Jump to content
pzabbythesecond

Ryerson Law open for applications this fall

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, onepost said:

But clearly Ryerson wants us--and prospective students--to think that they are offering "something different" from any other school in Canada. 

Literally every law school in Canada makes this pitch on their own offerings. You don't think Osgoode or Ottawa or McGill or UBC want prospective students or the legal community to think they are offering something different from every other school? That's absurd to the point of being stupid. You, like many others in this thread, have approached this discussion backwards. You're against Ryerson so you're nitpicking and reading their marketing in bad faith to justify your conclusion.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why you are so angry, and I'm baffled by the accusation that I am arguing in bad faith. (As far as I can tell, you and pzabby are arguing from the premise that Ryerson is making a bad-faith marketing pitch to the public.)

Again, I'm not arguing (i) that Ryerson shouldn't happen or (ii) that it will be somehow a sub-standard legal education. Insofar as I'm arguing anything, it's only that, if we take Ryerson at their word, on the basis of the curriculum they are advertising and their proposal, that there's a reasonable chance the legal education be a significantly different from other law schools. What other law school teaches contracts, torts, property, constitutional, criminal, ethics, LRW, admin, and indigenous law in the first year? Or has one semester for electives? Or has a mandatory placement? Or has second-year in which every course involves "simulated practice"? Whether you think this is good or bad, I don't see how you can dismiss these features as irrelevant. The examples you gave of other law school's unique features--a handful of students doing DLS for credit, e.g.--seem insignificant by comparison.

If I am right, I think it will be interesting. It's easy to take for granted exactly that which you are arguing: all the other common law schools are functionally identical, so Ryerson must be functionally identical to other common law schools. But I don't think that follows. 

I don't think we know what it would be like to have an alternative to status quo. Isn't that worth talking about? It was really not my intention for this to boil down to 'Ryerson is good/bad.' 

Share this post


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

What other law school teaches contracts, torts, property, constitutional, criminal, ethics, LRW, admin, and indigenous law in the first year? most.

 

 Or has one semester for electives? most

Or has a mandatory placement? osgoode, and I'm certain at least some others.

 

Or has second-year in which every course involves "simulated practice"? lakehead? And McGill does something like this in both 1L and 2L. I'm sure others do too.

There goes your strawman.

We're not saying you're arguing in bad faith (at least I'm not). I'm saying you're wrong on your premise, so your conclusion is pointless to discuss in the context of ryerson.

Share this post


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

Who pays the doctors and who pays the lawyers?

Taxpayers 

Share this post


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

Taxpayers 

Yes, you are slowly getting there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2019 at 1:03 PM, pzabbythesecond said:

Last I checked the price of legal services in Toronto is still far too high for even average earners to pay without taking a significant savings hit. Let alone the dozens of thousands of people living at the margins, but who fail to qualify for legal aid.

Let people take the risk and go to ryerson. If the school is really as incompetent as people are making it to be, then their grads will flounder. Otherwise, the market place will adjust accordingly.

Time spent in law school + cost of tuition as high as it is makes it so that more lawyers does not solve access to justice problems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jwms said:

Time spent in law school + cost of tuition as high as it is makes it so that more lawyers does not solve access to justice problems. 

This really isn’t why more lawyers doesn’t decrease legal costs. It’s because law students, in general, have a floor of wages they could make in another field, and thus won’t go below it. 

If it was the two factors you discussed it wouldn’t matter. Nobody is not taking a legal job that pays poorly because they spent three years in law school or owe a whack of money. They’re not taking a poorly paid legal job because they could make more elsewhere. 

If it was your reasons, we’d see better access to justice in provinces with lower tuition fees, and that’s simply not the case. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This really isn’t why more lawyers doesn’t decrease legal costs. It’s because law students, in general, have a floor of wages they could make in another field, and thus won’t go below it. 

If it was the two factors you discussed it wouldn’t matter. Nobody is not taking a legal job that pays poorly because they spent three years in law school or owe a whack of money. They’re not taking a poorly paid legal job because they could make more elsewhere. 

If it was your reasons, we’d see better access to justice in provinces with lower tuition fees, and that’s simply not the case. 

Sure. That's more or less implicit in my (intentionally simplistic) statement. That is, people who spend 3 years on a professional degree (and absorb the costs of doing so), and incur the direct (tuition) costs will seek compensation commensurate with those costs. And there are enough jobs outside of law that reward professional degrees, like law, to support that. 

Edited by jwms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jwms said:

Time spent in law school + cost of tuition as high as it is makes it so that more lawyers does not solve access to justice problems. 

I don't get the issue here (and I agree with Blocked, and it seems you did too).

 

There's a floor. So if students go to ryerson and strike out at a sufficiently well paying law job, they'll presumably take jobs at the floor we discussed.

If that floor is already reached by the law school grads we have, than the number of students leaving law for these floor jobs will increase by the number of ryerson law grads (I say by this number since I presume at least some ryerson grads will be competitive enough to displace other schools' students for at least some law jobs).

