Jump to content

pzabbythesecond

Members
  • Content Count

    4660
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by pzabbythesecond

  1. I don't have experience with employment standards legislation either, but from the little I know, aren't there enforcement of the tasks you are asked to do, based on the position you signed up for? I'm thinking of constructive dismissal, but that doesn't fit great here since OP is still doing legal work, and his role never "changed"? Again, I really don't know employment law. I just figured there are some standards protecting you from the tasks you're asked to do (within reason). @Jaggers?
  2. Out of curiosity, how do you differentiate between "good" and "less good" or "bad" legal work when comparing job applications? Presumably, they worked on different files. If it's a litigation job, those candidates have experience interviewing clients, doing discoveries, drafting demand letters, pleading, etc etc. How would you differentiate between their work and pick between them for an interview, without resorting to grades, or how well known their place of work is for.. doing good work?
  3. This is why the legal profession needs to be subject to employment standards too.
  4. I wonder why they decided to include the DOJ, but not MAG (or even any MAG offices).
  5. Again, Erin said it's something that's considered 5 years post call. They didn't mention to what extent, and since I'm not a lawyer I really can't say either way.
  6. Erin was making the point that when you're let go 6 months after articling, at a firm with "100 percent hireback", then your 3L grades will be relevant for your next job.
  7. I'd run. I'd rather work at a bar than do this (if those were the only two options open to me). I'd personally report the person to the bar, but there are facts I'm probably not aware of, and the whole "it's a small bar" consideration that would probably stop me from going that far. I'd also only do it once I'd burned the bridge permanently, of course.
  8. This and smoke clouds from the bush fires are about the only clouds you'll find there Yes, I feel punny.
  9. Either on its own significantly helps with employment prospects.
  10. I'd be very surprised if you didn't get into Ottawa. I'd be surprised if you didn't get into western or queens later on.
  11. 3.3.can definitely hurt a CGPA where you're aiming for a 3.8+ CGPA for top schools.
  12. One of the biggest things I'm going to miss, since my employer doesn't cover this. That and office coffee. Two big expenses of mine are sports and coffee.
  13. Yeah, said comment was strange..
  14. I can assure you that McGill (or any law school that takes their class quality seriously) would not forego a candidate by intentionally looking at their profile too late based on what category applicant they are. I don't know what mechanism they have in place to combat this, but I have faith that they do have one. Good luck @GreyDude, thanks for the clarification!
  15. There are more or less reserved spots across the categories, as I understand it. That's what you're missing.
  16. This is incredibly insulting. I'm hoping you didn't mean it as it came across, so I'll give you a chance to reconsider.
  17. Best to check with them, but I believe the mature students aren't considered until April. Or even May.
  18. Doesn't Columbia place like 90 percent of its class into NY big law alone? Lol. Where are you getting your information from? Why is everything else a big risk?
  19. Or even a period, which was how I read it. Yeah, agreed. Or fewer vs less.
  20. Is that bolded comma ever considered correct? The rest might not be good writing, but don't seem grammatically incorrect. The bolded.. does Am I missing something (regarding schatner)?
  21. Ah I see what you mean. Yeah that would definitely be different. Many people get 20 As scattered across their transcript, even though their yearly GPA never broke 3.0, for example. That wouldn't fly under queens system. So if true, I'm more critical of ryerson's system. But I'm still critical of queens, especially since they moved from a L2 to B2. A B3 makes a lot of sense to me. One year of struggle can happen, at any time, for reasons which may or may not be considered truly access. Still sustaining high performance for 3 years means you can do it, and hit a blip. L2 and B2 just isn't long enough in my opinion. But it's my opinion.
  22. I'm probably missing the difference here. By 20 credits, ryerson is referring to two traditionally full time years of undergraduate studies. What does queens do differently? I don't know, I think there's something to be said about sustained performance and how it translates to law school (and later, legal practice, which law schools are theoretically aiming to recruit in light of). B2 years gives a person a chance to not have a valid reason for struggling (which would put them into an access category, which is a totally valid thing!) For two whole years of their undergrad, and only performing for two. It just seems weak to me. Especially when you consider people extend their degrees through minors and other majors, so they apply with 5 years, potentially having struggled for 3 whole years of undergrad!
×
×
  • Create New...