Jump to content

Kemair

Members
  • Content Count

    83
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

69 Decent People

About Kemair

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

771 profile views
  1. You can still waste your life away working an 80k job as well. Seeing your spouse a few hours more per week, watching more netflix, and playing with your kids a bit more might bring you satisfaction. It might only bring you a little bit more. You may still feel like you are wasting your potential. Somewhere deep down you know what you should be doing, and you aren't doing it.
  2. Satisfaction is a temporary state. First we are challenged. Then we rise to that challenge. If we succeed, then we are satisfied. Our new found success eventually becomes our baseline. We then want more, we become unsatisfied, and the cycle repeats. Billionaires are not satisfied. Celebrities destroy their lives with drugs. Many top partners suffer from depression/health complications due to overworking themselves. Imagine if you were, in this moment and for the rest of your life, completely satisfied. Would you ever change, grow, advance? I'd guess this cycle of satisfaction is just human nature, and it keeps us productive and doing things. Buddhism attempts to remove a person from attachments, and presumably enlightenment results in a satisfied state. The things you do don't satisfy you, its the way you think about them. If you really reflected on yourself, most people would realize they probably don't really care about making $300k+, being the best in their field, or having a prestigious job. Most people could probably live a lifestyle they were happy with making $30k if they had all the things they actually want out of life. The other thing about this is that the true answers are scary. What if in your reflections, you learn that law isn't for you, you are wasting your life doing it, and you need to be in a far less lucrative career? Or far more risky career? Would you radically alter your life to be where you think you should be? Probably not. After all, most people don't like their job. On your death bed, will you look back and smile on the year you worked 2,500 hours? Will you be enriched by the vacation your kids are taking to Cabo using your money instead of Cuba? Will you remember how many years it took to pay off that student loan? Will anyone remember your name after the publisher renames your textbook after the new editors? Does your spouse want to hear that one war story from the firm you have told a thousand times that isn't really that interesting to anyone outside your specialty? It isn't about your career. Its about what your career allows you to do.
  3. You should in theory spend the money you earned before you spend your debt money. What you can do is only spend your debt money, and have your other money set side to help with those first payments after you graduate if you don't find a job. Investing some of the debt money is probably a good idea, but never invest more than you are willing to lose.
  4. Arguing with Providence isn't going to make things better. The senior posters on this forum are self selected and tend to be a very particular type of person, with particular strengths and particular blindspots. Everyone tells you it all works out in the end, but this ignores that fact that some people get the very short end of the stick. Nobody dies in the articling process. Some people end up with an unpaid articling position and a 100k of debt, which in one sense has "worked out" but it has not in another sense. Get angry. Get off an unproductive forum and do something with that anger to further your career. Find something that will bless your resume and do it. Start hedging your bets if law doesn't work out. Reach out to your network and let them know you are still looking regardless of how embarrassing it is. Let every failure sharpen your resolve. You may have been edged out due to a number of factors, but now you have to be hungrier than everyone else who got those positions. Make sure you end up in a better position than everyone who stuck to the traditional law school path, because there is opportunity in chaos. Start a blog, start a business, do SOMETHING. Always remember that when someone gives you advice, they have absolutely no stake in it. Nobody actually cares about your success. You have to always be looking out for your own interests, and you always have to be investing in yourself. Do three things today that nobody else you are competing with is doing.
  5. I agree that people should be informed of their options and the reality of the profession. What got this thread started was the mocking of people who were asking about prestige. Just tell them how it is instead of making this forum a far shittier place then it was in 2011. I'll go even further to say that even after they are told how prestige doesn't matter and you don't get that much from law and that there are better ways to achieve those other goals, they still should not be mocked for wanting prestige. Maybe law is actually their best option for those secondary goals. Maybe they think one should be prestigious as a matter of living a "good life" in their own definition. Maybe they just come from a wealthy family and just don't have anything better to do in terms of careers, and they really like Harvey Spector. This part is the more interesting debate.
  6. By using summaries of the law that she'll be making in a month anyways...? How do law students write practice exams mid semester when they don't know the law? Oh by those darn summaries I mentioned in my post... Is it really so impossible that someone could learn the law through self study if they have access to all the materials law students do?
