Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 01/24/18 in all areas

  1. 16 points
    The rest of what I have to say is so importantly different from what I wrote above that I felt the need to do a different post. I had some mainstream and I had some less mainstream views in law school. I never felt I was somehow in unsafe space when it came to sharing those views. I sometimes felt people would rather I shut up, and see Hegdis' very good points above. That's not the same thing. When conservatives say "I don't know if it's safe to share my views" I have two distinct reactions. First, I try to emphasize and take those views seriously and engage with them. So, let me make this promise. In any context where you are not hyperventilating and trying to force everyone in the room to agree that the points you are making are obviously right, and that the way you have chosen to make them is obviously necessary, and despite the fact that you've hijacked a lecture on an unrelated topic everyone should stop and listen to you now ... anything short of that and you won't face violence or active opposition. People may ignore you. People may think you're an idiot. People may even say so. But that's not the same thing. Attending law school doesn't guarantee you an audience. And I don't think anyone is saying it should. That's as far as my distinct, sympathy goes. If you find yourself barred from campus, we'll talk. Anything short of that is hypothetical. Now here's where my sympathy ends. Speaking as someone who finds myself almost entirely in majoritarian identities and whose right to speak and hold the views that I hold is almost inevitably acknowledged, I find it hilarious when similarly privileged people say "I don't feel safe." As in seriously, you privileged ass. Get the holy fuck over yourself. You say "somewhere else, at some other time, in another fucking country people have been ridiculed and abused for expressing views similar to mine. And based on this, I feel unsafe." You realize that at other times, in other places, and in other countries, people are still being fucking killed for being gay, right? Or for promoting racial equality. Or for expressing any of the standard views that the left, writ large, often expresses? I mean, you do realize that, right? When was the last time you approached a conversation in Canada about gay rights, or equal marriage, or any other such time, and went into the room trying to actively remember the costs that people face in other countries entirely, and in other contexts, for raising those views? Come on, man. You go in with the same attitude I do. You aren't fussed about it because it's Canada. We accept and take for granted that discussions about sexual orientation here are now, for the most part, safe and uncontroversial. So, I'm not saying that you are entirely and factually wrong that there may be times and places where conservatism is greeted badly. But if that makes you nervous in a Canadian law school, I have two related messages. First, get the hell over it. And second, if you can't get over it, at least appreciate how typical your experience is. This is what it feels like to not be white, straight, male, hetero-normative. This is what it feels like to not be entirely in the majority all the fucking time, and to realize that sometimes people who disagree with you have, at least the potential, in some cases and in some places, to respond violently. This is what it feels like to some people all the time. So if you can't get over it, at least learn to emphasize from the experience.
  2. 15 points
    Hey all This could possibly belong in off-topic, and if so feel free to move. But here's an article worth reading to see what it looks like to build a career in "international human rights" law. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/asma-jahangir-obituary/553043/ Honestly, I didn't know a damn thing about Ms. Jahangir before I read this article. She seems like a formidable lawyer, and she obviously had a great impact on her nation. Good for her. What prompted me to post here is a short section in the article where it mentions, almost in passing, that after a career spent shaking the pillars of the legal and political establishment in Pakistan, Ms. Jahangir had a role in the UN and was present more internationally. Which isn't surprising at all. Now I'm using this article to jump into a point I often make, but I really do hope some eager young student takes and learns the lesson here. The lesson isn't that you should get a legal education in Canada and then move to Pakistan to help the poor and dispossessed. There are two very good reasons why not. First, in Pakistan you will not be a lawyer and you'll have no standing before the court to do any of the things Ms. Jahangir built her career doing. And second, despite the fact that Ms. Jahangir has now unfortunately died, Pakistan, and other nations in the world, no matter how troubled, have their own internal crusaders for human rights who are educated in the country, licensed to practice law there, steeped in the culture and the language, and so on. To whatever extent any freshly minted graduate will have any opportunity to practice "human rights" law at all, why would anyone imagine that opportunity will be best served by flying someone halfway around to world to a nation they don't understand, can't function in, and where they aren't licensed to appear in court? It's nonsense to imagine that would happen. Anyone who wants to practice "international human rights law" the way Ms. Jahangir did should follow in her footsteps and build a practice and a profile the same way. Represent the people you are licensed to represent. Help the people who don't have anyone else to help them right here where your advocacy for them is actually meaningful. Contain your need for fame and acclaim and your expectation that you'll be applauded just for showing up. That is - and I'm sorry to say it - a symptom of Western privilege that you want to be the special person flown across the world just to show them what you learned in law school. And it's an absurd conceit that they need or want you. Do the thankless work in the trenches. And if you do it very well, and get the results that everyone thought were impossible because no one else wanted to take it on exactly because there was no fame or money in it ... well, maybe you'll develop a profile of sorts. And maybe, years into a career of doing the hard, thankless work domestically, someone will ask for your involvement in another part of the world. Maybe. Enough with the Amal Clooney crap. This is what international human rights law looks like. I didn't know this woman. And maybe someone here did, but I'd guess she was largely unknown in Canada. And yet she's a hero. There's a hell of a lot of work that needs doing on Canada. We have no lack of poor, dispossessed people who have few advocates because there's no fame, money, or glory in representing them. You want that job? No one is stopping you. In fact, plenty of people will beg you to take on the work. It's there for anyone who wants it. You know what you need to be a human rights lawyer making an impact on people's lives? You just need to give up on your dreams of fame and travel, stop expecting a parade for showing up, and realize that your dreams of being a (white) Western savior are insulting and insufferable when stacked against the reality of lawyers like Ms. Jahangir who are already doing this work far better than you ever could, in their own home nations. So take the lesson and work in your home nation instead.
