Jump to content
jbird9226

U of T vs top US

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Sure it's an attractive guarantee! It's not like former NYC Big Law associates get put down old-yeller style when they leave the firm. They go on to lucrative jobs in different environments, which are generally better suited for socially inept people than the service industry. If you told me when I was picking careers that after I graduate I would work at a 180k a year job for a year before getting shuffled over to a 200k job in-house somewhere, I would jump on that. You'd be crazy not to. 

It's essentially a guarantee. As @providence mentioned, 424 out of 588 are either at a clerkship or at a big firm job (noting, here, that big firms in the US are defined as 501+ lawyer — all but 10 Harvard Law grads in firms are at 100+ lawyer firms). 48 Opt out of big law to do public interest, 29 go to business or industry, 7 go to further education, and 18 more go to the government. It's safe to assume that pretty much all of those were choices made by those lawyers, not thrust upon them. You're left with 62 people that go to "smaller" firms of <500 lawyers. Note here that in Canada the divide between a medium-sized and a large firm tends to be ~100 lawyers in Toronto. If you use that as your dividing line, only 10 lawyers are at small firms.

For those 10, sure, you could guess they're at some backwater corporate litigation firm, and their actual dream was to make it to NYC. That seems unlikely to me. It seems far more likely that they're at a specialized boutique firm (see e.g. Gupta Wessler) doing impressive work. Those jobs are often more difficult to get than the big NYC or Bay St jobs (see Lecnzer Slaight in Canada).  

So yeah, HYS offer essentially a guarantee of a big law job, if that's what you want. Maybe a few people fall through the cracks, but it doesn't strike me as likely. 

To me this sounds like we are pretty much in agreement. :) So I’m not going to comment much other than I think we may have slight differences of opinion regarding the certainty of some of the assumptions built into your argument. But I’m not sure that discussion is all that valuable to this topic, and I think what you said is really helpful on its own and doesn’t need to expanded upon (certainly not by a lowly 0L).

 

1 hour ago, Livinginamerica said:

I can certainly say, anecdotally, that I don't know of a single person who wanted biglaw at Harvard and didn't get it. Is it possible that they exist? Sure. I imagine someone with the level of social ineptness that you are describing is probably not going to be well known by his or her classmates, so it's possibly that a very small number of them do exist. But I have known some extremely akward and inept people who have found biglaw jobs at Harvard that pay market. These opportunities are often at less prestigious firms that just need warm bodies and don't care if you're super weird, but they are still making 180k, and still have the same exit options as other biglawyers. If they can do it, surely a relatively normal person is assured biglaw at Harvard? And they most certainly are. For all intents and purposes, unless you are so akward you are basically known as a serial axe murderer, Harvard offers a guarantee of biglaw for all those who want it.

Honourable of you to take the time to answer all of the above haha. What you said seems really helpful to me and makes the cost of Harvard seem much more reasonable than I had previously thought. Fwiw, I would almost certainly go to Harvard if I was accepted after reading what you have said. Appreciate you taking the time to provide such a detailed and insightful answer.

Edited by ToLawAndLetLaw
fwiw/up past my bedtime
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Livinginamerica said:

Don't Canadian firms hire a great deal based on "fit"? To me, that is often sugarcoating prejudicial hiring, whether we like it or not. I have also had experience interacting with Canadian and American firm lawyers, and the Canadians always seemed a little more "fratty" and country-clubbish than the Americans did (not that the Americans are much better, but strivery and gunnerish seemed more apposite for them). Forcing people to talk about sport and hockey in interviews seems very elitist as well. Do you know how expensive it is to buy hockey equipment, and how many poor kids are kept from that experience due to familial wealth? And to then ask that same poor kid about his experiences with hockey? If your going to prefer the kid who played (or plays) hockey recreationally to one who doesn't, at least recognise the class and racial implications of that preference.

Living, that's a cartoonish characterization of Canadian hiring practices. It's not remotely accurate. If that's the basis for your thinking, it should be given zero weight. 

