Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by BlockedQuebecois

  1. Disclaimer: not legal or financial advice. I'm not a lawyer. Consult a lawyer. If this is the source of your bad credit, you may be able to get it removed from your record due to fraud.
  2. There aren't a lot that are non-athletic. You'd be looking at piano, violin, or other upper-class musical instruments, almost exclusively classical music instuments. Extensive knowledge of other (European) languages would also count, but only for non-racialized individuals. What the author is observing is that American big law firms hire for fit, and that fit is usually best for upper-class individuals. So you're looking for activities which signal you're from an upper-class background, and once you're outside of the expensive sports there aren't a lot of activities that are reserved for the wealthy anymore.
  3. Four of your courses — torts, contracts, criminal law, and property law — will be evaluated by exams, predominately 100% final examinations. Two of your courses — legal process and state and citizen — will be evaluated by a mix. State and Citizen is about 65% exams and 35% essay, while Legal Process is about 75% exams and 25% small writing assignments (not an essay). Two of your courses — ethical lawyering and your perspective option (your only elective) — will be evaluated primarily by essay, with the perspective option being a 5,000 word essay worth 80 to 100% of your mark, and ethical lawyering being two essays being worth ~100% of your mark (you do a "moot" and some participation exercises, but the differentiation between you and your peers is primarily based on the essays).
  4. We shouldn't care, for two big reasons: 1) There are all kinds of people who are passionate about their jobs and suck at them. We shouldn't be giving people access to a profession based on how badly they want to be in it. We should be giving it based on their merit and their likelihood for success. To me, it would be tremendously unethical to let people into law school based on passion and knowing that they would, more likely than not, fail. That's the whole problem with the American system. They'll take anyone with a pulse, and therefore graduate thousands of students every year who will never work in law because they were let in based only on their passion and their student loan. 2) Most of the people applying to law school are passionate about their idea of the practice of law, which is completely divorced from reality. Sure, we're all passionate about prosecuting war criminals at the Hague or whatever, but that passion is essentially irrelevant for the practice of law. Same deal with Bay Street — lots of people are passionate about being Harvey from Suits, but the day to day life of a Bay Street lawyer isn't Suits.
  5. I'm not mad with you. Lots of people tell themselves the LSAT doesn't matter and that it's an arbitrary hoop for them to jump through that has no bearing on their success in school. I don't begrudge them their feelings — I just look at the evidence and know that they're wrong. If I was mad at everyone who's wrong in the world I'd never get the chance to smile
  6. I hate to break it to you, but grading in law school doesn't measure passion either. Nor does the bar exam. Also, dude, can you proofread before you hit submit? I have no idea what you're saying in your first or third points....
  7. As I mentioned, I meant to disclaim specifically against T14 and Oxford/Cambridge. Of course, the obvious caveat to that is that if you get into a T14 school or Oxbridge you're more than capable of getting into a Canadian law school. General rule: If you're going to law school outside of Canada because your grades or LSAT are so bad you can't get into school here, you're not coming back to Bay Street. Why would any big firm hire a candidate from a shitty law school that they'd need to support through the NCA process when they have all these qualified candidates from Canadian law schools they could hire?
  8. Here's the data on bar passage rates and the LSAT, for those interested: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=2308341 Not going to engage with batman on the question of LSATs, since it's pretty clear that he's just sour about his LSAT score. I'll just note that making assertions, asking people to provide counter-evidence to your assertions, dismissing the peer-reviewed counter-evidence they provide, all while failing to provide any evidence, peer-reviewed or otherwise, to support your point is rarely an effective debate technique. The evidence we have shows that higher LSAT scores are correlated with 1L success and bar passage rates, and that GPA is more weakly correlated with 1L success and not correlated with bar passage. If someone wishes to counter this evidence with their own studies showing otherwise, I'm happy to take a look at them. But until that happens, anyone making an evidence-based decision would hold that the LSAT, despite it's flaws, is a better predictor of success than undergraduate GPA.
