Jump to content
legallybrunette3

What's the deal with school rankings?

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Re7o said:

The classic "I don't have a good response to a rational argument against my bad point". But yeah too many logical flaws that you are too tired to point out. 

Edit: Kind of reminds me of that anti-masker in that one thread

I'm assuming that they're too busy teeing up the evidence demonstrating that the LSAT is unique amongst all human endeavours in that anyone with enough time and effort can find themselves in the top 99.9% of all performers, even those scoring in the bottom percentile.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Setting Bay St. rankings from the 2L recruit aside, does the other 2/3 of the Osgoode class that don't land jobs in the recruit do better for themselves compared to the 2/3 that don't get jobs in the recruit at Western/Queens? Does being an average student at Osgoode lead to better employment prospects compared to being average at Western/Queens? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Gasping for air as 84-year-old hiker with telescoping walking poles waltzes past me. Mumbles feeble greeting.]

I feel like y'all are just trolling me at this point for this comment in this post

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


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

[Gasping for air as 84-year-old hiker with telescoping walking poles waltzes past me. Mumbles feeble greeting.]

I feel like y'all are just trolling me at this point for this comment in this post

 

Now when you're on the bench you'll think harder before you set a precedent

  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

I'm assuming that they're too busy teeing up the evidence demonstrating that the LSAT is unique amongst all human endeavours in that anyone with enough time and effort can find themselves in the top 99.9% of all performers, even those scoring in the bottom percentile.

I'm really torn on this debate. LSAT prep companies and books argue that anyone can score over 170 but there's an obvious conflict of interest there, and some people claim that it's limited to someone's innate ability. Nature vs. nurture.

Share this post


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

I'm really torn on this debate. LSAT prep companies and books argue that anyone can score over 170 but there's an obvious conflict of interest there, and some people claim that it's limited to someone's innate ability. Nature vs. nurture.

The vast majority of people that score 170+ and post here put in a fraction of the effort the people grinding through the 150s and low 160s do. And I’m sure a ton of those grinders put in as much effort as is humanly possible into studying without having an innate grasp of the LSAT.

But the people scoring 177-180 for example? Probably putting in some of the least effort into studying.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

The vast majority of people that score 170+ and post here put in a fraction of the effort the people grinding through the 150s and low 160s do. And I’m sure a ton of those grinders put in as much effort as is humanly possible into studying without having an innate grasp of the LSAT.

But the people scoring 177-180 for example? Probably putting in some of the least effort into studying.

On this site I regularly see people with LSAT scores 20-30 points lower than mine making ridiculous assertions about the amount of work that is supposedly required to get a top score. By contrast my personal experience was that the prep required to get a 99th percentile LSAT score consisted of learning basic logic game diagramming and writing a handful of practice tests. I see people with scores in the 150s knowing all the names of the different types of logical reasoning questions and discussing the logic behind them in terms I never learned and don't understand. All I know is if you put the test in front of me I intuitively understand what almost all of the answers are, but I couldn't do a good job of articulating why--the answers simply seem self-evident and to be taken for granted.

Just chiming in because your statement squares with my experience (although I didn't reach 177). But by and large people with mediocre scores invariably claim that the LSAT is all about effort and just don't want to believe that innate aptitude has anything to do with it, because they tend to view it as an attack on their intelligence in general.

(Just so I don't seem like a totally arrogant douche, everyone: for what it's worth I've put in serious effort trying to learn instruments and second languages and my innate aptitude in both of those areas is abysmal--I found such endeavors nearly impossible. Also the innate LSAT aptitude did not translate into innate law school aptitude, and I certainly would have preferred the latter. But yeah, the fact that I suck at other things but can effortlessly get an LSAT score in the 170s just emphasizes how much of it is innate. And the degree to which there are different kinds of intelligences that people have varying aptitudes for. The LSAT is irrelevant to me now in practical terms but I do find the subject interesting from a psychological perspective.)

Edited by CleanHands
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JusticeLordDenning said:

Setting Bay St. rankings from the 2L recruit aside, does the other 2/3 of the Osgoode class that don't land jobs in the recruit do better for themselves compared to the 2/3 that don't get jobs in the recruit at Western/Queens? Does being an average student at Osgoode lead to better employment prospects compared to being average at Western/Queens? 

Some of this is might be based on what I consider to be a false assumption:  That law students who secure jobs at big firms in an urban area have succeeded while those who do not have failed. For example, a Queens student may have the career goal of securing a foot in the door with the Crown in a rural area and a Western student may want to get into business law with a small firm in a medium sized city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SNAILS said:

Some of this is might be based on what I consider to be a false assumption:  That law students who secure jobs at big firms in an urban area have succeeded while those who do not have failed. For example, a Queens student may have the career goal of securing a foot in the door with the Crown in a rural area and a Western student may want to get into business law with a small firm in a medium sized city.

