25 replies to this topic

[Tina1]

Started this thread in an effort to stimulate debate on the quality of law students being attracted to Ontario law schools based on ECs, volunteer, work, life, academic and other life experiences.

Some food for thought:

- Is there enough character in 1L Canadian law students? Is there too much of the same old in the class (i.e., everyone who looks, talks and dresses the same way? )

- How important should work/post graduate and ECs be emphasized?

- Are schools as "holistic" as they claim to be? Categorizing LSAT scores and GPA into a "priority and presumptive" admit category is the most disconnected thing from holistic. What about this is there to debate? If OZ or any other school is going to hand out 300 offers to the best LSAT scores; THEN continue by employing a holistic approach for the "remaining candidates" implies a few things. Silly example but isn't that almost like going to a really good restaurant and giving the best seats to the "best dressed" and using the remaining seats to "the whatever's" to simply to fill up the place. Of course, that approach is fine but just should not be referred to as "holistic" in their promotional material, because that is indeed (by far) the most disconnected thing from a "holistic approach". Windsor, however, also claims to use the "holistic" approach and they haven't even handed out a SINGLE JD offer to date. This, in my opinion, may truly be reflective of the institutions commitment to a very comprehensive and holistic approach. Not a 180 LSAT OR a 150 LSAT has received an offer -- that may potentially be indicative of someone actually reading reference letters, personal statements and thinking " ah-ha maybe this kid could actually bring a cool story and a bit of color to my law school besides doing well on a 3 hour test day."

I thought I'd start this to create some talk.

[briviere]

Are you assuming that those who have high GPAs or LSAT scores couldn't also be the most appealing candidates by holistic measures?

[SaulGoodman]

Tina1, on 19 February 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

Started this thread in an effort to stimulate debate on the quality of law students being attracted to Ontario law schools based on ECs, volunteer, work, life, academic and other life experiences.

Some food for thought:

- Is there enough character in 1L Canadian law students? Is there too much of the same old in the class (i.e., everyone who looks, talks and dresses the same way? )

Character, to me, is too much of a subjective value give much of an answer to this question. But because of admission standards and the type of people attracted and able to go to law school, it is not surprising that a large portion of law students will share similar character traits (eg: higher intelligence than the average person due to the existence of admission standards).

Tina1, on 19 February 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

- How important should work/post graduate and ECs be emphasized?

This is a very subjective question. IMHO these factors should be given almost no weight to an applicant (the one exception to me would be U of T which has enough applicants with very high numbers that I can see why "softs" would be considered). I realize other people are going to disagree with me on this and some may even take it personally (they shouldn't), but I don't really care.

Tina1, on 19 February 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

- Are schools as "holistic" as they claim to be? Categorizing LSAT scores and GPA into a "priority and presumptive" admit category is the most disconnected thing from holistic. What about this is there to debate? If OZ or any other school is going to hand out 300 offers to the best LSAT scores; THEN continue by employing a holistic approach for the "remaining candidates" implies a few things. Silly example but isn't that almost like going to a really good restaurant and giving the best seats to the "best dressed" and using the remaining seats to "the whatever's" to simply to fill up the place. Of course, that approach is fine but just should not be referred to as "holistic" in their promotional material, because that is indeed (by far) the most disconnected thing from a "holistic approach". Windsor, however, also claims to use the "holistic" approach and they haven't even handed out a SINGLE JD offer to date. This, in my opinion, may truly be reflective of the institutions commitment to a very comprehensive and holistic approach. Not a 180 LSAT OR a 150 LSAT has received an offer -- that may potentially be indicative of someone actually reading reference letters, personal statements and thinking " ah-ha maybe this kid could actually bring a cool story and a bit of color to my law school besides doing well on a 3 hour test day."

I thought I'd start this to create some talk.

I think that schools that say they are holistic or are not holistic generally tend to be telling the truth. If you look at certain admitted threads over the years the holistic schools have at times admitted an applicant with lower numbers than other applicants still waiting. Holistic factors are to me the best explanation for this.


And in response to your thread title, whether a person is going to be a "leader" or a "follower" (I disagree that all people can be sorted into these two groups but that's another discussion) is probably determined by other things then the influence law school has had on them.

