Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


epeeist last won the day on November 15

epeeist had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2321 Good People

1 Follower

About epeeist

  • Rank

  1. Is anyone else really exhausted and burnt out?

    I'll sometimes read a post by someone talking about how they diagram the vectors of the permutations of the verifiers of the logical indicators or whatever the f--- the lingo is, and while I can clearly see the answer to the question itself, if I try to understand the process they've been taught for how to get there I risk going as insane as a character in a Lovecraftian Cthulhu mythos story (side note, if in Toronto see the del Toro exhibit at the AGO, it's great). Aside from techniques, it is definitely possible to work on skills that will improve one's LSAT score, but I would assume that after a few months the return on additional time and effort is marginal unless one has much more time and can work on reading ability generally or something (e.g. personally and anecdotally I read very quickly and had since I was in elementary school done logic puzzles for fun, so I was very well-prepared for the LSAT, but in a sense I'd spent years, decades even, improving my skills albeit without at the time having had any such purpose).
  2. Is anyone else really exhausted and burnt out?

    TAKE A BREAK, if necessary until December 2. And, give yourself permission to take a break as long as you need without guilt. I mean you spent the whole summer prepping for the LSAT, and again a few weeks now, I think better by far to do nothing before the December LSAT and be rested and relaxed, than to push yourself to stare at the book and be stressed and burned out. Caveat, I wrote the LSAT many, many years ago, no current experience.
  3. Making mistakes

    The standard of competence is not perfection. Every lawyer will make mistakes, as long as the mistakes are still within the realm of competence (no required Lawpro notification, no need to flee the country and burn of your fingerprints, etc.) learn from it and move on, though I do agree with @TheScientist101 that you want to make sure the lawyer you're working for who knows you made a mistake, knows that you know and have learned from it. One thing, and especially as an employee it's a bit more difficult to address, there are some situations I think in which ethically it's not appropriate to charge clients for the extra time required to deal with something because of a significant mistake even though not affecting the ultimate result. But that's more complicated and I'm not presuming to give ethical advice knowing so little about the situation.
  4. Agreed with others (and they're more current/in the know than I) that it shouldn't be a negative. But, I think it's only not a negative if they know it's a speech impediment. That is, if you recognize your speech is sometimes hard to understand or whatever, I think it better to say something about it, but get some advice on that from someone who knows you better and about how perceptible it is. If interviewers don't suspect a speech impediment but think you're having problems because you're too nervous or you drank at lunch or whatever, it will mistakenly be perceived as a negative. While I realize choosing to reveal things at the interview stage is iffy, if it's obvious, better to say something I think (but if it's not, then don't at that stage?). Or since people were talking about clothes, a different example to give an analogy, let's say you flew in for an interview and the flight was delayed, you got in very late, the airline lost your luggage and the interview is the first thing in the morning. You do the best you can and show up in what you travelled in, maybe you can find a store that is open early and you can upgrade a bit, maybe a blazer but not a suit. But if you can't find something, or can't afford to buy new clothes that morning, you show up for the interview and explain the airline lost your luggage, and maybe you make a joking reference to My Cousin Vinnie and how you didn't want to show up in ridiculous vintage apparel or whatever. And if you did upgrade your outfit, you mention it as an example of dealing with adversity. Whatever, you address the elephant in the room.
  5. What is the purpose of any special category? Is it merely, look at my marks more favourably? Or is it also, diversity is good? Also, it's quite possible someone might not want to reveal past accommodations but would want the law school to know, prospectively, that if admitted the law school will need to accommodate e.g. someone in a wheelchair, or visually impaired, or deaf, or whatever. Is applying in the regular category and only revealing that information in the PS going to get "caught" so that the law school will be able to address prospective (not historical!) accommodation issues in a timely fashion?
  6. D+ average in 1L: Feel Broken