A few things, my man:

-I don't think @JusticeLordDenning was making the sort of value judgement you read in to that. Asking how students fare outside the formal recruit is not saying that the formal recruit jobs are necessarily the best jobs out there.

-Both the DOJ and provincial Crown prosecution service participate in the formal recruit, so that's a poor example to illustrate your point. "Jobs in the recruit" isn't synonymous with "BigLaw."

-I highly doubt that there is a huge difference in the level of interest in the formal recruit between Canadian law schools in general, and especially between Queens and Western as a specific example.

And just to be clear, I'd be the last person to boost BigLaw or claim that working at a smaller firm outside the GTA is somehow inferior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, toastedguac said:

I'm really torn on this debate. LSAT prep companies and books argue that anyone can score over 170 but there's an obvious conflict of interest there, and some people claim that it's limited to someone's innate ability. Nature vs. nurture.

LSAT prep companies and book writers do not, to my knowledge, have access to any special information the general public doesn't that would answer this questioj. LSAC obviously would but they also have an interest in people believing that if they just keep writing they can improve.

The only information I've seen on this is what Cleanhands linked several pages back which doesn't seem favourable to their business model which I'm willing to infer is probably why a business with ~$70,000,000 in annual revenuebstopped releasing it.

Besides, the person disagreeing with me initially was disagreeing with the proposition that people top out in terms of improvement eventually; you just need to buy that not everyone can score in the top 99.97 percentile (180) which I would have thought would be relatively uncontroversial since it's basically the same as saying not everyone can run a 10 second 100 m or 2:10 marathon.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to this crazy mess of a discussion, I agree that the value (as opposed to ranking) of law school is very heavily dependent on your class rank. 

For example, just speaking to Ontario schools and McGill:

  1. Uof T - The top 10% at UofT are platinum; top 25% do extremely well; top 50% are in a great position - but if you end up in the bottom 50% of your UofT class, I can't honestly say that your UofT degree will necessarily help you (as borne by the ultravires stats). Bottom 50%, btw, is not an insignificant number...that's half the class
     
  2. Osgoode has always been slightly overrated in my opinion. If you are in the top 10% you are gold; top 25% you are in a very great position. Beyond top 25%, I also can't see that your Osgoode degree will be your golden ticket. Many Osgoode grads have a tough time finding jobs (which is unfortunate - all bright people).
     
  3. McGill - top 10% you are platinum; top 25% you are doing very well. But same with Osgoode, beyond top 25% - can't say your set, many struggle beyond the top 25% (althought, all are very birght individuals)
     
  4. Queen's/Western - top 25% you should do good, everything beyond is hit/miss. On this point, I find Queen's is compared to Western on their bay street hiring, and Western edges out a bit. But Queen's is often overlooked for the fact that they do much better for BigLaw Ottawa recruit (due to proximity, and many people from ottawa who go to queen's) - of which western doesn't fare out well (if it all) - but this is not reflected in the ultravires stats. As well, Queen's gets many much more appellate and SCC clerkships.

Perhaps the value ranks might go something like this:

Rank 1: Toronto (Top 10%); McGill (Top 10%); Osgoode (Top 5%-10%) - these people can nail NY summer jobs, and get 1L bay St jobs + clerkships
------
Rank 2: Toronto (Top 25%); Osgoode (top 15~20%); McGill (top 15~20%); Queen's (top 10%); Western (Top 10%) --- these guys get Bay St jobs easily
-----
Rank 3: Toronto (Top 45~50%); Queen's (Top 25%); Western (Top 25%); Osgoode (top 25%); McGill (top 25%) --- have a good decent chance of getting a bay st job
-----
Rank 4: Everyone else in TO/Osgoode/Queen's/Western/McGill

This is just for those schools - too complicated to factor the rest of the schools. But I'd like to note that very superior undergrad performance can definitely help boost your opportunities.
 

 

Edited by johnalm
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, johnalm said:

To add to this crazy mess of a discussion, I agree that the value (as opposed to ranking) of law school is very heavily dependent on your class rank. 

For example, just speaking to Ontario schools and McGill:

  1. Uof T - The top 10% at UofT are platinum; top 25% do extremely well; top 50% are in a great position - but if you end up in the bottom 50% of your UofT class, I can't honestly say that your UofT degree will necessarily help you (as borne by the ultravires stats). Bottom 50%, btw, is not an insignificant number...that's half the class
     
  2. Osgoode has always been slightly overrated in my opinion. If you are in the top 10% you are gold; top 25% you are in a very great position. Beyond top 25%, I also can't see that your Osgoode degree will be your golden ticket. Many Osgoode grads have a tough time finding jobs (which is unfortunate - all bright people).
     
