Jump to content

undertheletter

Members
  • Content Count

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

undertheletter last won the day on December 3 2020

undertheletter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

137 Good People

About undertheletter

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Didn't account for taxes.... I knew I was missing out on something. (To be fair, I've never fallen in a taxable bracket so far, having only done summer employment). Still, my living expenses are fairly low (will be living at home during school + articling) so maybe 100% is unrealistic, but I do want to prioritize paying back as much as possible so long as I'm living at home. No, before grants. That's what I'm hoping for! See above, but you're right. I think pouring in 100% is an overestimate (+ failed to account for taxes).
  2. Over the past few days, I've been crunching some numbers for law school and living expenses over the next 3-4 years. So far, it looks like it will cost me ~35,000 per year or ~105,000 for all three years of school (tuition and living expenses included). Based on last year's OSAP calculator I expect to receive ~6000 in grants per year. I also usually made about 6000 per summer in my undergrad years working full time (usually in some office setting) and I expect to continue working in the summers through law school. Taking all this into account, it seems my actual debt load is 87,000 with OSAP, and, assuming I make basically minimum wage in the summers, I could edge this down to 71,000 (though I'm hoping to make more money in my 2L and 3L summers). In any case, if we assume an articling job that pays around 50k (in Toronto), then it seems by the time I've finished articling, I would be left with ~21-26k of debt. For some reason, this seems reasonable and not that scary to me. Am I being naive? Are there some hidden costs that I haven't taken into account? Are my assumptions unreasonable?
  3. I think law applicants are constantly fed with this notion that becoming a lawyer opens a door to some sort of prestige and great wealth that necessarily detaches them from the rest of society. I don't know where this comes from (though I have a few suspicions), and I would say that while the former aspect can be true (prestige, wealth), the latter aspect (detachment) is not necessarily true. It's pretty clear (to me, at least) that it's a privilege to be a lawyer, it's a privileged position to hold in society, and that you can mostly make a good living by 'lawyering'. However, I've noticed (among some applicants, and non-law outsiders) the perpetuation of a conception that being a lawyer falls within the most extreme elite class, where you immediately become someone making 500k/year, wearing rolexes and driving a different Porsche each day of the week. At least, this is what some people say when I told them I got into law school. I even had to convince my parents that lawyers don't always make as much money as they think etc. A lot of people are motivated by money, and they see law as the ticket toward that end (and I don't think there's anything wrong with that), but I do agree that doing this all just to detach yourself from the 'regular people' seems rather empty. But maybe that's just what some people want. To cast some optimism, in my case (and the cases of a few other applicants I know), I just want a job that I enjoy, that might also help a few people along the way, and pays enough to buy a house a support a family. Shouldn't be a tall order, but if you look at house prices in Toronto, it may shed light on why people prioritize money to such a great extent. They don't want to just afford the downtown house, but they want the biggest house and the nice car and and and...
  4. yo man relax. who hurt u? You might think we're insulting you, but your manner of speaking is very condescending. The fact that you posted and deleted comments (twice!) suggests that you know this, so stop pretending like everyone is 'taking a dump' on you. On topic: there's smart and not-so-smart people in every profession. In the case of law, medicine or PhD-level scientific academia, the floor is likely higher since you had to jump through some hoops to get there that are somewhat reliable indices of some intellectual capacity. Maybe everyone could theoretically be trained as a lawyer or doctor, but you'd probably have some pretty bad ones by the end.
  5. I think we all can agree that there can be too many law schools - just look at the US - there are way too many grads and (IMO) the value of the degree (on the whole) has been diminished. It's no longer sufficient to have a law degree, but only a degree from certain schools for the investment and education to be viewed as a valuable and worthwhile asset. Luckily, that's not the case in Canada, but I agree with other comments that suggest that we don't want to incentivize any and all universities in Canada to open a law school. I applied to law school knowing that I was taking a risk - but at least a calculated one that generally turns out well for most lawyers and students I've spoken with. Did Ryerson alter that risk calculus? Maybe, but not by an appreciable amount in my estimation. At most, its opening may (and probably should) instil some reservations about job prospects and competition (especially among uninformed 0Ls), but it isn't a pattern that can justify 'despising the notion of Ryerson law'. It's not like we're seeing UOIT or Laurier or Waterloo law crop up all of a sudden. A long time ago, I thought law was like medicine - that once you graduate, it's a golden ticket to a job for life that pays well - I later lurked on ls.ca and got a dose of reality. But I've also seen (now that my friends are graduating and going into other fields) that everything requires a hustle and success typically comes with fierce competition. Nothing is easy and no professions or degrees (regardless of their so-called usefulness or uselessness) provide guarantees of anything. Nevertheless, I think law grads (even with Ryerson law added to the mix) have it better than most. obligatory caveat: 0L opinion