  3. 15 points
    I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if thousands of IP lawyers suddenly cried out in dismay
  4. 15 points
    Rule 1. Ignore jordan peterson. This will increase your IQ.
  5. 12 points
  6. 12 points
    OP, this thread is a good example of what you're going to get in law school. Lots of different voices, weird derails, people coming in and substituting their views with the views some other person spouted once, old arguments rehashed for the thousandth time, quirky irreverent quips, references to comedy sketches, pretend outrage, and lots and lots and lots of debate. From time to time some one might attempt to go to higher authorities because they feel attacked or they want to "win" the argument, but if it's anything like this thread, the authorities will not get involved. No one has set the forum on fire or banned anyone here or hunted them down in real life to say mean things about them to potential employers. This is what law school will look like IF you have a prof that lets people run off at the mouth as if they were on Teh Internets.
  7. 12 points
    @springlaw Though edited, your post is better-written and more comprehensible than many (most?) on this site...
  8. 11 points
    It's really incredible, but the title of this thread only needed two words to convey douchiness. That's incredibly efficient language. Look, if you want to go work in America, it's legitimate and inevitable that you'd ask questions about American legal culture. But BQ hit it squarely. These "elite extra-curriculars" aren't identifying anything about your capabilities or your character. They are just identifying that you come from wealth and privilege. And if you don't already, you can't fake your way into it. Canada has all kinds of problems, and similar to our health care situation it's dangerous to compare ourselves only to south of our border and imagine that we are superior to others when in fact we may not be. But as compared to America, at least, we are far more meritocratic than they are. It's almost sad and amusing at the same time to see a question that comes from a perspective of assumed meritocracy (because it's emerging from a Canadian experience and background) and looking to break into a legal market that clearly is not built the same way. People who aspire to go to America are welcome to their aspirations. I try not to crap on them too much. But please don't imagine that your "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" attitude is going to paint you as someone to watch, over there. They'd far rather hire the kid who comes from wealth and privilege, and use his or her connections. So if you're looking to work your way to the top, rather than be born at the top, you should probably wrap your head around the fact that Canada is actually a far better place to do that.
  9. 11 points
    Got the email February 8 at 9am. I thought I had virtually no chance with my LSAT scores, and was beyond shocked to receive the email especially in Feb. I’m only posting to maybe give hope to others in the same boat!! I was even registered to retake my LSAT in February but withdrew last minute seeing that Osgoode was my first choice. GPA: 3.73 LSAT: 153 (sept) & 153 (dec) Filled out the diversity/equity section. I thought my softs were quite strong including my PS, but I also doubted myself over it because everyone thinks their softs are strong. Good luck everyone!
  10. 10 points
    Good grief. When did students who are not even in law school yet start to worry about exit options from biglaw?! Is there a full moon?
  11. 10 points
    OP: I am both an experienced lawyer and a fugitive son of a former Nigerian king. If you can send me $5,000 by interac e-transfer, I can come to Toronto and take this case on. We can then split the winnings 50:50. Hit me up if you're interested. I'll also split my inheritance with you because given this post, I know you're a super cool, trustworthy person. Looking forward to your comments and interests.
  12. 10 points
    You know, this comment won't add jack all to this discussion. But I honestly believe that the stories we see and tell one another on television and in movies - those stories have bent towards a certain theme in recent years that is part of the problem. The idea that wanting something enough is by itself some kind of qualification. The idea that desire alone leads to results, and that objective measurements of ability and skill are all secondary to the mere will to succeed - it makes for a good story on television, but in practice it's a pernicious lie. And would-be law students can keep repeating all they want that somehow it should matter more that they cared enough to run their pre-law clubs, and how they volunteered here and there, and how they gave their time and proved their desire. But at the end of the day, someone who just bloody gets it where you do not - that person will be a far better lawyer. And you may not think it's fair. But neither does the guy who desperately wants to play football but he's just not built for it. The world isn't fair that way. And it's also not a made-for-tv movie.
