Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/24/17 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    In 2010 I quit school thinking I would never re-enroll. When I quit I was so sure of this that I didn't even bother hiking up the stairs to the registrars office in order to drop out of my courses. I was enrolled in 5 courses and, obviously, I failed all 5. Prior to that I had failed 3-4 as well. Fast forward to 2014. I'm working in the trades and I start thinking about school again. I decided to take a couple of courses at Athabasca University (online) in order to be able to work and study at the same time. A month after I got sent to Fort Mac and I completely gave up on the idea. I failed those two courses as well. At the end of that year I walked into my old university and talked to an academic advisor. He told me I had exactly 60 credits left in order to graduate. I signed up for the January 2015 semester and completed the 60 credits in 1.5 years with a 3.91 GPA (that's my last 60 GPA). I only got one B. Last week I got accepted to law school. Is it possible? Fuck yeah it's possible. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. Here's the problem: your mentality in this moment in time. When I left school in my early 20's to go and work in the trades I was clearly a different person. I couldn't sit in a classroom. I couldn't concentrate. I was depressed. There were a lot of personal reasons why I was failing. When I re-enrolled at the age of 27 (in 2015) my head was in a completely different place. You don't go from 10 F's to 19 A's in one semester. To wrap it up, I definitely think you can fix whatever it is that's causing you to perform like this, but you need to take a break. I needed a few years. You might need only a year. Go travel if you have the money. Go work as a labourer or a first aid attendant in the oil patch. Go teach English in Korea. Then come back and give your 110%. You'll be surprised at the results. Edit: and if you truly want to go to law school at any cost, broaden your net. U of A is a last 60 school, U of C is holistic but they focus on your last 60 etc...
  2. 2 points
    This is the chart I was talking about earlier: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-u9luOkViBOYVM2bWFMcmJNcUpOZVBZY0lsTVpyOGRIaGFR/view According to that, 3 people were admitted with your GPA/LSAT combo last year. So it's definitely doable. 169 is a great score btw, congrats. Maybe email Heather Richolt and see if she can give you any information. She might say something reassuring. U of C went on their Christmas break on Friday (they're back Jan. 2nd), so the U of A admission committee might also be away until then. But send the email, won't hurt.
  3. 1 point
    You should definitely rewrite! Last year's Accepted thread has someone with a 90.97 index who only got in on August 21st (initially number 95 on the waitlist) so assuming that this cycle is about the same, you'd be cutting it VERY close. Retaking the LSAT might increase your chances and if your score doesn't improve, it won't matter because UBC takes your best score. Good luck!
  4. 1 point
    The biggest issue with this topic is that it is based on a faulty premise. The argument goes that handwritten notes are better for processing information during class, therefore handwritten notes are better. But, odd as this sounds, my experience was that you don't actually learn the material in the lecture, but much later when you put together your CAN for the course. My studying process was not necessarily efficient, I'll admit, but it consisted of (1) comprehensive reading notes, (2) comprehensive (bordering on transcription, but not quite) lecture notes, (3) CAN creation closer to exam period by cross-referencing readings notes with lecture notes with prof's slides (if available) with the textbook. I would learn the basics in Stage 1, more detail in Stage 2, but it's Stage 3 - when everything comes together in a comprehensive, concise summary - where I actually learned the material. So sure, if you were to test me immediately after the lecture on the material perhaps I wouldn't do well. But who cares? That's a measure of short-term memory rather than long-term retention, but long-term retention is what we're going for here. The lecture is merely a stage in the process, an invaluable one that cannot (or at least should not) be skipped, but still just a stage. Nobody will remember in December/April what the prof said in the third lecture in September/January, but typed notes increase your odds of having it written down. In the likely event that you did not realize in that third lecture that a certain statement was important, transcription means you have more information at the important time - Stage 3 - versus handwriting only the "salient" points before you know enough to know what is salient.
