Jump to content

maximumbob

Members
  • Content Count

    13229
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    208

Everything posted by maximumbob

  1. SO, the data I am providing FROM ONTARIO is skewed because there is no articling exemption IN BC? Hmm, we should post this in the LSAT thread to help all the 0Ls spot the logical reasoning problem with that statement. If they can't spot it, they might consider a foreign law school.
  2. Really? You should probably tell that to the Law Society of Upper Canada, which provided articling exemptions to 400 odd foreign trained lawyers between 2013 and 2016: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/uploadedFiles/PDC-Pathways-Pilot-Project-Evaluation-and-Enhancements-to-Licensing-Report-Sept-2016.pdf I know the NCA hasn't published country specific data - that's why I haven't been citing NCA data, I've been citing data from the Law Society of Ontario. Which I gather you haven't read.... But I'm glad you think numbers shouldn't be relied upon. Imagine, basing discussions on facts and data, this place would shut down.
  3. Exactly, I shit on Cassels because it's a horrible place to work, that does unsophisticated, routine, low-value corporate work, and doesn't do it that well. Its a great place to work if you can't find something better. Otherwise it's not a great place to work.
  4. Got data to back that up? The overwhelming majority of the NCA students are US, Australian and UK trained: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/uploadedFiles/PDC-Pathways-Pilot-Project-Evaluation-and-Enhancements-to-Licensing-Report-Sept-2016.pdf. In year 1 of the LPP, it looks like ~ 60% of the NCA students who participated in the LPP/articling process were educated in those countries. In the second year, the number was closer to 80% As I'm sure you know, English is the language generally spoken in the US, Australia and the UK and in which education at their law schools occurs. And given that those aren't exactly large source countries for current immigrants to Canada, the large proportion rather suggests that they're Canadians going there and coming back - particularly since that number does not include foreign trained lawyers who practiced in foreign jurisdictions and who were exempt from articling on that basis. But it's nice that you've set out your theory as to why I'm wrong so eloquently, it makes it that much more enjoyable to smack down with cold hard facts.
  5. The definitive Cassels story is that they let go of a bunch of associates a few years ago. OK, hey, that happens, other firms let people go from time to time too. What other firms don't do, though, is call all of the people they are letting go into a room at once and tell them, together, that they are being let go. Other firms, even the most hard assed firms, have the good decency to have a partner go and talk to the firee privately and discretely, and if you're sacking 10 people, you have ten partners take time out of their day to have that awkward discussion. My opinion of Cassels - never high to begin win - bottomed out when I heard that story.
  6. Hey, good for her - any of those have to be an upgrade to working at Cassels.
  7. Also, some people interpret the warnings about going to the various Australian or UK schools as ragging on the schools themsevles. But that isn't it. i'm quite prepared to accept that Bond or Leicester are perfectly good schools. The problem isn't them, it's their Canadian graduates are simply not competitive graduates. For many of them the reason they went to Bond or Leicester was because they weren't competitive, and 4 years later, nothing has changed. Nor is that assessment just based on anecdotal experiences with NCA students - although, geeze, do you hear a lot of those stories. Look at the bar pass rates in Ontario. 87% of Canadian trained candidates pass the Ontario bar exam the first time they write it. Personally, I was floored that the fail rate for Canadian grads was 13% - that seems ridiculously high for an open-book multiple choice exam. The fail rate for NCA students was 47% - almost four times the fail rate for Canadian trained students. (Anyone wanting to source these stats should look at the LSUC's September 2016 report on the LPP). The Ontario bar exam is a minimal test of competence - lots of smart people could probably pass it without setting foot in a law school. And almost half of NCA students don't pass it the first time out. THAT is why Canadian employers view foreign trained law students - particularly foreign trained Canadians - with suspicion, because objectively, as a group, they are much weaker candidates than their Canadian trained peers. (Aside, if you want to disagree with the claim that foreign trained candidates are weaker than their Canadian peers, Ihe alternative explanation for their poor performance on the bar exam is that foreign schools do a lousy job training them - pick your poison). So when KPMG advertises that it's looking for Canadian trained summer students - apart from the obvious advantages of having students trained in the law of the jurisdiction in which they actually practice - it's not because they think Leicester or bond are lousy schools, it's because they aren't keen on having to wade through hordes of applications from foreign-trained grads most of whom are humps - half of whom are going to fail the bar exam the first time out. In practice, if someone at Harvard applied, they'd probably consider their application. But as a general rule, looking for Canadian trained students in a sensible hiring practice.
