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
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
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
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

    • "similar wealth to my own what they were getting" Do they also have similar available resources, expenses, accumulated educational debts and personal reasons....... "The primary criterion for receipt of a bursary is financial need. Decisions are made based on a variety of considerations, including available resources, expenses, accumulated educational debt and personal factors, including medical and familial circumstances.  
    • Academic:  Going to echo The Scientist because he usually always explains UOttawa's depth quite well. Our faculty size for the English Section is the largest with 50+ fulltimes, 30 part time (technically, in reality they have job functions non-purely academic but teach courses, since we have non-JD stuff like the National Program for training QC lawyers in commonlaw, a bunch of faculty-run legal clinics/public interest groups intervening in the SCC, etc. ). Research at the faculty is also pretty strong but the university isn't that good at branding itself; e.g. our environmental law faculty has the most depth including the very best career lawyers in Canada and our tech law faculty has the most influential people in Canada for tech-related areas of law. We have people from the foremost torts scholar in Canada (former dean too) and a former Attorney General teaching 1Ls.  Other positive notes: Significant amount of panels, talks, issues and engaging topics. This ranges from the obvious SCC lawyers/Federal Courts cases where a bunch of lawyers go from the court house to panels at UOttawa, many corporate lawyers from Ottawa/Toronto, many specific interest groups (Aboriginal law, feminist law, technology law, federal law, public international law etc)  and many visiting lawyers and academics in Ottawa. The thing about Ottawa is that it functions as a sort of "gathering place" for people from all across Canada/the world so there's lots of big events in town where some people also do things at UO.  We also have a strong "revolving door" of sessional instructors, you will very likely get one per semester. They are usually hits but they are also working people with full jobs and a law graduate degree (e.g. the guy who teaches my course is an awesome first-timer and went to HYS school for an LLM). They are also fantastic people to talk to for career advice.  Downsides: We do not have nearly the depth as Queens or a few schools in advanced corporate law courses; classes can be very full sometimes (50-60 per class is typical).  Community:  Upsides: More mature community than other law schools, like 30% of the class has had career experience or a graduate degree and the average age is like 25-26. While the majority just got out of undergrad, the two groups mix quite well. I've known many people who worked for the Feds or Prov government, worked in Bay Street, did advanced research MSc's, etc. I have honestly learned alot from my classmates and each bring great life experience.  We have lots of student groups; arguably many of the X Field of Law Students Association do not do regular events except panels and bake sales but you will find lots of proactive interest-specific groups/clubs/event organizations. Getting engaged in student life can be very tricky but it requires looking in the right place.  We also got to meet the SCC at an event hosted on their lawn; it was fantastic. The Faculty seems to be the most well-connected in Canada.  Downsides: Overcrowded building; they shuffle a lot of undergrads into a few rooms and they are often in our libraries. Alot of law students were pushing for a ban of undergrads. Civ Law also uses our space and we operate like two parallel worlds. The community is less tied together; there is definitely a weaker sense of community outside of your large group (70-80) or small section  (15-20). Part of this is due to the inept law student society imo and the lack of community-building events of the orientation which did not have any social events. They virtually guarantee that cliques will (and has always) formed just by the nature of how they structured the first week. English Common Law have far few events that bring people together and French Common Law (1/5th the class) are pretty much in their own bubble. Civil Law tends to dominate the libraries though; hard-working but we have basically parallel worlds.  I honestly think this can be fixed by just giving us our own student spaces and lounge areas; offices and rooms for student groups and making it appear more community-friendly. They were supposed to give us a new building a while back but UOttawa instead spent it elsewhere. Taking proactive effort in the first 3 weeks with community-making social events and breaking the barriers that develop is also something the admin can do.   Other Notes: It can feel like "Going to Work" in some sense; our school is probably less student-focused given the school plays a significant functional role for the legal profession, Canada, and specific interests/issues. For example there was an event honoring a great Ontario judge attended by many lawyers and well-to-do judiciary members including the SCC right beside my evening class; it was definitely open to all students though.
    • Generally speaking, of a 4-year degree, U of C considers only the last 2 years-worth of courses (last 60 of a total of 120 credits). Regardless of whether they transfer or not.  If you went to a university outside of Canada, then you will want to contact admissions with your specifics.
    • Can anyone help? I understand that your last 60 credits are considered for your gpa calculation but what If you go to a different university than UofA? do all the degree level classes count towards gpa? Even if they don't transfer to the Uofa? 
    • Can anyone help? I understand that your last 60 credits are considered for your gpa calculation but what If you go to a different university than Calgary? do all the degree level classes count towards gpa? Even if they don't transfer to the UofC? 
×