Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 05/20/18 in all areas

  1. 14 points
    One of the smartest people that I know had a poli sci degree. My gold medalist had an english lit degree. Anecdotal evidence is just that. Not sure why people think gender studies is an easy field. Y'all ever read Judith Butler? Haraway? It's fairly inaccessible.
  2. 14 points
    The problem is that there is a fine line between "Lawstudents.ca is an anonymous forum, be cautious about what you read there" and "Don't bother with Lawstudents.ca, the posters are full of shit." One of the assets of this forum is that there usually is someone with relevant personal experience who can give qualified advice. But that asset is useless if it's lost in a sea of rumour and supposition, however well-intentioned. So I think it would be much better if, when people give advice not based in direct personal experience or observation, they noted where they're coming from. I get the temptation to give 'good advice' regardless of where one stands. I've abandoned a lot of half-drafted posts giving advice to people about legal careers in the private sector, because that's just not my lane. Sometimes it feels like a bit of a bummer. But almost always, someone else comes in afterward and gives much better advice, so I promise it works out more often than not.
  3. 13 points
    Yeah, I’m going to totally disagree that money shouldn’t be a strong driver of decision making for most people. If you have a passion and a lot of talent and plan to spend a huge majority of your waking life focused on career success then, yes, choosing something you’re passionate about is key and “the money will come.” But many people don’t have that talent and, even more importantly, many people don’t want work to be the central focus of their lives. You can make a lot of money in criminal law but very few people making a lot of money in criminal law are working a schedule I’d want. Marie Henien is making more money than I am, and her work is more interesting than mine, but that’s not a deal I’d ever take and I’m confident a lot of lawyers on here wouldn’t either. The truth about law is that there are practice areas where the money/lifestyle/ interest nexus for people who are not former gold medalists working 70 hour weeks for eternity is just, on average, better than others and you’re doing a disservice to yourself to ignore that. As a small example, I would say that litigators are on average more passionate and intellectually interested in their work than corporate lawyers. I would also say that I know more people who regret going into litigation than corporate law because several years out of law school when people decide the they don’t want to work 70 hour weeks anymore/don’t make partner, it’s much easier to land a 45 hour per week job making a few hundred thousand dollars per year from a corporate background than a litigation background. A life of having your nights and weekends off and spending time with your kids and still providing them a good life is something a lot of people are “passionate” about. Anyway, cue a whole bunch of “but I know a litigator who got a job making a million dollars for 30 hour weeks” and “but I just hate solicitor work too much” and “I work 90 hour weeks and my kids wouldn’t have it any other way” and “this doesn’t apply to me because I don’t care about money at all” and so on. I’m not here to tell you what to do with your life and yes obviously you should not do something you truly hate and if you’re truly passionate about something (stifles laughter about being truly passionate about a legal job) you should do it and you can still be Marie Henien and a good mom at the same time and if you don’t care about money good for you, but most law students and lawyers live in a world that’s a little more in between than that. In the world of in between, money is a thing.
  4. 10 points
    I know what you were going for, but I still had a chuckle.
  5. 10 points
    I had to memorize the appearances, artists, titles, dates, and relevant facts of 144 works of art for a midterm in undergrad once. I think the final required around 120 artworks. Fight me, STEM students.
  6. 10 points
    Forget all y’all, mine is longer and harder than anyone’s... What, we’re talking about undergrad programs instead of penises? You sure? Sure feels like of a dick measuring contest.
  7. 10 points
    Accepted off the waitlist today! LSAT: 152 (Sept), 157 (Feb) CGPA: 3.6 Lots of EC, 2 letters of reference (one from a prof and one from a lawyer I work for) Super excited & will be accepting!
  8. 10 points
    After previously accepting the offer, I have rescinded my acceptance and forfeited my seat. I hope it goes to someone who has been waiting anxiously! Best of luck to all.