  5. 1 point
    Jr associates can be between 40k-70k. It ranges on year of call obvs and whether you bring your own client list. It also really depends on the firm's expected billable (for Ottawa, are you working with Edelson on $$$ files or are you working at a high-volume LAO practice). There are also only a handful of mid size solely criminal law firms. I believe people choose to work in them, as opposed to sole, because they dont want to run a business. Thry also get much more interesting cases waaaay earlier on. JR SPs generally arent getting appeal work, though a colleague who a 2 year call is getting exactly that at one of these firms. Other common pay strategies is a 50-50 share arrangement. You get to benefit from the firm name and resources in this way.
  6. 1 point
    It won't matter - UVic doesn't look at that. If that's your index, you're going to get in. Relax.
  7. 1 point
    Think ahead: when you're doing the recruit you're going to have an application package that sends a max of like 10 signals to your potential employer. You'll have a) a law school transcript that shows whether you're conscientious/lazy, b) a cover letter that shows whether you can convincingly bullshit about your interest in selling yourself to mammon, c) a resume that provides talking points for the interview. When you put something like "Completed required CPA courses" under the OTHER tab of your resume, you're putting a big sticker on your application that says "ASK ME ABOUT ________". What kind of a story is there to tell about this? You can't tell the standard accountant story: "I have professional services experience and I am less likely to freak out when I realize how boring this work is." Instead imagine how the conversation will go: *bored interviewer quickly scans your application material trying to think of something to ask* "Oh cool, you're an accountant? What was that like? Why did you decide to go to law school?" -no actually if you read my resume carefully you'll see that I only did some courses, belatedly. I actually have no professional services experience at all. *silence* Say what you will about humanities bullshit, at least ENG 404Y - Diaspora Narratives Told Through Underwater Basket Weaving gives you something unusual to talk about.
  8. 1 point
    If you want to go to a top U.S. law school, then more power to you and congrats. Just obligatory warning. A law degree from Harvard won't really open any doors (at least not overtly, and not law-related doors) in Canada that a Canadian law degree won't also open. As in, you'll find that the partners at top Canadian law firms, our Supreme court judges, etc. all went to Canadian schools. And yet, coming back (if you still intend to come back), you'll still face the NCA, delay in getting called, and depending on what your U.S. options look like potentially even higher debt than domestic grads. I say that not to rain on your parade, but there are many students at U of T every year that also could have gone to HYS (as well as some at other schools, please note) and they have done the math and realized that it isn't the best option. It may indeed be the best option for you but don't go there just because you can and feel like you should. Go as part of a considered plan. If you want to work in the U.S., hell yes go to HYS. If you have enough money that cost isn't an issue and you don't mind some additional aggravation, then hell yes, again go. If you want to be in Canada and especially if you may not want to do corporate-type law ... think carefully. It isn't necessarily the best plan for everyone. That said, congrats.
  9. 1 point
    Sounds like exactly what my fiancee and I are looking for but I'm not in yet... I'll shoot you an email once I find out. Almost every studio weve seen close to uOttawa is >1000.
  10. 1 point
    I'm effectively throwing away money if I cancel the applications of the schools I haven't heard from. When I go to a restaurant and order appetizers, a main course and dessert, I expect to eat all the food I've ordered, I'm not going to leave after the main course just because I feel full. At worst, I'll get the dessert wrapped up to go.
  11. 1 point
    I can't give you a single tip (I literally only know about U of C and U of A), but had to post and say damnnnn. Congrats on those score improvements. That's very impressive.
  12. 1 point
    Got my offer this morning. Third-year philosophy undergrad. LSAT: 161 cGPA: 3.23 L2: 3.92 Six years' experience as a court reporter (28 yo). Strong ECs, strong personal statement, strong letters of rec. Good luck, everyone!
