Jump to content

Alosier

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Neutral

About Alosier

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

679 profile views
  1. Thanks for the answers. I think I did not get across what I meant. My question was not about students giving feedback on how associates made them feel - but only on the productivity/ efficiency sides of work delegation, which I think matter to those who are higher up. The idea would not be to simply forward the feedback to associates or partners, but to have the HR person in charge of associates aggregate the results in see if patterns emerge. Where i work, there is a consensus that some associates are exceptionally good and that a few are truly bad at delegating work. Surprisingly, people in charge of associates have no idea of that. I agree with you Diplock that students are poor judges of the quality of their own work - but in most cases it seems clear how efficiently my time is being used by associates. Also, I don't know who else at the firm could evaluate the associates ability to delegate work. Who had you in mind ?
  2. After two summers at a large Montreal firm, I was struck by the wide range of attitudes exhibited by the associates we worked for. Some were really helpful and sensitive to the people they were giving work to, while others (few) were arrogant, insecure and overall unpleasant to work for. Obviously, as a student I prefer to work for kind associates. But it strikes me how much ressources can be wasted by an associate who is bad at delegating work (unclear directives, questions are too large, arrogant/ bossy, ...); and how little information about those practices is available to those in charge of the associates. Have you ever heard of firms where summer/articling students evaluate associates on their delegation practices ? If not, could it be a good idea ? How could it work in practice ? Thanks for your insights !
  3. To answer the original question I would say you don't need any special software for law school. I did my first two years on a cheap chromebook and did just fine. You can do summaries and table of content in google doc. When I had paper to hand in, I would take a minute at the library to format them in MS Word. That said, it is more convenient to have a computer that can run MS Word, but I wouldn't say it is necessary.
  4. I would also suggest that you consider the profs when making your decision about which class to take in French. Prof Forray, for example, is notorious for being very eloquent, but hard to understand for non native speakers.
  5. I don't think it does. Most firms are flexible when it comes to articling period.
  6. I would suggest reading: Les Misérables (V Hugo); L'Homme Rapaillé (G Miron) and Structure of Scientific Revolutions (T Kuhn).
  7. Hahaha! I guess you could say that. Again, the caveat is that I only have personal experience working in Montreal. When I talk about Toronto or NY, I just relay what I have been told. As for McGill's connection, firms from Toronto, Vancouver and NY come to McGill for interviews every year so it seems McGill has good connections with them as well. However, it is definitely easier to network with Montreal firms as they organize all kinds of events throughout the year. I have to add that there are much more to law than Big Law - whether in Montreal or elsewhere. If you choose McGill, I encourage to come with an open regarding careers options, as you risk missing out a lot otherwise!
  8. Indeed some students go to NY, or elsewhere in the US after graduation. The rest splits about 50/50 between Qc and the RoC. The market is less saturated in Montreal than in Toronto or the US, from what I hear, but it remains a smaller market. As for the differences between US and Canada, US is more 'winner takes all', whereas in Canada the distribution more condensed. In other words, the 1% of Qc lawyers make less than the 1% of Toronto who make less than the 1% of NY, but they arguably have more free time, especially at the associate level. Or so it seems. On the other hand, the media lawyer in Canada will likely be better-off than the median lawyer in the US who has to work in a very saturated market.
  9. Entirely true, but as the rest of your reply - and OP original question - suggest, we can share advices. You don't actually need to complete your undergrad (UG). I think you can reapply during your first year of UG, still as a cegep applicant, and then once you have 60 credits, that is during your second year, though the admission committee acknowledge they prefer candidates who completed their degree. That is not entirely true. Mature applicants and university applicants are two separate categories. Mature applicants are interviewed and admitted on the basis of experiences, grades play only a small role in the evaluation of their file. For university applicants, on the hand, grades play a determinative role. If you apply during your last year of undergrad or the year after, you are an university applicant. As for competitiveness, I would also have to disagree. There is not a 'quota' of Cegep students that are admitted each year. All applicants compete with everybody else. This year, for example, there is almost twice as much cegep students as the year before. As a cegep student, you compete with two Oxford guys, but your application is processed differently, because a R score is hard to compare with a gpa. The thing about applying after an undergrad is that you have had three more years to get have experiences. Also, and speaking only from personal experience here, I found it easier to get good grades. In Cegep, you are graded relatively to the others and there are quite a few students working their ass off to get into med or law. Depending on your UG, you will find that people in general care less and that grade inflation is a thing. I had classes in my first year of UG where a third of the class got an A+. McGill does not weight your GPA against the average. Therefore, my feeling is that, provided you stay motivated through your UG, work diligently and focus your energy, anybody's chances of getting in are high. Here again, I must respectfully disagree. As I said in my first post, my advice would be to study something that interest you, even if you don't see right away the job it will give you. First, it will be easier to put in a lot of work, because you actually enjoy it. Second, provided you have a genuine interest for law, the skills you will learn in your typical art degree (sociology, economics, philosophy, history) will prove more useful in law school than what you would learn in your typical employable degree (administration, finance, ...). Law is about reading, interpreting and criticizing texts. This is exactly what you do in history/sociology/philosophy/... . This is not to say employable degrees won't make you a good lawyer, there are great lawyers with those degree and, indeed, if they won't help you get through law school commercial law firm will generally be appreciative of them. This is only to say that there is no wrong UG choice. Third, Dulce and I obviously have very different views of education and life, which you should take into account while reading our answers. I would never consider studying 'wasting' years. I did an UG before law and don't feel as though I am currently wasting anything. Also, it is precisely because of my undergrad that I enjoy law school as much and that I have had access to wonderful opportunities while in law school. Nothing is wasted, you always build on things you have done before. If you are hard-working and motivated, don't worry about employability.
  10. The best advice I could give you is to explore something else before law. Life is young and studying something else now will expand your horizons and enrich you for the rest of your life. It will also provide you with skills to do well in law school. Law school is a wonderful intellectual experience, if you are ready for it. Otherwise it can be overwhelming and dream-crushing. The opportunities you will get at McGill - professional, social, cultural - are very different from those you would get from other schools in Quebec, and in my opinion, it is well worth doing an undergrad to get in. As for EC. It is great to see you are involved in many things, but admissions committee and - and everybody else generally - will rather see you play a significant leadership role in one or two organization than just read a list of ten different organizations you are a part of. In other words, try to focus you energy on one or two things and do something create, something ambitious. Good luck.
  11. McGill does not use a formula to weight applications. I would be surprised if profs reviewing yours did not know about Princeton deflation. I remember hearing Weinstock - a prof - say, about reviewing application "I know exactly what a B+ from U of T means"; suggesting not all B+ are created equal. But then again, at McGillm no one really knows.
  12. Thanks all, I'll look into them. I believe it's the same. I'm from McGill as well and haven't heard of any other podcast having been produced here.
  13. Up, any new canadian legal podcast worth listening to?
  14. Yes they are. What matters to them is how well you are doing relative to your peers. Top 10% at McGill is ~3.36/4, over that you will be viewed as favorably as someone from, say, UdeM with 3.7/4.33.
×
×
  • Create New...