  7. This is probably true for the basic subjects, however the Toronto schools have the advantage of being able to pull practitioners straight out of Toronto's larger legal market. Osgoode has classes on pretty much everything under the sun, and can get an experienced lawyer in for the more arcane, obscure, or important but small fields. If no one practices that field in Vancouver, or all the practitioners are too busy, then the Toronto schools likely have a one up on at least some courses.
  8. When someones asks "What school/firm should I go to to get the most prestige", you're assuming they want prestige for the sake of it, hence your concept of prestige you've outlined. I've shown why basically nobody want prestige for the sake of it, and actually your assumption is a bad one because it is very unrealistic. My examples showed three hyopthetical people who could all ask the same question "What school/firm should I go to to get the most prestige", and calling them dumb for wanting that is unjustified. If I ask "Which Bay Street firm pays the most", is it reasonable to assume I want money for the sake of having money? Of course not, I want money to buy things, to be financially secure, to acquire status, to assure my partner their needs will be taken care of. The weaker assumption is assuming I don't have other goals I have decided money will help fulfill. Is my wanting of money invalidated because there are better ways to make money than on Bay Street? Or that there are better ways of achieving my secondary goals? (noooope) Why would prestige be any different here? This is the idea that @Queensbury is missing, stated probably better than I have, that most people want to use prestige as means instead of an end. Like you said before Queen, there are other ways to get those other things I mentioned, but a person is fully able to choose for themselves how they would like to achieve their goals. If they have decided that prestige would be a useful tool, then there is nothing wrong with acquiring it. There is no point in forgetting about prestige being used as an end, because that's why most people would want it.
  9. I've seen lots of different strategies work for different people. 1) Take notes in class, take notes on the readings, compile all your notes into a beautiful summary. By the time you have completed this, you will know all the material. 2) Get a summary from someone else. Use it as a structure. Read the summary after a class or reading, and fill in anything missing. Review your summary during exams to refresh your memory. 3) Get a summary from someone else. Do nothing all semester, then during exam study time review the summary and look online for case reviews that will tell the the ratio (main point) of the case. Still get an A lmao. 4) Listen in class, then relisten to the recordings. Build your own summary or use someone else's. I know people who have done well using any of these methods, it really just depends on your learning style. Osgoode told us to do nothing to prepare over the summer, as nothing will help you. This is total garbage. Get your typing speed up to 100 wpm. Get a summary of a first year course and some type of exams questions. Try them out, see if it comes naturally or not. Reach out to upper years for some advice or tips or things to look out for. Practice writing structured, essay like pieces of writing calling on some of things you read in your summaries. Look up how to write law school exams and practice this. I know many who people who said it took them half way into second semester to sort of figure things out, having a month head start if you are one of those people will be an enormous benefit for you.
  10. You've reduced prestige to a very empty definition. For you, all prestige is when you tell someone something you did, they are momentarily impressed and then likely immediately forget about the conversation later. If that is your definition, sure, it is completely pointless. My examples show that there are lots of things inherently linked to prestige, and they aren't very controversial things. Prestige helps win elections, it helps raise money, it helps to impress overachieving parents, and it may also get you access to exclusive social circles. It is very unrealistic to assume anyone out there actually wants prestige for the simple sake of it. You argue a very one dimensional point that doesn't do much for anyone. We can talk about your very narrow view of prestige though. Let's say there is only someone who wants prestige just to impress people and that's it. If someone already has all of their needs taken care of, a good profession, good health, supportive family and friends, etc. what else is there really? There are only a few types of goal left. Some work to be a master in their craft. Some work to do things no one has ever done before. Some look to leave a legacy behind. Some mentor those of today. Most of those things ironically enough bring prestige with them. It ends up just being something to do with your time. Maybe they will get bored of this pursuit of prestige and do something else. Why is seeking prestige worse than seeking to be the best in something? Aren't they almost the same type of goal? Something else people in this thread are assuming is that people who want prestige care about what people think on a personal level. It is possible that one would work towards prestige not because they have this desperate need for people to like them, but rather they think one should be an impressive person as a moral virtue in some regard or another. Alternatively someone can just be super competitive person who loves winning. Prestige is just one category to win in, and prestige brings them personal satisfaction in that sense. People like to make lawyer jokes, but you are probably going to get a better reception from upper middle class and above people if you are 40 year old lawyer/politcian vs. a 40 year old grocery store shelf stacker. I guess the point is prestige may be over hyped, and it may not even be worth it, but I don't think people should be berated for trying. Is it worth it to live a life of poverty and die at 40 if you get to produce a masterpiece painting that will be known forever? Some people say yes, but they themselves would never try, which speaks to their actual view of the idea. Prestige is a higher order goal that becomes available after all needs are being met, and when considered in that category of higher goals, it likely isn't too much better or worse.