[QuincyWagstaff]

Perhaps Windsor is waiting for the (not insignificant) number of applicants who applied only as a safty to withdraw, leaving far fewer files to review?

[Radfahrer]

QuincyWagstaff, on 19 February 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

Perhaps Windsor is waiting for the (not insignificant) number of applicants who applied only as a safty to withdraw, leaving far fewer files to review?

I wonder how many applicants there were to Windsor that actually considered it a safety school (i.e. 160+ LSAT, 3.7+ GPA). I know I didn't because their application/recommendations were different than other schools, and I wouldn't have seriously considered attending if accepted anyways, not because of reputation, but just because Windsor is a depressing city.

What I don't like about the OP's post is that it assumes that some people with solid numbers don't have the "plus" factor. I don't hear any complaints from people who go to UofT, which has the highest number standards of any school in the country, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone going there who didn't do something interesting/unique, and not just one-dimensional drones that people with solid numbers sometimes get painted as.

[dschiiss14]

Tina1, on 19 February 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

Started this thread in an effort to stimulate debate on the quality of law students being attracted to Ontario law schools based on ECs, volunteer, work, life, academic and other life experiences.

Some food for thought:

- Is there enough character in 1L Canadian law students? Is there too much of the same old in the class (i.e., everyone who looks, talks and dresses the same way? )

- How important should work/post graduate and ECs be emphasized?

- Are schools as "holistic" as they claim to be? Categorizing LSAT scores and GPA into a "priority and presumptive" admit category is the most disconnected thing from holistic. What about this is there to debate? If OZ or any other school is going to hand out 300 offers to the best LSAT scores; THEN continue by employing a holistic approach for the "remaining candidates" implies a few things. Silly example but isn't that almost like going to a really good restaurant and giving the best seats to the "best dressed" and using the remaining seats to "the whatever's" to simply to fill up the place. Of course, that approach is fine but just should not be referred to as "holistic" in their promotional material, because that is indeed (by far) the most disconnected thing from a "holistic approach". Windsor, however, also claims to use the "holistic" approach and they haven't even handed out a SINGLE JD offer to date. This, in my opinion, may truly be reflective of the institutions commitment to a very comprehensive and holistic approach. Not a 180 LSAT OR a 150 LSAT has received an offer -- that may potentially be indicative of someone actually reading reference letters, personal statements and thinking " ah-ha maybe this kid could actually bring a cool story and a bit of color to my law school besides doing well on a 3 hour test day."

I thought I'd start this to create some talk.

It sounds to me like you are assuming that someone with a high lsat/ high GPA will not bring "colour" to a law school. The fact of the matter is that the GPA and the LSAT are not perfect measures for law school; however, they are much better than more subjective measures imo. And many people can be very intelligent, while at the same time being sociable, interesting, charismatic, etc.
Even though schools are holistic, they still place some emphasis on the LSAT and GPA because they are the best indicators of success in law school.

[theiva4]

I tend to agree with Tina's point. Whether good or bad, it seems that Windsor has a more holistic policy than Osgoode or even Calgary. If over half of Osgoode's admitted students are presumptive admits then it is not truly a holisitic policy. To me, it would be better to do something 100% or to not do it at all. It seems that Osgoode doesnt want to ruin its reputution and thus will only accept a fraction of its student body based on factors other than LSAT and GPA. I do however prefer the system done by UVic, UBC, and UofM that is strictly number based. It seems to remove much of the ambiguity of the application process. However, with the fact about creating leaders vs. followers. I dont think that it is really that important of an issue. I believe that most people are born leaders and that it is not the Law School business to create leaders. Most of us will end up being part of a team where being a leader is not always welcomed and being a follower is assumed. I would wonder how many articling students would consider themselves as leaders or are put in situations where leadership is warranted.

[Stupor]

theiva4, on 19 February 2012 - 06:36 PM, said:

I believe that most people are born leaders and that it is not the Law School business to create leaders.

I assume what you meant to say is "most leaders are born (and not made)", right? Most people, at least those I've met, are most certainly not born leaders.

[Mal]

There is absolutely no need for schools to have a holistic admissions to create a diverse class, I frankly find it offensive to suggest otherwise. I had very little in the way of EC's and I don't like the implication that I contribute less than someone who does.

[theiva4]

It not that you contribute less you just dont contribute in the same way as someone who has more diverse life experiences.

