Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 05/27/18 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    nVidia, obviously. Every other answer is wrong. If you pick AMD, you might as well just keep your Intel onboard card for all it’s worth. No but seriously. This debate comes up every couple of months here in various forms. This one is relatively civil, which I’m happy about, but in the past it’s frequently been filled with people saying the equivalent of, “oh yeah? Well *my* A is worth more than *yours* because it’s from [insert preferential major here].” Some people just can’t get enough of feeling superior, even when they’re in a room filled with very accomplished people. It’s stupid and petty, and surprisingly has nearly no bearing in the practice of law. The only people I’ve ever heard debate the intrinsic value of an A in STEM versus the humanities have been applicants or law students. No one else (more or less) seems to care. My response to someone who so strongly believes that a humanities degree is so easy compared to whatever major they hold in such high regard, is go do the easy degree then. Get straight A’s and laugh at all the fools who try to apply to law school with their 3.3 STEM averages. But of course they won’t, because I don’t actually think most people would be willing to take the risk, because I also don’t believe most people truly buy the “lol humanities” rhetoric when it comes down to the wire.
  2. 4 points
    I guess all the universities outside Ontario count as 4th tier too because the rest of the country got no mention at all. I also went to a 4th tier university and was apparently a pity acceptance. We're so fortunate.
  3. 3 points
    I seem to recall you also saying, in another thread some time ago, that law school was quite easy for you and you did very well in it. If I’m remembering that right, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that you’re an exceptionally smart and talented person, and I don’t think your experiences can be taken to be the average. I mean, of course there are people who are quite capable of attaining high marks in both STEM and humanities, and they may even find one easier than the other. But I’d venture to guess that such a thing does not apply to most people. Science and humanities leverage two discrete types of skills. Further, evaluative components in science are usually objective, versus quite subjective for humanities. In other words, not only does it take a different type of skill to engage with the humanities, but it is also evaluated differently. Some people have aptitude for both; most people are good at one and not the other. It’s possible that the skills necessary to succeed in science translate well to humanities, thus making it seem “easier” for those people, but I don’t think that’s the case. At least, not for all of the sciences. I’ve never read any academic paper comparing the relative difficulty of science vs humanities education. I’ve tried to find some but I’ve yet to do so. If you have any you can point me to, it would be a great first start to getting some real data about this whole thing. Because until then, it’s just a bunch of people trying to prove to each other that they’re the better one, which I’m pretty sure is a massive waste of time.
  4. 3 points
    All online debates are pointless mate. Black & blue or white & gold? Who shot first? Does a balrog have wings? Is MCU or DCEU better? AMD or nVidia? If a debate mattered it wouldn’t be restricted to the internet. But we’re gonna debate these pointless topics ad nauseum anyways, because we can, and everyone on the internet wants to be right.
  5. 3 points
    What I found is that the math/science based courses I took (at least one stats at every level, intro calculus, 2nd & 3rd yr organic chem, finance, econ) were not courses I could do well in if I didn't put in time every week throughout the class, and they often monopolized my study time. But, you can check your work and be pretty confident in the grade range you will fall within if you are understanding the concepts. The social sciences I took (communications, sociology, psych, aboriginal studies, history, econ etc), still required doing the work, but I could get an A having never looked at any material prior to writing a paper, and it was generally fine to read through the class lessons and make notes in the day or 2 prior to an exam and expect to do well (most of these were taken through distance ed, so literally learning half the class 2 days before the midterm). The main difficulty with these classes is that the marking is so subjective its difficult to know if your analysis is what the prof considers adequate. It always seemed like I was handing in the first paper blind as a means to figure out what I needed to do on the next papers, since there was so much variance in expectations between profs/courses. Even still, the math and science classes were decidedly more difficult for me, simply based on the minimum effort required to do well. Not to say a class that evaluates students on the basis of four 20+ page research papers is EASY, I just didn't find it as consistently laborious as the math/science based classes.
