Jump to content

LawCS

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

31 Decent People

About LawCS

Recent Profile Visitors

580 profile views
  1. This is a take from someone who has completed a science degree (me). As already mentioned, you don't need a science degree to do this. If you do the (limited) prereqs you can apply to anything. There are BMusic MDs and JDs out there... Take medicine, the number of schools with prerequisites is low, and these can satisfied through a handful of electives or a minor. The reason that science is seen as having "more professional opportunities" is the students are aggressive about pursuing those opportunities, not the degree itself. The number of science students who believe "Medicine/dentistry/pharmacy or bust" is ridiculous. Speaking as a BSc grad many of my classmates were horrible at math. There is no reason why a Social science grad can't be great with math and computer programing, or an economics major, etc... Many of the "skills" learned in a life sciences BSc are close to useless outside of academia/lab work. How does being able to run PCR teach you a whole lot? Many of my BSc classmates are now using their "hard skills" as poorly paid lab assistants, which is hardly useful. This is highly subjective and variable. At my school essentially all Psych/Sociology/Economics exams were multiple choice and it was downright easy to get A+s in those classes. Many science classes required essay responses in upper-level courses, group-work, labs (which are hard to get right), or other subjective marking schemes. Sure, some English professors hate giving out As, but this is hardly generalizable. There are Science profs like that out there too... People have different strengths. A horrible science student could be an arts superstar. A horrible arts student could do well in business, etc. Laughable. There is no "prestige" associated with a BSc or BA. Institutions or particular programs perhaps, but the idea that science students are better is something insecure science students tell themselves (trust me, I've overheard those conversations). Hard no from me. This will vary by school, but I found science students to be the most judgmental, arrogant, conceited, and plastic faculty student body on campus (and I was on the science student union executive!). Don't get me started on how mean and conceited "premeds" can be... As your post demonstrates, there is a sense of "Science is the best" which inevitably turns into "Arts is bad". It's actually kinda funny you're saying that science students are less judgmental while judging arts students as having less prestige. I've heard of all sorts of reasons ranging from: "We have more labs/are busier". True, but why does this make you better? How does spending hours at a microscope staring at tiny things give you relevant skills? "Our degrees are harder". Subjective and debatable, plays to different strengths. "Science grads become doctors, arts grads become baristas". Laughable considering how many unemployed/underemployed science grads there are and how few become doctors... As I said before, do what you like. I won't subject you to a "5 Reasons not to Do Science" post but let me tell you, be wary of undergrad science students talking about how awesome their degree choice is...
  2. Exactly. This is a digression but I've grown to believe that all non-professional bachelors degrees (so no nursing, engineering, etc.) are relatively similar in their "uselessness". Some set you up a bit better for different careers (A finance degree for example) but many people will end up not pursuing additional studies and using their bachelors to do many different things. Don't feel that you need to do a particular bachelor's for some perceived end goal, for all my Science classmates making snide comments about the Arts students there are many of those same Science students now struggling to find jobs at all related to their degree. I vaguely recall there being some study that said those "useless" Arts degree holders outearned Science grads once you removed the people who went on to professional studies (a small minority...), if that matters. Your degree is a stepping stone to life, so don't put all your eggs in it. Network, build work experience, etc... Also accept that many people will not have "careers", they will have "jobs", which is fine. Again, a digression, but many people will do their job because they don't hate it and it keeps the lights on, and there's nothing wrong with that. There's a reason many people talk a lot about their hobbies and focus on weekends. If you enjoy your work that's awesome, but depending on your interests, it may not be easy to find that job/get there and even then, you'll still find some things you dislike. Just a thought from someone who ended up in a career path based largely on learning what I disliked from the jobs I had before.