  13. 10 points
    My advice: Don’t go in on the defensive. Mentally sorting your future colleagues into one of three basically unflattering categories laid out by some one barely further along the path is not going to be helpful. It could be hurtful. You are so much more than the sum of your parts. As are we all. Get to know people before categorizing them.
  14. 10 points
    You made a decision at 18 to study something for a reason like “hey I got into a good program I should go”? The horror. What kind of 18 year old hasn’t perfected the art of career decisonmaking? 95% of people go to law school because they think it will sound impressive to their friends and family and they’ll make ok money. So shame on you for not pursuing that lofty goal with more vigor, I guess. I can’t shed any light at all on your prospects of getting into IP law (or any other kind) so I won’t even try. I will say that spending a ton of time getting called and practicing just to say you did is probably not the right move. If you have a clear idea of how your theoretical legal job would move you toward a role you want to be in the long term term then do it, but otherwise don’t. If I was in your shoes (interested in finance) I would focus on getting the type of entry level commercial job that could leave you well placed to apply for an MBA in a couple of years, assuming you can’t get the kind of finance job you want right now. Don’t beat yourself up about the law school thing. You have a good degree after undergrad. You’re clearly a bright kid if you got into McGill (or another school) out of CEGEP. You’re still very young — not much older than any other college grad, and your great sin in life is not single-mindedly pursuing a life of legal drudgery when you were 19. This might be the best thing that ever happened to you. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start working toward a good job in finance or tech. Soon you’ll be delegating the boring stuff you don’t wanna do to your lawyers.
  15. 10 points
    I thought this was a thread speculating about the chances of specific members' getting banned.
  16. 9 points
    Am I the only person who never heard of "Big 5?"
  17. 9 points
    It's because his cousin is a senior associate at a dustbag firm and can't get a better job because no one respects anyone who didn't get a job at the Big 5.
  18. 9 points
    The tldr is that lawyers are intense and take the fun out of hobbies.
  19. 9 points
    Before making any rash decisions, please give yourself a chance. You're about to finish med school, so wait to see how being free from school and just focusing on your profession in med feels like. It may not be the field, but rather the schooling part that's making you feel like you're not interested. Stick it through, see what happens. When you're practicing, if you still don't enjoy it, then I guess go for law. But at this point I highly suggest you don't try to make this transition from where you're currently at.
  20. 9 points
    There's no one right or wrong answer. Everyone has to decide for themselves which option to take (if they even have an option). For me, my parents told me that they could not afford to pay for my tuition. I was on my own for tuition, books, etc. However what they would do is that for as long as I was in school they were happy for me to live at home and not pay rent. That was how they were able to contribute. And throughout most of undergrad that was exactly what I did. I'm not sure what I would have done if I was living in dorms, or with roommates, while in undergrad. While having to take the bus almost an hour to get to school and back was a definite drag, it probably kept me out of trouble as well. I wound up delaying my studies by about a year in order to do a co-op work term. That included living out of town for six months. That not only inspired me that I did NOT want to pursue that career path and to study for the LSAT, but after living apart and then moving back home it helped to adjust my relationship with my parents - I was treated much more like an adult than a child. When it came to law school... I figured I would be commuting, was tired of taking the bus, so I got a screaming good deal on a car lease: $200/month for two years. Problem though was that car lease chained me to living at home - the costs of the vehicle meant I had to stay living at home. By second year I actually kind of wanted to move in with some buddies, but wasn't able to. It was only by third year, with my car lease expired, that I moved to within walking distance of campus at the age of 24. So what was the difference? I guess living at home cramped my personal life a bit - they didn't care if I stayed out late, but as a matter of practical necessity I still needed to go home to sleep, change and eat. But really in a lot of ways that's probably a good thing to have some level of restriction. And by virtue of living near campus I was involved in a lot more social activities - but that was also helped by the fact it was third year law and I had an articling job locked up. All I can say is there is no wrong answer. Living at home to save money is perfectly valid (and I was able to graduate with negligible debt of under $10k). Living away from your parents is perfectly valid as well, and certainly impacts your social life.
