Jump to content
megla

Why Ryerson?

Recommended Posts

People who have been accepted to Ryerson and are highly considering accepting the offer/people who have not been offered admission but are hoping for a Ryerson offer: 

What makes you want to choose Ryerson Law, especially with their program being brand new? 

Personally, I think that there are some really interesting upsides to the program description and a few downsides that come with being a new school, so I would love to hear opinions, since we can't hear from upper years :)

Edit: trust me, I've read all the posts about what current students at other schools or those who have graduated think about the program. I was really hoping to hear from other people about what they think. I very nearly did an undergrad at Ryerson, and thought it was fascinating when they opened up a law school. I was surprised to read that it isn't highly regarded by other students. I understand all those points, thanks. But I would love to hear from anyone who is genuinely considering the school, not from people who have already written it off :)

Edited by megla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ottawa was NOT my top 2 choices but that was my only offer....

Hope that answer your question.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, sorry to be blunt, but the obvious answer is that the stats of people accepting offers to Ryerson are generally not competitive for many other law schools in Canada (especially in Ontario).

Not to piss on everyone going to Ryerson; I wish you all the best of luck and I'm sure it will by no means be a diploma mill like Bond or Cooley, but it would be extremely disingenuous for the vast majority of Ryerson students to act like they had loads of options but Ryerson was the most appealing.

Don't try to sell that bullshit about how great Ryerson is to legal employers either; it won't play well. Something like "I wanted to study in Toronto" would be fine to say and "but I couldn't get in to UofT or Osgoode" can politely be left unstated but everyone is going to understand that's the implication.

Edited by CleanHands
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your comment sounds so stuck up. You are making it seem like people accepting Ryerson are at the bottom of the pool of applicants. 
 

many of us who have been accepted have great GPA’s with a combination of mediocre lsat scores, some higher some lower.  first off, LSAT isn’t everything and it’s finally nice to see schools realizing that. And it’s ryersons first year, they can’t have a threshold - but they did have an interview which many other schools lack to get insight on personality. I have amazing EC’s like many others here, I worked extremely hard to get where I am today for the purpose of attending a law school - like I’m sure we ALL have whether we attend UofT, Osgoode etc. You are taking the pleasure away from people who are so happy to have been accepted and have the opportunity to attend law school- why? Because you think only the best people attend the prestigious schools? I rather have a class with down to earth people than filled with snobs who look down on others based on what school they attend. 

youre right, I will give that to you that if I don’t receive an offer from anywhere else I will go to Ryerson. However, it’s my second choice NOT my last. But that doesn’t make people like me  any less than you or anyone. People with higher stats than me also get rejected at time’s, if you look at other threads of different schools you’ll be surprised how many people with high stats don’t always get the opportunity to go to law school. Ryerson has an interesting approach, something different which seems relevant in our society today. Including the ability to skip articling. Who knows how it will be, but I wouldn’t put others down. 

Edited by Vv96
  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Yeah, sorry to be blunt, but the obvious answer is that the stats of people accepting offers to Ryerson are generally not competitive for many other law schools in Canada (especially in Ontario).

Not to piss on everyone going to Ryerson; I wish you all the best of luck and I'm sure it will by no means be a diploma mill like Bond or Cooley, but it would be extremely disingenuous for the vast majority of Ryerson students to act like they had loads of options but Ryerson was the most appealing.

Don't try to sell that bullshit about how great Ryerson is to legal employers either; it won't play well. Something like "I wanted to study in Toronto" would be fine to say and "but I couldn't get in to UofT or Osgoode" can politely be left unstated but everyone is going to understand that's the implication.

Good points

Edited by Luckycharm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far we have only seen high GPA low LSAT splitters admitted.

I will like Ryerson if it gives high LSAT low GPA splitters the equal opportunities.😂 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will be what people make out of it. The bottom half of the class will perform similar to how the bottom of the class does at other schools, and I think the top 10 percent of people that are driven/willing to work for it might get lucky and work on Bay Street. it's a good school, and it will be top 5 in Ontario in a few years, which is better than Lakehead and Windsor. 

 

Although it matters where you go to school to a small extent (Canadian schools only), employers are looking at the person and not the school. There's people from England working on Bay Street, so why can't Ryerson grads? 

Edited by jatthopefullawyer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's keep the discussion civil and at least attempt some positivity. Too many of these Ryerson discussions have given occasion to members who want to bash the school without having any idea as to how grads will actually perform and secure employment. The same thing happened with TRU and Lakehead, and it gets tiresome. Any further snark will be deleted. Thanks.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, jatthopefullawyer said:

I think it will be what people make out of it. The bottom half of the class will perform similar to how the bottom of the class does at other schools, and I think the top 10 percent of people that are driven/willing to work for it might get lucky and work on Bay Street. it's a good school, and it will be top 5 in Ontario in a few years, which is better than Lakehead and Windsor. 

 

Although it matters where you go to school to a small extent (Canadian schools only), employers are looking at the person and not the school. There's people from England working on Bay Street, so why can't Ryerson grads? 

