Jump to content

Foreign grads: an outside perspective

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 6/7/2018 at 9:12 AM, Noway said:

To my public:

I apologise for taking so long to respond to the screed below. I was busy working as a lawyer in a small firm in a low-status practice area. There were also some individuals of little economic means in the vicinity but they self-deported soon enough.

I am neither a law graduate nor a law hopeful. I am a member of the general population who came here seeking info on this phenomenon of overseas legal education. This may be true, but you sure seem to know a lot (two words) about the legal market in Canada for somebody without a vested interest.

I have to say that I find it disheartening that the discussions that I have seen here seem to centre around whether foreign grads will ever actually enter the profession and, if so, how prestigious their jobs will be. How dare they. The very nerve. They should clean our toilets and shut up. I would like to remind overseas potentials Oh, look. You coined a new term. Others here have used "losers" and "dropouts". Thanks for livening this up. that there are other elements that are more important, particularly professional responsibility. 

I have seen many of the comments, looked at the school's sites You forgot the Oxford comma in this list. and reviewed some stats Shorthand. So legit. and know people who went both routes, and no matter what people argue, Run-on sentence. these overseas schools have tremendously low Compared to what? admission standards and low competition within their schools. (Admission based solely on grades as low as B-), Are you starting a sentence with a parenthetical phrase? which seems to create a lot of variability in terms of the quality of their admitted students and their graduates. I think the word you are looking for is "scum".

Remember that while British, Aus and US all have education systems on par with, or better than, Canada's, that doesn't apply to these schools Could you be more specific? Or would you just rather cast aspersions?, most of which have poor reputations even in their own countries. Remember that students going to school abroad are checking out of the stream part way "part-way" (ex: "e.g." in the UK a law degree doesn't qualify one to be a lawyer, Run-on sentence. grads have to have a 2:1 to do postgrad barrister/solicitor training programs + two year training contract; Canadian students w/ a lower 2:2 can come back to Canada, write the bar up to 8 times and article for one year in a dodgy firm run by their uncle Or at the top dispute resolution firm in the province like I did. ; the US is known to have degree mills which is why the bar is notoriously hard to filter them Poor grammar; usage of "Them" -- inflammatory. the same is not true in Canada). I personally think Redundant. that students w/ foreign degrees shouldn't be considered by the NCA until they have fully qualified as a lawyer in the jurisdiction in which they studied And just how the the flip is that supposed to happen for a Canadian with a student visa that expires soon after they graduate from the university? and possibly spent a few years working w/ references required. And maybe a Rolex and a private jet. This keeps the door open to legit I knew you wouldn't let me down, MC Hammer. foreign lawyers while closing the doors on law school tourists. So they can drown in the Mediterranean? Or maybe a wall. And they can pay for it.

The evidence Do tell. shows that many of these people are indeed passing the bar and practicing as lawyers in Canada, just in small firm Shocking! and low status practice areas. I'm starting to think you might actually be a law grad -- U of T, right? This reality Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality. is troubling, Do you need your blankie? as they are more likely to have a clientele that is already vulnerable and low income (family law, immigration law) and a bad lawyer can be harmful to their access to justice. I think you are confusing parochial Canadian thinking with consumer protection.

As professionals, these graduates will have serious fiduciary responsibilities Redundant. to vulnerable I do not think that word means what you think it means. clients. Students taking advantage of the minimal admission standards abroad should ask themselves honestly if they are able and willing to meet the professional and ethical standards that are required for competent practice. If not, the most professional decision one can make is to opt out of law before they harm people's cases or get sued. Just admit you are a bad person from bad parents and move on. Mow my lawn or make my coffee.

They need to ask themselves why they did badly as undergrads Because what you did when you were 19 is indicative of your future self forever and ever and ever and ever. and whether they are likely to suddenly have the high levels of engagement, self-motivation That missing comma again. and leadership ability required for professional competence. Are they actually able to handle mooting, working in the legal clinic or research alongside law school (because only the recklessly ill-prepared could think that legal skills are learned in the classroom), or the ongoing professional training, reading and overtime that is required in practice? Is this a vocation for them or a 9-5 status symbol? 

There are some overseas hopefuls/graduates posting here who do not demonstrate a grasp of basic grammar and argumentation, Comma splice. which speaks volumes about the clarity, precision and rigour of their future work - and no, it does not matter that they are writing on the internet. Juudgy.

