Jump to content

TrqTTs

Members
  • Content count

    318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

TrqTTs last won the day on April 29

TrqTTs had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

216 Good People

About TrqTTs

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. TrqTTs

    O week Guests

    @Timmies123 damn. I guess I’ll cancel the film crew for our Boats ‘n Hoes Tribute.
  2. Thanks BQ, all I needed to know. I think I’m going to try to satisfy the indigenous course requirement with my perspective to keep my upper year schedule open until I decide WTF I’m actually going to do...
  3. TrqTTs

    OSAP Funding Calculation

    Same boat, I just had my second last document (all submitted mid May) be approved this week, with one document still pending approval. And obviously no calculation of funding other than the estimate. I was going to call YFS, but I guess I won’t be doing that now! Feck
  4. Just bumping this up with a quick question: I feel as though I'm at a bit of a disadvantage coming in to 1L in terms of legal research/writing due to not taking any substantial research classes in undergrad. Would the LTS provide a worthwhile opportunity to develop these skills further than the remainder of 1L course load? Is it worth taking in this regard over a perspective option? (I did see ~3 perspective options that interested me, and all would fulfill some graduating criteria for reference).
  5. Thanks for chiming in. I haven't heard of anyone else articling in-house until now, any chance you'd be willing to start a new thread or comment on your experience here?
  6. TrqTTs

    LSAT Scores Out

    Good luck everyone, don't get discouraged if you didn't score where you hoped -most of us don't.
  7. Also, in terms of "Pushing past the thing that stopped [you] from getting [your] 4 year", I think the answer will be obvious to you. If you were to gain admissions to law school for next year, you would need to push past it anyways. If you want to have a shot at most post-degree programs, you'll need to push past it anyways. The 4-year degree will arguably put you in a better position to land meaningful employment after graduation if you don't pursue further education. The real question is, if you do have higher aspirations for education, why wouldn't you push past it? Are you sure you're ready for 3 years of law school? (You don't need to answer these, they're just meant to encourage you to reflect)
  8. First off, everyone aims for an LSAT of 160 or higher. Unfortunately, by design only 20% of people achieve it. Don't hedge your future on aspirations. Now, with a competitive enough LSAT and some interesting/relevant life-work experiences, you could absolutely gain admissions without a 4 year degree as a mature student with your GPA, I did this year. As mentioned earlier though, there's no way to predict whether your baseline LSAT will be a 160 or a 130, and if you are on the lower end it's a bigger hurdle than you can imagine to get yourself into a position to be competitive (if ever), so don't make any life plans until you are full on into the LSAT. If I were you, I would enroll in fall classes for your 4th year, write a diagnostic LSAT and start or continue studying for it. If you have to, wait for the December write if you are feeling confident you will be competitive enough. Apply broadly across Ontario for the upcoming year as a mature student, Osgoode for example only specifies that applicants who want mature consideration have: 1) They are at least 26 years of age; and 2) They have a minimum of 5 years of non-academic experience. Mature categories are a bit of a mixed bag it seems, and statistics alone don't necessarily predict admissions as well as in the general stream. Also, don't discount the idea of finishing your 4 year degree, carrying on with another career and life in general, then revisiting law school after you have a family. There are simply no guarantees with law school admission, no matter how badly you want it.
  9. TrqTTs

    Is it fun?

    Of course I agree with this obvious, blanket service-oriented statement. What I don't agree with is that you are boasting about taking advantage of customers by engineering their needs, at their expense, to your benefit. And given the reaction by others so far, I wasn't far off base.
  10. TrqTTs

    Is it fun?