Based on absolutely nothing but a hunch, I too think Ryerson will eventually be a top 5 schools in Ontario behind Toronto, osgoode, western and Queens because of its location in downtown Toronto. However my guesstimation is that this will take closer to 10 years because the grads will need some time to establish themselves 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why go to Ryerson? Because it would be cool as hell to be apart of the very first graduating class of a law school! Imagine if you were part of the first class to graduate Western or something, that would be pretty cool

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lawstudent97 said:

Based on absolutely nothing but a hunch, I too think Ryerson will eventually be a top 5 schools in Ontario behind Toronto, osgoode, western and Queens because of its location in downtown Toronto. However my guesstimation is that this will take closer to 10 years because the grads will need some time to establish themselves 

Totally agree. however, I am a little skeptical right now because they are being holistic and accepting people with lower stats (low 150 LSAT) before the people with 160+ LSAT and 3.7 GPA, so that doesn't make sense to me. if they keep going with their holistic route, I think they might end up being like Windsor. maybe they are going in a random order through applications? we will have wait until the end of the 2020 cycle to find out 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am guessing that the first class would be given special treatments. For example the faulty might directly try to connect each student with a job. The first students are the most important so they will be taken very good care of. This is just what I think, wouldn’t make since for Ryerson to take in students and don’t give them extra care as a new law school 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Vv96 said:

they did have an interview which many other schools lack to get insight on personality.

For what it's worth I completely agree that the interview is a good idea and should be a standard component of law school admissions. At the most selective schools in Canada there are some students who are brilliant academically but actively off-putting in social contexts, and they tend to get a really rough ride regardless of how they perform grades-wise. Law schools aren't doing these people a favour by admitting them, and they should be screened out before they invest ~$100k.

58 minutes ago, Vv96 said:

You are taking the pleasure away from people who are so happy to have been accepted and have the opportunity to attend law school- why? Because you think only the best people attend the prestigious schools?

Because it's kind of absurd for a thread to exist asking why people "chose" one of the least selective schools in the country. The answer is obvious.

1 hour ago, Vv96 said:

Ryerson has an interesting approach, something different which seems relevant in our society today.

Ryerson's techno-hipster marketing is...divisive. That's all I'll say about that.

1 hour ago, Vv96 said:

Including the ability to skip articling.

Here's something that I think Ryerson students need to hear: just because Ryerson grads are exempt from articling doesn't mean they are going to be competitive for associate positions at respectable firms straight out of graduation.

I'll be completing law school with two summer articling terms, two clinics, and three years of practical experience volunteering providing legal service. My experience is not exceptional for a Canadian law student at an established school. The idea that Ryerson's practicum experience provides superior practical training to what law students at other schools are able to get during their studies is dubious. But then add in a year of articling experience for someone with my profile vs no articling for a Ryerson grad. Who do you think firms are going to hire for an associate position, all else being equal?

My suspicion is that firms are by and large going to treat Ryerson grads as if the articling exemption didn't exist, and the starting pay and responsibilities are going to be the same even if the title is different. That would make the articling exemption only good for starting up one's own shop, which would be a terrible idea straight out of law school in any event.

The exemption certainly isn't a strike against Ryerson by any means, I just don't think it will actually translate into any meaningful advantage in the end for the vast majority of grads.

33 minutes ago, erinl2 said:

Let's keep the discussion civil and at least attempt some positivity. Too many of these Ryerson discussions have given occasion to members who want to bash the school without having any idea as to how grads will actually perform and secure employment. The same thing happened with TRU and Lakehead, and it gets tiresome. Any further snark will be deleted. Thanks.

Okay, no "snark." Are people allowed to be respectfully critical or disagree with positivity though? Or do we all have to pretend that there's no difference between anything and everything is great?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Totally agree. however, I am a little skeptical right now because they are being holistic and accepting people with lower stats (low 150 LSAT) before the people with 160+ LSAT and 3.7 GPA, so that doesn't make sense to me. if they keep going with their holistic route, I think they might end up being like Windsor. maybe they are going in a random order through applications? we will have wait until the end of the 2020 cycle to find out 

I think I know why. I think many old timers here also know why.

Ottawa is doing quite the opposite and that is why they had over 900 offers for 300+ offers.

But I could be wrong

Edited by Luckycharm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Lawstudent97 said:

Based on absolutely nothing but a hunch, I too think Ryerson will eventually be a top 5 schools in Ontario behind Toronto, osgoode, western and Queens because of its location in downtown Toronto. 

Ottawa says NNNNNOOOOO! 😂

Share this post


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

Ottawa says NNNNNOOOOO! 😂

I don't think Ottawa gives a damn...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Luckycharm said:

I think I know why. I think many old timers here also know why.

Ottawa is doing quite the opposite and that is why they had over 900 offers for 300+ offers.