  9. 9 points
    The Law Society's mandate to approve schools includes protection of the public, which extends to considering equal access to the profession, reputation of the profession, promoting diversity, removing obstacles to the profession, etc. A more diverse bar is a more competent one. The way it chooses to fulfil that mandate is entitled to deference on review, as in Law Society of Manitoba v. Green. The Law Society's decision is reasonable given the equality concerns. It was entitled to consider TWU's admission requirements and is not usurping the human rights tribunal to do so. The covenant is discriminatory and would do harm to LGBTQ people. The Law Society's statute allowed it to hold a referendum whether or not the Charter was implicated. It did not have to give reasons for the vote as the debate was clear from the record. The elected representatives were fulfilling their duty. Religious freedom is engaged by this discussion - evangelical Christians feel strongly that studying in a Christian environment with the Covenant is an important part of their spiritual growth. This belief was interfered with by the Law Society. The interference is proportionate and justified because the limitation on religious freedom is not significant - it had to do specifically with the Covenant and TWU refused to compromise on that. The denial is only to a proposal for accreditation from TWU with a mandatory covenant. Graduates are not prohibited from practicing in BC and evangelicals are not prohibited from signing the covenant or associating with those who do if they so choose. A mandatory covenant is not required to study law in a Christian environment [I have to say, this was my point, so I like feeling vindicated here!] Prospective TWU law students prefer but do not find it necessary to study at TWU. They have much less at stake than in other religious freedom cases ie. Hutterian Brethren. On the other side, the decision not to approve TWU significantly advanced the law society's objectives. Having 60 seats at TWU law effectively closed to LGBTQ applicants is a severe consequence that violates their dignity and could cause them significant harm. The religious practice impacts others and so has to be balanced. Minor limits on religious freedom may be necessary in a diverse society. TWU people are free to practice their religion but not to impose it on others. CJ basically agrees but doesn't like the use of the word reasonable for an outcome implicating the Charter since denying Charter rights will always be unreasonable, says the focus in admin decisions involving the Charter should be proportionality, says freedom of association and expression are also engaged but rejects TWU's s.15 claim as there is no stereotyping or prejudice in the LSBC's decision - it was made to ensure equality. She disagrees the impact on TWU is minor - she also disagrees with the majority and says people who choose to attend are not compelled to sign the covenant as they are there voluntarily. She disagrees with the LSBC that there will be much impact on the availability of law school seats. Their best argument is the refusal to condone discrimination. TWU's insistence on the covenant is discriminatory towards LGBTQ people. She compares this to TWU 2001 and the role of the teachers' society to protect against discrimination. The law society decision was proportionate and reasonable on this basis. Rowe: It was within the law society's mandate to consider this issue due to its role in preventing discrimination, but there is no Charter infringement, so use the usual principles of judicial review and not Dore/Loyola. Charter values have no place in administrative decision making but Charter rights do. Charter values should not be used on a stand-alone basis. They are too vague/subjective. If an administrative body violates Charter rights, we need to go to s.1. Infringement and justification must be kept separate. [I very much agree with this.] Dore/Loyola do not speak to where the burden lies when addressing Charter issues. He acknowledges Dore/Loyola are binding, but we need clarity. This is not a religious freedom issue because an institution cannot possess the individual personal volition that religious believers have and they cannot extend beyond those of the individual claimants, notwithstanding that there is a communal aspect to religion [I also agree.] The individual claimants are free to disagree with homosexual sex. This belief does not require them to have a mandatory covenant. However the majority considered this in the context of whether there was an infringement and it should be considered at the stage of sincerity of the belief [agree also and said this] and despite his seeming to have doubts on this point, he accepts that it is sincere. However, religious beliefs are a shield from interference with personal belief and cannot be used as a sword to coerce others [super, super agree!] Faith communities trying to impose adherence to their beliefs falls outside of freedom of religion and is not protected [love this!] TWU did not provide enough on freedom of expression or equality rights to find a breach, so no Charter. Had there been a Charter breach it would have been wrong for LSBC to proceed by referendum as Charter rights should not be subject to the tyranny of the majority - what @Jaggers said and I agree. The law society procedure used and decision not to accredit is reasonable to fulfil its mandate. Dissent: TWU is not subject to the Charter or human rights law as a private denominational uni. The regulator interfered with its autonomy and limited access to the profession on religious grounds. LSBC should only have considered fitness of graduates. Considering Charter issues is beyond its mandate. It cannot regulate law schools. The majority has wrongly broadened LSBC's mandate. The benchers also fettered their discretion by having a referendum without transparently engaging in the exercise of balancing Charter rights and adopting the results without further discussion. They abdicated their responsibility by holding a vote. Dore allows statutory objectives to trump Charter rights when it should be the other way around. They agree with Rowe and CJ re: Charter values not receiving independent protection as opposed to Charter rights. Equality is too vague a claim. Using it allows the majority to avoid making its decision explicit. Despite CJ and Rowe's reasons the majority has refused to clarify Dore. Dore should be like Oakes with a specific justification framework. LSBC decision infringes religious freedom. Rowe is too narrow - it is the religious essence of an activity and not whether it is mandatory that should be protected. The Covenant is important and the infringement was severe. It takes away TWU's right to decide its character and how it is run. Accrediting TWU promotes religious diversity which is in the public interest. The LSBC decision is unreasonable because it does not accord with its goal of promoting diversity, tolerance etc. The state is bound to foster pluralism but private institutions are not. The state should be neutral, accommodate difference, and not impose secularism as LSBC has done. Having a diversity of religious views is in the public interest and consistent with LSBC's mandate. The goal of protecting LGBTQ people is also unreasonable as they are not the only people affected by the covenant. The legislature already approved TWU and its covenant and beliefs so the state cannot now use them against the school.