  3. To me it sounds like what you're experiencing is the typical incongruence between what grade 12 you thought you liked and what first year you is experiencing. This is hardly unique and it's perfectly normal to feel that way. Many people change their majors and if you dislike your program in first year already you need to gauge if you feel it's going to get better or you're going just hate it more. That being said, really consider broadening your scope and addressing this comment: It's understandable, you're not really a full adult yet and feel a connection to your parents and don't want to disappoint them. I've heard people joke that there are two genders for some parents; Lawyer or Doctor, and while that's hilarious to some it is a pressure some people feel. Is it awesome to be able to dangle a JD/MD acceptance in front of your family and see the pride and satisfaction in them (particularly for those parents/grandparents that immigrated; their kid/grandkid has a ticket into the Canadian professional class!). But guess what, it's your life. What other people think about you is going to matter less and less as time goes on, and for most people, isn't going to sustain you through long training pipelines. When you're facing a stack of cases or a patient yelled at you thinking "My parents are really proud of me for being here" isn't going to cut it... What can you see yourself doing? Now on a practical level let's look at some things: If this is the case you're going to need make a change. Bad grades (although you can sometimes drop grades) and professional programs don't mix, especially for medicine. Unless you see your grades miraculously improving in the future you're not really choosing between streams since you may not have the option of medicine. The time to talk to your parents about this is now, not at the end of a BSc. when you don't have the grades to fulfil their dream of their kid being a doctor. Take it from someone with a nearly useless bachelor's degree, your bachelor's focus rarely matters. Most schools these days don't have a ton of prerequisites so you can use a bachelor's as a stepping stone to almost anything. Also, consider your priorities. Including medicine/dentistry in the same sentence as naturopaths is... interesting. You don't need to go to grad school or get a degree with "Doctor" in it... "Decent amount" is subjective, professional studies are notoriously hard, and "job enjoyment" is subjective. Are you willing to go through another 3-4 years of undergrad+3-4 years of professional studes+articling/residency/post grad training to get to this place? Ultimately you need to do some career explorations (not just professionals) and figure out what you like. Go talk to career services, and minimize the impact other people have on your own life decisions.
  4. Don't go to law school because you can't get into medical school. What your parents think of your life decisions will matter less and less to you as you mature and ultimately it's your life. Believe it or not there are options out there that don't involve going into a profession or pursuing a degree with "Doctor" in the name.... Speaking as someone who did the dual Medicine/Law application route I worry when I hear people jumping between professional programs without a strong "Why this field?" reason. Parental pressure to make decisions and choose something "prestigious" can lead to bad decisions. You're severely discounting the time and opportunity costs of going to law school with an escape plan already preformed. I mean, law school is hard (as I can gather, I didn't go), and if you already have a preconceived escape plan you're going to be more likely to go for it, and then what? Some medical schools will count your B-curved law grades in their formulas, and the ones that don't are insanely competitive. Even if you write the LSAT and start attending law school at 26/27, realize it's not for you at 27/28, and then need to spend time studying for the MCAT/applying to medicine (which you may never obtain) and get in at an average of 3 tries you'll be 31/32 when you get in. 3-4 years of medical school makes you 34/35, and at that point are you interested in doing a 5 year residency, plus usually a 1 year fellowship, to finally be "done" school at 40/41? Do you want to own a house, have a family, etc.? It would be tough in this scenario vs. committing to one field and rolling with it. If you really love "Neurology" go to a neuroscience grad program.
  5. It's an artifact of the ApplyAlberta system. They don't use it, but the system prompts for it, and since Albertans can have their transcripts pulled automatically through ApplyAlberta only out of province applicants should see it.
