Jump to content

OyVey

Members
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by OyVey


  1. I wanted to mention that if anyone sees those Lenovo tablet/laptop things and thinks "great the best of both worlds" don't do it. 

    It isn't worth it. 

    1. You can't have it on your lap like a regular laptop because of the stand. 

    2. The thing will not be powerful enough. I run teams at work and have to work off of multiple spreadsheets all backing up into one drive. The thing cannot perform and frequently freezes, crashes, etc. even though it is brand new. Forget about using it without being plugged in and needing to a dock to connect anything (eg. ethernet cable). It will also crash. 

    Besides that laptop/tablet thing, I do like Lenovo. You can get a discount on Lenovo and some others through Perkopolis. If you don't have access to Perkopolis, people regularly post the link for the perkopolis Lenovo website and the up to date access code on RedFlagDeals. 

    • Like 1

  2. 16 hours ago, bocuma said:

    I have a problem with this (and with the idea of providing proof of your circumstances in general) because when places ask for these documents it can be really hard for some people to provide them. Access to healthcare is a real problem for some groups and being told "prove that you experienced 'x'" can itself perpetuate discrimination. Just being able to access therapy is enormously difficult in Canada, because you need a ton of disposable income to do so. It gives people with better access to healthcare, who tend to be wealthy and white, better odds in the law school application process.

    I am so glad that you brought this up and this is why I really appreciate hearing other's perspectives. This never crossed my mind and you are so right. 

    Being able to access to non-medical mental health care is such a privilege that so many don't have access to. Even medical care is limited and access will be dependent on where you live and the actions of the referring doctor. 

    I hope that the schools see this thread and see your comment (and others) and take these items into consideration. It also isn't enough to take them into consideration - they need to communicate what is accepted as evidence because hopeful students will feel pressured to get access to services that they can't afford or feel anxiety over the quality of their corroborating documents. There may be another person in an individual's life that can confirm their life experiences, and it doesn't need to be someone that they need to pay or invasive medical reports, police reports, etc. We are all going to law school. One would hope that we realize that lying in our law school applications isn't ethical and could impact our futures. 

    I provided a substantial amount of information with my law school application. More than probably is necessary and as a result members of the admissions committee are going to know more about me and my history than 99% of those that I think that I have a close relationship with. It makes me uncomfortable, but unfortunately have resigned myself to it being the price of admission. It is probably more impactful to have evidence of everything - even if it makes me uncomfortable. Confidentiality is something I am concerned about and I hope that instructors or administrators don't spends an inordinate amount of time looking at me while certain conversations are happening, or regularly call on me in particular when items related to my history come up in class. 

    5 hours ago, artsydork said:

     I still routinely hear superior court judges speak about "men's tools" and "mommy responsibilities" and, this week, about religious ideology not in line with Canadian secular society (to a separated couple of faith).

    What in the actual f*ck. 

    Sometimes I think that our generation is on the cusp of change, and it we will be pushing against traditional values and approaches which will make our superiors uncomfortable, be detrimental to our careers, but be better for the next generation. The most senior leaders grew up in a time where patriarchy was rampant. Now here we are challenging all of this and asking everyone to question everything that they know. I think we will make those senior leaders uncomfortable - and sometimes it may make them so uncomfortable that they want to push us out - but the next generation will be better off because of our actions. 

    • Like 1

  3. Calling out UVIC again - didn't notice this one earlier. Discretionary application also says: 

    "Provide information about any other circumstances which are not directly addressed above, but which you believe are relevant to the Discretionary criteria of academic disadvantage (e.g., physical or sexual abuse, or discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or religious affiliation). Provide corroborating documentation." (Bolded by me for emphasis).

    Yeah no thanks. I don't think that anyone should be providing corroborating documentation about physical or sexual abuse to a school's administrative staff as they are not trained to deal with that information and may experience vicarious trauma.  

    Other schools often say that in their discretionary application that you can have a counsellor or someone else write a letter confirming what happened to you, and I am surprised that they haven't done that. 