  10. 9 points
    I don't want to debate the result, since that happened a lot, I just want to say that I feel vindicated that at least two justices saw things the way I saw them since I know it wasn't the popular viewpoint.
  11. 9 points
    Remember folks - always copy edit before submitting! For my last major temporary care and custody hearing factum, I was not certain that the Society had "thrustworthy" evidence. Good catch, artsydork.
  12. 9 points
    Seriously? The user name is Top10?
  13. 9 points
    Your grades are awful. You should probably rewrite the LSAT and just start all over. Sorry bud. Good luck!
  14. 9 points
    This is entirely union spin. All is says is that CUPE has issued as "series of proposals." "Fuck off and die" is a series of proposals. It doesn't mean they are actually moving into middle ground on any contentious issues. I support unions. I support collective bargaining. But without getting too much into labour theory, it's not just the militancy of the members that's the problem at York. The bargaining units of the Collective Agreement are broken. it's a badly designed structure. It's almost guaranteed to have problems for that reason. And as a proponent of labour, I find this utterly shameful on the part of the union. Rejecting all forms of mediation isn't a reasonable tactic. It never is. We live in a world in which some people are unreasonable, and because this is true there will always be times in which it's impossible for the parties themselves, without outside intervention, to come to an agreement. It only takes one unreasonable party to make that true. So for anyone to say "arbitration is wrong and should never happen" is just idiotic. As soon as someone says that, I know I've identified the idiot in the room. I support labour. I won't cross their picket line. But I'll stand on the edge of their picket line and tell them they are all a bunch of fucking idiots. And that they are grinding down the rights that brave men (and a few women) died for. Shit like this makes people hate unions. And it's never as easy to get press on all the good things that unions achieve.
  15. 8 points
    You did have to go to school to take the exam. There was no opting out of that. I should note that there were two solutions students could opt in to, with respect to the strike. The first was opting out of all academic activities until the strike ended. This means not going to class or taking exams, but to finish up once the "remediation period" begins. To my knowledge, this has not occurred yet, so the hardcore supporters, who decided to stand in solidarity with the union, have still not completed their academic term. This is a remedy that is required by York Senate, so anyone at York has this option, including Osgoode students. I actually don't know anyone who picked this, but I do believe some people did. The second option was the CR/NCR (or P/F as people colloquially call it), which I briefly explained above. Some people I know took that option. If you did select it, you still had to go to campus to take your exams, and you were still responsible for at least doing well enough in your courses not to fail. The purpose of it was to offset any major disadvantage you would receive due to the strike (not being able to go to class, professors changing delivery options, so on). This post and your previous one make it sound like the whole thing was a bit meh, but bear in mind that just because it didn't affect you, does not mean that it did not affect others substantially. For one, the lecture recordings at Osgoode are hit or miss generally, and notwithstanding the fact that all profs were required to record because of the strike, many did not (or did not successfully). This actually happened in two of my classes, where the profs just couldn't "figure out" the recording and never did it. It happens all the time, unfortunately, and it's as much of a culture thing as it is a problem with the tech from time to time. I always went to class, so it never affected me, but it did affect others. Second, not all courses are recorded even by virtue of the strike. For example, seminars are never recorded. If you couldn't make it, tough. Third, as I indicated above, some profs (mainly the practitioners) changed delivery formats because they didn't want to wait in picket lines for so long, so they moved the whole thing online. My prof did this and had problems with the online tech and thus it was a terrible experience generally. My understanding is this happened to many others, too, with other professors. Some profs opted to record themselves in lieu of a lecture and post that, which can be problematic to people who don't learn well just listening to audio. My point is, there are a ton of mitigating factors, so we shouldn't assume the strike caused such little inconvenience that there was hardly a need to take CR/NCR. Many people felt there was a need. Yes, some people who selected the option probably just wanted to because they didn't want to try hard enough to get good marks, but I think it's a mistake to pretend there was "no real need" to select it.
