Despite my earlier post about there being no posts for a while, yesterday's trip to ICSL has left me in a bit of a pickle.
I'd gotten the term dates a bit messed up (the information I was given ages ago was out by a week), so it looks like I shall be missing some of the first week - if the Registrar even lets me register, apparently I can't possibly hope to get through the course if I miss a single induction or tutorial. Hmm.
I've been reading other people's post on the first few BVC days (Android, yours has been really helpful :) ) but I know that different providers may differ.
Is there really that much to the first few days/ week of the BVC? I don't mind missing introductions anyway, I have the common sense of a dingbat and so invariably end up wandering around aimlessly not knowing where I'm doing with or without the induction!
*sigh* Must do better.
Friday, 29 August 2008
Wednesday, 27 August 2008
Holiday
I find myself being dragged away to lie on a Thai beach with a Singapore Sling or five, and so I shall be unable to post for a wee while. I shall return when the BVC starts - in a few short weeks.
I have been reading the comments on a Facebook 2008-9 BVC group and my, my - I simply cannot wait to be in the company of such types as Ms A, who left comments thus:
-'Hello all, I just won X scholarship from Y Inn. I'm very pleased.'
'-I want to find out about options, because I didn't like my options on the BCL. That's the one at OXFORD'.
-'Oh I would like to do that option, they didn't have that option on my BCL at Oxford'.
-'Actually I'm deferring for a year to go do the LLM at Cambridge. Ciao'.
Actually, I am looking forward to the BVC and like to think I've developed a high threshold for over-plumped egos. Hope all is well in the rest of the blogosphere.
-M.
PS - Any holiday read recommendations (or good reads in general) would be welcome!
I have been reading the comments on a Facebook 2008-9 BVC group and my, my - I simply cannot wait to be in the company of such types as Ms A, who left comments thus:
-'Hello all, I just won X scholarship from Y Inn. I'm very pleased.'
'-I want to find out about options, because I didn't like my options on the BCL. That's the one at OXFORD'.
-'Oh I would like to do that option, they didn't have that option on my BCL at Oxford'.
-'Actually I'm deferring for a year to go do the LLM at Cambridge. Ciao'.
Actually, I am looking forward to the BVC and like to think I've developed a high threshold for over-plumped egos. Hope all is well in the rest of the blogosphere.
-M.
PS - Any holiday read recommendations (or good reads in general) would be welcome!
Monday, 25 August 2008
Thoughts on a shorter BVC
I'm trying to get a feel for how the BVC will be, through Facebook groups, other blogs and the Provider's website. One of the discussions I came across concerned the length of the course itself.
It had been suggested that the course ought to be made shorter, so as to reduce costs and...well I'm not quite sure why else. Perhaps so that hopeless candidates waste less of their time, and people can see earlier one whether they will obtain pupillage etc. I understand that this has been periodically considered by the Bar Council as well, alongside other proposed BVC reforms.
I'm not sure what my position on this is. Indeed, in the States the Bar Exam is a 2 day exam and prep classes offered only run for 2-3 months before the exam itself. This is all conducted immediately after completion of final years exams, and so by August a student will have graduated from Law School and hopefully passed the Bar.
But the Bar exam is fundamentally different there. No advocacy, research or drafting skills are taught - the whole endeavour is an exercise in memory and exam skills. There are no opportunities to moot or do pro bono work, which may be of more relevance to non-law graduates who have not had an opportunity to moot before. The Bar Exam is the bare-bones of basic legal knowledge; a basic test of competence in that if you can't even get the hang of memorising a few Civ Pro rules you probably shouldn't be allowed to practice. I don't think that the US Bar has the same aims as the BVC.
I get the impression that the BVC has broader aims - to prepare a student for the Bar, develop various skills (as mentioned above, negotiation, drafting, research). Perhaps the longer timescale is needed therefore. The US Bar does not cover these skills and the approach is that new practitioners will learn these skills on the job.
I am told by many graduates of the BVC that there is little point in learning these things on the BVC, because you un-learn or re-learn them in pupillage and thus they support a shorter, pared down BVC. However, I see two problems with this approach:
1- With hindsight, it is easy to play down what you have learned and forgot that the process of learning is as important, at least, as the knowledge and skills you have gained. Even if you do learn to do things in a different way as a pupil, I think intuitively that the BVC must have provided the necessary foundation for this. An analogy for this would be learning Spanish when you have already learned French to a high level; it is much easier than just starting from scratch with Spanish or Italian because you will recognise a lot of the vocabulary and understand how the rules of grammar function, even if they are different rules.