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

  4. 5 minutes ago, Aschenbach said:

    wow, I wouldn't even know how to answer this. "Because I'm X race, I didn't perform as well in school"?

    Exactly. Something that I would like them to address - but their issues around language are more then just this one-off situation. There are other instances (including the law school application process) that has other problematic language. For such a stereotypically social justice leaning and *woke* school, they aren't as woke as one would think. They may get it right in some areas, but across the board, I think that they have some work to do. 

    I can't speak to what it is actually like at UVIC and if in practice racism and discrimination play out, but they definitely need to update their documents. 

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

  5. 2 hours ago, SNAILS said:

    From what I have heard, Canadian law schools go to great lengths to invite diversity into their schools. Whites and Asians I know have even expressed bitterness that they feel they need a higher LSAT and GPA to get into law school than more diverse candidates.

    I believe that you are thinking of American law schools (and American choice schools that factor race in as part of a holistic review of all applicants. Not about Canada as I don't think that the same research to the level of depth has been done here. 

    As others lambast @SNAILS, here is an article that summarizes a lot of the research that has been done in the USA on this topic. The model minority stereotype isn't as strong in Canada because we have protectionist systems that prevented that (eg. medical professionals from other jurisdictions have a difficult time being able to practice in Canada so highly educated immigrants didn't always choose Canada as their first choice. These populations place a high value on education and quite often are privileged where they come from. Many are hardcore tiger parents. Whereas all of the first generation immigrant parents that were around when I was growing up had come from very humble beginnings. This an oversimplified analysis). Canadian stereotypes about model minorities have mostly (but not all) been created out of our immigrant populations quite literally making something out of nothing - quite often working in low wage jobs with the hope that their children will be the ones that lift the family out of poverty through higher education. 

    The model minority stereotype both privileges' and disadvantages of those minority groups that don't meet the stereotype. They benefit because on first look, many hold members of these groups with high regard. But they people assume information about their background, which may not be true which impacts access to all kinds of programs, supports, etc. 

    Anyways - this topic is about how law schools embrace diversity. I am not a law student yet so I don't know how to comment on that. I think that the answers today will look different in 5 years from now. 


    Overall I can't say how I want them to - but I can say that I would like them to start looking at the language that they use. 

    Case in point - UVIC's discretionary application states the following: 

    "Describe the manner in which your ethnic background or culture has adversely affected your academic achievements or LSAT score."

     Reading that I think that someone that is not from a visible minority and/or Indigenous group wrote that. I get what they are trying to ask, but their language is so off. It isn't your ethnic background or culture has adversely affected your academic achievements or LSAT score, it is the racism, bigotry, systemic bias, patriarchy amongst 10,000 other things that have impacted your LSAT score. No one should feel that it is a bad thing being born into a certain background. We should be angered at the things in society that negatively impact people born into certain backgrounds. 

    • Like 8
    • Thanks 1

  6. 8 minutes ago, robobrain said:

    It sounds like there are three possibilities based on what you said about the BSAP program. Either (1) the result is just a random sample error/anomaly; or (2) the process being used prior to the BSAP is biased against admitting more diverse candidates who are otherwise qualified; or (3) the diverse admissions committees are biased in favor of admitting more diverse candidates who are otherwise unqualified under the prior merit based system - which is just a couple of steps removed from nepotism.

    As you indicate, the analysis from the admissions data or prior years should help clarify whether it is #2 or #3. 

    It is interesting that you say: "all of these students had to meet the same stats of any other student admitted to the school." Lets assume it is not #2. If its not #2, then all this means is that these entrants met the admissions "stats", but it doesn't indicate whether their admissions is displacing others who have even greater stats or had the same stats but have other qualities elevating their application - who would have been admitted if not for the diversity bias.

    Admissions to medical school (at least compared to law school) is far more than just looking at "stats". They look into volunteering, prof recommendations, work experience etc etc. If it isn't #2 and you end up accepting more POC by just looking at "stats", then you are doing so by excluding other candidates who are more qualified. IMO that's just unfair. Diversity has its place, but not at the expense of someone else's dreams.