  6. 3 points
    The more I think about it, the more I think the above point about commonalities is right. I don’t think I could have done any of the other STEM programs except maybe computer science. I never understood chem or bio well in school - they seemed like they took a lot of memorization I didn’t have the mind for. And, as unhappy as this fact made me, I simply didn’t seem to grasp the concepts in physics very well, even if the equations in the lower level stuff were easy enough to work with. Even within math, I had a very easy time with some material and an incredible struggle with others. In every other course I did, I thought that the fact that I could structure and detail an essay well automatically put me in the upper range.
  7. 2 points
    I got high at 9 am and took calculus! And I probably spent 1-1.5 hours a day on math and got As. So it is possible
  8. 2 points
    This "debate" is stupid. The degree of difficulty of a program is a relative concept dependent upon one's intellectual ability and particular skill set. I found math burdensome in high school but it was easy for some of my friends. Likewise I found literature easy whilst they at times struggled.
  9. 2 points
    Can confirm. It's half in September and half in January! It works the same as the other colleges at U of S.
  10. 2 points
    I honestly can’t believe anyone could look at a differential geometry text and a fourth year history essay and argue, with a straight face, that they are equal challenges. History programs don’t even require you to learn a second language anymore, at least not beyond the “I would like fries with that” level. I did 500-level Chinese history courses with people who couldn’t read the modern language well enough to get through a novel, let alone the classical language. Anything can be difficult. I’ve gushed over historians on this forum. But as a current reality, humanities programs expect far less of their students than do math programs, and maybe that’s true for other STEM programs. Which is to say, I think it’s insecurity, not honesty, driving the infinite disagreement on this.
  11. 2 points
    As an aside, one can imagine a version of Hell where you have to listen to the same issue being argued over and over again for all eternity.
  12. 2 points
    Definitely not. Even with a high GPA thats a long shot.
  13. 2 points
    I took a lot of math classes for my minor, I took a lot of science classes for my major and to be pre-med, and I took a few humanities courses as requirements and out of interest. This was so long ago and I am old! But from what I can remember, my math classes were probably the easiest in the sense that if you get math concepts, you get what you have to do. Numbers make sense and they don’t change. Writing a strong humanities paper took a lot more work for me. But I was also always surprised that humanities profs gave out marks for class participation when so many people were just talking shit. In science, you got points for showing up for your labs, but you had to do stuff when you were there. LOL at @theycancallyouhoju because it is true, the slackers weren’t in math or the hard sciences. A lot were in psychology, come to think of it. My ex majored in something that was full of athletes and the prof let them listen to music on game days and didn’t even cover any material.
  14. 2 points
    It’s also harder to get into Waterloo, McMaster, Queens, and Western than it is to get into U of T. Maybe the reason all the U of T people think university is hard is that they’re not able to get into the four best universities in Ontario? (Obviously, no offence to the non-pretentious U of T undergraduate students — I would feel terrible for offending them both)
  15. 2 points
    I think, in general, STEM is harder than humanities and social sciences, just in terms of workload. There are also tiers of universities in terms of difficulty. U of T is first tier. Without a doubt, the curves are most brutal, combined with a terrible undergrad experience. Mac, Wloo, Queens are second tier. Western, Laurier, Ottawa, Carleton, York and Ryerson are third tier. And the rest are just 4th tier. That being said, there are great students in every program and every school, so program and school difficulty can only go so far.
  16. 2 points
  17. 1 point
    Nobody can really think that math and physics aren’t harder than history and law. Some things are conceptually difficulty and some are not. Nobody ever sat in contracts and had the professor explain that a contract requires offer and acceptance and consideration and was like “wait what I don’t follow; can you please explain that again.” But that happens all the time in math class. The “difficulty” of law school, as hoju points out, is just learning to beat the curve when the material is basic and everybody understands it but only so many As can be given out. The difficulty of a humanities degree is nonexistent because 90% of the class didn’t even read the material. But people get way too bent out of shape about this. Understanding difficult concepts is a very overrated skill. Unless you’re a rocket scientist or a math professor you don’t need to be that smart. Most of life (and all of law, which seems relevant here) ain’t that complicated. You’re better off focusing on your work ethic, attention to detail, people skills — stuff that actually matters.
