Jump to content

providence

Members
  • Content count

    3417
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    57

providence last won the day on October 14

providence had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2477 Good People

1 Follower

About providence

Recent Profile Visitors

1056 profile views
  1. First trial

    I don't go looking for their cases, but if I find one, or they're known for a decision on a particular issue, I'll use it and say "Now I know Your Honour knows/has previously found...."
  2. Same here.... I think that your last sentence is exactly why you wouldn't mention it though. Just re-write. Unlike with your grades, you get a clean slate.
  3. And it sends the impression that you think you're unique in paying for school with a part-time job in the school year and full-time summer job, when that is what most students do, including ones who do well on the LSAT. That's not a hardship or something exceptional or a mark of disadvantage.
  4. Plus, not that I agree generally with all the excuse-making people around here like to do, but an undergraduate degree spans 4 years, and so I can understand to a point how life circumstances can get in the way and make a person have a bad semester or year that pulls their GPA down and does not reflect their academic ability. If someone has an A average in first, third and fourth year and Ds in second year, I see how they want to say that the reason for the Ds was that they had a major health or family crisis that has been resolved and is unlikely to recur so that we can expect continuing good academic performance from them in the future and they are not going to relapse into chaos again during law school. But making excuses for a score on the LSAT, which is an aptitude test anyway, that happens on one particular day? Because you were, like most students, working part-time? How does a part-time job during the school year and a full-time job in the summer not leave you time to do a couple of practice tests? I worked 3 jobs at the time when I wrote the LSAT, besides being a single mother, and I legitimately wouldn't have had time to study for it had I known I was allowed to. I don't see how 1 job took up your entire evenings and weekends consistently. I think that this would be a very snowflake excuse.
  5. Oath versus affirmation discussion (spliced)

    I had one of those. Q: "So, you were eating when the fight started? What did you have to eat?" A: "Steak." Q: "So is there a reason you told the police you had cereal?" A: "I thought it would be better if I said that." Q: "You thought the police cared what you were eating?" A: "Yes." Q: "And you also thought it would be better if you told the police my client started the fight, didn't you?" A: "No, he did start it." Q: "Well, let's talk about that. You said it started at 10 am?" A: "Yes." Q: "That's a funny time to eat steak." A: "Well I worked the night shift so I was eating after work before I went to bed." Q: "You worked the night shift? The night before?" A: "Yes." Q: "But you told police you had just woken up and that you were unemployed and on disability at the time." A: "Well I guess I didn't want them to know I was working, but I was." Etc. etc. etc.
  6. Oath versus affirmation discussion (spliced)

    Yeah, I know that's why cops do it. I'm in favour of ditching oaths or affirmations and just having the judge tell every witness that they are expected to tell the truth and can be prosecuted if they don't, and then get on to the testimony.
  7. Oh I know... that was a real eye-opener for me! People saying they're going to put in 4-5 hours a day for months studying for the LSAT?
  8. I wouldn’t. I didn’t know you could even study for the LSAT. I sure didn’t as I was working and taking care of kids. I thought it was an aptitude test you don’t have to study for.
  9. Good Undergraduate degree for Law?

    I did say "most." Most of the people who took Poli Sci thought they would kill Con Law, and everyone else thought that too, but just because they knew how the legislative process works didn't mean they could do in-depth division of powers or Charter analysis. Maybe you could have done that without the Poli Sci degree, who knows? I didn't think Poli Sci went into depth in the actual case law. There was one really annoying person in law school who had been a page at the house of commons, worked and volunteered with politicians for years, and took honours Poli Sci and won the gold medal, who was bragging all year about how easy Con Law was for them. The person's friend who was also my friend told me in confidence that the person got a C in Con Law and was shocked.
  10. Oath versus affirmation discussion (spliced)

    If A) is true, there's nothing we can do about it since you're not allowed to inquire into peoples' beliefs and choice of how to be sworn. The point with B) is that people could just as easily lie under an oath that means nothing to them because they don't believe in the Bible, but they don't want to affirm because that means they are binding their own conscience with their word, which does mean something to them. That seems perfectly consistent to me. C) The relevance seems limited because I don't think that taking an oath with which you disagree is the kind of "lying" that we're talking about here. For the oath of allegiance to the Queen, lots of people say it's just about allegiance to the state, which is personified by the Queen, so the word "Queen" doesn't mean the little old white lady in London, so they don't see a conflict between not agreeing with a monarchy and taking the oath. So are they lying to themselves? Can we objectively say that's not what the oath means? If someone else thinks the oath is literally about the little old white lady in London and they don't agree with the monarchy so they affirm to get around it, how are they any more or less a liar? And if they are lying, they've now done it on their own conscience. How is it less of a lie because it wasn't on a Bible? And how does their own navel-gazing about how they interpret an oath have any impact on their willingness to tell the truth about other circumstances?
  11. Good Undergraduate degree for Law?

    Most of the students who took Criminology in undergrad thought they would have a leg-up in Criminal law classes, They didn't. Most of the students who took Poli Sci in undergrad thought they would have a leg-up in Constitutional law classes. They didn't. Most of the students who took Business in undergrad thought they would have a leg-up in Contracts classes. They didn't. People who took music, drama, engineering, philosophy, film, womens' studies etc. did better than them in those classes.
  12. Questions about Engineering + Law Combination

    That was my BF - he was always interested in law, but because a lot of his family members are lawyers, he wanted to prove himself at something else first or see if he could do something else based on his own merit - he was really good at Physics in high school and wanted to use it for a while. He liked engineering fine, but he didn't think it was intellectually challenging enough - it was more technical.
  13. Oath versus affirmation discussion (spliced)

    That would be a whole other post with all the reasons I believe they do it. For some, it is laziness. For others, tunnel vision that these are bad guys and who cares what happens to them. For others, complete distaste with and rejection of the principles followed by defence counsel. For some, ignorance of/wilful blindness to the law. For the smart ones, knowing how far to go and get away with it within the bounds of the law. Then there are the issues of backing up their partners / colleagues rather than telling the truth.
  14. Questions about Engineering + Law Combination

    I know 2 tax lawyers who were engineers. I don’t think engineering gives you much of a leg-up in law unless you’re in IP, etc. I think it’s a fairly common first career for a lawyer because you can take it as an undergrad rather than a more abstract degree and have a career in your early 20s, but after a few years it gets a bit boring and some people want the opportunity to be more academic/philosophical. At least that’s what my BF, engineer turned lawyer, says.
  15. Oath versus affirmation discussion (spliced)

    Well that’s exactly what happens a lot of the time - oath or not, people stretch the truth because they think it serves a greater good or furthers their agenda which is clearly a noble one.
×