Do people talk about hockey and sports during interviews? Sure, since those often account for a significant portion of a young person's life and interests and candidates who engage in such activities often list them to demonstrate certain attractive abilities (commitment, teamwork, etc.). But no one should be under the illusion that those are neccesary conditions for hiring, and certainly sports - much less hockey - aren't the only way one can show those sorts of attractive abilities (I can think of a number of my colleagues, and myself, who relied on our history of political activism to illustrate the point). 

"Fit" does not mean, and should never be understood as meaning, "likes hockey and sports".  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, maximumbob said:

Living, that's a cartoonish characterization of Canadian hiring practices. It's not remotely accurate. If that's the basis for your thinking, it should be given zero weight. 

Do people talk about hockey and sports during interviews? Sure, since those often account for a significant portion of a young person's life and interests and candidates who engage in such activities often list them to demonstrate certain attractive abilities (commitment, teamwork, etc.). But no one should be under the illusion that those are neccesary conditions for hiring, and certainly sports - much less hockey - aren't the only way one can show those sorts of attractive abilities (I can think of a number of my colleagues, and myself, who relied on our history of political activism to illustrate the point). 

"Fit" does not mean, and should never be understood as meaning, "likes hockey and sports".  

I think maybe his/her point is that the concept of “fit” in general, hockey-related or not, is more prominent in Canadian biglaw hiring than in US biglaw hiring, because in the US, they care more about what school you went to than anything else. And that’s because the top schools in the US are so selective that their students are basically guaranteed to be of quality, as we’re discussing. It’s not so much that the school guarantees you a job as that the employers know that the candidates from certain schools are guaranteed to be smart and well-rounded. In Canada, there’s less to distinguish between schools and there are no schools where everyone has a 170+ LSAT, so they have to use “fit” to figure out who to hire. That seems to be the consensus, though I’ve never participated in US hiring. 

Edited by providence
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, providence said:

I think maybe his/her point is that the concept of “fit” in general, hockey-related or not, is more prominent in Canadian biglaw hiring than in US biglaw hiring, because in the US, they care more about what school you went to than anything else. And that’s because the top schools in the US are so selective that they’re basically guaranteed to be of quality, as we’re discussing. In Canada, there’s less to distinguish between schools and there are no schools where everyone has a 170+ LSAT, so they have to use “fit” to figure out who to hire. That seems to be the consensus, though I’ve never participated in US hiring. 

Yeah, but I don't think that's right. The US firms sort by school, we sort by grades. In Canada, in truth, if we just hired the first 10 people in walked into in-firm interviews based solely on grades, we'd be doing OK -there'd be a few duds, but whatever.  In both cases, you've got a pool of candidates most of whom are fine, so you still have to make the decision about which of those "fine" candidates to hire.  US biglaw firms don't randomly hire Harvard grads, and they don't make offers to every candidate they interview, they're selective, just like we are.  So if that's the claim he's making, it's untenable (I do also think that there is research which suggests that US firms do filter out students on precisely the basis he attributes to Canadian firms).

But more to the point, I think he really is presenting a caricature of what "fit" means.  "Fit" isn't about "well, does he know the right people, have the right accent, play the right sports, know the proper spoon to use when eating snails", because no one gives a shit about those things.  I think back to all the students I've mentored at the firm, I'm hard pressed to think of a single one who would have been a good "fit" by that caricature.  

Your example of the "I'd hit that" guy is an example of "fit" working to exclude someone - someone with that attitude (to say nothing of the lack of judgement to know it's not appropriate  in a job interview) would be a lousy fit at the firms I'd worked at. I can think of others who have said or done similarly stupid things. Or, consider another example, I remember a guy, an acquaintance of mine from my political days, in fact, who applied for a job at my first firm. Smart guy, worked hard, very ambitious - ended up being hired by a prominent US firm - my firm didn't make him an offer (even though he desperately wanted to work there).  Not because he didn't have the chops to be a good lawyer, but because they feared that he was so politically partisan that he wouldn't play well with others(quite correctly - I won't out him, but his subsequent career has fully validated that fear).  I can think of other candidates who were sidelined on that basis (and lest one interpret that as meaning "fit" means squeezing into some political ideology, they were all good Tories, and as a pretty hard-core Tory myself, I couldn't have agreed more with the assessment).  But, look, there are other firms, with different cultures, where that's not a problem (say, a firm with a real eat-what-you-kill mentality, where playing well with others is valued less) and where those people probably got hired. 

