Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

44 Decent People

About fromeo

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. ill just leave this here: https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/becoming-a-lawyer-in-bc/admission-program/articling-centre/articling-reductions-and-exemptions-from-pltc/ No full articling exemption, just reductions. I am saying the numbers shouldn't be relied upon entirely as the numbers are skewed. Don't conflate what I said. Ill throw another cocky arrogant prick in here.
  2. There is no full articling exemption. NCA hasn't released country specific data as far as I am aware, just going based on what I saw at the NCA exams in Vancouver, like I said. I am sure the failure rate is high amongst Canadian born foreign graduates also. They spent 3 years studying a different legal system. I am saying that the numbers shouldn't be entirely relied upon.
  3. The person in question here is not a girl, just FYI. He went to Bond if that helps.
  4. Yes, I am aware, which is why I said "many" and not all. They are still learning a different legal system for 3+ years, it makes sense that it would be harder to pass a bar exam for a Country that you didn't spend 3 years studying the legal system of. Regardless, there are plenty of NCA students taking the bar exam from other countries where English is not their first language. I even met a few Chinese students at the NCA exams. Like I said, when I attended the NCA exams the vast majority were from other Countries. While I did not speak to every person taking every exam, I would say 1 in about 50 appeared to Canadian born (granted, I relied on flawed factors such as the language they were speaking to each other, ethnicity and skin colour). This was in Vancouver. Could be different at different testing sites. Whether this translates to those who take the bar exam I don't know, just my own personal experience at the exams.
  5. I was referencing the quote from easttowest, not bob, just for clarity.
  6. The NCA fail rate has nothing to do with Canadians who go abroad to study law and your attacks on them. Think about who is going through the NCA, it's not just Canadians who went abroad to study law. The large majority going through the NCA are foreign born, foreign trained lawyers and students. Now lets say Bob wants out of his glamorous downtown Toronto lifestyle and move to South Korea to practice law since he has such intricate knowledge on the Korean way of life. In order to practice law in Korea, I assume he needs to go through a licensing program and take a bar exam, IN KOREAN. While he takes a few months to learn the language and pass the requirements for licensing, Korean law is complex and he hasn't fully mastered the language yet. He then takes the Korean bar exam (assuming there is one) in Korean and fails. Poor Bob. From what I gather attending NCA exams the majority of students in the NCA are not Canadian born. Most are actually from India or Africa, English is often their second or third language. Many even learned a different legal system entirely. It makes sense that the failure rate will be higher, I actually don't think the failure rate is alarming at all.
  7. Another example of the smugness (arrogant cocky prick) mentioned above. So now we are shitting on top firms because they hired a foreign grad, sigh. I think it is exactly what its about. This is why Kcraig and others get defensive on the topic and it makes sense. If you can't see why you aren't self aware enough to realize why it makes sense you are an arrogant cocky prick (Im not saying you are, I am speaking in general terms here). This goes both ways, I am sure there are exceptions that some students got there by nepotism, but don't make blanket statements with only "exceptions" to back it up. The thing is, no one debated this point. It is a good thing to point out, I do it myself. All they have to do is read Kcraigs story and they should be able to grasp that its not an easy route. I challenge painting all schools abroad with the same brush, but I agree and I probably caution against it more than anyone here when It comes to the financial risk. I can get on board with this, but again I will caution against painting all people who go abroad with the same brush. I think you fall into the habit of making blanket statements while using exceptions to back it up and then you harp on others who use exceptions to go against what you are saying. If a candidate can clearly be identified as a weaker candidate they aren't going to get the job anyways, regardless if they went to Bond or TRU. Look, a B average and a 150 something LSAT isn't stellar, but that can get you into a Canadian law school. This is not an "exception" to a rule, its an accepted entrance statistic. You can go even lower with the Windsor Dual and with certain "exceptions" like being a minority, have a disability, mature category, etc (albeit this category is fairly large so calling it an exception may be a stretch). I am glad you pointed out that you aren't shitting on the schools themselves, but most people are doing exactly that. They shit on the person or they shit on the school. This is what gets Kcraigs riled up. He actually attended the school. He has more knowledge about the school (even if its bias) than anyone here and he defends it when it's being attacked. I don't see the problem with that. Like I said before, i've been an arrogant cocky prick, I bash on schools like Bond and Leicester all the time. I don't focus on the quality of education though, I focus on the bullshit advertising they do to attract Canadian students. This is essentially where this topic went off the rails, it was once focused on bashing the advertising/marketing for that "fast-tracked" straight from high school law program in the UK. Finally, I actually really like the argument that one should learn the law of the Country they intend to practice law in. Law is, for the most part, Country specific. Knowing case law from the UK may be useful to an extent in Canada, but knowing Canadian case law is far more important. A part of the argument can be negated because of the NCA requirements, but the NCA only provides knowledge in core areas of competence. For the most part most NCA candidates have to take: Canadian Crim, Canadian Admin, Canadian Business Organizations, Foundations of Canadian Law, Canadian Professional Responsibility (ethics), Canadian Constitutional Law. Admittedly, I have never taken a course on Canadian Property Law, and as such, I would never expect an employer who has a firm specializing in Canadian Property Law to hire me. This is the sort of argument against foreign grads that makes sense. The "every student who went abroad did so because they weren't competitive to get into a Canadian Law School" argument doesn't. Same goes for the smug arguments saying that even the worst Canadian law school is better than any school abroad. I hear it all the time on this forum. I may just be spinning my wheels, but I will continue to call bullshit on it. Ive been told numerous times on this forum that international rankings largely don't matter to Canadian employers and that they are all (with the exception of Cambridge, T14, etc that you mentioned earlier) painted with the same brush. This is what I call bullshit on and I will continue to attack the mindset and those that continue to try to argue it.
