Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jin45

Melbourne/Sydney JD Applicants?

Recommended Posts

This whole fucking topic is basically an expression of this debate. You've got a young lady walking home alone through a bad part of town, wearing a mini skirt and halter top. How do you explain to that young woman that her choices and attire are a risk to her safety, without implying that she is at all to blame for anything that might happen, or arguing with the fact that she does have a right to dress however she likes?

 

Honestly, it's that simple. We have this debate and again again and again. And lately, I'm not sure why, Kcraig has started to take a line that's very familiar in that discussion. Anyone who suggests that young lady should rethink her choices is somehow blaming her for getting attacked, if she does. Rather than advising her to modify her own behaviour, what we should be doing is trying to eliminate ever possible attacker from the world, and fix the problems of misogyny etc. that are at the root of why she isn't safe. And that position is, of course, ideologically correct and practically ridiculous in equal measure. Which is to say completely, in both cases.

 

Seriously, it's the same debate. No one here is saying that foreign schools (to greater and lesser degrees) don't deserve respect. What we are saying is that they don't get it, in our employment marketplace. Certainly they don't get it with reference to domestic students who go abroad only to return, immediately, to seek jobs. Debating back and forth about what should happen is besides the point. Pointing fingers at people who appeal to reality as we know it to exist, and then implying that we are somehow at fault for it existing this way, is insane. The accusation is ridiculous and it only derails the point at hand.

 

We can't change the job market in Canada and we can't change the fact that half-dressed women, walking alone at night, are at some risk. Talking about those things as real conditions isn't the same as endorsing them. And inserting broad ideological statements about how the world should be, when people simply want to know what to expect, is more than a little off-topic. Even though I do understand why it feels necessary.

 

EDIT: This large post was mainly in reply to Kcraig, and doesn't take into account the long and well-considered post by Fromeo, immediately above it. He posted while I was writing. Though I'd add, to Fromeo, there are some really interesting (and scary) numbers out of the LPP experiment that you can reference. There's a rather involved discussion about that here:

 

http://lawstudents.ca/forums/topic/45852-actual-metrics-foreign-students-vs-domestic-articling-vs-lpp/

 

I wouldn't say its the same debate.  I have acknowledged the risk many times as has kcraig, we are just pointing the fingers at the perpetrators, which if we bring it back to your analogy is the right thing to do. Comments like "Wallaby U" (even said in jest) illustrate a lack of respect, or as I said before a lack of knowledge on the subject.  I would argue that your analogy in itself illustrates a lack of respect.  If my interpretation of your analogy is correct, you are saying that the abroad route is "the bad part of town" and we are walking down the dimly lit alleyway in mini-skirts and halter tops, just waiting to be _______.  An argument can be made that your analogy is offensive, not only to us "abroads," but also to women in general.  Instead of blaming the woman for "her choices," lets point the finger where it belongs.  Yes, I realize that I will never convince ALL legal employers that there are some great international schools out there and that they should consider hiring a foreign student.  Same goes for your analogy, we realistically wont be able to eliminate all potential attackers in this world, but we can educate those attackers from an early age and we can do things to change the environment to discourage these types of attacks from happening in the future.  We can put the focus on the climate or environment that allows women to be blamed for wearing the short skirt and tube top, rather than excusing or downplaying the behaviour of the attacker.  Anyways, I think the debate is really taking a strange turn here.  I actually agree that in our scenario (of going abroad) it is beneficial to paint the whole picture and to warn those going abroad that its a huge risk.  Kcraig (and I would largely agree) takes issue with the attitude behind the attacks and the superiority complex that seems to go hand-in-hand with the foreign route bashing.  He is actually doing what you hint that people should be doing in your analogy, that is - taking aim at each attacker and the culture surrounding the attacks, he's trying to "fix the problems." If you have a problem with Canadians going abroad and coming back to find jobs in Canada the blame should be on the law society or the NCA, not the opportunistic student.  You (or any other legal employer) may decide that you don't want to hire a foreign student and thats fine, but when you share those views on a forum saying things like "wallaby U" or "foreign law schools are a joke" you have to expect to hear the other side of the debate.  I know you personally don't do this, and I appreciate that, but it does happen often on this forum.  I have even been guilty of it, I bash Bond and Leicester, not the students who choose to go there, but I hate how they cater their advertising towards Canadian students.  Earlier I mentioned I met a guy working at Cassels from Bond, this actually weakened my argument that rankings matter.  I still think they do matter, but the main point remains: "people go abroad for different reasons" and the results vary from person to person.  

