Jump to content

FineCanadianFXs

Members
  • Content count

    369
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

FineCanadianFXs last won the day on August 29 2016

FineCanadianFXs had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

571 Good People

About FineCanadianFXs

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1083 profile views
  1. FineCanadianFXs

    Ask a 1L — 2018 Edition

    Agreed. Having participated as an O-week organizer and leader numerous times in law school, I emphasize that you can wear whatever you want to these events and nobody should feel pressured to buy new expensive clothes in order to meet what are ultimately unenforced and lax dress codes. Everyone is mostly concerned about making friends and having fun and not at all concerned about what you're wearing. To be clear, yes, if you show up to the dean's gala in ripped jeans and an old T-shirt, you'll look out of place and your colleagues may judge your decision to do that, as they would if you attended a friend's wedding in the same T-shirt and jeans. But nobody is going to boot you off the boat cruise for wearing black shorts with a white dress shirt or the aforementioned nice pants + body suit. The key part of the dress code is black and white. Wear whatever makes you feel good about yourself and are comfortable in.
  2. FineCanadianFXs

    Improving Your Application for Articling

    Uh, because I'm criticizing what I think is an unreasonable inference by employers? I'm pretty sure there's nothing wrong with recommending on one hand "don't go out at night, it's unsafe" but on the other hand investigating a problem with the unsafe streets. Not that this is analogous, but I think you can take my point that recommending while also being critical of the thing underlying the recommendation are two separate things.
  3. FineCanadianFXs

    Improving Your Application for Articling

    Nobody has or is continuing to dispute the risks of doing it as a candidate. We all agree.
  4. FineCanadianFXs

    Improving Your Application for Articling

    But what relevance does getting a job have to do with making a professional connection? Again: LinkedIn is not a tool whose use is reserved solely for people who work or have worked together. It is also not solely for personal, close relationships. It is essentially a digital rolodex with social networking features. By rejecting the apparently scandalous idea of accepting a connection from a candidate you may or may not hire, you're basically saying "I don't want this prospective person's professional resume in front of me, and I certainly don't want them to be able to contact me." Meanwhile, you're interviewing them for a position where you most definitely have their resume in front of you and where they most definitely can already contact you. Again: who cares? Why is that weird? I'd also add the forest-for-the-trees short-sightedness of refusing a candidate's request to connect when so much valuable additional information about their online behaviours and other connections can be gleaned from it.
  5. FineCanadianFXs

    Improving Your Application for Articling

    I've written multiple times now that candidates shouldn't do this. There's no point in focusing on the thing we agree on. We agree, because I agree that there are people out there who have sticks up their butts, all day long, every single day. The point I was making is that the people who are annoyed have sticks up their butts.
  6. FineCanadianFXs

    Improving Your Application for Articling

    That's some real first-world "harm" right there. Egad, receiving and having to respond to a push notification! I'm not particularly sympathetic about that as an annoyance. I get far more annoying spam from people I've already invited into my circles (and yes, I do draw adverse inferences from those, but a simple "add me" request is really not a big deal and I typically don't give it a second thought). I'm still so confused about this position though. Would you be even more annoyed if the candidate included that exact same thank you message in the content of the add-me-on-LinkedIn request as opposed to the email? What exactly is the difference? Clearly, you'll get a push notification for both the request and the standalone thank you email. Is it just that you don't like some lesser person intruding on your "professional network"? Are you entitled to some unspoken cone of privacy from mere candidates? I'm struggling to find a legitimate reason that an adverse inference should be drawn besides that some people "think it is weird". What exactly is the presumption you think they are making? That they are deserving of your connection? And if they aren't, is it such a strain on your lifeblood to simply reject the request? Also, it isn't a random vendor we're talking about, it's a prospective candidate who you contacted to interview for a position. I admit I'm also never jazzed about a stranger who works in a not-at-all peripheral trade spamming me to add them so they can sell me their services, but you can't really draw an analogy there. You and the candidate are clearly not strangers, and the candidate and your relationship is presumably related to your interviewing them. As in, there's no real threat of future spam from them, as there might be from a potential vendor.
  7. FineCanadianFXs

    Improving Your Application for Articling

    I don't really disagree, and stated that I don't encourage anyone to do it. My quibble was more with OP's position of drawing an adverse inference from it. As opposed to cologne/perfume, where an actual physical reaction results from the candidate's decision to wear it, there is literally zero harm to the employer by hitting "connect". Don't wanna connect with 'em on LinkedIn? Don't connect. There's no real reason to also believe that person is a weirdo for making the request.
  8. FineCanadianFXs