But I could be wrong

Could you elaborate for us newbies here? :) is it because people with high stats would reject? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

For what it's worth I completely agree that the interview is a good idea and should be a standard component of law school admissions. At the most selective schools in Canada there are some students who are brilliant academically but actively off-putting in social contexts, and they tend to get a really rough ride regardless of how they perform grades-wise. Law schools aren't doing these people a favour by admitting them, and they should be screened out before they invest ~$100k.

Because it's kind of absurd for a thread to exist asking why people "chose" one of the least selective schools in the country. The answer is obvious.

Ryerson's techno-hipster marketing is...divisive. That's all I'll say about that.

Here's something that I think Ryerson students need to hear: just because Ryerson grads are exempt from articling doesn't mean they are going to be competitive for associate positions at respectable firms straight out of graduation.

I'll be completing law school with two summer articling terms, two clinics, and three years of practical experience volunteering providing legal service. My experience is not exceptional for a Canadian law student at an established school. The idea that Ryerson's practicum experience provides superior practical training to what law students at other schools are able to get during their studies is dubious. But then add in a year of articling experience for someone with my profile vs no articling for a Ryerson grad. Who do you think firms are going to hire for an associate position, all else being equal?

My suspicion is that firms are by and large going to treat Ryerson grads as if the articling exemption didn't exist, and the starting pay and responsibilities are going to be the same even if the title is different. That would make the articling exemption only good for starting up one's own shop, which would be a terrible idea straight out of law school in any event.

The exemption certainly isn't a strike against Ryerson by any means, I just don't think it will actually translate into any meaningful advantage in the end for the vast majority of grads.

Okay, no "snark." Are people allowed to be respectfully critical or disagree with positivity though? Or do we all have to pretend that there's no difference between anything and everything is great?

I agree- who knows, skipping articling is an unpredictable advantage. However, it also makes sense. Why is it such a necessity? When you start in a firm,you  start at the bottom and become more experienced in order to work your way up. How would this be different from a ryerson grad without the articling vs. with the articling? I certainly don’t think employers will look down on this, it would not make sense to. The same way you train an articling student is the same as a new grad straight out of law school who on top of that,  already  has some type of experience in their placement.  If anything, you get to start working earlier- doesn’t mean your in a high position, but it’s a head start. 

We’ll see how it goes. There’s a reason why ryerson is doing this.. they are not stupid. I wouldn’t be surprised if in the near future more “prestigious schools” begin to think this way. We are so irresistible to change because of what we think is the best. 
 

I’m not defending ryerson completely, because what we are about to see is UNKNOWN which is why I think we shouldn’t be bashing it or making others who got accepted feel any less. They still got accepted to law school. Ryerson is clearly selective with only offering 150 spots. They are also accepting people with stats you wouldn’t necessarily think are competitive, and I think the reason is because they are trying to build a  community that fits their law school and are choosing applicants who can contribute. Just like Osgoode and UofT traditionally accept people with the HIGHEST stats, they want to maintain their prestige. Which to me is a little questionable because like mentioned in this thread, personality and interpersonal skills  are extremely important in a career, and they should make more effort to look for that in applicants. 

 

Congratulations to all who have been accepted. We deserve it, and if we decide to go to ryerson, I am optimistic about what’s to come. Don’t let others take away your happiness! 

Edited by Vv96
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vv96 said:

I’m not defending ryerson completely, because what we are about to see is UNKNOWN which is why I think we shouldn’t be bashing it or making others who got accepted feel any less. They still got accepted to law school. Ryerson is clearly selective with only offering 150 spots. They are also accepting people with stats you wouldn’t necessarily think are competitive, and I think the reason is because they are trying to build a  community that fits their law school and are choosing applicants who can contribute. Just like Osgoode and UofT traditionally accept people with the HIGHEST stats, they want to maintain their prestige. Which to me is a little questionable because like mentioned in this thread, personality and interpersonal skills  are extremely important in a career, and they should make more effort to look for that in applicants. 

I think Ryerson definitely has something to offer and I can certainly see why some are drawn to its new approach to legal education...

 

BUT

 

I think it’s disingenuous to say that U of T and Osgoode only look at stats. For sure, that’s a large component of any application (as it should be since they’re looking for academically strong students). But they also prioritize the creation of a diverse class and genuinely consider what you say in your PS and that’s borne out by the published statistics. Should interviews be a component of all law school admissions? Probably! But to say that U of T and Osgoode look for robot students and Ryerson is the only one who cares about whether the class will be diverse in personality and interest is just false, otherwise U of T and Osgoode would just do auto-admit like UBC.

 

Edited by albertabean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CleanHands said:

For what it's worth I completely agree that the interview is a good idea and should be a standard component of law school admissions. At the most selective schools in Canada there are some students who are brilliant academically but actively off-putting in social contexts, and they tend to get a really rough ride regardless of how they perform grades-wise. Law schools aren't doing these people a favour by admitting them, and they should be screened out before they invest ~$100k.

Yea, let's discriminate against people who have Asperger's or social anxiety or other such disabilities! How dare they struggle with social settings. We need to generate more good looking, white, extroverts for big firms to scoop up! 

 

  • Thanks 2

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.



×
×
  • Create New...