  8. Let me apply your logic in another circumstances to show you why it’s ridiculous. If height is an advantage in playing basketball, why did teams hire Mugsy Bogues or Nate Robinson? If men are taller than woman, how come I know a woman who is 6’4” and a man who is 5’6”? Of course, neither of those counter-examples disprove the general rule. That you can find *some* NCA students who get hired by some Bay Street firms doesn’t disprove the general rule that they don’t touch them. My own experience, in a decade or so at two biglaw firms? Never dealt with a biglaw lawyer from one of the typical NCA schools and never interviewed a student from one of those schools Indeed, even the exceptions are telling. A few years ago Bond ran a big ad campaign about how one of their graduates was a star associate at a prominent Bay Street law firm. But a little digging into her path to that position instead of disproving the rule, rather reinforced it. First, she wasn’t a typical bond student. She had a steller undergrad performances and graduated at the top of her class at bond. She had options to go to school in Canada. Second, the “prominent” firm was Cassels - a horrible place that can’t retain good people and which does the bottom feeding work of biglaw. Third, the path to her getting hired at Cassels was long and winding. After returning to Canada she worked out of law for a couple of years, then articled and worked at a smaller firm before getting snaffled up by Cassels. Long story short, she was a top student who, had she gone to a Canadian law school, probably would have been snaffled up by better firms than Cassels in OCIs, and would have fulfilled her dream of being biglaw lawyer years earlier, instead of having to jump through hoops for years. And remember this was the student that BOnd was putting forward as a success story. So, yes, there are NCA students working in biglaw. Their experiences rather confirm all the risks that Diplock and others warn students who are thinking of going to the Uk or Australia about. Finally, I agree with you, outside of Canada, few legal employers have heard of most Canadian law schools. Certainly, if someone told me they wanted to practice law in the US or Uk no one would tell them that going to law school in Canada was a great idea. So why on earth do you think the reverse wouldn’t be true? Why would you expect Canadian legal employers to be any more knowledgeable about foreign law schools than foreign employers are about Canadian ones?
  9. While I agree with you on this point - and don't have too much sympathy for students who go down these rabbit holes - given the very real information asymmetries between universities and students, I don't think it's asking too much for universities to be held to a something more than a "not outright lying" standard of disclosure. I've used this example before, but if I wanted to issue $500 worth of mutual fund units to some putz, I need to put together a massive prospectus with all sorts of information and risk factor. But sell people a university degree that, at the least, costs tens of thousands of dollars and takes up four years of their lives, and you can get away with glossy brochures and slick websites that would do a timeshare salesman proud. Not that I think securities law standards are the right way to go, but the dichotomy between what we expect of disclosure in one market (securities) versus what we expect in the other (post-secondary education) is striking.
  10. I second what others have said about the value of firm tours. I'd also suggest that they might be helpful in getting you more insight into firm cultures/personalities. From the outside, they all look the same. They're not, firm cultures can very radically. You don't get much time in the fall to assess that - and, in any event, you're usually talking to people in sell mode. A firm tour or firm event is one more opportunity to assess that. That won't make ANY difference on "conversion rate", but it will help you make a better choice (assuming you have a choice) as to where you want to end up.
  11. Perfectly reasonable, having the ability to figure out what constitutes appropriate attire (and the awareness to realize that it matters) demonstrates judgement, maturity and common sense - skills that are at the core of the practice of law. Also, even if you didn't make conscious judgments, how one dresses affects the unconscious perceptions of others.
  12. I wouldn't wear a suit or tie. Nice pair of khaki's (or something similar) and a decent shirt. (Are you in Toronto? Why would you be walking outside - learn to use the path). Definitely not shorts.
  13. Indeed, as far as "loopholes" go, I can't imagine a stupider loophole: "Hey, let's go to a shitty (and very expensive) law school, that teaches different law so I can transfer (I mean, assuming I end up in the top 10 percentile AND UofT accepts me) into a much better school in 2L where, apart from being dumber than all my classmates, I'll be disadvantaged by not having learned the same basics that they learned in 1L.". I mean, anyone who thinks that's a clever plan isn't smart enough to pull it off.
  14. Not much of a loophole. Sure, you might be able to get into UofT, but so what? As you say, it's easier to perform well at Cooley, which means if you're not smart enough to do well at UofT you won't do well at UofT. You certainly won't be competitive with UofT students for 2L jobs - lawyers look at transcripts and know full well that Cooley is garbage school. And if you use that "loophole" and do well at UofT, well, what's the complaint, you proved you belong.
