Jump to content

kiamia

Members
  • Content count

    1732
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

kiamia last won the day on June 28 2017

kiamia had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1252 Good People

1 Follower

About kiamia

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1041 profile views
  1. I think getting a phD itself may or may not be. But if you can draw attention to outstanding work, publications, etc. you accomplished during the pursuit of those advanced degrees, that would certainly count.
  2. I think without some really exceptional work experience or references, it'd be tough. Western puts a lot of weight on the L2 and yours is pretty low. And the LSAT is lower than the median as well. The mature category isn't really an "easier" category, it just allows you to use your post-grad experience to counterbalance weaknesses in your application.
  3. Was he trying to do it for the entire country?
  4. This isn't limited only to the justice system. Remember that 1 billion we spent on e-health (and probably more in the 5-10 years since) to come up with an electronic system for sharing medical records between physicians and hospitals? When was the last time you heard of success along that front? Thank God we still have fax machines...
  5. How to Best Prepare for Law School

    Well they like it that you show initiative still, it's just not as easily translated into marks in the same way. The profs (at least mine) are happy to chat whenever, but it's highly unethical for you to try and try to benefit from any goodwill by identifying yourself on an exam. The corollary to that is it doesn't matter if they hate you either. (I'm sure whatever Pzabby was doing was fine, but I'm suggesting caution generally. Some of my profs are only marking their small group, which is 20 some odd students, and others are very sharp and know each of their 80+ students by name and face. So if you're the only one bringing up a case with them, and then you put it on an exam, that could be enough to identify you. I've heard some stories of like "hey remember when we discussed" showing up on an exam, and those profs were really upset/angry) Make no mistake about it, in 1L you're being marked for your reasoning/analysis skills, far more than your base of knowledge, and it's risky to try and learn that ahead of time because - like many skills - if you learn it wrong, you're going to have to unlearn your mistakes when you get here. But blocked is right, you can always work on your more general stuff - typing, reading, writing, focusing (if that's an issue), etc. But seriously, pick up a language if you've got nothing but time.
  6. How to Best Prepare for Law School

    I think if you did this, you'd be giving off a different vibe than what I'm describing. You're basically saying "you're such a good prof, and you've made me really interested in this material, and made me want to learn more about it, yay!". The kind of message I'm talking about is the "you chose these cases to teach us about this material, but I really think these other cases are better, and/or I was too lazy to pay attention to what you were saying so I just used somebody's else's notes." At Western, our exams are marked anonymously and we're not allowed to identify ourselves, so discussing specific outside cases with our profs and then using them on exams would probably be a bad idea. So you'd basically have to thrown in these extra cases on an exam blind, which is pretty risky and also not at all necessary to get a good grade. I wouldn't generally recommend it (although I can think of a couple of profs that might respond well).
  7. How to Best Prepare for Law School

    Oh yeah, the other reason you should be careful with summaries you're given, or with trying to get a head start studying, is that some profs get pissed when you bring up stuff on an exam that they haven't taught you. If it's something they've taught in previous years, maybe that's okay (eh), but if it's law you've gotten from a summary for another prof's class...well let's just say the last thing you want to do is tick off the person marking your exam. It's fine to use an old summary and add/edit it as you go in class, as NYCLawyer suggests, but make sure you verify everything on there and not just rely on it instead of your prof and textbook. Profs can tell.
  8. How to Best Prepare for Law School