2 - If more of the training is left to Chambers in pupillage, surely this will make this even harder to attain pupillage? I imagine this to be so based on the fact that available pupillages dropped once minimum funding was introduced and so it became costlier to provide pupillages. The costlier it is, the lower the number of pupillages available it seems. In the US, if no-one will hire you it is relatively easy to set up shop on your own. This is not the case here.
These are just some thoughts, I otherwise find the idea of a shorter BVC attractive - the costs of self-funding are lower for a 3-6 month period than for the academic year, and I could do other things in the rest of the year- work, travel, internships etc. I might have already done the BVC by now if it was a short course.
Finally however, depending on the make-up of a shorter course timing would have to be considered. Following a tough third year immediately with a Bar course that requires anything like real brain work would be very tough physically and emotionally. I could see the fatigue in the eyes of my colleagues on the New York Bar exam. I imagine people would adjust to this, they always do, but it is definitely something to consider.
It had been suggested that the course ought to be made shorter, so as to reduce costs and...well I'm not quite sure why else. Perhaps so that hopeless candidates waste less of their time, and people can see earlier one whether they will obtain pupillage etc. I understand that this has been periodically considered by the Bar Council as well, alongside other proposed BVC reforms.
I'm not sure what my position on this is. Indeed, in the States the Bar Exam is a 2 day exam and prep classes offered only run for 2-3 months before the exam itself. This is all conducted immediately after completion of final years exams, and so by August a student will have graduated from Law School and hopefully passed the Bar.
But the Bar exam is fundamentally different there. No advocacy, research or drafting skills are taught - the whole endeavour is an exercise in memory and exam skills. There are no opportunities to moot or do pro bono work, which may be of more relevance to non-law graduates who have not had an opportunity to moot before. The Bar Exam is the bare-bones of basic legal knowledge; a basic test of competence in that if you can't even get the hang of memorising a few Civ Pro rules you probably shouldn't be allowed to practice. I don't think that the US Bar has the same aims as the BVC.
I get the impression that the BVC has broader aims - to prepare a student for the Bar, develop various skills (as mentioned above, negotiation, drafting, research). Perhaps the longer timescale is needed therefore. The US Bar does not cover these skills and the approach is that new practitioners will learn these skills on the job.
I am told by many graduates of the BVC that there is little point in learning these things on the BVC, because you un-learn or re-learn them in pupillage and thus they support a shorter, pared down BVC. However, I see two problems with this approach:
1- With hindsight, it is easy to play down what you have learned and forgot that the process of learning is as important, at least, as the knowledge and skills you have gained. Even if you do learn to do things in a different way as a pupil, I think intuitively that the BVC must have provided the necessary foundation for this. An analogy for this would be learning Spanish when you have already learned French to a high level; it is much easier than just starting from scratch with Spanish or Italian because you will recognise a lot of the vocabulary and understand how the rules of grammar function, even if they are different rules.
2 - If more of the training is left to Chambers in pupillage, surely this will make this even harder to attain pupillage? I imagine this to be so based on the fact that available pupillages dropped once minimum funding was introduced and so it became costlier to provide pupillages. The costlier it is, the lower the number of pupillages available it seems. In the US, if no-one will hire you it is relatively easy to set up shop on your own. This is not the case here.
These are just some thoughts, I otherwise find the idea of a shorter BVC attractive - the costs of self-funding are lower for a 3-6 month period than for the academic year, and I could do other things in the rest of the year- work, travel, internships etc. I might have already done the BVC by now if it was a short course.
Finally however, depending on the make-up of a shorter course timing would have to be considered. Following a tough third year immediately with a Bar course that requires anything like real brain work would be very tough physically and emotionally. I could see the fatigue in the eyes of my colleagues on the New York Bar exam. I imagine people would adjust to this, they always do, but it is definitely something to consider.
Tuesday, 19 August 2008
Fighting talk and Resolutions
Being back at my dull desk job leaves me lots of time to look up things on the 'net that I would rather be doing than amending client bills. And so I have made some decisions.
