pzabbythesecond

Members
  • Content count

    816
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

pzabbythesecond last won the day on March 17

pzabbythesecond had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

447 Good People

1 Follower

About pzabbythesecond

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

985 profile views
  1. McGill averages lsat takes, if you take more than 1. McGill also doesn't hold it against you in anyway if you apply with no lsat. A 4.0 GPA is solid, whether on a 4.3 or 4 scale. Your French seems to be good but you may get the phone interview anyway if you don't have university French intermediate courses. It's up to you. I don't know what you're prepping at. I wrote the lsat in oct of my fourth year because my prep tests were solid and consistent. I was pressured into not only applying to McGill without my lsat by family, and that was probably a mistake, even though it worked out anyway. If I was in your shoes, I'd apply to McGill only, really really really work on the PS, and see. Worst case scenario you wait a year, prep more for the lsat/work/travel, whatever and reapply. Nothing wrong at all in waiting a year. I sort of wish I had, because I'm feeling the burn out already and it's only been a year. Feel free to PM if you have questions.
  2. Oh the high horse. It must be fun to sit on it. Might I add you don't come off very different than the very lawyers and students you're castigating right now - you're just looking down from a different perceived "high ground". Also, as mentioned above, there's significantly more of those characters in your mind than there are in reality. What's it like to be so certain of what's good and bad in this life?
  3. I mean, you don't really have to "do well" with your undergraduate degree (barring a few exceptions) to be awarded the degree either. As the saying goes - Ds get degrees. It's just, afterwards, they end up wishing they hadn't sunk their undergraduate tuition and opportunities on weed and piss beer at frat parties.
  4. Thank you. But to be clear, it's pzabbythesecond. Gosh, is it really that hard for people not to truncate my anonymous identity? /s Also, I don't remember this. But I do remember going off on multiple tangents about student debt and law school tuition. One thing is clear - minimize your debt at the best school for you. Clearly this means everyone should aim for McGill, and I'm definitely not biased or anything.
  5. I'm sorry to hear about your struggles. And I think you're raising a valid point not often brought up with regards to school debt - the difference between it and other types of debt. However, it's in a specific situation - a worst worst case scenario. Which isn't to say it shouldn't be considered, but I don't think anyone on this forum has ever advocated for not worrying about student debt because bankruptcy is a thing. Bankruptcy, whether for business or other debt or student debt, is a scenario you absolutely don't want to be in. It's always been said on here to minimize debt as much as possible. But frankly, even with tuition being what it is, law school as an investment still has a larger ROI than other similar sized investments for many law students. For some, Sure, it makes less sense (or none, purely financially, depending on their income before taking on law school), but that's not the case for most law students. With tuition being what it is, let's say in Ontario, 100 000 debt isn't crazy given average tuition (only!) Would be 60 grand. So unless you're warning students to not go to law school if they're admitted (which I don't agree with, in a financial sense, as I explained above), I'm not sure what you are advocating for. Furthermore, an increased LOC cap can help with repayment of debt given the lower interest rate post grad. So nonetheless, this increases cap does help. That's not even considering that there's a further year of deferred payments with this offer, which surely helps those who struggle to find their footing right out of the gate.
  6. When you aren't made of money, it's not a waste of time to save the money. If you're a fringe canadian law applicant, sure, you can apply to all of them. But if you don't have the 3 grand or so, it's good to research chances and eliminate the schools you can't get into.
  7. Yeah, sorry I wasn't clear. I meant it as being used as an incentive not to leave, regardless of reason for leaving.
  8. Maybe they had a lot of people leaving before starting their third year and decided they need them to stay badly enough to do this?
  9. Just assume they're only interviewing 3, And walk in with the confidence you need for these interviews, with just enough fear that'll force you to still be on the top of your game.
  10. Do you mind posting here or PMing me your rep? In case mine gives me trouble? Oh sorry, are you in Toronto/GTA?
  11. perfectly fine. If the bank makes that decision, and ends up losing business because of it, well then - thank goodness for the market .
  12. To be clear, i'm not saying this was your idea (and it seems you aren't either). But to the Bank, I say that's downright hilarious. First of all, do you seriously think not having access to 20-ish grand in available debt (even if the budgeting shows they'll need it) will stop newly accepted 0Ls (who are surely ecstatic and relieved, after the stress of application year) from taking on a max? They figure they want this badly enough that if push comes to shove, they'll take on a part time gig during the year to make it through, or work 3 jobs instead of 2 during the summer, etc etc. It's laughable that the majority of students would back out of attending law school on this basis. Circumstances change, and we adapt - like this change in policy by the bank. Do you think i'll work 90 hour weeks to make ends meet once my available debt is maxed out, or apply for the extra 20 grand in funding? I'll apply for the extra