    If it is #3 or something else that ends up reducing the admissions standards in favor of diversity bias, then it is just a disservice to the profession. 

    I am a POC and idrc if the dean or faculty look like me. I just care if they are competent and fair.

    I don't think that there should be a diversity bias, but I do think that there should be an equity bias. 

    Equity would recognize that not everyone has access to the same level of supports, relationships, health, etc. which all may factor into their performance. 

    A perfect example is the LSAT. There are excellent resources out there to study for the LSAT, but they don't come cheap. Someone who is on a limited income and is choosing between basic survival or taking a leap of faith by paying for books instead of food isn't going to do as great as someone with adequate financial supports unless they are exceptionally gifted. Persons of all ethnic backgrounds are impacted by this issue and there are some that this impacts disproportionately more. 

    Someone may have had a medical issue that was diagnosed or undiagnosed during their undergrad which impacted their performance. Sure they didn't have the greatest stats then due to their health concerns, but it doesn't mean that their stats will reflect their performance going forward. 

    Diversity isn't just checking off  boxes about race. There is also diversity in experiences. I really think that equity should play a greater role - but it is more complex to assess. It would reduce the bias. Even in saying this, I recognize that privilege in one area doesn't mean that you are privileged in others. Someone who is a well paid lawyer may go into a courthouse and continue to experience racism

    I have said this before on this forum, but a person who has higher stats has no more of a right to go to law school than the person with lower stats. Higher stats just make it easier to get in. 

    I don't think that it is a disservice to the profession to admit people into law school that have lower stats. Once people get their lives together and work through those things that influenced lower stats (or get accommodations), it could be the great equalizer. 

    • Like 6

  7. After reading a comment from @FutLawyer about changes to UofT's med school admissions under the Black Students Admissions Program where there was at least one person of African-descent ancestry reviewing applications and @BlockedQuebecois pointing out how it is also being applied to law, I am now curious about diversity within admissions committee members across the country. 

    For those of you that know something, how are schools ensuring that there is diversity within the admissions review committee (at the least for holistic/discretionary applications where the focus isn't so much on straight stats)? 

    Feel free to chime in about other items related to DEI and adcomms. I think it is a timely and interesting conversation to have. Probably too late to catch the attention of schools this round, but something for them to contemplate for next year. 

    • Like 2

  8. I REALLY appreciated @BlockedQuebecois's response. I think they get it right in their response. The only place that I differ is that I think that you should use the statement. In quotes or italics. Dancing around the words will take up more space and doesn't carry the same punch. 

    Use the word, but don't make it your whole story. You are more than what has happened to you. I actively referred to @ShirleyBeans post here for the discretionary category, and applied using their approach to my personal statement. I messaged @ShirleyBeans saying that if I get in, it is going to be because of their post and advice. I should message them to say thanks because I was successful. 

    Using of foul words will depend on the circumstance of your life. Do what feels right to you. If you feel like you are not yourself by taking it out and dancing around the topic, then keep it. 

    For reference, I had highly unusual and informal personal statements for my discretionary apps. For the school I have been accepted to, I would have thought "did they seriously just say that?" if I was reviewing it. For the school I want to get into and am still waiting for, I am 100% sure that the content is going to make a particular senior administrator (and likely adcomms member) raise their eyebrows. I would love to be in the room to hear the conversation that happens about my statement. If a miracle happens and I am successful there too, then I can 100% with confidence say that the only reason I got in was because of my personal statement because there is no good reason why I should have got in anywhere this year (I am not just saying this - both my GPA and LSAT are embarrassingly low - lower than those talking about their acceptances).  

    I would find it refreshing to read something different. A few weeks ago at work I was reviewing a large amount of submissions for something. There were so many of the "same but different" applications. So many knew to say the right things, but didn't really sound special. The atypical stood out - even though they didn't use the key words one would think that we were expecting. I imagine adcomms goes through the same thing. Hundreds of applications. You get application fatigue. 

