Jump to content

TheAEGIS

Members
  • Content Count

    295
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

TheAEGIS last won the day on June 2 2019

TheAEGIS had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

247 Good People

About TheAEGIS

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1760 profile views
  1. I wasn't a dual JD student but I can offer this: as I'm sure you've discovered from various threads on this forum, there is some stigma around the dual program, mainly because of its comparatively high cost (UofT law is cheaper and everyone knows that program is ridiculously expensive) and lower admission standards. Also Detroit Mercy isn't exactly a top U.S. school. Basically, the dual JD has a reputation as a last chance option for students looking to study in Canada but didn't get in anywhere else. This is not completely unfair imo but how much it matters to your future prospects is often overstated, specifically on this forum and by prospective law students. My sense is that practicing lawyers and most employers don't care that much to start with, and they certainly don't after you've got a few years of practice under your belt. Now, the astronomical cost is a real issue, and anyone considering the dual program needs to think long and hard about that. School debt, especially from an unsecured LOC will have a profound effect on most people's life choices for a long while; it may affect the career opportunities you choose to pursue, how quickly you can make major life decisions, etc. But academically the dual program is just as rigorous as any other (maybe more so because you're essentially studying for two degrees) and the quality of education you'll receive by attending is fine. You'll find many threads on how what law school you attend affects your employment prospects and so on, and they usually end in a sort of stalemate where everyone sort of agrees that it matters because of perception but no one is sure to what extent, and that your school is by no means a barrier to most opportunities. Anecdotally, what I've seen backs that up. Strong dual students usually have no issues landing OCI interviews or positions. I know a bunch that summered and articled on Bay Street. Weaker students however may fare worse than students from programs with less/no stigma. So, that's something to keep in mind.
  2. If you're in Ontario, OSAP doesn't cover all your tuition, so you'll definitely need something to make up the difference. Schools do have fairly generous needs based grants so I would recommend getting in touch with the financial aid office of the school you'll be attending to get some more information about that. Grants can shave up to 20-30% off your tuition, sometimes more. Schools also have plenty of scholarships, most are merit based, some are needs based, none care about your credit score. So there's that. Other than that, maybe consider a part time job during school to cover some of your basic expenses. And definitely still try for a PSLOC. The criteria from my understanding is a bit more relaxed that for conventional unsecured loans so your chances with a guarantor may be better than expected. Good luck!
  3. Just had to say that this is my favorite post! 😆
  4. Not Windsor... But we expect to challenge for the title after the 2025 redesign. Our old bathrooms were premised on the assumption you only needed to cater to 2 women. I wish I was joking.
  5. OP, I think the takeaway here is that a prospective student should go with the best school they get into all else being equal. Where "best" is a loaded term informed by the rankings you were looking to interrogate. Rankings that are in underpinned by among other things; the reputation of the school, Bay Street employment numbers, clerkships, reputation of professors, frequency at which mooting teams destroy competitions and grab trophies, the whims and fancies of employers great and small, the opinion of your peers, the opinion of your parents, the opinion of strangers on internet forums, the cost of tuition, and of course the location and size of bathrooms. Good luck!
  6. Former adcomm here. Assuming you have a smattering of A's to balance out your lower courses, that 175 LSAT says you'll likely get in somewhere. Lots of schools focus on your L2 GPA, so what's that like for you? Count backwards from your most recent course until you've gotten at least 10 full credits. You can't split up school years/summers. So if your last course 10 lands on say something you took in the summer, you continue counting and include all the courses you took in the fall/winter semester leading up. If the course lands in the winter, you include all the courses from the fall as well. If you have a handful of courses dragging you down, you can also look at schools that drop your lowest, although I don't know of any in Ontario that calculate GPA that way. Oh, and no one will care that you took 8 years to finish your undergrad if you have a good explanation. And yours is a pretty good one. Not everyone can do school full time. Schools know this.
  7. I take it that poster was me? Look, here's what I saw at Windsor. During OCIs, all except a select few Bay Street firms showed up to interview students. A handful of students landed 2L Bay Street positions. Others landed gigs with non-Bay Street firms, government, boutiques, and in-house. A few even landed 1L summer gigs at top firms which I'm sure you know is quite the feat. And one clerked at the SCC. Since then, I've had the benefit of following many Windsor-grad careers. I can say that where we are now is more a function of personality, ability, and life goals than it is the school. The vast majority of us are doing just fine. As far as I can tell, going to Windsor has not shut off any opportunities we might otherwise have had. And from the perspective of an employer, it is objectively ridiculous to value a school over a student that is clearly a great fit for your organization. The goal for a lot of these firms is to make money. You're not jeopardizing that over some vaguely defined school hierarchy that neither your clients nor other lawyers care about. You'll take the student you think can do the job best, and this goes back to my initial point. It's the student. Ultravires stats show the ability of a school's student body, not your own individual prospects for landing a job or a clerkship. We're not the U.S. Our legal job market is not structured in a way that prioritizes giving opportunities to say Osgoode students over Windsor students in any meaningful way. Within the province, they'd both get the same opportunities and imo the best students usually get the job. But schools are not stupid. They know that if the highest achieving, business focused, academically inclined students tend to choose UofT over Western, then they will place better at OCIs. So we get to this weird place where on the one hand we acknowledge that education standards are essentially the same across schools, but on the other hand, one school clearly does better at placing students on Bay Street than the other. I've always thought it was rather obvious what was going on. And that's not to say that which school you go to is completely irrelevant. UofT and McGill for example have important relationships in the U.S. and place students in Big Law NY firms better than anyone else. That's an important thing to keep in mind if this is your goal. But it isn't for the vast majority of students. So why do rankings and Bay Street placement rates keep coming up? Well, because schools and students are adept at marketing themselves using the things they know people care about. From my perspective (and experience) this notion that for the average law student where you go determines your own personal prospects in a meaningful way seems sort of ridiculous.