funding. Secondly, 3 years of law school, plus 1 year of articling is a long time. Have you ever made a perspective budget for 4 years, and not had to adjust it within that time, or even scrap it entirely, because of changing circumstances? As they say, plan for the worst, hope for the best. I'm certain many law students went in thinking they have a chance to be working in an ivory tower making 80 grand in articling and 100 grand first year of call because they'll get that glorified OCI position, and then - welp - it didn't pan out that way! Which is fine. But, things change. To be clear, my issue isn't with the bank simply not giving the money. My issue is with the bank saying (person applying in 2016 can only get 100k because their cost of living+education (for the next 4 years!!) is x, but then suddenly, person applying in 2017 can get 120k+10 (or whatever it was) because cost of living+education (for the next 4 years!!) is x+20 grand. How does that compute? Base it on risk management, and sure - if you see law students as too big a risk to grant 120 grand to, that's fine. Or if you see it as an acceptable risk, then it follows that all law students should (i'm not taking into account the risk factors which weigh in for the individual here, because your new policy doesn't either - it only creates an arbitrary line based on year of application). Also, you didn't address one of my concerns: student x already is with TD, going into 2L, hears about Scotia's new max and decides they want the flexibility - so they apply. Are you telling me they'll get rejected too? Obviously not, because that's new business for scotia. But student y, already a scotia customer, hears the same thing, makes the same decision, and gets rejected. I'm not crying "woe is me" - I really don't care. I just mean to say, Scotia's screwing the pooch, and i'm damn certain i'm going to explore my options (more than I would have otherwise) when I sign up for another LOC when I start up my own shop.
  13. I can assure you that McGill, in its "non-CEGEP" stream, has similar expectations with regards to undergraduate degrees than other common law schools.
  14. With your above comment on this new development not being available to 2L/3L students, what's stopping me (and others) from switching to TD or another bank for either a better offer and/or out of mere spite? I can rightly feel ripped off if my own bank is treating me differently than a student merely because of a year (or 2 years) difference between time of applying. For example, say I was originally with TD, then saw this offer and decided to switch to Scotia - no doubt Scotia would (likely) approve me for the new cap (and new conditions of re-payment); but as a current client of Scotia I wouldn't be able to do the same thing. I understand you weren't the person who came up with this, but surely you can see the ridiculousness behind it, and how it may negatively impact scotia's reputation. Current consumers can still, even if they don't switch out, be sufficiently negatively influenced by this that they decide not to give their post-school business to Scotia - and what I was told (and still am) was that Scotia's being more of a leader in PSLOC's is to create good rep for future business. They're not doing so with this policy in place. Maybe get a word spread to HQ or whomever deals with these and explain the situation?
  15. What i'm about to say is in no way aimed toward healthlaw, because I have no idea what his/her situation is, nor will I pry. There's a number of reasons why someone, even on a bay street articling salary, needs the savings possible from living away from the downtown core. This is more aimed at law students/articling students (now or in the future) who don't come from wealth: If you are ever in a situation where you'll be making somewhere around, say, the bay street articling rate (what is it at now, 70 grand pro rata?), and you're in what appears to be monstrously large debt (expected with law students who haven't had their parents pay for most, if not all, their expenses), it can be scary - yes. Assuming here your payments are due during articling, if you just look at the numbers without actually sitting down to budget them, it can be shaking. While this is true for anyone, I think it's safe to say (and has been said before here?) that it's especially true for those from lower economic strata. "Debt" strikes fear into you, even if you're looking at a whopping salary for the next 10 months, or the forseeable future (post-call). To be clear here, I don't mean to make anyone feel bad, or come off as patronizing. I probably am, because i'm not a very good writer, so apologies for that. But I just mean to say that, while this feeling is valid (i.e in the sense that you shouldn't feel like **** for being scared here), once you sit down and budget the numbers - even conservatively - you'll come out feeling a lot better, and you'll see that living a 15 minute walk away from work rather than a longer, transit, commute is probably worth it. 1500 can get you a nice, decent 1 bedroom apartment/condo for rent in the downtown core. Sure, it may not be in a glass tower with a CN tower and lake view, but you don't need that. And on a bay street salary (or salary anywhere similar to that figure), that's more than doable, even with debt payments. The commuting stress you'll skip out on is more than worth the extra 300-500 or so a month in savings you'll get by living farther (I say this as a person who, before moving to Montreal, and one year of renting in toronto, had commuted for his whole life and know the TTC all too well). Again, to be clear, this wasn't aimed at healthlaw at all, because extenuating circumstances do exist (and that's what it comes off as in this case). Just, to any other readers, make sure it really is an extenuating circumstance, and not just the (totally valid) fear of debt and repayments before budgeting.