Anna Y.

Anna Y.

Unavailable

BA in Jurispridence (Bachelors) - Pembroke College, Oxford University

5.0
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.

3 reviews

This tutor is also part of our Schools Programme. They are trusted by teachers to deliver high-quality 1:1 tuition that complements the school curriculum.

9 completed lessons

About me

Hello! I’m a final year student at Oxford, where I am the Editor of the Oxford University Undergraduate Law journal, the outgoing President of Oxford Lawyers Without Borders, and the recipient of multiple academic prizes. I also worked for two years as a teacher’s assistant and private school tutor at a private school in Vancouver, Canada.


I’m passionate about the law and I know what it takes to succeed.


As Editor, I am responsible for analyzing the writing of some of the UK’s most talented law undergraduates. Working with authors to improve their writing, as well as making sure that the most difficult of concepts are broken down and communicated as clearly as possible is what I do. I apply this experience to help students identify their strengths as well as come up with a plan of action to address their areas for improvement.


Hello! I’m a final year student at Oxford, where I am the Editor of the Oxford University Undergraduate Law journal, the outgoing President of Oxford Lawyers Without Borders, and the recipient of multiple academic prizes. I also worked for two years as a teacher’s assistant and private school tutor at a private school in Vancouver, Canada.


I’m passionate about the law and I know what it takes to succeed.


As Editor, I am responsible for analyzing the writing of some of the UK’s most talented law undergraduates. Working with authors to improve their writing, as well as making sure that the most difficult of concepts are broken down and communicated as clearly as possible is what I do. I apply this experience to help students identify their strengths as well as come up with a plan of action to address their areas for improvement.


Show more

About my sessions

I think there are three elements to success in law studies. The first is understanding and synthesizing a huge volume of complex information. The second is having effective study skills and habits in place. The third is exam technique.


My job is to help you succeed, which means come up with a plan to help you tackle all three over the course of our sessions. I’ll start by asking you what your goals for improvement are and hearing from you about your learning style in order to make sure that each lesson is tailored to be as effective as possible. We'll end every lesson with a summary of what we've learned, and possibly a small assignment to check your understanding. Finally, we'll keep an eye on your progress to make sure that your investment is being reflected in your results. I hope not only to boost your grade, but also your enjoyment of law!


I am also available for one-off workshop style sessions on study skills and exam technique for people who are new to studying law or want to pick up some new tips and tricks. 

I think there are three elements to success in law studies. The first is understanding and synthesizing a huge volume of complex information. The second is having effective study skills and habits in place. The third is exam technique.


My job is to help you succeed, which means come up with a plan to help you tackle all three over the course of our sessions. I’ll start by asking you what your goals for improvement are and hearing from you about your learning style in order to make sure that each lesson is tailored to be as effective as possible. We'll end every lesson with a summary of what we've learned, and possibly a small assignment to check your understanding. Finally, we'll keep an eye on your progress to make sure that your investment is being reflected in your results. I hope not only to boost your grade, but also your enjoyment of law!


I am also available for one-off workshop style sessions on study skills and exam technique for people who are new to studying law or want to pick up some new tips and tricks. 

Show more

Personally interviewed by MyTutor

We only take tutor applications from candidates who are studying at the UK’s leading universities. Candidates who fulfil our grade criteria then pass to the interview stage, where a member of the MyTutor team will personally assess them for subject knowledge, communication skills and general tutoring approach. About 1 in 7 becomes a tutor on our site.

No DBS Icon

No DBS Check

Ratings & Reviews

5
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
3 customer reviews
★ 5
3
★ 4
0
★ 3
0
★ 2
0
★ 1
0
MA
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.

Muna Student

12 Dec

Anna is an excellent tutor she is vastly knowledge person she conveys her knowledge of complex material in a manner easily understandable . highly recommended

VS
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.

Vyacheslav Parent from Mytishchi Lesson review 12 Dec, 16:00

12 Dec

I am really impressed with Anna's teaching! She has outstanding style and highly professional level. Anna helps me with an exam preparation, working through my answers to examination questions and teaches how to gain top marks in my exam. Anna gives me additional motivation to study, thank you, Anna, thank you a lot - you are an excellent tutor!

12 Dec

Anna's reply

Thank you so much! Glad to hear that you are finding the lessons helpful. You're a great student :)

VS
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.
Star 1 Created with Sketch.

Viacheslav Student

6 Dec

Anna is an incredible tutor. She is very patient, punctual, organised and attentive in her teaching. She knows the subject and goes through the content in detail and makes clear what to include in each paragraph in essay planning. She is always happy to answer any questions and go over things as many times until it takes for me to understand them. She makes me feel at ease and has improved my confidence in the subject. Thank you Anna!

Qualifications

SubjectQualificationGrade
English LiteratureInternational Baccalaureate (IB) (HL)7
BiologyInternational Baccalaureate (IB) (HL)6
HistoryInternational Baccalaureate (IB) (HL)7
Global PoliticsInternational Baccalaureate (IB) (SL)6
FrenchInternational Baccalaureate (IB) (SL)7
MathInternational Baccalaureate (IB) (SL)5

General Availability

MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
Pre 12pm
12 - 5pm
After 5pm

Pre 12pm

12 - 5pm

After 5pm
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat
Sun

Subjects offered

SubjectQualificationPrices
LawA Level£24 /hr
LawGCSE£22 /hr
LNATUniversity£26 /hr
LawUniversity£26 /hr

Questions Anna has answered

Is the law of vicarious liability satisfactory?