 

Kcraig has never recommended going abroad to my knowledge and I have criticized him in the past for being too positive about the foreign route, but I agree with his approach on this one.

 

I am all for educating the uninformed and I think its a good idea to inform those going abroad that the route is a expensive, lengthy, and potentially creates employment issues upon returning.  I also think its a good idea to educate any legal employers or potential would be employers that are on this site that people do go abroad for different reasons.  I would also argue that its beneficial to educate people about the world outside of their bubble, in this circumstance it involved educating Bob (and whoever else decides to read this) about top ranked law schools abroad.  At one point someone taught him about the G14, now he knows about the Go8, whether he changes his perception based on this newly acquired knowledge isn't really a priority of mine, but I hope he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I will try to address everyone briefly, but I don't want to de-rail the thread any further.  This is a thread about Melbourne Uni, not the merits of rankings, another discussion about the stigma surrounding the foreign route, racists aunts, old bay-street lawyers stuck in their ways, or whatever else.

 

@diplock -  I think you may have misread/misinterpreted my posts in this one.  I haven't changed my tone, I won't be recommending the abroad route anytime soon.  I was just pointing out that people do go abroad for different reasons.  I was also saying that rankings matter and there is a big difference between going abroad because you chose to and going abroad because you had no other option.  I am taking the NCA exams over the next few months, I am doing a bit of networking at the moment (mostly coffee chats), but haven't really started the job hunt yet.  From what I've gathered so far, it does matter where you went to school abroad.  The lawyers i've talked to have heard about Bond, they knew about the top schools in America and the U.K. (I lived in the sinkhole London and I talked about my time there) and Australia and they questioned why I went abroad.  They had never heard of my school and they figured it was a school that would focus on banking and tax law, which is true after 1L.

 

Back on topic -  I've been to Melbourne and I know an Aussie girl working on her JD at the school.  She says it's a great school with decent job opportunities, both internationally and locally.  I would have loved to have studied in Melbourne, but I spend all the money I make (and have made through various non-law jobs) on travelling and my living expenses and I could never afford to study there. Sadly the bank of Mom and Dad has been closed for many years now. I did spend some time in Australia on a working holiday visa, so I do have some experience with the Aussie lifestyle.

 

@Homer -  You say rankings don't mean anything and then you caveat it with saying something along the lines of "except for those schools ranked at the top."  There are  Canadian students struggling to find articles too.  Likely not many from U of T, UBC, etc though...  Rankings matter, lets be real here.  They may not matter to everyone or every legal employer, but they do matter.  They matter from a Canadian law school perspective, they matter more-so in America, but they also matter from an international perspective. They may not mean anything to you and some people may share your views (likely Bob), but Universities care about these rankings and some legal employers also care.  I agree, most people won't care if your university is ranked # 154 and the next guy/girl came from a University ranked 89, but when it comes to a top UK, Aus, Canadian, or American University it does hold some importance.  The degree of importance will vary from person to person and employer to employer and yes, I agree that you shouldnt base your decision to go abroad solely on these rankings.  I do think it should be a factor though, this is coming from someone who didnt' factor it in at all.  My decision to go abroad was financial and I was convinced I would land a transfer spot after 1l.  I still don't know what went wrong with my application, I did extremely well in 1l and I thought I was a shoe-in.  

 

Your LPP colleagues that are struggling likely speak English as their second language (I know that a large number of LPP students on the Facebook page are from India), likely a majority came from a low ranked school. There are also students that already struggled in the job market, for whatever reason.  There are also students in the LPP coming from entirely different legal systems, many are older, and some may not share the same cultural norms as most Canadians.  Theres just too many things to factor in, but if you can show me the numbers indicating that a large percentage of LPP students come from top Unis (lets say top 50 on QS) I will be more than happy to change my tune regarding the rankings. I appreciate the best wishes though, I wish you all the best too.

 

@ Bob - I'm not trying to discredit your extensive experience in the industry, I am trying to discredit your personal opinion on the subject. It may be a generational divide, or it may be my lack of experience, but saying things like "wallaby U" (even jokingly) illustrates that you have a prejudice against Australian schools...or at the very least you are ill informed.  I am just suggesting that you open up your world a bit, it will do you some good.  I am usually the one trying to talk people out of going abroad, it is a financial risk (something I've made VERY clear, if you recall my original post was cautioning those readers I'm allegedly doing a disservice to consider the cost before deciding to attend Melbourne Uni) and I realize a stigma does exist.  I've said it before and it may mean nothing to you, but not every person going abroad should be painted with the same brush. Admittedly, I am trying to push thing point because my reason for going abroad was a scholarship, I have no foot in the debate on rankings, I am just going off what i've heard from a few lawyers on the west coast.

