De Minimis
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Comment Policy
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
  • Blog

Law Ball Review & MULSS Response

3/5/2016

 
ANON
Volume 9, Issue 9
Thursday Night. Law Ball. The last hurrah before we abandon our social lives and race towards exams. The night that a lot of us look forward to, partly because any chance to peel yourself away from level 3 and put on your dancing shoes is a good one and partly because, well, there’s an open bar.


For a ticket price of $130 I thought I would be getting A-grade value for money. I don’t think that happened this year. Some people who didn’t get the opportunity to go to law ball, whether it was too inconvenient or too expensive, might be wondering what they missed out on. Let’s break it down:
The Food
Let me put it this way, if you served the food we were given on My Kitchen Rules, all hell would break loose. Manu would be weeping Frenchly over the sauce and the salt-heavy, flavor-light mains. And no doubt Pete would be asking why the contestants thought they could cheat diners by boiling up mystery-meat filled Latina raviolis for entrée.

And don’t get me started on dessert. At a three-course sit down dinner we somehow only got two thirds of what we paid for. Once again, teeny tiny canapé tartlets were served. To paraphrase Zoolander: was this a dessert for ants? It was certainly at least three times too small.

Now, a minimum food and beverage package is affordable, and that is important. Moreover, we know the food is there to soak up the alcohol. But this begs the question: Why do we agree to pay $130 for a ticket that incorporates food that is pretty average in quality, and drives up costs when we’re really there to drink and dance?

It could be a matter of keeping up appearances. Or perhaps we aren’t really providing the experience that students at a top law school deserve without a three-course meal. Wanting to deliver a great night is understandable, but the fact is that the quality isn’t there, and it feels like a rip off. Let’s ditch this stupid dinner, pay less and get some decent canapés out there instead.

The Music
Well here at least we got off to a good start: some RnB to get the night moving was a fantastic idea. Some Macklemore, some Shaggy – all of this was a good way to coax people onto the dance floor.

What was less fantastic was the fact that, after 15 minutes we were still moving to substantially the same beat. By that time, most of us had used up our signature dance moves five times over. The Sultry Booty Swing and the Awkward Law Student Shuffle™ were painfully overemployed because the music lacked variation. They may also have been painfully overemployed because many of us cannot successfully drop it like it’s hot, but that is beside the point.


The music did move on, but few, if any, dance staples such as those found on the Australian Top 40 were played.  Not even Mr Brightside got a look in, and that Killers classic is practically mandatory at party events.

Frankly, this was unimpressive.  It is one thing to compromise on food quality to an extent, but the number one reason law students go to these events is to dance and celebrate. For $130 we should get a DJ who knows how to skillfully mix tracks and provide a balanced range of danceable music. It’s hard to please everyone at these events, but more diverse tunes were sorely needed. In future, we could do better than dancing endlessly to RnB and 90s hits in a way that goes far beyond the ironic enjoyment of some old favorites.

The Photobooth
If you were prepared to wait 30 minutes for a series of over-exposed photos, it was worth it.

The Afterparty
Honestly, this was done pretty well. Transport to the venue was prompt and the DJ was reasonably decent. It was nice to see that there were two separate dance floors to give people some choice, and two bars so that the line for drinks was manageable.

However, overcrowding at the ATM was problematic. In future, if the bar is cash only and there are no passes out of the venue to allow partygoers to find other ATMs, then let people know so we aren’t all drawn like moths to the flame that is the one ATM in the Colonial Hotel.

Where do we go from here?
In all seriousness, something needs to change in the way the Law Ball is run next year. Other law students have written at length about the exorbitant cost of the tickets, which is absolutely part of the equation. The other side of the matter is that you should get what you pay for and quite frankly that didn’t happen this year.

Ultimately, there needs to be some debate in the LSS about alternatives that provide better value for money. We know, for example, that Monash provides a cocktail night for its JD law students in addition to a law ball at a cost of $60 for LSS members. There are a lot of pluses involved here: all of the dancing, all of the drinking, and plenty of bite-sized tasty goodness brought around on platters over the course of the evening for less cost.

Now, I’m not proposing that we put on exactly the same event, dollar for dollar. We do not want to repeat the Spring Social - we probably want a different kind of event. No doubt it would be possible to put on a cheaper but high quality cocktail night that differed in style, location and formality from the Spring Social to address the risk of a ‘repeat’ feel.

