Jump to content
UdeMlaw123

Course aux stages 2019

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, ULAVAL123 said:

Indiscret de te demander tes stats? :)

Ça commence à devenir indiscret quand c'est la deuxième fois que vous me le demandez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, corporatesellout said:

Ça commence à devenir indiscret quand c'est la deuxième fois que vous me le demandez.

 

Edited by etudiantedroit

Share this post


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

Langlois appelle

Est-ce que c'est possible de connaître tes notes et ton parcours ? Félicitation! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FIRM NAME

STATUS (Refusals sent, Calls started)

1. BCF

A appelé le 08/02

2. Bélanger Sauvé

 

3. Blake Cassels & Graydon

 

4. Borden Ladner Gervais

 

5. Clyde & Co 

 A appelé le 07/02 et 08/02

6. Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg

A appelé le 07/02 et 08/02

7. De Grandpré Chait

 

8. Dentons Canada

 

9. DLA Piper

 

10. Fasken

A appelé le 08/02

11. Goldwater Dubé

 

12. Gowling WLG

A envoyé des emails de convocation le 08/02

13. Langlois Avocats

A appelé le 11/02

14. Lapointe Rosenstein

 

15. Lavery

 

16. McCarthy Tétrault

 

17. McMillan 

 

18. Miller Thomson

A appelé le 11/02, refus par courriel 11/02

19. Monette Barakett 

 

20. Morency

 

21. Norton Rose Fulbright 

A appelé le 11/02

22. Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt

A appelé le 11/02

23. Robinson Sheppard Shapiro

A appelé le 08/02

24. Smart & Biggar 

 

 

25. Spiegel Sohmer

A appelé le 08/02

26. Stikeman Elliott

 

27. Woods

 

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.



  • Recent Posts

    • That was not at all clear.  When you said "do I have to disclose that?" it seemed that you were asking for an opinion based on your similar situation.  At no point was it clear that you were saying that you got in despite working at a family business.  I think that is maybe what you were saying?  It still isn't clear.     Time for a tangentially related rant (although one of my biggest pet peeves on this site)...Although I agree that it isn't a real issue, I would also caution anyone on this site about relying on that sort of anecdotal advice (i.e. it wasn't a problem for me, so you're fine!).  As I've repeatedly said on this site, comments like "I didn't use two academic reference letters despite the school saying that's what they preferred" or "I used a TA as a reference letter, so you'll be fine doing that" aren't helpful.  Those may have been strikes against a student in the application process that they were admitted in spite of and not advice to follow.  
    • Is that what the argument is about? Whether humanities profs are generally more left-leaning than the broader population? They are. I thought that was widely acknowledged. I also thought seizing the academy was an explicit goal, much like conservative law students in the US explicitly set themselves the task of seizing the judiciary. I remember being an undergrad and participating in lots of conversations about how the academy needed to be made more politically correct. I remember law school where students actively campaigned against convocation speakers that didn’t represent their values. They wrote articles about what type of faculty should be hired and what should not. None of that is nefarious - that’s the stuff of politics. The ‘law schools are biased’ claim I always hear is that conservatives are outnumbered and therefore these great defenders of freedom and inheritors of Enlightenment ideals feel gun-shy about sharing their opinions. I just can’t imagine how I could plausibly care any less about that than I already do. But I’m willing to try.
    • No ways. If you're on the waitlist it means they've already extended the amount of interviews that should everyone accept there's no slot for you. Only if people decline will you move up. Wouldn't make sense otherwise - they can't just revoke someone else's interview offer because they liked your continued interest email.
    • I don't think it really matters.  Just say that you worked at x business doing x in the office.  You still haven't provided enough information about your role for me to assess whether a law school would look upon it favourably (i.e. you had an important role, you were developing some sort of useful skill, etc.).  However, based on your last few comments,  I think that you are more concerned about their unfavourable impressions (due to it being a family business).  I don't think they would care.  But I also don't think that you have to disclose it.  Many of the work experiences of law school applicants are nepotistic (family, family friends, etc.).  It isn't a big deal.
×
×
  • Create New...