Jump to content

Bure10

Members
  • Content Count

    3511
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

789 Good People

Recent Profile Visitors

6480 profile views
  1. What Miss JE said. Look at the syllabus and there will be a part about attendance. Some classes was mandatory, others wasn't and some classes you were expected to be prepared for specific days. I had a class where there was a 40% presentation and a 60% paper but I did the presentation early in the semester and did the paper on my presentation topic so I had 0 incentive to attend after my paper was handed in. In a broader sense if you are considering to go to class or not just make sure you attend everything in the first semester of 1L and go from there. I found I couldn't concentrate in some classes and spent a lot of time on my computer. My grades had no correlation with my interest or participation in class and throughout school my attendance and grades did not correlate. If its a small class the prof might notice, heck if its a large class they might notice and sure if you ask for help or something you are less likely to get it. Also if the prof is a practitioner that is local and you miss a bunch then they probably wont hire you - But generally there is no consequence for not going unless its specifically written in the syllabus. Find a learning strategy that works within your goals. If you are trying for the gold medal or big law your strategy is different than someone who is happy getting straight Bs and has a job lined up. If you learn more by reading at home and taking notes than do that but if you need to actively listen to the teacher and ask questions than go to class. Law school is different than undergrad and its a whole new beast so use the first semester to see what works and doesn't.
  2. You "could" but there are a lot of variable. Go through all the Canadian Law School websites and see how they calculate GPA for admission purposes. They all use different formulas, scales, weight etc... once you have that you will be in a better position to know. For instance at U of O they use pretty much straight cGPA so you are definitely out there but U of M uses an index score so you can literally know exactly what LSAT you need for U of M. The fact you suggest medical issue, mental health issue and other personal circumstances might put you in some sort of access category but again look at all the schools and how the evaluate access applicants. I would spend some time doing that and then spend your summer studying for the LSAT and then writing the LSAT and going from there. An extra year is not helpful in all places and even in places where it is the benefit is not the same.
  3. Apply to index schools or schools that drop a certain % of your grades. I am out of the game for a while but Manitoba, New Brunswick and one of either UBC or uVic come to mind. The departmental average is meaningless for applications and I dont know how big of a difference a 17X or 169 will make.
  4. Probably lower than the 20% honestly. You should apply as broadly as possible to most Canadian schools. I would research which schools will actually look at the 5th year. The LORs and your extracurriculars are nothing that would really tip the scales. If you applied to the JD/JD at Windsor then I think your chances are better than the 20% the previous poster quoted but the 155 is just too low. If this cycle doesn't workout then reapply broadly and really push yourself on the LSAT.
  5. Private practice does give you a lot of flexibility. I generally just have to be accountable with my billings and no one really asks questions. You have to maintain somewhat of an office presence and not miss deadline or meetings but if you are in court all the time you don't have many meetings scheduled. Its pretty great actually.
  6. Calgary is a way sicker city but TRU has connections in Van and actually does some events in Vancouver. I traveled to Vancouver a few times for bar events and some lawyers from Van would come to TRU.
  7. 1. Not worrying about spending money on vacation - That means buying things I want and eating where I want. I have been on vacation with people on a budget and to me that's not the point of vacation. 2. Not packing a lunch. Criminal litigation means you break when the court decides and have little or no say in how long your lunch is so I eat on the go all the time. Usually it is with the other lawyers but its nice not packing a lunch every day. 3. If I want or need something I just buy it and dont have to wait until pay day -A stick breaks, I need to fix my car etc...
  8. After first semester of 1L I attended progressively less class every semester after that. I knew my strategy to succeed and understood my strengths and weaknesses and used them to my advantage. In 1L my grades did not correlate well with my class attendance and participation. It isnt about "skipping class" its about understanding your habits and your strengths/weaknesses and using them to your advantage. I have issue concentrating in class but am focused when reading and taking notes so I would use class time to read and take good notes. There is also a lot of other variables so there is no hard or fast rule about how to learn and succeed in law school and anyone that suggests there is only one way to do something in school isnt correct.
  9. Fair enough, sorry for misunderstanding. Im mostly a crim guy who dabbles in some civil lit.
  10. I liked forced Settlement Conference in Small Claims given the nature of the Claims and often unrepresented parties. I dont think we are talking about family law? The issue in your first paragraph is fair but we have an ethical duty FWIW to be open minded to settlement and encouraging but its more from parties this hard line (In my experience)
  11. What a horrible decision. I made that exact offer recently, and just had a Settlement Conference where the same offer was in play. There are so many garbage cases brought by Plaintiffs that a no costs dismissal isnt an unreasonable offer.
  12. Dont ask about their undergrad or law school - I would say work as well but I think people differ on that. The biggest thing is dont fake a topic (I saw a poster point this out) talk like a normal person and try to find something in common that you can actually discuss. I like talking about sports and movies/TV and we can talk about that then perfect if not Ill be annoyed if you dont know what you are saying.
  13. Check how your GPA breaks down and why it is a 3.0. Worst case you had a 3.0 every year with exactly B grades the whole time. If you have two years (Better if your last two) with a 4.0 and then your other two are a 2.0 then you are looking better. If you have 75 of your grades as As and B +s and 25% Cs and Ds then you are looking better. I would look at specifically what each school takes into consideration as far as your grades because there are best 2 schools, last 2 schools and schools that have a method of calculation where they drop a certain amount of your worst grades. I would retake the LSAT and do a masters before going to the US or UK. Not every school will consider post graduate grades but some will and hopefully you will score better. Same with the LSAT as most schools look at the best one so improve there. This option is much cheaper than the US/UK. Also apply broadly after you figure out if any of the above two paragraphs work for you.
  14. Articling started pretty slow for me and have some dull times but there are things to do: go to court, read old files, review some fun cases on line, look at other local lawyer profiles to get a sense of who you are working with etc... The blog suggestion is pretty on point too.
  15. Pretty solid humble brag. In all reality the in/out threads over the years are a good reference for a snapshot of the type of grades getting in and they are definitely varied. My advice is to always apply broadly and you never know. Good luck in any event.
×
×
  • Create New...