I am going to apply for some LLMs - prob to Oxbridge, the BCL just for the hell of it (won't get in, but you never know) and to some schools in New York - specificially the International Law programme at NYU. That is my current dream. If I really enjoy the LLM, then I can then consider a Phd but it would be silly to commit myself to that now.
It's very competitive and everybody and his uncle wants to do international law these days. So what- what's the point in working so hard if you're not even going to aim for what you love? If I had a passion for wharbling or tapdancing, I'm sure I'd be wanting to be on Pop Idol or something. I have a passion for international law, and really the Bar is a sort of professional pop idol, is it not? (With about equal chances of success, it might be said).
And then, I will actually apply for pupillage. At those dream sets, where I have a 1 in a zillion chance of getting in. And then I will apply everywhere else, where I have a roughly 1 in 4 chance of getting in. And yes, everyone does think that they'll be that 1 in 4.
But I got onto my uni degree - and 3,000 people applied for 150 places. Out of the people offered places, 50 of those were interviewed for a particular degree course with only 4 spots, and I got one of them. So I've fought those kinds of odds before and made it.
Anyway, isn't the foolish pursuit of dreams and desires what being young is all about? With this in mind, and also because it has always made more sense to me to make resolutions at the start of the academic, rather than the calendar year, here is my action plan and list of goals for the year ahead:
What I will do:
I am going to apply for some LLMs - prob to Oxbridge, the BCL just for the hell of it (won't get in, but you never know) and to some schools in New York - specificially the International Law programme at NYU. That is my current dream. If I really enjoy the LLM, then I can then consider a Phd but it would be silly to commit myself to that now.
It's very competitive and everybody and his uncle wants to do international law these days. So what- what's the point in working so hard if you're not even going to aim for what you love? If I had a passion for wharbling or tapdancing, I'm sure I'd be wanting to be on Pop Idol or something. I have a passion for international law, and really the Bar is a sort of professional pop idol, is it not? (With about equal chances of success, it might be said).
And then, I will actually apply for pupillage. At those dream sets, where I have a 1 in a zillion chance of getting in. And then I will apply everywhere else, where I have a roughly 1 in 4 chance of getting in. And yes, everyone does think that they'll be that 1 in 4.
But I got onto my uni degree - and 3,000 people applied for 150 places. Out of the people offered places, 50 of those were interviewed for a particular degree course with only 4 spots, and I got one of them. So I've fought those kinds of odds before and made it.
Anyway, isn't the foolish pursuit of dreams and desires what being young is all about? With this in mind, and also because it has always made more sense to me to make resolutions at the start of the academic, rather than the calendar year, here is my action plan and list of goals for the year ahead:
What I will do:
- Pass the BVC. Perhaps even do well.
- Get a job which will pay for the BVC.
- Do lots of FRU. It's been about 2 years ago now that I did that induction day...!
- Learn a language. Or rather go up a level in one of my existing languages.
- Apply to LLM programmes - on time!
- Do some other law work - volunteering or research or something - and some minis (which I have yet to do).
- See some of europe - it's so close after all!
- Read more - I used to read voraciously but seem to have lost the habit since the LLb taught me to feel guiltly when reading non-law.
- Get fit and eat healthily, work on my posture. Generally be fitter, happier, more productive.
Hmm, there should be a No. 10. Maybe I will moot too - and deal with Olpas.
Things I will not do:
- Get home every night, watch some telly and fall asleep. Or go to bed and watch tv online...
- Become a couch potato (who am I kidding, I mean remain a couch potato)
- Fail the BVC (!)
- Miss deadlines the way I usually do (but I like the sound of them whooshing by so...)
- Similarly, win gold in the Procrastination olympics as I have done in previous years
Monday, 18 August 2008
NY Bar questions
Legally Ginge asked me a couple of questions re the New York Bar qualification which I thought I would answer in a new post rather than in the comments thingy in case it was helpful to anyone else. By the way, if anyone has any questions feel free to ask. Not that I'm holding myself out as knowing anything about anything!
Here goes:
1. After qualifying are you now able to practise in the states, immediately or do you need to do some kind of TC/Pupillage equivilent.
2. Is there a time limit after doing the qualification by which time you must have practised?
3. Do you need a visa sponsor as a Brit to work there?
5. When you took the exam was it the level you expected or harder?
Here goes:
1. After qualifying are you now able to practise in the states, immediately or do you need to do some kind of TC/Pupillage equivilent.
