Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jwms

  1. Typically set menu. No need to play it safe, regarding menu items. And wine will be offered -- typically before dinner and then another round when seated. It's easy to drink too much, and every dinner there are a few students who do drink too much.
  2. Why would you state that planning one's career (which is never a bad thing to plan, btw) around a niche field is a poor choice? If someone is passionate about something, and knows precisely the area that they would like to work, why would that be a bad thing? Your post implies that niche fields of law are not active areas to practice (which is in itself a contradiction; something cannot be niche will simultaneously being non-existent). I would caution against discouraging prospective law students from pursuing specific practice areas, and instead encourage having those passions while keeping an open mind, and knowing that there are multiple ways to engage those practice areas (e.g., in private practice, including full-service firms, working on environmental issues for corporations; or in public capacities where one is actually practising, or using the legal training but in non-legal roles).
  3. I'd focus on studying for the LSAT and raise that by more than a couple of points.
  4. Name-dropping lawyers you've met with for a coffee is fine and normal practice.
  5. No one does this. You're trolling or have a very bizarre view of law school and what your peers are doing. In any event, I don't think this thread is particularly helpful to you (since you're not reading/digesting what anyone's telling you), and it's certainly harmful to any prospective law student reading this misinformation, so I'm out.
  6. This makes zero sense. The 'new' grading system (which is not at all new) does not really foster any more stress or competition than any other grading scheme.
  7. The vast majority of your statements in this thread are factually wrong. Are you trolling here? If not, it's pretty embarrassing that you got an H even with this display of logic.
  8. Factually wrong. Also wrong (but related to your first incorrect statement). Profreader above explained why your absolute #s of hires are meaningless. And I don't know any students who think UofT 'dominates' Bay Street; any student who does believe this is clearly misinformed. I don't know what this point has to do with anything. Who claimed that UofT was 'worldwide prestigious'? And what does that mean? What does global prestige matter, anyway?
  9. What were your grades? Edit: I just saw you posted your grades in another thread. A few things: First, your grades are above average, so you should not be nearly as concerned/anxious as you appear to be on this forum. Second, yes, having an HH is nice, but isn't the be-all, end-all. I don't think it's at all accurate to say having 1 HH and then straight Ps is more desirable than having 5 Hs and 2 Ps. In fact, having 1 HH/straight Ps would automatically disqualify you from certain firms that have a grades cut-off, whereas 5 Hs will meet every firm's grade cut-off. Third, many, many UofT students with inferior grades land jobs at top firms every year through OCIs. Finally, your extreme anxiousness on display here + your need to repeat this across three separate threads, and to discuss leaving UofT based on misinformation (these being below avg grades/1 HH being more desirable/etc.) are the types of character traits that could emerge during the OCIs (a time that many students are anxious) and probably won't serve you well there.
  10. Right, but B3 is what UofT cares about, right? And you're posting in the UofT forum. Which makes your B3 relevant here -- making your numbers not the stats of a splitter. I also don't follow your logic, re writing a solid PS, but I don't think that matters. More power to you if you're feeling confident in that regard. I will say that I'd be surprised if the majority of successful candidates to UofT didn't have access to a 'PS type letters/format/content' which were successful, and without your knowing who is reading it and what they are looking for in a particular year, it would seem to be very presumptuous to state that you're solid there. But, again, I don't think this part of things matters much.
  11. I'm not sure I see how those stats constitute being a splitter. It appears you're at median/slightly below median for LSAT and significantly below median for GPA. I would think you have okay to below average chances. I also don't see why you would necessarily think you would write a solid PS.
  12. Undergrad transcript can come up in interviews. I don't think the grades matter much, but -- as with anything in an interview -- how you respond to questions/observations about your undergrad transcript is important.
  13. What about other approaches? e.g., reading the questions first and then just scanning the passages to find the answers; or, alternatively, capping the time spent reading at X minutes to force the quick read. If skipping a passage entirely didn't lead to better scoring on the other three passages, that seems peculiar to me and would indicate that time may not be the issue. Have you determined what questions you typically get wrong, and why you get them wrong?
  14. I wouldn't use a student as a reference.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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).
  21. U of T, likely. What's the cost difference?
  22. I'd withdraw, but I think you're fine either way.
  23. 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.
  • Create New...