Specific suggestions aside, the point I am making is that where other cheaper, high quality options exist, they should be actively explored with a view to creating an event that is better value overall and more equitable in terms of affordability. Even if any action taken does not translate into changing the event altogether, perhaps we need to at least consider better priced venues. The problem is that I do not believe this has happened so far.  I have not seen evidence of debate or proposals for reform published or disseminated by the LSS to reduce ticket prices. I may be incorrect, but it seems that the status quo is largely adopted from year to year.


If, as it turns out, I’m completely on the wrong track and we can’t bring down prices without compromising a good time - then maybe we need to get more creative with our funding and our sponsors. I imagine that could support an entire essay by itself, so I won’t say more other than to raise it as a point for further consideration.

Finally, to really generate reform, the student populace as a whole needs to be included in any discussions that follow. I haven’t been around for a particularly long time, but I have yet to hear the LSS ask for student input on what could or should be done to change the ball to improve value, whether that involves a few minor alterations or a different kind of night altogether.

It is safe and convenient to put on a ball at the same venue every year with the same average music and food, but I would like to see the LSS rise to the challenge and become more creative in the future. Give us a ball that we can afford, but also give us a ball that is worth what we pay.
Picture
Some Law Ball in 1932
The rest of this week's issue:
  • Are University Ranking Leading to Massive Student Exploitation?
  • The Clerkship Diaries: Nobody Cares
  • I’m Sorry, But I Can’t See the Pattern
  • A Lecture Uncaptured

​Articles like this:
  • Law Ball Rip-off
  • MULSS Law Ball: The Break Down
  • Another year; another shafting: that’s law folks!

De Minimis sent the first iteration of the “Law Ball Review” article to MULSS for comment when it was first received. In response, MULSS sent us the following. The original “Law Ball Review” article was amended before publication, in part due to MULSS’s response. MULSS put considerable time and effort into MULSS’s response and so De Minimis has agreed to publish it, on this occasion, in order to ensure clarity of process and proper recognition.

Response from the MULSS Leadership Team

Thank you to De Minimis for giving us the opportunity to respond to the article, “Law Ball”.

The MULSS Leadership Team respects the fact that students will have varying opinions with regards to the way Law Ball is run, including music tastes and actual mouth tastes. We will therefore not address these subjective issues at this stage, however we would like to correct some objective factual errors made in the article.

  • In the second paragraph, the author mentions that the price was raised $10 this year. However, there was no increase in ticket prices from last year. Ticket prices for law students were $130 in 2014 and 2015.
  • In the section ‘Where do we go from here?’ the author questions why we have never ‘floated’ the idea of a cocktail night as an alternative event. As mentioned in the article ‘Law Ball: The Break Down’, we hold the Spring Social in the middle of the second semester. This is a cocktail style night with canapés and was provided as a significantly cheaper event at $35 a head, thanks partly to subsidy provided by the Law Ball. It’s interesting to note that last year, even though Spring Social was significantly cheaper, and has a third of the capacity of the Ball, it took significantly longer for this event to sell out in comparison. Furthermore, the 2014 event, which had a smaller capacity of 300, didn’t even sell out.
  • Also in that section, the author asks the MULSS to be more creative with the Law Ball by presumably looking for other venue options. As mentioned in the ‘Law Ball: The Break Down’ article, the MULSS Activities Team looks for at least three venue quotes for Law Ball. Peninsula is consistently the cheapest.

The MULSS welcomes constructive criticism. Feel free to direct any more thoughts on the Law Ball to lss-activities@unimelb.edu.au or have a chat to the Activities Directors Dom or Henry.
The rest of this week's issue:
  • Are University Ranking Leading to Massive Student Exploitation?
  • The Clerkship Diaries: Nobody Cares
  • I’m Sorry, But I Can’t See the Pattern
  • A Lecture Uncaptured

​Articles like this:
  • Law Ball Rip-off
  • MULSS Law Ball: The Break Down
  • Another year; another shafting: that’s law folks!
Anon 2nd Year
3/5/2016 07:51:23 pm

Perhaps "at least 3 venue quotes" is where the problem is. More homework required. Surely there is a warehouse somewhere that can accomodate a decent dj and a catering company. The rest the students dressed up in "ball gowns" can take care of.

