Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


DSman last won the day on September 15 2015

DSman had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1482 Good People

1 Follower

About DSman

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

4417 profile views
  1. The classes and academic stuff is too dependent on the person. I have no idea if you will like it. I thought it was ok. I had some fun classes and some where I had trouble staying awake for more than 10 minutes a lecture. Learning the 'law' was not as interesting as I thought it would be but it was still alright. In general, theres periods of stress (exams, big paper), especially in 1L when you're figuring some stuff out. But theres a lot of downtime, especially in upper years. You meet good people, and try to get involved without stressing yourself out. Do a mix of academic and fun activities - thats what really helped me. Like, I played sports and also did clinics so I felt like i got some practical knowledge but also had fun. Try to go out to the social events. Stay on good/neutral terms with people and ignore any high school type bullshit.
  2. I didnt bother reading most of thread because on pg 1 it became about Jordan Peterson. OP, heres my answer. Lawyers are not some super smart group of people and its really isn't that hard as long as you get through all the pre requisites. "Intelligence" defined and measured in some specific scientific way and the general public notion of "intelligence" are two different things. Usually, talk about someone being smart or dumb is very general and non specific and theres are countless reasons for why someone can be labelled that way. And in under that general definition, lawyers are smart as in the work requires some level of diligence and you do have to have grades/academic success. But at the same time, some successful lawyers can be kind of dumb people with stupid ideas about a lot of things. Just take it step by step. If you get into law school, great. Then work on getting through it. Then work on getting through articling. If you do these things, then you are capable of being a lawyer. Whether you're a good or bad lawyer just depends on too many variables.
  3. judging by some of the posts on the last couple pages, i change my mind. Some of you will def have issues (and already do).
  4. This may have already covered but whenever this topic comes up, I can't help but think that the 0L asking the question doesn't really get law school. Look, law school is not a grand debate about big public policy ideas. Remember that,. Vast majority of law school will be spent learning about the law and all of its boring details, it being applied in different situations, and how it developed to that stage. And thats what class discussions center around. Sure, you have deates about what the law SHOULD be. Some profs are more likely to encourage that than others. But thats simply not what happens in your day to day class - Law School is not a public policy school. In con law in 1L, yea we had a class where we debated how to interpret the constitution and you could see the divide between the conservatives and the liberals. In crim we had a discussion early on about the purpose of the criminal justice system and you saw a type of "political" debate break out between student, most who have never actually dealt with the system before. It happens, but its not what its mostly about. So when i hear about this persecution of conservatives in law school, im thinking either 1) you're not in law school and mostly dont get what day to day law school is like or 2) you're the obnoxious dude who constantly tried to bring politics into class discussion and in that case, your fellow conservative probably dislike you even more than the liberals. Like, your political opinions dont matter in most classes. Believe me, you can think taxation is theft but in 1L property law, no one gives a shit. Even outside of the classroom, a lot of student groups are not necessarily political. There are some, and I seriously doubt you are going to have an issue unless you are trying to be offensive and provocative. But in that case you will get criticized for your political opinions. Thats just the way life is - politics matter and people care. But Ffrankly, I cant think of a single person in law school who was hated for their political opinions and im a fairly recent grad.
  5. Yes I would say your background will probably help you. It shows that you have some real life experience. Many law students dont have a lot of job experience in general, let alone one that is actually related to the legal area. There are helpful posters here who have established crim practices and they might be able to better answer this for you. Also, I wouldn't say criminal law is that difficult to get into for articling. Of course, its not easy either and it will vary by location. But pretty much everyone i know who wanted to article in crim was able to do it. The bigger issue is actually establishing yourself as a criminal lawyer long term. That takes effort (as does establishing any successful business practice). But for articling, as long as you actually show interest, do well in crim related courses and aren't otherwise a bad student (and aren't one of those desperate 3Ls about to graduate who only ever did business law stuff but lie about your love for crim law just to get an articling position).
  6. UBC being more reputable and hiring stats are mostly meaningless in this context. OP, if you are interested in criminal law and picking between these two schools, i would go with the city you want to live in. Its good that you are considering clinics and thats def important in criminal law but again, decide where you want to live (this is true for crim or basically any other field). Criminal law hiring is not structured like big firm hiring. Lots of firms hire at random times with some taking in summer students and many often hiring in 3L. A lot it comes from networking and establishing connections with local crim firms and sole practitioners who will be willing to take you on. (Clinics can also give you exposure to the local firms and they def look for students who showed interest in the area). Vancouver and Calgary are far apart and it may not be possible to constantly go to the other city for job interviews and networking. Its not like a Calgary Edmonton UofA/UofC thing where you can drive down in 3 hours if you deicde you want to live in the other city. And even then you are missing out on making local connections. Im in Alberta and I can assure you, crim firms here dont give a shit about UBC's "reputation" (whatever it may be) and will probably care way more about your commitment to staying in the city and the general effort you have made to show interest in criminal law. For instance, at the UofA, students interested in crim did SLS, crim related moots, and took a lot of upper year crim courses that were taught by local criminal lawyers. And they often got job offers through these connections. UofC and UBC will be the same. Also, two general notes, if the SLA at Calgary is like SLS in Edmonton, then that is easily the best option to get to know criminal law outside of a class room. Second, clinics, while good are also sorta overrated and the word gets thrown around way too much. A lot of clinic options are a waste of time or have very limited space. You said UBC has 3 while UofC has one but are you including the SLA in that? At a certain point, you'll realize that there isn't really that much time for all these clinics, and you may have to decide on criminal law and not go around doing random clinics. And as a practicing "business law" guy, i have no idea how useful a business clinic will be. If you have absolutely no preference between the cities, then I would pick UBC only because Vancouver is nicer.
