I just read a ‘research essay’ purported to be a criticism of the NZ Court of Appeal decision in Jackson Mews.
So when I read, ‘criticism’ I expect to see original reasoning pertaining to the decision. Add in words like ‘misinterpretation’, ‘blurred reasoning’ and I am very interested.
Because for a student to have the gumption and balls in a ‘to be published’ critique of the Court of Appeal, well that’s worth reading.
Only it wasn’t. Put aside the spelling errors, grammatical errors and really strange sentence structures and assess the actual substantive work…and there is none.
This was not a critique. This was a summary of everyone else’s critiques. In addition, the ‘click bait’ of, ‘misinterpretation’ and ‘blurred reasoning’ was so hedged and watered down, that those words should never have appeared in the title of the essay in the first place.
Was this a total waste of time? No, as I am now aware of an issue that prior to reading, I was not aware of. So I have gained.
So how did I come by this essay from another student?
It was emailed to everyone by the lecturer. Presumably, this lecturer thought, or felt, that this piece of work was worthy of our reading.
The author, despite any criticisms of her work…is a babe.