As a potential consumer You aren't a consumer yet? Were you born in an ashram?, I question whether a person like that "A person like that" -- inflammatory. would require more billable hours in order to produce competent work (if at all) Poor grammar. when they can't spit out something sensible under pressure and without editing. I question the professionalism, commitment and judgment of someone who doesn't recognize that their presentation Consistency --  first you're talking about actual ability, now you're talking about "presentation". affects their credibility and that of the profession, right or wrong. I'm reconsidering: maybe you're not a lawyer -- you're just obsessed with lawyers and "the profession". It's okay. That's cool. Just put down the gun and step away from the girl.

People like me are becoming more aware of this backdoor Kinky. process Is this a threat? and I suspect that you will start seeing negative responses from your potential clients. If I had a choice, I wouldn't hire  some of the people who post here who are made woefully unimpressive by either their presentation or the motivations that they tacitly express. I don't want to work for "people like you".

It is honestly depressing how singularly focused "singularly-focussed" some people here are on money and jobs, Those consumers -- can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em. without consideration to what you can bring to the profession and whether you can handle the significant responsibilities therein. Therein! A non-lawyer using "therein"! Heretofore, I had never seen the aforementioned usage of same by a member of the "general public". I'll catch you on the "dodgy DTES" -- by the way, just how many law firms are on the DTES? I know there are or used to be some opposite the court house on Main Street, there is a criminal firm around the corner on Alexander, and I guess there must be some in Chinatown, but I can't think of many. I suppose keeping your classist tone is essential in a classist rant, though.


Edited by kcraigsejong
  • Like 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/8/2018 at 11:18 PM, Noway said:

Don't be so sure about that. - FLSc commissioned a review of the NCA process in 2017 and one of the recommendations was for their evaluation to take a professional competency-based (skill and knowledge) approach rather than the largely knowledge-based approach in place now. Indeed, other countries do this already, with the UK using OSCEs (borrowed from medical professions) to evaluate basic skills like client interviewing. 

It would have to be on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, but wouldn't full qualification prior to application be a step in ensuring that those foundational skills are being learned on par with Canadian grads, without placing an enormous financial burden on the NCA (and our taxes) to meet the 1400 candidates individually to evaluate skills? Plus practice experience means that they get to skip articling, removing the barrier that NCAers allege is due to discrimination against their degree. Seems to be in everyone's interest as long as they are competitive in their host jurisdiction. People are averse to this just because they know visa issues make it more difficult. Again: what in blue bloody blazes are you talking about? "Visa issues" don't make it more difficult, they make it impossible for someone who doesn't have permanent right to remain in that country, an ancestry visa, and/or marry the first local they see when they get off the plane. You are overlooking "reality". Do you think you can stone me and spit in my eye?


Edited by kcraigsejong
  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP has said s/he is “done now”. I agree.

Y’all have more patience than I do. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Recent Posts

