Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


PWNWP last won the day on January 21 2019

PWNWP had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

26 Decent People


  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

562 profile views
  1. I think in dictionary terms it's the difference between nepotism and favouritism (with cronyism referring to partiality to a partner or friend). That said, I feel like we need a better term for it than 'favouritism', cause that feels like it has some kind of conscious element. It's more an issue with innate social ordering and an affinity for people that we can relate to, and how that can lead to the entrenchment of social class structures - even if, all else being equal, the candidates are the same. It's actually interesting cause in that case, you can have a meritocracy that in the long run actually ends up being unfair and perpetuates inequality; the question then becomes how long does a meritocracy like that stay meritocratic... As mentioned though, this probably isn't the time or place lol.
  2. At the risk of being repetitive: I find it a bit funny that the ones that did get jobs through the recruit feel the need to respond to what is pretty justifiable, though irrational, grief. To those of us with no horse in this race of this thread, it just comes off as really insecure and defensive for someone who has been as successful as BQ (at doing what he wants, and sincerely, god bless) to mansplain how the recruit is fine. It comes across as punching down and it's not helpful. Regardless of the merits of your argument, which I would characterize as containing some truth (for one, people certainly exaggerate nepotism - though I think it's worth distinguishing soft and hard nepotism - and underrate social intelligence and random chance), do you really feel the need to do this right now? I'm more worried about you than them frankly. Maybe leave the "stop complaining, it gets better" to those of us who had reason to complain, and got better. These folks don't need people who got jobs out of the 1L recruit to tell them how to feel; it's like when pre-law lurkers explain how to make summaries based off their friends' of friends experience, or when boomers complain that if millennials can't afford houses, they should stop buying lattes. The disconnect between lived experience is jarring, and the missing empathy can muddle even the soundest advice (not saying either of my examples are sound advice lol). People have sour grapes after something like this. It's a lot of hype crammed into a very short period of time. And not succeeding can make you feel empty and worthless. Honestly that might be the real problem with this process, which has been alluded to previously in this thread - it's an island two years separated from actual articling (nevermind the fact that articling itself isn't a magic spell for staying with an OCI employer long-term). It has an air of finality that you don't get in a less structured, more drawn out process. It's "go go go go go" then by 6 pm on Wednesday... it's done, with all those little bits of hopes and dreams you've built up throughout the process dashed. And so you're left with either relief or going through the five stages of grief. I for one have never found the logistics of any job application to be the hard part (except maybe those online forms where you have to type out your resume because you can't copy and paste into the text boxes, then 5 screens later they make you upload the damn thing as a PDF anyway), but I can say the 2L recruit feels different because it can basically become your life for months if you're not careful; and then 'poof', it's over. I know it's not what any of you that have just finished will believe, but it's not even started for you yet, let alone over. Process, reflect, and then move on. Don't dwell or let it make you bitter. It's life, and it will always have its ups and downs. Learn from it. Perhaps most importantly for some of you, try and see if you can take a lesson from it to prioritize your life goals, not just career goals, and maybe be a little less obsessive.
  3. And I think that the first and third paragraphs of your post perfectly capture what I was trying to get at. I worry that for the same reason that you might sometimes feel some sense of envy (and if I might be permitted the grace to suggest shame, as at some level an inseparable corollary/requirement for envy), lawyers who make the big bucks internalize criticism as shame (or an attempt to shame) them for their earnings and success. In fact, I'm almost hopeful that that's the reason, and not just a reflexive need to quash criticism. I get why everyone is defensive; any time we risk frank discussion we open ourselves up to vulnerability and a concern that someone might end up taking what we have - whether that is material (if we don't stand up for our property rights) or something more spiritual (like gambling with the core principles/values/myths that hold together the story that we have built up for our lives). Like I intimated, I seriously wonder whether the large egos which sometimes feel like they suck up all the oxygen in the legal profession (not saying that that they exclusively make up the field, or are even a plurality of it, but they by their nature tend to drive discussion) are often a front put on because of a fear of vulnerability, or whether they are just totally genuine self-assuredness. I'm not even going so far as to suggest that we all have a sense of sympathy for each other, which isn't always appropriate. But I think empathy is not as highly valued in this profession as it ought to be - whether because of fear, or inability, for self-reflection - and I think it makes things that should be perfectly ok to talk about something everyone feels like they are going to be judged for unless they put up a fight to the point of being difficult. Makes sense though: lawyers like to win, which goes hand in hand with a fear of loss.