    Also,  not every lawyer (and I would argue most aren't) stuck up people who expect formal statement. After reviewing a series of well manicured applications all day, maybe it would be good to read something different. Something with personality and character. I know I would want to. 

    • Thanks 1

  9. 3 hours ago, herbrolls said:

     I likely don't have the experience in student advocacy to achieve that change. 

    Don't ever think that you don't have experience in advocacy to make effect change. 

    We all have the ability to advocate in our own ways which cumulatively contribute to improvements for those that come after us. 

    I am not great either. I am a very candid person and it definitely gets me in trouble. On one hand some people appreciate my advocacy, on the other hand it is detrimental to me. 

    What you are bringing up is a real issue that does affect people. I personally don't care about it because I am a discretionary candidate. There is nothing that you can do to make my grades look more attractive, and they will be assessed with consideration given to other factors anyways. The issue you are talking about does affect so many. 

    I think the reason why there hasn't been a formal system in place for this yet is because when people transfer schools, usually the transfer credits just count for credits and the grades don't get applied to the graduation GPA (dependent on the school). So they only bothered creating a transfer system in BC for credits and no consideration given to grading. 

    There is advocacy to be done - so I encourage you to follow up on this if you have the capacity. Other students will probably be very grateful. 

    • Like 1

  10. Live your life and enjoy your free time now. You will not get it again in the future - and life is not all about work. 

    If you want, casually do it (maybe once a week) during breaks so you keep the foundational knowledge and as you notice yourself getting higher scores, then take it seriously and get it over with. 

    There is someone here or somewhere else that did it their first year and scored in the mid 170s. If I recall correctly, they did it because they were unexpectedly scoring that high and of course it made sense for them to get over it and not have to worry about it for the next few years. If you are not that person, then wait. 

    As you may be noticing, entrance expectations seem to be changing. It seems like more than just high scores matter. If you have free time, consider working on something that you are passionate about whether it be volunteer, professional, or a hobby. It may help you on your application in the future. If you notice that you are not getting top marks in your classes, consider spending the time you have now to learn effective study skills, and become familiar with concepts that will be the foundation of your future courses. Or instead, take a full semester of summer courses so you can be done school early. 

    Also keep in mind that there is LSAT test limits. Only start taking it when you have mastered it if you are going to start studying now. Take the time to understand why you got the wrong instead of just moving onto the next practice test. The trainer gives you a good foundation so it as a good choice. 

    • Like 1

  11. On 4/10/2021 at 7:20 AM, albertabean said:

    IMO depends on the think tank. Some are very partisan (Broadbent, Fraser) while others are not (C.D Howe). If it’s one of the partisan ones I would probably go government, otherwise, it’s a toss up, but I would probably do the think tank. 

    This is the advice that matters. What do you want to do post law school? Which way does the think tank lean? 

    Working for a partisan think tank doesn't always look the greatest even if applying to public sector jobs because you are supposed to be neutral. 


    I would choose the government one personally. It will allow you to buy back your pension if you enter the public service after graduating - and you can network internally for advice on making your application more attractive for articling. 

    • Like 1

  12. On 3/16/2021 at 3:11 PM, raybens said:

    I have noticed people noting their ECs as various levels of good/bad/excellent. I am wondering if there is any consistent way to know or assess this? and how it impacts your ability to get in during the holistic round? 

    In some ways I find it to be an odd flex when people add it to their entrance given that UofA does not read personal statements until later rounds. I perceive my ECs as excellent but, with nothing to compare it to besides my own peers, I have no clue. If someone has more clarity on this that'd be dope as I am pretty confident that I won't get in unless my ECs are excellent to UofA's standard. 