  16. 8 points
  17. 8 points
    While I agree with your general sentiment, that a law school at which you are on the dean's list admitted you with a 2.5 GPA, speaks well as to that specific admission's office predictive abilities, does it not?
  18. 8 points
    And he huffs, and he puffs and he blows the strawman down. Literally, no one here is suggesting the op can get in with a 144. They are suggesting that if he gets a better score, he can get in - (which is true and uncontested) and that it is possible (not likely, not certain, merely possible) to get a better score (ditto). Given that, you're probably not in a position to be questioning the ability to think of anyone here (other, perhaps, han yourself).
  19. 8 points
    How in the hell are you people still talking about this stupid shit? How much is there to say about it? I haven’t read most of this and I never will but isn’t the point on the one side that humblebragging about your grades when you know damn well they’re good makes you an insufferable tool and on the other side that if you’re not actually humblebragging but actually need feedback then the fact other people on a message board may be jealous/sad shouldn’t stop you because they’re grown people? Both of these points are correct and it’s pretty easy to tell when somebody is humblebragging/compliment seeking or whether they have a legit question. May god have mercy on all of your souls. Jesus Christ.
  20. 8 points
    OP, I've posted on the forum previously about my (non) hire-back experience, but I thought I could reiterate some points here. I was not hired back because the firm simply did not have a business case for taking me on in my chosen area of practice. I took it pretty hard at first because I loved the firm and I got on very well with most of the lawyers there. I really had my heart set on practicing there and was pretty upset when it didn't work out. After finding out the bad news I took a weekend to wallow - then I came up my comeback plan. First, I decided that I needed to leave the firm with a rock solid reputation. The Canadian bar is small (especially in IP) and you need to make sure your reputation is sparkling. I went back to work on the Monday and ensured that every task I had was completed to perfection. Second, I knocked on the doors of junior lawyers who were not hired back at their previous firms, but who landed at the firm I articled at. I asked them about strategies they had used to find the job. If anything it helped me to "buck-up". They also had a unique understanding of what I was going through and offered to do anything they could to help find me a firm that was hiring. Third, I knocked on the doors of partners who I had worked for and who I had gotten along very well with. I asked them if they would be open to providing me with reference letters for my future applications. Once they agreed I immediately came up with some sort of deadline for the letters. You want these before you leave the firm, otherwise they will be very difficult for you to get. I also asked partners if they would keep an ear out for me for positions. I actually had several calls put in for me this way and it lead to a couple of interviews for positions that were not posted. Fourth, I emailed everyone I knew who may have connections or leads on firms that were hiring. I had several colleagues who I had met during law school who were first or second year associates at various firms - these connections proved to be invaluable. They passed my name on to their colleagues and after about a week I had coffee set up with 4th or 5th year associates at many firms who ultimately asked if I would like them to pass on my CV to the partners at their firms. After two weeks I had several interviews lined up and a month later I had landed what I would consider my dream job on Bay street. All of that happened before I my articling term finished. Sit down, come up with a plan and work your contacts. It could take a month it could take six months but if you keep at it you will find something.
  21. 8 points
    You're never "stuck" on Bay Street, you can always get out. If you were a strong enough candidate to get hired by a good firm in the summer, you would likely be a competitive candidate in other areas - although, if you haven't taken the sorts of courses that people would expect to see in family or crim law practices, that might hamper you in the upcoming articling recruitment and that should shape your 3rd year course selection. Beyond that, litigation skills are generally pretty portable. I have a bunch of friends or acquaintances who articled or worked on Bay before going to work for the crown (both civil and criminal), small firms, etc. Just one caveat. While the Bay Street lifestyle can be a rough adjustment, be careful about assuming it's better on the other side of the street. Lots of family and criminal lawyers also work long hours (perhaps not Davies long, but long) and deal with stresses that big law folks don't need to deal with (family law in particular has a reputation for being soul destroying). All of which is to say, after a couple of weeks of summering, don't do anything rash.
  22. 8 points
    Posters should self-select. It sort of builds into the "same posters posting" - posters don't necessarily need to post, especially if they have no experience in relation to the matter. Especially when it really does not jive with what other posters are saying. Alternatively, they should explain where they are coming from so readers can give the opinion proper weight.