  3. McGill - top 10% you are platinum; top 25% you are doing very well. But same with Osgoode, beyond top 25% - can't say your set, many struggle beyond the top 25% (althought, all are very birght individuals)
     
  4. Queen's/Western - top 25% you should do good, everything beyond is hit/miss. On this point, I find Queen's is compared to Western on their bay street hiring, and Western edges out a bit. But Queen's is often overlooked for the fact that they do much better for BigLaw Ottawa recruit (due to proximity, and many people from ottawa who go to queen's) - of which western doesn't fare out well (if it all) - but this is not reflected in the ultravires stats. As well, Queen's gets many much more appellate and SCC clerkships.

Perhaps the value ranks might go something like this:

Rank 1: Toronto (Top 10%); McGill (Top 10%); Osgoode (Top 5%-10%) - these people can nail NY summer jobs, and get 1L bay St jobs + clerkships
------
Rank 2: Toronto (Top 25%); Osgoode (top 15~20%); McGill (top 15~20%); Queen's (top 10%); Western (Top 10%) --- these guys get Bay St jobs easily
-----
Rank 3: Toronto (Top 45~50%); Queen's (Top 25%); Western (Top 25%); Osgoode (top 25%); McGill (top 25%) --- have a good decent chance of getting a bay st job
-----
Rank 4: Everyone else in TO/Osgoode/Queen's/Western/McGill

This is just for those schools - too complicated to factor the rest of the schools. But I'd like to note that very superior undergrad performance can definitely help boost your opportunities.
 

 

That’s an interesting way to put it for sure, although I’d slightly widen the margins for some schools. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's half the class

I don't necessarily disagree with your comment, but I just want to point out that the Ultra Vires Toronto 2L recruit numbers don't capture all positions obtained. For example, you mentioned New York, but the ~15% of the UofT class that get NY jobs aren't counted in the Toronto 2L recruit. When you factor in NY, other international positions (e.g., KWM), "lucrative" non-law jobs (e.g., MBB), non-OCI in-house jobs (e.g., Nestle), and non-Toronto Big Law (e.g., BJ in Calgary), etc., it's probably closer to ~70-75% of the class. There are also the people interested in government, academia, and public sector jobs that make up 10-15% of the class, and not all positions are captured by the 2L recruit numbers (also MAG didn't release their numbers for the 2020 recruit).

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I don't necessarily disagree with your comment, but I just want to point out that the Ultra Vires Toronto 2L recruit numbers don't capture all positions obtained. For example, you mentioned New York, but the ~15% of the UofT class that get NY jobs aren't counted in the Toronto 2L recruit. When you factor in NY, other international positions (e.g., KWM), "lucrative" non-law jobs (e.g., MBB), non-OCI in-house jobs (e.g., Nestle), and non-Toronto Big Law (e.g., BJ in Calgary), etc., it's probably closer to ~70-75% of the class. There are also the people interested in government, academia, and public sector jobs that make up 10-15% of the class, and not all positions are captured by the 2L recruit numbers (also MAG didn't release their numbers for the 2020 recruit).

I agree with all of this. There are also some very desirable Ontario law jobs that don't do OCIs that may only be accessible to people towards the top of the class.

I'd also just add that there isn't a 1:1 correspondence in class rank and success in obtaining an OCI position. I know lots of people who had below average 1L marks (ie bottom half of the class) who landed an OCI gig and some above average who did not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, lolnope said:

I don't necessarily disagree with your comment, but I just want to point out that the Ultra Vires Toronto 2L recruit numbers don't capture all positions obtained. For example, you mentioned New York, but the ~15% of the UofT class that get NY jobs aren't counted in the Toronto 2L recruit. When you factor in NY, other international positions (e.g., KWM), "lucrative" non-law jobs (e.g., MBB), non-OCI in-house jobs (e.g., Nestle), and non-Toronto Big Law (e.g., BJ in Calgary), etc., it's probably closer to ~70-75% of the class. There are also the people interested in government, academia, and public sector jobs that make up 10-15% of the class, and not all positions are captured by the 2L recruit numbers (also MAG didn't release their numbers for the 2020 recruit).

Very good point - you're absolutely correct on this count

Edited by johnalm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2021 at 11:55 AM, PlayALawyerOnTV said:

Which Canadian law school has the best bathrooms? Inquiring minds want to know!

Sorry it didn't occur to me to mention earlier, but the urinals in Allard Hall are terrible. There is one for little people and one for NBA players.

I think I forgot about this because thanks to COVID it's been a while since I last set foot in that building.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


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

Sorry it didn't occur to me to mention earlier, but the urinals in Allard Hall are terrible. There is one for little people and one for NBA players.

I think I forgot about this because thanks to COVID it's been a while since I last set foot in that building.

