Jump to content
ConcernedApplicant

Lakehead vs. Western vs. Other Ontario Schools

Recommended Posts

So here is my situation:

I've currently been accepted to only Bora Laskin at Lakehead but I have fringe stats that could get me into another school (particularly Western) in the coming weeks. I haven't worried too much so far about what I would do if I got an offer from another school but, since I have heard that Western is going to be sending out another wave in the coming week I thought I should prepare to make my decision before April 1st if I happen to get an offer. I don't want to get into Western and have to choose between there and Lakehead in like 10 days. 

Some background on me, my goals, and my knowledge thus far:

-I am aware that I haven't even been admitted to Western or anywhere other than Lakehead yet so being concerned about this may prove to be silly if I do not receive any other offers. 

-I like the IPC program at Lakehead but I understand its limitations and that if I want to work in Southern Ontario I will likely have to Article anyway

-I don't have a preference between small-town law or big city law yet, I would be open to either or doing one and then the other later in my career who knows

-I have a preliminary interest in Environmental law but likely only because my undergrad was enviro focused

-I have kind of sold myself on Lakehead at this point because I didn't think I would get another offer but my January LSAT has given me a chance. So far I really like the small number of students, the practical placement, and the overall atmosphere of Thunder Bay as it is very similar to my hometown/city but am unsure about its reputation and the distance from home (2-hour flight, 15-hour drive non-stop) 

So here are my questions..

-Is the fact that Lakehead is a newer school going to make it difficult/impossible for me to get a job in Southern Ontario if I for some reason decide I do not want to stay in the North? (Still undecided on this)

-Would it be dumb of me to decline a potential offer from Western in favor of Lakehead?

-What is the general view of Lakehead's program?

Ultimately what I think  I want to know is if I get an offer from Western should I take it over Lakehead given the information provided above?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2019 at 1:47 PM, ConcernedApplicant said:

make it difficult/impossible

Impossible... No... More difficult? Probably

On 3/13/2019 at 1:47 PM, ConcernedApplicant said:

Would it be dumb of me to decline a potential offer from Western in favor of Lakehead?

Based on your reasons for wanting to go to Lakehead (one of which is that you've convinced yourself it's a school of last resort...) it's probably misguided. 

 

On 3/13/2019 at 1:47 PM, ConcernedApplicant said:

What is the general view of Lakehead's program?

Similar to TRU. New school. Not much of a network that has gone through cycles. Recruiters know it's easier to get into. But it's still a Canadian law school and they're all good. I have a feeling you're asking this question so someone pipes in and says "Lakehead is amazing!" to give you some sort of confirmation on your choice, but I don't you'll get that. 

Not saying Lakehead is a bad program but from your post it doesn't seem you're going to Lakehead for the advantages that its program provides over other schools, but rather because it's the only place you thought you'd get in. You can practice enviro law or do small town law from going to any other school in Canada. There are also schools with similar class sizes. Lakehead advantages are aboriginal studies and no articling. 

Share this post


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

Based on your reasons for wanting to go to Lakehead (one of which is that you've convinced yourself it's a school of last resort...) it's probably misguided. 

It isn't so much that I have convinced myself that its a school of last resort but that I have found many things that I think I would like about it because I did so much research into the program and Thunder Bay itself. It is possible if that I was sitting on an acceptance for 2 months from any other school I would have found out a million things that I like about that school too because I've done an unnecessary amount research on it lol. 

 

10 minutes ago, IrishStew said:

Similar to TRU. New school. Not much of a network that has gone through cycles. Recruiters know it's easier to get into. But it's still a Canadian law school and they're all good. I have a feeling you're asking this question so someone pipes in and says "Lakehead is amazing!" to give you some sort of confirmation on your choice, but I don't you'll get that. 

Not saying Lakehead is a bad program but from your post it doesn't seem you're going to Lakehead for the advantages that its program provides over other schools, but rather because it's the only place you thought you'd get in. You can practice enviro law or do small town law from going to any other school in Canada. There are also schools with similar class sizes. Lakehead advantages are aboriginal studies and no articling. 

Thank you for this! I'm not so much looking for confirmation but more so open to hearing what people have to say good or bad. I am very interested in the no articling aspect as well as getting to spend a semester in a placement rather than a classroom. I just was trying to convey that I do understand that only some firms will hire me without having me actually article. 