There's no issue. Some students made a mistake but dealt with that mistake by taking a job that rewards them to the extent they require to work.

Now if that isn't true, then presumably some law grads will now work at prices cheaper than currently available (because that floor hasn't been reached yet), and the price of legal services comes down.

 

Either way it's a no loss, only win proposition. It's literally pareto efficient to have another law school. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue is more that, as we've seen in the U.S. (and may have been re-hashed earlier in this thread), the proliferation of the law school business has preyed on people with biglaw dreams, to their tremendous personal detriment. It hasn't solved access to justice problems (which I'd argue more lawyers would never solve), and has instead served to do little other than gouge mis-informed people. That's generally my concern: that the price of legal services don't come down, and some small segment of young people are made substantially worse off. But, I could be wrong. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I think the issue is more that, as we've seen in the U.S. (and may have been re-hashed earlier in this thread), the proliferation of the law school business has preyed on people with biglaw dreams, to their tremendous personal detriment. It hasn't solved access to justice problems (which I'd argue more lawyers would never solve), and has instead served to do little other than gouge mis-informed people. That's generally my concern: that the price of legal services don't come down, and some small segment of young people are made substantially worse off. But, I could be wrong. 

Ah yes, society's pressing need to protect people who are undeniably in the top, what 20% of the population, in terms of both population and privilege. How could we forget that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again – society's paternalistic energies could be much better spent protecting the people who need it rather than the wilfully blind law student. 

Edited by BlockedQuebecois
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ah yes, society's pressing need to protect people who are undeniably in the top, what 20% of the population, in terms of both population and privilege. How could we forget that.

I've said it before and I'll say it again – society's paternalistic energies could be much better spent protecting the people who need it rather than the wilfully blind law student. 

First comment isn't particularly helpful/enlightening.

Second comment presumes the two aims are mutually exclusive, or that because one is more pressing that the other is irrelevant. Neither of those propositions are accurate or helpful.

Share this post


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

First comment isn't particularly helpful/enlightening.

Second comment presumes the two aims are mutually exclusive, or that because one is more pressing that the other is irrelevant. Neither of those propositions are accurate or helpful.

My point is that there's no pressing need to protect law students. They're smart, privileged individuals. They don't need our paternalism, and the idea that they do – and that they need protection so badly that we should shield them from a competitive job market and potentially harm access to justice to do so – is infantilizing, idiotic, and insulting.

Share this post


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

My point is that there's no pressing need to protect law students. They're smart, privileged individuals. They don't need our paternalism, and the idea that they do – and that they need protection so badly that we should shield them from a competitive job market and potentially harm access to justice to do so – is infantilizing, idiotic, and insulting.

But there is a need to protect the public that law students will eventually serve.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

But there is a need to protect the public that law students will eventually serve.

That's on the LSO. 

And I'll strongly wager that ryerson won't increase materially the number of students failing to be deemed competent to practice. Especially when you consider that Bond kids pass the NCA process and the Bar every year en masse.

Now if you want to argue that the licensing process doesn't sufficiently do that, you can say that. But that still doesn't mean ryerson or other law schools should stop from being created. It means the LSO needs to get their role in order.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

That's on the LSO. 

And I'll strongly wager that ryerson won't increase materially the number of students failing to be deemed competent to practice. Especially when you consider that Bond kids pass the NCA process and the Bar every year en masse.

Now if you want to argue that the licensing process doesn't sufficiently do that, you can say that. But that still doesn't mean ryerson or other law schools should stop from being created. It means the LSO needs to get their role in order.

I’m not addressing my comments to any school in particular. I was just responding to the idea that we shouldn’t protect privileged law students from their own mistakes and my point was that their mistakes often become the public’s problem. Which I agree is ultimately the law society’s problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Rashabon said:

Yes, you are slowly getting there.

Presumably you already are. 

Share this post


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

I completely agree that it'll get there, but I think it'll take longer than 5 years.

Keep it mind that Ryerson won't graduate its inaugural class for another 3 years, and if they flounder in the job market because they aren't articling for example, that'll keep a lot of stronger candidates away until the school develops a better reputation. But if they come swinging out the gates, they'll be in the top 4 in 5 to 7 years.

My next point might have been made before, I don't know, this is a long thread and I didn't go through all of it, but I think the Ontario schools that will suffer immediately and most severely from Ryerson's new law school will be Windsor and Lakehead. This is unfortunate IMO. But most of the students in Windsor are from the GTA, and Windsor doesn't have the "prestige" (whatever that means) to defeat the convenience (and possibly savings) that would result from a GTA resident attending a reasonably priced law school downtown.

I think its a shame, as the law school experience is different, and I think richer when you go out of your comfort zone - read: out of town, and become embedded in a new town and community. Certainly that was my experience. I've heard that the sense of community in transplant schools like Windsor, Queens, and Western is hard to replicate in commuter schools like Osgoode and UofT.

