Jump to content

BlockedQuebecois

Members
  • Content Count

    5895
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Everything posted by BlockedQuebecois

  1. How can a hard threshold be fluid year to year? If it’s fluid year to year, it would just mean that the threshold is whatever the lowest GPA they interview is.
  2. I took it to mean that 71% of respondents to the survey got offers, while only 54% of student overall got hired. That would be a significant skew, and is actually made worse by the student who already had a job.
  3. @Ambit, can't quote you for some reason. In-firm conversion rate is vitally important, though, because that's the stage that tells us whether or not grades are important post-OCIs. The mere fact that fewer bad students get offers doesn't tell us anything, because for all we know they struck out of their one in-firm while the top students struck out of 50% of theirs. I think you're right re: 71%, which means the ultra vires data is going to be incredibly skewed towards top candidates.
  4. If you read what I posted, I never said you need X grades for Y job. I said that 4 out of the 6 people who got Y job had X grades or better. If people are failing to adequately interpret data, that's not my fault. Particularly when my explicit advice, from both myself and others, was for said student to apply anyways. Anyways, I've said my part.
  5. Anyways, it's fine for us to disagree here. The argument that disclosing grades in law school would make people feel inadequate or cause self-doubt is a reasonable one, it's just not one I subscribe to. I think a lot of the negative and toxic culture you find at law school is the result, in part, of the secrecy surrounding grades. Students don't know how other students are doing, and thus have to judge how they're doing based off other, external factors. You and I have spoken before about how students tend to assume that the top students are working 14 hours a day, and thus they feel pressured to work 14 hours a day to keep up, and then everyone is in the library until 11 pm on a Friday in October. Knowing which students are succeeding would allow those students to see that the top students aren't always in the library, and maybe then they wouldn't feel pressured to be in the library until 11 pm on a Friday in October. Either way, sharing my grades with a select group of close friends has been helpful for me. It's helped me understand where I stand going into recruits, it's helped me understand (and feel better about) why I did or did not get certain jobs, and it's allowed me to be more self-reflective. Overall, I'd say that being more open with my successes and failures in law school has made my law school experience healthier and less stressful than the experiences of many of my peers. My approach might not work for everyone, and it doesn't need to – I'm not advocating for public disclosure of transcripts on the walls of the law school the day after grades are released. But I think coming in here and saying you don't "get" why people would talk about their grades around close friends is needlessly judgmental and helps enforce what I view as a toxic component of the law school experience.
  6. That’s fine, you’re welcome to continue not sharing information with your friends. They’re not going to tie you down and waterboard you until you share what your torts grade was. But judging other people for doing so doesn’t seem useful. And if law school had a culture of sharing grades and open discussion, this site would be significantly less useful to law students applying to jobs. There’s a reason people like spec come here, disclose their grades anonymously, and ask for advice – because doing so at law school isn’t generally acceptable. And call me crazy, but I think law school would be a lot more healthy if you could rely on your friends and peers for advice and support, rather than anonymous strangers on the internet.
  7. I’ve always found the weird obsession with keeping law school grades secret rather toxic. It’s helpful to know what grades people who got SCC and appellate clerkships has, what grades 1L hires had, and what grades NY hires had. There’s a lot of information asymmetry between employers and law students that puts law students at an unnecessary disadvantage. Its similar, in that manner, to the problems with keeping one’s salary secret from one’s coworkers.
  8. Osgoode doesn’t do midterm grades. Students entering the 1L recruit from Oz have 3 final grades (torts, contracts, and crim). In the context of discussing the 1L recruit from Osgoode, straight As mean an A or A+ in each of those three courses.
  9. And since spec is trying to throw shade at me here, I’ll just explain why I called his A+/B/B not competitive for the 1L recruit: Last year, at least 4 of the 6 Osgoode 1L students hired at full service firms had at least straight As. At least two had straight A+s. I also know that the “straight A or A average” advice is what was told to me by students who completed the 1L recruit the two years preceding my year. If @Rashabon says that B+s across the board with a good application would get you interest, that’s news to me, but I’m inclined to believe him. Query what “good application” means though, and perhaps Rashabon could elaborate for future students. My theory for why grade thresholds seemed lower this year: full service firms hired twice as many Osgoode 1Ls year-over-year. That will almost certainly lower the average gpa of hires. And hey, if I knew that full service firms were going to increase their Osgoode hiring by 100% this year, I would have been more bullish on the chances of otherwise marginal (for the 1L recruit) students. But I didn’t know that, so my advice was tailored to reflect what was foreseeable. As for whether I discouraged people from applying, I’ll leave my advice below for others to judge [emphasis added]: And here is my tailored advice to spec, excerpted to avoid the personal question he asked via pm: Some people are so ungrateful.
  10. For Osgoode students, straight A’s are weirdly common after first semester. Osgoode students go into the 1L recruit with 3 grades total, and getting 3 A’s out of 8 1L courses really isn’t that strange.