It is also a good point that small town law and environmental law can be learned from other schools as well, you're correct in saying that aboriginal studies is their advantage and I do have an interest in that (likely why I was accepted because I focused on small-town practice and aboriginal law as I come from a small town that is adjacent to three reserves). 

 

Thank you for your response! I guess if I am fortunate enough to have to make a decision I will have to look into if I would be going to Lakehead because I'm legitimately interested in it and its specific advantages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All good points. I've been fortunate enough to be accepted by several programs now, but one was very early in the cycle. I did so much research into that one school that I pretty much visualized myself going there in my head. I think it's easy to become biased when you have much more info about a certain program

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

All good points. I've been fortunate enough to be accepted by several programs now, but one was very early in the cycle. I did so much research into that one school that I pretty much visualized myself going there in my head. I think it's easy to become biased when you have much more info about a certain program

Exactly the visualization is killer! I know so much about Lakehead and much less about other schools so I've essentially "sold" myself on Lakehead because I don't know enough about the other schools at this point. Should probably do some research haha  

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

    • Its mostly hyperbole for the pace of it part, I don't really see myself holding a tin can and a sign that reads "Will review contracts for Food".  There is nothing wrong of course with teaching fundamental skills. Just borrowing a page from say, physics. They teach fundamental theories and its very important to. But its laterally supplanted with learning how to use sophisticated machinery, and now supplanted with learning how to design and program simulation models. We spend like, an hour a week learning to use Westlaw and Quicklaw which are the tools of yesterday. We learn nothing about how these tools are going to operate. But yes, case summaries have not changed. It literally went unchanged for over a decade. Not for criminal law obviously, but the summaries I looked at were virtually identical to mine in teaching ratios and so-on with the same cases used. My point wasn't that it isn't useful; but the way of teaching it has not adapted yet and this is IMO problematic.  Sorry I seem very bitter and so-on, but I am just kind of frustrated with how archaic law school looks to be entering my second year. 
    • Thanks for taking the time to answer my previous question. I may be applying this cycle and have a question with regards to the Sketch part of the application. When I previously applied to Law School I added every little volunteer/extracurricular from the time I entered University. For simplicity purposes, I wanted to retain only the last 3-4 years of relevant experience. Would this be a problem for an individual that had more sketch items in a previous application 1-2 years ago? For example some activities are not included at all whereas they were on a previous application?  And just for the sake of knowing I guess, would you have access to and look back at a previous application if you were assessing a candidate?  
    • No, I think the bias is good because it makes whiny conservatives like you fill your diaper. Your first thought on hearing the Prime Minister did something racist was run to bump an old thread to try and score points for your “team”, because to you the racism isn’t really the issue, it’s just an opportunity to poke a lib in the eye.
    • I don't think that people are necessarily laughing at the essence of what you are saying.  What you are saying isn't completely crazy.  The pace at which you are suggesting this will all happen is likely, in part, what they are doubting.  The reactions may also be partly attributed to the fact that you haven't (I don't think?) actually practiced law at this point. I just don't think the legal profession will be completely revolutionized as imminently as your comments suggest.  While I (and probably others) can appreciate arguments that computers will replace certain functions currently done by humans and that some of Ryerson's tech-forward training could be helpful (if well executed), I think it will take time to get there.  While I do appreciate the need for lawyers to have more technical skills and to better integrate technology into law schools (whatever that means...I'm old), I don't understand how this translates to what seems to be your critique of the substance of law school (i.e. what is taught not the way it is taught).  I do think that law school, especially 1L, should continue to include the case reading, making legal arguments, etc. that you seem to criticize, both because I can't imagine a scenario where humans interacting with AI technology don't need a baseline level of knowledge of the law and because I don't think these changes are going to come all that quickly.  It is also pretty absurd to claim that summaries from 2003 are "the same".  75% the same?  Sure.  But actually the same?  Doubtful.  Even if they were "the same", that doesn't demonstrate that law school curricula are dated or make them irrelevant.  If that is the current state of the law, then that is the current state of the law.
    • Agreed. Also I’m at UBC (where OP also seems to attend) and I’ve had several recruiters at big firms tell me, unprompted, that we have a great CSO that understands exactly what the firms want. Probably since our CSO people have worked at large firms.  Just wanted to add that since I don’t think it’s helpful for OP to go down the path of thinking an incompetent CSO was his or her issue. 
×
×
  • Create New...