The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Crown Prince Frederik and Crown Princess Mary and Family (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f32/)
-   -   Crown Princess Mary’s Education: Subjects, Schools… (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f32/crown-princess-mary-s-education-subjects-schools-10193.html)

macrro30 11-29-2003 08:07 PM

Crown Princess Mary’s Education: Subjects, Schools…
 
Is she really a lawyer? When I read her biography on the Internet, it said something like she graduated with a course in law, and graduated in 1994 and that is also the year she received her bachelor's degree. It did not say that she went to law school. Here in the United States I don't think you are considered a lawyer until you pass the bar exam.

CD. 11-29-2003 08:29 PM

In Australia you have to do your Articles before you can practice as a solicitor. In other words, you have to work as a lawyer. She never did so she isn't a lawyer. She just has a law degree.

anna 11-30-2003 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by macrro30@Nov 30th, 2003 - 1:07 am
When I read her biography on the Internet, it said something like she graduated with a course in law, and graduated in 1994 and that is also the year she received her bachelor's degree.
Have you read her official CV ? http://www.hkhkronprinsen.dk/63000c

Two bachelors - one in commerce and one in law - combined bachelor - the word lawyer is not written anywhere in her CV.

BTW Mary's CV is not written as you would for when applying for a job !

Remember some words Crown Prince Frederik said on the press conference - about the press conference - that event was no job interview !

There are Mary topics in the Crown Prince Frederik forum.

Jasl 12-03-2003 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CD.@Nov 29th, 2003 - 7:29 pm
In Australia you have to do your Articles before you can practice as a solicitor. In other words, you have to work as a lawyer. She never did so she isn't a lawyer. She just has a law degree.
Nope, this is not entirely correct. The most common way to be admitted as a lawyer in most Australian states is to undertake Practical Legal Training (i.e. usually a further GradDip in Legal Education). In NSW, this usually means that after you finish your law degree, you have to undertake further 5 months at the College of Law (or another institution). Clerkship (similar to apprenticeship I suppose) is but a component of the PLT. The rest of the course teaches you how to present yourself in court, how to plead etc. UTas also offers a similar course (see below):

http://www.admin.utas.edu.au/HANDBOOKS/UTA...COURSE/L5B.html

You may also be admitted in Tasmania after undertaking clerkship for 2 years. However this is not the preferred method because it (i) takes longer to complete and (ii) the employer might not be equipped to give you a structured course such as that offered at a College of Law.

It's also not right to say that "you have to work as a lawyer" to become a lawyer - this doesn't really make sense, because you can't be one to become one.

As far as I know, Mary chose not to undertake PLT. This is not really rare because a lot of law graduates enter law to supplement their other degree and not to become a lawyer. I think she focused more on her commerce degree. Nothing wrong with this because even from her much criticised CV, you can see that she obtained a gradute position with a good company and very reputable companies have hired her throughout her career. If she was as dumb or lazy as some people claim she is, she wouldn't be able to get these jobs.

Quote:

Originally posted by macrro30@Nov 29th, 2003 - 7:07 pm
It did not say that she went to law school.
She did go to law school - when she enrolled in her BComm/BLaw, she was taught her law units by UTas' law faculty (UTas law school). A law school usually isn't a separate institution from the university - I think this is even the case in the US where the law shool is but a division of the college (e.g. Harvard Law school is really just a department/division/school in Harvard; like the school of engineering would be etc).

Ms Hairy Legs 12-04-2003 06:27 AM

Quote:

This is not really rare because a lot of law graduates enter law to supplement their other degree and not to become a lawyer.
Nope, this is not entirely correct. More like the other way around. Law degrees take the entire five years to complete where as the other component degree of the combined LLB takes only three years (the first three) AND the number of courses required to complete a BCom or BSci or BA is often reduced so you'd get a watered down degree in Commerce, Arts or Science etc. Therefore, it is the law degree that would stand on its own - the other one would only have been worth a fraction of the straight BCom/BSci/BA. And as IF a BCom from UTAS means anything - that state is essentially a commercial backwater.

Quote:

If she was as dumb or lazy as some people claim she is, she wouldn't be able to get these jobs.

