Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by BlockedQuebecois

  1. As a 1L at Osgoode (and a conservative on many issues), I fully and unequivocally renounce Kemair's explanation of Osgoode's culture. People are incredibly open to exchanging ideas and discussing controversial issues, so long as you do so with respect for all parties involved.
  2. ITCs from Davies went out today. I haven't heard from any other firms thus far.
  3. I'm a 1L myself (at Osgoode), so I can't really comment. I think so few people (and mainly JD/MBAs) get jobs in the 1L recruit it's tough to tell what makes someone competitive. I've been told a B+ average at Osgoode will net you a fair number of 2L OCIs, and I have to imagine the same is true for an H average at U of T.
  4. Don't worry, there's still a lot of ideological inconsistency in law school. The most social-justice leaning people in my school were the ones constantly saying people should go to jail in my criminal law classes, despite the fact that the people they wanted jailed are amongst societies most vulnerable. This was particularly true of sexual assault cases.
  5. Ps are technically median, but they're a weird median in that most people with Ps are in the bottom half of the class. U of T also allows variance in theirs, so median for first year classes is probably right on the P/H divide. U of T's grading profile is weird, but generally speaking an HH is equivalent to an A, an H is equivalent to a B or B+, and a P is anywhere from a B to a C+. It obviously depends on what school you compare it to, but that's roughly how it works. For comparison's sake, here's the U of T and Osgoode grade scales: Osgoode U of T A+/A — 15% HH — 15% B+/B — 60% H — 30% C+/C — 20% P — 45-55% D+/D/F — 5% LP — Up to 10% Osgoode allows 1/3 of each letter grade to be a +, so an H is roughly a B+ plus the top 10% of Bs. I'll let someone with actual knowledge of the 1L recruit chime in on your chances with straight Hs.
  6. Anyways. OP, I think your experience will really depend on what you mean by conservatism, at least at Osgoode. Being a fiscal conservative is fine, and you honestly won't catch any flack from anyone for it. If you say you oppose a social program because you think the costs outweigh the benefits nobody is going to be upset unless: (a) the benefits clearly and unequivocally outweigh the costs, or (b) the social program is aimed at the lowest possible socio-economic group. Being a classical liberal is also going to be fine, with certain constraints. Many professors, particularly criminal law professors, will sympathize with liberal views because they make up the basis for our western liberal democracy. Liberalism is also pretty tough to argue against because not many people will openly say they want to restrict peoples freedom. That said, you have to remember that in Canada we don't have any inalienable rights. Everything is subject to s 1 analysis, so arguments that rely solely on a strict application of, for example, freedom of speech are going to get shut down as simplistic. Being a hardcore libertarian (the "taxes are theft" group) isn't going to win you many friends either, but that's because hardcore libertarianism is an ideology that removes any semblance of nuance and context from the situation it's being applied to. You'll get laughed out of the room for having similarly hardline left-leaning views. If you're a social conservative you're likely to have a rough time, at least if you try to speak about those ideas in class. Universities, law schools, and youth all tend to lean progressive on most social issues, so dredging up "settled" issues such as abortion rights, gay marriage, or segregation are all unlikely to make you any friends (and people will be offended and dislike you for it). The one exception to this, in my opinion, is if you're a member of a visible religious minority. Those people tend to go unchallenged because nobody wants to debate how someone's opinion on Morgentaler is shaped by their religious biases and therefore both their opinion and their religion are wrong.
  7. Life pro tip: the internet is a terrible place to seek validation.
  8. My understanding, from speaking with various lawyers, is that it doesn't matter at all. It can actually be harmful, depending on the stream, since many of them heavily restrict your upper year course selection. The tax stream at Osgoode, for example, would make it very difficult to show an interest in anything except tax law.
  9. Fair enough. I can see how someone with sore feelings may not like my story, but I don't really view that as my problem. I'm not trying to win the hearts and minds of people who struggled with the LSAT. If I was I would be in the LSAT forum helping them out (although I couldn't, because I have no idea how to help someone with the LSAT). I'm trying to convey that I disagree with the purported universality of the time crunch theory forwarded by @RNGesus. If people choose to view my dismissal of an obviously false theory as inconsiderate because I started it with a "meh" and accurately recounted my story that's their fault. I don't view their stories of struggling for months to get a decent score as inconsiderate, even though it's usually either a painful exercise in reverse-bragging or simply fear-mongering. I just read their experience, recognize it wasn't my own, and move on with my life.
  10. That was the time theory that sparked this whole disagreement
  11. I would 100% agree that the time component of the LSAT is a significant factor for many takers and shouldn't be discounted. I remain steadfast in my disagreement with the theory that, absent time considerations, "everyone can get a 180." Just because we don't want to discount the time factor doesn't mean we should over value it such that it becomes "[t]he whole point of the LSAT."
  12. I can't see how. I'm responding to someone saying that untimed scores "mean nothing for everybody." I said "meh", because that's my reaction when people say something that's against my lived experience. I would have scored identically on an untimed LSAT as I would have on a timed one. Time wasn't a problem for me, and it's not a problem for a fair chunk of LSAT takers. We've got three of them in this thread. As for the rest, it was true. I could've done better if I'd tried. I recognized that was an option, used Ryn's calculator, figured out it was unnecessary unless I wanted a better shot at HYS, decided I wanted to stay in Canada and thus chose to drink wine and play volleyball. If recognizing that reality is inconsiderate of others experiences, so be it. I"m not going to pretend that a test I found easy, not time-crunched, and generally a fun experience was backbreakingly difficult, had "immense time pressure," and was otherwise brutal. It wasn't, for me.