  18. 1 point
    I think I’m okay at school work, but I also think a lot of doing well at the undergrad level was a paucity of sincere competition. Law students put in the requisite work, over all, and I’ve long argued that doing well in law was a function more of learning how to structure exams than of understanding the law, which I really believe almost all students do. To clarify, I don’t think Heidegger is easier than calc. I think more people who just want some degree, any degree, went into my humanities courses. And my curve in those classes reflected that.
  19. 1 point
    Wait, yes I do: Johnson v. Milton (City), 2006 CanLII 27234 (ON SC). A man is killed and his wife seriously injured in a tandem bike accident. According to witnesses, the departed's last words were "oh shit".
  20. 1 point
  21. 1 point
    But it’s not a score you can “anticipate acceptance” with.
  22. 1 point
    I got in quite early to Western, Ottawa, and Osgoode with a LSAT 165 and cGPA 3.55 (l2 about the same). If you can your cGPA up like you've projected then I'd guess you're good for every school except UofT. Im also finishing a Master's degree but I don't know how much that helped.
  23. 1 point
    I brought my family! It’s very common and a wonderful experience for all
  24. 1 point
    I think ProfReader is right though - those are a lot of ECs, and with the lower grades you have, it's hard to escape the conclusion that you might have done better in school if you didn't have 10 ECs going on. It undermines your claim that the bad grades are due to mental health issues - you were too incapacitated to focus on school but well enough to play soccer, volunteer, be in clubs, etc? I get that some of those things might be coping tools, but it still doesn't look great. Also, none of those ECs are in and of themselves exceptional. A lot of people are peer tutors/mentors or on the executive for university clubs or play recreational sports or volunteer for cancer research due to having family members affected. As ProfReader said, those are typical things undergrads do to try to get into law. Exceptional ECs are on another level altogether. You have a decent LSAT. You will have a better PS if you narrow and focus it instead of putting all that stuff in.
  25. 1 point
    Though, presumably, in hell you don’t have the option to ignore it.
  26. 1 point
    Id say pretty good. I got into Queens, Osgoode, Western and waitlisted Ottawa with a 3.61 and a 155/156 LSAT
  27. 1 point
    You didn't need to justify your ECs to us. But that's a whackload, so choose the ones you want to emphasize carefully. You get anywhere from 4000-8000 CHARACTERS to sell yourself in your personal statement, and it's a lot less than you think.
  28. 1 point
    I think the difference between STEM and non-STEM courses lies in some of the expectations of first-year students. In my experience, what made my science/math courses so challenging was that the professors expected that student truly understood concepts from high school. The tests reflected that through ridiculous questions that you couldn't prepare for by simply doing the homework/readings and listening to lectures. It's very unforgiving as well. You're out of luck if you didn't understand a previous concept well or forgot a few things from high school. It's tough to start university or take upper-year courses feeling like you're missing some crucial information. I never felt this way in my other classes (especially in first year). They started with the basics and assumed that students knew nothing about the subject. It was really easy to get caught up as well.
