Jump to content

kiamia

Members
  • Content Count

    2221
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

kiamia last won the day on June 28 2017

kiamia had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1565 Good People

1 Follower

About kiamia

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1799 profile views
  1. I don't know how the general clinics work, but from the student clinic perspective, we take on clients that rake in too much dough to meet the certificate thresholds e.g. single people upwards of $22K/year. We also take in clients for things that LAO doesn't provide certificates for - certain types of criminal charges, LTB, small claims etc. As I said before, when you're making brutal cuts, you obviously keep what you absolutely have to, and see what you can do with the rest. Are the clinics 100% necessary? Maybe not, in the sense the we're not talking about life/death issues. But it is another swath of people/strata of society who will likely not be able to access their legal rights.
  2. We could easily work out a compromise here. We don't want the provinces coming up w/ the rules while using only federal gov't money. But they could, say, split the cost of legal aid certificates in agreed upon areas of law. That way the provinces would still be incentivized to make the most efficient rules. Then you just have to come up with a way (easier said than done) that makes sure the provinces put the "windfall" they get from being able to spend less on certificates into the rest of the court/justice system. The problem with the current situation is a) they moved money out even before securing any money from the feds, and b) the money is probably going to go towards something stupid, like beer.
  3. Well the CBC article is saying that the province is asking for the federal gov't to make up the shortfall in refugee aid of $45 million. But they're still looking to cut ~$130 and then ~160 million. [As a rough estimate, about 12% of the certificates LAO has recently issued is for immigration/refugee matters https://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/publications/quarterly-report-2017-18-q4.asp and the federal gov't already puts in some funding - $16M this year for refugee stuff https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ontario-legal-aid-funding-cut-1.5095058] Legal Aid is already underfunded, and has been for a number of years. You've had people scouring for efficiencies and ways to save money long before this. They would've shaken all the trees and gotten a lot of the low-hanging fruit. The question is how much more you can squeeze out of the system, and it can't possibly be as much as Ford thinks. Assuming the federal gov't steps up, you're still talking about a ~25% budget cut. Which is massive, for budgets that are already stretched. And for the record, it's not clear that Ford has found any real "efficiencies" yet with anything - so far he's just cutting everything, and it looks like it's just going to be a reduction in services. Edit: I'll add that I think the only strategy you have for these types of budget cuts is to completely cut the less essential programs and take a slice from all the essential ones and hope everything holds together (think a very advanced Jenga game, where each piece you take out is going to be a group of people losing some access to justice).
  4. The problem is that disenfranchising the poor and marginalized is a feature of these changes, not a bug. That's the whole point. If it was simply mean as a consequence, like the child autism funding mess, then I would say that pressure and advocacy might be able to do something. And if we weren't talking about disabled children, which tends to rile the public up, they wouldn't have (sort of) relented. But let's face it, legal services for people earning <$15K on the public's dime isn't going to be a political pressure point. Not to this government. And they don't care about making sure the system runs smoothly. I'm normally all about advocacy, but in this instance I don't see any way to stop it.
  5. Western has a ton of moots during the year, and I think first years can do all but a couple of them. I had friends doing at least 6+ in their first year (maybe even as many as 8-10). But I don't know if that's necessarily the problem. Certainly firms like ECs, but I had plenty of friends with good grades get jobs without them. I think firms like hearing you talk about something relevant to their practice with knowledge and enthusiasm. So if you can't draw on clinic experience or moots, some in-depth research in an area of law that a firm practices, and the firm itself, should be able to get you there. Lawyers are evidence-based creatures, and everything you say/claim in an interview should be supported by something you've done. As everyone has said, by the final stages, firms would be happy with most of the students on their list, and have to differentiate you in some way. I've found that "fit" means mostly how much someone wants to work with you (or, in the student context, how much someone wants to have you work for them). Enthusiasm for both the work and the firm goes a long way there, and I'd almost say that it was necessary to get a job. Because if you don't show it, someone else will.
  6. You're going to have to be more specific. Nobody is going to go through the school and make a photo tour for you. There are probably pictures already online we can point you to as well (although probably not of some places eg. the bathrooms). If you can tell us what you want, you'll have a greater chance of getting it. If anything, it might be worse that you're not actually using any of this to make a decision. You've already decided to go to Western, and you're just complaining because you don't think you're getting your money's worth. Nobody is holding a gun to anybody's head forcing them to go to any particular school. It's all a cost-benefit analysis. If you don't think it's worth it, for whatever reason, don't do it. And my problem isn't so much that you're complaining about the building. If you don't like it, that's your prerogative. I don't like that you are implying that the decision-makers at the law school don't care about the students, or saying outright that they don't value the faculty. Law school is going to be challenging, and the job search is probably going to be worse. Now I'm confident that if I go to the school and told anyone I needed help, that person will be at least willing to listen to my problems and offer advice (up to and including the Dean). And they're going to try to help me as much as they can. So I couldn't care less that the classrooms aren't all perfectly climate-controlled. I'm sorry to say that we do, almost consistently, have toilet paper.
