Of course it does. I'm not arguing that she is a lawyer, because she most definitely is not.
But she was clearly smart enough to not only be accepted into a law degree (no mean feat in Australia) but she completed it. Just because she choose to follow a career path that had more to do with her commerce degree, does not negate her law degree.
Hypothetically, if Mary had become a lawyer would she have 'wasted' her commerce degree?
Back to that old topic again, are we? Bashing Mary for something she did not do?
__________________ 'To dare is to lose one step for but a moment, not to dare is to lose oneself forever' - Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark in a letter to Miss Mary Donaldson as stated by them on their official engagement interview.
About the Course
This honours degree combines the disciplines of Business and Law. The many inter-relationships that exist between the two disciplines are explored and discussed to highlight the importance that each has on the other. By so doing, students will be well equipped to make informed choices relating to their subsequent careers.
This course prepares you for a legal position within a business, liaising with other departments that will be seeking legal advice on any number of issues. You can also pursue a role in a legal practice. Alternatively, if you choose to focus exclusively on a legal career you will continue in education to prepare for the traditional legal professions as a solicitor or barrister.
I don't understand what the debate is about. Mary has a law degree, period. She also has a commerce degree, and she completed the two degrees concurrently. Instead of taking the route to a legal career, Mary chose to go into business. I don't understand why anyone is putting her down for this; it's a bit ridiculous.