Embarrassed4U
3/5/2016 08:24:41 pm

Lol

same
16/5/2016 10:21:56 am

lol

omgsame
12/6/2016 04:31:49 pm

still lol

Anon2
3/5/2016 08:26:12 pm

Perhaps Peninsula is so cheap because the drinks we were served were simply the leftovers from the previous events of the past month at that venue?

wow
3/5/2016 08:34:05 pm

Hi anonymous,
Why don't you run for activities? You seem to have a lot of ideas about how law ball could be better. The people who run it are volunteers. Why don't you volunteer?

Not wowed
3/5/2016 11:38:39 pm

Dear Wow,

Are you suggesting that any criticism of LSS use of student funds is illegitimate unless the author is also an LSS volunteer? No matter how constructive or well-intentioned the suggestions? According to this logic, because the LSS donates their time willingly and tirelessly (as evidenced by the staggering three venue quotes obtained by the activities portfolio this year) they should be free to spend with complete abandon.

The LSS is a volunteer-run organisation (like many organisations both in and outside the law school) but it manages a large amount of sponsorship and other money donated for the benefit of the student body at large. One would think the opinions of the student body at large are relevant to how that money should be spent.

Not only that, I imagine any first-year student thinking of running for the LSS would be put off by the idea of joining an organisation that cares little for the opinions of the students it is supposed to represent.

yo
4/5/2016 02:05:05 pm

I'm not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that you propose viable alternatives.

By all accounts, event management can be a huge headache. If you have better ideas, you should share them.



foodforthought
3/5/2016 09:31:11 pm

Please don't advocate getting rid of the food - it wasn't that bad (my steak was hot, decently cooked and totally edible), and the entree was pretty decent (I am, however, furious about the lack of a substantial dessert!) While plenty of students don't eat their meal, that's their choice - given the time of the event, the length it runs (especially plus after party) and level of cheap alcohol consumption, I think food should absolutely be provided. Plus, some of us don't drink alcohol, or only drink very little of it - we subsidize every one else's drinking, and in exchange we should get food ;)

lloydinator
4/5/2016 12:17:01 am

Thought I'd serve up an unnecessary food review for anyone mildly interested...

I prefer my steaks on the medium rare side. I like them to drip upon slicing. Mine was a tad overcooked - maybe because I had wandered off and it might have been sitting there for a bit. I still ate it.

Because I'm generally a shameless guy, I also managed to consume someone else's uneaten chicken too. It was succulent and to my liking.

I therefore didn't need dessert.

I probably didn't need more wine either.

But I had it anyway.

Cheers to Dom and Henry for taking the time and responsibility to organise something that is so clearly more enjoyable to attend without such a burden.

Where would you like the ball?
4/5/2016 12:15:37 am

You mention Monash hold a cocktail event. We also hold a similar event (spring social, which is at a lesser cost)

You also mention the cost of the ball as exorbitant. I seriously doubt the ability to find a venue that can cater to that many people at a lesser cost than what we're paying. I think it's also worth noting that Monash have held their law ball at the same venue, despite also exploring to see if there are cheaper venues.

If your concern is the quality of the venue, you probably can't improve it unless you are willing to pay more. If your concern is the cost, you realistically can't hold a similar event of this nature at a lesser cost, unless you are willing to forgo things like a sitdown meal. It would be nice to hear some of the criticisms of the ball actually address this reality, or propose a viable alternative.

agree
4/5/2016 02:07:27 pm

exaaaaactly

Leaving Soon
4/5/2016 11:01:56 am

This article basically says we want everything to be better and we also want everything to be cheaper. You need to pick one. I'm glad I won't be here next year because having it your way, we will either be forking out $300 for a ticket so the event can live up to your expectations or catering to the lowest common denominator by sitting around eating rice crackers and drinking goon in a shed somewhere.

a fan
4/5/2016 02:06:52 pm

Thanks to Dom and Henry and the whole Activities crew for a great night! You guys did a great job!

Katy
4/5/2016 02:36:09 pm

I didn't get a chance to go to the ball so it's nice to hear what it was like. Also props for being honest and anonomous, good way to not ruffle to many social feathers.

Pissweak
22/5/2016 09:05:04 pm

I think it is pathetic to publicly whinge about what your peers have worked long and hard to put on for you to enjoy without even putting your name to it. I challenge you to put your name on an election paper and do it yourself next year and I hope some other punter doesn't take the time to vent his or her frustrations and general lack of perspective in life by writing to the paper with a critique of it!

STILL ROFLING
23/5/2016 11:37:26 am

Welcome to democracy, mate.


Comments are closed.
    Picture

    Archives

    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014

  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Comment Policy
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
  • Blog