Jump to content

BlockedQuebecois

Members
  • Content Count

    6812
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    50

Everything posted by BlockedQuebecois

  1. Outside of MB's valid concerns, I'd recommend U of T, Osgoode, or Ottawa for IP law. Each has a good array of course and extra-curricular activities. The exception may if you're interested in the entertainment side of IP law — if that's the case UBC isn't a bad choice. Otherwise, all schools offer the basics in IP law, and plenty of IP lawyers go to other schools. It's just that the three I listed have the most course offerings and interesting extra-curricular involving IP. Don't decide on a school based solely on your area of interest though. You would be shocked at how quickly your interests can change as you discover new areas and talk to new people.
  2. Though I appreciate this advice generally, I have to wonder if the effort you went through is worth it if the law isn't the right thing for someone long term. At that point, I'd just cut loose.
  3. Chem really isn't know for its notoriously low GPAs. It's known for the typical low grades found in most hard sciences, including physics, biochem, phys chem, etc. Engineering (and, in particular, certain types of engineering) are known for their notoriously low GPAs. Chemistry really isn't.
  4. I wouldn't give them a 10% chance at U of T unless the degree was engineering or similar. LSAT is just too low. The others seem right though.
  5. Agreed, I also enjoy the back and forth — it's part of what drove me to law and was what made me love lab meetings in the past (I'm sure you can't tell, based on the rapid-fire debates we've had). I think generally asking for time is okay, and clearly preferable to giving a fatal answer. The two specific scenarios in which I've seen people get annoyed with it is when the question is an obvious one, either because on the facts of the case it is clearly going to come up or in that any answer except one specific one will be fatal to your position, or when somebody is using "may I have a moment" as a crutch unnecessarily (usually shown by asking for a moment then nearly immediately answering the question — the request was just filler while they think). Otherwise, a lot of it is stylistic and strategic. I think fast and I talk (too) fast, so it benefits me when questions and answers are flying back and forth and we can build momentum (as you say) and a repertoire. That makes you look like you already knew that question was coming and *bam* here's the answer; it can be compelling. Others are more slow and deliberative, and their style involves thinking about things and giving a convincing answer in slow deliberative pace. That makes them look like they're reaching into the knowledge and pulling out an authoritative answer — it can be compelling too. I'm sure great lawyers have made great careers out of either (though at times you need a mastery of both).
  6. So the usual disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer, and thus I'm talking specifically of the mooting context and have no idea about the practice of law inside a courtroom (this isn't actually my usual disclaimer, since I just assume my ignorance tends to show I'm not a lawyer ). At the risk of making this all about @AccidentallyInLaw, and since I was fortunate enough to do fairly well and thus see a fair number of mooters during our first moot, I have two observations about the asking for a moment thing in the moot context specifically. The first is that it's not always necessary to ask for a moment if you need one. From casual observation, the people judging the moots are happy to let you have ~10 seconds (15 if its the first time you're stumped) to consider a question before you begin your answer. That may not seem like a lot of time, but it's quite a bit in the moment. The second is that you seem to run the risk of being penalized if you consistently ask for a moment when it's not necessary. Some questions are so obvious that you should have answers ready to go, and you shouldn't be one of the people that asks for a moment, flips through their notes, and then gives a canned answer 20 seconds later. Others the judges know are tough, and thus are fine with you taking a pause to collect your thoughts or finish scribbling down the question. For mooting specifically, I think it's important to read the room. If judges look happy to have you take a second prior to answering the tougher questions, take that second without asking. If the judges seem to be getting impatient (one telltale sign is they repeat their question in a different way), I would suggest asking for time on those tougher questions. Never ask for time when you don't need it. Of course, you or anyone else are free to rip this apart It's just representative of my limited experience and the advice conveyed to me by upper years!
  7. You got permission to use an alt for this type of post? Weird.
  8. If they're outside of typical Canadian values they won't elected — that's how democracy works. And if not enough are elected they won't become advisors to the government or judges either.
  9. Isn't this what all law schools want? They want to teach law from their philosophy and equip their grads to, for lack of a better word, "infiltrate" institutions of power so that we have U of T educated MPs, legal advisors to the government, judges, etc. I would be super pissed off that I'm paying to attend Osgoode if they weren't equipping me to infiltrate those institutions of power.
  10. What does quasi-public mean in this context? I don't think I've ever fully understood the relationship between TWU and the province. Is it just accreditation?
  11. If only there was something else exempted from the human rights codes because it is generally recognized that they serve a socially valuable purpose
  12. You don't seriously consider a womans only gym to be ameliorative, do you? And not only that, but you'll note that gendered sports leagues seem to be a thing. Is your contention that those aren't protected by freedom of association?
  13. Also, what even are the valid non-discriminatory reasons? Every reason I can think of is discriminatory.
  14. No, it wouldn't. Forcing someone to make a choice in order to do something is significantly less "dickish" than telling someone they're never allowed to do the thing other people are allowed to do because of who they are. Now, everyone in this situation is a consenting adult voluntarily agreeing to these terms, so I don't see a problem with it, but there's no denying one group is significantly worse off.
  15. Well yes, to make a comfortable space for women by keeping men out.
  16. Well yes, it does. If, for instance, I wanted to set up an all-female gym, I could do so.
  17. Well no, the fact that you choose not to comply with a condition is very distinct from you being unable to comply with a condition because of who you are. If law schools said "You must be white and pay us $5 to attend" they're discriminating against non-white people. Not non-white people and white people who don't want to give them $5. (Using the non-proper, more popular version of discriminate.
  18. But the law society isn't discriminating based on sexuality or marital status. The law society is simply certifying that the school competently taught the law. They've associated themselves into a university with a covenant...
  19. Okay, but that's clearly not a right. Section X of the Charter isn't "Everyone has a right to equal opportunity to attend law school in Canada." If you get into the rights-balancing conversation you almost certainly lose. You've got nothing on your side, and the right to freedom of religion and freedom of association on the other side.
  20. What right is being balanced here? Do you have a right to attend law school? Or a right not to have a religious institution discriminate against you?
  21. Because they're not. They're free to get married and have sex. The discrimination is that for a gay person it's "impossible" to both attend TWU and have sex with someone they want to have sex with.
  22. No, but your logic was that constraining choice is disqualifying for a law school. Every other law school in Canada constrains the choices of their students, including constraining fundamental freedoms. If the logic is constraining choices leads to a school being unfit to teach law then every school in Canada is unfit to teach law.
  23. So then we're back to every law school in Canada being disbanded, though for a slightly less egregious violation.
  24. You'd be fine with the community covenant if students were subject to it but didn't have to sign it?
  25. By this logic, every law school in the country should be disbanded, since they all have behavioural codes which constrain individuals choices. See, for example, Dalhousie's recent spat regarding free speech.
×
×
  • Create New...