Jump to content

Pyke

Members
  • Content Count

    9370
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    57

Pyke last won the day on November 10 2020

Pyke had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3724 Good People

1 Follower

About Pyke

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

10125 profile views
  1. Hello folks. I realize almost all of you who are looking for articling jobs for 2022-2023 will probably be up to date on all the cool opportunities out there, much more so than a grumpy old guy like me, anyway, so I rarely share opportunities I come across. That said, this morning I came across this opportunity with the CMA, which was different and I haven't seen it before (maybe it's every year, I don't know). I have no connection to the CMA or this practice area, but anyway, here's a link to their career's page: https://recruiting.ultipro.ca/CAN5006CAMD/JobBoard/530dafdc-25d3-49da-b484-53b130441e25/OpportunityDetail?opportunityId=e44c90f9-0116-4e4c-ba1a-efd5448d7466. I think the deadline is May 25. Cheers!
  2. Seriously, the ROI is almost certainly not there (at least based on my observations of the labour market). Strongly consider doing something else.
  3. I sincerely believe that our standard on this website should change. I realize that there are good reasons, from a collective perspective, to prohibit people from deleting posts. I realize that people may choose to benefit from participation and then remove personal information after they have benefited. I realize that there are many warnings that posts are forever. I realize that there is a potential cost to changing this standard. However, I think we need to seriously consider the fact the impact on our users. There are very real consequences for not allowing the deletion of posts. I know Uriel meant well with his post from May 3, 2012, that Posts are Forever, but thins have changed dramatically since then. The world is not the same place - data aggregators and data analytics are at far different points than they were then. The concept of anonymity has been robustly and consistently shredded. It's simply not possible that for those of us with thousands of posts, that our identities could not be (relatively easily, at that) reverse engineered. I actually take a different take than Uriel on the issue of where our responsibilities lie - I am not so sure I agree with him (a pronoun choice which may or may not reveal something about the individual) on the subject that we somehow are in a difficult position if a user asks to take down posts they should not have made. The thing is, it's easy for Uriel to write "Please do your very best not to write anything you wouldn't stand behind in real life" - I know Uriel. There are people who would really struggle with that. They may wish to engage in legitimate discussions, in a public forum, with something less than there true identity. That is not necessarily an unreasonable expectation. People do not act the same way at home, in their backyard, or even at their community center, as they do at the workplace. It's not as simple as "this is a professional forum, so act professionally" either. There are different degrees of professional, for different audiences, at different points in time. Pretending otherwise is a bit silly. I think the responsible - and only reasonable thing to do - is to give people some agency over their identity. I don't see any compelling reason not to. I really hope we reconsider the policy. P.S.: I know I am going to take a lot of flak for this post. A lot of people are going to assume there's some post I'm concerned about or that I have some self-interested motivation. Others are going to wonder what the reasons for this are - what prompted it, now. Those who know me best may know I could - if this were another forum where I was prepared to reveal more, provide much more support for my position. But, it is what it is. Just because a topic is going to generate negative consequences for you, doesn't mean you should remain silent because it's the easy thing to do.
  4. But... why? I ask this sincerely. I read your post - it doesn't sound like you know much about what being a lawyer is, except that you don't want to work in litigation or criminal law. Fair enough, there's plenty of "other" legal work (although, as others have pointed out, there is plenty of litigation work in government). There's also a lot of "law adjacent" jobs that a law degree is not necessarily required for, but for which you may have a competitive advantage with a law degree. Of course, law school is pretty expensive (both outright and in opportunity cost), so this needs to be factored in. You say that you want "regular 40 hour work weeks" and "work life balance". These are words not generally attributable to being a lawyer. Sure, there are lawyers with these characteristics, but you also want to add on top of that a bunch of other variables that are uncommon in "law". They're not uncommon in "government" as you fairly point out, but then you don't need to be a lawyer to have those things in "government". In fact, I may make the argument that you're more likely to have some of them as a non-lawyer in government. If you want to become a lawyer, I don't want to dissuade you, but I do think it may be worth your time to figure out why exactly you think you want to be a lawyer, and then figure out what is more important (because it may be incompatible, at least for some stages of your career, with some of the other things you want).