    Congratulations. Forgive me for stating the obvious, but have a pithy explanation that puts you in a good light. Like (this is hypothetical, not saying it's applicable to you), after first year you realized you had to write answers that were clearer and more concise and took steps to improve your exam-writing skills and make your legal analyses more direct. Or whatever, something that makes clear you learned and improved and phrased in a way that makes you sound good. Some people if it's genuine might try humour, e.g. say they hired goons to visit their profs after first year marks, smile and then give the seriously, I...etc. answer. But this runs a serious risk for some people of sounding crazy/threatening/strange, YMMV. Also, 95% of the time in cover letters or emails one shouldn't try to explain away a weakness lest it draw attention to it. You might be one of the rare exceptions, but I'm long past legal employment considerations so get qualified advice on that.
  7. I wasn't arguing it was a good one! This was years ago, and if I recall correctly (that's IF) it was either Queen's or LSUC's policy (for the bar ads) or both, that everyone who needed accommodation of any sort had to write in the same special room and they were all given extra time, I assume because they thought it would be too difficult to find exam proctors who could figure out that some students got extra time and others didn't... I wouldn't have known except for a friend who did for medical reasons need to have food available during the exam, and so they had to write in this special room with extra time, which they didn't want or need. I assume the reason was if you give everyone needing accommodation extra time (even if they didn't ask for it) on top of whatever their specific accommodation is, that they're less likely to be able to complain about the accommodation? E.g. we'll give you food and twice the time, a wheelchair ramp and twice the time, access to your medication and twice the time, etc.
  8. As @providence noted, it's not just about equality, it's about diversity (my objections to LSUC's statement are more about whether the requirement is ultra vires at least if no ethics rule change, and the precedent set if they can dictate personal speech, not disagreement with the objective). So it's quite reasonable for someone to want to disclose their disability and apply in that category, while not wanting to disclose further details about accommodations they received in the past, if any. Also, what if someone received accommodations but didn't want them? For instance, picking U of T for a change, not all classrooms are accessible and they note advance notice is required when registering for courses, they can't guarantee access if not notified months in advance, etc. (I'm paraphrasing). So let's say for a particular test the student in a wheelchair needs an accessible space which is different from the available test room for the small class (i.e. not the normal accessible room). I don't know U of T's current policy, but in the past (other places) I was told that there was a rather blunt, everyone needing accommodation got put in the same room and had twice the time. Even if their accommodation had nothing to do with requiring extra time, it was a one-size-fits-all policy, only if there was objection would there be something else. So for instance someone who for health reasons needed to have food in the exam, not extra time, automatically got extra time also. I assume that similarly someone in a wheelchair who needed a different accessible space would have been given extra time also even though they didn't ask for it. Why should they be required to disclose a specific accommodation (extra time) that they never asked for nor required, that could lead the law school to downgrade their mark?
  9. CPD hours