  8. @ - this topic in general - If an employer wishes to only hire grads only from U of T, so be it. It's their choice. If they refuse to hire a foreign grad, so be it. I see no harm in educating (or attempting to educate if they stumble across this forum or if I end up sitting at the bar next to them and there is absolutely no one else to talk to) those who think this way. Likely they wont change their minds, but what's the harm in arguing your case? Same goes for those attending lower ranked school in Canada and trying to convince an employer why they are the shinier star over that U of T grad. Atleast give Kcraig a chance to explain why he is that shinier star instead of just shitting on his life choices thus far or throwing out his (or any other foreign grads) resume because he attended leicester. Blanket statements like "foreign schools are a joke" serve only to illustrate a sense of smugness and ignorance. It does irk me a bit to see certain jobs have a requirement that only "graduates from a Canadian law school" apply, but from what I have found its not the norm so I won't lose any sleep over it. http://www.knighthunter.com/job.aspx?jid=a0a98398-a5ae-4cd1-a3e4-dcc5a235961b http://www.catchajob.ca/job/kpmg-llp-summer-student-2018-kpmg-law-temporary-in-toronto-on/ While I don't agree with everything Kcraig says, he is right about the "smugness" on this site when it comes to this topic. I think thats what gets him riled up and it's fair, no one likes a smug attitude, especially when that attitude is directed at them or their choices. How would you perceive a Harvard student that shit on every other school that wasn't Harvard. You would think he is a smug arrogant prick, so tone it down on the foreign school bashing if you don't want to come across that way. I am even guilty of it, but I can be a smug arrogant prick at times. Theres a middle ground that can be reached here and personal attacks wont get us there. Warn away, Kcraig has joined in with the warnings, as have I and every other foreign law grad that meaningfully participates on this site. I could get on board with shitting on Kcraig (i'm really not into that kinda thing) if he openly advocated the route he took, but shitting on him for being in a job he may or may not like (or that its not his "dreamjob" or whatever) is childish. He fired back in his usual short sarcastic way. I still haven't put my finger on the intention behind his approach, but it is entertaining, ill give him that. @ some other points - Yes, you can get both loans and scholarships when going abroad. Not all students going abroad are trust fund babies, I am one of them. While at an NCA exam I met a Georgetown Uni student that financed his entire education on loans. He did not come from a wealthy family from what he told me. A friend that went to Cornell also had a loan from a Canadian bank, although he came from a wealthier background. To say that all foreign grads working at big firms is a result of nepotism or whatever you want to call it is just nonsense. I actually met an Aussie law grad (at a bar in Canada funny enough) working at Cassels and he literally got the job from cold calling. It is annoying to hear blanket statements from those who have no reference point or knowledge on the subject. Diplock (among many other lawyers on this forum) does have knowledge on the subject and generally tries to take a balanced approach, even if he can be a smug arrogant prick at times. Just lay off on the personal attacks on poor Kcraig, he has been through enough.
  9. You can get into a Canadian law school with a B average, it just takes a medium-to-high LSAT score or status under a special category. So, just to be clear, you know 1 person, who isn't even a lawyer yet, who may end up working in the field of immigration/legal aid, and you, as a concerned member of the public, are concerned about their competency/future ability/ethics? From what I gather this person you know hasnt even gone through the NCA process, nor has he/she passed the bar. In regards to your bar exam comment, you have 3 years to pass the bar, so no, not everyone can pass eventually. I recall reading somewhere that there is a 3 attempt limit aswell, although I believe you can contact the law society and for an additional attempt. So many flaws in your own logic here. You are wrong. You know one person....who isnt even a lawyer. You must really hate this person to come on a forum, make a thread about it, and go on and on making things up to try and defend why this one person reflects your entire view of those who go abroad. I call bullshit too. Believe me, if you aren't motivated, or become motivated, you won't be practicing law in Canada after returning from studying law abroad. It is by no means an easy road. I am all for cautioning against it, but get your facts straight before doing so.