  29. 1 point
    If there's anything I've learned from this thread, it's that: a) math is hard, and success requires a combination of hard work and natural aptitude b) the same more or less applies to every other subject, but to different extents c) people can talk civilly about the relative difficulty of different programs, without the conversation turning into a giant pissing contest
  30. 1 point
    Thank you for taking the time out of your day to respond to my question and providing the feedback that you have. I agree with your point in regards to the letter. I do have no idea if my LORs are really outstanding. I am just going by what other people told me, but you are correct in the sense that I have no way of knowing without comparing it with the LORs of other students. If you dont mind me asking, since you have worked in the admissions office, what type of a LOR would qualify as outstanding? Is there a sort of criteria? In regards to my ECs, in a way they are all related and important to me. Being an immigrant to Canada once upon a time myself, I found it really difficult to integrate into the Canadian society, given that I had no friends nor did I know the language. As such, now that I am more familiar with the language and capable of helping others who are in the same position that I once was, I try to spend a lot of time into helping different communities and people. For example, most of my ECs such as Frontier College and the mentorship program at school are focused on these goals of mine. While the former seeks to help newcomers develop their language skills or provide help with the completion of their homework, the latter seeks to help first year students at the university become comfortable with univeristy life. Similariy, my time at City Hall was spent working alongside council Neethan Shan developing different community activities in which newcomers can participate in. In addition, we also seeked ways in which these newcomers can become comfortable and intergrate into their respective communities. In regards to my volunteer with the Cancer society, I have lost numerous family members to cancer. In addition, it goes without saying that it is one of the leading causes of death. So I try to do my best with raising awareness and doing whatever I can to help those going through cancer. As far as soccer goes, I am actually a big soccer fan and have played the sport ever since I was a kid. It is a big passion of mine, which has helped me in dealing with many difficult moments in my life. Finally, with serving as the president of a club, I serve as the president of a club because I wanted to bring my culture into school and inviting people into seeing what the culture of my country is and whats it about. For instance, what the food is like, the people, the traditions, the holiday celebrations and etc... While I do agree in a way that they may seem unrelated on paper, but for each club or organization that I have volunteered for, they each serve a purpose which I deem important in my life and are completely committed to.
  31. 1 point
    Math is hard. I think reasonable people should be able to agree on that without feeling threatened or inadequate.
  32. 1 point
    Tricky texts to get through. Easy classes to get As in, though. My theory for why math is harder as a program than most of the humanities/essay programs is very straight forward: only people who are actually good at math sign up for that degree. I signed up for philosophy because, what the hell, that sounds like a fine humanities program. My roommate did “Latin American Studies” because he sort of spoke Spanish and it seemed like a few cute girls were in the program. My other buddy did poli sci because he couldn’t think of anything else. My partner did poli sci because she couldn’t think of anything else. My cousin did poli sci because he couldn’t think of anything else. My sister did history because she heard it involved fewer essays than English Lit. No one ever says “well, fuck it, I have to go to university and I have no particular talents so I might as well take math.” Ever.
  33. 1 point
    No offence taken. Let me know if you find the other one; I'm still on the lookout for my soulmate. tyvm
  34. 1 point
    Q1: the more fluent you are, the better the education will be for you (and access to opportunities both during and after). So decide yourself. Q2: Yes. Always. McGill or not that's a good idea. Languages are always a good thing. Q3: I only know of the gang, les francos qui frappent les anglos terribles who may give you a tough time. They come around and if they hear an obviously Anglo accent/misuse of the language, they bully you into submission.* *obviously sarcasm.
  35. 1 point
    There are also tiers of wildflower that are most likely to win the Daytona 500. Wild daffodils are first tier. Without a doubt, the six petals are underneath a trumpet-shaped corona combined with a status as the national flower of Wales (thanks Wikipedia). Fennel, red clover, poppies, and corn flowers are second tier. Buttercups and tansies are third. The rest are just fourth.
  36. 1 point
    Great courses: trial ad. Seriously, this is the best. negotiation was interesting. conflict of laws. A very pleasant surprise. estates is supposed to be good. Ditto tax. municipal was surprisingly interesting. not very useful: business associations. Do the online and take something else instead.
  37. 1 point
    I don't think that schools are transparent enough about their curves for this to be credible. Also, there is likely variation across the curves used by different faculties at some schools. I also have no idea where you got your rankings from. Even though I would definitely be against ranking by difficulty in the way that you have, I would certainly not have ranked them as you did. And I've actually taught at least 1 course at 3 of the schools on your list.
  38. 1 point
    I had to memorize the appearances, artists, titles, dates, and relevant facts of 144 works of art for a midterm in undergrad once. I think the final required around 120 artworks. Fight me, STEM students.