  23. 7 points
    Yes this is definitely a thing that happened and not at all a fictional pretext for axe-grinding
  24. 7 points
    I whole heartily didn't think I'd ever be posting here but here I am. Accepted yesterday. OLSAS cGPA 3.26 LSAT 153 Good LORs, okay ECs Applied under General and Special Considerations
  25. 7 points
    Just declined my offer in favour of Queen's. Hope this frees up a spot for a well deserving applicant. Good luck to all.
  26. 7 points
    Nothing wrong with wanting to make money - I heartily encourage it. But there are lots of different ways of doing it. You've got to find one you can live with. But don't do something you hate just because it pays well. Life is too short for that, and you won't do your family any good if you're miserable. Worse, you won't be any good at it.
  27. 7 points
    Top 10% at Windsor is pretty bad, but I'm sure there are some dustbag firms out there who will still consider you. They all need grist for the articling mill.
  28. 7 points
    Alright, a couple of observations. First, OK, it's a C+ average, which puts it towards the bottom of the curve. But you're not way outside the norm - you're not rocking a straight D average. You've got a couple of decent grades which at least show some capacity for legal thinking. First year law school is a rough adjustment for a lot of people, not just because all of sudden not everyone is top of the class, but because law entails a way of thinking that isn't necessarily intuitive for everyone and isn't necessarily something that they would have developed in undergrad. Similarly, there's a skill to writing law school exams, it comes easier to some than others. You didn't do great in 1L, but you can improve and do better next year. Second, yeah, you're probably not getting a 2L job on Bay Street. And? Let's face it, most law students don't end up on Bay Street, that's hardly the end of the world - 85-90% of your classmates aren't going to end up on Bay, so what? Moreover, it's not like that necessarily precludes you from biglaw forever. If you have a great 2nd year, maybe you're competitive for the articling recruitment. Even if you're not, go out and practice at a smaller firm for a few years and, if you acquit yourself well, no one's going to care how you did in law school when they're looking a potential lateral. Moreover, again, most lawyers don't end up on bay Street. Most end up working at smaller or medium sized firms, or as sole practitioners. Or in house, or working for government, or doing policy work. Heck, I know guys who make good living doing doc review or regulatory compliance work for accounting firms. Just because it's not glorious doesn't mean it's not a good job. And contrary to popular opinion, most of those lawyers don't end up eating cat food to survive, they make good money (not "fuck you" money, but more than enough to live a comfortable existence). Sounds like you've got a good gig this summer, make the most of that and see what comes out of it - a letter of reference from a judge to the effect that you're a lot smarter than you transcript looks would go a long way. Third, what do you want to do? We can give you a list of every possible legal job, but what are you interested in? Business law? Litigation? Criminal law? Foreclosing on widows? I mean "wanna make money" is great, but doing what?
  29. 7 points
    people pleaaaase keep this to the common law program- every time I see a new post my heart skips a beat..... too much anxiety at this point.
  30. 7 points
  31. 7 points
    There are also tiers of wildflower that are most likely to win the Daytona 500. Wild daffodils are first tier. Without a doubt, the six petals are underneath a trumpet-shaped corona combined with a status as the national flower of Wales (thanks Wikipedia). Fennel, red clover, poppies, and corn flowers are second tier. Buttercups and tansies are third. The rest are just fourth.
  32. 7 points
    I don't think that schools are transparent enough about their curves for this to be credible. Also, there is likely variation across the curves used by different faculties at some schools. I also have no idea where you got your rankings from. Even though I would definitely be against ranking by difficulty in the way that you have, I would certainly not have ranked them as you did. And I've actually taught at least 1 course at 3 of the schools on your list.
