Jump to content

BlockedQuebecois

Members
  • Content Count

    5712
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

Posts posted by BlockedQuebecois


  1. 24 minutes ago, capitalttruth said:

    Maybe. There are many factors  to consider. I do believe that the average highly intelligent person can score well on the test with enough studying. There is a learning curve with the test; some pick it up faster than others, perhaps that is the discrepancy that distinguishes the higher IQ individuals from the average ones. But, if we're speaking anecdotally, I have known some highly intelligent folk who also initially struggled with that learning curve.

    I don't believe that you can study for IQ tests (with the exception of Mensa, I think)? The LSAT is a test that requires at least some kind of studying.

    The LSAT really doesn’t require any kind of studying. I don’t know why you think that. The fact that people do doesn’t mean it’s required. 

    • Like 2

  2. Unless you're flunking out of law school by the end of the semester, there would need to be some other serious problems for a firm not to hire you back for articling. 

    And no firm is going to hire back an articling student with poor reviews and better grades over an articling student with good reviews and worse grades. 

    • Like 1

  3. 1 minute ago, Deadpool said:

    This may depend on the person. Were any of the clinics you're involved with directly related to the area/s of law you want to pursue? Did it help you land a competitive position in that field? It did for me which is why I give them a huge boost here. 

    For example, I know the CLASP division leaders in family and criminal landed jobs at the Crown, MAG, and competitive boutiques due to their experience. Many of them landed at Biglaw firms as well and spoke extensively in their interviews about their 1 or more years of experience working on actual files and leading the division. Parkdale Worker's Rights students snagged jobs at competitive labour and employment firms. Osgoode is one of the only schools that offers immigration clinics and this helped students in my year land immigration jobs as well.  

    I would say that if you were more interested in personal services and public interest, the clinics are certainly worth the extra 42k in my books. It may not be as helpful in the job recruit if you're gunning for business law, though there are plenty of opportunities through the Business Clinic, Advanced Business Law Workshops, IP Law & Technology Intensive Program, and Investor Protection Clinic.

    It likely does depend on the person, and I don’t deny that clinics and intensives are beneficial. I think they’re the best, most practical part of law school. 

    That said, if I was doing public interest work, I’d rather have 42k more in the bank than a semester at Parkdale. 

    • Like 1

  4. Pretty much what pzabby said.

    The law isn’t terribly complicated. You could learn everything you learn from a law school course in 4 days if you needed to. 

    You could easily design a first-year curriculum with enough courses to be actually difficult (say, 7 per semester) and enough electives to allow for specialization and you’d spit out essentially identical law students. Hell, they might be able to handle stress a bit better, too. 


  5. 1 minute ago, harveyspecter993 said:

    Do you get FOMO from having fewer credits available for regular courses? I'm the type of person who would regularly max out my credits in undergrad just to take as many courses as possible so I'm deeply saddened by how many 2L credits my clinic is eating up.

    No, but I think law school is, post-1L, largely a waste of time. 

     


  6. 1 hour ago, harveyspecter993 said:

    As a 2L, how have you been able to do 5 clinics/intensives? Is that even possible?

    Yes, it’s possible. I think you can fit in a maximum of 7 if you apply to the right ones at the right time. I got offered two others for 3L, but turned both down (however, I only could have fit one of those into my schedule, not both). 

    And obviously involvement in clinics in 1L is much different from the clinics and intensives in upper years. 


  7. I disagree with @Deadpool. I don’t think Osgoode’s additional clinical opportunities are worth 42k. 

    Western also offers internships, works with PBSC, has a wide range of courses and many student organizations. The only place I would give Osgoode the edge is re: clinics. I’ve done five clinics or intensives at Osgoode now, and I don’t think they’ve added 42k in value to my degree. 


  8. 2 minutes ago, jwms said:

    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.

    My point is that there's no pressing need to protect law students. They're smart, privileged individuals. They don't need our paternalism, and the idea that they do – and that they need protection so badly that we should shield them from a competitive job market and potentially harm access to justice to do so – is infantilizing, idiotic, and insulting.