[erinl2]

It's interesting that whenever this topic comes up, many seem to believe that it's a case of either/or. The two are not mutually exclusive. In reality, there are many, many law students who are not only top academic students but who also have had diverse and interesting life experiences. The law students I know fall into this latter category, far more than either of the previous two.

[hefeweizen]

Agreed with erinl2 and Mal - I go to a school that has very little focus on ECs, etc in admissions (no personal statement, very numbers-focussed) and we still end up with a class of students with a very wide range of backgrounds, experiences, interests, etc. Law students are an impressive - but not necessarily homogenous - bunch.

And looking around the class I'm in right now, we definitely don't all dress the same/look the same (or talk the same, for that matter).

[briviere]

How about this: You want to be a leader? Be a leader. In my experience feigned confidence is just as effective as genuine confidence imo. I have no idea why anyone would want or expect a law school to churn out "leaders". Also, I don't believe that leaders are born any more than made; rather, I tend to think that anyone can make the conscious decision to become whatever they want.

[Mal]

theiva4, on 20 February 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:

It not that you contribute less you just dont contribute in the same way as someone who has more diverse life experiences.

While I always love it when an applicant puts me in my place (yes you are an applicant still), but this doesn't make sense. For two reasons, first it is fairly rare that something in someone's background is going to be directly relevant without taking off on a tangent, and second because the lack of EC's doesn't mean lack of a unique background or perspective.

Also as noted I am the exception rather than the rule, even schools that only look at numbers have impressive students for the most part.

[theiva4]

no need to project your insecurities on me.

[JessieL]

I'll won't be starting law school until September, but I was very impressed by most of the students I met at UT's Welcome Day and when I toured Osgoode. People were easy to talk to and are extremely interesting, from a varsity rower to a church organist to a radical feminist.

As for leaders or followers, I don't think law schools should be creating either. Law schools should be teaching legal studies and providing students opportunities to engage the law - what those students do is entirely up to them.

theiva4, on 20 February 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

no need to project your insecurities on me.

thieva4, between this and the lovely comments on Osgoode's holistic policy, you've reminded my of the topic you started awhile ago about age and "maturity" [http://lawstudents.c...__fromsearch__1].

[erinl2]

Good catch, jaycee. I'd forgotten about that discussion, and although I agreed with the replies at the time, I have to say that I've changed my mind now. Age is definitely more than just a number, and although that doesn't apply to all 20 year olds, my wish for theiva is that he develop the requisite maturity necessary not only for the study of law but also for his social happiness in law school, prior to September. Otherwise, my guess is that he is in for a bumpy ride.

[Radfahrer]

Though there's a correlation between age and maturity, one doesn't necessarily imply the other. I've been equally impressed by a number of 17 or 18 year olds, and disappointed by those older than 30 in terms of maturity. Maturity isn't something that comes naturally with age if you've been living in a silo, it comes through experience, how you cope and learn with unfamiliar and uncomfortable situations.

Having studied abroad, there's a dramatic difference from many undergrad programs once you have a diverse group of candidates from around the world, all from ages 20-30 studying together. The learning experience is naturally enriched by these other people, but you also have to learn to really break out of your shell, leave you arrogance at the door seizer and bond with people who may be wiser than you. I don't expect law school to be any different.

[whereverjustice]

The failure of law schools in this regard is evident from the severe underrepresentation of lawyers among our civic leadership.

[Tina1]

whereverjustice, on 20 February 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

The failure of law schools in this regard is evident from the severe underrepresentation of lawyers among our civic leadership.

Thanks for your comments everyone, albeit I am slightly worried that out of 20 posts only one person understood the entire purpose of my post/thread and that was"whereeverjustice" - if this was 1L he would be the only one passing.

My discussion was not to debate maturity, age, ECs or anything else. Those were all tidbits to get you thinking --which clearly had most of you thinking in the wrong direction. Secondly, the headline " are law schools creating leaders or followers" was meant to allude to one thing and I WAS WAITING to see if ANYONE here would actually get it and whereverjustice hit it on the nail -- public leadership in the legal arena.

So for the girl who is going around staring at students in her law class to see if everyone is wearing the same color socks " PLEASE STOP!!" GOD THAT WAS ONLY A FIGURE OF SPEECH TO emphasize the lack of public leadership and diversity in law schools.