  9. True, I meant to include a disclaimer for T14 US schools and Oxford/Cambridge. My bad.
  10. This is untrue. The LSAT is significantly better correlated with 1L grades than GPA, and is significantly (though poorly) correlated with bar exam passage rates. Undergraduate GPA has essentially no correlation with bar exam passage rates. I think you need to do more research.
  11. Sure, they're free from the arbitrariness of the LSAT (which isn't really all that arbitrary since it's more closely correlated with success in law school than GPA). They're also free from the expectations of a job that students in Canada have. I'll take a "flawed device" and good job prospects over the use of an even more flawed device (GPA) and poor job prospects. Call me crazy. I'm confident saying that nobody that goes abroad to law school will start as a first-year associate on Bay Street.
  12. Since nobody else has said it for some reason: don’t go to a UK or Australian law school. It’s absurdly expensive, when you return you will be required to complete the NCA process like any other foreign graduate, your job prospects in Canada are severely limited, and your job prospects in the other country would be heavily limited (as most graduates in the UK and Australia don’t go on to practice law).
  13. That's for people applying after their second year hoping to gain entry during their third year. Queen's requires each student to complete 15 full credits (30 half credits) prior to registering for med school. You didn't get into Queen's Med after completing only two years worth of courses. I'm not sure why you're making stuff up, but you should probably stop.
  14. Osgoode doesn't interview all their access or mature applicants, just the ones for which they have questions or need clarification.
  15. Provisional acceptances in Ontario become firm after a certain date, at which point the other schools will remove you from their waitlist.
  16. Ugh, gross, you've put me in the position of defending Peterson. So you start out here saying that he's a sketchy psychologist, and then you proceed to outline his stance on the issue. If you watch his talk, he doesn't say IQ tests are an absolute measure of intelligence. Ever. If he's a sketchy psychologist, why are you echoing what he says? You're rather misrepresenting things there, aren't you? First off, improvisational jazz skills aren't likely all that linked to visual-spatial IQ, so we shouldn't be shocked that a kid who is good at playing the sax sucks at mentally manipulating 3D objects. Second off, you omit that all of them scored remarkably well in working memory test — suggesting that intelligence isn't what's needed to be a prodigy, strong working memory is. That's not surprising. First off, there's a certain irony in citing the guy who radically altered IQ tests while trying to discredit IQ tests. Second off, you're rather missing the point of later studies on the topic. If you have ti cite back to a study from the great depression, you may want to check if there is any new literature. We've pretty well established that once you hit an IQ of 120, there isn't much correlation between how high your IQ gets and how successful you will be. But that still means that an IQ of 120 is a baseline for a lot of high-achieving, highly academic jobs. So yes, Terman's study showed that there isn't a large correlation between IQ and success, but subsequent studies have shown that a certain baseline intelligence is necessary for success. That's exactly what Peterson is saying. Hey, look, a guy with an IQ of 120+, doing something great. That backs up previous research. Less sarcastically, this is purely anecdotal. Feynman suggested he got a 125 of a school IQ test once, and that's been run with as a "case study" in how IQ isn't everything. But nobody here has suggested that IQ is everything, so this doesn't really prove much. This is such a weird statement. First, you call Peterson a charlatan and tell people to ignore him. Then, you tell people something Peterson mentioned — the importance of conscientiousness. Ultimately, I don't think you disagreed with the substance of Peterson's talk at any point in your giant post. You just kind of told people to ignore him while reiterating what he said.
  17. I'm not cherry picking anything — I'm engaging with the idea on its merits. It's pretty well established that dismissing an idea solely because of the individual that forwards it is a logical fallacy. I didn't know the existence of the ad hominem fallacy was a "matter of opinion." When you engage with the idea on its merits, you realize that Peterson is right here. Some jobs very clearly require greater intelligence than others. The baseline intelligence required to be a successful engineer is higher than the baseline intelligence required to be a janitor. That's not a slight on janitors, nor does it mean there won't be exceptions, but it's also not a false premise.