- After taking and passing the New York Bar Exam and the MPRE - the Professional Responsibility exam, which is held 3 times a year (to the NYB's twice a year) you then need to apply to be admitted to the New York Bar by showing fitness, character etc, much in the same way as joining an Inn.
After that point you are free to work as an attorney, and subject to professional responsibility rules you can even set up shop as a sole practitioner - if you so desire. So, no, no TC pupillage element is required.
2. Is there a time limit after doing the qualification by which time you must have practised?
- I actually don't know this one - I don't think so, but there is a requirement to keep up CPD points and pay Bar fees and the such in order to stay a member of the Bar.
3. Do you need a visa sponsor as a Brit to work there?
- Yes you do, that's where the tricky part comes in - finding someone to sponsor you. In the main it'll be a H1B type visa, which is valid for 3 years and starts every October. It can be extended for 3 year periods, and the employer bears all the costs. Or you can find yourself an american boy and become a citizen that way!
- I had a friend taking the course in Hong Kong by video, in New York you had the live or video option, but I imagine the Barbri course would be the same - you'd have to ask them for specifics, I didn't really look into the course in London much before I signed up.
5. When you took the exam was it the level you expected or harder?
- Well I found the exam really hard physically 'cos I had a stonking cold, but it varied in difficulty. There's an essay portion, a legal writing portion, and multiple choice portion. The Multiple choice stuff was hard, the legal writing ok, and the essays were ok as well. I think the course prepares you fairly well for the exam, so it wasn't too much of a surprise on the day. The multiple choice questions I remember being much harder than anticipated on the morning, but then the essays were easier - so I guess it evens out.
If you follow the course you should be fine, it has a really high success rate. The NY Bar itself in July has a 80% pass rate, which is high. In the main the people that fail are those that study on their own, that don't study at all, that have been practising for years and so know old law, and I imagine a fair few foreign students. - Conceptually the exam isn't hard, it's just a case of memorising everything - which is dull but not hard. Having said that, I don't know if I passed or not!
Sunday, 17 August 2008
Pushmi-pullyu
I feel I'm at a crossroads. Indecision all around me. Let me apply some Fiddler on the roof style reasoning:
On the one hand, I think I should probably get a job somepoint soon because I don't want to be a student forever.
On the other hand, there's no rush to get to the Bar, more experience and qualifications will only help (to get pupillage, to get better work, and generally to have more life experience before I start work proper).
On the other hand, I don't want to dilly dally about too much before working - and I can't face another 3-4 years studying.
On the other hand, I really do want to do some more studying - at least an LLM.
And then, I'm advised (by Daddy dearest) that I should really just go straight into a Phd or DPhil. This makes sense given the area of law I'm interested in (international law, human rights etc) and the fact that I would like to be able to straddle academia and practice.
But then, on the other hand, that seems like a lot - surely an LLM would be enough? Maybe I should do the LLM, work for a bit, then consider a Phd?
But then - it all matters on where I get into anyway - there's no point doing anything that isn't at a decent place.
But then who's going to pay for it?
But on the other hand it would be an investment in my future...
But do I even have anything I could even write 100,000 words about? Do I even have the stamina, the ability for it? I do like to spend 5 hours a day watching Rab C Nesbitt on Youtube and 3 hours a day eating/cooking... and another 10 sleeping, which doesn't leave much!
But then, if I want to change the world and help people and stuff I should think that I'd have plenty to say - and I did really enjoy my dissertation. In a painful/pleasurable kind of way...
Aargh!
ETA: Perhaps I should go for the safer option given my apparent lack of any usefulness or common sense. I managed to miss the old alarm clock this morning, waking up at 9:24 (when I should have been at my desk at 9:30, an hour and a bit away). Eventually got in looking like last night's dinner, and forgot to put my contacts in. Which means I had my glasses on - which I normally only wear at home, or when I'm doing a face mask.
French Clay mad be very good for the skin, but globs of it on one's spectacles are not a great office look! Oh dear, oh dear...
Friday, 15 August 2008
Modern Education, Grade Inflation
The combination of the A-level results yesterday, and Simon Myerson QC's recent blog has me thinking about education both in terms of my own experience, and how its general approach has changed over the years.