  5. If your goal is a government job, why do you need it to be as a lawyer?
  6. These threads are always interesting to me for the simple reason that I wonder at times what people's expectations are in the far future. Take a person who has been practicing law for 25 years. Do you think if they apply for a job, the recruiter is likely to care where they went to school? I mean, it's possible, maybe they share an alma mater, but most of the time, it's not going to make much of a difference. How about 10 years out? I mean, I guess if you went to a Canadian law school versus a foreign program, it could make a difference, but in most cases I think the recruiter is, once again, not likely to care. How about 5 years out? Maybe it makes a difference in the private sector, because perhaps it's indicative of other background variables that someone has not had the time to develop a reputation independent of their education. Of course, many places are going to interview based on fit, and so while school could play a part of this, other factors would probably matter more. In the public sector, I would suggest that with specific objective criteria for hiring, that almost certainly don't include "school choice" (especially as between two very strong Canadian law schools), it's going to matter virtually not at all. How about for your very first job? Arguably it can, and does, make a difference in terms of how likely it is you get in the door in the first place - you may have more willingness for organizations to give you a shot - but there's a lot of generalities here, and once again, this is generally assuming you're going to the private sector. I would suggest in the public sector that other things are going to be far more important. In short, I think you're asking the wrong question. Where do you think is better for you personally and professionally to exceed and achieve the goals you want. I suspect you could make a compelling pitch for either option, depending on personal circumstances and what you think you want to do. That's a much better approach.
  7. Only agreeable if the contract also recognizes that we have bigger guns.
  8. I actually think Fort Tiddlywinks has now been upgraded to Citadel Tiddlywinks and I would like it to be renamed accordingly.
  9. On second thought, I liked it the original way. Put it back.
  10. I reject your interpretation. My experience as a wolf tells me that mine is better.
  11. Everyone knows you need to include the city and postal code. Duh.
  12. When I attended the University of Toronto, the tuition was under $20,000 a year in my first year. The tuition went up the maximum prescribed amount every year. We had access to a student line of credit and generous financial aid policies, but I still ended up with pretty significant student debt which I have not yet completely paid off. I really enjoyed my time at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law. I think it is an excellent school and the peers are truly world class. I made some great friendships there and think it was a valuable thing to do. I have lots of great memories - and some silly, non-repeatable ones, like being in the intersection of Yonge and Bloor jumping up and down with a law school classmate after Team Canada won gold in hockey in 2010 (which definitely dates me)... Obviously those memories would be completely different if I had gone elsewhere, and therefore, I don't "regret" the decision... but, if I was to go back in time, and advise myself on what I should have done, no question I would have recommended to go to McGill. Unless you're sure that you want to work in downtown Toronto at a big law firm (and, honestly, how could you be sure of that?), the opportunity cost is just too high, in my opinion. I will say this though, whether you decide to enroll there or not, you'll never know if your life would have been better if you had picked the other path. You may be able to guess it would have been different, but better? Impossible to say, and dependent on so many small variables. Maybe the love of your life is at place X and you go to place Y, or maybe by being in place X you get hit by a car on your 3rd week of your 2nd year... It's impossible to speculate what the future holds or what, objectively, would have been better, because that isn't how life works. The post on the first page about how, the poster makes the same as their colleagues on Bay Street despite paying half as much, maybe had they gone somewhere else they would have had a different career, or maybe if their colleagues had gone elsewhere, they wouldn't have made it to Bay Street. All you can really do is pick the one that you think is going to be right for you, and then dive in. After all, most of the time, the pool will at least have water, even if it ultimately turns out to be different than what you expected.
  13. I was told about 1/2 to 2/3rds of the way through my articles, that I was well liked by group X in area Y, and that it would be a good opportunity to be brought back. I wasn't sure I wanted to do just area Y, so I indicated I was okay with doing it some of the time, but not all of the time. I ended up not hired back, and the firm hired externally for area Y. Would they have hired me instead? I don't know. Years later, I probably would be okay with area Y. Your mileage on this advice may vary.
  14. I expressly said I had only skimmed the act and was having a broader philosophical discussion...
×
×
  • Create New...