  39. 1 point
    It's definitely common. I brought my family along too
  40. 1 point
    Having graduated from UTSG, my advice to you is to work extra hard. The average grade at UTSG is 67% and to get into law school, you'll need 80% or higher. For first & second year courses, profs are told they can only allow 5% of the class to get a grade of A minus or higher (yes, I saw the memo with my own eyes).
  41. 1 point
    Congrats Guys!!! This is great news
  42. 1 point
    Accepted off the waitlist today! LSAT: 152 (Sept), 157 (Feb) CGPA: 3.6 Lots of EC, 2 letters of reference (one from a prof and one from a lawyer I work for) Super excited & will be accepting!
  43. 1 point
    Congrats! That's amazing!!!!
  44. 1 point
    Waitlisted last week. I am happy of this news (better than a rejection) but very surprised and it confuses my plans. I have accepted Queen's but McGill would mean my family and I can stay in Montreal. If anyone has any information about the waitlist, please share :S . Should I plan for Kingston or wait... It will be very appreciated ! cGPA: 3.4 L2: 3.8 LSAT: 167
  45. 1 point
    Take the test now. Almost no one materially improves for four straight months. I used to tutor the LSAT - if your natural landing pad with some amount of practice is 170ish, write the test in July and be pissed off you have two more months of practice to keep yourself sharp. Don't study much, do practice tests and do not stress this at all.
  46. 1 point
    Well, lord knows I haven't been able to secure a job yet, so shitposting and being a leech on the government for now.
  47. 1 point
    Not my screwup, but hilarious nonetheless: In Schmor Estate v Weber, 2010 ONSC 586, Brown J wrote:
  48. 1 point
  49. 1 point
    I had an interview with the City in 2010 (i.e. for an articling position beginning in fall 2011). My grades at that point were pretty average, with a couple of Cs but also some As. At the end of 2L I was probably around the median of my class. I had some government experience. I had extracurriculars during law school but they weren't law-related. The questions didn't really probe my legal knowledge. I got at least one weird question ("would you rather do X absurd thing or Y absurd thing"), one or two questions about my transcript (including one about a C grade), and some about my previous work experience. There were two parts to the interview. The first part was an actual sit-down interview with two counsel. After that, one of them brought me upstairs to meet one of the higher-ups. Everyone was very pleasant. I got a very good impression of the Division - not so much concerning their qualities as a legal department, since it's hard to gauge that, but rather that they'd be a pleasant group of people to work with.
  50. 1 point
    This post is extremely upsetting on multiple levels. For starters, your interpretation of 'law' is strictly dedicated to the private firm realm. While I will be honest and say that I'm still a law student, even I am cognizant of the opportunities that exist outside of this sphere. A law degree is a gateway degree that literally opens doors to whatever you want to do. Instead of thinking of your life as some pitiful rat race, open your eyes to the amazing reality that you are now amongst some of the most intelligent and envied members of our society. This extends not just to your financial potential in life, but also the level of social change that you can advocate for IF you decide to. This brings me to my second point. If you are disgusted with the the dichotomization of 'big law' or 'bust', why don't you realize the other roles that law school allows you to fulfill in life? I recognize that not everyone is bound to be a social justice advocate mired in thousands of dollars in debt, but you should at least open your eyes to the fact that your interpretation of where law school 'leads' you is immensely flawed. Finally, law school in and of itself is an immense privilege. I get a sense from the OP's entry that the attitude of 'a decent house costs a couple of million' is completely out of whack with what the rest of Canadian society faces everyday. Self-entitlement is not something that should pervade your advice to future law school students. I would hate to see you try living on the average Canadian income of around $35,000 per year with limited prospects of professional advancement in your career. Law school is hard. There is no doubt about it. The formalized recruitment process, competition with colleagues, and dedication to your studies are also hard. But this is LIFE - if you are expecting something different then (a) change the lens through which you look at the legal profession or (b) just get out. This kind of pessimistic attitude does not help anyone.
This leaderboard is set to Toronto/GMT-04:00

  • Newsletter

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

    Sign Up
  • Create New...