I went to school during the years where we weren't 'taught' grammar, or at least weren't taught things in terms of the 'past participle' and the 'reflexive verb' etc.
When I have cousins over from France (as they pop over every now and then to work on their English) or foreign friends who ask me how to say a particular thing, they will often frame it in all the grammar lingo. My response will usually be - give me an example?! I think I know how it should sound but I don't really know any of the rules. So, all those books I've bought on how to improve your writing etc (ok, the one book) aren't much use because I barely understand the different between a noun and a verb.
I don't imagine I'm unique, I probably learned more grammar and punctuation from reading voraciously as a child than actually in the classroom, but I think that period of teaching english in schools has hampered both my generations ability to write 'correctly' and our ability to learn foreign language. It's a bit tricky to master the past historic in French if you have no idea what the correlating use would be in English (there isn't one actually). Teaching grammar in a more free way (by not teaching it, but by allowing students to pick up the rules in a more childlike, natural process) only really works for English, I think, because it has so many exceptions to rules. It certainly doesn't work for continental European languages.
In one respect then, I do think that losing some of the traditional elements of education (like teaching grammar in a strict, rules focussed way) has been to our detriment. I think they have changed policies since I was at school though, if my siblings' school experience is anything to go by. My sister still wouldn't know a semi-colon if it dropped in her tea, but there you go!
I am terrifically bored by the perennial A-levels debate however. The fact that A-level passes improve every year must mean that A-levels are getting easier - or that kids are getting smarter. Both positions are clearly wrong in my mind.
When I started my A-levels I remember my Chemistry teacher telling us that A-levels were a game, and in order to do well you had to learn the rules. That isn't to say that it was easy, but in to succeed you had to master the exam style, and learn how to project the information you knew to an examiner audience.
It seems natural to me that in this style of examination, as years pass on, students have more past examinations to rely on, and teachers become more adept at teaching towards the examination style that results will improve. The examinations are not getting easier, but our approach to them is more focussed.
And indeed, I believe the students themselves are much more focussed. Did you need 3 A's to get into university 10 or 20 years ago? Prince Charles certainly didn't and still made it to Trinity College, Cambridge (although perhaps that's a different phenomenon altogether). There was either less competition, or the perception of competition. People who do A-levels largely have already decided they want to go to university, and people are realising that they need good grades much earlier on - at GCSE and A-level level. Look at America, where students who are determined to get into the Ivy League universities will be worried about their 'Grade Point Average' very early on, from perhaps the age of 13.
Having said this, when you consider who sets and chooses the exams it may be that grade inflation should be a concern: the exams are in the wrong hands. The people who select which exam boards to take have an interest in choosing the exam board with the highest rate of success (the students and teachers) because it serves their interests. The exam boards (the AQA's and the Edexcel's) have an interest in having high success rates because this is what the students and teachers - their buyers- are looking for.
The universities (or employers, but generally the universities) however, have an interest in accurate results in order to select the truly brightest and best. Students, teachers and the Exam boards do not stand to lose by inflation of results (not on a short term basis at least) and as long as they are in control of setting the exams, and selecting the exams, there is no incentive for grade inflation not to occur.
The answer would of course be to put the examinations in the hands of those who have an incentive not to inflate results, because they are interested in accurate results. Unis have long done this, with Oxbridge entrance exams, entrance exams for Medicine and Law etc. But the problem with that of course is self-selection - students will only take the LNAT at X Redbrick if they think they are capable of getting into X Redbridge, and students from non-traditional backgrounds (the working class, ethnic minorities, and those without a family history of higher education) will not enter for those exams. So University set exams might deal with the grade inflation issue, but they bring up a whole load of diversity and fairness related issues.
I do think however that the A-level debate largely overlooks the fact that A-levels today are just not the same kettle of fish as a decade or a generation ago. And not because society is going to hell in a handcart, and all our youth do is text message each other about Britney's latest lack of panties, or whatever. It is a different world, in education and in work. A-levels are less focussed on knowing bare, dusty facts than they used to be but more on understanding basic principles, communicating clearly, and writing for a particular audience. These are important skills that employers are always crying out for more of - the ability to work from basic principles, and communication skills.
In short, they test 'softer' skills than they used to, but I don't think they're soft exams. We may still have to get the balance right, but isn't application generally to be preferred over memorisation?