Regardless, Melbourne University is a top University internationally, you may not have realized it, but it's not a stretch to compare Melbourne University to a University in the T14. The thread is already off topic, let's agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that.

 

@ppbrum - I think most people feel the pressure when applying for articles.  I'd also say that students from lower ranked schools feel the pressure even more.  Theres no doubt that foreign trained grads are at a disadvantage, I've said it before many times.  Im sure you were asked many times about your reasons for going abroad.

 

 It is a huge advantage to go to school where you want to practice.  I never said going abroad is a ticket to bay street riches, but that 1/20 number you refer to, likely those who "made it" came from top schools abroad.  Thats all i'm saying, the ranking of the school was likely not the only thing factored in, but I am sure it played a role at some point.  Saying rankings don't matter and then citing schools that are at the top of the ranking list just doesn't make sense. Yes these schools have existed for ages, but so has the Platonic Academy.  Reputation of the school plays a role in hiring decisions, it may not play a huge role and it will not be the only factor, but it does play a role.  Rankings play less of a role as you move further down the ranking list, I agree with that.  Like kcraig says, a variety of different things will factor into hiring decisions and rankings may be low on an employers list, but each employer has their own matrix.  Congrats on landing a position, hopefully I will be able to do the same.

 

@kcraig - Thanks for the support, I haven't really started the search yet, just had a few coffee chats with some lawyers.  I still have to write my NCA's so the uncertainty hasn't yet fully sunk in, but I will keep it positive.  I don't think it sounds patronizing, I understand that things are done differently in Canada, but theres no harm in educating those that live in a bubble.  Atleast Bob and whoever else is reading this likely googled the Go8 (if they didnt already know) and now know its not a group of painters.  Changing their mindset would be a bonus, but I have travelled long and far and I know people can be set in their ways in every country.

 

 

I'll only say this one last time.  By en large, international law school rankings do not matter to Canadian employers.  Employers have a bias against international students unless they studied at a place like Yale/Oxford/Harvard, etc.  These schools are not the exception because of their rank in magazines/websites, etc.  It's because of their reputation.

 

You could rank Bond #2 in the world, just after Cooley.  The fact that employers know little about them makes them inferior in the eyes of an employer.  It doesn't mean that they are inferior, it's just that's how they are perceived.  

 

It is possible that some employer somewhere may take the time out to see where Leicester ranks to Nottingham, but that is so rare that it is not worth mentioning.  It may affect one student out of 56.  If that's important to you, then fine, say it matters.  

Edited by homer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fromeo - Almost left things at my last reply to Kcraig, which I still agree with, but found I couldn't entirely omit replying to you also. Still trying to disengage though. Honestly. =)

 

First, regarding how I'm being offensive to foreign students, offensive to foreign schools, offensive to women, and offensive to everyone everywhere generally ... let's just agree I don't give a fuck. I'm not really taking issue with any substantial points you've made, but what the hell is up with everyone being offended all the fucking time? Do you really think you get ahead in an argument by telling me that I've offended people before I tell you that you've offended people? Is that really how this is played now? You know, I could have probably made this point in about 100 different places on this forum, and I'm only tagging you with it because in the midst of an otherwise useful and mainly civil exchange, you felt the need to tell me I'd been offensive towards everyone almost as a route reflex. Can we just stop that now? Seriously, please?

 

Second, you basically agreed with my example (even while calling it offensive) but then just replicated the fundamental fallacy. The key word is INSTEAD. You say that INSTEAD of "blaming" the woman for "her choices" we should blah blah blah blah blah all the same things I already said. What's with the "instead?!?" That's EXACTLY what's so stupid about the scenario I painted, and YES it applies equally to foreign law schools. You want to correct the patriarchy in the world? You want to stop every violent asshole who has ever walked the street? You want to realign our gender relations to the point that a girl can walk the street anywhere, at any time, with her tits hanging out and never worry about the consequences? That's great! You do that! And I'm never going to argue with any effort aimed at that goal. But when you imply we should ONLY do that and in the meanwhile, advising any woman about basic safety precautions for the real world as it exists today is OFFENSIVE? That's when you depart my world entirely and start living in Candyland. So fine, call me offensive. I call you dangerous.

 

Third, and most substantially, I think we just fundamentally disagree about what goes on here at LS.ca. This is a forum for individual law students seeking advice. We have the core of a lawyer community also, but it's really just the same old hands. If you were writing for a professional magazine and you wanted to educate the marketplace on the merits of foreign law schools, I wouldn't stop you. I wouldn't say "instead of educating the lawyers who read this magazine, you should be addressing yourself to the students who make bad choices." But here you are, on a forum for law students, saying "instead of addressing the law students who come here, you should be addressing the legal employers who don't" (and telling the students to control what they can control is somehow offensive).

 

Look, you're a reasonable person. I'm hitting back hard just because you're pushing my buttons. But the whole "instead" thing is inane. It really and truly is. And this is a forum for law students. We aren't driving public opinion here. We're providing information they need. And to me it's that simple.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fromeo - Almost left things at my last reply to Kcraig, which I still agree with, but found I couldn't entirely omit replying to you also. Still trying to disengage though. Honestly. =)

 

First, regarding how I'm being offensive to foreign students, offensive to foreign schools, offensive to women, and offensive to everyone everywhere generally ... let's just agree I don't give a fuck. I'm not really taking issue with any substantial points you've made, but what the hell is up with everyone being offended all the fucking time? Do you really think you get ahead in an argument by telling me that I've offended people before I tell you that you've offended people? Is that really how this is played now? You know, I could have probably made this point in about 100 different places on this forum, and I'm only tagging you with it because in the midst of an otherwise useful and mainly civil exchange, you felt the need to tell me I'd been offensive towards everyone almost as a route reflex. Can we just stop that now? Seriously, please?

 

Second, you basically agreed with my example (even while calling it offensive) but then just replicated the fundamental fallacy. The key word is INSTEAD. You say that INSTEAD of "blaming" the woman for "her choices" we should blah blah blah blah blah all the same things I already said. What's with the "instead?!?" That's EXACTLY what's so stupid about the scenario I painted, and YES it applies equally to foreign law schools. You want to correct the patriarchy in the world? You want to stop every violent asshole who has ever walked the street? You want to realign our gender relations to the point that a girl can walk the street anywhere, at any time, with her tits hanging out and never worry about the consequences? That's great! You do that! And I'm never going to argue with any effort aimed at that goal. But when you imply we should ONLY do that and in the meanwhile, advising any woman about basic safety precautions for the real world as it exists today is OFFENSIVE? That's when you depart my world entirely and start living in Candyland. So fine, call me offensive. I call you dangerous.

 

Third, and most substantially, I think we just fundamentally disagree about what goes on here at LS.ca. This is a forum for individual law students seeking advice. We have the core of a lawyer community also, but it's really just the same old hands. If you were writing for a professional magazine and you wanted to educate the marketplace on the merits of foreign law schools, I wouldn't stop you. I wouldn't say "instead of educating the lawyers who read this magazine, you should be addressing yourself to the students who make bad choices." But here you are, on a forum for law students, saying "instead of addressing the law students who come here, you should be addressing the legal employers who don't" (and telling the students to control what they can control is somehow offensive).

 

Look, you're a reasonable person. I'm hitting back hard just because you're pushing my buttons. But the whole "instead" thing is inane. It really and truly is. And this is a forum for law students. We aren't driving public opinion here. We're providing information they need. And to me it's that simple.

 

 

Yes, we may not be driving public opinion here, but we can educate.  I am not personally attacking you, I think you have been a fairly even voice in this debate.  It may be the same old hands on this site and some people may be stuck in their ways, but lets be real, your analogy was a little off.  I agreed that caution is a good thing, I don't agree with your example at all.  

 

I find the analogy offensive for the reason I stated, I said it could offend others, I didn't focus on it being offensive at all really.  I think the word may have triggered you.  In  all seriousness I think you are usually even keeled about this topic, even if you went off the rails a bit this time because I got under your skin. My "instead" was the offer of an alternative way of doing things, rather than the status quo.  I don't have all the answers, but saying "fuck it, it may be wrong, but it is how it is," I call that dangerous. I don't see why offering a "instead" is insane to you, I never said we should ONLY be doing what I offered as a suggestion.  Saying something "should be" a certain way is also not dangerous at all.  I also think its not dangerous to say "this is how it is," its the "it may be wrong, but fuck it" that I find dangerous.  

 

Kcraig is at least making an effort to educate, what are you doing?  You are saying "it is what is is, fuck it, it may be wrong, but it is how it is".  Yes, the world exists as it does today, there is a stigma, the abroad route takes longer, is more expenses, etc....I agree, people should be warned, but that doesn't mean we should stop there. Placing the blame on the girl and how she dresses doesn't accomplish anything and I would argue that the stigma (and vitriol against the foreign route) also doesn't accomplish anything.  I think we agree on this, painting the whole picture is better than painting half of it.  The billboards, brochures, etc only show half of the picture, but saying things like "foreign schools are a joke" does the same thing.  Same goes for comments like "ranking don't matter" as homer originally said (although this has changed slightly).  With the information I originally provided about cost and the Go8 (and rankings) I was trying to inform, not attack.  Thats the key here, lets redirect the conversation and focus on the stigma (and possibly changing the stigma), rather than attacking the would be student. I think it is fair to comment on the prejudice surrounding the lawyers with the stigma and I think its fair to comment on a persons decision to study abroad, but attacks and insults won't move the debate forward.  

 

So Bob, Diplock, and Homer, my apologies if I offended, it wasn't my intention, I just wanted to provide some information in the hopes of educating and possibly shifting the tired discussion that has been echoed on this forum too many times.  People go abroad for many different reasons, not just because they couldn't get in to a Canadian University.  There is a world outside of Toronto and rankings do matter, to varying levels depending on the person.  

 

To sum up: Melbourne University is a solid school with an excellent reputation globally.  I would caution attending due to the prohibitive cost, the length of time it will take to get your degree, the hassle of the NCA, and some legal employers (Bob is likely one of them) may have a prejudice against you when/if you return to Canada.  Thats all that needs to be said, no "wallaby U," no "law school abroad is a joke" and no "Melbourne Uni is a direct route to riches on Bay Street."  Rankings and the reason for going abroad is important.  Theres a middle ground, lets focus on the stigma and educating lawyers who are in a position to hire foreign students that theres many reasons why people go abroad, wheres the harm in that?  We can still do that while cautioning about the risks of going the abroad route.

 

I am not putting the blame on the lawyers and the lawyers shouldn't be putting the blame on the students.  If the blame should be anywhere its on the law society and the NCA.  If you hate foreign students coming in and 'takin yer jobs' then take it up with the law society and the NCA, they have the power to make it more difficult to stop them from coming.  If you do agree with the stigma and you are well informed, continue to throw away the resumes of the foreign trained students.  If you don't agree with the stigma, take a second look at the foreign trained students resume.  Its that simple.  I don't think theres any harm in providing an education resource to help inform employers (and whoever else reads this forum) and to stress the point that people have different reasons for going abroad. I am educating the lawyers (those unaware that theres many reasons for going abroad) and the students (those going abroad), if you cant see that well then maybe my message hasn't been clear enough. 

 

If you don't realize why I (or anyone else) am offended with your comparison of my decision to study abroad with the decision to wear a mini skirt and a tube top and walk in a bad neighbourhood shocks you I don't know what else I can say.  You brought in the comparison, I just said that some people may find it offensive.  I wasn't focusing on it being offensive, just saying that you are treading in dangerous water.  Saying that something may be offensive is not dismissing it, don't be so sensitive.

 

@homer - this is your opinion, my limited experience is different.  You still haven't provided any data based on your experience in the LPP.  Reputation has a correlation with ranking.  For example, the patriots are consistently ranked in the upper echelon of the football world, they have a reputation for excellence in football.  You may not place any merit into rankings, but other people do. This time your "by en large" addition was a move in the right direction, but I am talking about top schools, not leicester.  

Edited by fromeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sense I have offended with my "Wallaby U" Crack. I didn't realize Melbourne was a Platypus school. Go platypi!

 

In all seriousness - no one is commenting on the aussie schools themselves. Legal markets like London, the Caymans and Singapore are crawling with Aussies. But not Canada. It's the functional equivalent of having a PHD in physics from a Russian university. There is no doubt that Russian have great universities and physics programs, but to a Canadian employer's eyes, the good ones are not distinguishable from the Siberia Lenin school of physics and goatherding. That this may be unfortunate doesn't make it less true.

Edited by maximumbob
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we may not be driving public opinion here, but we can educate.  I am not personally attacking you, I think you have been a fairly even voice in this debate.  It may be the same old hands on this site and some people may be stuck in their ways, but lets be real, your analogy was a little off.  I agreed that caution is a good thing, I don't agree with your example at all.  

 

I find the analogy offensive for the reason I stated, I said it could offend others, I didn't focus on it being offensive at all really.  I think the word may have triggered you.  In  all seriousness I think you are usually even keeled about this topic, even if you went off the rails a bit this time because I got under your skin. My "instead" was the offer of an alternative way of doing things, rather than the status quo.  I don't have all the answers, but saying "fuck it, it may be wrong, but it is how it is," I call that dangerous. I don't see why offering a "instead" is insane to you, I never said we should ONLY be doing what I offered as a suggestion.  Saying something "should be" a certain way is also not dangerous at all.  I also think its not dangerous to say "this is how it is," its the "it may be wrong, but fuck it" that I find dangerous.  

 

Kcraig is at least making an effort to educate, what are you doing?  You are saying "it is what is is, fuck it, it may be wrong, but it is how it is".  Yes, the world exists as it does today, there is a stigma, the abroad route takes longer, is more expenses, etc....I agree, people should be warned, but that doesn't mean we should stop there. Placing the blame on the girl and how she dresses doesn't accomplish anything and I would argue that the stigma (and vitriol against the foreign route) also doesn't accomplish anything.  I think we agree on this, painting the whole picture is better than painting half of it.  The billboards, brochures, etc only show half of the picture, but saying things like "foreign schools are a joke" does the same thing.  Same goes for comments like "ranking don't matter" as homer originally said (although this has changed slightly).  With the information I originally provided about cost and the Go8 (and rankings) I was trying to inform, not attack.  Thats the key here, lets redirect the conversation and focus on the stigma (and possibly changing the stigma), rather than attacking the would be student. I think it is fair to comment on the prejudice surrounding the lawyers with the stigma and I think its fair to comment on a persons decision to study abroad, but attacks and insults won't move the debate forward.  

 

So Bob, Diplock, and Homer, my apologies if I offended, it wasn't my intention, I just wanted to provide some information in the hopes of educating and possibly shifting the tired discussion that has been echoed on this forum too many times.  People go abroad for many different reasons, not just because they couldn't get in to a Canadian University.  There is a world outside of Toronto and rankings do matter, to varying levels depending on the person.  

 

To sum up: Melbourne University is a solid school with an excellent reputation globally.  I would caution attending due to the prohibitive cost, the length of time it will take to get your degree, the hassle of the NCA, and some legal employers (Bob is likely one of them) may have a prejudice against you when/if you return to Canada.  Thats all that needs to be said, no "wallaby U," no "law school abroad is a joke" and no "Melbourne Uni is a direct route to riches on Bay Street."  Rankings and the reason for going abroad is important.  Theres a middle ground, lets focus on the stigma and educating lawyers who are in a position to hire foreign students that theres many reasons why people go abroad, wheres the harm in that?  We can still do that while cautioning about the risks of going the abroad route.

 

I am not putting the blame on the lawyers and the lawyers shouldn't be putting the blame on the students.  If the blame should be anywhere its on the law society and the NCA.  If you hate foreign students coming in and 'takin yer jobs' then take it up with the law society and the NCA, they have the power to make it more difficult to stop them from coming.  If you do agree with the stigma and you are well informed, continue to throw away the resumes of the foreign trained students.  If you don't agree with the stigma, take a second look at the foreign trained students resume.  Its that simple.  I don't think theres any harm in providing an education resource to help inform employers (and whoever else reads this forum) and to stress the point that people have different reasons for going abroad. I am educating the lawyers (those unaware that theres many reasons for going abroad) and the students (those going abroad), if you cant see that well then maybe my message hasn't been clear enough. 

 

If you don't realize why I (or anyone else) am offended with your comparison of my decision to study abroad with the decision to wear a mini skirt and a tube top and walk in a bad neighbourhood shocks you I don't know what else I can say.  You brought in the comparison, I just said that some people may find it offensive.  I wasn't focusing on it being offensive, just saying that you are treading in dangerous water.  Saying that something may be offensive is not dismissing it, don't be so sensitive.

 

@homer - this is your opinion, my limited experience is different.  You still haven't provided any data based on your experience in the LPP.  Reputation has a correlation with ranking.  For example, the patriots are consistently ranked in the upper echelon of the football world, they have a reputation for excellence in football.  You may not place any merit into rankings, but other people do. This time your "by en large" addition was a move in the right direction, but I am talking about top schools, not leicester.  

 

What rankings are you even talking about.  How credible are they?  Are they like the maclean's magazine rankings that we on LS.ca always laugh about?  How can a magazine really compare a school like Leicester against U of Alberta in terms of it's Canadian legal education?

 

A person living in the U.S. may say the Patriots are the best team.  If www.footballrankingscompany.com comes along and says the Ottawa Redblacks are the #2 best football team in the world, would NFL teams suddenly drop what they are doing and recruits these Canadians? Probably not.

 

International rankings mean virtually nothing to legal employers.  Perceived reputation does.  Reputation doesn't always correlate with rankings.  As I recall, Cooley was 2nd only after Harvard a few years ago according to some rankings system. 

 

In Canada, Macleans magazine does not do anything for employers, it's for students and their bragging rights.  If these rankings do not do anything for Canadian legal employers, why in the world would you think some random international rankings would make a difference?

 

Rankings only matter to law students, not employers.  International rankings mean even less. 

Edited by homer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A person living in the U.S. may say the Patriots are the best team.  If www.footballrankingscompany.com comes along and says the Ottawa Redblacks are the #2 best football team in the world, would NFL teams suddenly drop what they are doing and recruits these Canadians? Probably not.

And a person in the UK might say Lecester City is the best football team.  Which, given that's is a completely different sport, deftly illustrates your point.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 but I am talking about top schools, not leicester.  

 

My Leicester diploma is hanging on the wall in my little office right now and I think it's the top. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really glad I went to England. I still laugh when people on this board sneer at law schools like UCL (not that I went there) which produced lawyers that went on to become Chief Justices across the English-speaking world, Heads of State, and, oh yeah, Gandhi. Bertha Wilson was born in Aberdeen and got her first degree there. If you don't know who she was, look her up.

 

There is no way to say that there is not a common-thread running between the legal systems of the Commonwealth. Knowing how to balance it, however, requires determination and a lot of luck. My Leicester classmates run the gamut: one transferred out and is now an associate at BLG. Another has already made partner at a mid-sized suburban Ontario firm. One is a contract prosecutor for the Canadian Public Prosecution Service (Cue black helicopters). Others do tax and charity work and have already appeared at the SCC. One went on to France and further abroad, then the civil service, and now does refugee law. Some of them made it with NCA certificates, some got JDs from U of T or just did the requisite classes there in lieu of NCA exams, some did thesis-based LLMs at U of T, Ottawa, or McGill and did a few NCAs to make up the gap, still others got course-work LLMs from UBC/Osgoode. The non-Canadians are back in the US, China, Singapore, Bulgaria, or that great sinkhole: London.

 

One of my UBC classmates is now clerking at the SCC. Another couldn't even find articles and works as a legal advocate in a community centre - but she has a young family and that's just the way it is.

 

My PLTC classmates: some find articles, get associate positions and get let go. Others get hired and move up through the ranks.

 

It comes down to a whole matrix of factors which are different in every firm: age, height, weight, fashion sense, gender-ratio, legal ethics, are you funny, do you know when to laugh at the jokes of others, can you stop laughing when things get serious, what kind of car do you drive, are you willing to show up early/stay late/stay home/do pro bono work/attend Christmas parties/get drunk/not get drunk/What is BC Supreme Court Rule of Civil Procedure 19-4 (a) (i)? Tell me now --- grades and extra-curricular experience are only one of these factors. For some firms, however, they are the only factor: look at how many firms collect QCs, Gold Medallists, SCC and Court of Appeal clerks like big, hairy, walking/talking/skinny-latte-ordering Cabbage Patch Dolls. Fro, I know how hard it is to live in the uncertainty which you are currently experiencing. I really do. You can't possibly control this tornado of considerations employers are making.

 

Focus on how good it will feel when you finally get an associate position. ANY associate position. Think about what it will be like to be a 2-5 year call that other firms really want to hire because of your experience. That might be how long it takes to "make it" - whatever that means. Be glad you went to Australia (or whatever unranked (!) school in a "Commonwealth" country you actually did go to. I hear the Ian Smith School of Law at Rhodesia University is quite up-to-date on racial theory) and put it down. Put it all down: QS/Gof8/Russell Group/The Guardian/The Independent/The Times/USA Today/Maclean's. Your racist aunt. That guy on the bus with a briefcase talking about how AIDS was created by the CIA to kill black people. Be you. You don't live there any more; just like I don't live in Korea, England, Ireland, or Germany any longer. This sounds patronizing, and that was my reaction when people said it to me, but I hope that one day you'll realize it's true.

 

Everyone else: you're still a bunch of horrid snobs. Merry Christmas.

 

We are horrid snobs because we don't agree with your (poor) advice on foreign law schools? Literally everything you just mentioned is easier achieved with a Canadian JD. 

Edited by beentheredonethat4
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fromeo - Almost left things at my last reply to Kcraig, which I still agree with, but found I couldn't entirely omit replying to you also. Still trying to disengage though. Honestly. =)

 

First, regarding how I'm being offensive to foreign students, offensive to foreign schools, offensive to women, and offensive to everyone everywhere generally ... let's just agree I don't give a fuck. I'm not really taking issue with any substantial points you've made, but what the hell is up with everyone being offended all the fucking time? Do you really think you get ahead in an argument by telling me that I've offended people before I tell you that you've offended people? Is that really how this is played now? You know, I could have probably made this point in about 100 different places on this forum, and I'm only tagging you with it because in the midst of an otherwise useful and mainly civil exchange, you felt the need to tell me I'd been offensive towards everyone almost as a route reflex. Can we just stop that now? Seriously, please?

 

 

I wouldn't say you're entirely offensive, at least not all the time. You're clearly passionate about the things you write, although it wouldn't hurt being a little less insensitive. 

 

Take things with a little grain of salt, it goes a long way :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheesh. Can we all please just agree that the analogy of the woman walking down an alley in a miniskirt is just a stupid analogy? There are much better analogies out there. 

 

How about this one: Going to a foreign school is like importing a foreign car with the driver's side on the right because you want to commute to work. Maybe you personally have a good reason to do it. Maybe the experience of having a foreign car just rings your bell. But it's going to be expensive, it will take more time to get, and it will be awkward to drive on the roads here. Your money is better spent on a car at the local dealership. We can all agree that no one is going to advise a person who looking to buy their first car to import it. Yes, technically, it will work and get you places. But it will cost you a lot of money and you'll end up with a vehicle that makes people do a double take at first, and you'll have to adjust everything you know about driving to just get to where you want to go locally. 

 

 

 

My analogy is better. Right? I'd like to find some common ground here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are horrid snobs because we don't agree with your (poor) advice on foreign law schools? Literally everything you just mentioned is easier achieved with a Canadian JD. 

 

When did I say it wasn't and when did I ever advise anybody to go to a foreign law school?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My analogy is better. Right? I'd like to find some common ground here.

I'll agree, provided we stipulate that the imported car is a Kangaroo-mobile.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are horrid snobs because we don't agree with your (poor) advice on foreign law schools? Literally everything you just mentioned is easier achieved with a Canadian JD. 

No, no, we're horrid snobs because we look like this:  http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/wp-content/uploads/snobs.jpg

 

Now, be a good chap and ask your man to pour me another snifter of brandy.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your North Korea / South Korea discussion got moved here: http://lawstudents.ca/forums/topic/46577-north-korea-south-korea-spliced-from-an-nca-thread/

 

I am weakly attempting to keep this thread on track.

 

Edit: Incidentally, we could do without the full fledged fisticuffs every damn time this topic comes up.

 

EVERYONE agrees the foreign route is harder, takes longer, and costs more.

NO ONE recommends it generally. Including those who have already done it.

EVERYONE agrees that it's better to get a Canadian degree if you can.

EVERYONE agrees that individual people who have resources and connections that will ease them into the Canadian job market may be the exceptions to this rule.

 

 

The debate really boils down to whether Canadian employers recognize the differences between various foreign universities. And  on this point I would be so bold as to say we probably all agree that some do, but most don't.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bob and kcraig - Take your Korean argument to PM.  You've already de-railed the thread.  

It's great that you both enjoy history, now let's put this foreign law school debate in the past.

 

@homer - read through the thread, we are talking about the QS rankings here.  These are the rankings that are cited most frequently.  Here is UBC citing them:

http://www.sauder.ubc.ca/News/2015/UBC_ranks_35th_worldwide_for_accounting_and_finance

These rankings arent just "somebodyranking.com" 

 Oh and heres a law firm ranking the top Canadian law schools, citing the QS in their ranking - this search literally took me 30 seconds.  The QS rankings may not be perfect, but they are taken seriously, whether you like it or not.

 

http://prowsechowne.com/top-5-law-schools-in-canada/

So stop with the BS blanket statements, you've already modified your statement once, lets do it again!

 

Oh and heres U of T referencing the QS rankings:

http://www.law.utoronto.ca/news/qs-world-university-subject-rankings-faculty-law-no-1-in-canada

 

Anyways, you (and kangaroo Bob) may not take them seriously, some employers do and Universities definitely do.    

 

Again, back on topic, Melbourne Uni is ranked 8.  It should play a role in anyones decision to attend the University, but it shouldn't be the only thing considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hegdis said it best:

"EVERYONE agrees the foreign route is harder, takes longer, and costs more.

NO ONE recommends it generally. Including those who have already done it.

EVERYONE agrees that it's better to get a Canadian degree if you can.

EVERYONE agrees that individual people who have resources and connections that will ease them into the Canadian job market may be the exceptions to this rule."

 

 

If you think international rankings matter for a Canadian employer enough to have it affect your decision to go abroad, it may be a defence mechanism working to make you feel better.  I'm not about to attack that.

Cheers:)

Edited by homer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...