Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

222 Good People

About Ambit

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1320 profile views
  1. It's hard to understand whether a school is worth it financially without knowing your financial circumstances. However, Toronto, because of the bolded reasons, is probably your best choice. It will give you a huge advantage in securing the kind of job you want in Toronto.
  2. That is also my observation. Hard to say whether that's because big firms are willing to dig deeper into the UBC and Uvic classes, or because TRU grads are less likely to pursue big law and prefer to remain in the interior. There are no official stats that I know of in BC, but if you look at the numbers for comparable schools in Ontario during the Toronto 2L recruit*, Windsor secures about 18%. Ottawa does even lower at 13% but many students at Ottawa probably stay in Ottawa. *The majority, but not all jobs in this recruit meet the loose definition of 'biglaw'
  3. I just think it's even worse when there is a meaningful chance that not only will that person accumulate debt, but they won't have work (even work they aren't keen on foreover) available at the end of it. That's rarely a problem at Toronto.
  4. That is equally bad. It repeats the same myth that you can cut to most of those jobs straight out of law school, which isn't true. If you want to be a stockbroker, law is a terrible route. If you want to do labour relations consulting... I imagine you need to practice some labour law? The only 'defence' is that U of T doesn't juxtapose that against a bad legal market (since articling rates approach 100%), but against people who just don't want law in the end. I particularly enjoy the implication that clerking is a career - it's a one year deal!
  5. I am not. . My fears are motivated by seeing different kinds of issues arise from the admin at Toronto, which has not realized what should be a massive teaching advantage given its tuition fees. Now I see a school which is explicitly running on cost-recovery basis, which has recently lost not only its subsidy for the law school but also is facing further cuts, and is making interesting claims about the legal market. The counterargument is that a rich supply of students compelled to work, for free, plus whatever incentives Ryerson provides to get these firms to take those students on, will make taking articling students on an even worse proposition. But it also might be an advantage for those students, getting their foot in the door. It can't be any less useful than exchange. My issue that it isn't right for Ryerson to charge for the privilege.
  6. I'm not sure if I agree with that. If admin and indigenous law are given a full treatment, there is more substantive coverage than at Osgoode. But you have convinced me my concerns re: the 1L program are overstated.
  7. I am not counting civ pro as a substantive course, because in my experience at U of T it was given way less weight, and course time. That's why it's baked into methods. Anyways, I accept that 1L could be workable. My stronger concern is indicated above with respect to Ryerson's marketing approach, and the half third year.
  8. My view is that the extra substantive courses take a toll. But I am assuming that the Indigenous law and administrative law courses are full-blooded separate courses, not merely an add-ons to constitutional law. Maybe I'm wrong - and that might make it workable.
  9. I'm not sure how a schedule could meaningfully take it from insane to not-insane. I agree that it is early. Perhaps Ryerson will change things up, or have an extended semester. And having practitioners teach students 7 on 1 would be fantastic. However, I'm hoping students considering Ryerson approach it with a bit of skepticism - certainly if they plan on committing before knowing more details. We are not far from the point where someone who is only applying because of the prospect of Ryerson (which is very possible given its location) has to decide to start studying for the LSAT and otherwise arranging their life to be in school starting in fall 2020. Because those decisions have to be made early, Ryerson has some of the obligation of proving its concept early as well. It has not, in my view. However, I agree that there is much more to be revealed, presumably before applications open in the fall.
  10. I don't think Ryerson is setting it's students up to fail. Ryerson has every interest for its students to succeed. And in any event, what would they fail? The bar is straightforward and I imagine F's will be as rare at Ryerson as they are at other schools. I do, however, think Ryerson is prioritizing features which differentiate it from other schools at the cost of a substantive understanding of the law. That is why IP and privacy law is mandatory, why there is a coding bootcamp, and so on. This is obviously on the school's mind. On the FAQ's, one of the questions is "I've heard it's hard to get work as a lawyer - why should I apply? Where can I work when I graduate? This is the answer: Respectfully, I think this is a false bill of goods. Ontario has an articling crisis. There is no evidence of a market for legally trained persons outside of "conventional legal contexts". Time and time again this board has told prospective law students that it is a bad idea to go to law school if you do not wish to practice law. The cool in-house jobs at startups go to the corporate solicitor who worked at Blakes for six years, not the guy /gal who just graduated from Ryerson. A coding bootcamp and taking IP law does not change that. This board has also documented the perils of running your own shop fresh out of articles. The wisdom is that there is a major capital problem and that income is extremely limited or non-existent. Ryerson claims to be an accesible law school, despite the lack of provincial funding. Students who are coming from backgrounds of modest means, often with families to support, will take on large amounts of debt and graduate in 3 years. They then have articles, which will often be poorly paid or not paid at all. Or they have LPP, where they pay. And then Ryerson says "just be enterprising".