  21. 9 points
    Depends on the school. Readings will probably be more than in undergrad, and depending on your former major, there may be substantially more than you're used to. For writing, at my school (Osgoode), first year students had to submit a 4500 word research paper for one of their classes in second term (that's about 15 pages), so it wasn't so bad. In upper years, it's 7000 words (closer to 30 pages), and you have to write one in both 2L and 3L. So that tends to be more work, but if you don't go for the directed research and writing courses, that is the most you would have to write if you went to Oz. Obviously every school is different but I think that gives you a bit of an idea. Generally speaking I would say that law school is more work than undergrad but if you graduated with good enough stats to get into a law school, it's unlikely it would overwhelm you so much that you'd be unable to adapt. I don't think it's anything like the difference between high school and university.
  22. 9 points
    You don't need to "stand out" to get into law school. You just need to meet a certain bar, numberswise, demonstrate sustained extracurricular involvement of any respectable sort and not come off as a moron in your personal statement.
  23. 9 points
    Fellow patrons of lawstudents.ca come to me in my time of need! It is I, mootqueenJD69, and I find myself sorely in need of advice. As I refreshed Minerva for the 97th time today I realized that my life is much like a movie in which the viewer has lost all interest. Upon watching for 25 minutes I am no longer concerned with the anxieties of the main character. When had my life become a b rated horror film? Absorbed in my nihilism, I have taken to contemplating what I should do, not if but when I am rejected from McGill law. Netizens of lawstudents.ca please aid me in deciding how to move forward with my life, as in my current state I am too weak to decide for myself. I do not want to hear "but mootqueenJD69, your beauty and intelligence are unsurpassed! It's only the beginning of the acceptance cycle, give it some more time and you'll get in!" I have already resigned myself to my imminent failure and I am here for steadfast and stoic wisdom, not your consolation or pity lawstudents.ca. Do not look down on me with those piercing eyes filled with disappointment and disgust. Before I lay out my options moving forward into the dismal abyss that is my future, I would like to briefly appease any moderators who would question the substance of my plea. You may be thinking "this poor soul should get some professional help" or "this query is better suited to the general discussion thread" or "how does this differ from a standard rejected thread, what makes you so unique, mootqueenJD69?" I will address each of these concerns, in reverse ascending order. Fret not compatriots for I am of sound mind. This is but the manifestation of the anxieties of acceptance, a rite of passage bringing all self-doubting undergrads to the brink of sanity. But it is only on the brink that true genius is born. You will soon see, dear moderators, that the substance of my philosophical exploration is predicated on the specificity of the rejection: I do not ask "what should I do when I get rejected" but rather "what should I do when I get rejected from McGill". Mod Gods, I submit to you that this is not your average rejection thread. It has taken four paragraphs to circumscribe the parameters of the question and justify the inquiry. There will be intimate depth and detail contrasted with disconcerting ubiquity: bringing to the fore the inescapable notion that no one is mootqueenJD69, but in a far greater sense, we are all mootqueenJD69 The first, and most straightforward answer to the question "what should I do when I get rejected by McGill Law" is move to Montreal and study French intensively. The reasons for this are threefold: 1. My French is relatively weak and this is a great way to improve for reapplication. 2. What better way to fulfill my masochistic cravings than to watch all the joyous 1L's trance their way through my dream world, oblivious to my suffering? 3. I can get a job cleaning the law school classrooms in the evenings and complete unfinished moot court problems that have been left on the chalkboard. A professor will eventually recognize my genius and invite me to work with them as their equal. I will be forced to reevaluate my relationship with everyone in my life and confront my past while thinking about my future. My second option is to pursue a 1-year master's degree while I wait to relive the mental health meat grinder that is the law school application process. I have applied to two such programs. One in the heartland of southern Ontario and another in a tropic locale where the rainy season is short and they serve pina coladas on the beach. Both involve studying law in some capacity. My concern here is that I will get swallowed in the vacuum of academia and never emerge to claim my rightful place as a hollow and soulless 1L. As my third option, I could escape into the wilderness for a period of 6-12 months. I believe this is what my generation calls “finding myself”. I would take a page from Cheryl Strayed and hop on one of those big long hikes in the US. But would I be able to bolster my French while I did this? How would it improve my application for the next cycle? I eagerly await your response in my time of need lawstudents.ca all all creative suggestions and advice accepted. Until then I will continue to ride the RfR train into oblivion. XOXO, mootqueenJD69
  24. 9 points
    Well, if all else fails, I think you definitely have a career in writing so there's that.
  25. 9 points
    You just had a thread locked for the exact same content. You don’t get an appeals court here.
  26. 9 points
    Law schools do not count Masters' grades at all. The reason people say that Masters' grades are conflated is that it provides a reason why law schools don't count them. It would be unfair to reward people who didn't so great in their undergrad degree but managed to squeak into a Masters', get inflated grades and override their undergrad grades, when some people worked their butts off in undergrad to get good grades and either can't afford or have no interest in a Masters'. A Masters' may be looked at as an interesting soft factor but that's about it. Your LSAT score isn't just "not great." It is in the bottom 17% of scores - 73% of people who took the test scored higher than you. I'm not trying to be mean, but this is the cold, hard reality. The Masters' is not going to make up for that. If you think you can get a better score, do it.