And "fit" isn't just a concern for the benefit of the firm. I mean, consider the bookish guy with the great grades.  He wasn't a great fit for us,  but had we hired him, I have no doubt he would have done amazing work.  The problem was, we weren't a great fit for him - we feared, I think with good reason, that he wouldn't be happy with the sort of work we did and it wouldn't make the most of his talents. He wouldn't be a guy who would be with us 10 years down the road.  And, look, we liked the guy,  and we knew that there were other firms, with different practices and styles, who would be able to put his talents to good use (and, if memory serves, he was hired by one of them), why lure him into making a bad decision?  DItto, every year we'd get someone who applied for a job in litigation or employment law, but it becomes painfully clear when you look at their resume and when you talk to them, that really what they want to do is, well, your practice, or to be working at one of the union-side boutiques - but they've talked themselves into applying for biglaw because, maybe the security's attractive, maybe it's the money, maybe it's just what everyone else is doing - you know how that goes.  They might become excellent lawyers, but they're not a great fit for us, or for themselves. 

"Fit" isn't some arbitrary notion, it's real, and it matters.  People aren't square pegs, and firms aren't square hole.  I think back to when I was doing OCIs, I had offers from two firms.  Both were good firms, both did good tax work, both would have given me great training, but I had a better feeling, a better fit, with one firm than the other. After more than decade of dealing with the lawyers at the firm I turned down, I know I would have absolutely loathed working there, I would have loathed the people (I do loath some of them just from working with them), and it would have adversely affected my career.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, providence said:

I think maybe his/her point is that the concept of “fit” in general, hockey-related or not, is more prominent in Canadian biglaw hiring than in US biglaw hiring, because in the US, they care more about what school you went to than anything else. And that’s because the top schools in the US are so selective that their students are basically guaranteed to be of quality, as we’re discussing. It’s not so much that the school guarantees you a job as that the employers know that the candidates from certain schools are guaranteed to be smart and well-rounded. In Canada, there’s less to distinguish between schools and there are no schools where everyone has a 170+ LSAT, so they have to use “fit” to figure out who to hire. That seems to be the consensus, though I’ve never participated in US hiring. 

Well if that's true and I have my doubts they are missing the boat. Fit has been discredited as an appropriate approach for some time. Any firms relying on fit need to find the 21st century.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, maximumbob said:

Yeah, but I don't think that's right. The US firms sort by school, we sort by grades. In Canada, in truth, if we just hired the first 10 people in walked into in-firm interviews based solely on grades, we'd be doing OK -there'd be a few duds, but whatever.  In both cases, you've got a pool of candidates most of whom are fine, so you still have to make the decision about which of those "fine" candidates to hire.  US biglaw firms don't randomly hire Harvard grads, and they don't make offers to every candidate they interview, they're selective, just like we are.  So if that's the claim he's making, it's untenable (I do also think that there is research which suggests that US firms do filter out students on precisely the basis he attributes to Canadian firms).

But more to the point, I think he really is presenting a caricature of what "fit" means.  "Fit" isn't about "well, does he know the right people, have the right accent, play the right sports, know the proper spoon to use when eating snails", because no one gives a shit about those things.  I think back to all the students I've mentored at the firm, I'm hard pressed to think of a single one who would have been a good "fit" by that caricature.  

Your example of the "I'd hit that" guy is an example of "fit" working to exclude someone - someone with that attitude (to say nothing of the lack of judgement to know it's not appropriate  in a job interview) would be a lousy fit at the firms I'd worked at. I can think of others who have said or done similarly stupid things. Or, consider another example, I remember a guy, an acquaintance of mine from my political days, in fact, who applied for a job at my first firm. Smart guy, worked hard, very ambitious - ended up being hired by a prominent US firm - my firm didn't make him an offer (even though he desperately wanted to work there).  Not because he didn't have the chops to be a good lawyer, but because they feared that he was so politically partisan that he wouldn't play well with others(quite correctly - I won't out him, but his subsequent career has fully validated that fear).  I can think of other candidates who were sidelined on that basis (and lest one interpret that as meaning "fit" means squeezing into some political ideology, they were all good Tories, and as a pretty hard-core Tory myself, I couldn't have agreed more with the assessment).  But, look, there are other firms, with different cultures, where that's not a problem (say, a firm with a real eat-what-you-kill mentality, where playing well with others is valued less) and where those people probably got hired. 

