Jump to content
hermionegranger

2019/2020 Toronto Articling Recruit (ITC Emails for Interviews)

Recommended Posts

Thought I’d get started on a thread for Articling Interviews’ Intent to Call or PFO emails - for informational purposes.

Got an ITC from KPMG Tax last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, hermionegranger said:

Thought I’d get started on a thread for Articling Interviews’ Intent to Call or PFO emails - for informational purposes.

Got an ITC from KPMG Tax last night.

wow they're starting pretty early. When did you send in your app?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sweetgal126 said:

wow they're starting pretty early. When did you send in your app?

I was surprised too! Sent in my app on July 2nd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2018 at 7:08 PM, hermionegranger said:

Thought I’d get started on a thread for Articling Interviews’ Intent to Call or PFO emails - for informational purposes.

Got an ITC from KPMG Tax last night.

Lol, what a joke. What's the point of having an application deadline if applicants were obviously  already reviewed and picked before the deadline. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Otherways said:

Lol, what a joke. What's the point of having an application deadline if applicants were obviously  already reviewed and picked before the deadline. 

Yes...if I was aware firms/companies were already evaluating applications before the deadline I would have sent mine well in advance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Otherways said:

Lol, what a joke. What's the point of having an application deadline if applicants were obviously  already reviewed and picked before the deadline. 

If you look at the vi recruit portal, you’ll see that the firms mark apps as reviewed way before the deadline. It would be humanly impossible for them to start reviewing them on July 6 and finish by July 20. But I agree it’s unfair. I even doubt they go through every single application. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, dayofthemoon said:

If you look at the vi recruit portal, you’ll see that the firms mark apps as reviewed way before the deadline. It would be humanly impossible for them to start reviewing them on July 6 and finish by July 20. But I agree it’s unfair. I even doubt they go through every single application. 

And there were also firms who didn't mark the apps as reviewed until the deadline was over...so technically speaking it is quite possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lawstudent3210 said:

And there were also firms who didn't mark the apps as reviewed until the deadline was over...so technically speaking it is quite possible.

It also depends on who has applied and how the firm evaluates their applicants.  Some firms can easily cull the applicants through imposing strict grade cutoffs and therefore review an application well before all of them have been received.

Seeing as how KPMG Tax practices a niche area they may have an easier time evaluating applicants because people without an interest in tax would likely not apply and on the firm's side they are probably looking for applicants who have taken tax and did well in it.  Firm's may also send out ITC's on a rolling basis.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when is a deadline also the date by which firms have to wait to start reviewing apps?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules do not state that you cannot review before the deadline. Rather, those submitted at the deadline cannot be prejudiced in any way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules do not state that you cannot review before the deadline. Rather, those submitted at the deadline cannot be prejudiced in any way.



Exactly.

The 'what a joke' comment was a little silly. I'm not sure why students would expect that nothing could be reviewed before the deadline.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, erinl2 said:



Exactly.

The 'what a joke' comment was a little silly. I'm not sure why students would expect that nothing could be reviewed before the deadline.

I gotta second 'what a joke' comment. It is obviously prejudice to pick applicants even before the later applications could be reviewed. Earlier applications with a longer review period would have gotten a closer look, and the review would directly/indirectly separate the earlier pile from the later pile. These factors make a strong case for prejudice just for reviewing some applications before the deadline. Analogous to this situation is if a grade comes out for certain students even before all exams have been reviewed. It directly/indirectly gives a slight advantage to the exams that were reviewed earlier because A's can be more readily available than the later exams. Although the exam marker might say that she did not have prejudice anyway and objectively marked it, the framework itself gives way to indirect prejudice at the least. Obviously law firms must be aware of this because they are full of intelligent people who would know better to review applications after the deadline. It's just common sense. I think anyone defending for law firms to review earlier are just trying to reduce the workload in a short timespan, and not really focused on equality.

Edited by LawYear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, LawYear said:

I gotta second 'what a joke' comment. It is obviously prejudice to pick applicants even before the later applications could be reviewed. Earlier applications with a longer review period would have gotten a closer look, and the review would directly/indirectly separate the earlier pile from the later pile. These factors make a strong case for prejudice just for reviewing some applications before the deadline. Analogous to this situation is if a grade comes out for certain students even before all exams have been reviewed. It directly/indirectly gives a slight advantage to the exams that were reviewed earlier because A's can be more readily available than the later exams. Although the exam marker might say that she did not have prejudice anyway and objectively marked it, the framework itself gives way to indirect prejudice at the least. Obviously law firms must be aware of this because they are full of intelligent people who would know better to review applications after the deadline. It's just common sense. I think anyone defending for law firms to review earlier are just trying to reduce the workload in a short timespan, and not really focused on equality.

Could also just be that the poster was a straight A student, with mark-ed history/excellence/ECs/background in exactly what that firm/company does. Then what does it matter? They would have been picked anyway. 

 

I have a hard time believing firms/corporations actively look to hurt their own chances of hiring the best candidates.

 

"Oh look, a deadline day submission - straight As, loves field x, has a doctorate in related field!"

"oh, too bad. we're out of interview spots"

 

Obviously an extreme example, but you get the point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, pzabbythesecond said:

Could also just be that the poster was a straight A student, with mark-ed history/excellence/ECs/background in exactly what that firm/company does. Then what does it matter? They would have been picked anyway. 

 

I have a hard time believing firms/corporations actively look to hurt their own chances of hiring the best candidates.

 

"Oh look, a deadline day submission - straight As, loves field x, has a doctorate in related field!"

"oh, too bad. we're out of interview spots"

 

Obviously an extreme example, but you get the point.