    Improving Your Application for Articling

    Just as a caveat, I agree with most of your advice--it's great and such a welcome contribution to this site. I only have one quibble. While I wouldn't say an applicant should connect on LinkedIn, I actually don't see any harm or weirdness in it. LinkedIn isn't a social media buddy network. It isn't strictly for coworkers either. So I don't know why a candidate has to wait and see if they get hired to make the connection. It's a networking tool. Candidates probably use it to creep you as much as you do them. By the interview stage, you probably know each other as well or better than a good chunk of people who've just randomly added me to their network. Who cares? Also, as opposed to pretty much every other social tool, LinkedIn seems to be one where being freewheeling with accepting connections has little detrimental effect (except of course when you're a woman and the people you accept are ill-behaved types that solicit dates over LinkedIn--though this has happened to me too and I'm a dude. Some people are just unwise). Besides, you can always remove and/or block people who misuse the app. It is really a trivial matter to allow the connection. Frankly, you could see it as eagerness; your interviewee is probably just trying to get intel about your practice, where you went to school, and maybe anything else you might have in common before the interview. Your privacy settings might make it difficult for them, so actually connecting as opposed to mere browsing could be the only way they can access that information. Connecting with a prospective employer on any other social media, however, is pretty weird. Definitely, nobody should ever do that barring some good reason to.
  9. FineCanadianFXs

    Interests Section

    Agree with most of the above, particularly about specifying your interests into niche categories. Seems trite to say, but the best way to not being a basic bitch is by not being basic. Using baking as an example, sure that is basic and ubiquitous. We all bake; throwing a DiGiorno in the oven is baking. But if you're a hobbyist macaron- or soufflé-maker then put that. Similarly with running, instead of just typing "running" like pretty much every able-legged person, put "competitive marathonist" if that's what you do (and if all you do is actually just run sometimes, then leave it off. It's boring.) The more niche your interests, the more likely it will come up in the interview. Like movies? Who cares. Like early French film noir? Hmm, interesting (though note that you don't want to come off as too snobby or precious). Like video games? Lame. Into retro side-scrolling shooter video games? Much better. Play Baseball? What position. Write poetry? What kind. Play music? Snore. What instrument? What kind of music do you play on it? Now, whether you should be including those specific interests is another question entirely. For example, you may not want to disclose video game passion or that you're a reality show enthusiast if you're applying somewhere that skews a bit older. Know your audience. But certainly, I'd recommend that the more generic your interests are, the more it is not worth the resume space.
  10. FineCanadianFXs

    Suits For Men

    Try Simons
  11. FineCanadianFXs

    Re-Writing One Bar Exam and Articling (Ontario)

    Pretty sure I clarified this explicitly in my post that OP shouldn't volunteer this information to every partner at their firm--see my last paragraph. Well, I don't have any evidence on the other end either. So I have no basis to say that it will be seen negatively. Admittedly, my position come from an anecdotally small sample size. So is there a possibility out there that someone in a hiring position thinks "well we can't have someone who failed the bar exam working here"? Sure. And that person could be at OP or anyone else's firm. So should OP, at work, air on the safe side of not going door-to-door telling the partners to tell their friends? Yes, I think we agree on that (see above, I did address this though it could have been clearer) and I see that you were addressing OP's specific concern about how to communicate it at work. But since it sounds like everyone agrees here that the stigma is unjustified, I think it's important to have the de-stigmatizing reminder that nobody should feel any shame or the need to go it alone. Further to that, I think the people likely to understand the most are those who've actually written the dang thing, which is why I think anyone seeking support shouldn't rule out trustworthy colleagues and contemporaries.
  12. FineCanadianFXs

    Re-Writing One Bar Exam and Articling (Ontario)

