rziegler

Members
  • Content count

    121
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

85 Decent People

About rziegler

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

638 profile views
  1. As I understand it, elder law isn't really a distinct area of law so much as an umbrella term for different areas of law as they relate to the interests of elderly people. What MP is getting at, I think, is that "elder law" is not an independent set of legal doctrines that you learn and apply and then practice. Rather, it's a lens through which you apply legal doctrines from other areas. You'd want to have a sound understanding of areas like tax, estate planning, trusts, wills, etc. Notice that these are their own areas of law. If your elderly client is being discriminated against for his/her age by a prospective landlord, you have a landlord/tenancy and human rights issue centring on ageism. Generally, certain legal issues are going to come up more often for elderly people because elderly people as a broad demographic have their own sets of legal needs and concerns. That doesn't mean there's a singular area of law called elder law--it's sort of the tag applied to elderly peoples' general legal concerns, which are manifold. Certain firms consider elder law to be a subset of estate planning. Others see it as a kind of general practice that's directed at the elderly. Just generally saying you want to practice elder law sorta means you want your clients to be elderly people, which is vague. Wealthy elderly people are going to have pretty different concerns from financially disadvantaged elderly people; healthy elderly people are going to have different legal needs than sick elderly people. In any event, there have been discussions at MB of raising tuitions fees although I don't know by how much or if or when that would take place. Otherwise, I'd echo MP's comments on waiting to hear back.
  2. I believe you. That's brand new--questions about registration would be best directed at the admin in this instance.
  3. The admin will register you--you won't have a chance to select your profs in first year. PMd re: profs
  4. Calgary's proximity to the mountains is incomparable. If you're someone who loves outdoor activities, or think that you could be someone who loves outdoor activities, IMHO no other "large"-ish Canadian city can compete with Calgary. If you have access to a car, it'll take you 45 minutes to an hour and a half to reach world-class hiking. As for the rest of the city, I don't think Calgary's too too different from Edmonton. There are pockets of Edmonton that have a cool sort of gritty urban feel to them; Calgary has basically no sidewalk/cafe culture--the "hip" neighbourhoods in Calgary (Kensington, really) have some neat stores but feel artificial compared to, say, Edmonton's White Ave IMHO.
  5. Consensus here is that both routes presented are last resort. You will spend less money and suffer less grief retaking the LSAT and taking a year's worth of courses. The latter option may not be necessary though. Determine what your L2/B2 GPA is. Research which schools look at your L2/B2 GPA. Gauge your chances from there.
  6. Manhattan, 7sage, and LSAT Hack
  7. I'm in a similar position as you (1L interested in crim except in Western Canada). I have found these threads generally useful as informative starting points, and big picture guides: http://lawstudents.ca/forums/topic/45291-ocis-with-criminal-law-interest/#entry611938 http://lawstudents.ca/forums/topic/39352-cold-contacting-for-articles-best-method/
  8. LPP

