Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About GreyDude

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

174 profile views
  1. Thanks! And I wish you success!
  2. If you do check, and if you should you feel so inclined, I'd really appreciate an update. I am planning to apply as a mature student in Fall 2020, and my reading of 'mature' has been 'out of school for more than 5 years' (with 'interrupted studies' meaning that there was an interlude between what you did before and what you're hoping to do now - i.e., go to law school). If it means something else, that could change my approach to the application.
  3. I'm reading this page: http://www.afe.gouv.qc.ca/prets-et-boursesetudes-a-temps-plein/calcul-de-laide/periode-dadmissibilite/ more or less as saying that you run out of support after a certain number of months (fewer for bursaries than for loans). It looks like a year of university is counted as 8 months, so if you have used 22 months, then they figure you've been at it for almost 3 years. I'm assuming you either have finished or are about to finish a degree. However, there are a lot of permutations, particularly at the bottom of the page, and it doesn't seem to account for the possibility of a second degree at the same level, so it's hard to be sure. It does say (on the english version of the page): "The maximum number of months for which financial assistance can be awarded to students enrolled in university or equivalent programs is 88." I'm assuming that this is intended for people who advance from Bachelor's to Master's to Ph.D., but since it's not clear I think I'd call them or send them an email and ask.
  4. This behaviour sounds to me like workplace harassment. I have been reading this thread but not replying, because it makes me want to say a lot. So... sorry for the over-long post. Some of the sentences are also a bit convoluted because I'm trying hard to identify neither the former employer I'm going to mention, nor the supervisor I had a problem with. Also, this is my experience. Many years ago, I had a supervisor who was a bully. I was in a senior management position at the organization I was working for (second in command, on paper, at our location), but my boss would regularly dress me down in public or in front of consultants I had hired, and once or twice in front of clients, normally this was for small things or minor errors, and usually involved shouting. He would also badmouth me to others, and seemed to be actively trying to undermine me, even to my friends and people outside our organization. It was terrible. This was my first year in the type of work we were doing, and I had been given responsibilities I had openly admitted were not yet in my skill set, though I could learn. His response at the beginning had been to say that I was up to the challenge, and that he would help me out where I needed it (my previous supervisor had given me a stellar job review). This was not what ended up happening. Because of the stress at work, I started losing sleep and experiencing deep anxiety. I wanted to quit, but felt trapped. But then, following the advice of my partner at the time, I made a list of all the occasions when this boss had bullied me. I wrote them up in a letter (which came to 3 pages), and made an appointment. The letter was very direct, and accused him of repeated instances of unprofessional behaviour towards me, which I was careful to be able to demonstrate, and for each of which I included the date and location, including the names of witnesses when possible, or the precise day and time of emails, etc. I read this letter aloud during our meeting, stating that if his behaviour did not change, this would be my resignation letter to his supervisor at head office (which is who had hired me). This would have been a very serious complaint, especially if accompanied by the resignation of a senior staffer. I later learned that it would not have been the first complaint, or the first resignation, as a result of this person's behaviour. He immediately responded by promising to change, and for the next several months, things were better. Eventually, he reverted to form, worse than before, but by then I was in a better position to quit, and did so almost immediately (I didn't follow through on my threat to send a letter at that point, though I did ask for an exit interview, where I was praised for my way of handling things. My willingness to directly confront the problem and not simply melt or whine had been reported by a colleague to head office). Quitting that job is a decision I have never regretted (except for the fact that I believed at the time that I would need his recommendation to keep working for the organization, which I would have liked to do. I learned too late that that they would have kept me on at a different location, had I asked for a transfer). From this experience I learned a lesson about bullies in the workplace, and how to deal with them, and I have applied it since. This is personal to me, so YMMV, but here it is: 1) If someone is abusing you, they have abused others. The reason they continue to do so is that they can. Ignoring it is likely to make it worse, not better, and in the process you will almost inevitably lose the respect of many who observe it. 2) Document everything. Deal with the bully in writing as much as possible. 3) The ideal is to change the power relationship. It helps to find leverage, an ally (or allies - unions are useful here), a credible threat, etc., all without yourself acting in any way unethically or illegally, and as far as possible without opening yourself to reprisals.. The right kind of evidence can make the bully back off, but you have to be willing to follow through. Don't bluff. Don't lower yourself. 4) This means, in part, that you have to give yourself permission to quit your job if necessary. A willingness to walk away always strengthens one's negotiating position, except perhaps when the other side wants you to walk away (and if they want to get rid of you, then it seems to me it's not a bad idea to leave on your own terms rather than waiting for them to impose theirs). And if you are forced to quit, then you have to decide, carefully, whether to expose the exact reasons, and in how much detail. Sometimes, that's not what you want to do (for example, I would have done so when I made my initial complaint, by submitting the letter. But I didn't do so when I finally did leave, because by then it seemed to me it might have appeared petty). Remember that your own reputation is in play here as well. If you have to do it, you have to do it right. I gave 8 weeks notice, using the end of my contract as the date I would leave (the contract would normally have been automatically extended). 5) The effect of standing up to my bully has been extremely good for me, psychologically; the effect of initially not standing up, extremely negative. Standing up also earned me the expressed respect of colleagues, and has been good for my career. 6) Should you manage to change the power relationship while remaining in the same workplace with the same supervisor, this is likely to revert over time as your supervisor starts to once again feel comfortable. Your fight will then be more and more difficult over time, so leaving must always remain a live option. You can't guarantee a positive outcome, no matter how you deal with this kind of situation. Since leaving that job, I have had another employer whose management style was also characterised by bullying and intimidation. I drew from my earlier experience and responded more quickly. In the end I was not one of those in my workplace who was treated like a doormat. Please note! I am not telling you what to do; I am telling you what worked for me. I suppose it counts as advice, but your situation is not the same as mine. I'm just distressed by your story.