    If what you mean is that OP shouldn't bring it up to anyone at all but the principal, I'm not sure this is good advice. Suffering alone is not usually a great approach to anything. Most of those I knew who passed both exams--even people I thought were brilliant--felt unsure after writing that they passed, and were thankful that they did. I knew nobody who thought that it was a breeze, that they never had a doubt, and that only the weak and dumb fail. I certainly didn't think any of those things and I think pret-tay highly of myself and was extremely prepared for the exams. The reason that matters is that I think most reasonable people who passed the bar know that it could have been them who failed and are sympathetic to those who do. Personally, I would have jumped at the opportunity to help colleagues and friends who reached out to me saying that they had to write it again and would love help with their second try. At the least, I certainly would have offered my support, positive vibes, and reassurance that their performance on these exams wasn't any indication of their competence as a lawyer. Yet nobody spoke up. Not to me or anyone I knew, which was surprising. I mean, statistically speaking, surely someone I knew probably indeed failed. Certainly, it seems clear to me that the reason people don't speak up (save for anonymously on this board) is because of the stigma, but I'm not sure that stigma is justified. Like I said above: I don't think anybody thinks less of any candidate who fails, I think the typical response is "shoot, that sucks having to write again is a nuisance". And it is a nuisance, but people shouldn't feel bad about themselves on top of it. I think that compounds the pressure to succeed on the next attempt. Anyway, my overall point is that if, @epeeist, your advice to OP is to *shh* about failing the exam (and I could be wrong), that seems to imply a correlated shame. I think that's misguided advice. Sure, it might not be advisable to announce their result from a rooftop with a megaphone or send a mass-email blast to everyone at their firm, but I don't see why they shouldn't bring it up to colleagues or friends to maximize their support network and seek help and reassurance. I think they're likely to get it, unless they're surrounded by assholes. As @Deadpool notes, I think it's better to treat it as the not big deal it is, which includes not being cagey about it.
  13. FineCanadianFXs

    What do you study to get the most out of your study time?

    People throw the terms around, they get mixed up fairly easily. For me, "Notes" are notes. If I take notes, I call them notes. Class notes are notes, reading notes are notes, and the combination of the two is notes. I usually brought a full printout of my combined and edited notes into the exam. I almost never consulted them; maybe once or twice over 3 years. Meanwhile, a summary is a summary of a particular legal area, and it is a designed document which aims to succinctly and clearly summarize and graph that area in a way that can be easily utilized during an exam. Some students call them outlines or CANs. These are the primary tools you consult and use to answer exam questions.
  14. FineCanadianFXs

    What do you study to get the most out of your study time?

    I personally found the pressure to read every word and attend every lecture was detrimental to my study efficiency in 1L. My grades skyrocketed when I found more efficient ways to distill and summarize the information I needed to succeed on exams. I emphasize, however, that I started by reading every word. So, it is possible that starting with everything gave me the perspective needed to develop better habits. In the end, I still knew every case and principle I needed to know to succeed on the exam, I just went about it differently. You can't skip stuff your professor assigned. But I don't think every single word in every single case need be pored over. You need to learn how to digest the essence of the readings which means you probably need to start by reading everything and figure out from there how to become more efficient. Every student is different as @pzabbythesecond aptly notes. In any case, besides readings, four things I always advocate which I think are useful for any law student: Make your own summaries. Use someone else's as a template by all means, but populate it yourself. Do a practice exam. The only way you could possibly know how to design an effective summary is to do practice exams. Summarizing material for 100% exams without knowing what questions will be on the exams is a complete waste of time in my view. Design your summaries to follow the format of the exam. The whole point of your summary is as a tool to help you answer exam questions! For it to be effective, it should be easy to follow and find information, and it should direct your engagement with the questions while providing you the content to quickly answer those questions. Do more practice exams. This is how you improve your existing summary and realize what you need to add or subtract or what design flaws you notice and need to fix.
  15. FineCanadianFXs

    Attire for 'coffee chat' style meetings

    You're meeting people who may be coming from work and will likely be in a suit. It's nice to reciprocate. I usually dress all the way up when I'm meeting someone for networking purposes, even when I'm not working, just to be safe. But also because I'm a lawyer, and that's the uniform. But you're still a student and you shouldn't feel pressured to suit and tie up before you really have to, especially in summer Toronto right now. Its hot AF and looking sweaty and uncomfortable is also not great. So don't; Business casual is fine. No: jeans, shorts, tees, joggers, runners, polos, etc. Yes: Dress, Chino, or Khaki pants with a tucked-in collared and button-up shirt (either short sleeve or not), and belt with decent shoes. Better safe than sorry. Personally though, I wouldn't judge a law student negatively who wore shorts--provided they looked overall respectable as opposed to slobbish or heading to a volleyball tournament later--during their summer break to meet me for coffee and find out about wherever I work. Who cares! But there are those who do and you don't want it affecting your prospects. Look profesh.
×