    I don't want to derail this thread too much nor do I want to step on any toes. As a first year law student, I have heard in just a month quite a few statements to this effect made by other first years. I think part of this mentality stems from the perception that articling positions are merely prizes and opportunities to be fought over with other law students. Now, I don't think that this perception is entirely false. But when articling is framed primarily as a prize to be won, the purpose of articling or clerking or whatever experiential training, and who it's meant to benefit (not just you, but also the profession and the public) gets lost in the frantic scrum to obtain scarce positions. I mean, even the language used by some law students to talk about articling suggests that articling is only something you get and not something you do for a broader purpose outside of just you. And when articling is seen mostly as a prize to obtain, I think for w/e reasons it's easier to question its necessity in the process of becoming a practicing lawyer. Just my unsolicited two cents...
  9. http://www.umanitoba.ca/admissions/media/law_bulletin.pdf
  10. Exercise some discretion when posting?
  11. At least at my school, Manitoba Justice has conducted OCIs in the past. I'm not sure if they do this every year. Obviously not a firm per se, but at least an entity concerned with the practice of criminal law. Also, yeah, the government of Alberta has a summer law student program for first- and second-year students that's divided up between civil and criminal law "teams" (https://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/employment/Pages/Summerlawstudentprograms.aspx). I haven't really looked too closely at what other jurisdictions offer (if anything), but I suspect that this program is a bit unusual. (Obviously not really the purpose of your post Yoggy B, but thought it may be of interest to others passing through the thread.)
  12. When you pull up a seat at the adult table, people expect what you're saying to be mostly sincere, and will treat you accordingly until they know (you) better. I feel like there's a weird disconnect between your original question and the quoted post about your tendencies. If you only do stuff that you're interested in and can commit to, why canvas strangers on the Internet for their opinions on the "importance" of clinical experience(s) for scoring, well, more experience (possibly incidental to what it is you'd be doing right now)? When someone says something such as "I only do stuff I am interested in and can commit to", it's strongly implied in most instances that that "stuff" possesses inherent qualities attractive to that person, rather than merely instrumental benefits for getting you to the next step (i.e. 2L OCIs, summer work, etc.). For example, If I said I were interested in dating a particular girl, most regular people would think I'm interested in dating her because of something to do with her, and not because dating her could be a step towards dating someone else (yes, I understand that many people do do that, but that's really neither here nor there in this instance). If, in fact, you are interested and can commit to either a specific volunteer position or a volunteer position in general, and you only do stuff you're interested in and can commit to, then why haven't you simply just committed? Of course, judging by your last thread, what you're interested in and can commit to is the pursuit of prestige. Except you also said above in no uncertain terms that your last thread was mostly trolling and that we shouldn't take what you in that thread said very seriously. So, what the hell do you actually want? Obviously, a fair amount of law school is hedging for the future and structuring your ECs and studies around your goals--that isn't the same as gaming the system to achieve those goals though.
  13. This. Look, this is going to sound harsh but virtually none of the above advice, including mine, will really mean shit until you change the constant in this equation: you. Poor grades, "not wanting it enough", or insufficient understanding of the material are not the fundamental issues; you are. You can resolve internally to dedicate yourself to the above advice, but it may not mean anything until a material change in your constitution. And here's the really frustrating part: I cannot prescribe a course of action for that sort of deep personal change. Strangers on the Internet generally cannot. Again, good luck OP.
  14. Or, instead of simply pursuing good grades or acceptance to law school, you could focus your efforts on actually understanding (ideally mastering) the material before you, and then demonstrating sufficient understanding (or, again ideally, mastery) of the material. Because right now you're either unable or unwilling to do so. Until you can or are willing to take steps towards actually understanding your course work, good grades and acceptance to law school are probably not feasible. Make an honest effort to actually understand the course material. Good grades may not follow, but drilling collateral goals into your head will not necessarily result in good grades either. Grades reflect performance, performance is determined by sound understanding of what you're doing, and understanding what you're doing requires an honest intention to know the material for its own sake. You don't have to forsake your goals. Your priority, however, should be taking concrete steps towards understanding your course work rather than simply trying to will your way forward. In any event, good luck OP.
  15. This sounds like a three part problem to me: 1) You are getting worn out, 2) you're insufficiently familiar with the material, and 3) you may not have the proper perspective for improving. 1) I have stated this in previous related threads, and I stand by it here: overstudying and burnout are real things to consider when prepping for the LSAT. You've been at it for four months already. By the time you write, you will have prepped for five months. You've already seen a significant jump from your diagnostic score to your current PT scores. You want to continue to push your upward trajectory AND you want to accomplish this in a month AND you'll be resuming school where presumably you'll want to obtain the best grades possible. Is it possible you might be spreading yourself a bit thin? All of this will take a toll on most people eventually. Perhaps you're not one of these people. If you aren't, then obviously disregard my thoughts and advice. If you are, then do yourself a favour and consider letting up for a little bit. You may not want to take a more aggressive approach; you may need something considerably less aggressive. Why? Because sometimes hitting a plateau means you're mentally worn down, and being mentally worn down is not the sort of condition you want to be in when you actually write the official test. A more involved approach may serve only in continuing to wear away whatever remaining patience and interest you've availed yourself of. Moreover, if you're already worn down, you may not improve or internalize the concepts, skills, and thought processes that the LSAT tests as effectively as you would if you were fresh. I mean seriously, you have improved from a point where you were basically guessing to a point where you're on the better side of the bell curve. I know that would wear me down... 2) So, there's that. There's also this: the difference between where you are now, and where you want to be is, in part, an issue of familiarity. You went from having virtually no grasp of the LSAT to possessing an above average degree of familiarity. And honestly, that's commendable assuming what you're telling us is true. Now you're wanting to move into an area where you need to hone and refine the thought processes the LSAT tests. This is where I agree with the above posters: practice more. Familiarity with question types and sections, and any resulting skill, will require additional practice. Practicing, however, takes energy and focus, and both are exhaustible. Fortunately, they are also renewable but only if you rest. 3) However, simply suggesting that you rest up, and practice are merely pieces of the puzzle. You need a meaningful baseline to improve from. I think to achieve that you need a material shift in perspective--perhaps something needs to shift fundamentally. Your starting point for improvement was the bottom 5th percentile. Your starting point now needs to be an LSAT score ranging from the mid-60s to mid-70s. IMO, you can't continue to use a leap from the 5th percentile as a yardstick for improvement (and, perhaps you're not). That was what you were fundamentally capable of; now you're fundamentally capable of something different. If possible, treat this improvement as discrete, and build on what you're fundamentally capable of now. Taking significant time off from the LSAT and resting can allow you to take a step back, which IMO gives you some time to meaningfully determine where you're at right now and how you need to improve. Take a week. Take a week and a half. Take two weeks. Taking time off doesn't equate to wasting time provided your time off can yield a net benefit. In any event, good luck OP.