     

    I think that those (including myself) that would say that we have excellent ECs is because we inherently know that we have excellent ECs. They are the type of things that make people genuinely stand out from other applicants and we know that we already stand out from the crowd in general society. Typically those ECs aren't things that are done for the sake of having ECs but rather because whatever it is, is important to us. It is more than just a club in college/university, but something outside of it - or if that thing was in University, it was substantial. It could also be work experience with substantial professional accomplishments (but no one would expect you to have that if you are KJD). 

    All of that said, don't take it to heart when someone says that they have excellent ECs. Some on this forum have posted about their ECs, and they are genuinely stand-outs, but then others post saying that they have excellent ECs, and I read what they have written and I think - your ECs sound like every other overachieving hopeful law student. Some of the stand out ECs probably don't even take as much time compared to the things that people do hoping it will help their law/med and other professional degree apps. What is different is that there is a long lasting connection, a genuine interest in whatever it is for some reason, and other items that indicate it is done for altruistic reasons rather than looking better on law school apps. 

    Now this is a general statement - I have no clue how on earth the UofA looks at personal statements because they don't assess the personal statement until later rounds, and even then, don't ask for any evidence. 

    • Like 1

  13. Honestly, I would say go for it - but only if you can take those courses in the summer. You could do a full course load. 

    A piece of information that you might not be familiar with is that you can be registered at more than one institution at the same time. Contact the admissions, registrar's, and financial aid office to inquire about this. You will need them fill out something if you have student loans - and you have to declare to them when you are registered elsewhere. 

    If you can get one of your courses at one school, and another elsewhere, etc. etc., contact someone who is responsible for your program at your current school that you hope to graduate from, and get permission for those courses to count towards your degrees' requirements. Even if the school has a transfer agreement for those courses, still do your due diligence because some schools require that you complete a certain number of credits or something to graduate with a degree from there. 

    In my first piece of education (I went straight from high school), there were a lot of international students with miscellaneous previous degrees. They presented course outlines, etc. and had the department head approve courses from their previous education to count towards our program. The grades might not transfer, but that doesn't matter because when you apply for law school, grades will be picked up when they school or OLSAS does the calculation. In my second and third pieces of education, I had the school grant credit for courses outside of the program and were similar to what was done in our department, and from another university towards the Degrees' requirements. I had to present the course outline, and some reason to justify it. 

    If it is only a summer that you are losing, the cost and time is worth it to have the extra letters on your resume. If it can only be done during the regular school year, it isn't worth sacrificing your law school grades. In that case, if you want to do it after law school, and you somehow have time, do it for fun on the side. 

    Also, you can do more than 5 courses per semester. Some schools have students doing more than 5 courses. It is rough, but could also allow you to do courses that aren't available in the summer now. 

    If you need to register at other schools, you need to start doing your research early. Find out from your program head if this is an acceptable option, and let them know what you are trying to do. There are schools across Canada you may be able to access. Eg. Thompson Rivers University has online courses. I always advise against a full courseload of self-paced courses. Most people I know who did self-paced did poorly - but there are online courses that are not self-paced. 

    It is a complicated process overall - and I fumbled my way through it but I made it happen. 


  14. The challenge that you will have in moving forward your argument is in the absence of a system that all schools across the country use to translate grades, it is too arduous to do fairly. 

    There is so many schools across the country. Universities, colleges, etc. Not failing to mention international schools and the schools that changed their grading schemes at some point. To have a system that converts all of it would be do-able but an insane amount of work (I can picture the excel spreadsheet in my head right now). It is much easier to create a spreadsheet that just converts to UBC's grades (I hope that they at least have a spreadsheet because it would reduce conversion error if the formulas and inputs are correct).  

    It seems like you want something like the BC Transfer guide but for grades. If this holds value for other programs as well, you could consider advocating to your student unions to ask that the provincial government create something of the sort (but again - the BC Transfer guide is only for BC and won't be applicable to other Provinces). 

    And if you feel like it is unfair, the University Ombudsperson's job is to assess for fairness. Ask them what they think. They may have already looked into it and determined that it wasn't. Or maybe they are wanting something to be done about it - who knows. 

