they make "critical_thinking" part of the degree's modules list. The things that would actually be prerequisites are taught as part of the degree.

> Law has less selection criteria when
> admitting/graduating students than
> the other disciplines - this is why I called it
> "insanely easy" IIRC.

You also said

Quote

no prerequisites other than a poor matric pass
for all 40 modules

. And the reason why there are no prerequisites is because the possible prerequisites (like critical thinking) isn't part of the school syllabus. So if you passed matric you cannot claim to have passed "critical thinking" with X%. So they cannot make "critical thinking" a prerequisite because you would not be able to formally satisfy that requirement. Instead they make them part of the degree.

> Just because
> it has less stringent requirements, it is a major
> leap to go from that to "It
> has requirements that aren't satisfied by
> high-school" - I would love to hear
> what these unique requirements for law school are
> that make it so special.

I never said that not the non-school requirements are special or in any way require any above average mental effort. I am simply saying that the knowledge needed to complete a law degree is taught as part of the degree and therefore are not prerequisites (because schools do not offer courses in "critical thinking" and whatever else).

I think I understand what you are saying now; but I still contend that it is easy when a degree has, for it's final year subjects,
only matric as a prequisite, and not your 3rd, 2nd or 1st year subjects. That was my point, actually - other degrees teach you
what matric doesn't in order to let you graduate - law doesn't - get your 40 modules in any order with none of them having
any other module as a prequisite, and you've now got a degree. Other degrees make 1st year a prerequisite for 2nd year,
and 2nd year a prerequisite for 3rd year, and a full degree a prequisite for honours.

Law simply says "pass these 40 modules in any order, and you now have LLB", which makes it seem that none of them are
very complex. If there were a difficult/complex law module, say "FOO", then presumably you need more than matric to
register for it, you may need "BAR", for example. Since this is not the case, I assume (fairly, I think) that none of the Law
modules cover anything advanced and/or complex.

(I'm curious if you actually knew that none of the 40 modules for LLB require anything more complex than matric, unlike the
other degrees which require stuff that isn't taught in matric, hence the reason they make the 1st year a prerequisite for
2nd year and 2nd year a prerequisite for 3rd year. It's not something that everyone knows, I suspect).

--
Learn something new - updated weekly

I must admit that most the lawyers I know don't seem particularly bright

--
"Knowledge has much better uses than self-pity and superiority"

malcolm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I must admit that most the lawyers I know don't
> seem particularly bright

Well, yeah - because the entrance and graduation requirements are so low[1], many people
who had trouble even getting past matric, graduate with an LLB. The good lawyers, however,
are very, very sharp indeed. The bad ones become prosecutors - everyone in between
makes a living that is about commensurate with their intelligence anyway.

So, it's easy to become a lawyer, but it's very difficult to make a living at it if you were one of
those who weren't all that smart to begin with. It's probably the same in every profession - if
you're smart, you won't starve (which explains why, to Riaans consternation, he makes a killing
as a BA and is surprised when we consider BA's to be idiots - we only see the idiots who make
less than even I do )


[1] Twas not always this way - law used to have requirements and tuition that
rivaled medicine in it's thoroughness. Those were the days

--
Learn something new - updated weekly

goose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I still contend that it is easy when a degree has,
> for it's final year subjects,
> only matric as a prequisite, and not your 3rd, 2nd
> or 1st year subjects. That was my point, actually
> (I'm curious if you actually knew that none of the
> 40 modules for LLB require anything more complex
> than matric, unlike the
> other degrees which require stuff that isn't
> taught in matric, hence the reason they make the
> 1st year a prerequisite for
> 2nd year and 2nd year a prerequisite for 3rd year.
> It's not something that everyone knows, I
> suspect).

No. I didn't know that. But I can see why. there's only so much you can do in latin, logic, etc. Whereas in computer science, for example, COS101-301 is a huge field. Too big to fully cover in first year.

I think then, CS is not as wide, but its deeper. Law is wider, but not as deep.

malberts Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> goose Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I still contend that it is easy when a degree
> has,
> > for it's final year subjects,
> > only matric as a prequisite, and not your 3rd,
> 2nd
> > or 1st year subjects. That was my point,
> actually
> > (I'm curious if you actually knew that none of
> the
> > 40 modules for LLB require anything more
> complex
> > than matric, unlike the
> > other degrees which require stuff that isn't
> > taught in matric, hence the reason they make
> the
> > 1st year a prerequisite for
> > 2nd year and 2nd year a prerequisite for 3rd
> year.
> > It's not something that everyone knows, I
> > suspect).
>
> No. I didn't know that. But I can see why. there's
> only so much you can do in latin, logic, etc.
> Whereas in computer science, for example,
> COS101-301 is a huge field. Too big to fully cover
> in first year.
>
> I think then, CS is not as wide, but its deeper.
> Law is wider, but not as deep.

