HONOURS COURSE REVIEWS
We asked students to share their honest feedback with us on some of the Honours Courses they have taken which can hopefully help more students in picking their courses. The feedback mostly contains the substantive content of the Honours Course, the format of the examinations, the most interesting aspect of the course and some likes and dislikes.
Disclaimer: These are all individual opinions and not everyone will have the same experience. Some of the students writing their feedback had studied the course in 2019/2020/2021 so the content, lecturer and/or programme may have changed since then.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
The course focussed on three aspects of IP law: patents, trademarks and passing-off.
The first three seminars focussed on patent law, looking at the general rules, complexities and then infringement. The next two seminars, we look at trademarks, their functions, limits and grounds for refusal, as well as the relative grounds for refusal of registration and infringement. The sixth seminar was on the notion of passing-off, during which Philip Hannay shared his experience in IP. Finally, the last seminar was on the practical and regulatory framework.
The format of the examinations were an assessed essay which was 25% and a written examination (2 hours, 2 questions from a choice of 4) which was 75%.
f you are interested in a career in IP, this Honours subject is for you as it gives you a great insight into this area of law. If you are not sure and wonder why I picked it, I personally found IP fascinating. There is just so much to it: between looking at different innovations and why those may not be patentable and drawing the line between what meets the definition of similarity and what doesn’t, you never get bored!
But, I must warn you – there’s a lot of reading to do! This area relies on a lot of case law so you will be expected to read a lot of them, i.e. more than 20 for some seminars. And, you need to add to this legislations and core textbooks. If you find the topic interesting though, it should be quite “enjoyable”.
I should also add that, from what I remembered, the exam/essay questions were a mix of different seminars. Some like this, some don’t!
In regard to marking, generally speaking, I would say Dr Brown a fair marker. Some people ask: is it best to pick a topic where there is a higher chance that you get an A, or to pick a topic that you enjoy but risk getting a lower grade? It all depends on what is your goal. I personally wanted to enjoy my studies so I picked IP knowing that the chance I get an A was lower than in other classes. But, if you enjoy it and work had for it, there’s no reason for which you wouldn’t get an A.
I love IP and really enjoyed the classes with Dr Brown so it is hard to pick one specific thing. I do love the OncoMousecase as I like learning about scientific experiences and still remember it very clearly three years later so I’ll pick that case as the most interesting one!
- Outgoing 4th year student.
SUCCESSION
Unfortunately, I don’t have access to my handout anymore, but I remember loving the seminars as each of them was looking at a specific aspect of this area of law. I believe some of them focussed on Disinheritance, Ademption and Weak-Minded Individuals.
The format of the examinations were in the form of two assessed essays both weighing 50%.
I personally can see many pros, and yet I don’t aspire to specialise in this area of law. These are my top four:
1. This course is taught by Prof. Paisley, and this was the main reason I picked this course. Prof. Paisley is THE staff member preparing you the best for your professional career and I don’t know you, but I love his teaching style.
2. Number 2 is actually the same as number 1: Prof. Paisley. He really believes in his students and is probably one of the best marker on campus – or, some may say, that he teaches so well that a very high proportion of the class gets good grades.
3. The two essays each focus on one seminar. Prof. Paisley guides you towards what is expected of you so you really feel supported and confident when answering the question.
4. Finally, succession is a great area of law if you’re looking at dissertation – or, at least, I think. I didn’t write mine on succession but it was my plan B. Did you know that stepchildren don’t automatically inherit in Scotland? There’s lot to talk about.
I am still trying to think of cons but can’t think of any.
For some reason, don’t ask me why, I loved the seminar on disinheritance and as a result really enjoyed writing about it in my first essay. But, what I loved the most was the fact that we were assessed on two essays. I think essays are a better reflection of what you can do, instead of a memory exercise!
- Outgoing 4th year student.
Law and Medical Ethics
Law and Medical Ethics, where do I begin? I loved this course though I don’t remember each topic that we studied during the seminars. Each seminar was different. We studied the different theories (e.g. deontology), notions of act and omission, the body as property (e.g. sale of organs), abortion, euthanasia, children’s right to consent and many other topics.
The structure of the course was very different from others. Scott Styles put people into groups and every two weeks you needed to make a presentation on a pre-selected topic. It was very interactive and ensured students engaged with the topics – answering the handout questions after these was made very easy. Presentations lasted 20 min each, and two groups presented. The rest of the two-hour seminars was dedicated to questions, discussions and debates.
There were 2 Assessed Essays (50%) (though, prior COVID, it used to be 100% Written Examination in May).
· 1 pre-selected topic
· 1 topic of your choice
Law and Medical Ethics is a fascinating course. What I love about it most is that there is no right or wrong answers and this is probably it’s biggest “Pros”. You can argue anything so long as you have sources to back up your argument. Also , if you like having a course where each seminar is different, this one is a good one as well! You can never get bored!