    My take on your post (if you care) is that if you aim to take the same approach in practice (say as a solo practitioner) as you do in your telecom sales job, specifically: You might not be very well-received as a lawyer by your clients. You don't need to build long-term trust in a sales relationship (and with your eagerness, might often result in the opposite), but without trust there will be no long-term relationship as a lawyer. I should qualify this statement with the disclaimer that I'm only just entering law school. But from what I gather, especially as a solo practitioner, a LOT of business is based on repeat clients and referrals. Your clients need to perceive value if either of those are to happen. If I misunderstood or took your comment out of context, then disregard.
  11. To preface, I generally agree with you as far as competition and the free market are concerned, the inherent benefits to those on top, and moreso that not all those pushing for reform are doing it out of much more than self-interest, entitlement or resentment. But to answer your question of why I think the practice of law could be argued to be treated differently than say tradespeople is the amount of investment and risk involved in completing that education. I've known and employed DOZENS of tradespeople, teachers, nurses, and others working on the practical components of education or in between apprenticeship jobs. Even the teachers I've employed can often spend 5 or more years on supply lists before even an LTO position frees up. The real difference between other prospective career-seeking graduates and lawyers, for example, is that most (almost all?) other professions are able to service their student loans working regular service jobs while waiting for a job opportunity. A law student seeking articles would drown in debt and probably face bankruptcy if they had to wait a comparable 5+ years for a reasonably well-paying, relevant, full time position to open up. In that regard J.D. graduates resemble M.D. graduates more than most (any?) other graduates of post-degree programs regardless of who is ultimately paying the wages (Province vs Private sector), and thus I can see the benefit of matching positions with graduates if the problem continues t compound. I would think this escalation would be more a result of skyrocketing law school tuitions (and the inherent debt increases) and market saturation than it would be about evolving graduates' expectations or entitlements, but I could very well be wrong. Either way, I don't really see this coming to a head until the day that articling for free is the norm, finding articles becomes too difficult that graduates ARE drowning in debt and have enough free time and concern to complain about it in sufficient quantities. That being said, if articling positions were to become managed I imagine we would see even more unpaid or underpaid articles, as the burden would effectively be transferred to the practitioners irrespective of demand. If this were to happen, I think it would make more sense to tie the required practical component of articling into the legal education itself (as Bora Laskin has), so that the risk of not finding articles (or the unlikelihood of being paid if secured) could be managed more realistically by incoming law students. Many here are quick to assert that prospective law students should be more aware of the job market before committing to LS, but how do you know as a 0L if you will end up at the bottom of your class prior to starting? Or that your personality won't be well received in interviews? Or that you won't "fit" with firms in the fields of law you are most keen to work in (and not even understand why)? Or what the legal market will really be like in 3 years? I would say conversely those that are quick to dismiss these concerns over articling have never sat on 125K in student debt without a good enough job to foreseeably service the interest payments -let alone start paying off your principal- and no ability to hang a shingle as a solo and take a chance on their own (and thus effectively take accountability for their failure to secure articles). The fact that you can't even take a chance on your own as a solo after graduating law school (if you fail to secure articles) shows interventionism more than free market in this regard. Thankfully, as of now it doesn't seem to be a big enough problem to warrant change, but what do I know. As well-informed as a prospective law student can be, there are still considerations (whether or not you'll find articles most obviously to me) that are more or less impossible to determine prior to matriculation. Yes, it's risk assessment, obviously. But we aren't working with complete information to assess that risk as 0L's.
  12. The irony is unbearable, especially given that he is casting judgement on your choice of profession. John 8:7 and all...
  13. https://www.ontario.ca/document/industries-and-jobs-exemptions-or-special-rules/government-employees-and-professionals#section-4 Not in a box. Not with a fox. Not in a house. Not with a mouse. Not in Ontario. I do not work for minimum wage, I do not earn much, oh principal the sage. Edit: What kind of severance do you get if you are terminated without notice from a job that doesn't pay? You've got a wicked sense of humour, Ontario ESA.
  14. So making partner at Davies for example isn't prestigious unless you're respected as a person? Since you're saying that the position's prestige isn't absorbed by the person holding it unless there's respect for the individual. Also, if respect is a prerequisite for prestige, how much respect is required at minimum? 50% of the population, 60%, 70%? Surely there's a cutoff if it's in fact necessary.
  15. I think this is where part of the confusion lies. I simply stated that respect wasn't a necessary condition for prestige, and used Trump as my example. You've both denied and affirmed that now.
×