  6. Haven't heard anything about 80 million - last official metric I heard was 40 million from Pfizer/BioNTech/AZ by June 30. I'm not saying I disagree with giving everyone their first dose - it's just that we have to remember (since the government would like us to forget) that it doesn't entail a full vaccination (they usually just say 'anyone who wants one can get one by x month'). Either way, there's not much to do now except wait and see (and cross our fingers).
  7. I want in-person classes as much as everyone else but I'm wary of the 'first-shot' metric. It seems like an arbitrary index the government set up to show they're doing something...which is fine, but based on what's going on in the US, you have to wait till full vaccination (two shots) before you can begin moving toward 'normal'. Even if we have 100% of the first shot in July, how will we get full vaccinations by September? Necessarily, the government will have them by November...but then we've missed the window for fall classes in person. I'm really not trying to be pessimistic, but this is something I would think if I was on a team making plans on whether school should go in-person next year. Secretly I hope the US sends us a tonne of vaccines when they're done domestic vaccinations ~June, since I assume they would want to re open the border in september...
  8. Up until now, the federal government has been suggesting that most Canadians will have their first dose near the end of the summer...if it's the case that we'll have 70% done their second shot, then that's new and university admin hasn't caught up yet... but where did you hear about getting your second shot by august? I haven't heard anything like that before...
  9. can anyone share whether they found either of these useful? I was considering a quick read, but have heard conflicting accounts...
  10. noob question: what is the difference between getting an OTR suit tailored vs buying MtM? Also looking for recommendations for places to buy a suit (and shoes) in the GTA? For context, until now, I've only ever bought sport coats and khakis (usually from the Bay/RW&Co/BR). I'm just entering law school this fall, so I don't think I need anything too luxurious, but I want it to last - I'm thinking something in the range of 500-800. I'll also need dress shoes - thinking around 200 to 300 for those.
  11. First, it's still early, so it's very possible you get in somewhere other than Ottawa - like others have said. Second, don't count yourself out on improving your LSAT - I thought the same thing after my first write. I plateaued around 160 for a bit, but kept practising and tried out a different method for some sections. I was soon able to PT in the 168 range, scored a 166 on the real thing, with only three weeks of studying between test sittings. I think you should definitely consider a re-write - if you score 165+ I think you'll have less worries about chances at many schools. But, again, it's still early so don't lose hope yet.
  12. When I studied for a re-take, I used the loophole book to help with LR - I think it trains you on how to approach LR questions more clearly than powerscore - it served as a more practical guide, and helped me do better personally. I continued to do LG sections as warm up (my strongest section). Games you've seen before are still useful so long as you didn't do them yesterday and remember the exact answers. If you're at -0-3, push for perfection and aim for 0 on all sections. RC is different for everyone, but I found it useful to experiment with timing. For example, I did a full section where I read super quick (almost skimming) and did the questions, followed by a section where I read very slow and did the questions. I found out that it was better for me to read slower and answer questions quickly rather than the reverse. This will might differ for you, so try both strategies and see which one is more successful. I thought that Powerscore's VIEWMAP strategy (at a very superficial level) was useful for pointing out what I should think about when reading...but I know a lot of people found it utterly useless... RC is definitely tricky and if its a weak section, there seems to be less guidance on how to fix it. I did notice, however, that as my LR improved, my RC also bumped up a little. In any case, practice practice, practice! Good Luck!
  13. There's basically a few different systems that have positive reviews out there. You should probably look at each before purchasing. Notable ones are Manhattan Prep, LSAT Trainer, Loophole in Logical Reasoning, 7Sage and Powerscore. I self-studied using books and videos, so based on my experience I would recommend Powerscore and/or 7Sage for LG, Loophole and/or Powerscore for LR, and whatever you want for RC (I didn't study very much for this section). I also recommend you buy the LawHub subscription from LSAC which gives you all the tests for 99$ online. The benefit is that the format is the same as the real thing on test day. The disadvantage is that there are no analytics on the tests (as is the case with powerscore's online tests). But before you do anything, take a timed diagnostic test to see where you stand. Don't read into it too much if you totally bomb. I treated it as a test to see if I had any natural ability in one section over another so I could maximize study time. In my case, I was decent in LG and RC but needed work in LR, and studied accordingly.
  14. Not a law student, but I found Crime and Punishment very enjoyable. Like most classic Russian literature it will take a bit of effort on the part of the reader but it was worth it IMO. ETA: I also recently read a book on the Canadian constitution by Adam Dodek, which was also interesting (but maybe only because I'm a bit of a nerd). I picked up a few things about how the government works that I didn't know before.
×
×
  • Create New...