  11. That data isn't inconsistent. A candidate with better grades will likely get more OCIs. More OCIs increase your chances of getting in-firms. More in-firms increase your chances of an offer. Therefore, better grades increase your chance of an offer, even if they are never considered as a criterion past the getting OCI stage. In order to establish that grades are a significant factor post-OCI, you would need data showing that students with higher GPAs were more successful at turning in-firms into offers, and you would need to compensate for the small sample sizes for students with fewer in-firms (since for marginal students, the success rate may be a binary 1 or 0, while for students with a full slate of in-firms are unlikely to have a binary outcome). Also, lol at the reported data that 71% of respondents received a job offer but only 54% were hired. There's a 0% chance that 17% of students are going through OCIs and in-firms only to turn down their offers at the end.
  12. I know at least one student was hired with an A, A, B from Osgoode.
  13. The fact that people with B averages got hired.
  14. The internet kinda sucks. Could you imagine going to a real-life networking event, and asking people in PE / PE-adjacent fields "how do I get into PE", only to have an SP in an unrelated field jump in question your motives for wanting to pursue a certain field? And not only jump in and question your motives, but demand you answer ("OP needs to be more specific than this"). Jesus.
  15. The 1L recruit was whack this year.
  16. You're free to bring up 9/11. But bringing up some future, entirely hypothetical next-9/11 in order to argue for political changes now is just as speculative and specious as bringing up the next-9/11 in order to justify restrictive immigration procedures. But hey, if you think it's game for others to argue for restrictive immigration policies based on hypothetical, speculative mass tragedies, please continue using them for your own rhetorical purposes.
  17. I would never ask someone close to me to cosign my law school loan. If my parents were wealthy enough to cover 100k in debt without problem, I'm sure they'd pay for my education. OP, if they still require a cosigner, ask around at other banks. I think the Scotiabank package is the best because of its perks, but those perks aren't worth putting someone else on the hook for your debt (in my opinion).
  18. I've repeated myself enough on your first point too, and you similarly aren't grasping it, so let's drop it. They don't have a residual expectation or privacy when they hand over their passwords. The same way they don't have a residual expectation of privacy when they hand their keys over to the CBSA officer during a vehicle search. The expectation of privacy exists up until the officer forms the requisite suspicion to conduct a search. There's no residual interest. To put it in simpler terms for you, no expectation of privacy would be being requiring you to hand over your cellphone and password once you hit the border. A reduced expectation of privacy is not having to do so unless the CBSA officer forms reasonable suspicion and decides to conduct a search.
  19. I would think that immediate review is quite good for the victims of racial profiling or when the CBSA officer who decides to conduct a search does so in contravention of the CBSA policies. At its worst, it's ineffective. At its best, it stops the individual from being the victim of racial profiling or a search in contravention of the CBSA policies. And if the senior CBSA officer is also racist or also decides to breach CBSA policies, the individual still can bring the matter to the courts.
  20. The CBSA policy's effect isn't that there's no reasonable expectation of privacy. It's that there's a greatly reduced expectation of privacy, in line with the expectation of privacy you retain in goods you bring across the border or on your person. Characterizing it as no privacy whatsoever is just plain incorrect (not to mention a characterization that has been roundly rejected by the courts). Sure, the common law could evolve. It hasn't yet. I haven't seen a single lower court decision suggesting the courts want to stop CBSA agents from searching cellphones, laptops, etc at the border, despite the fact that those objects have been crossing the border and been subject to search for decades. If you have, I'd love to read it. I've read Marakah, and plenty of other section 8 cases. I can easily distinguish them all based on the fact that the courts have seriously hamstrung section eight's applicability at the border. As above, none of them seem to indicate the court is ready to backtrack on its jurisprudence surrounding section 8 rights at the border. Again, if you've got something to support that proposition, feel free to cite it.
  21. Nobody is arguing for no expectation of privacy at all. That's not what the CBSA policy is. The CBSA policy is that cellphones are goods, and may be searched by a CBSA officer under the same circumstances as other goods being transported across the border: specifically, when there are grounds for suspecting the individual has made a false declaration. There's also due process in border crossing procedures — the CBSA officer makes a decision, and said decision is immediately reviewable upon request. This is all settled law, and has been for literally decades. I'm not sure if you're just ignorant of the law or simply trying to build a strawman to knock over, but either way, the central premises of your post are simply wrong.
  22. You can't argue that just laws are unjust because if some future hypothetical tragedy happens, the government may want to enact an unjust law. You have to actually challenge the law as being unjust. You're arguing in absurdities here, providence. You've gone from analogizing border searches with racist and unconstitutional traffic stops to analogizing border searches with rape to bringing up the spectre of 9/11 (a spectre that I'm positive you hate being brought up in other contexts, such as the muslim ban).
  23. Aside, this is all getting silly. If your argument is that post-next-9/11 the courts and the government are going to massively expand CBSA powers to include warrantless searches of cloud data, it doesn't matter what the law should be right now. That's going to happen regardless of whether or not we put restrictions in place now. Your argument renders your own argument moot, too.
  24. What indefinite detentions are you talking about?
×
×
  • Create New...