Sure, some 176 LSAT performers may have some great ECs and life experiences, but form my experience reading, interviewing and scanning thousands of 1L CVs - they really aren't. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Dairy Queen should not be your first and last job before law school -- I don't care how high your LSAT score it. That test determines nothing and most people on Bay are quickly catching on to this. Biggest complaint from tier one law firms " I'd never put that kid in front of a client if my life depended on it, but heck I'd give a thousand logic games a bag and a bag of Oreos to him any day". Who would you want working at your firm?

Thieva - leaders are born ? I guess you may have missed...hmmm *scratches head*..what's his name again? Oh right..that. US president....god what was it...YEAH: Obama's inauguration!! Did it teach you a thing or two about leadership? Leaders are not quite born , and I think they often quite frankly create their own destiny -- no ?

Finally, for the majority of you who disagreed that law schools do not serve to create leaders -- my goodness I don't even know where to begin. More importantly, i would encourage those to pick up the local newspaper and read things like the "Front page" because this is a national debate. Law deans are anxiously reviewing, debating and discussing this exact question coast-to-coast.

FYI - I would be MORE than happy to arrange meetings with every law dean in this country and if a SINGLE one does not mention that "leadership" is vital to the institutions mission then I will personally write you a check for 100K . Law, nursing, social work, business, engineering, sciences ANY DISCIPLINE has the basic and vital mission of "Educating leaders in that field". However, not all law students wish to pursue such a path -- which is of course optional. Most enjoy and are contempt on slaving it out on Bay or Wall St. for 45 years behind a computer screen, some seek great rewards and joy in this while others go on to do more meaningful things. Central to this debate was the underlying question: the role of "institutions" in fostering this development.

Thanks once again whateverjustice.

Edited by Tina1, 20 February 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[QuincyWagstaff]

whoosh!

[erinl2]

Quote

whoosh!

No kidding. Oh my. By the way, Tina, please respond to my PM. Thanks.

[Radfahrer]

Do you mean that law schools shouldn't look for students who want cash? Bay St. isn't gonna be pleased.

I remember reading a discussion on here earlier about how close some schools (namely UofT, Osgoode and Western) have very close relationships with Bay St., who channel lots of money into donations and hosting events for students at these schools. Many law prospectives I know have their own visions of becoming a leader, and fighting for social justice. What ends up happening is that these same students see that such work is hard and financially unrewarding given the high debt loads that come with law school, and thus get sucked off into working at big firms, so it creates something like the haves and have-nots. With where tuition is and the disparity in law salaries, the solution probably should be something like a back-end debt relief program, where students have the peace of mind to pursue their real goals and visions instead of worrying about how to pay off that tuition bill.

Again as a 0L, I'm probably talking out of my ass, but I personally feel that not having to worry about debt would make me look more into non-Biglaw options if I didn't have to worrying about paying off 100K in loans. I'm from a minority group, and English is my second language, there's a lot more I would rather do in my community than just toil away at a Bay St. firm!

[dschiiss14]

QuincyWagstaff, on 20 February 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

whoosh!

+1

[Rashabon]

The irony, someone criticizing law school's inability to create independent thinkers can't recognize sarcasm and then spits out a word salad of likely bull on a completely misinterpreted point.

Physician heal thyself.

[Diplock]

Just what this board needed - another would-be law student, frustrated at his/her mediocre performance as judged by accepted measures, eager to instruct all us blind fools as to why those standards are meaningless while taking vaguely incoherent swipes at the legitimacy of everything he/she isn't likely to achieve or gain access to.

Here's the only advice you want or need. Shut up, realize that sometimes people in this world know better than you, and fucking find someone older and more knowledgeable to teach you.

Before you turn this into a character attack, consider this. I'm not offering myself as that authority. I've done my community service this year. I'm not suggesting you get that from this board. I'm just suggesting that there are people in this world, surely, who know better than you do. And you obviously don't believe that yet. Otherwise, you couldn't walk into a room, even virtually, filled with strangers who've traveled further down a path you hope to follow and immediately start mouthing off like you have everything to teach and nothing to learn.

Here or elsewhere, shut up, listen to someone and learn. I say that as someone who learned that lesson the hard way.