Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

106 Good People

About ludo

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1112 profile views
  1. True, and that is something to consider. But again, it is my opinion, that that is a result of more students at U of T wanting NY. I would think that top Cambridge students would have a shot at NY if they wanted. I think that multiple NY firms would entertain the notion of hiring Cambridge grads if there were any qualified who wanted to apply. I also think that what might hurt many Cambridge grads chances, but not the OP, is that many Cambridge grads can be as young as, what? 21? With no other degree or work experience? Compare that to U of T or most North American law schools, where virtually everyone has at least a bachelor's degree before starting, some with extensive work experience and advanced degrees. Does this make a difference? I don't know, but I suspect it could. A 29 year old applicant with a BA/MBA/JD and 3 years of work experience may seem more attractive than a 21 year student with nothing besides a law degree. But that would be an applicant thing, not a school thing. Cambridge is one of the most elite universities in the world, and if someone like the OP has a degree already, does well in law school, and seems an attractive applicant, would some NY firm who cares about academic pedigree and prestige (and many of them do) want to hire him/her? I'd say yes. And I'd say if attractive candidates from Cambridge really wanted NY, somewhat more than 11 of them could find something in NY. Again, opinion. People can disagree. Some people will be better positioned to know. But it doesn't mean I should be lectured about conjecturing when this very thread's purpose is to conjecture.
  2. You're right. But the OP asked for opinions. It is my opinion that I would rather be looking for a law job as a Cambridge graduate in Toronto than a U of T graduate in London. You don't need to cite something or provide proof for an opinion. Again, I don't know how I was coming across, but I never meant anything to come across as the booming voice of God. Many people expressed their opinions, which is fine and good. So was mine. If the OP wants anything else, he/she should start researching seriously and not ask questions here.
  3. If you do the two-year program at Cambridge, you can do the NCA process when others are doing 3L. And you'd have to article whether you attend U of T or Cambridge for practice in Canada (aside from the LPP), so that's a wash. I was meaning more, though, that it better preserves your chances for jobs coming from Cambridge to Toronto than from U of T to London. Neither is ideal, but I'd rather be doing the former than the latter. Yes, U of T is great for Toronto and has the possibility of New York. But again, I'd say it has worse chances for London. And I'd say the chances for New York would be similar or with Cambridge having an edge. And yes, I might be wrong. It's an opinion. People can have different opinions. There are people both on here and elsewhere who have a better idea of each market than I do. But I don't believe anyone knows it enough for it to stop being an opinion and start being fact. It's just their opinion. And maybe, but if the OP equally wants London, then the onerous process would be substantially better coming from Cambridge than U of T.
  4. I'm pretty sure I used a ton of "I thinks" and so forth, but even if I didn't; opinion should be assumed on a message board. I mean, the OP apparently has done well enough and is intelligent enough to apply to Columbia, U of T, Cambridge and Harvard. If you guys think you are doing some good by making sure we all know the internet is a place where opinions are shared, well... good job? But condemning conjecture when conjecture is called for is, in my mind, ludicrous. Maybe, but who are we to tell someone what is important in a law school? Maybe prestige really is that important to some. Maybe it's worth additional hassles. The fact that OP seemingly applied only to "prestigious" schools is telling.
  5. Possibly they should approach it differently, but I am just answering the question that was asked. And I still feel that, if you don't know or care where you will live or what you will do, but you want to keep options open in all three cities/countries, that Cambridge is the best answer to that question. And I don't know that it will definitely keep both doors open, but I think Cambridge is far and away the best option for London, while preserving the possibility of New York/Toronto better then U of T preserves the option of London/New York. I acknowledge I could be wrong about that. But that was the question and if the OP didn't want conjecture, then I'm not sure why he/she would ask it here. Nobody here will know the answer 100%. True enough, I am out of province and a student. I have never pretended otherwise. Again, I feel I am getting flak for something that I really shouldn't be. It's an online forum. We all express opinions and what we think. I never claimed to have proof for anything, hence my use of "I think" and so forth... I agree with you about the two-year senior status program. It is something to be aware of. But because it's two years, you could even do that program and then take a one year LLM and still be in the same place time-wise as a U of T JD. You could alternatively take the three-year degree at Cambridge, from what I understand, and still qualify.
  6. Yes, I meant definitively. I know some people will have more knowledge than others. @theycancallyouhojuis certainly one. But nobody can predict things with such absolute certainty that there is no room for conjecture or doubt. I'm getting tired and maybe I'm not expressing myself well... If they are actually making decisions, then they should look into things a little more. Asking whether they should attend Cambridge or U of T when they have no idea where they would practice or even the country doesn't seem to merit anything other than, in a vacuum, where should I attend that is a prestigious school and gives me the best options in Toronto, New York, and London? I feel I'm getting a little misunderstood and misrepresented in this thread, but so be it.