  33. 7 points
    Okay, enough of this shit. In this thread alone, we've heard from a 0L who believes that poor grades are easier to explain than a poor LSAT, and who has, not coincidentally, poor grades and a strong LSAT. We've also heard from another 0L who believes that upwards trends are most important, and that schools consider graduate degrees part of an upwards trend, and this 0L has weaker grades with an upwards trend and an MA. Does anyone see the fucking problem here? I tend to stay out of these discussions because I don't feel I have sufficient perspective to speak with any authority on admissions. But the thing is, very few people actually do have that authority. There are some people who actually participate now, or in the past, in admissions decisions. There are also some people who have made such a study of these things that they can rhyme off this school's policies vs. that other school's policies without effort. Everyone else is just fucking guessing. But at very least, the 0Ls on this site whose guesses are obviously and unavoidably bound up in what they themselves need to believe should shut the hell up. Seriously. You're embarrassing yourselves. And not because you aren't entitled to an opinion. But because if you can't see the way your own biases are affecting your views of what law schools look for (hey - they look for me!!!) then it betrays a lack of reasoning skills far more dramatic than any low LSAT score ever could. In my opinion - which is still just one observer's opinion, but at least not biased as all fuck - the OPs grades are not bad at all and will benefit from how law schools drop worst grades, look at best three, last two, etc. OP might want to do some research and consider which schools will look best at his grades, but considering how they all have methods of filtering out unrepresentative bad years and bad grades, I believe he can straighten out the grades situation. The two poor LSATs are the problem. If the OP really can't get above a 140s, he's probably screwed. If he can get score more into the "reasonable" end of things - not crazy high, but at least high 150's or more - he'll be a reasonable candidate for the less competitive law schools. Whether or not he's capable of improving his LSAT on a third attempt is not something I'll opine on. But I certainly don't consider it a ridiculous possibility. This is the Internet. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and if you make a reasonable amount of sense you'll be left alone to share it. But if you aren't even in law school yet, and you're sitting around in May still anxious about your own chances, you should really shut the hell up about everyone else. If you want to crap on other students and their aspirations to attend law school, and in a way that makes yourself feel better, go back to your fucking pre-law club. That's what it's for.
  34. 7 points
    Hey guys, I'm a current student at TRU Law and I promise there are at least 25 members in that 2021 facebook page that are FOR SURE students going into their 2nd year. Also, keep in mind that some students accept/ pay the deposit and join the facebook page but then circumstances change/ they get in somewhere else they'd rather go and they give up their spot. So don't stress too much about the number of members on that page. Ps I was admitted in August off the waitlist and I know some students in my year got acceptances right up until the week school started so you may be on the waitlist all summer but don't lose hope! Also don't make yourself sick worrying over this because it may last a while... good luck!!
  35. 7 points
    To be frank, if you're struggling with the ethics of a university not giving you an admission decision, you're going to be in helluva ride once you're a lawyer. Yes, it is absolutely ethical for the university to take their time. First, you're applying as a mature student banking on the holistic process. McGill isn't simply a numbers school that can run your stats into a program and say yay or nay - each file is reviewed by professors. Yes, actual law professors are reviewing your references, transcripts, CVs and letters of intent. And teaching. This takes time. Second, many students have already been accepted. They clearly have made decisions on a good portion of the class. Acceptances for outstanding regular applicants start in December and roll through Feb, with Cegepers in March/April. Generally, mature applicants are only given decisions around that time as well. Third, ageism? The average age was in their mid-20s, sure, but many of my colleagues were in their thirties as well. And we had a number of students with grey hair. And a few students with teenage children. On the flip side, why should mature students get their own category that is outside of access/regular? I personally like the idea of mature candidates as it takes into consideration their life experiences but hey, that takes time to evaluate. Look, I get that you're frustrated. Waiting bites. I certainly feel for you as you have the added stress given your situation with having to potentially move to Quebec City (Laval is an outstanding school!). You largely create your own situation with the lease. Get it renewed if you're waiting and lease transfer if you ultimately aren't accepted. Or move on. McGill does not owe you a decision simply because your life is inconvenienced. McGill is not being ageist or unethical in their decisions - they are still reviewing you and accommodating those unique aspects of your application.
  36. 7 points
    Accepted off the waitlist on Friday. 3.84 GPA, 156/152 LSAT. Solid extra curriculars: spent the last two years working at an immigration non-for-profit, and worked as a research assistant for a summer with a prof in undergrad. Already accepted and paid the deposit. Calgary is my first choice, so to say I'm pretty stoked would be an understatement!
  37. 7 points
    ..and the fifth couldn't do basic math... just kidding!