  10. Where are you getting these numbers? - This is false. Any evidence to back this up? - I havent heard of any increase. I haven't looked into this, but I cant imagine why there would be an increase. Outside of 1 specific (bling bling) law firm I haven't heard of any other notable complaints. The firm I am referring to isnt even really a law firm, it's more of a marketing company. Why is the NCA process flawed? It's similar to the process in New Zealand, but requires more exams. In the US (in specific states) there is no process, you just take the bar exam. In other states you can do an LLM in that state and you are eligible to take the bar. In the UK you don't even need a law degree. I am not sure how it is in Australia, but I do know that if you have a law degree from New Zealand they accept it at face value as they would a degree from Australia. You have to go through the GDLP program, but there are no external exams for qualification as far as I know. Come on, you have no experience with the NCA exams. I know you aren't a lawyer or a law student, but do some research first. I know most of what you are saying is just your own jaded and misguided opinion, but everything you have said regarding the NCA is inaccurate. The evaluator for the NCA exams are top (mostly Canadian) professors in their field. For the core 5 exams they have 3 professors working on each exam. The Professors help set the exam and the marking criteria. They are then sent to U of O for another check. See: https://flsc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/NCA-Program-Review-Report-FINAL-May-31-2017-GenDistRED.docx.pdf pg 11 A Canadian law school exam can't cover EVERYTHING, neither can an NCA exam. Heck, if you are worried about an exam not covering things that are relevant you are targeting the wrong exam. Take a look at the LSAT. The NCA exams are not theory based like you hinted to above. From my experience, the only exam that had even a glimmer of theory was Foundations of Canadian Law. It was one question, worth 10% of the overall exam. Oh, you mean before the NCA even existed? - Sigh....
  11. Yeah, you are right, we arent discussing this. Also, I question if you know the definition of minority. I am not assuming, I am stating that in Quebec it exists (albeit not 18, likely around 19-20). Thats a bold statement...I'm sure those studying at top tiered Universities around the world would disagree. Im sure you are trying to make the point that the young students at lower tiered universities don't offer the same intellectually stimulating classroom environment as you would find in a JD program in Canada. I'd agree, but age doesn't really have anything to do with it. You will find a different intellectual environment at U of T Law than you will find at TRU. Will that change your level of competency as a lawyer? Id say no, others would disagree. On some level, at some schools, sure. This is where the NCA, the Bar exam, and articling+ comes into the equation. From personal experience, I would say the NCA fulfills its mandate. If you want to make the Bar exam more difficult I could get on board with that argument, but I haven't taken the exam yet so I will wait until I take it to see for myself. Wrong - You can get a loan for studying law abroad, whether it be from the host Country or the Canadian Government. Like I said, some get scholarships, some get support from family/savings, others get loans. Studying abroad isn't just for the rich and famous. Highly competitive? Thats relative - a 154 LSAT and a B/B+ average can get you into a Canadian law school. Even lower if you have special considerations (Aboriginal, disability, minority, etc) I don't think the current system with the NCA's allows "bypassing" anymore. When Bond had an agreement with the NCA's this happened, but that doors been shut. You have to prove competency in Canadian Law and from my experience, the NCA exams require more studying/effort than the LSAT (I took the LSAT btw). Its not simply "bypassing" the system. Its a long, arduous, difficult, and often expensive option. Transferring (which I tried to do) is essentially bypassing the system, but that isn't easy either. I had a very high average in 1L and if you read my experience you will see how that turned out. I don't have a masters or a phd, but I would actually agree that you can be challenged equally between a Masters and a PHD. One is just longer. Would it be? A JD isn't technically a graduate program, but yes, for the most part in Canada its at a graduate level. The only difference in outcome I see is a difference in lettering. If by outcome you mean the ability to get a job afterwards, in some circumstances, sure. Plenty of practising lawyers in Canada and around the world with a lowly undergraduate law degree. You may be right that the benefits are different between the two in Canada, but thats another discussion.