    • Ambit aren't you a 0L? Let's not speak with such confidence when you have literally zero exposure to the recruiting procedure from either side of the fence.
    • Hey OP, I would highly recommend just fool proofing the LG section using the 7Sage method. It is literally the best, IMO. Also, contrary to what has already been said, I highly recommend not doing LG sections from tests 1-30. They are very, very different from what you will encounter on test day! Believe me when I say that! After having mastered the games from 52 - 80s, I went back to try the LG sections from PTs 1-30 and they were very hard and very different and absolutely nothing like many of the recent games. Sometimes, those games also have like 2-3 misc. games (which you can't foolproof since they are always different). I would recommend just using PTs 52 - to the latest ones (80 something now) and fool proof those. By the end, you will be very prepared to handle virtually all games come your way test day. Hope that helps     ALSO: I think after fool proofing approximately 10 LG sections, you will start to approach the LG section almost unconsciously and on automatic, which is nice  
    • Graduation awards, as far as I know, have gone out. The rest I am not sure. Nevermind, I thought you meant graduation bursaries. So I actually don't know the answer to your question at all, haha
    • She provides that a decision having an unjustified and disproportionate impact (“that seriously infringes”, in your words) on a Charter right will always be unreasonable, but she doesn’t then say the LSBC’s decision was unjustified and disproportionate (or seriously infringed). She instead meets the majority and dissent halfway by reasoning that while the decision’s negative impact “could not be characterized as minor”, its benefits were nonetheless proportionate, rendering the decision reasonable. "With respect" followed by brow beating. They straight up called out McLachlin and Karakatsanis by saying they were hypocrites, citing extra-judicial commentary. Unbecoming to say the least.   The denial of TWU’s proposed law school with the mandatory covenant is itself good: (i) The covenant likely runs afoul of provincial human rights legislation; (ii) the covenant itself is unnecessary and ridiculous, (not convinced by the concurring or dissenting reasons to the contrary); and (iii) a ruling that TWU Law with the Covenant could go ahead would, however reasoned, reflect poorly on the legal profession because much of the general public wouldn’t appreciate the rationale behind such a decision. But the reasoning of this case, as you allude to, leaves much to be desired. I agree with Cote and Brown when they say the majority’s analysis of the LPA is wrong. They hit the nail on the head when they said that the scope of the LSBC’s statutory authority defines how it carries out its public interest mandate, and not the other way around. The LPA’s provisions and mandate relate to matters relevant to the governance of the legal profession and its constituent parts, and, in that way, they empower the LSBC to “control the doorway to the profession, not to decide who knocks on the door.” Equal access to the legal profession and diversity in the legal profession are, indeed, distinct from the duty to ensure competent practice and the majority decision does leave you wondering if things like tuition fees are also fair game (though I think bursaries, scholarships, loans, etc. weaken the dissent’s analogy). Beyond that and maybe their comments on the problems with weighing Charter rights and Charter values, the dissent goes off course and I prefer the concurring reasons. Brown and Cote’s diversity argument is borderline disingenuous. It stems from a conflation of “religious law schools” and “religious law schools with unnecessarily discriminatory covenants”. smh when they used the idea of religion being about “religious relationships” and when they said qualities that go to a person’s self-identity are at stake for TWU community members. On that note, I’m surprised McLachlin went as far as to say the LSBC’s decision deprives TWU community members of the ability to express their beliefs in institutional form and from associating in the manner they believe their faith requires. That is quite a stretch. I also think the dissent are off on the “reasonableness” piece when they say the Benchers abdicated their duty. I see no issue in conducting the reasonableness analysis when an elected administrative body carefully considers a proposition (or “deliberates”), determines it’s leaning one way on that proposition but thinks either of two solutions is reasonable, then puts that proposition to a referendum (though the Benchers likely knew what the outcome of the referendum would be, and also didn’t want to deal with the fallout of approving TWU Law with the covenant).
    • I would mention it for sure, my partner moved to Canada from Iran around 5 years ago as well and deinfltey the religious police.will be picky about stuff like that  Like.providence mentioned relate it back to law and keep it effiencnt there isn't that much space so show how that motivated you to be practice  law, she mentioned a few great ways of.how to do that, be honest and make.it personal because it will show and reflect positively In terms of gpa you have a OK cgpa ( just make.sure this the olsas cgpa) and  a very good  l2 and b3, for osgoode your cgpa and lower end lsat will not make you a strong applicant per say ( I think 2016 median cgpa was 3.67 and median lsat 162)and for u of t your b3 is competitive BUT your lsat will be a serious problem here because their median is 166, BUT for both schools they have "holistic" approaches so sometimes candidate get in who don't necceqaily meet the medians but they have other aspects or qualities that would be an asset to the incoming class and also prove their aptitude for law and plus your kinda close to the medians for osgoode so I woudlny be shocked u of t i think your lsat is hurting you a lot though and you would need that up significantly to go there  Ottawa is also a cgpa school but your lsat will be good I think, but your cgpa is not bad at all so maybe? I honestly don't know much about them I've never seen class stats for them I think western and queens would be solid schools to apply to as well, your l2 is above their last posted class median yoir cgpa is right at their class median, plus your lsat is closer to their class median of 161 albeit still a bit below  I would also apply to Windsor as well  they like personal statements tailored to social justice btw  If your lsat hit 166 or higher I think you have a strong shot at u of t, 164 or higher a strong shot at Osgoode ), western and queens 161 or higher  strong shot too especially since your b2/l2 beats the median for both and your cgpa beats the median for last year's class for cgpa for queens, but that guarantees nothing this whole admission process is a little random somtieme, deinfltey apply and I'm pretty confident you get in somewhere, stenghrn your LOT and personal statement and ec list as much as possible, and if you can try to get higher on the lsat I would.personally do so   Good luck!