  38. 7 points
    I'vealways been curious as to what makes some people shit on others, The OP is just asking a question, clearly they worked their ass off and I'm impressed at how they rebounded in their last 2 years of their undergrad, their lsat is at the median for osgoode, I'm not saying they are a very strong applicant for osgoode ( but Defintley at last 2 schools and they can have a shot at quite a few law schools) but absolutely they should try for osgoode, and to put them down for attempting to reach their goals when all they did was ask a question is beyond me, there is one thing to help people face reality and I agree we should all build tough skins and be able to face reality, but there' another thing to just shit on people and their dreams, especially in the case when all they did was ask a pretty general question imo it was completely uncalled for to make statements saying it was a joke for them to even thinking of going to osgoode Once upon a time when I told everyone I was going to go back to high school ( at 22) after having dropped out, numerous people came up to me and said either I was gonna fail or I shouldn't even do it because it was worthless at that point for me because of my age Then I got into York and people came to me and said anyone could do it and it was because i took online courses my grades were inflated and I would drop out Then I went to utm and people said I could never cut it at st George Then I went to st George and came in the top of my cohort and people still had comments to say I'll be attending osgoode this September and people still have comments to make, I've always been curious as to what makes us put one another down, is it a lack of empathy? Our own insecurities? Us falling to the weaker part of being human? I'm sure there have been times in life where I fell to the weaker part of my mind and have engaged in similar behavior, we are all flawed and we make mistakes, and god know I've made more mistakes than most lol and I have done things I am not proud of more times than I can count But before we put people down THINK Engage in some empathy put yourself in that person shoes , I promise you one thing if you have not encountered failure yet ,one day in your life you most Defintley will if you live a live worth living , and you will find yourself in a situation where people could throw shade your way ie they could throw you down even further when you find yourself down Now not saying the OP is down rite now( in a decent position for many fine law schools ), but they came looking for general help, not asking to be ridiculed on applying to certain schools
  39. 6 points
    I was really hoping for a holding that law schools should all be closed because law school is stupid.
  40. 6 points
    More on the importance of doing a final proofread: today I learned that using the find and replace function in word to change ‘his’ to ‘its’ in the wording of a release results in multiple occurrences of the word ‘tits’ throughout the document. Damn program replaced the ‘his’ in the word ‘this’.
  41. 6 points
    Well, maybe because they have negotiated, round after round, to no result? It's surprising we can look at the same evidence and draw such completely different conclusions. You see the union desire to "negotiate" and you see that as them attempting to make progress. I suppose you could see that, if you genuinely believe that compromise from existing positions is possible without outside force. I see a union that has its position utterly set in stone, and believes it can sit on that position until management has no choice but to agree to its demands - however unreasonable. When the union calls for "negotiations" it doesn't envision compromise at all, on its end. But the last thing they want is any process that might compel resolution. And that's what arbitration would achieve. I suppose you're as entitled to your interpretation as I am to mine. But "we want to keep negotiating" is only a real path to resolution if both sides are committed to compromise. So you have to extend an assumption of good faith to the union before anything else you suggest makes sense. And I don't believe there's any sane basis to believe, with their history and public stance on record, that the union deserves that benefit of the doubt. You could say the same about management too. I'm not even sure you're wrong. But that's the beauty of binding arbitration. You don't need to believe everyone is acting in good faith. You just need to agree to let someone else step in and make a final decision. I can't agree it's management being unreasonable. They at least accept the intractability of the situation. It's the union that doesn't want this to end, on any terms other than their own.
  42. 6 points
    Ugh, I need to stop drunk posting. This was my second time in two weeks. I didn't mean to get in some pissing match about the hard life and career choices everyone has to make. I think everyone knows that no corporate lawyer is really "passionate" about their job and all I meant was that doesn't make it the wrong choice, and that law students should think about these things when making career decisions. Everyone has to find their balance. I wish some mod would kill this debacle of a side conversation, or at least move it out of a thread for a student who is trying to find a first job and not worried about achieving perfect life balance yet (but really just kill it). I feel like a huge asshole. To the OP: I would focus on figuring out how to approach law school exams before you make any significant career decisions. This means talking to your professors about your exams and how to write them differently. You can open a lot of doors for yourself with better grades in 2L and 3L. An upward trend is a very good thing to be able to point to when you're talking to employers, whether on Bay Street or elsewhere. Apply to OCIs this year (but don't put too much stock in it) and look to the articling recruit if it doesn't work out. You don't need to make any real decisions as a 1L -- wait until this time next year when more data/grades are in.