OR she could have hooked up with a prince! [/facetious]

I like Mary fine, but just cause she did a law degree doesn't make her smart or some sort of genius (perhaps relative to inbred European royalty?) - it really depends on the quality of the teaching at her law school and how she did against quality academic competition.

bibi 12-04-2003 06:38 AM

if i understand this correctly, a BA is always more of a foundation where one has a choice of things, and one specialises in a Master program, especially to become a lawyer one needs much more academic training after a simple three year program. mary is not a lawyer, she simply had law courses in a program that offered other things at the same time as law, that happens a lot in anglosaxen education system, as far as i know and have experienced.

we are not to judg mary as intelligent or not. she only has a BA which is ok but if she had been ambituous she would have done a master or indeed gone to law school. to stay for almost 10 years within certain lower jobs is a question of ambition and/or satisfaction. obviously what she is embarking on now is slightly more demanding on certain levels, however, i doubt very much whether the kind of training one needs has to be primarely academic. one needs to be calm, patient, disciplined, friendly, warm/hearted, not necessily things one learns at school, one either has them or not.

maxima is probably the most ambitious girl to be a european queen. to beomce an investment banker as a woman one has to have some 'balls', has they say. mette is probably the wekest, on an academic basis, mathilde is somewwhere in the middle, upper end, as is letizia, whom i would rather rank with maxima.

mary will show us whether she can compensate for an obvious lack of knowledge of foreign language, crucial for a european queen, i think ( one has to pseak at least french, english and the language of ones country fluently), and academic training.

sorry for typing mistakes, i am in a hurry!

Jasl 12-16-2003 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ms Hairy Legs@Dec 4th, 2003 - 5:27 am
Nope, this is not entirely correct.  More like the other way around.  Law degrees take the entire five years to complete where as the other component degree of the combined LLB takes only three years (the first three) AND the number of courses required to complete a BCom or BSci or BA is often reduced so you'd get a watered down degree in Commerce, Arts or Science etc.  Therefore, it is the law degree that would stand on its own - the other one would only have been worth a fraction of the straight BCom/BSci/BA. And as IF a BCom from UTAS means anything - that state is essentially a commercial backwater.

Quote:

If she was as dumb or lazy as some people claim she is, she wouldn't be able to get these jobs.

OR she could have hooked up with a prince! [/facetious]

I like Mary fine, but just cause she did a law degree doesn't make her smart or some sort of genius (perhaps relative to inbred European royalty?) - it really depends on the quality of the teaching at her law school and how she did against quality academic competition.

Sorry but I disagree. Whilst it is true that a sizeable proportion continue on to be admitted as lawyers, there's a big trend for high school leavers who are able to get the high marks to undertake a combined law degree in order to supplement their other degree. Ask around at big firms such as Pricewaterhouse and KPMG - you'll find a number of combined law graduates who undertook a law degree to give them that edge over other graduates.

About the watered down BA, BSci, BComm degrees - I seriously doubt that it's worth "half" of a normal degree. There's only a number of subjects that can count towards both those and the law degree, and even if they count for both, that law subject has to be acceptable to that other degree. For example, a Corporations Law subject would count for the BComm degree - but this doesn't mean that Corporations Law is any less relevant to the BComm degree - it is highly relevant!! The only different is that the Corporations Law subject also counts towards the Law degree, as opposed to Accounting 101 which counts only to the BComm degree.

I also strongly disagree about the disparaging remarks about UTas and Tasmania. I doubt the poster has the credentials to make comparisons about the strength/ quality of a UTas degree. UTas has a strong law school. If the poster undertook a law degree in Australia, the poster would have come across UTas' TWO excellent law journals - excellent law journals which is indicative indeed of a strong law school. Also, and this has been discussed in other boards, the current Vice Chancellor of University of Melbourne was a former VC of UTas and the current VC of Sdney Uni was the former Head of Law at UTas (at the same time Mary was there). I don't think their ability to run and build a good university/ law school can be questioned by any Australian.

Furthermore, a professor of maths at UTas is good enough to be a visiting professor at Oxford (Donaldson). Usually visiting professors are more highly respected than ordinary professors - again, indicating that UTas is not merely some backwater university.

It's easy not to appreciate other universities. I'm from Sydney and I easily dismissed University of Qld and Uni of WA - not knowing that these are excellent law schools. But ask around, and you'll see that most lawyers aren't so easy to dismiss UTas law graduates.

Jasl 12-16-2003 03:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ms Hairy Legs@Dec 4th, 2003 - 5:27 am


Quote:

If she was as dumb or lazy as some people claim she is, she wouldn't be able to get these jobs.

OR she could have hooked up with a prince! [/facetious]

Lol... right... or a dig the poster couldn't resist.