  15. It really depends on what you want to do. If you wanted to do business law a CPA would probably be a slight edge, though not a big enough edge to overcome crappy grades or the personality of a dishrag - the reality is that you can learn all the accouting you need to be a successful business lawyers through a few CPD sessions. Obviously, if you want to be a criminal lawyers, your CPA background isn't going to be all that useful outside of very specialized practices that you're unlikely to see. On the other hand, if you hate accounting will you love business law? I mean, I get that audit is horrible and that other areas of accounting practice (yay Tax!) are much cooler and more fun - so would law be a better fit that moving up in the accounting world? Business law as taught in a class room is very different from the actual practice (as was no doubt true for accounting). What are you other options? If you hate public practice, might you go in-house? Or do something else?
  16. Some years ago I published the definitive subjective ranking of law firms and I continue to stand by it (in fact, my experience since going in-house rather reinforces my original ranking). To the extent your ranking differs from it, you're wrong. All my caveats as to the value of these sorts of ranking exercises remain true.
  17. Just out of curiosity, "no" is the answer to which of those questions? Actually, that's the one statement that is factually true - though perhaps not in the way it is intended to be read.
  18. That's too crass. No doubt the rationale is that it allows Laurier and Trent to "optimize the education experience by leveraging the critical thinking skills imparted by 12 years of progressive education of high school graduates". Which is to say "make lots of money relying on ill-informed applicants".
  19. Well, by definition that’s true if law schools grade on a curve, as they do. So, yes, a B+ from UofT counts more than a B+ from Windsor. On the other hand, if the B+ student from UofT had gone to Windsor, and was competing with the less competitive students from Windsor, should we expect that his or her class ranking would be unchanged? Would th B+ student from Windsor still be a B+ student in the more competitive environment of UofT? Doesn’t seem likely, does it?
  20. To answer you question, it’s because people are singularly ill-informed about the legal market - the people who make the biggest deal about rankings are law students and 0Ls who know, literally, nothing about the legal market. And it helps those people who want to go to school in Toronto rationalize (in their minds, at least) the hefty premium they pay. You may be right that someone from UofT will be more successful than a student with the same grades from, say, Windsor - in fact, you are right. But that doesn’t disprove my point. After all, if UofT has higher student quality - my thesis, and well supported from the evidence - an average student at UofT is a stronger candidate, all else being equal, then an average student at Windsor. And they would be a stronger candidate than an average student at Windsor had they gone to Windsor instead of UofT. We wouldn’t expect an “average” UofT student to be an “average” Windsor student. The test isn’t whether an average UofT student does better than an average Windsor student, it’s whether a an average UofT student does better than a Windsor student who has the same student specific characteristics as the average UofT student. At least in my experience, I don’t think that’s true.
  21. That's not what the study says. What it says is that candidates with similar features (e.g. similar test scores) go to ivy league schools at the same rate no matter whether they go to elite schools or not - i.e. they neither produce better candidates nor provide a better wrapper. Their apparent success in get students in at ivy leagues is solely a function of the quality of the students they admit, and had those students gone to other schools, they'd be just as likely to go to ivy leagues. I'd wager candidates with similar characteristics (LSAT/undergrad stats, work, etc) get hired by biglaw firms at the same rate regardless of whether they go to UofT or other schools. UofT has more students with high LSAT/Undergrad stats, prior work experience, etc., so places more candidates in biglaw (just like elite high schools have more students with high test scores so place more in ivy league schools), but it's a function of higher student quality, not the school itself.
  22. Not directly related to law school ranking, but a healthy reminded that the success of a school's graduates isn't necessarily a measure of school quality. NYC has elite high schools whose graduates overwhelmingly place at Ivy League (or equivalent) universities. Signs that they're good schools right? Hmm, not so much, according to the Brookings Institute: https://www.brookings.edu/research/evidence-on-new-york-city-and-boston-exam-schools/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=es Their research suggests that students who are "just" admitted to those schools don't do any better than students who "just" miss the admissions cut-off (i.e., functionally identical students who differ only in the schools they attend). In other words, where kids go to school has no impact on whether they attend ivy league schools, suggesting that the "quality" impact of the elite schools are overrated. They found similar results for schools in Boston too. If elite schools place better than non-elite schools, the data suggests its because they admit elite students, not that they're better schools. Something to keep in mind while ranking law schools.
  23. IT's an enormous problem in high schools, and it's why you get kids who clearly have no interest being in university going to university - instead of pursuing trades or going to college.
  24. You know, we seldom give Canadian academia full credit for its ability to rip off and exploit students. Oh, sure, we mock the TTT schools in the US - the Cooleys and the Thomas Jeffersons - without tipping our hat to Canadian schools who also manage to mislead their students while also bilking the taxpayer directly. Well done, Laurier and Trent, I wouldn't have though you guys smart enough to be this devious.
×
×
  • Create New...