  27. 8 points
    Langlois is calling tonight again! Udem, 3,2, no prior degree Dont give up, it's not over, no matter what. If you get no calls, that will not prevent you from being a great lawyer. Only you can make that happen and no one else. Bon intras!!
  28. 8 points
    Look. I want to admit something about my own perspective, throw some shade on a lot of this discussion generally, and then get out. Because honestly, this discussion makes me faintly nauseous. I don't know much about "elite" hiring in the Canadian legal establishment, and I know even less about the American. I know what I believe, but that's not the same thing. The reason I'm saying that is because I see a lot of people in this conversation throwing views far more certain than my own, and I know they have no more experience than I do, or possibly even less. So please, take everything you read here with a massive dose of salt. The one person on this board who I consider an expert in not coming from wealth and privilege but then successfully integrating with a wealthy and privileged environment is Uriel, and he hasn't even bothered weighing in. That might say something. Note there could be others, but he's the only one I'm aware of whose biography specifically supports that claim. My personal belief continues to be this. You can aspire to something you don't have, and if that aspiration is genuine it certainly isn't my place to piss on your dreams. If you grew up in a working class household secretly dreaming of skiing in Aspen (or wherever the hell privileged people ski - I obviously wouldn't know) then by all means, reach for that. And perhaps you'll find yourself at home among similar people one day - both those that were born into it and also those that found it. But if ALL you want is a job where you earn buckets of money, and ALL you're doing is trying to pass among the people who have money by imitating their interests ... man, that's the most depressing fucking thing I've thought about all week. And you're free to ignore my opinions about that, because they truly are just opinions from far outside that world. But I honestly think you owe it to yourself to think carefully about whether or not you'll be happier and more successful as a fake imitation of something you're not, or if maybe you should try to embrace who you are (whatever that is) and seek success on your own terms. I sure as hell know that the later choice made more sense for me. And with that, I'm out. I know where I don't belong.
  29. 8 points
    I guess some people are that offended by seeing larger women - they couldn't possibly just be legitimate images. Isn't seeing only skinny women an agenda too? One that's been around for a long time? It's just that Jordan Petersen and @harveyspecter993 accept that agenda and like looking at those images. Don't the media have a responsibility to represent more diversity in body types?
  30. 8 points
    I'd rather live on my own than be a lawyer.
  31. 8 points
    Many people still want it, therefore it must be good? I don't know why this has turned into a general discussion about the quality of U of T, but if you want to advocate for the position that U of T is still somehow the "best" school for all purposes, at least don't punt your argument into an appeal that the masses are always right, and that we can determine what's "good" merely with reference to what's popular. I attended U of T maybe 10 years ago. I don't regret that decision. But there's no way I could or would make the same decision now. I don't want to derail this topic. But at some point, U of T made either the conscious decision, or perhaps accepted the unintended result, that by spending their way to the top of the food chain and by demanding that their students pay for that investment, they were abdicating any aspiration to be generally the best law school in Canada. I believe you'll see the consequence in coming years. I have no doubt that U of T still attracts the best and the brightest in many areas of law - basically in all the areas of law that make money easily. But in areas of law where choosing that field of practice means accepting a more limited income almost guaranteed in the early years of practice and very likely continuing into senior practice, there's just no way U of T makes sense any more. And so the classes in criminal law, and, I suspect, areas likely family, immigration, etc. are shrinking. The students who want to practice in those areas of law - in other words, a real slice of the best and brightest who just want to do less remunerative law - are going to go elsewhere. Faculty will start to follow. It's just not as fun to teach a class where almost no one wants to take it, and the most passionate students are elsewhere. Money will follow faculty, etc. U of T is unquestionably the best for many purposes, still. But I can't believe the smart people running the school are blind to the results of their decision-making. If it ever tried to be a universal "best" at all, it ended that project some time ago. Pretending it might still be the best for all purposes isn't just willfully blind. It ignores the fact that I don't think it's even trying any more.