She got most of her jobs (including her graduate position with DDB Needham) BEFORE she met a prince. Or maybe Mary's dad made a time-machine and she was able to drag Fred back in time so she could get those jobs? I'll have to confirm this - coz I want to go back to high school and tell off my English teacher for being a major twit.

CD. 12-16-2003 04:50 AM

Jasl,

Mary only got a law degree-she did not practice to be a lawyer, thus she is not one PERIOD. You can phrases it anyway you like, the fact is she is not a lawyer. Why do I know this, because I have a law/accounting major ( I also did a Real Estate Agency Certificate) and I never practiced law, I practiced accountancy. So I call myself an Accountant, not a Lawyer. I think that Mary earning her degree is good. It is hard, and that's the truth no matter what Uni you one goes to. But lets be honest, she never used it.


Maybe Mary and I can open up a law firm together and sue the pants off everyone!!!!

Jasl 12-16-2003 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by CD.@Dec 16th, 2003 - 3:50 am
Jasl,

Mary only got a law degree-she did not practice to be a lawyer, thus she is not one PERIOD. You can phrases it anyway you like, the fact is she is not a lawyer. Why do I know this, because I have a law/accounting major ( I also did a Real Estate Agency Certificate) and I never practiced law, I practiced accountancy. So I call myself an Accountant, not a Lawyer. I think that Mary earning her degree is good. It is hard, and that's the truth no matter what Uni you one goes to. But lets be honest, she never used it.

Righteo, can anyone can kindly point out to me where I said that she was a lawyer? I never said that she was a lawyer.... I've searched the law society lists and I know that she's not a lawyer. I never tried to paraphrase it any other way.

What I did say was that she has a law degree, that she's a law graduate, that her law school is a strong law school, that you get a full as opposed to a half commerce degree when you do a commerce/law degree, and that's about it.

Also, in response to someone else's post, I do really think that having completed a law degree shows that Mary is smart. Well, smart enough to get into law at any rate. Or is a really high threshold for "smartness" being used here? Can any high school leaver get into a law degree in Australia? no - they would have to be in the top 3% or at least about top 10% of their graduating year. So yeah, I do think Mary's smart. Furthermore, she gained a graduate position at a good firm and PROGRESSED in that firm.

What else are we expecting here??? For her to have discovered a whole new universe? For her to have eliminated AIDS?

Jasl 12-16-2003 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bibi@Dec 4th, 2003 - 5:38 am
if i understand this correctly, a BA is always more of a foundation where one has a choice of things, and one specialises in a Master program, especially to become a lawyer one needs much more academic training after a simple three year program. mary is not a lawyer, she simply had law courses in a program that offered other things at the same time as law, that happens a lot in anglosaxen education system, as far as i know and have experienced.

Sorry, I think there's some misconceptions with regards to an Australian law degree in this post. In almost all Australian states, a Law degree is a 3 year degree. But completion of another degree is in almost all cases a prerequisite to entry into the Law course (i.e. can only get into Bachelor of Law if you've already completed a Bachelor of Science etc).

One way to get around this is to offer a COMBINED degree. All unis (as far as I'm aware) offer this. This is also the most preferred method of entry into a Law course by most recent school leavers. So instead of completing one other degree before the law degree, you undertake both of them together. So a normal BComm/BLaw degree might involve you taking all commerce units in first year, then slowly taking law units in your second year. Or you could do 2 law subjects in your first year as well as introductory units in your other degree.

Thus to say that Mary's degree offered "some law units" is misleading. She undertook a law degree. She undertook her degrees "concurrently" and not "sequentially". If taken sequentially, the degrees would take about 6 years to complete. However taking them concurrently allows the student to count some units that are relevant to both degrees to count in both (e.g. if an 8 point Commerce Law subject was undertaken, then you can say that you've satisfied 8 credit points in Commerce, and also say you've satisfied 8 credit points of Law). But there's a strict list as to which subjects can count for both - you can't just say "o i'll make it count coz it's kinda relevant". Whether or not it will count is predetermined by the university.

In summary, Mary has two full degrees - commerce and law.

fish 12-24-2003 03:23 AM

A bachelor's degree is not a law degree. Bachelor's degree is a prerequisite to enter a law school. Thus, mary has a major in law but it is not specialized.