    Another piece of information - while common advice generally states to try to address your issues with the group or persons you have the issue with first, these types of situations I would actually caution against (but it is too late in your situation). Because you haven't been admitted yet, I would have gone to the Ombudsperson's office first (but you might not even know that they existed) to gather information. I say this because I am always worried about how my advocacy efforts will impact my situation. I will say that there was something I have been working to address, and it is being addressed, but I reached out to the oversight body and they have been dealing with it. I am glad because my name stays out of it (I asked that the oversight body give generic information so I wouldn't be identifiable and this is an issue that affects hundreds). If it related to law school, I wouldn't want an annoyed Adcoms member, influential admin, or anyone of the sort to pass on my application because of my speaking up. I do not think that this would impact someone who has an otherwise compelling application, but there is always a risk taking on advocacy. 


  15. I have been curious about their holistic round. How can they truly assess someone for that category if they don't ask for evidence? Literally anyone could make anything up without some kind of verification (of course not ethical if you are applying to law school). 

    I assume that without the supporting evidence requirement, it isn't holistic like the discretionary category at BC-based schools and it is for those students that are on the cusp. What you write in your personal statement gives you enough of a bump to be admitted. I could be entirely wrong. 

    • Like 1

  16. 4 minutes ago, TheAEGIS said:

    Late to the post but just wanted to share my $0.02.

    Law school isn't a completely clean slate for those of us that bombed undergrad hard. But it is certainly an opportunity to change the narrative. The fact is some employers will care more about your undergrad transcript than others - think Bay street firms. Mine didn't. In fact, I don't recall even submitting mine and no one asked .

    So, yes it does suck to realize that some employers distinguish candidates based on grades that may no longer reflect their abilities, but the good news is that many others won't. And those are the ones you should focus on if, like me, your undergrad transcript was nothing to write home about.

    Also, OP, your transcript really doesn't sound that bad. Don't believe everything you hear about your classmates' stellar undergrad. In any case, I don't recall making the dean's list ever and I'm pretty happy with where I ended up.

    For those that are practicing and are often involved in the hiring at their firms, how would you suggest that students address low grades in undergrad (if it matters to your firm)? 

    I ask because I will have very complicated and sensitive personal circumstances that would no longer impact my performance while I was undergrad, and would not want to disclose the details. 

    What is the type of statement that can be made that answers the question, but doesn't raise red flags? 


  17. 27 minutes ago, PlatoandSocrates said:

    Totally unfeasible. I spoke to someone who commuted from Chilliwack for 1L and I think it took her like 4+ hours a day. 

    The gas (if not an electric car), the time, and cost of parking in itself would justify just renting a room and using transit for me. I can't believe that someone would commute all the way from Chilliwack. 


  18. While I am not a lawyer, I do have a few things and want to echo what others have said. 

    You can make a difference as a lawyer, and your experience may make you a better lawyer because you know what certain situations are really like from the perspective of a client, but it will also impact you in ways you never imagined because you dedicate so much more emotional energy to the case because you intimately know the impact of whatever decision is made and your goal is to put in the extra effort so it goes the way you want it to. 

    There is a lot of public interest opportunities - more in some provinces than others. Most in the non-profit sector pay pittance and those in the public sector/regulatory/oversight/etc. are highly competitive. 

    I now realize that I spent way too many years of my career in an area that I was personally impacted by. When I finally left, I didn't even realize the weight that I was always carrying. You don't even realize it until you leave. I feel so much lighter now, and instead of dedicating my professional career to it, I can volunteer my time to it on the side when and if I am available. 

    You have a terminal illness and you will have to think long and hard whether law school is something you can take on. You could perhaps do it full time, but it will be hard to get into a big law firm if your goals change, or the public sector. I think that the non-profit firms would take you. 

