Jump to content

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, FineCanadianFXs said:

Ditto. I went to law school as a mature student. Never faced any negative attitudes. Most firms and organizations were very interested in my previous experience and maturity. Depending on your age and where you apply, you may sometimes have to answer a question intended to delicately gauge if "you still got the stamina to bill 2400 hrs while taking orders from associates and partners younger than you?"

It comes down to attitude. The successful mature law students in my cohort didn't care about their age, got involved, made friends, and had or developed legal passions just like everyone else. They brought that into recruitment processes and did well because firms and organizations like to hire smart, positive, passionate people. Then there were those who acted like Roger Murdaugh in Lethal Weapon, constantly and vocally expressing im-too-old-for-this-shit attitudes; or who condescended to the younger law students because they thought their age and experience gave them some special legal wisdom powers. Attitude often bleeds into job applications and interviews, and acts as a red flag. That's likely why some people perceive that they've faced some form of age discrimination when what actually happened was a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

I haven't been on this forum in years but just stumbled across this thread and want to echo how true this statement is about attitude. The mature students who thrived were those who embraced where there were and why they were there. They joined clubs, made friends with the students fresh out of their undergrad, and didn't rely on old tropes like "I know how these things work in the real world" and "I learned more in my career than any textbook or professor could ever teach me." The mature students who struggled with grades, with OCIs, with the whole law school experience, could never let go of the fact that their past life didn't give them reason to consider themselves above their law school peers. 

And for those in the thread who suggest you won't be able to get into law school, succeed in law school, or get a job because of your age, I too have some anecdotal evidence to the contrary. I went to law school as a mature student, had a 2.85 GPA, 158 LSAT. I've been an A- student the whole way through. Now have a position at a national firm where partners have often brought up my past experience as an asset. You do not need a 170 LSAT and your pre-law school stats aren't necessarily going to dictate your success as a law school student, your attitude and commitment to being a law school student absolutely will. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna go ahead and say @lazslo93 makes all of the sense here.

Anecdotally, as a mature-ish Windsor grad, I got in, had a blast, got a job and got out. And despite the debt and comparatively rapid onset of adult obligations relative to my colleagues due to my advanced vintage it was one of the best decisions I ever made!

That said, OP my $0.02 is that you need to sort out the reasons you want to be a lawyer.

@Hegdis is right in that simply looking for meaningful work isn't a bad motive per se,  but you've got to be aware that law is not an easy thing to do, especially for someone in your position. There's an oversupply of young grads and intense competition for jobs that are increasingly on average less great than they used to be.

But if you're sure law is what you want to do and are prepared to put in the work, be adaptable, have the right attitude, and your goal is simply to carve out a half decent legal career somewhere in a field that wants you, then dear god Windsor law is not going to be a problem.

A more 'prestigious' school on a resume rarely matters more than what comes out your mouth at an interview. And sure, a younger candidate is more appealing to employers, but a candidate who's prepared for the interview, knows the role they are interviewing for, and can clearly communicate their value to the employer will find a taker.

And you only need one.

That's what I told myself when I applied to law school with my crummy cGPA.
It was  what I told myself when I applied during the articling recruit.
Personally, I think it helps me avoid psyching myself out. And with some of the posts here maybe you need a little bit of that too.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey man,

During law school, you'll get to select different electives as you go. I decided to focus on a lot of my optional courses studying business law and criminal law. 

Based on your post, it looks like youre split between family and criminal justice - after three years, you'll a much better idea of what you want to do. And who knows? Maybe something will catch you off guard and inspire your to pursue something random like real estate, labour, or administrative law. My point: don't worry about choosing which field you want to practice in right now. You have your interests, so explore them during the next few years and see which one you like. All law schools encourage networking, have panels, and events with practitioners - you'll be able to ask questions that go beyond the classroom and the associates at these events are usually pretty candid. 

Follow-up question: Where did you teach in Asia? I'm finishing up law school soon, but I have a BEd. from Ontario and kind of miss teaching. I've always wanted to see Asia... would you recommend the experience? Money? Lifestyle? Fulfilling? 