  9. 4 minutes ago, jwms said:

    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. 

    Ah yes, society's pressing need to protect people who are undeniably in the top, what 20% of the population, in terms of both population and privilege. How could we forget that.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again – society's paternalistic energies could be much better spent protecting the people who need it rather than the wilfully blind law student. 

    • Like 1

  10. 9 minutes ago, jwms said:

    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. 

    This really isn’t why more lawyers doesn’t decrease legal costs. It’s because law students, in general, have a floor of wages they could make in another field, and thus won’t go below it. 

    If it was the two factors you discussed it wouldn’t matter. Nobody is not taking a legal job that pays poorly because they spent three years in law school or owe a whack of money. They’re not taking a poorly paid legal job because they could make more elsewhere. 

    If it was your reasons, we’d see better access to justice in provinces with lower tuition fees, and that’s simply not the case. 

    • Like 1

  11. 48 minutes ago, celli660 said:

    1. What is a reasonable percentage for accounts and files that I bring in compared to files that are handed to me? Is there a point in differentiating those amounts? What is the value of the goodwill in percentage terms? If I'm going to negotiate an alternative to the currently proposed split, then I need to come up with something that's fair. I'm considering two possible alternatives. One would have 20% going to whoever brings in the account, then the remainder being split equally between me and firm, so if boss hands me all my work for the year, then sure, the 60-40 split stands, but then I'm making 60% on work I'm bringing in the door, or at least 20% on work I bring in that I don't or can't do. The other way I conceived would have tranches or cutoffs, so I would be on a 40-60 for the first 100k, 60-40 on the next 100k, and 80-20 on anything above 200k. At 300k per year of billings that would work out to about 120k going to employer and 180 going to me, but employer is actually taking about 84k in profit (based on cost estimates below), fulfilling that rule of thirds.

    Negotiating from a 40-60 split to:

    1. 20% flat rate on accounts brought in, plus a 50-50 split of the remainder; or
    2. A tranched system that has you making 60-40 (and your employer only making 28% post-expenses

    seems incredibly difficult.

    That's particularly true under your tranched model, where you employer would only stand to make 24k if you bill 100k, 64k if you bill 200k, and 84k if you bill 300k. Just from a business standpoint, it doesn't make much sense to give you more work after a certain point. If office expenses stay stable, your employer would make more money hiring a second lawyer and giving you both 150k in work, since they would make 88k off the two of you (compared to only 84k for you alone). 

    I've never been a business owner, but that's just my gut reaction to your proposals. 


  12. 2 minutes ago, nnnnnnn said:

    How did you get to 78,262? I assumed the UofT tuition to be $33,300 and UBC tuition to be $12000.

    On-campus UBC residence seems to be slightly more expensive compared to grad house at UofT

    I added up U of T's tuition fees in each year ($38,233.45 for 1L, $38,183.45 for each of 2 and 3L), and then subtracted the sum of UBC's tuition ($12,639.36 for 1L and $11,849.40 for each of 2 and 3L). 

    In fairness, I did miss UBC's student fees, which are "approximately $1,100 per year for J.D. students", so I guess that drops the price difference to $74,962.19.

    • Like 2

  13. 1 hour ago, Ambit said:

    The counterargument is that a rich supply of students compelled to work, for free, plus whatever incentives Ryerson provides to get these firms to take those students on, will make taking articling students on an even worse proposition. But it also might be an advantage for those students, getting their foot in the door. It can't be any less useful than exchange. My issue that it isn't right for Ryerson to charge for the privilege. 
     

    Lots of schools already do this. Most of Osgoode's intensives, if not all of them, essentially replace articling students for 4 months of monday-to-friday work at various places, including government offices and private firms. If you're concerned about Ryerson, you should be concerned about intensives. 


  14. 2 minutes ago, Ambit said:

    I am not counting civ pro as a substantive course, because in my experience at U of T it was given way less weight, and course time. 

    It's given an identical amount of weight to the other substantive courses at Osgoode, and is given the same amount of time. 

