ProfReader

As I've already stated, the UofT is the closest thing to an anomaly in this regard and even that still have a majority of hires with law doctorates. No one said they were wildly inaccurate, just that there were inaccuracies. I flat out disagree with the second claim having been hired by several schools and done hiring at two others, but it's not quantifiable, so I will leave it. As for the first, the inaccuracy isn't there are some law profs in Canada that do PhDs in other disciplines, but rather that this is misleading to students because it completely fails to mention the dominant educational background of the vast majority of law professors in Canada. I've had civil disagreements with many people here, but I'm not going to hang around somewhere where I'm being called names, so I'm going to see myself out as well.

It isn't my "fifedom" in the least. I would be happy to have someone else chime in on the same questions that I've been answering over and over again for years on reference letters, for example. Have at it. What I'm not content with is misinformation. I very often get messages about academic career things that I said on this site years ago, so people are clearly looking at these posts. I don't want them to think that the most common path into Canadian legal academia is a doctorate in another discipline, when that is demonstrably false, or that grad studies aren't especially important to some schools, when everything that I've ever observed suggests otherwise. If you feel this is tiresome, then quit responding to me.

Queen's has attended in the past. UBC also gets the bulletin but I'm not sure that they've attended.

I only looked at recent hires because you yourself had suggested that students go and look at "junior hires". FYI the same trend can be observed at the Associate Prof level (of those who have doctorates), so it isn't a "recent trend". Even if it were, that isn't illustrative of an idiosyncratic market, since it has been stable across all schools for a number of years now. Even at UofT, law doctorates are still the most common doctoral degree by a significant margin. Ditto for your other examples, which were UBC and Queens. In short, you were wrong about something and then instead of checking it out, you gave examples that were also incorrect and are now trying to weirdly backpedal by calling this an idiosyncratic market, with an example that demonstrates little idiosyncrasy.

I had a look at all Assistant Profs at Queens. A very significant majority have doctorates in law. Just as I stated. For good measure, I checked Western since I had to pull an email address anyway and the same is true there. Ditto for Dal, Alberta, and Calagry. Shall I keep checking? The only school that may be even remotely close to a significant number of people without doctorates in law is Toronto.

There are several inaccuracies here. For example, it is quite uncommon to do a PhD outside of law in Canada. That is an Ametican thing. Most Canadian academics have a doctorate in law. It is also not accurate to say that some schools don't emphasize graduate work. Which schools would those be? People almost universally have grad degrees now and I've never seen them nor be a significant focus of hiring. Again, it sounds like you are giving advice about the American market, where that is more common. As fewer and fewer people practice for any length of time and a doctorate is near universal, there are increasingly not really a diverse array of paths into academia.

I haven't heard any school yet say that they wouldn't have an online option for those who couldn't be there. So you may very well have the option not to move cross-country and pay Toronto rent for at least first semester.

Three schools that I know of had/are having faculty meetings today or tomorrow to start to iron out the details. There will likely be some stuff in person at some schools, but it isn't clear what. I've only heard of one school that seems determined to put some first year stuff in person, whereas the others seem to be considering things like optional upper year seminars. As I said before, you should expect more concrete details specific to law schools by the end of the month.

That's sort of the point. It isn't really a person to person basis until we get to the margins. A lot of schools let in a lot of people based basically on stats alone before delving into the unique aspects of particular applicants.

While this is true, people also shouldn't get the equally faulty assumption that ECs, LORs, etc. will save a below-median application. They also shouldn't feel like weak ECs, LORs, etc. will drag down an LSAT/GPA that is well above the median because it generally will not. You were very close to the median. Any school that I've ever worked at looks closer at the supplementary materials for those borderline candidates.

That varies by school. Some are more holistic right from the start, while others admit a majority of their classes based on stats. It also depends on how one defines "many".

If you are talking about discretionary categories of admissions at index schools, those students who were holistically reviewed may not be counted into the statistics (I know several schools that do not report them).

I answered a bunch of posts like this a long time ago. You should find them if you go way back to the start of my post history. There are definitely people that go into law school that are interested in academia, although I don't think I've ever met a student who said that's definitely what they wanted to do. They tended to say that it was something they might be interested in. The junior faculty at my law school almost universally practiced for a short time before returning to school to do graduate studies. Of those I can think of who didn't practice (either at my school or elsewhere), almost none went directly into grad school straight from a JD. They clerked first.

You took that phrase out of the context in which it was written. The question wasn't about what you did on an exam that led to a higher mark. The question was about working hard and getting a B+ average. Your examples don't show you working "harder" than anyone else. They are about doing things differently.

No one can answer this. In my opinion, students who get high marks are, on average, hardworking, but some hardworking students get average marks and some students who don't work that hard get high marks. Even if we were to accept the premise that you could work your way to a B+ average, no one could possibly tell you what things they did that led to a higher mark, what things they did that didn't help getting a higher mark, how many extra hours were needed to get a higher mark, etc.