  13. 1 point
    At the start of 1L, I succumbed to the laptop pressure but it didn't turn out well for me. I wasted too much trying to capture everything in my notes, formatting my notes, etc. Basically, it was secretarial work rather than learning. To that, you can add the constant distraction of incoming emails, the news, etc...In second term, I chose to bring a printed set of my favourite CAN to each lecture. During the lecture I would make my notes in the margins and highlight whatever seemed important. Before exams, I would recreate my new CAN by integrating my own notes into the existing CAN. It's not exactly an efficient workflow but it worked better for me in terms of learning the material
  14. 1 point
    Oh dear, so many things wrong with this. Yes, it’s a bad investments if you make all sorts of ridiculous and crazy assumptions. 1. Most lawyers don’t consistently work 70 hours a week. I probably did when I was ariticling (and I was well compensated for my time). I certainly did not as I got more experienced. Let’s use a more reasonable number, call it 60 hours. 2. Most lawyers don’t work 52 weeks a year. Every lawyer I know takes vacations. Let’s say 2 weeks. So, let’s rerun your numbers using those more realistic numbers. 60*14*50 = $42k a year. Ok, what else is wrong? 3. well, who’s repaying $20k in student loans a year? It rather depends on interest rates, but you need students loans of $160-170k to neccesitate 20k a year in debt repayment at current rates Is that a reasonable estimate?. There may be people with that kind of student debt, but I’d suggest it’s not representative. 4. You don’t repay student loans forever. Even if, after repaying your student loans your income wouldn’t only be $8k higher than minimum wage for 10 years (which, aside, implies an 8% return on the 100k you invested during your first 10 years - that’s a pretty good investment, even if nothing else changed (about which more below), after 10 years you’d be making $28k more a year for the next, what, 30 years of your career. Really, that’s a bad investment? 5. Things aren’t likely to stay the same - generally lawyers see their incomes rise over their careers (as they become more knowledgeable, efficient and productive). Even being a lawyer paid no better than working minimum wage (after accounting for debt repayment) at the start of your career, that’s highly unlikely to be over the entirety of ones career. What is the wage progression at McDonalds like? 6. Even if everything you say was true, that after debt repayment (for the first 10 years) your take home was no different, hands up everyone who would rather work at McDonalds 60 hours a week - risking deep fat fryer burns to the tune of some officious team leader who counts the seconds you take to take a whiz, while wearing the world’s most hideous uniform - instead of working in an office, doing intellectually challenging and important work, and having a fair degree of autonomy - if I want to fuck off in the middle of the day to grab coffee with a friend, I do. Do you believe that? Because I’d wage good money that, given that choice, not a single person here would turn down law. Yes, there are other complications to the analysis like taxes (though that cut some both ways - lawyers get big hefty tuition tax credits to offset their tuition as well as student loan relief from the Ontario government), but none of that takes away from the fundamental point that youre analysis is badly, badly flawed. And it should be obvious that it flawed. When I was an articling student, blowing my brain out working around the clock for weeks on end, I pinned a Tim Hortons job application that I’d picked up on a midnight coffee run on my bulletin board. It was a joke, but it was also a reminder, when I was feeling bummed, I had a choice, I could work at Tim Hortons if I was so inclined. That law school alumni are not flocking to peddle cheap coffee at Timmies (or to do any one of the countless things that smart, motivated people, can do) suggests that they think law is a better choice than the alternatives. Maybe you’re smarter than the entirety of the legal profession, and have cottoned on to a truth that elude the rest of us dullards, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
  15. 1 point
    Here is a point I would like to emphasize: you work longer hours at the front end because you are climbing a steep learning curve. You cannot be efficient because you don’t know how to be efficient yet. The only way to overcome this is to DO THE WORK and shovel your shit from a sitting position until that little lightbulb goes off and you “get” it. Then it goes faster. Then it gets easier. My complaint about some of the complaints are when you see students asking if they can arrange a 9-5 and they give no reason why that might be an acceptable amount of work done at the end of the day. How much experience do you bring with you? Can you do what needs to be done in the confined space of 40 hours a week? I doubt it. Put another way, in one week I can run three trials, six bail hearings, a contentious sentencing, draft a dozen disclosure letters, review a couple new matters, conduct some pretrial interviews and close two files. That takes up about 80 hours (weekend included) and represents a busy week. It would take a student at least double but probably triple those hours to do the same thing and they would be a quivering wreck by the end of it through sheer nerves. I know that a student needs at least three weeks between simple trials, needs two days to polish off a sentencing memo I could do in an hour, and needs to be supervised when they interview anyone because they don’t know how to get Rambling McRamblerson to shut up and focus. That is fine. I was there once too and I put in the hours to learn. It took a lot of hours. I knew that. So I worked those hours. And I earned my ability to do things properly and faster. I earned my 9-5. So a fair question might be “In about five years does this settle in to a 9-5, generally speaking?” A really bad question would be “So do I only need to work 9-5 once I start?” But that is the question I am starting to hear a lot. If it helps to read the perspective of a senior Call, there it is fwiw.