  8. OP, this here is exactly why you should take @Hegdis words to heart. The reason the ranking debate seems to go in circles is because it is . I think what you're reading in those posts is the result of our attempt to square our very human desire to rank ourselves (and best our peers) with the objective knowledge that differences in quality of education across Canadian law schools are negligible. So, we begin (and imo wrongly) attributing things like hiring rates or clerkship numbers to the school instead of the students. Maybe the school explains some of it, but you'll be hard pressed to find objective data on by how much. Look, if more academically minded high achievers attend UofT than say Windsor, what does that say about your own individual prospects for landing a Bay Street job or a judicial clerkship? Not a lot if you're being honest. @Hegdis 's point I think is that school rankings, official or not, are likely to have a negligible impact on your overall prospects but a much larger impact on your ego. And sometimes that's enough.
  9. Short answer - no. Long answer - no. Many threads on this. With your trend, a solid LSAT will make you competitive at just about every school. Anyway, I suspect those median GPA's are an average of the grades they consider, not the cGPA of the average student attending.
  10. Gonna go ahead and say @lazslo93 makes all of the sense here. Anecdotally, as a mature-ish Windsor grad, I got in, had a blast, got a job and got out. And despite the debt and comparatively rapid onset of adult obligations relative to my colleagues due to my advanced vintage it was one of the best decisions I ever made! That said, OP my $0.02 is that you need to sort out the reasons you want to be a lawyer. @Hegdis is right in that simply looking for meaningful work isn't a bad motive per se, but you've got to be aware that law is not an easy thing to do, especially for someone in your position. There's an oversupply of young grads and intense competition for jobs that are increasingly on average less great than they used to be. But if you're sure law is what you want to do and are prepared to put in the work, be adaptable, have the right attitude, and your goal is simply to carve out a half decent legal career somewhere in a field that wants you, then dear god Windsor law is not going to be a problem. A more 'prestigious' school on a resume rarely matters more than what comes out your mouth at an interview. And sure, a younger candidate is more appealing to employers, but a candidate who's prepared for the interview, knows the role they are interviewing for, and can clearly communicate their value to the employer will find a taker. And you only need one. That's what I told myself when I applied to law school with my crummy cGPA. It was what I told myself when I applied during the articling recruit. Personally, I think it helps me avoid psyching myself out. And with some of the posts here maybe you need a little bit of that too.
  11. If you're doing it because you think it'll give you some sort of competitive advantage in law school ... don't. If you're doing it because you looooove reading dense fact patterns about esoteric legal concepts you don't fully understand yet, then by all means go ahead. Personally, I wouldn't burn what fleeting time I had left on law books. You'll be up to your eyeballs in reading materials once the actual thing starts and possibly for the rest of your career. So, imo the reading can wait a few months. But that's just me.
  12. Hmm. My $0.02. I think many lawyers appear to be miserable because they are essentially wearing golden handcuffs they didn't know were on before they snapped shut. Comparable earners in other professions typically have more years of work experience and are often promoted into those higher salaries. This usually means they thrived in previous roles and chose to pursue a more challenging, higher paying one. By contrast, in law you get there simply by sticking around and not being bad at your job for a shorter amount of time. Your title doesn't change. Your salary and responsibilities simply go up every year that you tough it out without disaster. You don't have to be thriving in any meaningful sense to get to a place where you've got way too much work but the money is too good to walk away from i.e. golden handcuffs. In other professions, a significant chunk of high-income jobs are in higher-level/management positions. People holding those jobs essentially self select into them after having many years to evaluate things like work-life balance, salary expectations and life-style. They see the handcuffs, they choose the handcuffs. In law, it's the opposite. You have to decide to self-select out of the higher-income, higher-responsibility roles, and we're often making that choice with far less and in many cases, no work experience at all. In many instances, lawyers find themselves wearing golden handcuffs before understanding what the hell it is. So, ironically, proportionally more miserable lawyers might have something to do with the speed at which salary progression happens. I end all this by saying I have done exactly zero research into this and I am drawing mainly from anecdotal evidence and my general observations from other industries I have been in.
  13. Back when I found 7Sage, it was through their videos on YouTube. And those alone helped me see massive improvements in my LSAT score. All this to say, don't worry about what the site looks like, the important question is if it helps you improve!
  14. It's a while ago now since I wrote the LSAT, but 7Sage was absolutely amazing for improvement at LG. LG went from my weakest to my strongest section. I didn't use 7Sage for Logical Reason though, so I can't comment on that. But I would definitely recommend giving it a look for LG.
  15. Military experience would certainly have peaked my interest an adcom. As for whether it's considered community service, I echo what @ArmyToLaw said, it's really about how you tell it and sell it.
×
×
  • Create New...