    Regardless of whether you think civ pro is a substantive course,  I think it's fair to say that your initial concerns about their 1L curriculum were misplaced. The Ryerson curriculum is, at the very most, a slight increase in workload over the workload at Osgoode. Based on our discussion, I'd actually be comfortable saying that the Ryerson curriculum is a decrease in workload compared to Osgoode. 

    Which is saying something, because Osgoode's workload is remarkably light compared to many undergraduate and professional school workloads (let alone the workload of practice). 

    • Like 1

  15. 31 minutes ago, Ambit said:

    My view is that the extra substantive courses take a toll. But I am assuming that the Indigenous law and administrative law courses are full-blooded separate courses, not merely an add-ons to constitutional law. Maybe I'm wrong - and that might make it workable. 

    What additional substantive courses? Ryerson has seven semester-long substantive courses (property, contracts, criminal, torts, constitutional, admin and Indigenous) and Osgoode has seven semester-long substantive courses (property, contracts, criminal, torts, civil procedure, constitutional (x2)).

    And that's being as harsh on Ryerson as possible – as I mentioned, Osgoode teaches sufficient administrative law in its legal process and state and citizen courses to satisfy the FSLC National Requirements, and Osgoode has an elective course that is certainly substantive in most cases, although it is a paper course. You could very reasonably argue that Osgoode covers 9 courses worth of substantive material to Ryerson's proposed seven. 


  16. 1 hour ago, Ambit said:

    My bad - I missed the public law course. Nonetheless it seems clear that Osgoode and U of T are less intensive.

    At Ryerson you do 12 courses in 1L - 2 bootcamps, which are weeklong, and 10 courses which appear to run for the semester. The hours breakup in those courses is not clear, although seven are substantive (Property, contracts, criminal, torts, Constitutional, administrative, Indigenous) and three are 'soft' (ethics, legal process, legal research). 

    At Osgoode, students take 8 courses in first year. 5 are substantive (property, contracts, criminal, torts, and public law), 3 are 'soft' (ethical lawyering, legal process, and the elective).

    At U of T, students take 5 substantive (property, contracts, criminal, torts, constitutional) and two soft (legal research and legal process). In addition, there is a two week introductory session, but that runs in August. 

    So at Ryerson, you take two more substantive courses and two bootcamps than Oz, and take that plus an extra soft course compared to Toronto. That seems insane.

    I’d argue you’re over simplifying things. Students at Osgoode really take 10 courses. 

    In the fall, they take: criminal law, torts, contracts, legal process and state and citizen. 

    In the winter, they take: property, civil procedure, an elective, and state and citizen.

    ELGC runs for both semesters for three weeks of class time, but about five weeks of work. There’s also have continued legal process work outside of the civ pro class, but let’s ignore that for this discussion. 

    The fact that civil procedure is absorbed as 50% of legal process and the fact that state and citizen is a double credit course that runs for the whole year doesn’t really mean they should be collapsed into the equivalent of a course for the purposes of this discussion. 

    So since ELGC only runs for 3-5 weeks, Osgoode students can reasonably be said to take nine semester long classes and one ~month long boot camp. I don’t think that’s a substantial departure from the 10 semester long classes at Ryerson and the two one-week boot camps. 

    • Thanks 1

  17. 3 hours ago, Ambit said:

    Osgoode defers constitutional, administrative and Aboriginal law to 2L, and has no 1L writing/research class, though there is an elective. 

    This is just wrong. Constitutional law is taught in 1L at Osgoode, and the constitutional law class also teaches sufficient aboriginal law content for most lawyers (notwithstanding Osgoode’s value signalling with their upper year aboriginal requirement). 1Ls at Osgoode take a full year legal research and writing course in 1L and take a perspective that has a 3,000 word paper. 

    The only correct thing is that Osgoode doesn’t teach an administrative law course in 1L. However, Osgoode does teach a sufficient amount of administrative law in 1L to satisfy the FLSC National Requirements, and as such administrative law is not a required upper year course. 

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...