And "fit" isn't just a concern for the benefit of the firm. I mean, consider the bookish guy with the great grades.  He wasn't a great fit for us,  but had we hired him, I have no doubt he would have done amazing work.  The problem was, we weren't a great fit for him - we feared, I think with good reason, that he wouldn't be happy with the sort of work we did and it wouldn't make the most of his talents. He wouldn't be a guy who would be with us 10 years down the road.  And, look, we liked the guy,  and we knew that there were other firms, with different practices and styles, who would be able to put his talents to good use (and, if memory serves, he was hired by one of them), why lure him into making a bad decision?  DItto, every year we'd get someone who applied for a job in litigation or employment law, but it becomes painfully clear when you look at their resume and when you talk to them, that really what they want to do is, well, your practice, or to be working at one of the union-side boutiques - but they've talked themselves into applying for biglaw because, maybe the security's attractive, maybe it's the money, maybe it's just what everyone else is doing - you know how that goes.  They might become excellent lawyers, but they're not a great fit for us, or for themselves. 

"Fit" isn't some arbitrary notion, it's real, and it matters.  People aren't square pegs, and firms aren't square hole.  I think back to when I was doing OCIs, I had offers from two firms.  Both were good firms, both did good tax work, both would have given me great training, but I had a better feeling, a better fit, with one firm than the other. After more than decade of dealing with the lawyers at the firm I turned down, I know I would have absolutely loathed working there, I would have loathed the people (I do loath some of them just from working with them), and it would have adversely affected my career.  

 

Lol, was the partisan guy Patrick Brown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, providence said:

Lol, was the partisan guy Patrick Brown?

Please, as if "fit" was the reason my firm wouldn't have hired Brown. No, a few years behind him, but he's been in the news for a host of reasons, good and bad, over the years (probably another reason it was a good thing we didn't hire him, he likes the spotlight). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brown wouldn't have been interested in working for us either - we didn't employ any teenagers. 

Edited by maximumbob
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: the substance of @maximumbob ‘s comments re: fit - yeah, I get all that, but my point is that what may be perceived as someone’s lack of interest or aptitude etc may actually be social/racial/class discomfort in some cases. Not the “I’d hit that” guy - he deserved to not get hired - but in some cases this could and does happen. 

I was thinking more about this and I guess where I really missed out on going to an Ivy wasn’t that I missed out on biglaw in NYC because as I said I would have hated that life. But I did miss out on having the opportunity to try for a unicorn public interest/ international fellowship and get paid for it. Given that I can speak multiple languages, with decent grades from Harvard I may have had a shot at that and who knows where it could have led me. If I had been in a better headspace and known more about this, it may have impacted my decision. Mind you I still would have had a childcare issue if I got one of those positions - what would I have done with my kids in Tanzania or Serbia or wherever?

But as I said, everything happens for a reason and I am perfectly happy with where I am now. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, providence said:

Re: the substance of @maximumbob ‘s comments re: fit - yeah, I get all that, but my point is that what may be perceived as someone’s lack of interest or aptitude etc may actually be social/racial/class discomfort in some cases. Not the “I’d hit that” guy - he deserved to not get hired - but in some cases this could and does happen. 

I was thinking more about this and I guess where I really missed out on going to an Ivy wasn’t that I missed out on biglaw in NYC because as I said I would have hated that life. But I did miss out on having the opportunity to try for a unicorn public interest/ international fellowship and get paid for it. Given that I can speak multiple languages, with decent grades from Harvard I may have had a shot at that and who knows where it could have led me. If I had been in a better headspace and known more about this, it may have impacted my decision. Mind you I still would have had a childcare issue if I got one of those positions - what would I have done with my kids in Tanzania or Serbia or wherever?