  13. How was it disrespectful? I wasn’t rude in my post. I just shared my experience with the LSAT in the context of disagreeing with someone that was a bit too doom-and-gloom about their time crunch theory. The fact that you’re objecting to the word theory without suggesting a better word tells me that you don’t have one. Theory isn’t a dismissive term intrinsically, in fact it’s a supportive one (see for e.g. the theory of gravity). If you took offence to that word that’s your problem, not mine. The LSAT is also a test designed to be impossible for the average test taker to get a score that would get them into law school. Yet if someone came here and posted that it was impossible to get a 155 (or whatever gets you into law school) in the same exaggerated manner I would disagree as well.
  14. John Borrows? Thats the only thing I know about UVic Law.
  15. Yes, theory. Do you have a better description? I don’t see what’s immodest about explaining that I had a different LSAT experience. Should everyone who finds certain things easy just shut up and let those who struggle with it dominate the conversation?
  16. Meh, I never found the LSAT to be a time crunch. By the time I wrote I was routinely finishing tests with 5 minutes to spare. If I had really wanted to I'm sure I could have bought a book and figured out how to model games or whatever and gotten a higher score, but I was scoring high enough to get into Canadian schools without it. Instead of studying I spent August playing volleyball and drinking wine. The time crunch theory is probably true for most people, but it's not universal.
  17. Sorry Prod, 1L job applications were due today so it's been very hectic for the past few days! I've found the student culture at Osgoode to be amazing. Most people are competitive, but you'll find that at every law school (and in every profession) in the country. You don't make it to law school by being okay with being average. I similarly haven't met anyone I would consider "vile" either — there are people I dislike, but it's not like they're bad people. In first year you'll find a lot of students spend most of their time on campus. 1Ls are generally a ball of anxiety and handle that by locking themselves in the library for astonishing periods of time. In upper years you'll find more students live off campus and spend their time off campus, but people are still very tight with their social groups. It helps that everyone tends to live on the subway, so you're only a few stops from most of your friends. There is definitely an overarching Osgoode community, which you'll experience at pub nights, mock trial, etc, but I've found people tend to form groups of ~5 students that they're close with in first year. Those social groups tend to stay together, as far as I can tell.
  18. It's generally not a good idea to plan on transferring after first year, nor to plan to get good grades in law school. You can hope to transfer and hope to get good grades, but the simple reality is most people end up with a B average and most schools won't accept a transfer from someone they wouldn't have admitted, who has no ties to the school/area, and who got a B average.
  19. What’s the logic behind saying someone is out at two schools with lower LSATs and only 95% out at a school with a higher LSAT? Especially when OP’s stats are exactly in line with Queens “competitive applicants” (3.7 GPA and 157 LSAT).
  20. Is economics really an arts degree, though? Even the BA econ degrees are fairly math heavy in a way that not many other arts majors are. After all, they don't call it the dismal science for nothing! In fairness, if you really wanted to you could probably find a decent correlation between degree and 1L grades. I'm thinking specifically of the fact that certain degrees are strongly correlated with high LSAT scores (engineering and math often topping the list), and LSAT being moderately correlated (and more strongly correlated than uGPA) with 1L success. I've never bothered to find the actual correlation because then it would make all the "are sciences better than arts" arguments boring. Nothing shuts down an arts major like a correlation coefficient
  21. I have a science background. I could have told one of my peers I got a 180 and they would have asked how I managed to score so far below the minimum MCAT score. The same way that if I tell a "Double Specialist in Socio-Legal Studies" that I got a 522 on the MCAT they'll stare at me blankly. I expect that if you take an arts degree, where interest in and enrollment in law school are much higher, you're more likely to have people that you can talk to about this kind of stuff? As I said before, I still wouldn't, but it explains why OP's experience is so different from mine.
  22. Well, your bachelors was an arts degree, was it not? That's what we're talking about, right? Or are you talking about how you chatted with your Global Health buddies about your undergrad GPA and LSAT score? And meh, I'd advise people not to discuss their grades or LSAT with others in real life. I scored well enough that talking about my LSAT comes across as boasting, even in law school. And besides, it's not like you need your peer group to be competitive — with the LSAT you literally know what percentage of people you are better than, and with GPA you know what you need to be competitive. If your friends all had 2.5s and you had a 2.7 then sure, you're winning that competition, but you lose sight of the actual competition. Either way, to each their own. If you found it helped you, all the power to you. And a piece of advice: don't talk about your LSAT or GPA if you're accepted. Nobody cares, and it comes across as either boasting if you did well or just weird ineffective bragging if you didn't.
  23. I never said you were trash talking, I said "that trash," referring to discussing/worrying about cGPA, LSATs, and ECs. I see now that you were talking about friends who got in last cycle, and that you were presumably talking to prior to school, my bad. Still a very different vibe than I ever had (I never talked about that stuff with anyone), but I guess you come from an arts background, so it would make more sense.
  24. Why on earth are you talking to your friends about their cGPA, ECs, and LSAT scores? Doesn't that trash stop when you get into law school? It did for me.
  • Create New...