 

Edited by Legolas
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

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

    • Selling all in Canadian Dollars, prices have been confirmed to be cheaper than brand new on Amazon.ca  No, I did not use all of them, selling some for friends, bought second hand Want to buy all of them? Actual total price $353 Discount total package will be $300 + shipping (~$50, books are heavy :/) . No shipping fee if address is in Edmonton. Free delivery to your door in Edmonton. -       Please PM! Cash or Canadian e-transfer only.   Here’s a pic 😊 https://imgur.com/a/1pyIMQI   Pick and choose The Loophole in LSAT Logical Reasoning by Ellen Cassidy -       Price: $40 -       Condition: 90/100, no writing, or markings at all   The PowerScore LSAT Reading Comprehension Bible, 2020 edition -       Price: $45 -       Condition: 95/100, no writing or markings at all   The PowerScore LSAT Logic Games Bible, 2015 edition -       Price: $28 -       Condition: 80/100, wear and tear, no writing   Manhattan Prep: 5 lb. Book of LSAT Practice Drills: Over 5,000 questions across 180 drills -       Price: $55 -       Condition: 90/100, some pencil markings on 50 pages   The LSAT Trainer by Mike Kim (1st Version) -       Price: $40 -       Condition: 70/100, wear and tear, some markings by pencils   LSAT Unlocked 2018-2019: Proven Strategies For Every Question Type + Online -       Price: $60 -       Condition: 90/100, some pencil markings   LSAT (Barron's Test Prep) -       Price: $25 -       Condition: 85/100, some pencil markings   LSAT Decoded (PrepTests 52-61): Step-by-Step Solutions for 10 Actual, Official LSAT Exams -       Price: $30 -       Condition: 90/100, no pencil markings   10 New Actual, Official LSAT PrepTests: (PrepTests 52–61) -       Price: $10 -       Condition: 20/100, pencil markings, tape, funky stuff, wornout. Message me for a surprise deal with this purchase 😉. I assure you it’s worth your time. Serious inquiries only.   Individual: The Official LSAT PrepTests from 72 to 80 -       Price: $15 -       Condition: 20/100, pencil markings, tape, funky stuff, worn out. Message me for a surprise deal with this purchase 😊. I assure you it’s worth your time. Serious inquiries only.
    • Just to support this point, UofT Law explicitly says this in their admission policies.  “Moreover, we take into account the nature of the program and the undergraduate institution (or institutions) at which an applicant has studied. Specifically, programs and institutions have varying grading practices, which we take into account in our assessment. In general, the Admissions Committee examines each applicant's academic record with a view to meaningful and fair comparisons of undergraduate performance.” https://www.law.utoronto.ca/jd-admissions-policies
    • watch any account of adcomms members speaking of their experiences, they are building a class which involves a lot of micro and macro decisions when it comes to its composition, especially true for a school that could be considered top tier you just got shown that 21% (the largest of the chunks) of UofT admits are from deathly majors, what do you want law schools to do? dedicate half their fucking class to stem majors just to appease you and your friend's insecurities?  
    • And which adcom did you serve on again? Your experience as *checks notes* never been to law school doesn’t seem to add much value. in any event, as an example, U of A admitted 5 students with a 3.5 GPA and a 161-162 lsat. It’s not a fool’s errand to apply and a 3.5 isn’t that difficult to overcome.
    • Firstly, I would say that there is a big difference between liberal and left. Universities tend to be liberal places, however, in certain parts of the arts it is very much on the left. I even said in my post that “it is not likely to eliminate you from consideration but that it is possible.” My understanding of the left is relatively representative, I know that people in other sociology courses have had experiences along these lines in other universities beside u of t in Canada and America. You appear to view liberals as being a part of the left, while I say there are liberals and there are leftists, I separate them and I realize my post didn’t make that clear and I shouldn’t of expected a reader to have known that I do that because, well no one knows me on here. I’ve read foucalt, Derrida etc. I know the jargon, it’s easy to manipulate as you can see with Sokol. I never insinuated that the entire left was like this as you seem to falsely assume. I was speaking to the idea that now a days it is more likely to have people dislike you, or people’s opinion be biased against if they associate you with conservative ideas, or principles. Mine was a risk-averse perspective, adding party may hurt and probably won’t help so I wouldn’t put it. This is probably coloured by my experiences, like people insinuating I was racist because I was white and asked a person of colour about their background. I may very well overestimate the probability of similar phenomenon occur in different circumstances, but like I said when it comes to such matters I take a very risk averse perspective. 

×
×
  • Create New...