  7. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't meaning that I know those markets as well as anyone. I was meaning that I know them imperfectly and so does everyone else. I freely acknowledge that you know New York better than I likely ever will, but it doesn't mean that you will know with 100% certainty whether someone who hasn't even started at Cambridge has a shot in NY. Again, you're better positioned to know than I am, but there is still room for uncertainty. I agree talking to Cambridge grads and NY recruiters would be a good idea, but I'm not sure why everyone is coming down so hard when the question was asked in a Canadian law forum,that I dared to inject conjecture into the discussion.
  8. Sigh, yes, yes, pile on, by all means (although that is a good point). I was being more rhetorical with those examples, that you don't know everyone's reasons for attending law school, and what can be a bad reason for you might be a legitimate reason for someone else. But fair enough. I'm taking a beating in this thread. What's what more?
  9. All right, geez, @theycancallyouhoju, I give. I acknowledge you know more about New York, but who exactly would know if a particular grad from Cambridge, U of T, or wherever has a shot? Cambridge is an elite university with some Cambridge law grads among top NY firms. Doesn't this mean there is a shot for a great student? I'd say U of T gives you a shot too, given that a small number go there every year. But without knowing the particular details, isn't that all you can say? And I said I know all three as well as anyone knows all three, which is to say, not perfectly. Would you claim to know the New York market perfectly, let alone London or Toronto? What I meant by this is there is going to a certain degree of uncertainty and guesswork, since nobody can predict chances 100%.
  10. Yes, going to Cambridge is better if you are truly on the fence between London and Toronto. Yes, you could make a better decision if you narrowed it down first to what country you wanted to practice in, but that wasn't what was asked. The question was basically, "if I don't know what I want to do or where I want to practice, but I want to do something, maybe, in London, New York, or Toronto, oh, and I applied at some of the top law schools in the world and would like to do something interesting -- which would be better for me, Cambridge or U of T?" If the OP then asked is that a smart way to go about picking a law school, at least for people intending to practice, I'd say no. I said in a previous post that if the question said he/she wanted to practice in Canada, I'd suggest something else. But I don't presume to know the OP's intentions or motivations and neither should you. Maybe he/she just wants to go have a cool experience for 2-3 years at a university and then live off the trust fund. Maybe his/her great-uncle's will stipulated that he/she had to go to law school before any inheritance would be forthcoming. Maybe they just want to go to a prestigious school to impress their friends. Who knows? Why is going to law school for the adventure a bad idea for everyone, necessarily? I know what the usual answers are; I'm in law school myself. But if someone is well-off and wants to explore the law for a few years and then never practice, why is that wrong? Why is the more prestigious option wrong if someone values prestige and is willing to accept some additional hurdles in return? Anyway, I'm starting to ramble on and don't want to take away from the thread any more, so I'll just quickly reply to a few things and then be done with it. - I think Cambridge is the optimal choice, without any additional information. Not trying to belabour, just trying to make people aware of what I'm saying. 'I want to do "something" "somewhere" and attend a prestigious school while I'm at it' -- 10 out of 10 times I'd say Cambridge over U of T. If the question changes, my answer might change with it, but there you go. - As far as conjecture and not knowing what I'm talking about, you're right, sort of... but neither do you or anyone else. Who has the experience of being exactly like the OP, with the same background, same potential in law school, same grades, same interests, applying to the same places at the same time, with the same interviewer, etc? There are too many variables for it to be anything more than guesswork and conjecture and opinion. I maintain that the same candidate with the same background wouldn't do any worse from Cambridge than U of T in New York, but have no way to verify it and neither do you. There are likely more people in NYC from U of T, but I'd wager this has more to do with desire and proximity than anything else. If someone wanted New York from Cambridge, it certainly seems doable (I quickly checked some lawyer bios of top firms in NYC and there are a few Cambridge law grads). - 5-10% seems a tad high, over the last 5 years, but fair enough. Are they all going to V20 though? I'm genuinely curious about this, if anyone knows. I will acknowledge that U of T places a little better in top NY firms than I thought (again, after quickly looking at a few firm bios). - Not sure if the U Alberta comment was intended as shot or not, but yes, I proudly attend the U of A. Great school. And I likely know the Toronto AND New York AND London biglaw markets and hiring practices as well as anyone. Which is to say, imperfectly. But so do you (know them imperfectly). So don't be a condescending shmuck. - Cambridge will meet NY's requirements, I believe, so long as it is equivalent to a US JD. The senior status two-year program won't meet the durational requirement without a LLM, but the three-year one will, as far as I know. The link you provided was talking about someone with the two year degree.