    Another avenue is to work in legal advocacy. I do not know what Province you are in, but some Provinces have a lot of legal advocates. They are not trained lawyers but are trained in the legislation that they work with. These legal advocates have an immense impact on people's lives and often know the specific legislation that they work with 90% better than most lawyers that practice in that area. Here in BC, they do a variety of things. Immigration, tenancy, income assistance, WCB, EI, and even child welfare advocacy. It will be just as emotionally draining, if not more so than being a lawyer - but will give you perspective if you are actually able to deal with public interest law, motivate you to continue with law school, or move on to something else with your life.  


  19. On 3/23/2021 at 6:42 PM, ThunderStorm said:

    If you don’t apply, you have zero chance. I think you should give it a shot regardless of how you think you stack up against other people. Good luck to you! 👍

    I have seen your posts and I wanted to say that you seem to be the most supportive and kind person ever (at the least on online). 

    I really hope that the odds are stacked in your favour to get in. 

    • Like 2

  20. 6 minutes ago, utu787 said:

    My point was that holistic admissions allow you to explain these types of things

    I wanted to mention holistic earlier but I did not have the right words and I still don't - but I will use the word holistic and someone can replace it with something that actually explains what I am trying to say.

    I have a feeling that unless an applicant's stats are at the very top, admissions are changing overall so that everyone is considered holistically (again not the right word). 

    I would love if there was people who work in admissions who would anonymously chime in and confirm if my assumption is correct or off base. It doesn't make sense to me otherwise of the disparity in stats of those admitted vs. those still waiting (especially compared to previous years' stats), and how in the hell I managed to get in (not to Osgoode but another school that looks at all of your grades). 
     

    • Like 1

  21. 2 minutes ago, Chazz said:

    But could we at least try to have it without making personal attacks?

    I agree that it comes across as personal attack which is unfair and could be written better. As you will see from the quote below (which was posted after I posted what I said), I still find the views to be insufferable. I am not going to extend my opinion to the individual as a person, but I can't stand those views - and so people understand, sometimes we can disagree with someone but still respect them as a person. We are each come from a different upbringing, education, experience, etc. which informs our views, and I can't judge the person on that. I will however judge them if they don't challenge their own assumptions and look outside of their own bubble to consider other perspectives. 

    28 minutes ago, utu787 said:

    Because somehow someone with a 3.0/155 did not equally put their blood, sweat, and tears into their GPA/LSAT, with less favourable results? 

    9 minutes ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

    Yea because the results should matter 

    (sorry don't know how to link a quote within a quote)

    I agree with the research article posted, and can definitely see it applying to law school admissions. Even the more reason why I encourage people to stand out in some way that is unique
     

    I was doing something at work last week that involved repeated decisions under a huge time crunch. I was reflecting on how I was easier on the earlier ones than I was on the later ones that I was evaluating. But where that didn't apply is where the situation was unique, stood out in a good way, etc. Where there was disparity even in my own decision making was where I felt that what was communicated was the things that they thought we wanted to hear. They got all the key lingo, etc. but reading through the lines, it didn't seem like they really got it. They still scored high but when we grouped everything together to make a decision of which ones to accept, it was those that were unique and demonstrated in other ways that they genuinely understood and believed in what they were saying. Without getting too specific it was related to diversity and inclusion. Some were great at saying the key words, but it all seemed like an exercise of knowing what to say. When we asked around for others views and those that had experience with them - what we assumed was confirmed without us evening having to communicate about it. You would be surprised at how people can read through the lines of written applications. 

    (and on that note, I wish I could go back and rewrite my personal statement for my choice school. For another school I wrote a wildly informal personal statement but my real personality shows through. After being accepted that the other school, I went back to my personal statements and am seeing that my choice school's personal statement is very cold. It talks about things but in an impersonal way. After having evaluated a bunch of written documents last week, I now know that the personal approach to writing would serve me best - does not have to be informal - but more personality shining through)


  22. 44 minutes ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

    Not putting anyone down. Keeping someone with objectively better stats waiting while someone with significantly worse stats gets in months before is ridiculous. And while you don’t see complaints about it on this thread specifically, I’ve had about half a dozen people DM me expressing how unfair they this process has been and how, to some degree, it’s offensive. Sure, someone with a 3.0/155 could graduate valedictorian, but if we’re presumably assessing people objectively primarily on the basis of GPA/LSAT, keeping someone with a 3.75/166 waiting this late in the game is pretty unfair. 