  4. This is pretty much my entire problem with this thread. Fields of law in and of themselves are not inherently ethical or unethical, it's how the law is practiced. Thus, there is variation within fields. I think it probably would have been more helpful to the OP as they made their decision for responses that explained something the posters actually know (why they are attracted and fulfilled by their field/job) rather than feeling the need to point out why other posters are wrong and what is bad about their field (without working in it). It would be even more helpful if posters had something to say about the concerns in their OWN fields rather than spuriously picking at ones they haven't practiced in... but hey, lawyers are used to pushing an agenda so it's a hard thing to shake. OP made their choice; either way would have had consequences. And while working for a firm or in a field that pays less may not be more ethical, maybe it doesn't have to be. Maybe it just has to make sense for the narrative OP has for their life. And while it is an important choice, I think the most important thing that we all might take away from this discussion is that choosing a field of practice or job is one of the first values judgments we make, not the last. Lawyers should remember that the decisions they make every day are ethical, values-based decisions - it's too easy to just say "I made my values judgment at the beginning, and that narrative explains what and why I do what I do now". Anyone who stays in a field long enough probably thinks they have good reasons for doing so, but it doesn't mean that they can't admit any misgivings or shortcomings too. You're not testifying in a trial (which is why I appreciate quoted post emphasizing the shades of gray). And for some of the posters who say they don't care about the ethics and they just need to deal with what's best for their own personal lives - not making your decision based on ethical concerns is just as much an ethics-based decision as a decision that is driven by some set of values (for unions vs employer, or prosecution vs defence for example). I'm not saying any of them are more valid or less valid, but no one can run away from the fact that they MAKE the decision, whether for, against, or devoid of a set of values. We all have to make a choice at some point or another.
  5. Some advice, probably misguided, totally uninvited, and likely to go unheeded, but here nonetheless (from the perspective of a current Oz 2L): 1) It really doesn't matter as far as I know, and if it does, you won't know (recruiters from each firm won't be posting that kind of info here, and doubtful that you'll get that kind of specific info from the relatively small people who post here who would be privy to that information at each and every firm); even more uncertain is how that information could possibly help you even if you had it. Suffice to say if you have crappy grades overall, you won't get a lot of interviews barring some truly exceptional circumstances (at Osgoode, that would be below a B average). Don't write yourself off if you have a B average, and don't rest on your laurels if you have an A average. I had two friends with the former who are now at major Bay Street firms for the summer, and another three with As who had great interviews and didn't end up landing anywhere in Toronto. As has been written elsewhere here, your grades are going to be part of what gets you in the door and after that it's a whole different game. Even at the OCI-offer stage firms will be looking at your resume to see if you have what they're interested in (which can vary year to year because big law is a business, although they might be more likely to make room for you if you're a high achiever in something they aren't focusing on just to make sure no one else has you). Generally better grades mean more options, rather than providing a surefire means at getting at a particular firm. Which brings me to my second point: 2) 2a) Honestly, this might be the healthiest possible thing to learn about in law school for law students (not pointed directly at OP since it's not his post). You got in the top 5% of a class of 75 or so. That is brilliant, no matter what your average ends up being (an aside to that point, but not to freak other people out, I had a prof in the know about these kinds of things say that for clerkships it might even be better to have a C and an A than two B+, because it signals that you can compete with the best of them even if you have an off day; please do not read into this idea and turn it into a maxim, as law students are wont to do). Once you order your transcripts, particularly for Oz, take a look at the curve profiles and understand that more than half of your 1L class will have a B average or lower. Keep in mind that a B at Oz basically spans from the 'just barely scraped above a C' to 'just barely missed the mark for a B+ on a technicality'; it's also a massive range and, since there are no class rankings, no one knows how well you did and no one cares to know except you. If the differences between averages are only valuable to a degree, then the difference within one is statistically meaningless. 