  11. In Example 1 PBS brings benefits he wants. PBS makes him an inspiration to the community, allows him access to people who have resources who will share them with him partially because of his PBS, and potentially give him a greater platform in whatever he does. He wants money, but PBS brings access to very deep pockets that you can't compete with on a Bay Street partner salary yourself. PBS may make running for political office easier when he his older so he can address systemic issues. Example 2 fits as well. PBS comes along with "most accomplished", but isn't necessarily the main defining feature. I wouldn't say anyone is the "most accomplished" in any field if there are absolutely no PBS that comes with it, PBS is creating by doing difficult things others cannot do (mostly). Even being a purely altruistic person who is helping the world has prestige and status that comes with it. Example 3 she wants her parent's approval obviously, and she'll get it through PBS. This was kind of obvious. You split ambition and prestige, but really they go hand in hand. How many people on this forum would be lawyers if everyone thought you were trash and won't make eye contact with you after they found out? Humans are driven by status on a fundamental level, and most people don't realize this because they have enough so it doesn't matter. Any ambitious task will bring at least some level of PBS with it, else it wouldn't be an ambitious task. I 100% agree. I don't agree that a person should be shamed for wanting prestige even after hearing its bullshit. I've given three examples where most people should agree it's at least tolerable. Maybe wanting prestige for its own sake is douchey, but hell if they aren't annoying about it who cares. The threads were merged, but the two points were: "There are great firms outside of the seven sisters, there isn't just seven" and "you are a douchebag if you only want a seven sister firm for the prestige." One can argue the second quote is a bad way to choose to build your career around, but my point is that someone shouldn't be shamed for wanting prestige. Other parts of their personality makes them a douche, it isn't specifically the prestige need.
  12. Is someone a little shit/douche/idiot for wanting prestige, bragging rights, and status? Lets explore the topic directly. Lets say one guy grew up poor. He knew since he was little that if he stayed in his community, he'd wind up dead, in jail, or eating dorritos in his mom's basement. He worked harder than most people on this forum to get good grades in school, get scholarships to allow him to go to a great university, go to a top Canadian law school, and eventually get a great paying job at a firm. He had to spend extra time to learn the language and culture of professionals, to be able to talk about the things they talk about, in a way to seem as in "in-group" member. He has many ambitions, to finally buy a house for his single mom, to be able to afford nice things he never had as a kid, go on vacation as he never got to for 25 years. His mom is so proud of him, and he is an inspiration to his community members. He goes back to mentor kids, to try and get them on track. His aim as a partner is to take a lot of money he makes, and reinvest it back into the community he grew up in. Being in the biggest firms gives him access to rich people, corporations, etc. who are able to make large charitable donations. He can maximize pursuit of these goals by pursuing these highly prestigious firms. Is this guy a little shit/douche/idiot for wanting the best firms? Another guy grew up middle class in a Toronto suburb. A pretty normal guy in most comparisons, but above average intelligence. School is mostly easy for him and doesn't have to put much work into high school or undergrad to get top marks. His friends in high school had little ambition, and while he really liked them, he didn't share that same outlook. He always thought people should aspire to do the best they can and go as far as possible, otherwise they are wasting the gifts they have been provided, both by natural causes and the lifestyle his parents provided. While his buddies smoked weed and skipped class in high school, he made sure to attend class and finish his assignments. A few years later he finds himself in law school, with pretty good grades. He thinks to himself "I seem to have an aptitude for this, might as well go all the way." He looks to see how he could be the most accomplished in his field, so he looks up the seven sister big law career path. Is this guy a little shit/douche/idiot for wanting the best firms? Our last person is a girl who grew up in a wealthy family. Her parents are very successful lawyers. Since she was a little girl, there was always pressure for her to perform, to do well in anything she tried. She was provided with the best tutors and instructors for school and extra-curricular activities. She would also do well, but she wasn't exceptional in really anything she did. She could always sense the disappointment in her parents when she wasn't accepted to that prestigious art middle school, didn't make the varsity soccer team, lost in the