  18. Meh, Peterson isn't wrong on this one. It's really just ad hominem to dismiss his lecture because of who he is.
  19. Cost of living definitionally remains fixed even if your actual salary increases. We don’t have differential pricing based on income. If you make $100 an hour and I make $50 an hour and we go to the grocery store, the same item costs the same amount. They don’t ask for your T4 and charge you a set percentage. Same with housing. A median cost one bedroom apartment costs you the same monthly rent as the billionaire hedge fund guy. What you’re talking about is lifestyle inflation, where you choose to use some of your discretionary funds to purchase nicer versions of items in the basket. Thats a completely different phenomena than cost of living though.
  20. Plus like, your ability to have a relationship. Then again, for a lot of people law school cramps their ability to have a relationship
  21. You're making no sense. When we talk about cost of living, we're not talking about salary increases. That's not actually what happens. We're talking about the amount of money changing, but the purchasing power of that money remaining stagnant. For all intents and purposes, the salary you are making stays the same. If you honestly believe that you would spend more money as a percentage of your income on housing simply because the number on your paycheque goes up while the purchasing power of that money goes up you're not thinking about the issue properly. Also, it's pretty clear to anyone with an understanding of how cost of living is calculated that it falls apart at some point. Bill Gates will never spend his net worth. Cost of living doesn't matter for him, because his consumption of the basket of goods used in calculating cost of living (even allowing for exorbitant meals and the nicest house money can build) are a rounding error to him. Essentially 100% of his spending each year is discretionary, and thus the cost of living in his area is a moot point. Bill Gates doesn't need to make 2.5X the money he makes in Toronto in order to live in NYC — he has enough money that the cost of living doesn't affect him. I didn't think this was a contentious point.
  22. Why would getting paid a higher salary increase your housing costs?
  23. Your increase in salary when choosing between places has no actual impact on your housing costs. There's no reason to suggest that on a $120,000 salary in MTL you would want a smaller apartment than on a purchasing power equivalent $200,000 salary in NYC. That's just illogical. You're thinking of the change in salary as you gain experience — this discussion is about the change in salary inherent to city choice (and no other variables).
  24. The trick is to love wine more than you hate debt.
  25. It falls apart exactly because housing is such a big component of COL. The price of your living quarters has no effect on the cost of a movie ticket, an opera ticket, or a bottle of nice wine (though some COL calculations include the cost of a widely available "brand name" beer, such as Budweiser). Here's an example. Cost of living in Montreal is, say, $2,000/month. $1,000 of that is housing and $1,000 is whatever else. NYC, on the other hand, costs $5,000 — $3,500 on housing and $1,500 on whatever else. Let's pretend that the cost of all discretionary spending goes up at the rate of the "whatever else" portion of the basket. The COL index would tell you that you need to make 2.5X your salary for living in NY to be worthwhile, but that's not true. Your cost of housing in NYC is $42,000, and in MTL it's $12,000. But once that's covered, it doesn't increase in price as you make more money. Same with "whatever else" — you need to make $18,000 in NYC to cover costs, and only $12,000 in MTL. That means, in sum, you need to make $60,000 in NYC to live the life you would at 24,000 in MTL (2.5X, the COL). However, every dollar you earn above that in MTL doesn't have the purchasing power of $2.5 in NYC — it has the purchasing power of $1.5, because the cost of discretionary items are going up in line with the "whatever else" items. This means that if you have a job offer for $200,000 in NYC it's worth about $117,333 in MTL. Both of those salaries cover your COL and give you the same amount of discretionary spending power. You'll not that's significantly below the 2.5X COL we get if we just use the index. *All numbers imaginary, do not rely on this when making significant life choices. Consult a calculator or excel.
  • Create New...