2b) Going back to the big law is a business point, law students also unfortunately (if understandably) take not being hired (or indeed being hired in some cases) waaaay too personally. Sometimes a firm will really like you but end up not having room to take someone in your area of interest; other times, they might be a bit on the fence but think your amazing resume means that it will be worth rolling the dice. Either way, statistics start to kick in again for hirebacks (even for so called 'guaranteed' hirebacks --> in no case is anyone saying you are guaranteed a spot 5 years in, so at best the statistical dropoff is extended some months forward). I would be surprised if there are more than 10 people in any class of 290 at Osgoode that get everything they want and never experience any kind of sense of defeat or remorse; for the rest of us, it's probably a much more valuable skill to learn to not take a setback personally, to be willing and open to hear criticism and try to learn how to improve, and most importantly to learn to accept that sometimes there is nothing you could have done differently. Law school, firm hiring, etc is not math: a grading profile from one prof might look completely different if a different prof marked the exact same exams and, likewise, there is a reason why firm recruitment teams will have ardent and visceral disagreements about who to hire, despite all the finalists being intelligent, capable, and impressive people. (All before we even get to the whole "only about 30% of the class gets a job through Toronto OCIs at Oz, even in a good year") Side Points: 3) Having an A+ at Osgoode does not mean you get a course award. I had an A+, my friends had them, and we did not get course awards. Though honestly if that is going to keep you awake at night, good luck surviving in practice; what separates you at rank 10/75 and rank 1/75 might be a slightly poorly worded paragraph on an otherwise brilliant exam, let alone what would separate 1/75 and 2/75. Law students seem to put too much stock in things that don't matter and not enough in things that do (see above about statistics). 4) Don't worry about the 1L recruit. If you want to do it, go ahead! It might be rough, but it is also a great excuse to have your application materials evaluated (and even prepped so that you only have to tweak them for the 2L recruit). I had 3 Bs out of 3 my first term at Osgoode and got a 1L interview (didn't land, though the CDO was flabbergasted that I even got an interview as they would have recommended I not apply). Ended up working at a smaller litigation firm in the suburbs that gave me an amazing level of experience by comparison, even with what bigger firms were selling me in the 2L recruit. Further to points 2) and 3), make sure you are willing to go into the processes knowing what is important to you instead of taking the hand of the first Bay Street firm that says they'll have you. I had several firms in the 2L recruit signal to me what they wanted me to say and I was not comfortable going along with it, so I didn't land at any of them and will be happy exploring some other options. Obviously that level of stubbornness might not be desirable or an option for you, but never underestimate the worth of just stopping to think about what you want and what you will be getting, beyond the din of what you hear hammered into you at law school. Overall points being: a) be realistic but don't count yourself out of anything just because you hear it through the law school whisper torrent; b) recruitment is a two-way street, and, especially if you have time during the summer after 1L, take the time to plot out your values and reach out to people a couple of years in practice (including people not on Bay) - don't base your life decisions on what a firm website or, god forbid, other law students tell you is important; and d) TL;DR don't take your successes or shortcomings at face value, but try to be critical and honest with yourself instead of hysterically thinking you're sh*t or puffing up your chest because you are the king of law school exams. Figuring out how can you improve is, in the long term, so much more useful than worrying about one bad grade says about you (or being conceited about what one awesome grade means). And you also might have to make peace with the fact that things don't always happen for a good reason. Never be afraid to swallow your pride and ask why something didn't work out; I've done it in both classes and recruits, and you'd be amazed how helpful people can be when you show a genuine desire to learn from them. Thanks for reading my (cathartic? and meandering but hopefully useful) rant-post. Hope it helps OP & others.
  6. Thanks! I went into waitlist on March 20th though, I got the acceptance on OASIS and then by email on the 6th
  7. I meant more from the perspective of vague, generic, leading questions rather than any specific type of field of question, questions that the poster knows the answer to or could easily find out themselves i.e. looking more for reassurance than information. I also don't have a set opinion on whether the resulting negativity is a good or bad thing, it's just where I personally think it comes from. The concept would go for a lot of the different subforums here, but ironically enough I was being both too specific and too vague and it came out stupid.