semifinals of the big undergrad moot, and only won enough scholarships for essay writing to cover half a year's worth of tuition. Her parents would always tell her stories of their experiences in law school, and how her mom beat her dad out by just a little bit in torts to win top student at Osgoode. She took 4 years of lsat prep to make sure she could go to Osgoode like her parents did and make them proud. She finishes first year at Osgoode as a B average student, which is not enough to get OCI interviews normally. Her parents are big law Toronto lawyers, and they pull some strings to get her a job offer at a big firm. When her parents take her out to dinner after OCIs, they hint at how embarrassing it was to have to pull strings to get an offer for a B average student, and how the other parents on the street didn't have to get involved. She goes home and cries that night, but she vows to be even more successful than her parents. Is this a girl a little shit/douche/idiot for wanting the best firms? (Even if she is privileged with first world problems) Many of the people above may be misguided about their career choices, their own interests, and their abilities. They may benefit from mentorship from someone on the forum. Is their ambition bad? Should they be mocked? Can you tell if someone is a person above, or some douche bro just from a question they ask about partner compensation or which firms are the most competitive? Do you think anyone of these people would take advice from you if you just mocked them for being ambitious? Also before someone writes "oh most people aren't like that" you have 100% missed the point of my post and should rethink the ideas being presented here.
  13. UfT/Osgoode have a premium because they are known internationally, are in Toronto so you have easy access to Toronto firms, have access to the best professors, and give you at minimum an advantage over applicants with similar grades from other schools. They also have excellent clinical and intensive opportunities. I see the extra tuition as an investment in my future. If I get a better job going to Osgoode than I would have going to UBC, an extra 30k-45k in debt is a small price to pay. In terms of lateraling, Bay street experience is a major plus for you. A decent firm outside of Bay street is also looked upon favorably. You can potentially go from Toronto to many market in Canada because Toronto is the biggest. Osgoode likely is an advantage for lateraling as well, however I doubt its usefulness compared to your job experience. A big plus I've found is most Osgoode grads are willing to grab coffee with you if you ask, and they have positions in basically every field you could think of. I haven't seen too many UBC grads in Toronto, which hinders you a bit if you want to go from Vancouver to Toronto. The job market is tight, and lots of employers are having trouble keeping associates, so switching cities probably won't be an issue.
  14. I assume most students understand that the seven sisters include more than seven firms, and berating people for using the term frankly isn't helpful for them or creating a helpful environment on the forum. I haven't given advice on this thread, but I have spoken out about the invalidation of someone's view point. Its perfectly valid to wonder how much more US partners make, how the "seven sister" firms are different (if they are), and all the "douchy" things people wonder about when trying to select a career. I've met very wonderful people who also happen to be ambitious. I have also met ambitious people who were douchy and not very smart. These questions are valid regardless of who asks them. Pointing this out is my contribution. To those who want answers to valid questions, there are a ton of helpful posts from a long time ago, that are still valid even today. Don't be discouraged by a lot of the posters here.
  15. Practice writing structured pieces of work. Its a difficult skill, which only gets harder the more complicated the subject is you are writing about. A drill you can do is take some of the questions you had for your exams, review your study materials, and answer the questions off the top of your head without notes. Focus on headings and organization.Take your time at first, then work up to writing at an exam pace. Do this for multiple questions in different areas and you should improve. Getting thoughts out of your head onto the paper can be tough sometimes, especially if you don't have a lot of practice doing it. Another thing you can do is practice typing speed. Thinking faster than you can type can be a huge problem, because you forget what you were going to write before you get there. Hitting 100 wpm should be sufficient. Finally you might want to restructure your notes. You can write them in a way that already has a structure, so its easier to work it into your exam if you need to. You can pretend that each issue you come across in your courses is a question asking you to explain the concept (like an FAQ). For example: "Q:What is the division of powers in Canadian law? A: The constitution has assigned law making powers to either the Federal government or the provincial government. Each one has a list of powers it may use to legislate under. If either government infringes on the other's constitutional powers, the law can be struck down as unconstitutional. There are three doctrines of importance here that influence whether a law is ultra vires..." And so on. You can create individual questions for important cases, or you can include cases in the questions where they modify concepts. Notice you can rip the wording provided for basically any question that has a division of powers problem. You should also include the citations to the constitution and cases as such in brackets. Hope this helps.
×
×
  • Create New...