  11. My bad - I missed the public law course. Nonetheless it seems clear that Osgoode and U of T are less intensive. At Ryerson you do 12 courses in 1L - 2 bootcamps, which are weeklong, and 10 courses which appear to run for the semester. The hours breakup in those courses is not clear, although seven are substantive (Property, contracts, criminal, torts, Constitutional, administrative, Indigenous) and three are 'soft' (ethics, legal process, legal research). At Osgoode, students take 8 courses in first year. 5 are substantive (property, contracts, criminal, torts, and public law), 3 are 'soft' (ethical lawyering, legal process, and the elective). At U of T, students take 5 substantive (property, contracts, criminal, torts, constitutional) and two soft (legal research and legal process). In addition, there is a two week introductory session, but that runs in August. So at Ryerson, you take two more substantive courses and two bootcamps than Oz, and take that plus an extra soft course compared to Toronto. That seems insane.
  12. . This is the quote "Intensive two-week modules with lecture in mornings and hands-on application overseen by mentor in afternoons for both semesters and an emphasis on group work conducted in ‘firms’ comprising seven students." So I assume you do lecture with a prof in the morning, and then have something that resembles tutorial in the afternoon. I'm not sure who the "mentor" will be - there are no grad students, and there won't be enough profs in a given area to meet the 1:7 ratio. My worry is not so much overall hours, but I am extremely skeptical that you can properly absorb a substantive course in two intensive weeks. The lack of time interferes with office hours and makes it difficult to spend more time on something you don't understand. Because substantive courses build on concepts, if you fall behind on one thing, you can't just carry on and fill it in later. Even assuming that students absorb the material well, a students who gets the flu / has a relative die / has a child who gets sick will miss half of a substantive course.
  13. So I reread my comments and I agree that I have been unnecessarily harsh, and for that I apologize. I cannot look into the mind of the powers that be at Ryerson. I imagine my cynicism about my own school's administration has been unfairly cast on them. However, I do not agree that it is unreasonable to be critical - indeed very critical - of the program Ryerson is putting forward prior before students, who will read this website, commit hundreds of thousands in tuition and opportunity cost. Some of Ryerson's marketing strategies are, in my view, irresponsibly misleading. For example, the suggestion that students can just create their own legal "start-up" (i.e. go sole directly out of articling), and the notion that there is some sort of unmet market for lawyers for tech start-ups (there is no evidence of this)... if only those lawyers knew how to code!). When that is combined with a curriculum, this is what drives my cynicism (although, again, expressed far too harshly above). I don't worry about the five 1-week bootcamps, but I do worry about : 1) Teaching family law in two weeks of morning classes (year two, semester 1). Ditto for corporate law 2) Students learning criminal, constitutional, Aboriginal, and administrative law in a single semester (which is also shortened by a week, because of the bootcamp) and while also juggling a full-sized legal methods course. U of T and Osgoode do 1L in semesters, but they don't pack it in nearly that much.* 3) The students will essentially pay tuition to work in third year. This is downright abusive, especially given the existence of articling. So we have a school that, on the one hand, is presenting a very optimistic view of the legal market to students. And we have a curriculum that, if made in good faith to be 'cutting-edge', at least has the effect of undermining the effect of actually learning basic legal concepts. My inference is that the motivation here, at least in significant part, is cost-cutting. But I have no evidence of that. *Osgoode defers constitutional, administrative and Aboriginal law to 2L, and has no 1L writing/research class, though there is an elective. U of T defers admin and Aboriginal law and has no elective.
  14. I think it's entirely reasonable to note that almost every curriculum decision made by Ryerson has the effect of reducing costs, and that those same decisions are hard to explain or justify on pedagogical grounds, and draw the inference that cutting costs is a major motivating factor of those same decisions. The absence of hard evidence is hardly a surprise - it's not like Ryerson is going to announce that cost-cutting is a motivation.
  15. It fills some credits really cheap and creates the idea that the law school is "cutting edge"
  • Create New...