Jump to content

pzabbythesecond

Members
  • Content Count

    3556
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

pzabbythesecond last won the day on March 10

pzabbythesecond had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2214 Good People

1 Follower

About pzabbythesecond

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

6146 profile views
  1. False assumption. 1Ls are largely useless, and by the time they're somewhat useful, the summer is done. Big firms hire them to get what they see as the brighter most fitting talent as early as possible, not because they're actually worth that pay. That's not to say legal experience isn't worth while. It can be (especially depending on who your mentor/boss is). But it definitely isn't necessarily better paying than a service job. Depending on where you work, you could take home maybe 800-1000 a week after tips - which is roughly what the government pays its legal summer students!
  2. I agree with everything here. Looking for articling while having my summer job has been infinitely more pleasant than before. I've also felt less of a need to apply overly broadly to just get any job. I'll also add that you'll come off a position of strength in your interviews, and generally feel more confident (I sure have and the results have proven it). Lastly.. financials.
  3. There's roughly 5-15 McGill people who end up in NY for let's say each associate year of call. How they end up there differs. This isn't to even mention how many actually apply. I've heard a 3.3 being the magic GPA number for hiring, with 3.2 and above giving you a good shot at a handful of in firms (which of course often have GPA be less important at that stage). The myth that you need to be in the top 5 percent, or even necessarily Dean's list is wholely inaccurate.
  4. For NY, if you're not dead set on it and so don't want to study south of the border, your best shots are at u of t, McGill, Oz in that order. McGill gives you an advantage of working for those same firms offices in China, or France, or other civil law jurisdictions. It just takes leg work. I recommend you not base your decision on NY chances though, unless you're dead set on corporate and are willing to also get an MBA.
  5. You're graded as a function of your peers strength. So at a stronger school, you likely end up doing less well than at a weaker school. However, employers understand this phenomenon. So they dip down further into the classes of stronger schools vs weaker schools. So this shouldn't worry you.
  6. Ding ding ding! (Though admittedly I'm guilty of this sometimes too, usually when I'm just too brain dead do keep going but pretend like I'm being productive).
  7. Absolutely do the PhD. I can safely say McGill will love you more for it - especially since it's so international too. I'll also make the claim that the PhD will further develop your analytical ability, and in turn I think you'll do better in law school. My friends with advanced degrees I've always noticed to just have an extra gear of thought that I envy. Anyway congrats on the position!
  8. Just call the school and ask again.
  9. I was saying the law ought to also protect against discrimination based on social class. I don't care where the states are in terms of their civil rights law development. Your next claim is weak. If we accept the premise I laid out above, that discrimination based on social class shouldn't be okay, then the following happens. Harvard and the rest would have to offer their services at a set price. To anyone who can find a way to pay that set price, who also meets the other requirements Harvard sets (remember, that they legally can and nothing more), they should be admitted. Now the counter can be that Harvard can just increase tuition to a level where the same social class which current legacy members fill is the only class that can afford its tuition. For sake of argument, I'll assume this would be legally acceptable and not impose a purpose/effect analysis here. Harvard does this, and it hurts their brand of excellence. This is because - while the elite do tend to perform pretty elite on the objective markers of merit (ignoring systemic test bias, etc), there aren't a sufficient number of them to keep Harvard being as academically excellent as it is. Other universities who don't put their tuition as high, who can and do get that elite talent, would slowly take away Harvard from its throne of academic excellence. Harvard in effect ceases to be Harvard. The social class who currently gets in as legacy admits don't like this, for they benefit from Harvard giving them that Harvard "throne" of reputational excellence, even though they aren't actually excellent. So they wouldn't be okay with this and push against it. But by this point the jig is up - the kavanaughs of the world really aren't elite in any sense of ability.
  10. Why is discrimination based on race not allowed, but discrimination based on wealth and social class fine? Has a massive branch of the social progressive movement just been demolished without me knowing it?
  11. Ah yes. The old trickle down argument. How about we just tax those same wealthy people's wealth and use that to make education free? That solves both problems. But alas we are talking about the states.
  12. Isn't that what the controversy was all about? I remember reading something to that effect. Also, represented where? Universities? What's the point if, even at let's say equal or sufficient representation in the universities, that population is nevertheless drastically underrepresented in positions of power? My whole point is, why are we fighting over what proportion of minorities get in through URM, when our real concern should lie at the hands of the intolerable legacy admits? Why the **** is a person like Kavanaugh being let into those institutions at the expense of candidates with far more merit to their name?
  13. My whole point was we shouldn't compare, because that's not at issue here. URM style admissions aren't a perfect science. They're an imperfect correction to acknowledge systemic privilege and inequality. We can agree (and I think we have already) that Asians suffer systemic privilege and inequality issues relative to the majority. Insofar as URM admissions are concerned with equity, and insofar as Asians suffer these systemic issues, it is race based discrimination to exclude them from this category, regardless of how much or how little relative to other disadvantaged groups they are disadvantaged. No?
  14. Internment camps come to mind? You haven'y really proven anything. You've asserted a lot of things, and brought up examples for one side of the argument, while ignoring the other. I don't have time to do a historical analysis here, but I advise you to be wary of making such claims which are difficult to quantify, while ignoring a lot of difficult realities experienced by Asians in your comparison.
  15. Literally the same ones? Sure. But let's not pretend the last two centuries haven't seen Asian populations subject to extreme, ridiculous, racist, and anti- "human rights" behavior like any other minority group. This behaviour still exists. It's pervasive. It's a problem that people brush it under the rug.
×
×
  • Create New...