But as I said, everything happens for a reason and I am perfectly happy with where I am now. 

Providence's first point regarding fit would also be my own point regarding it. I'm sorry @maximumbob, but your comment shows a shocking lack of awareness regarding implicit racial and class bias. What you might think is simply fitting in or an innocuous idea of "we would like to work with this person" is replete with class and racial implications. My hockey example was only being used to illustrate the point that a poor, minority person simply does not have, because they cannot have, the same life experiences as an upper middle class white male. Therefore, when that upper middle class white male looks for who will "fit" in his firm, he is going to find he shares little in common with the downtrodden minority, who did not have the money, or the integration needed to enjoy the same things, and have the same experiences as he did. That you might be blind to this and are involved in the hiring process for Canadian firms, to me, kind of illustrates my point regarding implicit bias.

 

To Providence's other point, you're quite right that the kind of public interest people shoot for out of Harvard is often quite different than the kind of public interest normally seen out of a Canadian school, in that the public interest careers are usually unicorn public interest fellowships, often with a strong international bent. This is particularly true for public interest minded Canadians. It is notable, however, that there are many practice areas at HYS that seem almost completely neglected among the student body. For example, in the nearly two years I have been here, I have not heard of a single HLS educated family lawyer (apart from maybe the legal aid context, which occasionally might handle family issues). There are definitely a few folks who go into community legal services and indigent criminal defence each year, but these are invariably American citizens. For Canadians wanting to do that kind of work, it can often be very difficult to return to your community in Canada with an HYS degree, and be taken seriously for community based public interest work. I can definitely see those employers preferring someone with more local clinical experience in the legal aid/family/criminal realm over a kid coming in from HYS, whose devotion to the cause may be doubted for obvious reasons, and who has not been exposed to Canadian legal issues or statutory law in the same way.

 

So, I think for public interest careers, there are definitely tradeoffs between HYS and staying in Canada. If you want international public interest, or maybe something like the ACLU or appellate level public interest work, HYS remains the better choice I think. If you want more community level public interest, such as legal aid/family/non white collar criminal defence, I would recommend a cheap Canadian school (hopefully someone who can get into HYS is able to get full or near full scholarship offers from a Canadian school, I know I certainly did)

Edited by Livinginamerica
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Living, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about.  You have never sat in a room having discussions over “fit”, as I have, and so don’t have a clue as to what it means. Yes,a poor brown student doesn’t have the same life experience as an upper class white guy, so what?  That isn’t what “fit” is about - maybe you only “fit” with people who are identical to you - that isn’t universal.  We don’t hire people based on their common experiences, we hire them based on their ability to be successful at our firm.  

So what does “fit” look like?  Well, look at my various (formal) mentees over the years:  a gay guy, an Afghan dude, an Indian fellow, a Persian, a Mormon, a Portuguese guy and an Egyptian.  Upper class white males? More like 1st and 2nd generation Canadians or people from rural Canada.  Hockey players?  More likely basketball, with at least one soccer player. (And, lest one wonder about gender balance, there’s generally a split between male and female mentors). Apparently this upper class white guy had a lot in common with those students (which probably explains why I remain close with a number of them). Those are the sort of people who “fit” at my old firm - my experience was not unique.

Your misrepresentation of what “fit” means is not only inaccurate and misleading, but is likely to discourage would-be biglaw lawyer’s from applying based on the inaccurate perception that they don’t “fit” with the, apparently, “upper class white males” who do firm hiring (you do realize that the work done in hiring is typically done by younger lawyers, who are (a) inherently more female and brown than the profession as a whole, and (b) typically carefully selected precisely so they will present a diverse face to candidates). You think we’re ignorant of the potential of implicit bias?  Sure, which is why the firms fork over mega bucks to hire Ritu  Bhassin to help train their interviewers (in fairness, she’s worth it)  

Your perception of big firm hiring may have been accurate 20 years ago.  It does not reflect the reality of biglaw hiring in 2018.   Stop talking nonsense.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m somewhere between the two of you. I agree with a lot of what @maximumbob is saying in terms of the improvements in terms of the thought put into making the hiring process more inclusive in recent years. I think that is happening. However I also still think there is unconscious racial bias and I feel that I have seen and heard of some of that and have heard from others that they experienced it.  Numerous articles and anecdotes have been posted here over the years and I don’t think all those people were lying or mistaken. 