Introduction: While liability in tort normally depends on a breach of duty towards the claimant, vicarious liability (VL) is a system of strict liability by which an entity is made liable for the torts of another , though the entity is not at fault. This question is important because recent developments in the law - namely, the inclusion of relationships ‘akin to employment’ that can trigger VL (Lord Phillips CCWS), as well as liberal interpretations of the test for ‘sufficiently close connection’ between the tort and employment (Lister) which triggers VL - means that the scope of (strict!) liability has gotten much wider.Example conclusion 1: As a system of no-fault liability situated in a largely fault-based system, vicarious liability calls for justification (Atiyah). Predominant theoretical justifications are each flawed. The law is unsatisfactory because a clear, coherent theoretical basis for the law is important to i) guide future decisions ii) provide justifications for decisions. 1. Masters tort - attributing the servant’s act or state of mind to the master. Problem = does not explain deliberate misconduct cases.2. Deterrence - larger economic units are in the best position to reduce tortious conduct, who be motivated to reduce accidents. Problem = folds into fault-based liability, and if this is the reason for the rule, would expect reasonable steps to prevent accidents by the entity would prevent liability (McBride&Bagshaw).3. Enterprise Liability - If you advance your own interests by engaging others in work, and that work carries with it a special risk, then if victims suffer from a loss as a result of such engagement then it is fair that you should compensate them, even if they are injured by activities performed negligently or deliberately. This is meant to be distinct from ‘mere opportunity.’ Problem = Cases like Mohammad (an attack motivated by personal racism held to be ‘sufficiently close’ to trigger VL) undermine this distinction - makes this an unreliable explanation, undermining this theory. (Morgan)4. Victim compensation - Pt. 1 → Deep pockets argument: Vicarious liability owes its existence to the ‘search for a solvent defendant.’ Problem = the ‘surest form of compensation’ is not itself a strong justification for vicarious liability (McKivor)Pt. 2 → Loss Spreading: rather than have the loss fall as a crushing blow to V, the payees are more likely to be able to efficiently spread the loss throughout the community - e.g. by recovering from insurers, who then spread the costs widely by charging higher premiums. Problem: If taken to its logical conclusion this argument should collapse into state liability - state able to spread the losses most widely! (Stevens) Example conclusion 2:  (explain theories as per above) The law needs to take a stand, and ultimately should it should fall in favour of a victim-facing sense of justice. E.g. Lord Hope, extrajudicially: ‘child abuse is an ugly phenomena – there is a heavy responsibility on our legal system to deal as fairly and justly as it can with the consequences.” Law is satisfactory because recent developments extending the scope of VL seem to be motivated by a desire to defend innocent victims, which reflects what is arguably society’s rightful priority.
Introduction: While liability in tort normally depends on a breach of duty towards the claimant, vicarious liability (VL) is a system of strict liability by which an entity is made liable for the torts of another , though the entity is not at fault. This question is important because recent developments in the law - namely, the inclusion of relationships ‘akin to employment’ that can trigger VL (Lord Phillips CCWS), as well as liberal interpretations of the test for ‘sufficiently close connection’ between the tort and employment (Lister) which triggers VL - means that the scope of (strict!) liability has gotten much wider.Example conclusion 1: As a system of no-fault liability situated in a largely fault-based system, vicarious liability calls for justification (Atiyah). Predominant theoretical justifications are each flawed. The law is unsatisfactory because a clear, coherent theoretical basis for the law is important to i) guide future decisions ii) provide justifications for decisions. 1. Masters tort - attributing the servant’s act or state of mind to the master. Problem = does not explain deliberate misconduct cases.2. Deterrence - larger economic units are in the best position to reduce tortious conduct, who be motivated to reduce accidents. Problem = folds into fault-based liability, and if this is the reason for the rule, would expect reasonable steps to prevent accidents by the entity would prevent liability (McBride&Bagshaw).3. Enterprise Liability - If you advance your own interests by engaging others in work, and that work carries with it a special risk, then if victims suffer from a loss as a result of such engagement then it is fair that you should compensate them, even if they are injured by activities performed negligently or deliberately. This is meant to be distinct from ‘mere opportunity.’ Problem = Cases like Mohammad (an attack motivated by personal racism held to be ‘sufficiently close’ to trigger VL) undermine this distinction - makes this an unreliable explanation, undermining this theory. (Morgan)4. Victim compensation - Pt. 1 → Deep pockets argument: Vicarious liability owes its existence to the ‘search for a solvent defendant.’ Problem = the ‘surest form of compensation’ is not itself a strong justification for vicarious liability (McKivor)Pt. 2 → Loss Spreading: rather than have the loss fall as a crushing blow to V, the payees are more likely to be able to efficiently spread the loss throughout the community - e.g. by recovering from insurers, who then spread the costs widely by charging higher premiums. Problem: If taken to its logical conclusion this argument should collapse into state liability - state able to spread the losses most widely! (Stevens) Example conclusion 2:  (explain theories as per above) The law needs to take a stand, and ultimately should it should fall in favour of a victim-facing sense of justice. E.g. Lord Hope, extrajudicially: ‘child abuse is an ugly phenomena – there is a heavy responsibility on our legal system to deal as fairly and justly as it can with the consequences.” Law is satisfactory because recent developments extending the scope of VL seem to be motivated by a desire to defend innocent victims, which reflects what is arguably society’s rightful priority.

Show more

3 weeks ago

2 views

Send Anna a message

A Free Video Meeting is a great next step. Just ask Anna below!


Send a message

How do we connect with a tutor?

Where are they based?

How much does tuition cost?

How do Online Lessons work?

mtw:mercury1:status:ok