(see my reply to malcom) What really annoys me is that law once was a thorough degree, where only
smart people graduated. Even as recently as 1995, I remember that Law had more than a few philosophy
subjects in there (with prerequisites!!!), and that law students covered Formal Logic at least as thoroughly
as CS does up to 3rd year. To graduate you had to do more than just work hard and remember, you also
had to be smart.

However, it was dumbed down (I shall not speculate on the reasons why) so that more "X" lawyers
graduated, to ensure an even distribution. There were attempts to do the same for medicine as well, IIRC,
but when human lives are at stake, they still kept at least the minimum standards required.

For law, turning out incompetent lawyers is not such a biggie after all - the market will ensure the good ones
eat and the bad ones become company secretaries or suchlike. Turning out incompetent doctors tend to
result in dead bodies.

[edit - Law no longer covers logic - not even at a basic 1st year level]

--
Learn something new - updated weekly

Mmm. Most weird. I thought in 2007 when I did PLS102 (critical thinking) that there were people doing this as part of law - the textbook even mentions its applications to law. But now, in the 2009 calendar I see not a single law stream does that module. So it seems that UNISA isn't teaching law students how to reason properly anymore.

I don't know what the case is today, but in the past LLB was a postgrad degree with something like a 33% fail rate. The entrance requirements weren't much, but the survival requirements were reasonably stringent. Not quite Engineering, but not nothing neither. A reasonably challenging degree to pass; and one that was incredibly difficult to do well in.

I gather you can now go straight in to LLB without doing some preliminary degree at at least some universities these days.

Professional admittance exams were yet another bar, once you had your degree (and assuming you could get a pupillage or articles; and of the 66% who passed the LLB something like 50% frequently couldn't find employment in the law). I heard say that the Bar Council exams had only a 33% pass rate, but maybe I got that wrong. They had at least that fail rate.

Goose has got it pretty much summed up - in at least some respects. An LLB doesn't make even a quarter of a lawyer. Like any other vocation, you learn the real stuff on the job. You can do well in your academic studies, and still not cut it in the speciality you end up in in the real world.

Do you just have to "remember a few cases" to pass? Maybe today. But if you settle for that you're going to be useless at at least certain aspects of law. You're going to have to at least know where to find a few hundred cases (and probably more like a few thousand). Your indexing system is a bit more hard to maintain than it is for properly ordered bodies of knowledge like say maths. There's no natural connection between say the name Ewels and what to make of someone who drives into a crowd while smashed out of his skull, but you'll probably have to make some kind of connection yourself and know some or other case regarding Ewels like you know your own pulse. Sometimes it's easy. Donahue (?) and Stephenson ate the cabin boy. Er ... but then you have to somehow remember the boring aspect of that. Necessity can never be a defence to murder, I think. In UK law, that is. In SA law there was a certain Goliath who was small, and a certain other large unnamed person who was a bit of a thug. A lot of a thug, actually. So one day this thug for some or other reason put a knife in little Goliath's hand and said to him "Kill that person". Goliath did as he was told. I think they might've let him off because he was forced to do it. The point is you have to learn a fairly ecclectic set of rules founded upon often distracting facts. If you want to be good (in certain fields at least), you have to know lots of these, or at least have a reasonable idea of where to find them in a rather arcane indexing system.

Are you interested in doing law, or just curious about this in a general kind of way?

If you're looking at doing law (Why?? If you can do science, why on earth do law?) then you need to get yourself a much more specific idea of what kind of law you want to do. 90% of lawyers hardly ever see the inside of a court. They do paperwork. That's why your average attorney will do you more harm than good in court. Forensic work (look up the word forensic) is an art, rather than a science. Dealing with judicial officers is another art, all of its own. If you have a background in the physical sciences a speciality like patent law could be interesting (and lucrative, I hear).

Of course the only truly noble branch of the legal profession is prosecuting. You get to work 16 hours a day, flat out all day, for approximately no pay at all, but as a reward you get to see at least the less cunning members of society's filth lose a step or two in their inexorable progress to criminal success. The more cunning filth objects will run rings around you, of course, but you at least get to have a noble go at them. That gives their insignificant little victims a moments satisfaction, sometimes, even if it doesn't amount to anything in practical terms. They get the feeling that at least the state had a go at applying the necessary insecticide to the cockroaches.

Actually good prosecuting is utterly dependent on good policing. So if you want to be really, really noble you could go and become a police detective. That way you get to work 18 hours a day (with an extra two hours on Sundays) trying to somehow juggle upwards of 100 dockets at a time. Not only that, but you also get paid even less than a prosecutor...