I personally loved having to do the presentations because I love reading about this area and then talking about it. But, that requires quite a bit of work – 20min is a long time to speak for, and to engage with your group. Also, please keep in mind that the title of the course is not “Medical Law” or “Ethics”. You need a balance of the two in your essay and I know some people sometimes do struggle finding the right balance.
Generally speaking, I would say Scott Style is a fair marker.
Oh, don’t make me choose! I think what I loved the most is that you could pick a topic of your choice. I don’t remember having had the opportunity to learn about designer babies during the course and yet really wanted to read more about it and see what the academics views were. It was the perfect opportunity!
-Outgoing 4th year student.
Corporate Insolvency
The seven seminars were divided in two parts and each focussed on a different topic. We studied directors’ personal liability, directors’ disqualification, directors’ duties, the twilight zone, corporate rescue, as well as the Enterprise Act 2002, the EU Insolvency Regulation, common law, the Model Law and Section 426.
The assessments consisted of an essay worth 25% and an exam worth 75%. The exam was made of seven questions, each on one seminar. You had to answer two questions in part 1 and one in part 2.
Generally speaking, I would say Prof. McKenzie-Skene is fair.
I really liked the first part of the Corporate Insolvency course and was pleasantly surprised to see it was quite different from what we studied in the corporate insolvency section of the Commercial Organisations course. It was much more focussed on the rights and responsibilities/duties of directors. I found the second part slightly tricker as we studied the different laws in this area.
The class seems to be smaller than other Honours classes. I always feel smaller classes are better as you get a slightly more tailored teaching and also, there’s more chance to engage with the course.
Finally, Prof. McKenzie-Skene is always very happy to help students and will make sure to ensure any questions you may have during the semester and before the exam.
International Law: A Time Of Challenges
In 2019, the seminar topics were the following: the multifaceted nature of International Law; terrorism; the protection of human rights; nuclear proliferation; international health law; ethnic conflicts and global climate change.
The course was taught by Dr Irene Couzigou and Professor Zeray Yihdego.
The format of the essays consisted of one essay of 2,000 words (30%) and one online exam where we had to answer 3 questions among a choice of 6 questions – some were questions focussed on a specific seminar, some were a mix of seminars (70%)
I cannot really comment on the marking as it seems the opinions were really divided. Two persons were involved in the marking I believe and some said the difference in marking seemed quite noticeable.
First of all, the course was very “actual” – our essay for example was on the measures taken by the UN Security Council in light of COVID-19. There was a lot of theory but in a practical context and this was very enjoyable.
Also, whilst I sometimes had some difficulties understanding the lecturer(s), I really liked the support they provided for exams. They recorded before each seminar some podcasts to sum up the main points, which really helped my revisions. And, I’m sure, should you email Dr Couzigou with any questions she would be happy to help!
Private International Law
This was centred around topics such as the choice of court agreements for companies doing business with companies from other countries and the complex issues which arose from these transactions. The seminars were centred around the recordings but there were no PowerPoint slides. They were very interesting but often very difficult to follow because there was so much information in a two hour slot.
The exam was two 50% essays and you chose one of three questions given. Each question referred to each of the seminars.
The most interesting thing I learnt was the theory behind which party in a dispute could have the biggest influence as to where the trial should take place because it is possible to choose a court that can benefit your company the most.
-Outgoing 3rd year student.
Criminal Evidence
This was extremely interesting and discussed mostly Scots law with some English stances on how evidence is given in court. This covered everything from expert evidence to hearsay evidence to what constitutes admissible evidence. The seminars were mostly centred around the readings although occasionally had slide shows to accompanying this. Two seminars had a guest lecturer so it was great to see a different teaching style.
The essays were two 50% essays and you could chose one of three questions assigned each time (each questions from a different seminar) and you had two weeks to complete the essay.
What I found most interesting was learning about the expert evidence and the fact that I was aware just how vague some of the statutes are and the reforms that are needed as I wasn’t aware of this.
Abortion Law
The seminars were 1) is abortion a legal right? 2) abortion and the medical profession 3) abortion and the medical profession 4) abortion and foetal disability 5) paternal rights and the foetus 6) abortion and race. The course was really well structured as it began with analysing the actual legal status of abortion and what this means in the United Kingdom specifically before looking to analyse the different caveats of abortion laws.
The vast majority of teaching focused on UK laws but we looked to the European Court of Human Rights and compared the laws with other countries. The final topic was more focused on the United States which was really interesting to get a more in-depth insight into the history of abortion laws there and get a deeper understanding of the current issues ongoing while the course took place.