That said, I think Ryerson will benefit incalculably from its location. If it was around when I was applying for law school, I don't know that I wouldn't have chosen it over Windsor because of my circumstances at the time. The school will definitely siphon stronger GTA applicants from Windsor, Lakehead and to a much lesser extent Ottawa. But I also suspect that Ryerson's first graduating class will be stronger than TRU's or Lakehead's, and they'll place well in the job market - if they sort out their articling thing. I maintain that for the most part, firms hire the individual, not the law school, and you wouldn't want to work at any place that does otherwise. But employers may balk at the prospect of hiring a student who has not and is not planning on articling. I find that it is a central part of the profession's understanding of what it takes be a competent lawyer. That's not going to change overnight.   

I think Osgoode, Queens and Western won't feel the impact of Ryerson until it enters the conversation for top 3 law schools in the province in 5-7 years, and even then the effect on their applicant pool will likely be minimal. 

I agree with many of the points you raised, but wanted to address the bolded line because I've seen similar sentiments posted often.  I can't speak to Lakehead as I have no idea how they've done, but TRU's first few classes did extremely well. 

TRU drew a lot of skepticism when it first opened as it was the first new law school in 20ish years, but their first class had close to a 100% articling placement and their second graduating class did have a 100% articling placement.  Now getting legal jobs may not be the metric you're looking at when you say strong graduating class, but it's what I always think of. 

Bringing it back to the point of this thread, I'm sure Ryerson grads will do just fine as well.  The competitive ones will find jobs and the not so competitive ones will struggle to find jobs which is true for every law school. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, TheAEGIS said:

I completely agree that it'll get there, but I think it'll take longer than 5 years.

Keep it mind that Ryerson won't graduate its inaugural class for another 3 years, and if they flounder in the job market because they aren't articling for example, that'll keep a lot of stronger candidates away until the school develops a better reputation. But if they come swinging out the gates, they'll be in the top 4 in 5 to 7 years.

My next point might have been made before, I don't know, this is a long thread and I didn't go through all of it, but I think the Ontario schools that will suffer immediately and most severely from Ryerson's new law school will be Windsor and Lakehead. This is unfortunate IMO. But most of the students in Windsor are from the GTA, and Windsor doesn't have the "prestige" (whatever that means) to defeat the convenience (and possibly savings) that would result from a GTA resident attending a reasonably priced law school downtown.

 I think its a shame, as the law school experience is different, and I think richer when you go out of your comfort zone - read: out of town, and become embedded in a new town and community. Certainly that was my experience. I've heard that the sense of community in transplant schools like Windsor, Queens, and Western is hard to replicate in commuter schools like Osgoode and UofT.

That said, I think Ryerson will benefit incalculably from its location. If it was around when I was applying for law school, I don't know that I wouldn't have chosen it over Windsor because of my circumstances at the time. The school will definitely siphon stronger GTA applicants from Windsor, Lakehead and to a much lesser extent Ottawa. But I also suspect that Ryerson's first graduating class will be stronger than TRU's or Lakehead's, and they'll place well in the job market - if they sort out their articling thing. I maintain that for the most part, firms hire the individual, not the law school, and you wouldn't want to work at any place that does otherwise. But employers may balk at the prospect of hiring a student who has not and is not planning on articling. I find that it is a central part of the profession's understanding of what it takes be a competent lawyer. That's not going to change overnight.   

I think Osgoode, Queens and Western won't feel the impact of Ryerson until it enters the conversation for top 3 law schools in the province in 5-7 years, and even then the effect on their applicant pool will likely be minimal. 

I expect the Windsor dual program will immediately be a worse option. Would you rather go to law school in Toronto for three years and graduate a bar exam away from being a lawyer, or go to law school in Windsor/Detroit for four years, pay more tuition, and graduate still needing to find articles? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any savvy people here who can comment on classes like "Coding Bootcamp." Can someone learn coding in one semester? Is this helpful to a legal career? Will one semester help advance a career in a non legal field?

 

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

    • Going to help Ryn out when I can. I have the same experiences as them.  The review teams do not have the previous files, but we can request the information from admin if we needed it.  Practically speaking though, the scenario you're worrying about will not happen. It's quite rare for us to look at your previous application.  That being said I've always been of the opinion that you should tell the committee about your experiences. No reason to remove them IMHO 
    • There are a lot of recent topics on this website that you can review that discuss ways a new call can obtain employment. I was called in June 2019 and got my current job off of contacting a partner from a firm that was hiring in one practice area and providing him with an application package. I then did two interview with them, as per normal. Other people I know tended to do the same thing, rather than relying on Indeed, etc., just because it is so competitive and unless you are a superstar, it can be hard to distinguish yourself. 
    • If OP went to TRU in 1L then UBC in 2L, I'd assume they just didn't have strong cover letters/resumes. I'm in 3L at TRU and received 9 Vancouver OCIs with the following grades: A-, B+, B+, B, B, B, B. I had heard rumours that transferring to UBC from TRU/UVic looks bad to employers unless you had a compelling reason to transfer (family issues, you got married, etc.). I have no idea how true that is, so yeah.
    • 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 some of the curriculum for law schools generally seems 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?  
×
×
  • Create New...