Edited by providence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, providence said:

I’m somewhere between the two of you. I agree with a lot of what @maximumbob is saying in terms of the improvements in terms of the thought put into making the hiring process more inclusive in recent years. I think that is happening. However I also still think there is unconscious racial bias and I feel that I have seen and heard of some of that and have heard from others that they experienced it.  Numerous articles and anecdotes have been posted here over the years and I don’t think all those people were lying or mistaken. 

It's worth considering the idea that Canadian schools, due to their significantly lower admissions standards than HYS, have less racial bias in their admissions process. If that bears out, I'd expect the unconscious racial bias to more or less even out between the two, just at different stages (Bay St at the hiring stage, NYC at the law school admissions stage). 

I also have to wonder about the utility of having less racial bias at the initial hiring stage if that racial bias carries over into burnout rates. Is it really a victory for marginalized groups if they're able to get a job in NYC big law but burn out twice as fast because they don't "fit?" At least in Canada, the marginalized people that were offered jobs are the right fit, and thus should be no more or less likely to burn out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

It's worth considering the idea that Canadian schools, due to their significantly lower admissions standards than HYS, have less racial bias in their admissions process. If that bears out, I'd expect the unconscious racial bias to more or less even out between the two, just at different stages (Bay St at the hiring stage, NYC at the law school admissions stage). 

I also have to wonder about the utility of having less racial bias at the initial hiring stage if that racial bias carries over into burnout rates. Is it really a victory for marginalized groups if they're able to get a job in NYC big law but burn out twice as fast because they don't "fit?" At least in Canada, the marginalized people that were offered jobs are the right fit, and thus should be no more or less likely to burn out. 

I can’t see why the Canadian admissions process would be less biased than the HYS one. They’re both using the same GPA, LSAT and ECs. And HYS has more “affirmative action.”

I’m not sure burnout is due to race as much as it’s due to the insane hours and gruesome lifestyle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, providence said:

I can’t see why the Canadian admissions process would be less biased than the HYS one. They’re both using the same GPA, LSAT and ECs. And HYS has more “affirmative action.”

I’m not sure burnout is due to race as much as it’s due to the insane hours and gruesome lifestyle. 

Because Canadian schools require lower LSAT scores, which have racial bias problems, and US universities are influenced by the SAT, which similarly has racial bias problems. A marginalized candidate struggling with the LSAT due to its racial problems has to overcome a hell of a lot more to get into HYS than a Canadian school. 

I feel like a significant part of the burnout is due to fit. It's going to be a far more gruesome lifestyle if you don't fit in with your coworkers than if you do, don't you think?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BlockedQuebecois said:

Because Canadian schools require lower LSAT scores, which have racial bias problems, and US universities are influenced by the SAT, which similarly has racial bias problems. A marginalized candidate struggling with the LSAT due to its racial problems has to overcome a hell of a lot more to get into HYS than a Canadian school. 

I feel like a significant part of the burnout is due to fit. It's going to be a far more gruesome lifestyle if you don't fit in with your coworkers than if you do, don't you think?  

Well yeah that’s true of the LSAT, but Canada’s still using it, and just because Canada accepts lower scores overall doesn’t mean this is adequately compensating for racial bias. I’d have to know if racial bias only prohibits people from getting scores in the 170s that HYS like or if it also makes it difficult to get in the 160s.

 I don’t think people overtly or outwardly ur knowingly “struggle with the LSAT due to its racial bias.” The research I’ve read show that the bias is much more subtle than that and has to do with how the test is structured etc. Problems with the SAT have mostly to do with the socioeconomic issues in US has with its high schools (which Canada has too.) 

I was a National Merit Scholar for the PSATs and was the first one my high school had seen in over a decade. Some schools have multiple winners every year. That’s not a HYS or a law school problem - that’s a bigger problem. 