  32. 8 points
    I'm a 3L, but as a 1L I struggled with exactly what you're describing. It's hard not to compare yourself to your peers because there aren't many other measures for you to determine how well you're doing in law school. On the one hand it can be a good thing, seeing everyone around you work hard may force you to kick it up a notch which cant hurt. But it can also create doubt and anxiety which obviously isnt helpful... anyway here is how I coped: 1. Studied at home. I found the library a little too intense for my liking so I stayed at home. This allowed me to focus on what I was doing without getting distracted (or anxious seeing everyone else in a study group while i studied solo.. turns out studying solo is what worked best for me) 2. Find your tribe. Find a group of friends that you can share your thoughts, feelings, anxieties, confusion, etc. with. It's helpful to find a group of people that you can discuss concepts and material with.. but you want to make sure these people don't create increased feelings of anxiety. 3. Limit your exposure to students who make you feel bad - I'm sure everyone small group has at least a few students who make it seem like they have all their sh*t together and they are just killing. This causes you to feel even worse because you're confused and they just "get it". First of all, they're frigin lying (lol). If there are people who brag about how well they're doing, how ahead they are, how many interviews for jobs/clinics they've booked etc. Just avoid them. 4. Talk to upper years - nothing makes 1Ls more anxious than other 1Ls.. I find that people just kind of repeat things (about jobs, important opportunities, etc) but its often not even accurate info... Its better to get advice from a 2 or 3L then a fellow confused 1L.
  33. 8 points
    One of the smartest classmates I had in law school was a queer activist on the far end of identifying as a Marxist. When she showed up in theory of corporate law class, I asked her what brought her - 'I understand my own point of view fairly well. It would be helpful to understand another'. She is a smart woman. Don't self-sort. We all self-sort in life already. Use school as a place to suspend your worldview and try to learn others. Do that and it won't matter if you're a Stalinist or have a framed photo of Paul Ryan on your wall - you'll have a great time.
  34. 8 points
    That article you are referencing is a an apparent fight between two individuals that was so trivial it didn't even result in charges (you have to be in criminal law to realize how low that threshold is) and it doesn't indicate who even started it. To say this proves conservatives have to fear for their physical safety is hyperventilation at the highest extreme. Look, you have your answer about whether you need to worry about being conservative a law school in Canada. If you start this tactic where you ping-pong amongst the various dog-whistle grievances of the alt-right, you'll eventually manage to muddy the topic so well that you will (a) start an argument so confusing no one will make sense of it anymore, and (b) inspire someone to tell to you to fuck off and die, which will entitle you to claim that you proved your point. But you haven't done anything of the sort. At a Canadian law school, you'll be entirely safe airing whatever views you care to air. And your classmates, and professors, and potential future employers, will judge you not on your politics but rather on how much sense you make. And right now, you aren't scoring high points on the second level, there.
  35. 7 points
    The thing is is that hockey is actually more of an "elite" activity in Canada. Do you know how much you have to pay to see a game? Do you know how much it costs to get your kid to play hockey? Liking hockey is actually a sort-of stand in for being an "old school middle class Canadian". Most immigrants, or even children of immigrants, don't know the game.
  36. 7 points
    From what I've heard from friends attending Ottawa, expect nothing from their administration. And then lower your expectations.
  37. 7 points
    How did you manage to get an MD with only 2 years of undergrad under your belt? And more importantly, why on earth would you want to do law after getting an MD?
  38. 7 points
    Re, other people telling you that you're stupid: In life, you're always going to find sad people who have neither the ability nor the courage to achieve much in life. These same people often tell others to follow their path to mediocrity. The fact that you have made it to law school after applying yourself to your studies despite your critics, shows that you have the intellect and the tenacity to succeed. To those who tell you to set your eyes lower, the appropriate response is: "Go fuck yourself". Re, the Peterson detractors: You may not agree with him on some of his views, but it is foolish to completely dismiss an otherwise highly accomplished psychologist. It's kind of like dismissing the Beatles' White Album because you think Track 4 isn't too great.
