Jump to content

Diplock

Members
  • Content Count

    6779
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    330

Diplock last won the day on November 16

Diplock had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

13303 Good People

About Diplock

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

26501 profile views
  1. By all means, apply access. And tell them that the primary reason you believe you qualify as an access applicant is because you're afraid you don't qualify as a general applicant. Also tell them about your troubling experiences at the LSAT that explain your lower-than-expected score at your third attempt, which would otherwise have been so much better than your first and second attempts. It probably seems like I'm beating up on the OP but I'm really not. There's nothing less than respectable about the OP's GPA, LSAT, and nothing bad even about their attitude really. The fact is, they may struggle to gain admissions to many/most law schools simply because admission is competitive. But I cannot endorse the idea that when the facts are inconvenient to your purposes you simply manufacturer new facts, and decide that maybe the reason you can't do better on the LSAT in 2020 is because you immigrated as a refugee at six years-old twenty years ago. It's a ridiculous claim that doesn't make you look like someone who could have gotten better than 161 on the LSAT with a fairer chance. It makes you look like someone who got a 161 on the LSAT but also has a tenuous grasp on reality. My criticism is aimed mainly as other people who want to advise the OP away from their otherwise reasonable attitude and into ridiculous attitudes they may be motivated to embrace simply because they offer some promise of leading where they want to go. Please, don't get suckered in that way. You're better as a marginal candidate to law school with a positive attitude, than as a marginal candidate to law school with messed-up ideas of trying to present yourself as a victim somehow in the hope of gaining admission on that basis. In all events, good luck.
  2. I don't have much to contribute to the original question asked that hasn't been said already. How do you minimize debt in law school? Limit money going out and try to increase money coming in. The strategies suggested here are reasonable (mostly). But it's that simple. I'd add one wrinkle why it's not a good idea to focus excessively on this goal, however, and that's not only because maintaining a certain lifestyle is desirable for both good (mental and physical health) and less good (fun) reasons. There are also times you simply need to either spend more money or else make less money to get the most out of the experience of being in law school. And you shouldn't let being frugal limit your choices excessively. I want to say "not at all" but that's unrealistic. Just be very careful about letting economy drive those choices for you. The fact is, investing in your legal education is a huge choice and a major "asset" in your life. It can't be sold like a real asset, so it's scary to bank on it. It's only worth what your career turns into. But it's still a major investment and overall a very good bet. Spending a ton of money on that education and then not maximizing what you get out of it only to save a little bit extra is bad economy - like taking a trip to the other side of the world and then restricting your budget for eating in restaurants when you get there, or renovating your house with the best of everything and then using cheap fixtures. It's just dumb. Treat your experience in law school as a valuable thing you're paying a lot of money to get everything out of. And if that includes volunteering unpaid at a clinic, participating in mooting, working on the law review, publishing something, whatever - do what you actually want to do when you're there. Make the time. This even includes making friends and spending time with then - and yes, that means spending money on entertainment, eating out, etc. These contacts may be very important to your future. You do all of this not just to enjoy your life and get value from what you paid for, but because these are the opportunities that will contribute to your future career. Which is also how you repay that monster fucking debt when you're done. Good luck.
  3. Yeah, this. I'd add, it's not actually true that you need to do what everyone else does. Those common approaches may or may not actually line up with your interests, goals, and inclinations. But the herd mentality can be very hard to resist if you aren't prepared for it. So try to ensure you're regularly checking in with your own priorities rather than just doing what "everyone does."
  4. See that's where I just...look. You want to relax once you've got your job lined up and before you actually start doing the job and that I can understand. If you'd stopped there I'd agree with you entirely. But then you throw in this crap about a bell curve that's apparently what's pushing you to the brink of sanity and claim it's somehow "arbitrarily set" and that's just obviously ridiculous. It isn't the numbers or the letters of the curve that's pushing you. Those are just representations of the competition around you. Your performance as a law student could be measured on a colour scale ranging from emerald to vermilion and the difficulty associated with coming out on top of that scale so you can get the big job you want wouldn't have anything to do with some professor making it hard to achieve the hue you're aiming for - it would be the other students around you trying to be better than you are. That's always what it is. And they'll be waiting for you in the workforce too. I'm not pretending that it's easy. I'm not even saying you should want the sort of big law job that everyone else is gunning for. I sure as hell don't want that. But I'd have to admit, I traded that kind of pressure and competition for other kinds of pressure and competition, and my work is hardly stress-free as a result. I'm just saying, it doesn't go away. And it never will. There may be periods of greater pressure and periods of relative ease where you try to restore yourself. But if you find the stress and competition generally to be a non-stop push that you're just hoping to end at some point...that's unrealistic. And I say that not to encourage you or anyone to tolerate the intolerable. I say that to encourage you to calibrate your tolerance level accordingly, and find what you can sustain. And yes, that's exactly what people are asking when they say "now that I've got to X, does it matter if I do well anymore or can I just coast?" The hope that past success against competition will avoid the need for continued success against competition is not just implied by that question - it's the direct point of the inquiry.
