Jump to content

BlockedQuebecois

Members
  • Content Count

    5910
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Everything posted by BlockedQuebecois

  1. I think there's a lot wrong with our border enforcement system. I don't think calling the CBSA's powers abominable is a reasonable take.
  2. I agree with @Stark here. Regardless of whether or not you like the law, everyone and their dog knows that CBSA agents have the right to search goods coming into Canada, including cellphones. A lawyer who travels with physical files in their trunk whose trunk is searched is to blame if said physical files are viewed while the CBSA agents search the car. Similarly, a lawyer who travels with digital files on their phone, rather than in the cloud, is to blame if said digital files are viewed while the CBSA agents search the phone. It's incredibly easy for lawyers to put their files into the cloud while they cross the border and download them once over. If they fail to do so, that's on them.
  3. You're not seriously arguing that the power of CBSA agents to conduct a limited search of a phone's contents is abominable, are you?
  4. If what you're talking about is this program (https://get.atb.com/Personal/Borrow/Lines-of-Credit/Professional-Students-Line-of-Credit/p/2319), then it's not interest free for 1 year post-grad. It's interest-only payments from the date you access the line of credit through 1 year post-grad.
  5. Yes, and it clearly hasn't shifted into a debate on whether or not lawyers should have to hand over their phones with privileged information. I see that all five pages are filled with riveting discussion of how each poster backs up encrypts their sensitive information then wipes their phone immediately before crossing the border. This has been a debate about how the CBSA should handle privileged information from literally page one. Besides, you can't rely on the fact that the topic of the thread was X when you just said that you were arguing Y.
  6. Then for god sakes, make that argument. Nobody in this thread, except @epeeist, said "hey, this isn't a lawyer problem, it's a citizen problem." If what you're saying is that the rules are wrong as applied to everyone, you need to actually say that the rules are wrong as applied to everyone.
  7. That's why @Rashabon said, explicity, that it was an unrealistic example. The actual opportunity cost calculation here would be something like this: ((Lifetime earnings under scenario 1) - (Lifetime earnings under scenario 2)) + (the sum of the future value of all accelerated earnings, where future value equals = ((Present Value)[(1)(i/n)^((n)(t))], where: i = interest rate, n = number of compounding periods per year, and t = number of years). But I'm sure we can all see why Rashabon didn't want to walk through that whole analysis.
  8. There’s no evidence in this thread to suggest that OP is hyper focused on making money, or that the final four months of their undergraduate are going to make them a more relaxed, well rounded person. This is all an absurd conversation. Maybe OP will meet the love of their life in law school and wouldn’t have if they went a year later. Maybe they will meet their best friend, who will save their life by giving them a kidney. Maybe entering law school a year early will teach them better stress management skills that save them from suicide during a bout of depression in two years. Incalculable benefits weigh on both sides of the decision. Nothing indicates that one side has the advantage vis-a-vis the incalculable benefits. What does weigh in favour of one side is the calculable benefit of opportunity cost. You can’t live your life paralyzed by the hypothetical incalculable benefits of the road not taken, which is the end result of all this nonsense about possibly living decades longer by getting a BA. OP, if the incalculable benefits of getting a BA outweigh the incalculable benefits of starting your career earlier and saving potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars of opportunity cost, get your BA. But if the incalculable benefits of going to law school next year and saving hundreds of thousands of dollars of opportunity cost, go to law school. /thread
  9. Maybe they get hit by a bus walking to their final undergraduate exam, and they would have lived 80 more years if only they’d gone to law school earlier. Unless there’s some evidence that completing four more months of an undergraduate degree increases your mental or physical health post-professional school, it’s incredibly weird to argue that someone is going to burn out or die decades earlier if they don’t get their BA in Philosophy, of all things. Especially when weighed against the opportunity cost that we know they’ll pay, absent some freak accident.
  10. Reasonable suspicion that you’re a threat to Canadians isn’t the standard for searching someone’s phone at the border. CBSA officers can do an initial search of your device under their blanket power to search incoming goods. This is what I’m trying to get at: I think a bunch of pro-privilege people here are using the privilege argument to shield the fact that they actually just want higher thresholds for searches at the border (as @epeeist has tried to point out several times).
  11. Why should accessing a lawyer’s non-privileged content be subject to a higher standard than other travellers?
  12. To those on the side of being allowed to assert privilege, would you be fine with the CBSA going through your device so long as they do it in front of you and don't access your work email or documents?
  13. Lots of people write partial degree on their resume (or rather, write that they studied at X university for Y time period, but don't say they received a credential). You think people who don't finish their degrees just leave a huge, unexplained gap in their resume? I think having not seen someone write that they studied at a university and didn't receive a degree is a product of the privilege inherent in working in a profession that (generally) requires its professionals to have completed an undergraduate degree.
