Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

52 Decent People

About richelieu

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was just offering some advice, based on my experience. For the record, I'm doing law school because I got experience working with the law during my undergrad and I have a pretty good idea of what I'm getting myself into. The only thing I was getting at is that you're only just finished first year. A lot can change in undergrad. Also, it was specifically this line that made me comment: I just gave my advice the same as I've given other first years in a similar position. It's not meant as an insult. If it doesn't apply, just ignore it, and maybe it'll be helpful for someone reading the thread later.
  2. I never said they were bad reasons, or that no one should do big law. Some people enjoy it, I have enough corporate experience to know that I wouldn't. I meant reasons for practicing law, in general. From my perspective, their post didn't give a lot of reasons they were interested in law instead of anything else that might put you in a corporate office. So @thedraper, my only advice was to figure out what actually appeals to you about big law. I thought I knew what I wanted to do in high school, and I was wrong. Then I thought I knew what I wanted to do do in first year, and that was wrong, too. etc. Do big law if it'll make you happy, just make sure it'll make you happy first.
  3. Finish your degree, even if you don't want a career in history. Do you want to potentially fail out of/leave law school and have no degree? That's what you're risking. Followup question: why do you even want to do law? For me, I want a job where I can help people and further a cause, and I enjoy research and writing. Do your research. If you can't answer that question, don't go to law school. You'll save yourself a lot of money and headaches.
  4. richelieu

    Trinity Western drops mandatory covenant

    https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/85-002-x/2015001/article/14191-eng.pdf?st=Xk-kaV4O Jewish people faced 54 hate crimes per 100k, and Muslims faced 6.2 hate crimes per 100k. In comparison, Catholics faced 0.22 per 100k. And anti-Catholic hate crimes were far more likely to be property crimes such as vandalism of cemetaries. No crimes against non-Catholic Christians are reported. The claim that contempt for Christians is worse than Muslims or Jewish people is absurd and not based in reality. Like I said before, it's a persecution complex.
  5. richelieu

    Trinity Western drops mandatory covenant

    Because Christians are a huge majority and almost all major positions of power are held by Christians, particularly the PM's office, the GG and the Crown. How many Muslim PMs have we had? Hindu Supreme Court justices? What about Jewish GGs? And while it's hard to find exactly what religion Canada's wealthiest people are, I don't see any Muhammads on the Top 10. And of course, the Queen is the head of a Christian church. The upper class in this country are overwhelmingly Christian or of Christian background.
  6. richelieu

    Improving Your Application for Articling

    I'm just going to bookmark this for the future. Thanks, @QueensGrad
  7. richelieu

    Trinity Western drops mandatory covenant

    BQ, I never said everyone on the left believed anything. I just pointed out that you were putting words in people's mouths. And you still are.
  8. richelieu

    Trinity Western drops mandatory covenant

    I'm a leftist, and also a Catholic - I don't want an Islamic law school. Leftists are the godless atheist pinko commie-socialists, remember? I don't want any religious law schools. I've been super, super clear on that. It's amazing how you people just construct scenarios in your head to justify your own perceived victimhood. I know the law skews conservative, but I didn't know this forum was "War on Christmas" right wing. Good god.
  9. richelieu

    Trinity Western drops mandatory covenant

    The covenant being gone is immaterial, to me. Religious groups period shouldn't get law schools for all the reasons I stated, and the fact that this school used its religious beliefs to justify discrimination via the covenant is illustrative of why, but isn't the problem in and of itself.
  10. richelieu