I'm tall enough to be an NBA player so this counts as a mark in Allard's favour in my book! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2/28/2021 at 9:50 AM, johnalm said:

Osgoode has always been slightly overrated in my opinion. If you are in the top 10% you are gold; top 25% you are in a very great position. Beyond top 25%, I also can't see that your Osgoode degree will be your golden ticket. Many Osgoode grads have a tough time finding jobs (which is unfortunate - all bright people).
 

I think we are still talking about Bay Street/NYU/high end type stuff.

Does anyone want to provide some numbers (even if they are estimated) for amount of people from each school who literally have a "hard time finding jobs"?

For purposes of my question, I mean the law school graduate cannot find an articling position (later, junior lawyer position) with a small, medium or large firm. The person has looked outside major cities for work within 3 hours drive of the GTA. The person has found work not requiring a law degree or is unemployed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SNAILS said:

 

I think we are still talking about Bay Street/NYU/high end type stuff.

Does anyone want to provide some numbers (even if they are estimated) for amount of people from each school who literally have a "hard time finding jobs"?

For purposes of my question, I mean the law school graduate cannot find an articling position (later, junior lawyer position) with a small, medium or large firm. The person has looked outside major cities for work within 3 hours drive of the GTA. The person has found work not requiring a law degree or is unemployed.

At Queen's this information is published. I would count people in the "Law Practice Program" and "Graduates Seeking Position" categories into your question about law graduates who cannot find an articling position. There tends to be about 10 graduates per year who don't secure articling, although how many among them have actively looked outside major cities for work I can't say. The other caveat about this data is it doesn't capture how many people get hired back at the firms where they article which, aside from the firms which publish their numbers with PrecedentJD, could be anyone's guess. 

https://law.queensu.ca/programs/jd/student-development/employment-data

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 2/28/2021 at 12:54 AM, toastedguac said:

I'm really torn on this debate. LSAT prep companies and books argue that anyone can score over 170 but there's an obvious conflict of interest there, and some people claim that it's limited to someone's innate ability. Nature vs. nurture.

I think it's just an unfair test, certain demographics are going to score better, in fact they do (big surprise on which one!): https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562656.pdf (page 5)

LSAC also gets sued often for various access reason. I mean they're getting rid of the entire logic games section because it discriminates against the visually impaired. I don't think there's anything innate (maybe to an extent but that's not the whole story)I don't believe there is an LSAC gene, or a fold in the brain that allows certain people to excel at the test. It makes more sense to me that there are definitely bio-psycho-social factors involved, and some people have been learning these skills over time, and others haven't as a result of those factors (this does a better job of explaining the demographic differences data as well). The ones who haven't have a lot more to learn, that's obviously going to take a long time. It's also in some cases going to be impossible, because the test is really expensive, people have jobs, or motivation is low because who the fuck wants to study for it?

On an anecdotal note if comparing it to language learning or other commonly thought of as innate skills: my parents for example were refugees and their lives depended on learning english, they learned within 1 year, I see it time and time again with immigrants. I in earnest tried to learn French and I said fuck this within a week, now if I had to or I would be homeless it might have worked out differently. I do think it's good for people to be aware of what they really have to do before investing tons of time and money into it. All of this isn't to diminish how impressive it is to get a 170+ because I'm genuinely impressed by those who can (not I). 

Edited by legallybrunette3
  • Like 5

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.


  • Recent Posts

    • Je suis allée voir pour l'année passée, c'est allé jusqu'au 12 mai les acceptations et par lui suite ils ont sorti la liste d'attente la journée même. Je crois qu'on en a encore pour un bout. C'est lourd haha. Mais bon l'année passé il y a eu le lockdown et tout et j'imagine qu'ils ont prit du retard,  je ne crois pas que ca va aller jusque là cette année. Mais honnêtement j'en ai vraiment marre d'aller voir mon centre étudiant tous les jours. J'ai tellement hâte de savoir j'ai des arrangements à faire (loyer, nouvel appart, nouvelle ville etc).  Courage on en a surement pour moins d'un mois d'attente ! 
    • It seems like the offers that were made on the 15th came from the general category. Pure speculation- but maybe the access committee hasn't sat down for an assessment session since the April 1st deadline? Hoping there's movement for access applicants soon  
    • What score did you end up with? if you don't mind me asking. And was that it? just the seven weeks? 
    • Je connais quelqu'un qui l'a fait et ça donne des sessions assez chargées! Elle l'avait plus fait par opportunité, mais c'est certains que ça peut être intéressant d'avoir les deux. Il y a plus d'info sur le programme combiné ici: https://droit.umontreal.ca/fileadmin/droit/documents/PDF/programmes_combines/LLB_JD_etudessuperieures.pdf 😊

×
×
  • Create New...