  5. I find it ridiculous how many people have asked, in various different ways, when they can succeed enough to get to the point where they stop working hard at all, and can coast on their past success to unlimited further success. The answer is never. At least not in a legal career. If you make a pile of money and want to just invest it in the market then maybe. But as a working lawyer, never. You are always going to be competing against people who are talented and work hard to try to get what you have and be better than you are at it. Those people want your clients, want your job, etc. And no matter how much you may have succeeded in the past, no one is going to keep giving you things for the rest of your life if you are lazy and no longer able to do your job well. Why the hell should they? The form of competition changes. And sure, you can coast for periods of time on reputation, past success, and so on. You can also stop working as hard once you've done as well as you need to do, got to where you want to be, earned enough money to ease up, etc. But all of these questions are aimed at the idea that maybe if you accelerate hard enough you can keep on blasting to the top of the legal hierarchy on momentum alone. And that is never, ever, ever going to happen. Just so you know.
  6. This is going to be dickish, but I don't care. OP expressed concerns about serious issues she (going by avatar, 'cause why not) is experiencing in law school, this thread filled up with good advice, some of which needs further information to become most useful, and in a week since she hasn't bothered returning. I think we've diagnosed some of the problem. As I noted before, there are a variety of ways to have objectively successful and also subjectively rewarding careers in law. But aiming only for what you think you're supposed to want because it's hardest to get is a recipe for disappointment. Doing that when you are not yourself willing to compete at that level is futile and ridiculous. The students who gun for those kinds of careers are up at 2am doing whatever it is to get what they want. Here, we're looking at someone who has just enough motivation to complain on a message forum that she doesn't know how to get it, but not quite enough motivation to reply to people who are trying to help her. Stop looking for a magic wand and figure out what you are actually motivated enough to do well. That's what all good advice is going to boil down to.
  7. No. I can't. And maybe language is insufficient to the point we're discussing, but you know what I'm saying is true and just about everyone does, even when phrasing it in a sentence may be difficult. Someone says, "this is what I experienced, this is how I grew up, this is what I lived through, and so this is why I do this now." You say, "okay, I understand why you do this now." They say, "you understand what I just told you as information, but you don't really understand why." Look. Whether at this point we're talking about the experience of being radicalized, or the experience of living with real, gut-gnawing hunger, or living through a genocide, it's all someone else's life that you haven't lived and someone else's experiences that you haven't shared. No matter how you deploy language, it's arrogant, insulting, and utterly infuriating to suggest that being told about it by other people - that simply hearing the information as a story - gives you the same level of insight into the experience as someone who's lived it. That claim is simply beyond the pale. So, sure. You may "understand why." But you'll never understand why. And we all need to acknowledge that. Even when we're arguing with someone we disagree with.
  8. I actually don't think that it is. And I know that I'm arguing up the middle against two sides that are arguing against each other right now, but there can be ignorant extremism on both sides of this issue. It's unfair and rather sad to assume that white people cannot understand that diversity is important to a racialized person. I like to believe I can understand something like that as true, to riff off my point above, and to incorporate that truth into a framework of advice, information, etc. But that's not what you are quoting. It's completely fair to state that white people cannot understand why diversity is important to a racialized person. As in, understanding the qualities of the background and experiences that have created that value and led to it. I mean, come on. That's true of so many things and so many experiences. If someone has gone hungry in the past and now insists on keeping the fridge full at all times, I can understand that the feeling is true but I can't fully understand why it's true. It's simply a part of someone else's life experiences that I don't share. This topic is stupid, and apparently was conceived as such. But despite having my own back up, I don't want to pile stupidity on more stupidity. It's not going to cancel itself out. It just multiplies into more stupidity.
  9. You know, I'm really not here to make this into an argument. Though considering the OP's questionably good-faith in starting the thread initially, maybe there's no other purpose to this now. But I'm honestly not even sure what I'm being called out for. You say this sort of priority can be important to people. I don't disagree with either that statement as truth, or with someone choosing to have this priority when they have it. I was explicitly clear I'm not questioning anyone's priorities. Then I stated something of my own as truth. That this priority - however or whyever it may be held - will be limiting. You haven't disagreed with that statement either. Then you told me to do more training. Which is honestly a recommendation that I go and get my ideology corrected by more sensitive people than I am. As in, fuck you and your regressive beliefs, but you know, politely. What the holy fuck did I even do that bothered you aside from stating a truth that you would prefer not to be true? We agree on the facts. And if you think I need to be ideologically corrected in terms of pretending that true things aren't true just to make people feel more comfortable, I could argue that you need to be professionally retrained into acknowledging that true things remain true regardless of whether they suck or not, and regardless of your feelings about them, and our jobs as lawyers often involves dealing with true things even when we don't like that they are true. I chose to ignore this the first time. But telling me to go get better training is fucking obnoxious. I've never yet had EDI hours that encouraged me to ignore truth just because it was uncomfortable truth. And even if I had that training, speaking as someone who has delivered CPD myself, I'm not under any illusions that crediting someone with the ability to train others makes their opinions superior in some absolute way. Ideology remains ideology even when it's given a gloss of legitimacy by forcing other people to listen to it and calling it "training." And any ideology that requires me to pretend something isn't true just to make people feel better about the world, rather than dealing with truth and helping them function in the world, is stupid and irresponsible. And antithetical to good lawyering.