  11. Fair point, although saying actively and directly recruiting is probably overstating. From the numbers in this thread, an average of about 11 people from U of T went to New York in each of the last 5 years. It's not exactly nothing, but...saying it's possible is probably better than claiming New York firms are actively seeking out U of T grads. But I'd imagine it's also very possible for excellent and accomplished Cambridge grads to get hired in NYC. In the same numbers as U of T students or higher. Remember, the OP is not some 18 year old kid who is going to university for the first time. He/she already has a degree and is apparently impressive enough to get looks from Columbia and Harvard. And Cambridge law grads are rare enough and prestigious enough in NYC that I think New York firms would be interested. Potentially including ones that typically aren't interested in U of T students. Firms (and clients) that are impressed by Harvard and Yale (but not by, say, Northwestern or U of T) will likely also be impressed by Cambridge.
  12. Did you even read the OP? OP's stated main goal was NOT how best to practice in Canada. Toronto was a possibility, so was New York and London. So your whole "what if the OP only wants to practice in Canada" argument is stupid, off-point, and demonstrates a lack of understanding about what was even going on. The point was what was best if you want to keep your options open for all three. It was also strongly implied that the OP is looking for a bit of an adventure and is pretty swayed by big names and prestige (not sure/committed to a country of practice, applied to Cambridge, U of T, Columbia, Harvard). So, who cares what would factor into YOUR analysis of what makes law school worthwhile or what makes for a better experience for YOU? My answer was based on the facts provided. People have different reasons for doing different things, and not everyone is looking for the most direct line to working for an average firm in Toronto. I know, difficult to comprehend.... Cambridge will have a much greater advantage in London, while not being as disadvantaged in Toronto as U of T would be in England. New York doesn't get a lot of Cambridge applicants from what I hear, but if someone has an undergraduate degree and a Cambridge law degree (as the OP would), I highly doubt they would be any worse off than someone from U of T, and in all likelihood, a great deal better off. There are firms in New York that are incredibly brand conscious and Cambridge would feed into their vanity in a way that U of T never will. Your last paragraph was correct. It does come down to goals. If you want to keep London, New York, and Toronto all equally viable (as much as you can), and clearly want an experience of going to a "top" school, have an adventure, and being able to do "something or other" in "some country" afterwards, then Cambridge, in my view, is vastly superior to U of T. Don't like it? Don't care. And if you want to be pedantic, Canadian law degrees are undergraduate degrees. Second entry, yes...still undergraduate.
  13. I'd go to Cambridge and wouldn't think twice about it. Cambridge is a once in a lifetime opportunity. U of T is fine, but honestly it's pretty meh compared to Cambridge. If you said something like "I want to only practice law in Ontario or maybe BC" then maybe I'd say U of T. It's easier and more straightforward to practice in Canada with a Canadian degree, as everyone will say. But if you want the possibility of New York or London? Cambridge by a mile, 10 miles, 100 miles. Cambridge and Oxford can reasonably be compared to Harvard and Yale when it comes to "dat preftige" international opportunities, and what I call the swinging big dick factor. U of T wouldn't even be in the conversation. Doors would open to you in New York and most definitely in London that would never budge if you came from U of T. Further, nobody (sane) will look down on Cambridge in Canada. It's one of the most elite and prestigious universities in the world. People will understand why you went there. I believe, but am not sure, that New York will consider your education equivalent to theirs, i.e. you can write the bar immediately upon graduation. Check to make sure, but I believe your education will be considered the same as if you attended a Canadian law school. You already have an undergraduate degree. From what I remember when I looked, New York takes a dim view of people trying to sit for the bar exam only 3 years removed from high school. You'd have to do the NCA to practice in Canada. It will be a pain. But so what? You'd have a year to take the exams to be in the same place time-wise as Canadian students, and once done, nobody will ever question it or care again. At least in a negative way. People may comment when they see Cambridge on your resume in an interested/positive way. A law degree (or any degree, really) from Cambridge will always be viewed as sort of awesome. And the experience of attending there would be like none other (except maybe Oxford). If it were me, I'd say it's easily worth it. The most important thing for me that you will be losing by not attending in Canada is the local network. Your friends from school who will become your peers and coworkers when you graduate. The connections you make with professors, practicing lawyers, employers, and even judges in your time at law school. Although if you end up working in New York or London, going to U of T would be just as useless in this regard. tl;dr -- I'd go to Cambridge and be thrilled about it. For your goals, the only schools that would give me pause would be Oxford or HYS. If you just wanted Canada, I'd go to the cheapest school in the province you want to be in because schools in Canada aren't different enough in quality or opportunity to justify paying more money to attend.
  14. There is something about an employer saying "hey, how about you work for free?" that is deeply upsetting to me. It feels exploitative and slavish, even if it isn't intended that way. I'd be bitter and resentful working full-time at a place that pays nothing, and would be much better off either continuing to look for a paid article or saying to heck with it and getting a non-law job.
  • Create New...