    Trinity Western drops mandatory covenant

    The idea that the right to freedom of religion extends to the right to have a Christian law school is absurd. Saying that every religious group is allowed by right of religious freedom to set up a law school is an unbelievably broad interpretation of freedom of religion, especially considering that no one in general has a right to go to law school. Having a religion that sincerely believes I must go to law school or I'll go to hell, doesn't and shouldn't get me anything. Having a religion that sincerely believes that you can only go to a law school with other men doesn't mean you can set up a gender-segregated law school. And regardless of your insisting otherwise, TWU is a Christian university. 80% of the students are Christian. Compared to the country (67% Christian), and especially when compared to their generational cohort (30% irreligious), the students at TWU are extremely religious. Saying "oh, it's a Christian university, but really anyone can go" simply isn't true. Formally, yes, anyone can go, but the university is very explicit : "if you come here, you are expected to adhere to Christian values." And if you were a practicing Muslim (or anything else, really), then you would reasonably find that onerous. You would reasonably feel that you were excluded from applying to one of Canada's law schools on the basis of genuinely held religious beliefs. So what's the legal argument that allows this law school to segregate by religion?
  11. You said: "Increases in tuition have been shown to increase enrolment by marginalized communities as the sticker-price students subsidize financial aid for the marginalized groups" I said: "There is no evidence for this, because as tuition has increased, fewer minorities, proportionally speaking, attend law school." That was the whole exchange. You made a claim, it's false. I substantiated why, you dodged it and responded with pithy one-liners. I'm ducking out, because this is like talking to a brick wall.
  12. Who cares? The "raw numbers" population of Ontario has increased by 3 million since 1997. It's proportions and per capita rates that matter. To analyze the changes in a subset of the population, you have to analyze the changes in the set as a whole. This is high school level statistical analysis. We've seen dramatic increases in tuition, and the representation of minority students in law school got worse. To be incredibly clear, the percentage of minority students increased, but at a much lower rate than the population - the general population increased more than 50% faster than the law school population. Given the respective growth rates, if the ratio of minority law students to minority people in Ontario was 1:10000 in 1996, it would be nearly 1:11000 in 2004. And we still can't conclude the effects of tuition deregulation on this rate of change because there's no counterfactual. And the data is 14 years old! You're just factually wrong, and the survey you so confidently claimed would clearly show you were right completely contradicts you.
  13. Here is the report BQ keeps mentioning but not linking. The report is from 2004 - 7 years after deregulation and 14 years ago. Considering the study is twice as old as the deregulation period it was studying, drawing any conclusions from it is... difficult, to say the least. Deregulation has now been in effect for not 7 years, but 21 years. The effects wouldn't be linear. Interesting observations: Students with declared disabilities had increased from 7% to 9%, but increasing rates of diagnosis for common disabilities like dyslexia, autism and ADD could reasonably explain this. All indicators of socioeconomic status saw at least some increase between 97 and 04 - parents were more educated, with higher status careers, and higher income, although only slightly. Students in the poorest 20% went from 0.8% to 0.5%. Far too negligible to draw any meaningful conclusions. Students in the top 20% increased from 27% to 34%, at the expense of middle-income students. But what's particularly interesting is the claim that law schools are more diverse than before. Is that true? The report says so, but I disagree. 20% of graduates considered in the study were non-white. In 2004, 24% of students were non-white. That's a 20% increase over 8 years. But what about the population of Ontario? StatsCan states that in 1996, 15.8% of Ontarians were a visible minority. In 2006, 22.8% were. That's an increase of 31% over 10 years. So from roughly 1996-1997 to 2004-2006, Ontario's visible minority population increased by 31%, while the population in law schools increased by only 20%. In fact, in relation to the population of Ontario, law schools have actually gotten less diverse and less representative of the population, as they've failed to keep up with population changes. I don't have anything to compare it to before deregulation, so connecting deregulation of tuition as a cause is completely baseless. So from whatever spurious conclusions we can draw from a 14-year-old survey on the matter, "higher tuition improves the accessibility of law schools" is not one of them. BQ, it's like you didn't even read the report.
  14. My dad was a first generation student and one of 10 children. He paid $1200 in tuition at UofT in the '70s. 'Higher tuition benefits poorer students' is a bold claim, and I don't buy it. I know what it was like for self-funded students in the 1970s and I know what it's like now, from my friends whose parents are out of the picture. My dad entered the workforce with $0 in debt. No awards, no scholarships. Tell me how many self-funded C students enter the workforce with $0 in debt in 2018.
  15. richelieu

    Trinity Western drops mandatory covenant

    I actually agree with @pzabbythesecond insofar as the distinction between positive and negative rights is muddy, to put it mildly. I disagree with their interpretation of discrimination, though. If my religion demands I go to a school which only admits white people, that is not something which would be allowed, and rightfully so. Race and religion are both protected classes - why is a school that only admits professed Christians to the exclusion of Muslims, Jewish people, etc. any different from a school that would only admit white people?