  16. 1 point
    I feel like this comment went too far, but I certainly agree with the direction its aimed in. As much as it is valid to talk about the importance of having a healthy legal culture, and jobs that afford would-be lawyers a variety of opportunities, etc., the starting point for that discussion has got to be coupled with the realization that the practice of law affects real clients whose concerns are almost invariably critical or potentially critical. I'm open to any conversation about how to serve those clients appropriately and stay healthy. But just like the other douchiness I referenced earlier, I have pretty much zero time for anyone who wants to talk about their legal career as though they are at the centre of the story. Lawyers occupy a position of unique trust and we have a solemn public responsibility. There will be times you simply cannot put your client's issues down for the weekend. And anyone who thinks that the world should revolve around them to the degree that this is always an option, no matter whose life is falling apart in the interim, is too self-involved to be worth my time.
  17. 1 point
    The more responsibility you have for peoples' lives, the less likely you are to have a 40-hour work week. I don't how realistic that is in any type of law. You're making way above the average salary for a reason. I work for myself and no one has me chained to a desk, but I am responsible for my clients. If I have to deal with an after-hours custody call (student has the phone but sometimes has to contact me if it is a death-related call or a youth or something out of the norm) I can't say "I already worked 40 hours, sorry." If I was in trial all week but also have a factum due, I have to write that on the weekend. If I'm in a multi-day trial, I'm in court for 6-7 hours in the day but then have to go home and organize my notes and prepare for the next day in light of what I just learned, and that could take another few hours per day. I don't work 100 or even 80 hours except maybe in the midst of a major trial - 60 is a lot for me but not unheard-of - but I rarely do 35 or 40 unless I have consciously booked a lighter week for myself and the stars actually align to allow that.
  18. 1 point
    For future readers: do your due diligence and check this person's post history. Proceed with caution taking this person's word as gospel. he/she/zhe/whatever has an axe to grind with U of A Law.
  19. 1 point
    Ibanking in Canada is tiny compared to the states and is a bitch to get into. Like 5 people from the Rotman MBA get it every year, I think a few more from ivey’s MBA might get it but not many more. There just aren’t many jobs available and TBH they seem to prefer to hire kids at the analyst level out of undergrad and see if they survive. Ibanking in NYC or London is a different matter entirely. It pays a lot more than biglaw does working comparably unpleasant hours. There are U of T law grads working in IB in both of those markets and I totally see why they do it. It’s really hard to get into, but the payoff is huge. As far as the rest of what you said, first of all you have an unrealistic view of how difficult it is to get ibanking. Second of all just because you waltzed into U of T law doesn’t mean you’ll waltz into Ivey and kill it there. Third of all just because you waltzed into U of T law doesn’t mean you’ll waltz into a Bay Street law job, it’s very competitive. I think your view of U of T law is a little skewed. It’s a good law school, and people here are pretty smart, but it’s not Yale law, and it’s not Wharton or HBS either. Simply going to U of T law is not a guarantee of success.
This leaderboard is set to Toronto/GMT-05:00

  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up

×
×
  • Create New...