  39. 7 points
  40. 7 points
    While everybody is telling you to ignore Peterson, the people you should be ignoring are the ones that are calling you dumb (your mom, your peers etc...). You have to truly believe that they're wrong. I'm not sure how you can get yourself to that point, but I know I did it years ago. My parents never called me dumb, but I was always a failure academically, until I decided to change it (I know, it sounds cheesy and a bit of a cliche, but it's true). After I broke the pattern (by getting straight A's in my last 2 years of university) I became certain of my abilities. Even in the past, when people tried to put me down I really didn't doubt my own intelligence (not saying I'm intelligent, but I'm not dumb either). There are many reasons why people fail academically at certain points in their life. It all boils down to not giving a fuck and not trying. Yes, you might not be engaged and you might think that you just don't have it in you, but that's bull shit. In high school I had a teacher that wanted to put me in the "dumb" math class. Here in BC, high school math (along with a couple of other courses I think) has 3 different levels: applications of math, principles of math and the IB thing that all the geniuses go through. I was barely passing principles most years and for grade 12 I had a teacher (or was it a counselor? I can't remember now) that kept pressuring me into taking applications. She even called my parents!! Finally she confronted me and asked me if I'm trying to prove anything!! I wasn't. I knew I had it in me to pass, but I didn't care for a higher grade. I was okay with scraping by. I had my reasons at the time, some of which I was aware of and some that I wasn't. After high school almost all my close friends went to top universities and my own brother started killing it at UBC (by year 3 he was doing research in his chemical engineering program and even had a paper published). I felt bad, but I never thought I was dumb. Conclusion: in the past you've been a fuck up academically. You are no longer. You've broken the habit. You've got yourself to law school. That's a clear sign of your abilities. Believe in yourself and continue to work hard and you'll make it. I'm a 0L and if I fuck up and flunk out of law school I won't fault my own intelligence. I will kick myself for not trying hard enough etc... Anecdotally I don't even believe in judging people based on their past history and their current occupations. The single smartest individual I know was a guy I met on the oil patch (I worked in Northern Alberta for 3 years). He was in his 40's and had entered the trade I was in at roughly the same time as me (he used to be in another trade). When he was in grade 9 he ran away from the farm he grew up in because of his abusive mother (among other reasons). He got his grade 10 done and called it quits forever. To this day he doesn't have his high school diploma. His writing is shit, he can't do math and he speaks English worse than I, even though I was 12 when I came to Canada from a non-English speaking country. But those facts don't mean he's not intelligent. If he had grown up in an urban middle class family in Toronto or Vancouver, instead of Buttfucknowhereville, on a farm, with an abusive mother, his life would have been different. I learned more from this guy than any teacher or professor and even my own father. Just have confidence in yourself and give it your 110%. You'll be fine. Edit: Jordan Peterson generalizes quite a bit, but don't write him off because the so called intelligentsia wants to destroy him and shut him up. Contrary to what everybody likes to say, he's not some white nationalist, nor is he a woman hater. He does generalize like a mofo though. Take what you can from him and be conscious of his generalizations.
  41. 7 points
    No one has really talked about what living at home would practically mean for OP. Could they actually, practically, succeed as a student while living at home? I have a great relationship with my parents. However, I have an overprotective mother. I briefly (i.e. for about 3 weeks) lived at home when I was between apartments after graduating law school. When I was home, my mother would constantly interrupt my bar exam studying - offering me food, asking if I needed anything from the mall or the grocery store, asking me to try things she was cooking, telling me something funny on the internet for "just a moment". It became unworkable, and I had to leave the house to get anything done. This also turned into a problem because, as part of her overprotective nature, my mother would have a full-blown panic attack if I wasn't back home at what she considered a reasonable time - to the extent that she called the police when I wasn't home at 1:30am on a Friday night and wasn't answering my cell phone (I had, in fact, fallen asleep at a friend's place after bar exam studying). I would have had a very difficult time, both academically and socially, being in law school (or any other school) while living at home. OP, what would living at home actually look like for you? Aside from money considerations, would it materially interfere with your law school success or experience?
  42. 7 points
    Lemme break it down for you op My best friend - lived with his parents during school, got a job in his field and bought his own house at 23. Sure he waited 5 extra years to move out, but he was in a much better position to do so. He’s an engineer working on windmills me - moved out first chance I got and have a mountain of debt to fight before I could even consider buying property Don’t listen to the stigma OP. Stay at home if you can, you will be in a much better position to strike out on your own once you enter into the professional workforce. I wish I did.
  43. 7 points
    I found the workload really depended on the student. I had friends who wanted to read every page of every assigned reading plus some of the optional ones. Others would do all of that and then take notes on what they read while others did almost no readings unless it was actually essential. Most people adapt pretty quickly and learn what they need to do so I personally found law school a lot less work than undergrad. I also liked classes that were paper based so really catered to those in 2L and 3L as I could often coast through entire classes without doing much and then buckle down for one big paper and maybe a presentation. Just like you found high school didn't prepare you for undergrad, you'll probably find that undergrad doesn't fully prepare you for law school, but you'll adjust.
  44. 7 points
    Hi all, Just want to commiserate with some other applicants who are experiencing the same thing this cycle, and if possible have some former applicants share their stories dealing with the same thing! I've applied to seven schools and have yet to hear anything from anyone.
