Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

43 Decent People

About jwms

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

358 profile views
  1. First comment isn't particularly helpful/enlightening. Second comment presumes the two aims are mutually exclusive, or that because one is more pressing that the other is irrelevant. Neither of those propositions are accurate or helpful.
  2. I think the issue is more that, as we've seen in the U.S. (and may have been re-hashed earlier in this thread), the proliferation of the law school business has preyed on people with biglaw dreams, to their tremendous personal detriment. It hasn't solved access to justice problems (which I'd argue more lawyers would never solve), and has instead served to do little other than gouge mis-informed people. That's generally my concern: that the price of legal services don't come down, and some small segment of young people are made substantially worse off. But, I could be wrong.
  3. Sure. That's more or less implicit in my (intentionally simplistic) statement. That is, people who spend 3 years on a professional degree (and absorb the costs of doing so), and incur the direct (tuition) costs will seek compensation commensurate with those costs. And there are enough jobs outside of law that reward professional degrees, like law, to support that.
  4. Time spent in law school + cost of tuition as high as it is makes it so that more lawyers does not solve access to justice problems.
  5. As mentioned, the introversion thing doesn't matter. The OCI process does advantage 'extroverts', but not in the life-of-the-party sense. More extroverts insofar as people who can read the room, are genuinely engaged with those they're speaking with, would not embarrass the firm at some later point, and seem like they're willing to grind. In a nutshell, that's more leaning towards introverts who have some social sense. To your concern on debt and Bay: if you really wanted to mitigate this debt-risk, what about re-doing the LSAT and gaining admissions elsewhere that has a higher Bay st placement rate? Ottawa and Western are good, but don't place that phenomenally well. Granted, this would involve giving up a year of legal income, but it may be worthwhile to consider, depending on your circumstances. Otherwise, though, unless you thought an improved LSAT could materially enhance your likelihood of getting accepted at a school with better Bay st placement rates (or a U.S. school), I wouldn't risk it.
  6. Totally worth it, I think. Better to talk to articling students because they're only recently removed from law school and can maybe provide you with some tips/advice on law school (and ideally some maps/summaries).
  7. U of T, likely. What's the cost difference?
  8. I'd withdraw, but I think you're fine either way.
  9. While my advice earlier in this thread was to say that law school likely wasn't worth it on a pure financial basis, I'll stray from that and say that if you'd very much regret not going to law school, then it's worth pursuing. But you should do so with your eyes wide open to the fact that it's likely an unwise financial decision, and that you may wind up not liking the law or the idea of being a practicing lawyer while you're in law school, and you should prepare (financially and otherwise) for those outcomes. And those outcomes (of not liking the law or deciding that you don't want to become a practicing lawyer) are not terribly uncommon. Other potentially negative outcomes, beyond the financial, are of course in your current career trajectory, the delay in (likely) being able to start a family, the emotional stress of the aforementioned + self-doubt on either performance in law school or on the decision to re-enter school, etc. I know the above seems as though I'm still recommending against law school, but it's really intended to be more of an eyes-wide-open to the decision. It wouldn't be a rational financial decision (in all likelihood), and it wasn't for me, but I entered law school with all of the above in mind and I don't regret it.
  10. I appreciate you letting me know that you may respond at a later date.
  11. Because of the aforementioned math.
  12. I mean... I did say that there was a lot of information missing. There's also no sense in presuming that the starting salary is $80k or 15% above it. What's the average lawyer make in Canada? Is it above $80k? (I honestly don't know) In any event, without geographic information, this isn't that informative necessarily. In most cases where someone is making $80k, and is 30 years old +, the opportunity cost is likely to be too high to make the decision a financially sound one.
  13. Pretty difficult to say without knowing where you live and what your trajectory would be in 'moving up'. As well, more than 80k is wide open. Without that information, on balance, it's probably not a wise financial decision. The three years of opportunity cost is significant, and the chance that you'd land a job that pays much more than $80k isn't a given. You would be giving up ~$240k + incurring debt (depending where you go, call it ~$300k of opportunity cost + debt incurred), to have a ~70% chance (arbitrary) of making ~15% more (arbitrary) per year. It'd take a lot of years to compensate at that rate.
  14. Definitely don't need to go to lectures. Entirely depends on your learning style. If you don't go to lectures and you slack off, then you probably won't do well. If you don't go to lectures but have a study group and are pretty disciplined about learning the material (which also doesn't mean that you have to do the readings -- you can get good maps/summaries and do practice tests & engage the material pretty well with your study group), then you can be top 10% of the class. I typically derive little value from law lectures. I do get a lot out of readings. Some people get little out of either and just focus on summaries/maps. It really depends on your objective in being at law school (learning vs means to an end, not that they're mutually exclusive) and your learning/exam-prep preference.
  15. How is that plenty affordable for an individual making $70k? When would that be affordable, and how long are you estimating it takes that individual to save for the 20% down?
  • Create New...