  7. Theres about a millions threads on this topic. Do a search. Really not saying this to be snarky, i honestly think you'll get a better response from just reading all the threads that have come up on this topic before. Lots of ppl bring up this topic every couple of months so you will get quite lot of responses from residents of both cities attempting to exaggerated the qualities of their giant cold suburbs posing as cities.
  8. lol misrepresenting? Thats what a fucking question is - when people ask something to clarify what someone means. When the poster said that gold digger is a negative streotype and you follow it by "well if nature itself is sexist by definition im not sure blah blah", its hard to tell if you were specifically including that stereotype as being natural. So I asked.
  9. Wait what are you trying to say here? Being a gold digger is not "nature". Women are not naturally gold diggers.
  10. I have never heard that majority of the legal profession is becoming female. Maybe among new graduates? But it would still take a while for that to turn into majority of the profession being women.
  11. Even the sexism issue aside, I think this convo is actually kinda useful when it comes to advice on articling or associate positions. Girls dont drop panties for lawyers. Thats like a bad 1L guy fantasy. We used to make fun of dudes who thought this shit so i cant believe it got brought up here but whatever. Its not good advice to tell someone that because it sets up wrong impressions in their head. Moving to a small town will have an impact on your sex and social life because you are in a totally different setting than a big city. It can vary by small town depending on factors such as population, if its a boom town attracting lots of young people, if there is a large college campus. Honestly, with the current economic situation in Alberta I know a lot of people who went to smaller towns for any articling position they could get and the ones who do not have a family or connection to the city are miserable and cannot wait to get out. And every single one of them sites a lack of social and sex life as a big factor. Im not discouraging people from going to small towns (if i was married, living in a small town could be pretty fun) but the dating life in small vs big cities is very different and lets not kid ourselves about that. When people are deciding on long term relationships, a person's financial stability and status factors in, obviously. But there are a fuck ton of other factors that go into, well, "dropping girl's panties" if we're going to use that dumb phrase. A lot of it really comes down to your looks, height (for a guy), and personality and how fun you are. A dorky and mediocre looking lawyer isn't getting laid for being a lawyer. This is also sorta why the "nice guys" get made fun of - because they think that one specific aspect of their personality (even though they aren't even that nice) makes up for much more important factors like looks and actually being interesting. You aren't getting laid for being some lawyer. You may get more girls looking for a serious relationship to go out with you if you are a lawyer but its just one small factor. I would have done the same thing OP did and took the job. However, unless I know what OP looks like, what his personality is, and how he generally comes across, i would never give him assurance that he is magically going to find a relationship or constantly get laid in a small town. And in a different situation, this could be disastrous advice to someone considering ending a relationship because "watch out ladies in Grand Prairie, big dick lawyer is coming to town".
  12. Meh. OP's question was perfectly reasonable. There simply are firms and areas where its easier for students with relatively poorer grades to get jobs. And thats because these are areas and types of firms that most students aren't interested in. We love to give tough realistic advice but can't accept that? Now, even within some areas that attract sole prac. or small firms, some firms have better reputations than others. So yea, the top students (deans listers) among the people i know who are interested in criminal law or family law did go to those small firms because they have a great reputation. Thats not generally the case. We're speaking from our personal experiences but most top students in my year all went to bigger corporate law firms(the size can change relative to the market size but you know what i mean). And the people who struck out went to smaller firms and soles who often start recruiting in 3L because they know they can't compete with bigger firms (edited to say that its also because of financial reasons and they cannot determine 2 years in advance if they will need an articling student). Like I said, among these are a small amount of lawyers who have "prestige" associated with them so they had no problem competing with Dentons (mostly because the person they hired wouldn't work at Dentons anyways). Of course, among these firms you still have to show interest and you still can't be a complete dunce. But lets not kid ourselves, there simply are types of firms that due to their practice area or size either choose to emphasize things other than grades or simply cannot compete with big firms and have to accept students with lower grades. OH and for OP - yes my understanding is also you dont really bring up bad grades unless there was a real reason for the grades. Otherwise, you just did poorly so emphasize your good qualities. A lot of B students often have one or two really bad grades and some really good grades. "its was very uncharacteristic" doesn't convince anyone.
  13. lol there were a couple of well known posters here who were very bro-y. Wonder what happened to them. But yes, theres definitely bros in law school. good luck!
  14. Advantages of staying - you will have friends outside of law school which can be nice, you will know the area, probably already have residence? Adv of leaving - you might be able to go a better city with more things to do, new cty might have proximity to better jobs/jobs you want, it can be nice to experience a new place. Maybe if you hate Western. Its not a big deal really. Go where you want to work or where you will have the best opportunities. But keep tuition and cost of living in mind because unnecessary debt bad.
  • Create New...