  7. Even if we accept the premise that Western has access to more cash flows than other schools (which is based on fairly minimal data as profreader pointed out), I would argue that spending it on large unnecessary capital projects to keep the building "on par" would be one of the dumber ways to use the money. Most law schools are trying to improve their reputation with the public, their standing in the legal community, quality of students and graduates, etc. Other than students at any particular school, most other people won't see the law building or, if they do, will be around for brief visits and won't care. There is no "Law Building Quarterly", showcasing the niceness of the buildings to the rest of the world. The only thing it might do, although I still doubt it, is impact a few application decisions in a small way. Is that worth tens of millions of dollars? If you really think it's important, nobody is forcing you to attend. But I think it's a strange thing to be complaining about. As a student, I can assure you that the niceness of the building, on its own or compared to other law schools, has never been a concern.
  8. Learn/finish learning that language you were always meaning to work on. Figure out some simple meals to make, if you don't cook for yourself much. Find a way to become physically active and make it a habit. Get a good circadian rhythm and sleeping habit going, so you're not up trawling ls.ca at 2 in the morning.
  9. What pinkroses said. I don't think any of the negatives would/should affect your decision over other more important factors. For example, besides general important stuff like curriculum and tuition, consider what city you want to be in, proximity to your family/friends/SO, where housing better/cheaper/more convenient, other cost of living considerations, professors and teaching style, extracurriculars (we have a ton of moots), social stuff, learning experience (eg. our small group system) etc. I don't think the niceness of the building should really matter unless everything else breaks completely even. Except if there are critical weaknesses to the surroundings, which I think the consensus is that there aren't any. That being said, visiting campus and getting a sense of the surroundings, the other students, the opportunities etc. is probably something you should do if you absolutely can. For example, how does London make you feel? How do the other students make you feel? How do you like Western's campus? etc. etc. Edit: Also consider where you want to work after you graduate. If you want to work in South-Western ON and aren't from around here, a general connection of going to Western is better than nothing.
  10. I actually love the law building, but that might be a personal preference. I find the charm of the older building fits well with the study of law. But no, the building's not particularly new and doesn't have a 'recently renovated' feel. There are also temperature control issues in a couple of the classrooms. But aside from that, I don't have any other complaints. There's nothing that would justify deciding against Western if you had otherwise chosen to attend (e.g. overcrowding, having to take classes in different buildings, wi-fi problems, etc.) Plus, we have Lianne, who is worth at least 5 shiny new buildings.
  11. I generally agree with Diplock above. I will also add that if you're really the sister of a 3L (and this isn't an "asking for a friend"-type question) but have no understanding of being a law student looking for a job yourself, she's might not really appreciate your career assistance. Nor is you telling her "Hey, it's not that bad - people on the internet have said so" going to make her feel much better. We hate hearing that from anyone. Just be her sister; take her out, listen to her, and convince her to get some more mental health help if you think what she needs is above your pay grade. Notwithstanding what I wrote above, know that she really isn't doing that bad. She's getting interviews - just not closing the deal. That's a tough spot to be in but it happens to a lot of us before we get the right job. From what I've read from others on the site, a lot of people go through way more than 10-20 interviews. She might have to go on many more, reach out to many more people, and experience a lot more rejection. You have to be prepared for that too. There are no easy fixes here and she's competing with a lot of quality students still in her position (and yes, there are still a lot). See paragraph above. As I said, there are a lot of good students out there. Any out-of-province firm is going to lean in favour of students with a connection to the region, so it's going to be a tough wall to get over. It's possible, but the costs may not be worth it - especially if she wants to stay in TO. I understand the desire to help. And perhaps if you're very close, she might even welcome it. But be cognizant of the need to back off with the job searching advice. Sometimes the best thing you can do is listen. Ask her some questions to find out more, and maybe you can tailor those questions to some of the advice on these forums (there are a lot of threads for students trying to find articles) ie. asking her about how she's networking, asking her about how she's feeling through the process, asking her if she has plans to approach the next interview differently, etc. But don't just bombard her with suggestions because she's definitely given all of this more thought than you have.
  12. No guests at the reception - that really would be memorable; but lots of parents at the open house (although not many significant others irrc).
  13. I just wore a nice blouse when I went, with dress pants and heels. But a lot of people wore a blazer of some type, or a business-appropriate dress. If you're someone who stresses out about being underdressed, then wear a blazer. But honestly, nobody cares. Very little is remembered from these kinds of events unless you go out of your way to be memorable. Just go and mingle, get some questions answered if you have them, and let the recruiters and staff try and sell the school to you.
  14. Look, you can start with S in, and nothing happens. But sooner or later, you will still have to add the G or H. As soon as that happens, the conditions that relate to them kick in. When 7Sage draws the big long chain that starts with /S, that doesn't mean that if S is in, the rest of your chain is now invalid. Each part of the chain still stands on its own. Edit (to elaborate): so anything on the left side of any of those small arrows will be sufficient to trigger the thing on the pointy end of the arrow. So start with S. Now cover up the first part of your chain "/S ->" because it's no longer relevant. But you still have to follow the rest of it. As soon as you add J or M or H, you have to kick out G and W.
×
×
  • Create New...