  5. Ah. The distinction just looked so perfect, I was sure it was a "thing". Silly me.
  6. Well, first of all, the kind of firm you're talking about founding if successful, @RuthlessJazzHands, sounds very much like the kind of firm I'd like to work with in a few years, if I'm admitted to LS (hopefully in the next cycle). I have around a decade of experience as a labour leader, including a couple of years as a contract negotiator on the labour side, so you can see why I think I could fit in that sort of environment. (And, haha, no, I'm not already angling for employment! Just praising your plan and daydreaming a bit. But... let's stay in touch. ). I have no direct knowledge of how law school works (beyond what I can learn here from the forums, and what I've found out by reading and talking with people at law schools). Still, I can't see your background as anything but helpful as you enter LS. Why would it be a hindrance? It seems to me that the ability to draw on a wide experience set should pretty much always be helpful in school generally, and particularly in LS where pretty much all areas of life can be at issue, depending on context. I hope I'm right, since as I said my own background is not entirely dissimilar to yours, though I'm quite a bit older than you and I haven't done labour relations on the employer's side (that said, both my father and brother are HR specialists). And second, I got the Bay Street reference, of course. But I have never encountered this specific distinction before -- what is the Yonge Street side? Is this shorthand for big firm / small firm? Élite / popular? Thanks!
  7. I'm quite sure you're right. Like you, I really do have trouble imagining a school of McGill's caliber having any admissions practices that would either disadvantage applicants or potentially diminish the quality of the class. Thanks! It's going to take some planning, but next fall I'm hoping all my ducks will be in a row so that I can make my applications. (And I'm sure the expression "ducks in a row" will help solidify my geezer status!) Cheers!
  8. I will be applying to law school next year, in the mature category. Hence the moniker. I was poking fun at myself.
  9. You have more experience on which to judge this, of course, and if true, it could be important information for some candidates. But I'll bet McGill would reply that the order files are read is not based on category (with the exception of cégep applications, which arrive in March), and that the timing of offers is done case-by-case, more or less as files are read. That said, there is a strong intuitive case for what you suggest, since the website tells us that many mature candidates are interviewed, and interviews take place between March and May (resulting, I suppose, in April-June offers of admission). At the same time, though, the site doesn't seem to be saying that all eligible mature candidates must be interviewed, and it also says that university applicants may also be interviewed. So there seems to be some wiggle room there. McGill requires you to apply as a mature student if you are "an individual who has interrupted his or her formal education for a minimum of five years," and they give you the same deadlines as everyone else, save for cégep applicants. Basically, if you are in the mature category, you're likely older than average and have been doing something different than most over the last few years. Now, one might argue that it would be unjust to put off consideration of an entire category of applications based primarily on their age and experience, while forcing them to disclose those same things in order to apply. I'm having trouble imagining a law school engaging in that kind of practice. I'm exploring that argument, by the way, not making it, and maybe I'm missing some important details. Or maybe the fact that I'm making a normative case is already missing the point. Since mature candidates are those who been out of school for at least five years, I would agree that caution is warranted overall when the geezers start thinking of returning to school in so demanding a program as Law. But let's also imagine someone, required to apply as mature but who would have been a university applicant six months earlier, who has a stellar file from the admissions committee point of view. Why put off reading that file and making an offer until April/May, when you would have done so in January/February for someone a year younger? What am I missing here?
  10. I can't speak specifically to how law schools might react to your situation, not being a law school (), but I'll apply my first comment to a supposition about them in a moment. However, from the point of view of a college-level teacher with a few years of experience under my belt, I'll say this: I have had students who have done very poorly at first, including some who failed my classes, who have subsequently picked themselves up and exhibited real excellence. Some of these students have stayed in touch over the years, and have gone on to very successful careers in their chosen fields. In order to do so, most have had to work exceptionally hard to overcome their earlier difficulties, but my message to you is that it can be done — and based on your self-described situation, I suspect that you can do it too. It depends to some extent on the specifics of your life, though, so YMMV. As for what law schools will say... well, I can't tell you, but I'll speculate and others with more experience can either correct me or back me up. I believe from reading the forums that many law schools take a hard look at your progress and not just your starting point. So my opinion is that if you stay focused and achieve excellent results from now on (which it sounds like you have started to do), it is at least possible that many law schools will take your application seriously, especially if you do well on the LSAT. I would counsel guarded optimism. Go for plan A. Have a plan B. For now, you have a couple of years to go before finishing your undergrad, and you never know where life will lead you. If you stay focussed and positive, setting goals and working towards them, staying open to the good and putting the bad behind you, you'll succeed even if you don't end up in law school. I wish you well!
  11. This is exactly right. I am even tempted to claim that this is the best way (at least that I know of) to really come to a full understanding of any concept: get yourself to the point where you can explain it to others so that they can (also) understand it. That's one reason I wouldn't worry at all about whether helping others to understand something could be to your disadvantage. Another is that this kind of generosity is (as others have pointed out) likely to be reciprocated. Cooperation works better for learning than competition.
  12. I'm a teacher currently (seriously thinking of applying to law next year, so following discussions here). There is some compelling research, for what it's worth, that tends to show that handwritten notes are best for understanding and retention of class material. While I have not yet experienced the rigours of 1L, it seems to me that from that point of view the idea of taking notes by hand during class and they summarizing them later, using a computer, would be a very effective learning strategy for many people. Just my two cents. Here is a link to the key article on the subject. I don't know how long it will stay active. I found it compelling reading, but the abstract is clear enough on its own.
  • Create New...