    Well if you don't want to continue waiting, just take it as a rejection and move on. 

    I have genuinely approached my law school journey with the assumption that I am not getting in. I do not have my hopes up, and have been carrying on with my life with the idea that most likely I am not getting in. Working on my professional career and other things - and in the back of my mind, planning to start studying for the LSAT again in June. I was genuinely shocked when I got the acceptance because I had no expectation that I was getting in. I wasn't checking the status checker daily, weekly, or anything of the sort. It would just cause anxiety. 

    You need to understand that people have a variety of reasons why they do not have high GPAs - and that does not make them any lesser of a candidate. People could have had health challenges, working full time, single parents, have more challenging majors, etc. All of which you are not privy to and do not have any right to know.

    People with higher stats do not have more of a right to get a spot in law school than those with lower stats, but it definitely does make it easier to get in with higher stats. 

    I completely understand that people are going to not be happy that people with lower stats are getting in. Especially if they feel that they have put in the work. It must hurt a lot if you have high stats and historically you have seen that people with those same stats were pretty much guaranteed admission. Expectations were created based on information that was openly available. 

    What I suspect is happening is that schools are changing their admission requirements. They are genuinely reading the personal statements, placing weight on ECs, references, diversity, etc and factoring them in during their admission process. Unless you are at the very top in terms of stats, it seems like other things are starting to matter.

    You have decent stats so if you are rejected a third time, consider what you can make different about your application (and I am not talking about your LSAT score). Consider giving back to your community in some way that is genuine, a cause that matters to you or you are skilled in, and not just for ECs (eg. instead of volunteering at a soup kitchen, volunteer at or create a low income tax clinic if you are good at taxes) - and honestly I hope you do whether you get in or not and interact with people from challenging backgrounds because your views are insufferable. 

    • Like 3

  23. 1 minute ago, runofthemill said:

    I wouldn't do it either before or after law school. Seems like a waste of money and/or time. I would take every ADR course I could take, do well in my public law courses and volunteer in some ombudsman type role. 

    To register as a mediator and/or arbitrator in some jurisdictions you are required to do training that is specific to respective role. The programs are tailored to those requirements but do not require you to be a lawyer (though you would probably benefit significantly from being a practicing lawyer).

    So if I end up wanting those types of roles, I will inevitably have to do it.  

    And I did see that UBC has a student ombudsperson and I do have my eyes on that. 


  24. I have already been accepted into law school so this question isn't about making me a more attractive applicant. 

    My professional goal is to work at a public sector body of some kind and most likely an oversight agency or professional regulator. I know that goals can change as I progress in law school, but I think that the skillset around mediation and arbitration may prove helpful in a variety of settings. I can probably have tuition covered so that isn't an issue either. 

    Would you suggest that I do mediation and/or arbitration training before or after completing law school? 

    I am unsure which because I am concerned that the training may become a bit stale and I lose knowledge by the time I exit law school due to not applying the skillset. Or maybe the skillset would be a good foundation for a lot of what I do in law school. I know I won't have the time like I do now in the future so it is the most appealing option - but time is valuable, and could also be spent mindless things while I still have the freedom. 

    What would you do and why?


  25. 2 minutes ago, Seekingredemption said:

    Oh for sure. My point about the libraries was just that if they’re open they seem to solve one of the main concerns here: having a quiet place to study. 

    It's interesting that having a quiet place to study is a concern - but I think that it also speaks to age. I am older, and the roommates I have had are not noisy at all, do not play music loudly, are considerate, etc. This is the complete opposite of the roommate I had when I was 21. (Though just because someone is older does not mean that they won't also be complete dicks and not know how to function in a shared household).

    I would have a hard time living with a 21 year old and at minimum try to have roommates that are 26. 

×
×
  • Create New...