  45. 7 points
    Ok so if you got through a Bachelors and Masters degree with no issues, I’m not seeing why law school would be a problem. And if your grades are fine then it obviously isn’t. Everyone struggles with the terminology in law school. Everyone feels intimidated by the competition. No one knows what they are doing - lots of people fake it though. This is true whatever your first language is. I get it though - when you’re different, your differences seem magnified with insecurity and anxiety. Lots of people have imperfect grammar. I do! I have seen some pretty low-quality writing from students and lawyers alike, whose first language is English. Your post seems fine, as @epeeist said. You get to edit your legal writing - you never do it on the fly. Regarding asking questions, all articling students and new lawyers ask questions all the time. We expect them to - if they don’t, they won’t know what to do. Heck, I still ask lots of questions of my seniors. Never be afraid to ask anything. Are you sure people actually judged you for asking questions or are you just feeling insecure? I know sometimes I feel like people are watching and judging me when they probably aren’t, but it’s just a new situation and I feel uncomfortable. Or it will turn out that they liked my outfit or something and that’s what they were looking at. So... to being a lawyer. English is my fourth language. I was about 12 when I learned it. I am a litigator - criminal defence - and I have never felt that this fact about me held me back. I think I’m decent in court, I feel confident and comfortable there for the most part, and I get positive feedback. I know other defence and Crowns who are non-native speakers of English and are good lawyers.We are a multicultural society that can handle small variations in peoples’ spoken English. My suggestions would be to build your confidence in your litigation abilities by trying out for moots at your school and ask the professor for feedback, whether or not you get in. I mooted and it helped my confidence hugely. If there is an oral advocacy class at your school, take it. Also, try to get into a clinic, especially a criminal one. You will be interviewing clients and going to court and if you can handle it there, this will also build your confidence. You need to get brutally honest feedback from someone in the profession - professor, clinic supervisor etc as to whether you actually need to improve your English to litigate or whether you are no worse than any other student. Let me know if you have any more specific questions.
  46. 7 points
    You guys sound like you think you’re hiding Anne Frank upstairs. It sounds like some people just think you’re an idiot. I’m sure you think other people people are idiots. I’m sure you think some of them are Stalinist monsters. And yet - they go about their life just fine, and they have since long before their ideas were prominent. Political self-righteousness is annoying. But my god, the young conservative turn to thinking of themselves as being some sort of oppressed group is the single most irritating part of this generation.
  47. 7 points
    I...what the hell does your first paragraph mean? What trouble are you going to get in by being a conservative? Again - you’re talking about a thing that appears to have literally never happened. I would say if you go around law school talking about the huge risks of being a straight white male nowadays, people will think you’re an idiot. But that’s because we (largely, straight white men) think you’re being an idiot, so it’s fair. When I was in law school we had some more radical students who tried very passionately argued charity functions should be shut down as unjust perpetuations of inequality - most of us just thought that was dumb. Some ideas are dumb, don’t confuse that with ‘people aren’t giving me a fair hearing in the marketplace of ideas’. I certainly agree that conservatives are not in a majority in graduate programs or Canadian law school. So...what? Who cares? I mean this in the nicest way possible: what kind of weakling are you that you could only be comfortable in a world where you’re a majority? The fucking Marxists - still definitively a minority in law - have been rocking that role for 70 years. I used to think they were whinny until conservatives tied themselves to this blizzaro narrative of hardship. I mean, I’ve spent most of my life in literal foreign countries being a minority in every definable sense and I’ve never felt as hard done by as the millennial conservative generation.
  48. 7 points
  49. 7 points
    Lol, I can’t take this too seriously when one category is called “SJWs/bleeding hearts” and Trump supporters, ultra conservative Christians and old stock Canadians are described simultaneously as responding to reason and evidence and supporting Trump’s policies
  50. 7 points
    To answer the OP, these things happened to me / I did in law school: 1. I was suddenly in a room with a group of people who were very good at articulating their views. This meant that I had to up my game in articulating mine. Some flaws in my views were revealed to me through various challenging conversations. I reacted to this with middling grace. Now, these days, I'm mature enough and confident enough to stop, think, and acknowledge when some one has made a good point. This was harder to do when I was 21. 2. Also at 21, it was important to me that others understood that I was smart and articulate. Sometimes I put my hand up to prove this. This was a mistake. Oh, I told myself it was a legitimate question - and probably half of the time it was - but I wasn't asking because I wanted the answer. I was asking to prove to everyone in the room that I understood the topic and had an opinion about it. (I didn't do this daily. I wasn't that bad. There were others who were far, far worse. But I did it.) 3. I pigeonholed politics into subject matter and in doing so I cut off a lot of potential opportunities for myself. By assuming business law was exclusively conservative, and thinking that wasn't my political identity, I didn't really give business law a serious look. Who knows, maybe I would have liked it. I don't regret where I am, but looking back I wish I had kept an open mind. If you're interested in criminal law or family law, don't assume you won't "fit" because those are traditionally left leaning subjects. That's bullshit and I wish I'd figured that out before law school. Hope this helps, anyway. A lot of your concerns are largely self-imposed illusions. Others will share those illusions. Try to move past them as quickly as you can.
This leaderboard is set to Toronto/GMT-05:00

×