    Alright, I've got some time procrastinating for my next 2 exams. So I'll give you these tips 3: 1. Listen to what everyone says and don't try to "pre-learn" the law. There are a lot of reasons why this is a bad idea. The one that's at the forefront of my mind, since I'm currently midway through my first year, is that there's a lot of law in books that the specific prof you have will not like, will disapprove of, or will flat out disagree with. They will flag that for you when you get there. And when you're frantically studying for your exams wondering just why there's SO MUCH info to remember, it's really not a good idea for you to have dual impressions of concepts. Is it the one you already learned prior to coming to class, or is the one your prof taught that was a slight variation on it? Trust me when I say that given how much stuff you'll have to memorize, it's better to learn it all only once. That way your instincts can just kick in. You won't have a "wrong" version to draw on. 2. I'm not going to tell you not to go learn "study skills". It may very well help to know what the alternatives are. But don't assume that you'll really be able to figure out what works for you until you're here. And the profs will all teach in different ways which may require that you adjust your habits to suit their styles. As we're told here over and over again, there is not one best way to do this. Everyone has their own methods. So don't go and waste time/energy learning habits, when they may not be the ones you'll need when you get here. You might be better off learning something else (like, for instance, a language). 3. A summary is basically a summary of everything being taught. For me, it's basically me going through my notes, formatting them, and making sure I understand them. That's the long summary - when set up in Word, they're about 70-110 pages. Then your short summary are the key concepts that you'll probably need when you get into an exam. For most of the cases, all you'll really need is a line or two to remind you what the case was about, and the ratio/rule that comes from it. And then you'll need to apply those rules to the fact pattern you're given on the exam. So most of your test-referencing will just be coming from your short summary, which is usually in the 10 page range. So once you're IN law school, definitely make sure you keep up with making sure your notes are clean after class, and you get what's going on. Did I mention there's a lot of stuff to know come exam time? You won't have a chance to learn all those concepts. And some people also make shorter quick sheets/reference sheets/maybe a map of the steps they'll need for each type if problem -> what needs to be considered. e.g. all the steps to proving negligence > what are the defences -> what are the remedies etc. There are also very helpful people here, and I'm sure at all the other schools, that will happily give their summaries to you. Use with discretion. They've made theirs during stressful exam times, some of them off of summaries that were given to them, there could be some bad law, there could be some outdated law, etc. And using someone else's summary is never as good as using your own, because things could make sense when you're reading them but you have to be able to explain something in your own words. Plus, during an exam, you will not have time to flip through looking for things; if you made your own summaries, then you know where everything is. Those are my three quick tips. Now, back to studying *cries*.
  9. Anyone ever inadvertently do a post-mortem on your own exam, realize there was something you should have elaborated on, and have it drive you crazy? It's not even a mistake, it's just something so obvious I took it for granted and in hindsight I probably shouldn't have. But it's really bumming me out. Woe.
  10. my new mantra for the next 2 weeks: "It's okay, even Uriel got a C..."
  11. ^ this. Look, they realize that you just went though a gruelling and nerve-wracking test. I think, even if they look at it, they'd be less critical if you accidentally answered a different question coherently vs answering the actual question in a completely incomprehensible way. I wouldn't stress.
  12. TWU and the SCC

    Well, even though it's not a satisfying distinction by any means, the legal system has historically been an agent of discriminatory and harmful practices against minorities (since a lot of those issues were about rights), so you can see why the problems might arise to a greater extent for practitioners of law vs practitioners of medicine, maybe. I don' think this would ever work, or has even been suggested, because TWU's argument kind of depends on it being a foundational value/religious underpinning to their school. If they start carving out exceptions, then what's the point of this whole thing? What are your concerns about federalism? The fact that education is a local matter for provinces to regulate, or that law societies should be able to decide on a province-by-province basis?
  13. TWU and the SCC

    Really? Who are these people? There can be issues about threshold as to how many people might have feel adversely, who is being impacted, what constitutional rights are involved, etc., but to say the the law society has absolutely no ambit to protect its profession is probably not correct. And no, I don't think the Law Society can actually object to the Covenant. Like I said, it's legal. The school has a right to do it - it's part of their religious values. And as Jaggers said, there's no point in separating out law students from the rest of the students. If you can't challenge the policies of the school as a whole, you can't challenge it for just a law school. Even if the law societies succeed, there's still technically nothing stopping TWU from opening up a law school and churning out students with qualifications and a degree that's good anywhere but Ontario (if LSUC succeeds). So it does come back to the law societies' rights to protect and regulate the profession, but it's a question that's not entirely clear at the moment.
  14. TWU and the SCC

    But let's say that something would negatively impact the public trust in the profession (or it's general reputation), in a way that is unrelated to competence, and assuming it could be proven, does a self-regulating professional body have a right or an obligation to do something about it? I still think that's the main question here, and not how much the Covenant sucks.
  15. TWU and the SCC

    Well the question was really more about to what extent do the law societies get to regulate/have to accommodate institutions that want to produce law students. Talking about TWU's "discrimination" basically is just trying to justify the law societies' positions. In terms of just legal rights, I think TWU probably comes out ahead, because its clear they have a right to set up their own rules, even if they are discriminatory. The law societies' right to not accredit institutions because they don't like them (even if it's for a good reason) is a bit more precarious. It really depends on whether or not you can prove that the public's faith in the rule of law and lawyers in general will be damaged somehow - which is what the intervenors were for - and whether the law societies' mandate is to protect that. Like I said, it'll probably come down to external factors. It never helps when one is so clearly on the wrong side of history, even for the religion that they purport to be defending.

×