Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

526 Good People

1 Follower

About realpseudonym

  • Rank

  1. Laptop recommendations for law school?

    My Macbook stopped working in the middle of second-year. I couldn't really justify paying $1000.00+ for a new Mac, so I got a PC. I actually prefer it. With an SSD and 8 GB of RAM, it's faster than my Macbook was. Office never crashes on PC, while it crashed / froze a lot on my Macbook. And the PC was several hundred dollars cheaper than a Mac. Macs are great. But if you read the reviews and stuff, you can find pretty a good value PC these days.
  2. In fairness, I'm pretty sure that Hedgis only spliced this thread to give us a place to punch each other in the face, while other people talk about things that matter. And if you click on something entitled, " Undergraduate Programs: mine is harder than yours: The Great Debate," then well, I think you got your money's worth. I'm not really sure what you were expecting here. I agree that we manage to turn uncontroversial topics into lengthy debates (there's irrefutable evidence of that). And I think that you've probably given a solid characterization of this thread (albeit one that was pretty thoroughly articulated by Hoju). But dismissing a bunch of views across several different topics as "being offended" is Trump-age bullshit. If you disagree with something, say why. If you think something is irrelevant, ignore it. Or don't. But if you need to belittle your opponents to make your case, then I refer you to Bob's comment above. TL;DR: I'm offended.
  3. The article also says, “if you are young, smart, and interested in politics, think very hard before studying PPE … It actually causes huge problems as it encourages people like Cameron and Ed Balls to … spread bad ideas with lots of confidence and bluffing,” that the program leads to centrism and statism, and that the students are good at “flitting” from one thing to the next. It basically characterizes PPE as training ground for charismatic charlatans. And considering that the article compares it to US style BAs, I’m not sure it supports a conclusion about achievement in the arts, so much as a finding that English society is predicated on Elitist norms.
  4. Math is hard. I think reasonable people should be able to agree on that without feeling threatened or inadequate.
  5. And I wasn't as drunk as you'd expect, when I contributed that.
  6. 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.
  7. Please Advise Me! (STEM to LAW)

    http://lawstudents.ca/forums/topic/37845-is-the-difficulty-of-an-applicants-undergraduate-program-an-important-factor/ http://lawstudents.ca/forums/topic/9346-easy-majors/ http://lawstudents.ca/forums/topic/14715-law-schools-unfair/ http://lawstudents.ca/forums/topic/31531-do-law-schools-consider-the-strength-of-the-undergraduate-program-from-which-you-came/?page=2 http://lawstudents.ca/forums/topic/31107-do-law-schools-consider-the-difficulty-of-programs Anybody want to debate whether med school vs law school? Law school rankings?
  8. Should I give up?

    Maybe you could have a word with the Jays' pitching coach, when you get a chance.
  9. Should I give up?

    Welcome to the forum lol. Lawstudents.ca: passionately debating hot topics such as "J.D. Candidate in Signature - Appropriate or Anathema?" across multiple threads since ???? (I don't know when the site started).
  10. I've already refused the interview. But I did think about that. My feeling was that I've changed my mind and decided against this particular position. So in my mind, continuing onwards in the application process would have been in bad faith - if I have no intention of taking the job, then interviewing for the position felt disingenuous. I felt it best to refuse the interview. Maybe that is overthinking, but that was how I thought about it. As to my reasons for not wanting the job, I get that I should be pretty open to any position by now. However, even if I could withstand or recover from any potential reputational damage, my reservations were about performing the actual work. I didn't want to get "pulled under," as MP put it. That might not happen - I think I would be pretty diligent about identifying and refusing to do anything obviously unethical. And I don't have a history as a pushover. Notwithstanding what I just said, I'm kinda just uncomfortable with working there at all. First, I don't want to abet any shady behaviour by doing grunt work that supports it. Second, I don't want to start picking up bad habits from the lawyers around me (and when they're supposed to be training/supervising you, I assume I'll absorb some stuff). Third, staying clear of the problematic stuff sounds tricky during articling. My sense is that articling clerks are at a relative power imbalance vis-a-vis principals. I won't be protected by employment standards. I have obligations to the bar society in general and around the completion of the experiential component of the licensing process. Withdrawal requires notice, etc. So I don't have the ability to quit with the normal two weeks if things aren't working out, because I'm seen as "difficult" or something after disregarding the lawyer's instructions and advice. I don't know. I was worried that would complicate the role. Also, I might end up without references. Those are my reasons for not wanting this job. Maybe I should've prioritized getting paid articles, but that was my logic at the time. It's still interesting to hear opinions on the issue, though - who knows, maybe I'll be thinking about the same things after a future application (I'm not a perfect candidate, so I assume that I'll probably be considered by imperfect lawyers).
  11. Disclosure of Health Issues

    If it's this form (at the end), then the question is: Nova Scotia has a similar form.
  12. Hi friends. I was offered an interview with a lawyer, who had some issues with his/her friendly neighborhood bar society. Like, public issues. You'd know him/her by name. I'm turning the interview down. While I'd obviously like a paid articling position, I don't think this job would be worth the possible reputational damage. And this lawyer may still engage in some practices that I just wouldn't be comfortable with. I probably wouldn't get through the articling period. Honestly, I shouldn't have sent an application in. But, y'know. It's late. And I want to work. But here's my question: how much does an articling principal's reputation affect an articling student's reputation? If you're hiring a first/second-year associate, and an applicant articled under a lawyer that you just couldn't respect, how much would that affect your opinion of that candidate?
  13. Autism and law school: should I not bother?

    I wasn't really thinking about assessing for credibility. More determining whether what you're saying is resonating with your audience. But either way, I think your point is probably right.
  14. Yeah, I'm not a lawyer, not established in anything, and not particularly well-known. But being able to say no is already an important skill, and not something I do particularly well. It's often tempting to agree to requests for help: "someone sought me out and thought I'd be good at something? Wow! I don't want to disappoint them!" But then you're strapped for time and have to actually do the work you promised to do. And that can suck - especially when you have other more pressing and interesting commitments. So I agree with not joining just because you're asked.
  15. Autism and law school: should I not bother?

    Not a litigator, (not a lawyer at all, yet - the above advice is probably more insightful than mine). But I agree that litigation would be tough. I think if you struggle to read verbal cues, then client meetings, negotiations, and hearings would be tough. When you're trying to persuade, you want to discern how your audience is responding and tailor your arguments appropriately. That's not to say you have to be super charming. But if you've often struggled to say the right thing, well, those perception problems could be magnified in the context of an adversarial, relationship driven role. That said, I've met law students and lawyers who are probably on the spectrum. They've gotten jobs and will likely do good work, but maybe not in a client-facing capacity. As other posters have said, they've probably brought other technical abilities to employers, and have worked to improve their social skills.