  6. The problem with the whole "get a job and build up savings" approach is that few people will make enough to offset the lost income they would have gained by starting their professional careers a year earlier. The math doesn't work for everyone (some people have trouble finding decent jobs post-law school), but for professional careers I would suggest it's usually a bad idea to "work to save up money" unless interest rates are sky-high, or you have a fantastic pre-professional job. Let's do some simple math (using Vancouver because UVic). Let's assume living costs are constant for both scenarios to not make the math fuzzy and only focus on net (which will be inaccurate I understand since expenses do matter). Graduate with degree and get a job. The median BC Uni grad makes 50K two years out (probably less 1 year out, but we'll use 50K: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/university-grads-earn-50k-median-salary-2-years-out-of-school-study-1.2680816. So they enter at +50K, then they only need some loans, some would be government loans as well, so no interest while in-school, but let's keep this simple and assume it's all on a prime PSLOC, taken out at the beginning of the year (Again, many assumptions and shortcuts here). You start with a buffer and eat into it as school goes on, eventually going red. Get into law school, spend the same money on living expenses (so we'll ignore those to simplify things, so the numbers below will seem very large), use the PSLOC (for argument's sake). Assume no career progression at all, just the lowest value for a 1st year Vancouver small practice lawyer according to https://www.zsa.ca/salary-guide/ (which is unfair to the K-JD who would be moving up faster, theoretically). And we have: In this scenario the "work pre-law for a year" person needs to make 74K to balance out the K-JD, and that's in one year out of uni. Unless you spend manage a great job out of uni (some do) the more years spent working pre-law the more years the K-JD has to find their groove and start moving up. Again, there are so many assumptions baked into this it's a fanciful scenario (down to the ages of the people!) but I think it's worth noting this. Obviously debt tolerance plays into this, I'm not looking forward to going into six-figure debt for my future career, but I know there's significantly more money than I would have otherwise made on the other side, making that debt a fantastic investment in the long-term. Age Work Net Work Income Work School Costs Debt-Servicing Costs K-JD Net K-JD Income K-JD School Costs Debt-Servicing Costs Graduate Uni 20 $0.00 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 21 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 0 -$20,000.00 $0.00 -$20,000.00 -$490.00 22 $30,000.00 0 -$20,000.00 $735.00 -$40,490.00 $0.00 -$20,000.00 -$992.01 23 $10,000.00 0 -$20,000.00 -$245.00 -$61,482.01 $0.00 -$20,000.00 -$1,506.31 24 -$10,000.00 $0.00 -$20,000.00 $245.00 -$22,988.31 $40,000.00 $0.00 -$563.21 25 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 $0.00 -$735.00 $54,448.47 $78,000.00 $0.00 26 $108,000.00 $78,000.00 $0.00 $132,448.47 $78,000.00 $0.00 27 $186,000.00 $78,000.00 $0.00 $210,448.47 $78,000.00 $0.00 28 $264,000.00 $78,000.00 $0.00 $288,448.47 $78,000.00 $0.00 29 $342,000.00 $78,000.00 $0.00 $366,448.47 $78,000.00 $0.00 30 $420,000.00 $78,000.00 $0.00 $444,448.47 $78,000.00 $0.00 EDIT. Since the ZSA numbers seemed optimistic here is a more pessimistic outlook, K-JD still ahead, but with less of a lead: Age Work Net Work Income Work School Costs Debt-Servicing Costs K-JD Net K-JD Income K-JD School Costs Debt-Servicing Costs Graduate Uni 20 $0.00 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 21 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 0 -$20,000.00 $0.00 -$20,000.00 -$490.00 22 $30,000.00 0 -$20,000.00 -$40,490.00 $0.00 -$20,000.00 -$992.01 23 $10,000.00 0 -$20,000.00 -$61,482.01 $0.00 -$20,000.00 -$1,506.31 24 -$10,000.00 $0.00 -$20,000.00 -$245.00 -$22,988.31 $40,000.00 $0.00 -$563.21 25 $29,755.00 $40,000.00 $0.00 $36,448.47 $60,000.00 $0.00 26 $89,755.00 $60,000.00 $0.00 $96,448.47 $60,000.00 $0.00 27 $149,755.00 $60,000.00 $0.00 $156,448.47 $60,000.00 $0.00 28 $209,755.00 $60,000.00 $0.00 $216,448.47 $60,000.00 $0.00 29 $269,755.00 $60,000.00 $0.00 $276,448.47 $60,000.00 $0.00 30 $329,755.00 $60,000.00 $0.00 $336,448.47 $60,000.00 $0.00
  7. I honestly think OP has a point (About career exploration), but this is hardly unique to law. Every single profession will have a bunch of people who wish they could "go back" or adopt a "the grass is greener" philosophy. However, the reality is there is no golden job or profession. Every job has downsides. I'd wager the overwhelming majority of lawyers/doctors/accountants/dentists/pharmacists/optometrists have better outcomes (in terms of income, job security, and some other things) than they would have had they not gone. Some don't, professional educations are not for everyone based off your life goals, but in the end, there's a reason people pursue professional educations (and no, being able to appease your parents is only a small one). For every bitter lawyer there's a bitter doctor/accountant/dentist/pharmacist/optometrist, and scores of people who would gladly take their place since their underemployed, minimum wage, jobs are also stressful (+life stresses that making six figures helps ease). I've heard members of these professions complain about tax installments that exceeded the average Canadian annual income as some "Poor me" moment, so let me tell you, while there's more to life than money, people will always find something to complain about.