  12. What would being fully qualified in another jurisdiction change? - For some countries, having a law degree does make you fully qualified to practice law, in others you don't even need a law degree to become qualified. I am all for having stringent requirements to ensure competency, but I don't see this having any impact at all. Increasing the passing grade - The pass/fail rate is high as it is. Recent numbers are hard to find, but below is an article quoting a 38% pass rate for 1999-2009 (At 50% for a pass...albeit the numbers reference obtaining a certificate of qualification). From what I have gathered going through the process the exams are even more difficult now and theres no longer a backdoor option to bypass the exams. http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/author/sandra-shutt/the-nca-student-experience-1702/ Ive been to the exams and have spoken to many NCA students. The exams are not easy. Its an exam worth 100% of your grade, all done by self-study. Courses in Canadian law schools are at the 50% pass mark, often with grades on a curve so very few (if any) fail. Not to mention the final is mixed in with a bunch of assignments/other exams. What would you raise it to? 60%? 80%? I think the 50% mark is fair, even with the high failure rates. RE: Articling: How would you propose to pay for the further regulation of articling principles and how would you go about doing this? Have a law society member pop by every office with an articling student to check up on how the mentorship is going? I realize you have no experience or knowledge in the field so I will give you a pass on this one. Check Section 10 of the Law Society's Licensing Process Policies. Further regulation would be a waste of time and money. In BC there is a further PLTC course that is required. If you argued that all Provinces should have a PLTC program I can get on board with that idea. Unfortunately, the course is expensive and from what I hear not all law firms pay for the course.
  13. Any stats to back this up? ...ill wait. Im sure there are schools in the UK/Aus that have low entrance requirements coming straight out of high school, but I can't see the majority of Canadian grads attending these schools. In the US it may be more common to attend a lower ranked school, but you have to have a degree first. Im sure it has happened (I even attended an unranked school in the Caymans), but it is by no means a common occurrence. It sure isn't something to be concerned about, like I said, they all end up at the same door in the end.
  14. Well, I took out the points (also a long winded diatribe) that I wont respond to. Makes it easier to read/follow. The large majority of students who couldn't get into a Canadian law school that go abroad typically apply as a graduate-entry student. This isn't to say that they aren't with younger students, but typically they will skip out on the entry level law courses with those fresh faced 18 year olds. You may be surprised to learn that in our great Province of Quebec there are many freshly faced law students attending glorious Canadian institutions, graduating, and becoming lawyers in Canada. I didn't attend law school in Quebec, but I assume they had no issues with discussing those complex first year legal theorems amongst their peers. First year law school is not a 3rd year legal theory course, I find it hilarious when posters say things like they cant "fathom" studying law with someone younger. Regardless of how silly you sound, law graduates from Quebec seem to be doing just fine in the Canadian legal field. Now your second post RE: MONEY - Yes, it is expensive to study abroad. Some students, such as myself, were lucky enough to get a scholarship. Some had to go to the bank of Mom and Dad, and yes, some even took out a LOAN. Banks are often more stringent for giving out loans for going to schools abroad, but there are plenty of Canadian grads with loans studying in the US (and I'm sure in Australia and the UK also). I know one myself, he attended Cornell. To study at TRU its around 19,000 a year, in Ontario I believe its more. While you admittedly were generalizing I don't think the Canadian example is your best choice for arguing economic equal opportunity. Law school in Canada is by no means inexpensive (outside of 2 Universities). Its not the US, but it's not easily accessible to the majority of Canadians. Anyways, open up your mind a bit, generalizations and long diatribes about foreigners/foreign students won't do anything for you or anyone else reading.
  15. @Noway From the gist of your long-winded diatribe it seems you just want students to think really really really really hard about going abroad for law school - tough to argue with that. I think for the most part they already do, especially when there is a large financial commitment involved (studying abroad sure isn't cheap). There are also Canadian students studying at top tier schools around the world....but I assume you are focusing on the lower ranked or unranked schools. Nevertheless, the Canadian students from the top ranked schools are taking the same NCA exams and the same Bar exam as those from the lower ranked schools when/if they come back. But I have a question: Why do you care? You said earlier that you are a consumer (or potential consumer) and you are concerned about ethics and competency. All NCA students are required to article (some may have their articling term shortened, but there is still a minimum in place) if they wish to practice in Canada. All NCA students pass the same Bar exam as Canadian students. NCA students just have the lovely addition of a minimum of 5 extra exams (most of the time 8, but some as high as 12). These test core competencies, including a requirement to pass an exam in Professional Responsibility (Canadian legal ethics). You can contact the NCA and ask for the material if you wish. I believe you can find most of it online. How exactly would you like the law society to "up its standards?" Is a year worth of NCA courses/exams and passing the same Bar exam as Canadian students not enough (oh and then theres articling)? Open to suggestions here..
  • Create New...