CD. 12-24-2003 06:24 AM

Actually Mary has a law degree but she has not practiced as a lawyer. I am not doubting her ability to study-a degree in any field is hard and I know a Commerce/Law degree is very difficult as I completed the same course only at a different Uni. (On the other hand I have met people who barely can speak a word of English completing Degrees with Honours!!!! )

The sad fact in my eyes is that she went to all this trouble and really didn't, IMO, use the skills she studied. She may not have been fortunate enough to be accepted in the jobs she applied for or maybe she wasn't sure what she wanted to do and tried a bit of this and a bit of that. Maybe being a lawyer wasn't what she wanted to do in the end of it all. Either way, her job history is checkered.....

Jasl 12-28-2003 08:31 AM

LOL CD!!!!! You said you are a LAW/COMMERCE graduate too but that you now do real estate!!! So applying the same criticism levelled again Mary, it is also a "sad fact" that you "did not use the skills [you] studied"!!!!! But I digress, and I don't want to follow that up.

What does bother me A LOT is that people who don't even seem to know a whole lot about what getting a Law Degree at UniTas involves feel that they can criticise someone who has one as "not smart" etc . For goodness sake, has anyone even done research on what is being discussed? There's even a post that says that Mary only has a BA and that this isn't a big deal, and then continues on to say that Mary has been stuck in low-level jobs. Ummm, sorry to say but a quick glance at Mary's CV (was this done at all before posting????) shows that Mary doesn't have a BA. Furthermore, being an Account Manager with a big international firm like DDB Needham or Young & Rubicam is NOT a low-level job. Anyway, someone has kindly posted the CV, so its easier for everyone to read it.

But I suppose we can speculate about her and her job hopping - we don't have all the facts (she might or might not have a good explanation for it - like her mum dying).

CD. 12-28-2003 04:16 PM

I do want to follow it up.I'm an Accountant with three degrees. (Real Estate/Law/Accounting) I chose the Accounting area to further my career and I have a long history in my profession and CPA status to back it up. I just didn't do my degree and then choose menial jobs and job hop around. That would not make me credible in the Job market. And I can assure you I probably get paid more than most people I know! SO before JASL you start crowing like a rooster, get the facts correct.(Oh by the way I worked as an Accountant for a Big Real Estate Firm when I first started (was 19 yrs old) and the title Accounting Director was used by someone in my office who did sales and overlooked the Vendor statements & Sec 32. The Vendor statements are a pre-prepared as are the Sec 32 so it isn't difficult work. That's to say, if that was what Mary did)

I only question Ms Donaldsons career because I have the same background so I know a bit more about it than others. I have said it is difficult to study and complete courses (and I commend her for this) but once done it is how you use them that is important. When I go for Job interviews now a days, people don't ask me about my schooling days they ask me about my previous employment and my duties. That is what makes you marketable. Anyone who works knows this after a while. It is a fact. Mary's jobs were not anything special or responsible IMO.

Yes it sad that Mary's mother past away and I'm sure she'll have her in her thoughts when she marries next year. We have all experienced death in some form or fashion and yes it does make you question life and what it's all about.But lets not use this as an excuse for her lifestyle choices. That's not to say she is not deserving of being a Crown Princess. I actually think more positively of her than C.P Frederik! ;) ;)

Anyway it doesn't matter what she studied and who she worked for now, does it? She just has to master the Danish language now and familirise herself with the Danish culture. That shouldn't be too hard.

lori 12-28-2003 05:26 PM

Actually, she has a pretty easy job now than when she was working down under. As you say, CD, she only has to master language and etiqutte, and her education is not usable in this case. As I know law variant in different countries, so unless she spcialized in international law, her degree is no validation of her qualificaton. And as I knowbetter, no matter how hard you studied in your student days, several years gone by, those knowledge are all gone back to school unless you use it. Use it or lose it still the rule of thumb.

This reminds me of diana of England. On one occasion, Former Washington post publisher Katerine (forgot her last name, her memoire won pulizer prize) gave diane a suggestion of going back to school for reeducation (or something to that effect) in consideration that she was at the time with time in her hand and without those offical engagement after divorce. Diana answered that she (Diana) is well educated, no further study needed. Katherine told someone she is surprised by diana's answer because katerine thought everyone needs a further study on something in light of her (Katerhine) own circumstance. And Katherine thought a lady's school graduate should have a lot to learn in real world. Unfortunately her view is very different from a royal's view. This could stir a opposite sided debate in this forum. My point is if a royal does not need to learn anything real, then, given mary's degree or not, is a moot point. And here our debating if her degree has substance is wasting time. Maybe if some needs Christmas decoration, they will frame a law degree on a gallery, which would be useful. :lol: :lol:

Alexandria 12-28-2003 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lori@Dec 28th, 2003 - 4:31 pm
On one occasion, Former Washington post publisher Katerine (forgot her last name, her memoire won pulizer prize)
I think you mean the late Katharine Graham?