  8. On what basis are you saying that? It's very clear in the 2020-2021 admissions guide that: So unless you have some insider information that contradicts their own admissions guide, I see no evidence to believe otherwise.
  9. There are a number of issues with this "study". 1. Small sample size and they extended the response deadline. There is no attempt mentioned at randomization. 2. The main difference in scores is in spelling & grammar (2.9/7 vs. 5.8/7), not in the factual elements. This is interesting because "We did not ask for edits and/or comments on formatting." but partners still provided them. Of these unsolicited comments (41/53 partners responding provided them) 29/41 were for AA Meyer vs. 11/41 for White Meyer. You could interpret this as racism, or you could interpret it as the people reviewing AA Meyer's work being more exacting, since "There was no significant correlation between a partner’s race/ethnicity and the differentiated patterns of errors found between the two memos. There was also no significant correlation between a partner’s gender and the differentiated patterns of errors found between the two memos. We did find that female partners generally found more errors and wrote longer narratives than the male partners. Of note is that 21/60 partners were ethnic minorities themselves, so this would indicate that non-minority partners were not picking up on more mistakes than their minority compatriots. So, with such a small sample size, and no differences between partners (except male vs. female, which is irrelevant as "Thomas Meyer" is male in both examples), their conclusion is confirmation bias, which I don't think holds up. What I see is a small sample size (and NO raw data with confidence intervals, which is a HUGE red flag for such a small "study". This is shoddy pop science at best. Finally, Lawyers (especially partners) are not stupid! If the "legal writing memo" they received specifically listed the race of the writer it's fair to presume at least some of the 53 partners thought this was interesting and provided some sort of clue as to what the study was doing, adding a source of error. It would have been far better to instead have used a photo and mock profile. This doesn't "prove" anything (you can't even "prove" anything in this kind of research anyway). If they genuinely wanted to have evidence they would need to: 1. Up the sample size and specifically take steps to randomize the assignment of partners. An ideal mechanism would be a 2-part study where a writing sample is sent to the partners before the actual study to try and determine how picky they are, and randomize that. 2. Use a less obvious way of introducing race (photo/bio would be much better in my opinion).
  10. According to the 2018-2019 tip sheet: A session is the same thing, functionally, as a term. Edit, it's the same in the 2020-2021 tip sheet: https://www.ualberta.ca/admissions/media-library/ro-assets/publications/tip-sheets/2020-2021/law-2020.pdf
  11. Queens is one of those 3 years=General 4 years=Honors schools: https://www.queensu.ca/artsci/think-and-apply/degrees-at-a-glance#:~:text=Degrees at a Glance,-The degrees offered&text=An Honours degree is typically,of the following Honours program. I'd imagine that's where it comes form. A bunch of other schools have the same convention where 4 years=honors, 3 years=general, while others have both general & honors 4 year degrees, causing confusion.
  12. Assuming L2=LAst 60 you're slightly above the auto-admit cutoff for the UofA index.
  13. You would be a first round offer (and scholarship most likely) to the UofA, no access stream needed. Your index is close to the max possible there. Other L2 schools would also love you.
  14. It's a requirement for Western, and only Western: https://www.schulich.uwo.ca/med_dent_admissions/medicine/admission_requirements.html#grade_point_average Beyond Western Medicine I've only ever seen professional programs "suggest" you should take courses at your year level. Many have some sort of vague statement on this, but I've never heard of it being a big deal (past Western Medicine). With the volume of applications schools get most will not be scrutinizing your transcript this closely. Don't take a ton of 100 level courses in 4th year and you'll be fine.
  15. I don't remember exactly when I applied (it was in late October) and I received a entrance scholarship in the first big wave of 2020. I didn't write my PS until January.
×
×
  • Create New...