  43. 6 points
    The problem at York are two-fold. One, the union activists up there are just nuts. I have a good friend who was heavily involved in one of their strikes when he was a grad student up there, and to listen to him, you'd think he was toiling in some Dickensian sweatshop instead of, what he actually was, namely a fairly well paid grad student. That strike ended largely because the national union got fed up with the local draining the national strike fund and cut them off. And it's not jut CUPE, back in the 1990's when the full time faculty went on strike, I have it on good authority that you'd have people getting up at meetings raging about how "the man" was trying to oppress the working class, as if they were coal miners coughing up black mucous under 5000 feet of rock, instead of volvo-driving revolutionaries, making 6 figure salaries, living in the Annex, teaching 3 classes a year and otherwise left to their own devices to pursue their own interests. And as if their hefty salaries weren't largely paid for by tuition fees paid by their many working class students and not by "the man". Two, the contract faculty, at least, have a pretty valid complaint. I mean, I'm not typically sympathetic to public sector strikers, but these guysreally do get shafted relative to the full-time, tenured or tenure-track, faculty who get paid more, work less, have job security, have more benefits, etc. and who, often, are no more (or much less) accomplished then they are (being largely a generation when anyone with a PHD could get hired despite their manifest uselessness). Now, the solution to this is to pare back the benefits/perks of the full-time faculty to something that the university can actually afford and hire the contract profs as full-time faculty. But good luck getting the full-time faculty union to agree to that arrangement. So, instead we end up with this brokedick arrangement where, if you win the tenure-track lottery, you get a great job and if you don't, you toil away as the academic equivalent of an Uber driver, instead of compromising somewhere in the middle.
  44. 6 points
    To those who have already begun the application process or are existing clients, don't sweat it because the changes can still apply to you from what I can see. And don't expect anything gimmicky like free iPads or anything, it's more of material changes to the plan/accounts etc. We should have some official news on these changes by mid June from what I've heard.
  45. 6 points
    So, I have dealt with Anxiety. I have taken CBT. And one of the things that I found helpful was when my therapist and I discussed my “need” to sleep before a high stress day, like a trial. Even thinking I “need” to sleep was freaking me out. I was taking melatonin, trying to meditate, having a hot shower, not drinking, no caffeine, everything. I had my whole focus on YOU NEED TO SLEEP YOU HAVE TO SLEEP and I was losing my mind as the hours ticked by into 1am, 2am, 4am... I was exhausting myself. So this is what made me rethink that whole approach. The therapist said studies show that we are really quite excellent at compensating for lack of sleep. Your system kicks in with the adrenaline and that hollow stomach feeling and it feels awful. But get this - it feels awful but your output, your performance, is the same. The cost to you is that it is unpleasant physically. Your body is compensating for a lack so it doesn’t actually handicap you. Where you get all fucked up is if you let the sleeplessness get to you mentally. You psych yourself out. You become a self fulfilling prophecy - you think you’re spiralling, and so you do. Try not giving a flying fuck if you sleep or not. Have faith in your body to compensate. See if that helps. It really might.
  46. 6 points
    I don't disagree that some majors certainly require different skill sets. Math is challenging and requires practice and applying abstract theories to the problems. Some of the indicators that people have cited is the sheer amount of time spent. People may not realize how much time I spent in the darkroom, shooting on location, researching photos and art theories for shoots and the like. It was not unheard of for us to spend 15-20 hours per week for a single project. We tended to take 2-3 studio courses per semester, so generally 60ish hours devoted simply to our craft. I agree with Hoju in that some programs are quite challenging. That is not to say other programs are easy. Each require their own skill set. And that tends to be why people get up in arms - our respective programs certainly present some challenges. And we work hard for our grades so no one likes to be told that it was a basketweaving/bird course. People don't like to have their work undervalued. So... we can ho, we can hum, but at the end of the day, we're all awesome. Except Economics. Because it's depressing. Who cares about the economy? Just get a credit card. Duh.
  47. 6 points
    Yes. A close friend of mine got in with 144/149/160.
  48. 6 points
    Don't worry, I will throw some change at you as I cycle by on my rusty ten speed. You can get a sausage from the vendor!
  49. 6 points
    What bugs me about this trend is that it's like the top 10% or 5% posting. Not only are they skewing the perception of law school grades generally, but they may embarrass and discourage those with lower grades and real problems from posting. And, you know, make them feel badly about themselves. This is one of the most common (and legitimate) criticisms I hear about this site, which is unfortunate. There are already plenty of threads where people are posting middle of the line grades and responders' comments benchmarked where you would be if you received so and so grades. I have to believe that most of the high achievers would have read them already. Or they could have asked certain questions without posting their exact grades, which really does make it seem like they're just seeking external validation. It's not a good look on you guys. That being said, just because someone has a couple of As, they could still be justified posting if they're worried about one bad mark negatively impacting their transcript, for instance.
  50. 6 points
    I know people who were in that situation. I and others have acknowledged when someone seems to be a decent lawyer but articled for someone shady. We understand that sometimes it’s tough to get articles.
This leaderboard is set to Toronto/GMT-04:00