  8. I don't know what to say to be honest because I am in a similar position going into 1L. But I feel and I've always felt that you can prepare the sh*t out of your life, and you should, but that there's also a difference between being encouraged to be the best you can be and seeking advice on a specific outcome. I think that is what you seemed to be poking at and what I think is the key issue with this forum: A lot of people come here asking for magic formulas to get where they want, but no one is a soothsayer and we (I include myself looooooosely) can't tell those people what they need to do. Forums like these are more helpful from a process-based perspective but I think that gets missed by a lot of eager, hyperventilating (pre-)students, which makes it frustrating for people who are trying to help. It's a matter of perspective. So when someone asks how to become a Bay St lawyer or a Supreme Court justice, sure there are some courses that will be helpful to one side or the other, but the fact is it will still take hard work, ambition, networking, and a healthy dose of luck, which you would already know. People are just sometimes lying to themselves about what it takes and want someone to give them a nice, clear roadmap answer, so the impulse on here is to beat the OP with a shovel to knock that crap out of their system (I know the supreme court thing was in jest, but it's still within the realm of the stuff that causes this). Just my thoughts although I feel very mansplain-y about them DEFINITELY NSFW
  9. Accepted off waitlist April 6th and accepted the offer! cGPA: 3.62 L2: 3.49 B2: 3.73 LSAT: 162 (single write) Last year of MSc (4.0/4.0 GPA), one research paper in a good journal (only from my undergrad and only third author though... lol) Otherwise weak ECs, PS (who knows), two LoRs from my research supervisors
  10. I can't tell whether the misspelling of 'astronauts' was intentional or not (I really, really hope it was), but had to say that the irony of the implied negativity that 'astronaught' evoked made me smile: "Kid, you may have dreams, but it's futile to think you'll ever become an astronaught." Although urban dictionary tells me 'astronaught' is a kind of sex act so I will reserve final judgement on the intention of the poster... This comment not to be taken as a critique or endorsement of the subject matter in the quoted post, only as a reflection on what I thought was a humorous component therein.
  11. "Albertan legal firms espouse racist hiring practices" might be a discussion worth having, but I take issue with the advice telling people to just give up on that basis. I think the real issue with finding a job is the glut in the legal profession; having been exposed to racists in my own life, I know that they can be shockingly discriminatory in their personal life, but as business owners they're not stupid and (usually) won't risk not taking the best they can get (and taking a hit to their bottom line). Fact is if there are 40 applicants for a position with the same credentials for one position they're going to take the white one all things being equal; they're also going to take the straight one, or the male one. Discrimination is real, and not to be downplayed, but it's hardly unique to law, and I resent the assertion that one shouldn't enter this specific field for that specific reason. I realize this is a weird (and potentially stupid) argument, but if discrimination is a reason not to go into a career then you're screwed no matter what you do.
  12. Accepted (by email) today! cGPA: 3.62 L2: 3.49 B2: 3.73 LSAT: 162 (single write) Last year of MSc (4.0/4.0 GPA), one research paper in a good journal (only from my undergrad and only third author though... lol) Otherwise weak ECs, PS (who knows), two LoRs from my research supervisors
  13. Accepted (by email) today! cGPA: 3.62 L2: 3.49 B2: 3.73 LSAT: 162 (single write) Last year of MSc (4.0/4.0 GPA), one research paper in a good journal (only from my undergrad and only third author though... lol) Otherwise weak ECs, PS (who knows), two LoRs from my research supervisors I think about two weeks ago? I think the schools are getting into the meaty processing phase now that the 3.9 GPA / 175 LSATs seem to have been done
  14. Makes sense. I say follow your heart, but keeping in mind what Eisenhower said about plans being useless but planning being essential. Better to overthink the crap out of a whole bunch of possibilities and just pick whichever one, so you at least can understand what you're getting into with any choice and roughly know how it will unfold, rather than commit to one to the exclusion of all others and not be able to respond to changing circumstances/realities. But you don't need me to tell you that lol.
  15. Response: Idk it seems like you're working backward from "I want a law degree" and coming up with reasons along the way. Which is fine, and you should do what you want, but I'd be worried that maybe your getting a little bit into the sunk-cost fallacy. I'm sure there are other ways to advance professionally if that's what you want, maybe as am CPA in the private sector?
  • Create New...