  10. Yeah, that's pretty much it. I jumped in with two feet anyway. I could see the whole thing going sideways and I think I pulled it less sideways. Hasn't been locked yet, so that's something. But yeah.
  11. Well, quite simply, there are a lot of professional environments out there where you may not find a lot of diversity, and certainly not a lot of South Asians. And it may not have anything to do with less than positive values or culture. It may be a community where there simply isn't a lot of diversity. It may be a firm that doesn't happen to have a lot of it traditionally, along the vectors you're looking for. Imagine a firm, for example, that was mainly Jewish for a couple of generations in the past. You can't really argue with their tendency to work within their own cultural group right - you've just endorsed that this makes sense to you. So maybe now they're looking to expand outwards, but you're one of the first. Most particularly - this is an issue that's on my radar but not on many students', because they imagine large large firms - you need to remember that many, many legal jobs occur in smaller office environments. It's part of the reality that "small business" collectively accounts for a huge slice of the workforce. In a small office, there may simply not be a lot of diversity due to the rule of small numbers. So, my point is simply this. At the start of your legal career, you probably don't know much about where you might end up or even want to end up in terms of practice area. Maybe you want a government job, or to work as a Crown. The Crown's office as a whole is often very diverse. But not if you need to take your first job in Timmins in order to get in there. Anyway, I didn't intend to write at such length, but I appreciate this discussion is already going semi-sideways. I don't want to be an entitled white guy on this topic, failing to understand how and why someone from a racialized background would want to find diversity in their environments. The Jewish example above wasn't flippant. Today, you hear from people who want Jewish lawyers (I won't unpack those assumptions here) but just a generation or two ago Jews were discriminated against significantly in the workforce, so their tendency to form distinctly Jewish law firms and practices was understandable. But of course today those forces are seen in different groups. At the same time, leaving aside the privilege and potential cluelessness on my part, there's also valid information you may want to consider in the future, and hopefully I've managed to add some context to that.
  12. Yeah, that's fair. And like I said, I'm really not here to argue with anyone's priorities. But it's information that many people/students may not have. Through school, etc. people can self-select into environments where they feel most comfortable without paying almost any price for their choices. The option is basically cost-free. Out in the real world...less so. Sometimes dramatically less so.
  13. I'm not here to argue with your priorities. But if you carry this into legal practice after law school, you're going to severely limit your options. Just saying. Good luck.
  14. Let me make this very simple and cut through the bullshit. Your definition of "good" money isn't grossly unrealistic as an attainable goal, but it's also far above the average income for most people working most jobs. Start from those two basic facts, and everything else that follows is almost common sense. There are many lawyers who do make that kind of money. There are also practicing lawyers who do not. There are many other examples of jobs where people make similarly good money. Those jobs are also competitive to either obtain or to get into the field at all. I've had a client hoping to become a firefighter and a nephew interested in it as well. Do you have any idea how competitive it really is? I sat down with the officers running a training school and they explained it to me. The jobs that do exist may pay well, but they are very hard to get. Bottom line is this. You are hoping for an income that is far above average, and you're looking for a guaranteed way to get it. If there was some guaranteed way to do that, a lot more people would be doing it. Obviously. So the only intelligent answer is this. It's possible to meet your goals in law. There's no guarantee that you will. It's possible to meet them elsewhere too. Again, no guarantees. So do what you're most motivated to do well and excel at. Every other answer is bullshit, including your own instinct to keep looking for some lock-in guarantee. Good luck.
  15. Agree entirely with Mal, and let me add this further context. I have no idea why you imagined you wanted a job on Bay Street, other than that it's the most competitive thing and the thing you're supposed to want. I'm about to throw an unassailable truism at you, and it's going to be a gut punch but it's impossible to argue with this. It's a mistake for all students to go after what's most competitive only because it's what's most competitive. That leads many students down paths that they later regret. But it's especially defeating when you are not, objectively, a competitive applicant. The silver lining in this may be that unlike an actually competitive applicant, you're forced to confront the problem now rather than later. Try defining everything you actually like about legal practice and what you hope and want to do with a law degree. And for fuck's sake, divorce this from what you think other people want, what you think looks most impressive on a CV, etc. What do you actually want to do with your career? People will have more intelligent advice after you do that.
×
×
  • Create New...