I am sure racial bias is part of the reason for burnout but far from the only one. And I guess for some people making a lot of money for a couple of years, then burning out, is worth it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should mention that it’s also statistically very rare for an African-American or Hispanic to score above 170 and even more so over 175 on the LSAT, to the point that HYS and other schools will deluge those people with scholarship offers. I don’t see as an aggressive a recruitment and scholarship program for minorities in Canada.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

It's worth considering the idea that Canadian schools, due to their significantly lower admissions standards than HYS, have less racial bias in their admissions process. If that bears out, I'd expect the unconscious racial bias to more or less even out between the two, just at different stages (Bay St at the hiring stage, NYC at the law school admissions stage). 

I also have to wonder about the utility of having less racial bias at the initial hiring stage if that racial bias carries over into burnout rates. Is it really a victory for marginalized groups if they're able to get a job in NYC big law but burn out twice as fast because they don't "fit?" At least in Canada, the marginalized people that were offered jobs are the right fit, and thus should be no more or less likely to burn out. 

No question, I certainly acknowledge that the socio-economic, and, in many cases, racial sorting mechanism in America is at the law school admissions stage. There has been research done suggesting that HLS's student body is disproportionately and shockingly wealthy (in terms of family background) compared to the average American family. The poor minorities in the US are too often forced to go to worse law schools. This is because the LSAT can also be a barometer of privilege. I would not have been able to score in the 170s of the LSAT if I did not have the privilege of having my parents support me financially for a summer, such that I did not have to work and could devote myself full time to purchasing a thousand dollars worth of LSAT materials, and studying them rigorously. The single parent, the working poor, the underprivileged minority, don't have this ability to study for the test in the same way, or even afford its materials. And so they will be shut out of biglaw in the US in the same way as they might be in Canada, because they were forced to go to a lower ranked law school that biglaw won't even look at.

 

But for those of us who are minorities and maybe aren't economically privileged, getting into HYS can be a way of beating a system that is rigged against us, by getting into a school that allows us access to elite opportunities. You can't beat the system in the same way in Canada. But I absolutely acknowledge that race and class plays into law school admissions standards, because it plays into LSAT scores. These poor minorities will then often graduate from scam law schools unemployed or underemployed, unable to feed their families or make a decent living for themselves (there was actually a case of student loans being withdrawn from students at Charlotte Law School, which meant that the school had to set up a food bank to ensure students could continue to pay for basic necessities). This is not the case in Canada, where one can still make a sustainable living from a smaller legal practice, or opening one's own firm. We should remember, always, that the success of HYS and T14 students is built off the backs of a system that is still fundamentally oppressive to the vast majority of American law school students.

 

I think someone said on this forum previously, the American system is the one where the winners win bigger because the losers lose harder. The top 1-5% of American law school admits benefit from the shitty system which is given to the 95-99% of American law school students who don't go to the T14. In that sense Canada can be more equitable, because at least the talented kid from Windsor still has a chance of making Bay Street. The talented kid from Cooley would have his application tossed in NYC.

Edited by Livinginamerica
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

????

I am sorry, but it looks to me that no one cared to convert the currency. In addition, the so-called high cost-of-living in Toronto really is nothing in comparison to U.S. major cities such as LA, SF, Seattle, after conversion of currency

 

CAD is not USD. From American prospective, University of Toronto's tuition is so cheap that it is unbelievable, even if it is truly the worst "T14 equivalence"(for lack of a better word)

Year of data = 2020

Total Estimated Cost combined. 

Georgetown Law Center

97,500 USD~=127,376.92 Canadian Dollar

University of Toronto:

50,435 CAD

Georgetown is 151% more expensive than Toronto. 

 

*I concede that the final bill may be very different once the financial helps from OSAP and school's financial aids are factored in. 

*I also concede that Toronto is more expensive than the rest schools. 

 

I think a poor man's T14 is a good analogy. It is just to me, it is a praise, not an insult. 

 

Am I asking too much of law students to convert currency? Are lawyers really so bad with math? I am so stunned. Forgive me please if you can. 

 

Edited by ScipioAfricanus

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...