    Don't make it like pulling teeth to try to help. Substantive only, or do you need professionalism hours and if so how many? Why is it a problem doing multiple short programs? Did you look at the other thread and if you need 3.0 professionalism hours why aren't you doing any programs through the LSUC website? Since substantive don't need to be accredited, why the problem for those hours? Or do you want hours in a particular field because you're picky and if so what? Etc.
  10. Also @providence Again, so what? It's their choice to be disadvantaged because they prefer privacy. And as providence noted, if someone didn't receive or received in their view inadequate accommodation, they can choose to disclose that. So the only people being disadvantaged are those who didn't receive accommodations but choose to fail to disclose that, again their choice. I may be a bit strong on this topic (which I think is being discussed generally, not specific to Osgoode though this is where it is) because I've heard from multiple people I know with physical disabilities about how they get treated, people assuming they are incompetent to decide e.g. if they need help, if they're with someone addressing all remarks to that other person, etc. And I see a policy of requiring people to reveal information because it's in their own best interests to reveal that information, as similarly paternalistic. Unless it's not paternalistic but a basis to downgrade some applicants?
  11. Why do they have to assume anything?! All they have to do is treat an A as an A and a B as a B and a 170 as a 170. Then, if for diversity or other reasons they want to weigh some candidates more favourably because of disability or background or race or being aboriginal, they can. And if a candidate chooses to reveal additional information they can. An aboriginal student may choose to reveal only that information. They're not required to also reveal what discrimination they faced in high school or university or life unless they want to. Same if someone chooses to reveal being a member of another minority, they're not required to reveal all instances of discrimination they faced that may have affected their marks, failing which they'll be treated as straight white males for admission purposes. A disabled person may choose to reveal discrimination they faced, may choose to reveal accommodations they received, or that they didn't get any, or that they received them but they were insufficient. But no-one should be forced to reveal such information. If a law school wants to say, hey, blind guy, you're not telling us about accommodations so we're treating you like a sighted guy with a B+ average and 170 LSAT for admission purposes, if you want to be considered more favourably give us details, well so be it (though as noted I think that would be unfair).
  12. That's not what I think. I think that disabled people are not children and don't lack privacy rights, and no-one should tell them they have to reveal private information. You, however, seem to be assuming that if a blind person gets an A in a course it's not a real A because they had accommodation. Or if it is a real A, as I think it is, then they shouldn't have to reveal details of accommodation. I think that if someone who's blind applies to law school, and chooses to reveal that they're blind, it should be up to them to reveal whether or not they received accommodations in university or for the LSAT. If they want to, go ahead, if not, don't. Now, for a blind person it's probably a fair assumption that they received an accommodation, but so what? It should be their choice whether or not to reveal what accommodations they received. Or even whether or not they're disabled, just like someone can choose to reveal, or not, personal characteristics like being Aboriginal that might help them. Their choice.
  13. Yeah, no. The whole point is that the university at which the student was accommodated (or not) or LSAC administrators of the LSAT are, or should be, trusted to design fair accommodations such that the marks or score are equivalent, reflecting knowledge learned etc. If not, why is a particular law school better able to retroactively say, no, we're going to do our own adjustment? Does Osgoode have expertise greater than LSAC in the LSAT and standardized tests to say, hey, wait, based on these accommodations we're adjusting the score downward because you overaccommodated?
  14. The whole point of accommodations is that their supposed to level the playing field so that the assessment - LSAT or marks - is equivalent. If someone can't write or type or see, they get another way to communicate. An A is an A and a B is a B and a 170 is a 170. Unless, of course, an A isn't an A it's an A* because there was accommodation...meaning that the law school doesn't trust that the university the applicant went to properly and fairly figured out accommodations. Isn't that really what this is (or at least it's reasonable to be concerned)? Let's say a one-armed lawyer applies for a job. Is the potential employer allowed to ask, before making an offer and to assess how they view the applicant's law school grades, hey, we can see you're missing a limb, but we need to know what accommodations you received in law school, or else we won't consider making a job offer to you. Not, we'll make a conditional offer if we can adequately accommodate you without undue hardship which we'll discuss after said offer (or whatever the appropriate thing to do is, I'm not an employment lawyer), but rather, to assess how good your law school marks really are we want to know. Well, if they're going to dig deeper for disabled students, shouldn't they for all students? Check which profs students had, check student ratings of those profs and curves, etc. No, that would be ridiculous and not feasible even if the information was available - so let's only dig deeper for disabled applicants? Not mature applicants, or Aboriginal applicants (were they advantaged in admission despite lower high school marks, better check!), and certainly not for regular applicants because that would be ridiculous. Let's say A was the victim of attempted murder and suffered serious injuries in 2nd year university, got aggressive cancer in 3rd year requiring surgery and chemotherapy, and provides or indicates will provide (or whatever) satisfactory proof. If a law school said, we're not even going to consider your 2nd or 3rd year marks more favourably unless you provide information on all accommodations you received 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year, would that be objectionable or unobjectionable?
  15. While I appreciate the specifics, are you saying that anyone disclosing a disability must disclose more than that, they must disclose accommodation received? If so, why? The examples you give portray it being helpful to the applicant, but so what? If someone wants to reveal only the fact that they have a disability, and not what accommodation they received, that may be very unwise, but shouldn't it be their choice if they value privacy more than increasing their chances of admission? Or is it, if someone is disabled they're forbidden to disclose that fact unless they disclose all this other information? Or can they simply disclose the disability and refuse to answer the other questions? Also, You say (3) "what accommodation you received" but then later "You are not asked what kind of accommodations you received either at university..." seems contradictory to me? If not in undergrad, then what accommodations is it asking about in (3)? Of course, if details of accommodation received might be used to negatively impact their application, in that case the law school's basis for desiring such information is stronger on the one hand, more concerning on the other.