CD. 12-28-2003 05:54 PM

Lori I Agree. use it or lose it.....

Jasl 12-28-2003 06:55 PM

Quote:

I'm an Accountant with three degrees. (Real Estate/Law/Accounting) I chose the Accounting area to further my career
CD, I didn't mean to crow (I jsut found it funny), but you are lucky in that you are able to explain the reason why you're not admitted. Otherwise you and Mary are on the same boat in this respect - you both have a law degree but have not been admitted as lawyers. But the thing is having a law degree and not being admitted as a lawyer should not be a cause for criticism. I have friends who obtained graduate positions at Pricewaterhouse and KPMG because they are able to say "I am able to offer you an Economics/Law degree". This probably leaves Disctinction average Accounting graduate scratching their heads as to why they didn't get in. But the fact is that a combined degree is always stronger - and it is perhaps for this reason (and not because they want to be admitted as a lawyer) that many high school leavers in Australia are opting for a combined degree (see SMH, I think 27 Dec?, with an article on school leavers opting for combined degrees).

Anyway, Mary's CV indicates that she did concetrate on Accounting. People say she changed directions - but her CV shows that for the most part, her jobs have always been accounting jobs. She might have worked in an advertising company, a real estate company etc, but she was always in an accounting role.

And this also keeps coming up:

Quote:

then choose menial jobs....
Which jobs is this referring to?? Perhaps the teaching job in France, but I think its very very unlikely that Mary wanted to do that forever. I think it was something she did for interest. Apart from that, there's NOTHING else in her CV that screams "menial job".

And I don't think it's valid to say that just because we know someone who has used the title "Accounting Director" eventhough that person's job is a menial one, then we can automatically assume that Mary too only had menial jobs. It's like saying just because some low level manager has described themselves as CEO automatically means that all CEOs do the job of a low level manager. It just doesn't hold.

IMO, it's more likely that (and keeping in mind that her old employers are able to see her CV on the internet now) that she correctly described her role and her title. Since there has been no complaints from her old employers about how she has described her roles, I think it's more likely that she did do it correctly - no exaggeration. Yet people here start off from the view that she did exaggerate :blink: . I just find this so confusing.

Quote:

We have all experienced death in some form or fashion and yes it does make you question life and what it's all about.But lets not use this as an excuse for her lifestyle choices.
And what's this "lifestyle choices" that everyone seems to be harping on about? I really don't think Mary is immoral! (my gosh, if moving overseas to be with someone you like or moving in with them is immoral, then half of couples in big cities are immoral!!! anyway, who are we to judge someone else's morality?? are we so pure??) If this "lifestyle choice" is with regards to the job changes, then yes, I do think that her mum's passing away was a factor. Who are we to say "let's not use it as an excuse" when others who have lost loved ones fall into a deep depression after losing their loved ones. I don't judge them - I don't call them weak. If someone questions their life and changes jobs/career direction after losing a loved one, I don't say "stop messing around and try to be stable". Who am I to say this?? If I said this in real life, I'd probably get a slap in the face.

Anyway, sorry if this is getting too personal. But personal facts have been put up as proof/explanations and, rightly ot wrongly, I've tried to grapple with it here.

Quote:

She just has to master the Danish language now and familirise herself with the Danish culture. That shouldn't be too hard.
From all indications, it is extremely hard. Hey! Hendrik can't even do it after decades in Denmark!! and his education/career beforehand can't be dismissed as menial. I think learning languages is a skill, some find it easy, some don't - like learning a musical instrument. It can't be directly equated to intelligence level (what's intelligence anyway?).

anna 12-28-2003 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jasl@Dec 28th, 2003 - 11:55 pm
Perhaps the teaching job in France, but I think its very very unlikely that Mary wanted to do that forever. I think it was something she did for interest.
Mary worked as a teacher in business english in Paris, France - spring 2002.

You know, that period of time some of the media told that Mary was living at Amalienborg palace and other royal and/or noble houses in Denmark.

Post the 24.september 2003 publication of Mary's cv - some media have described Mary's life in Paris - but most of them go on with their old, wrong assumptions - that she lived in Denmark from she moved to Europe december 2001 - so I really don't blame posters for not getting this point - as many journalists still haven't ...

Mary moved to Denmark august 2002.

Mary started at Microsoft 5. september 2002 and left them 24.september 2003.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises