Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HopingHopper

Hopefully every 1L knows this before actually going

Recommended Posts

I hactually hadn't come across this on the Université de Moncton website. Interesting that it's a University-wide policy, but not surprising since grammatical correctness and overall quality are definitely linked. A poorly-written piece of work rarely makes the point it intends to.

 

At least Moncton has a policy in place, and docking marks for grammar errors isn't at the individual professors' discretion. The current policy also seems to have been implemented as a result of a university-wide survey.

 

Thanks for pointing this policy out!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hactually hadn't come across this on the Université de Moncton website. Interesting that it's a University-wide policy, but not surprising since grammatical correctness and overall quality are definitely linked. A poorly-written piece of work rarely makes the point it intends to.

 

At least Moncton has a policy in place, and docking marks for grammar errors isn't at the individual professors' discretion. The current policy also seems to have been implemented as a result of a university-wide survey.

 

Thanks for pointing this policy out!

 

Except that you will hate it during in class written exams when you just just trying the answer the question and get the info down.  Then you lose time trying to make sure there are no spelling mistakes.  This policy is absurd for in class examinations.  No other French common law program does this and no school in quebec does this either. In fact no Canadian law school does this regardless of their language of instruction. It's obvious people will make mistakes when racing against time to answer an exam question.  Not only are you already at a disadvantage when looking for employment because you are coming from Moncton but you will also have worse grades that do not truly reflect your knowledge of the material.

 

Good luck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wowwww. Alors les Anglophones bilingues n'as pas une chance.

 

:|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wowwww. Alors les Anglophones bilingues n'as pas une chance.

 

:|

 

 

C'est exactement ça mon point !  Par exemple, la phrase que tu viens de mettre là t'aurais coûté cher. Genre au moins une réduction d'un tier de lettre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a ridiculously stupid policy for law school exams. Jesus. Hopefully it's not enforced very strictly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C'est exactement ça mon point !  Par exemple, la phrase que tu viens de mettre là t'aurais coûté cher. Genre au moins une réduction d'un tier de lettre.

 

I'm so conflicted. On one hand I understand trying to maintain the integrity of the language, as well as the importance of precision (and professionalism) in legal documents. However, on the other hand, these punitive measures really target anglophones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify here,

 

This year teacher's for the most part did not grade the grammar for table exams because it would take too much time for the student to correct.

 

It still needs to be coherent but the grammar won't affect table exams.

 

Hand-ins must be correctly written however and you will loose pts if you make mistakes in those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify here,

 

This year teacher's for the most part did not grade the grammar for table exams because it would take too much time for the student to correct.

 

It still needs to be coherent but the grammar won't affect table exams.

 

Hand-ins must be correctly written however and you will loose pts if you make mistakes in those.

 

I'm not sure if that's accurate, I know a student who specifically asked if grammar was taken into account and it was.  Just to put things into perspective, a student can be penalized for a synonym that the teacher does not agree with even though it may just be stylistic.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if that's accurate, I know a student who specifically asked if grammar was taken into account and it was.  Just to put things into perspective, a student can be penalized for a synonym that the teacher does not agree with even though it may just be stylistic.  

 

It's definitely a consideration if your French writing is weaker. I guess I just value good writing since I come from a translation/editing background. The whole idea of attending a French Common law school is to be able to practice in French, and I'm fairly sure shoddy writing is frowned upon in the legal profession.

 

I actually chose U de Moncton over U Ottawa for a number of reasons, and the opportunity to further improve my French is one of them. I don't think this is a case of consciously targeting anglophone students--many francophone students from franco-minority provinces also struggle with formal writing if they have studied in English. Language and law are so inimately related that you can't practice one without mastering the other.

 

I know Moncton does make an effort to recruit ex-French Immersion students, but anyone who thinks they can get through law school in French when their language skills are weak are completely delusional. The whole reason that a second francophone law school exists in a province as small as New Brunswick is to ensure fair access to justice and quality legal services in French for francophone residents.

 

I expect studying law in French to be excruciatingly challenging at times, but I'm not blaming the university policy for something I wanted to do.

Edited by NL709

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's definitely a consideration if your French writing is weaker. I guess I just value good writing since I come from a translation/editing background. The whole idea of attending a French Common law school is to be able to practice in French, and I'm fairly sure shoddy writing is frowned upon in the legal profession.

 

I actually chose U de Moncton over U Ottawa for a number of reasons, and the opportunity to further improve my French is one of them. I don't think this is a case of consciously targeting anglophone students--many francophone students from franco-minority provinces also struggle with formal writing if they have studied in English. Language and law are so inimately related that you can't practice one without mastering the other.

 

I know Moncton does make an effort to recruit ex-French Immersion students, but anyone who thinks they can get through law school in French when their language skills are weak are completely delusional. The whole reason that a second francophone law school exists in a province as small as New Brunswick is to ensure fair access to justice and quality legal services in French for francophone residents.

 

I expect studying law in French to be excruciatingly challenging at times, but I'm not blaming the university policy for something I wanted to do.

 

I am not sure if I agree with your statements.  You say that one of the reasons you chose Moncton over Ottawa was because you wanted to improve your French, but anyone who speaks French in this country knows that the quality of French that you get and have access to in the capital region is far superior, syntactically speaking, to that of the province of Newbrunwick. I understand that tuition there is cheaper but I'm seriously suspicious of what other reasons you factored in your decision to choose Moncton over Ottawa. At first glance, it seems to me like a poor decision but then again I don't know what attachments you may have with the region.

 

With respect to your comment about someone being delusional if they think they can pass law school in French with weak language skills is also inaccurate. I personally know plenty of people with seriously weak French skills who passed and got far superior jobs than really well spoken students. Every year we see students with weak language skill graduating from the University of Montréal or Sherbrooke or UQAM, where they have to do their entire law school in French and they manage to pass. Why or how? Well schools realize that what is actually important is knowing the material.  You will for example see that every law school, whether it is in Québec or outside of Québec (except Moncton it seems) adapts itself to what they call the "Canadian reality". The truth is,  canadians speak a sometimes deformed French and access to justice actually means enabling more graduates to serve those communities in a way in which they feel identified by.  By way of example, an acadian guy from some small town somewhere will have a hard time being understood by a guy who speaks French in a parisian way. In fact you will realize that there is some sort of double standard in Moncton and powerpoints presentations given by professors will contain spelling mistakes that if the tables were turned, would cost the student half a letter grade at least.   Any one who has practiced law in French or has even attended a court hearing, even in QC where French is at least better, will know that the quality of French used by the court or lawyers is not exactly the best French. Heck they will even explain things in English and French back and forth. Why? Well because what the court actually cares about is being able to get the idea across effectively, not necessarily in the most elegant way. 

 

Access to justice doesn't require you to have impeccable French (its probably the opposite given the canadian reality). No one practices law in an environment similar to that of in-class examinations as any writing that you do as a professional is probably going to be double checked by spell check, or antidote or other tools. 

 

Sure you can say, well if that is what the school requires then that is what students should answer to.  The reason I posted that link for everyone to see is because what the school does prior and post acceptance is not congruent.  While you are permitted have any materials and dictionaries and whatnot for the purposes of taking your French exam for admission, professors will often prohibit the use of those materials during in-class examinations. They accept students with a low grade obtained in that first French admission exam but then punish them after for having the same level of French they were accepted with.   

 

The school is definitely doing something wrong  year after year when that many students are failing first year.  For example class of 2017 had more drop outs and students who failed first year than any other faculty I know or ever heard of. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly if you have nothing better to do then bash Moncton you should find better things to do then to go around a forum page.

 

Secondly I know what I said is accurate I study there and I'm pretty sure I can listen when a teacher gives directives.

 

Also I'd like to bring your attention to the Moncton-Ottawa cup, the Gale Cup, the Soprinka Cup.

 

Where is uOttawa? Nowhere on the map. Where is Moncton? Near the top even tho we have 1/3 the size of the French JD Program alone.

 

The fact Ottawa can't even make a mark in the Gale Cup even though it's the biggest law school and that all three divisions could've participated demonstrates the lack of care and commitment teachers have towards their students.

 

Moncton is smaller and has an amazing teacher to student ratio which enables the students who do stay to be very sound lawyers.

 

Drop out rate is a useless barometer to use. You don't know what pushed someone to study law in the first place. Just because they dropped out doesn't make the school bad. It simply shows that it wasn't for them.

 

The ones who do stay have a strong impact wherever they may go. You don't see me going around bashing other schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that your argument that people don't need to express themselves clearly but rather learn the material properly is also flawed.

 

If you can't explain yourself or express yourself appropriately you'll fail in any realm of work.

 

To be successful one has to learn how to express themselves efficiently so others can understand what they're trying to say.

 

If you can't do that then yes you deserve to fail. The students who failed exams because of poor French did so because they couldn't speak or write French appropriately.

 

This is a French law school not a second option for anglophones who think they can get by.

 

I'm not saying anglophones aren't welcome but don't expect teachers to talk to you in English and explain directives in English. It's not bilingual university its unilingually french.

 

So no those individuals aren't being punished because of poor grammar they should simply go to an English school. It's not like there's a lack of supply in that domain.

Edited by GuiCR12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention that your argument that people don't need to express themselves clearly but rather learn the material properly is also flawed.

 

If you can't explain yourself or express yourself appropriately you'll fail in any realm of work.

 

To be successful one has to learn how to express themselves efficiently so others can understand what they're trying to say.

 

If you can't do that then yes you deserve to fail. The students who failed exams because of poor French did so because they couldn't speak or write French appropriately.

 

This is a French law school not a second option for anglophones who think they can get by.

 

I'm not saying anglophones aren't welcome but don't expect teachers to talk to you in English and explain directives in English. It's not bilingual university its unilingually french.

 

So no those individuals aren't being punished because of poor grammar they should simply go to an English school. It's not like there's a lack of supply in that domain.

 

Listen dude, I'm not bashing Moncton I'm just telling it like it is bc I know some people would have appreciated having that info before actually deciding to go.   Schools shouldl have clear policies set out for its students and not have contradictory practices where a certain set of skills is good enough to get admitted and pay tuition and then not good enough to pass.

 

On your point about the moot competitions, I have to admit that I don't really pay attention to useless moot courts.  I don't know a single person who has participated in one.  The 25 year managing partner at blg told me once, we don't really care about those those kinds of extracurriculars.  We want students with strong academic credentials and a personality that fits our culture here.  So what actually matters for securing a good job, it seems, is helping its students learn and have them reflect that knowledge through their marks, not create a system in which the knowledge they got is subsequently blurred by a few spelling mistakes.  Even if you get  partially deducted, is your plan to explain away in your cover letter that the reason your mark is not as high as it should be is because you got a few spelling mistakes here and there?  Trust me, employers do ask why you went to a certain school, especially if you went to a school in a region where you are not from.  Are those ppl's plan to answer during the interview that it was because, as indicated in the promotional video, there is 3 to 1 teacher to student ratio?  Believe me, an employer is not going to be impressed with that full knowing that teachers from there are not recognized , a faculty that has a hard time retaining any dean, a faculty that above all, has very little upper year course options in relation to any other canadian school.

 

You claim that drop out rate is a useless barometer?  Then why does every common law school in the world use it to demonstrate the quality of its students?  Schools are heavily judged by that and if your personal subjective opinion is that it is a useless barometer then you are kidding yourself.

 

I'm not saying at all that the only ones at risk are anglophones.  I am saying everyone is at risk. If it weren't so, you wouldn't otherwise have the francophone class president fail.

 

ps:  I didn't want to enter the waters of bashing but you kind of forced my hand to do so a little bit when you started making school comparisons.  And by the way, I can probably find the name of the moot competition for you, but just before christmas Ottawa placed ahead of harvard at some international competition somewhere but again, most people don't care about that.  Any one just enters into any competition here and there to satisfy the moot requirement for graduation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An internationalk moot competition nobody cares about slow clap.

 

Why is it you can't beat us on a head to head. 3 wins in 15 years is embarassing.

 

EMployers won't care about the teachert to student ratio but the student might and he deffinetly will benefit from it. Why? I can walk into any of my professors office to ask questions or clarifications. I'm pretty sure a teacher at uOttawa who has upwards of 300 students won't be as welcoming or have as much availability or time to help his students.

 

This is demonstrated in our strength in the moot competitions because we have some great teacher's who show the students how to become excellent litigators. I think the guy hireing someone will take the guy who has the same grade if one won or ranked somwhere near the top in the Gale Cup whereas one who didn't do any moot courts.

 

If the class president failed that's his own fault for now paying attention to the guidelines. It doesn't all have to do with grammar it also has to do with sentence structure and syntax and a bunch of other things.

 

And once again the grammar is not graded in the written exams. Case and point our Torts exam specifically wrote you can bring any material for the open book exam EXCEPT a Dictionnary or a Bescherelle because the professor didn't want us to waste our time reviewing our grammar.

 

You say that wasn't your intention but why else would you come post a bunch of neagtive comments and perspectives if you don't even attend the school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An internationalk moot competition nobody cares about slow clap.

 

Why is it you can't beat us on a head to head. 3 wins in 15 years is embarassing.

 

EMployers won't care about the teachert to student ratio but the student might and he deffinetly will benefit from it. Why? I can walk into any of my professors office to ask questions or clarifications. I'm pretty sure a teacher at uOttawa who has upwards of 300 students won't be as welcoming or have as much availability or time to help his students.

 

This is demonstrated in our strength in the moot competitions because we have some great teacher's who show the students how to become excellent litigators. I think the guy hireing someone will take the guy who has the same grade if one won or ranked somwhere near the top in the Gale Cup whereas one who didn't do any moot courts.

 

If the class president failed that's his own fault for now paying attention to the guidelines. It doesn't all have to do with grammar it also has to do with sentence structure and syntax and a bunch of other things.

 

And once again the grammar is not graded in the written exams. Case and point our Torts exam specifically wrote you can bring any material for the open book exam EXCEPT a Dictionnary or a Bescherelle because the professor didn't want us to waste our time reviewing our grammar.

 

You say that wasn't your intention but why else would you come post a bunch of neagtive comments and perspectives if you don't even attend the school.

 

In answer to your question as to "why else would you come post a bunch of negative comments", I have to say that already answered the question in my last post.  

 

Secondly,  in your hypothetical about two students having the same grade but one from Moncton having won a competition being preferred, you are kidding yourself if you think they would be equally preferred by employers.  I don't know if you have realized but there is a stigma about Moncton.  Everyone knows that students who are not from that region and who still go there, do so because they couldn't get in anywhere else and most likely than not went there in hopes of later transferring back to Ottawa or Mcgill.  So you can kid yourself all you want but I'm just telling you things how they are.  

 

If you had done your research properly before going to Moncton you would have learned that there are only a total of 80 students in the French Common Law program at Ottawa u.  Of those 80, 20 belong to the PDC program so they are not really mixed with the French Common Law students cus those 20 get even a far more personalized education a far better teacher to student ratio than at moncton. So from those  80, 20 are from the PDC and that means that there are a total of 60 students in the French Common Law program just like there are also 60 at Moncton (which was the starting class).   If you had done your research properly you would have realized that students from any other faculty of law that is not Moncton has better upper year course selection and you will realize when it's time for you to do your OCI's that a lot of employers ask you what upper year courses you are planning on taking.   I am not even going to get into a long discussion about why it is better to go to Ottawa or McGill rather than Moncton because the answer is super obvious to any serious person.  (If you wish to know more about the advantages and disadvantages of schools go to http://lawstudents.ca/forums/forum/24-school-comparisons/  )Let's get back to the main topic. That is:

 

******PEOPLE SHOULD BEWARE OF MONCTON BECAUSE THE SAME SET OF FRENCH SKILLS MAY BE DEEMED GOOD ENOUGH TO GET ADMITTED AND PAY TUITION BUT NOT BE GOOD ENOUGH TO PASS*****

 

In summary, if the school wishes its students to have a particular set of French skills, they should probably make sure they have those skills from the beginning prior to admission.

Edited by HopingHopper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if that's accurate, I know a student who specifically asked if grammar was taken into account and it was.  Just to put things into perspective, a student can be penalized for a synonym that the teacher does not agree with even though it may just be stylistic.  

 

I confirm that its accurate. Je termine ma première année et durant les examens les professeurs sont moins sévères sur le français. Ils prennent en considération le temps limité. Cependant, sur les projets (avis juridique, commentaire d'arrêt...etc) ils s'attendent d'avoir un français impeccable. Également, on ne peut pas perdre plus de deux tiers d'une lettre pour le français durant ces travaux. Je trouve que cette mesure est raisonnable . Il faut s'attendre à ce que de futurs avocats provenant d'une université francophone seront en mesure de s'exprimer correctement en français.

Edited by AcadieJD

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...