Jump to content

realpseudonym

Members
  • Content Count

    1331
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    17

realpseudonym last won the day on April 18

realpseudonym had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2535 Good People

1 Follower

About realpseudonym

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't know why I'm continuing to engage, but fuck it. You were mocked (correctly) for making some very strange claims about genetics. I understand why you would take issue with that. No one likes to be mocked. But are non-lawyers being mocked here? I don't think so. I think it's just an objective assessment that lawyers do tend to have the qualities normally associated with intelligence. I think that many lawyers are more intelligent than the average person. But that's not a value judgment. The particular kind of intelligence needed for law is valuable for practicing law effectively. But outside of being useful for practice, I accord it very little weight. I like and admire many people who aren't especially good communicators, and probably don't have the attention to detail for law. I know many lawyers who are very smart and excellent at lawyering, but who I do not particularly like or admire. Intelligence is just one thing. There are other qualities that are far more important. I care far more about a person's compassion, sense of humour, and self-awareness than whether they can write a persuasive brief. So when I say that law isn't a good fit for most, I don't mean it as smug or an insult. I just mean that law isn't a good fit for everyone.
  2. I haven't read any posts which say this. If anything, most are saying that law requires only a reasonable level of intelligence.
  3. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, most of them stink, and some stink worse than others.
  4. @Diplock's answer to OP also applies to you. Being a lawyer is for some people, but it's not for everyone. I like a being a lawyer. I make a decent living, doing intellectually engaging and personally meaningful work. But it's also a huge pain in the ass. Not everyone wants to spend an afternoon researching and writing about whether something would be "reasonably forthcoming", while juggling calls from demanding clients, trying to get disclosure out before 4:00 p.m., prep for Court the next morning, and do all my administrative work like docketing and billing. I don't mind. But it's stressful and tedious. Could most people do that work? Maybe in theory. But in practice, most people won't want to do it well. It's not a good fit, unless someone (i) is particularly motivated, (ii) has baseline abilities in reading, reasoning, and communication, and (iii) is willing to manage the stress of working on high-stakes matters under time-pressure. Those qualities don't always line up. My sisters vs me are a good example. I imagine we're pretty similar, both in upbringing and genetics. But they would be terrible lawyers, because they don't want to be lawyers. None of it interests them. They wouldn't like document review, legal research, dealing with clients, going to Court, or legal drafting. That's not a comment on intelligence or aptitude. It's just not a good fit for them. The nature-nurture debate is good fodder for abstract arguments in undergrad psych classes. But it's irrelevant for students deciding whether to become lawyers. For those people, the questions are (i) can you meet the licensing requirements (including admission and graduation from an accredited law school) and (ii) do you genuinely want to be a good lawyer (assuming a reasonably informed understanding of what the practice of law entails)? If the answer is yes to both questions, then you can probably be a good lawyer and who cares about whatever environmentally-based multifactorial traits are.
  5. As someone who responded to you with at least one snarky post, I'll say that I have found your recent contributions to be quite helpful and thoughtful.
  6. Law school admissions aren’t a Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. You could dream a legal career until you’re purple and screaming at US Senators, that doesn’t give you a right to the dream. Meeting admissions criteria allows you to attend a Canadian law school. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with schools developing criteria that gives people a chance to realize their dreams, where systemic discrimination or other factors would have precluded them from doing so.
  7. Not yet. But a chicken in every pot and a pipeline to PSLOCs in every university budget!
  8. It's a selling point that you've done legal stuff and have legal interests. I once had to review applications for a job posting, and there were many, many overseas grads and NCA candidates with very few transferable skills and demonstrated interests on their resumes. That's a huge problem. Their educational achievements were discounted vis-a-vis Canadian grads, because they were in first-entry programs with lower admissions requirements. And they weren't able to signal that they would work well with us, based upon previous experience. That meant no interviews for them. And even if they got an interview, I'm not sure what they would talk about. You don't have that problem. That's good. You're passionate about things. If you can highlight that passion, you'll have a better chance of showing that you're a fit somewhere. You'll be able to have conversations with lawyers. That counts for something. I agree with Diplock that you might be casting your net a little small. But I think it's good that you've found issues you like, and are driven to work in those areas. Maybe try to strike more of a balance. Consider the kinds of issues you want to deal with, the clients you want to work for, and the day-to-day work you want to do (do you want to be in court, do you want to work on financial transactions, etc). Figure out which other lawyers might satisfy those criteria (I guarantee that you can find a fulfilling career outside of AI-banking law). In any case, good luck.
×
×
  • Create New...