The course was assessed through two 2500 words essays which were both worth 50%. Each essay had 6 questions to choose from which encompassed two from each of the seminars covered. The questions were developed through feedback from students at the end of thr seminars which meant we could be assessed on the topics we actually engaged with and enjoyed most. I really liked the way the course was assessed as there was a huge selection of topics to pick from which meant there was bound to be one question you felt confident about. Most of the questions did have scope to bring in material form other topics as a means of analysing of evaluating the topic at hand which meant you could engage with more than one topic you enjoyed if you wanted to.
It was really interesting to learn about the political, cultural and even economical issues that can influence a country’s approach to abortion laws and engage in discussion around this throughout the course. I would highly recommend this course to anyone as it is so unlike any other module due to the topics covered and the annual content. Huge shoutout to Professor Adelyn Wilson as she is so approachable if you ever have any issues and you can tell she is really knowledgeable about this area of law!
- Outgoing 3rd year student.
Unjustified Enrichment
The seminars covered in unjustified enrichment were: visiting the basics, condictio indebiti, condictio causa data causa non secuta, the general enrichment principal, the role of unjustified enrichment and subdividing unjustified enrichment into groups.
The exam consisted of two, 2500 word essays worth 50%.
I really enjoyed this honours it was easy to understand and explained really well. The first seminar going over the basics was really helpful and it was especially helpful being able to go over first year notes.
I found it interesting exploring how unjustified enrichment interacts with other areas of the law as I had not previously known this. The doctrine of subsidiary that was especially interesting because I did not know that if you had already tried another area of law to resolve a case, you could not then use unjustified enrichment to fall back on.
-Outgoing 3rd year student.
Criminal Law
Seminar one was about the limits of criminal law Seninar two was about mental capacity/criminal responsibility. Seminar three was necessity and coercion, seminar four was murder and seminar five was homocide and domestic abuse ( this was my favourite). Then seminar 6 was the definition of rape.
There were two essays and a MCQ, however, the MCQ was in a sentence format where you had to justify your answers on a document rather than typical MCQ blackboard style.
I would definitely say the most interesting thing I learned was about the infidelity defence and how victims of domestic abuse who kill in Scotland are very disadvantaged than those In England.
-Outgoing 3rd year student
International Family Law
The course was split into 6 seminars. These were parental responsibility, protection of children, maintenance, inter-country adoption, cross-border abductions and cross border surrogacy. We mainly focused on the Hague conference and the different Hague conventions. If someone was to take that course, I would recommend them taking on some of the different Hague conventions, so they get a basic understand of the course. In particular, we studied the 1980, 1996, 1993 and 2007 Hague Conventions.
There were two essays. The first essay you had a choice of three questions based on the first three seminars and the second essay you had a choice of three questions based on the last three seminars. 50% each. For the seminars, we had to do a presentation where we got put into a different group each seminar. The presentations were usually about the Conventions or the legislation for that given topic.
I definitely recommend this subject. Everything was so interesting as this is what I wanted to do in the future. After this course, I developed a strong interest for child protection, in particular international child protection which I had not studied before.
-Outgoing 4th year student.
Family Law
The seminars were regarding divorce, financial consequences of divorce, adoption, domestic abuse, surrogacy and international family and relocation. I recommend taking family law before taking international family law because when I took international family law, they also referred to family law and sometimes didn’t discuss particular issues in too much detail as there was a presumption the student had taken family law honours previously.
There were two essays. The first essay you had a choice of three questions based on the first three seminars and the second essay you had a choice of three questions based on the last three seminars. 50% each. For the seminars, we had to do a presentation where we got put into a different group each seminar.
I absolutely loved this subject. I however did prefer the last three seminars as from the first essay, I only wanted to do adoption because I’m not really interested as much in the financial consequences of divorce. This course provided a wide course of topics and that in my opinion was the best part as there was such a range of topics to choose from. Moreover, I found surrogacy particularly interesting and I recommend taking that essay topic as it is extremely topical due to the vast amount of law reform currently taking place and it is always changing which is good as it is need in reform due to its outdated nature.
-Outgoing 4th year student.
Delict
Delict covered factual causation, economic loss, unwanted children, psychiatric injury, vicarious liability and non-delegable duties. Euan west took the first two seminars and John Ford did the next four.
The format of the examinations were two 2,500 word essays (+/- 10%) worth 50% each.
I enjoyed the way the seminars were taught. Each seminar had a new topic and so i could understand what information fitted into which part of the topic. This flowed nicely into the exam as there was a question from each topic. found the three different classes in unwanted children very interesting and thought provoking. I recommend delict. However, I didn’t enjoy the hybrid seminars where half the class were online and half were in person. When joining online it was hard to engage in the seminar and take good notes. I preferred in person seminars for this reason.
-Outgoing 3rd year student.
By Megha Banerjee