  14. This feels tremendously unfair. The nicest, chillest person I've met in law school got admitted after 3 years of undergrad. The fact that you wouldn't want to work with her because she chose not to finish her undergraduate degree is just absurd to me.
  15. I don't think anyone's BA in philosophy is stretching their mind to be more flexible and creative to the point that it makes you a better lawyer. If OP accepts that premise, then maybe they should wait. But I don't, so I wouldn't. I also don't think it's any harder to improve your fitness or stress management during law school than during undergrad, and I certainly don't think it takes four years to improve your fitness or strength management. I also don't think you'd be making the same argument if someone came here and said "should I defer my admissions for a year because I'm not in the best shape and I get a bit stressed", so I don't really accept this as a valid argument. I don't think you're really getting how an opportunity cost assessment works in these circumstances. You don't just look at what you would make in the single year you would have been doing something else. You have to look at what you would make over the entirety of your 1-year-longer career than what you would make over the entirety of your normal career. And based on the way lawyers make money, I'm quite confident in saying that one additional year of practice, plus the time value of money calculation that would go with it, would be more than six figures, even if you start earning at a low rate early on. I doubt OP will be in the unenviable position of being the next person on the list, but they lost out to an identical candidate with a BA in Philosophy and if only they had that BA they would have gotten the job. Again, the chances of that are pretty small. I also haven't seen any evidence that people who graduate with JDs and no Bachelors are doing worse in the job market than those with both (although if you have, feel free to share it). I'm not saying an undergrad is worth something. But I'm saying that a BA in Philosophy is not worth even close to six figures to a lawyer. I'd probably put it in the mid-to-high 4 figures range. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see a lawyer with a BA making significantly more, on average, than a lawyer without one. When you compare that to the additional year of practice, the cost of the final year of undergrad, and the time value of money, I stand by my assertion that the opportunity cost would be in the six-figure range. Hell, it could easily be high six figures, if OP is a good enough lawyer.
  16. No, it's not. Or rather, it's not because of my certainty in my personal career. Opportunity cost, here, isn't solely the opportunity cost of the first year post-articling salary. It's the opportunity cost of only practising for (say) 40 years instead of 41. And over the life of a legal career, that extra year in pay is likely going to far outstrip whatever someone's first-year associate salary is. That's why I said "whatever six-figure amount". The only way someone comes out behind by foregoing their fourth year is if they: (i) leave legal practice; (ii) for a job that requires their BA in Philosophy and will not allow their JD to stand in: and (iii) their university will not allow them to complete their degree at the hypothetical point where they're leaving legal practice for said job (or, said job is time-limited and will no be there after the year taken to complete the degree). I'm sure we can both agree that the likelihood of OP being in that exact scenario is pretty minute?
  17. I dunno, if you offered me whatever six-figure amount the opportunity cost of a year of practising law works out to in exchange for the satisfaction and accomplishment I felt from having a Bachelor's Degree, I'd take it in a heartbeat.
  18. Should lawyers also not be subject to search at the border? If you’re driving across with a briefcase and claim it’s contents are privileged, should the CBSA be barred from opening it?
  19. An alternate explanation would be that lots of lawyers use professional corporations to lower their income tax. It's not at all inconceivable that lawyers would be paying themselves <$300,000 from their professional corporation each year for tax planning purposes. That's probably particularly true when you think about the type of person who is likely to become a judge. I would bet that most judges own their home or condo (and thus only need to withdraw mortgage payments, if anything), have grown children (and thus aren't paying for expensive childcare), etc.
  20. Frankly, I think law school contains significantly less content and requires significantly less attention to detail than my undergrad. And there aren’t many provisions in the Criminal Code or CBCA that can’t be effectively paraphrased. I’m honestly not sure I’ve ever written out a word-for-word copy of a provision for law school, in either my notes or on an exam.
  21. I take notes by hand in classes I want to pay attention in, and “take notes” on my computer when I don’t. I’ve never found it hard to keep up in either format – the law isn’t that hard, and you should be distilling lectures and readings down as you go. Only concern with an iPad is whether or not you can write an exam on it. Otherwise, I think it’s a personal preference thing.
  22. Sure, in specific, concentrated areas of the country. But a large majority of Canadian households make less than 90k per year. 90-200k puts you somewhere between the 30th percentile and the 5th percentile, doesn’t it? Surely you’re not arguing that making more than 95% of Canadian households makes you “middle class”?
  23. Who cares about one week courses? Why does everyone seem so upset about this?
×
×
  • Create New...