I went to school during the years where we weren't 'taught' grammar, or at least weren't taught things in terms of the 'past participle' and the 'reflexive verb' etc.
When I have cousins over from France (as they pop over every now and then to work on their English) or foreign friends who ask me how to say a particular thing, they will often frame it in all the grammar lingo. My response will usually be - give me an example?! I think I know how it should sound but I don't really know any of the rules. So, all those books I've bought on how to improve your writing etc (ok, the one book) aren't much use because I barely understand the different between a noun and a verb.
I don't imagine I'm unique, I probably learned more grammar and punctuation from reading voraciously as a child than actually in the classroom, but I think that period of teaching english in schools has hampered both my generations ability to write 'correctly' and our ability to learn foreign language. It's a bit tricky to master the past historic in French if you have no idea what the correlating use would be in English (there isn't one actually). Teaching grammar in a more free way (by not teaching it, but by allowing students to pick up the rules in a more childlike, natural process) only really works for English, I think, because it has so many exceptions to rules. It certainly doesn't work for continental European languages.
In one respect then, I do think that losing some of the traditional elements of education (like teaching grammar in a strict, rules focussed way) has been to our detriment. I think they have changed policies since I was at school though, if my siblings' school experience is anything to go by. My sister still wouldn't know a semi-colon if it dropped in her tea, but there you go!
I am terrifically bored by the perennial A-levels debate however. The fact that A-level passes improve every year must mean that A-levels are getting easier - or that kids are getting smarter. Both positions are clearly wrong in my mind.
When I started my A-levels I remember my Chemistry teacher telling us that A-levels were a game, and in order to do well you had to learn the rules. That isn't to say that it was easy, but in to succeed you had to master the exam style, and learn how to project the information you knew to an examiner audience.
It seems natural to me that in this style of examination, as years pass on, students have more past examinations to rely on, and teachers become more adept at teaching towards the examination style that results will improve. The examinations are not getting easier, but our approach to them is more focussed.
And indeed, I believe the students themselves are much more focussed. Did you need 3 A's to get into university 10 or 20 years ago? Prince Charles certainly didn't and still made it to Trinity College, Cambridge (although perhaps that's a different phenomenon altogether). There was either less competition, or the perception of competition. People who do A-levels largely have already decided they want to go to university, and people are realising that they need good grades much earlier on - at GCSE and A-level level. Look at America, where students who are determined to get into the Ivy League universities will be worried about their 'Grade Point Average' very early on, from perhaps the age of 13.
Having said this, when you consider who sets and chooses the exams it may be that grade inflation should be a concern: the exams are in the wrong hands. The people who select which exam boards to take have an interest in choosing the exam board with the highest rate of success (the students and teachers) because it serves their interests. The exam boards (the AQA's and the Edexcel's) have an interest in having high success rates because this is what the students and teachers - their buyers- are looking for.
The universities (or employers, but generally the universities) however, have an interest in accurate results in order to select the truly brightest and best. Students, teachers and the Exam boards do not stand to lose by inflation of results (not on a short term basis at least) and as long as they are in control of setting the exams, and selecting the exams, there is no incentive for grade inflation not to occur.
The answer would of course be to put the examinations in the hands of those who have an incentive not to inflate results, because they are interested in accurate results. Unis have long done this, with Oxbridge entrance exams, entrance exams for Medicine and Law etc. But the problem with that of course is self-selection - students will only take the LNAT at X Redbrick if they think they are capable of getting into X Redbridge, and students from non-traditional backgrounds (the working class, ethnic minorities, and those without a family history of higher education) will not enter for those exams. So University set exams might deal with the grade inflation issue, but they bring up a whole load of diversity and fairness related issues.
I do think however that the A-level debate largely overlooks the fact that A-levels today are just not the same kettle of fish as a decade or a generation ago. And not because society is going to hell in a handcart, and all our youth do is text message each other about Britney's latest lack of panties, or whatever. It is a different world, in education and in work. A-levels are less focussed on knowing bare, dusty facts than they used to be but more on understanding basic principles, communicating clearly, and writing for a particular audience. These are important skills that employers are always crying out for more of - the ability to work from basic principles, and communication skills.
In short, they test 'softer' skills than they used to, but I don't think they're soft exams. We may still have to get the balance right, but isn't application generally to be preferred over memorisation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