You only gave extreme examples and did not talk about the average students. They are the ones who would be more sensitive about prejudice. And if you got to know them in an interview, maybe they will turn out to be better than anyone with A grades. Honestly, grades are just grades. They mean something for litigation, but it's far from be all end all.

Edited by LawYear

Share this post


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

You only gave extreme examples and did not talk about the average students. They are the ones who would be more sensitive about prejudice.

Ok, fine. My post kind of went off the wire. Take the first half of it, and you can see how you're likely overreacting. 

 

Don't worry, i'm an average-ish student too (I think?). I'm not actively working against myself :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, LawYear said:

You only gave extreme examples and did not talk about the average students. They are the ones who would be more sensitive about prejudice. And if you got to know them in an interview, maybe they will turn out to be better than anyone with A grades.

I don't believe that there is any actual or intended prejudice by the firms. If you really consider the timing of when my application was submitted, the prejudice argument becomes weaker.

Apps had opened on May 28th and I submitted mine on July 2nd, merely 4 days before the deadline. So practically speaking, submitting my app 4 days before the deadline should have already prejudiced my chances had the firm started reviewing apps early and were being prejudicial towards late submitters, considering they had all of June to select other applicants!

I am not trying to defend the firms but just to provide more context, I am not a straight A student and only demonstrated a strong interest in Tax Law through my educational background and ECs. Had prejudice really existed against late submitters, I don't believe I would have gotten the interview offer because submitting an app the week it was due, but had been open for over a month seems quite late to me. :) 

Edited by hermionegranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we turn the discussion of butthurt to another thread and leave this one to inform applicants of ITCs? 

I think this is a fruitless discussion. What if I submitted at 9 am on July 6 and another person (Joe) submitted at 4:30 pm on July 6? Should Joe be upset that his application may be reviewed 7 hours later than mine? What if on the other hand, my last name starts with a W and Joe's last name starts with an A? And a firm's policy is to review apps in alphabetical order. Thus, although I submitted earlier than Joe, I am nonetheless reviewed later. Should I cry tears too and call the process a joke? Come on. I understand the process is not fun, but imo, this is not a legitimate gripe. 

If an app was submitted 4 days later, thats 96 more hours to improve the quality of the app versus another person's. What about that advantage? Convenient to focus on what is "unfair" to yourself without examining the whole picture. 

Your apps are what they are. They're submitted now. Let the process unfold. The reason a person may not be invited for interview is not relevant to the date of submission. If the app is well done, it will shine through.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LawYear said:

You only gave extreme examples and did not talk about the average students. They are the ones who would be more sensitive about prejudice. And if you got to know them in an interview, maybe they will turn out to be better than anyone with A grades. Honestly, grades are just grades. They mean something for litigation, but it's far from be all end all.

As has been sometimes said: "Why can't we let parents choose schools by the quality of their teachers?" "But what about the bad teachers? It won't be fair on them".

Reality is that when we get applications that are amazing on paper, we do try to rush and lock the person down for an interview, just in case their schedule fills up or they mark us out of their list of choices. It may turn out in their interview that they're incapable of human interaction or insist on a 9:00 to 4:30 schedule, which would strike them off immediately, so it doesn't guarantee success.

You may feel that applications have to be assessed in some manner. Unfortunately, you're not at a stage where you are making that determination, and you cannot claim prejudice on the basis that the firm you applied to did not follow the procedure you would have liked them to follow. If every firm I applied to applied the procedure I wanted them to follow, I'd have been interviewing at every single firm.

Finally, if you can't handle the "prejudice" of having your application assessed after someone else, and if that is the bar you're setting, you're going to be pretty disappointed with life. Life is full of "prejudices" and "injustices" much greater than what is going on here (which I am not conceding is prejudicial). Get over it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone else getting worried that a handful of firms have removed themselves from the recruit either right before applications were due or this week?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lawstudent3210 said:

Is anyone else getting worried that a handful of firms have removed themselves from the recruit either right before applications were due or this week?

Really? Which ones? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • No worries there. Most Oz students do their damned best to disassociate themselves with York whenever possible. They won't slip up. 
    • This is exactly my point on AI not being what the media says it is. The chances of lawyers getting replaced in our lifetime is pretty small.
    • I'm selling all of my Barbri materials that I used for the July 2018 exam. The materials are the same as those for the February 2019 exam (the covers of my books say July 2018/Feb 2019). I have all the materials included in the Barbri course, including the flashcards. I can also include some handouts that I printed (lecture notes, summaries, powerpoints for mini-lectures, study plan, and overviews). Everything is in good condition, as I barely highlighted or marked up any of the textbooks (except the lecture handouts, but they're useless unless they're filled out).  I'm willing to ship these wherever they need to go (we can negotiate on shipping), and I'm open to reasonable offers. PM me if you're interested
    • I won't claim I've read all the articles, but skimming the titles only puts them into the category of what I was saying before. It's buzz. And it's confusing the tool with the real work of a lawyer. If something automated actually killed thousands of parking tickets I guess that's real "law" in a way, but I can't believe it's more sophisticated than automating something simple that you can't pay a human being enough to care about doing for what it's worth. Again, there's a difference between automation and AI. I seriously don't think anyone has tried to grapple with my point about drafting. Do you realize how many people used to be employed simply to copy documents by hand? No one seriously imagines that word processing and photocopying killed a whole swath of the profession simply because students and junior lawyers don't sit all day copying contracts in longhand. The real work of this profession is creative and analytical. And that's before we even talk about the actual advocacy and human interaction. The day computers can do that, they can do damn near anything. EDIT: I've now read about the ticket-fighting "robot lawyer" and it's actually no more sophisticated than the SimpleTax program I used until recently. That is, it's a nice little choose-your-own adventure program, with the appropriate rules filled in, but to pretend it's AI is just absurd. It's no more AI than a DIY will kit.
×