Jump to content
Rusty164

Please convince me why Ryerson is a good idea

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Veggie77 said:

Oh thank god you said it because that comment almost gave me a stroke.

it might just be one of the most arrogant, entitled things I have ever read so congrats to the original commenter of that statement.

Thanks baby 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

but how could convincing you something is a good idea not involve an argument?

Sure it does, but I'm not trying to convince anyone of something here. I'm open to retracting the assertion that Ryerson is misleading by adding something new to the market or enhancing access to justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

Thanks baby 

A well thought out, coherent, mature and logical response if I've ever heard one. 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

In my opinion, nobody works harder for their money than lawyers.

Law school in September is going to be rough. Should I just keep working for the company where we built this chimney last fall?

119349696_10158762026495948_625687492245

Edited by SNAILS
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

I’m confused. Is @HopefulLawyer97 concerned that he will have to compete with Ryerson grads? Or is he concerned that Ryerson grads are all incompetent bumbling fools?

That’s the real dividing line in this thread, if you read between the lines. Those who are strongly opposed to Ryerson are afraid of the increased competition due to their insecurity (though I’m sure they’ll take issue with me using the words “afraid” and “insecurity”). Those of us who don’t care about Ryerson are either: (1) sufficiently removed from their graduation cycle that we will not have to compete with them for at least a decade, or (2) confident enough in our abilities that we’re not concerned about the minor increase in competition.

 

Not exactly worried about the competition. I'd be surprised if Ryerson grads significantly displace students at U of T, or Western (my school) for that matter. I personally think that Windsor and Ottawa will probably bear the brunt of it. Bottom line is that the market will see more unemployment/underemployment if the market doesn't grow proportionately. I can't understand why somebody would support that seemingly inevitable outcome.

The establishment of a new law school in an already unfavourable market is enough to irk me and leave me worried about the precedent it sets for new law schools in the future. 

No, I don't think Ryerson student are bumbling idiots, but I wouldn't be surprised if the GPA/LSAT profiles of admitted applicants are considerably lower than that of other schools. Take that for what you will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Rusty164 said:

Sure it does, but I'm not trying to convince anyone of something here. I'm open to retracting the assertion that Ryerson is misleading by adding something new to the market or enhancing access to justice.

This is how I know you're disingenuous - you're shifting the goal posts. The title of the thread is literally "Convince me why Ryerson is a good idea" - that's asking to be argued with, and not limited to "adding something new to the market" or "enhancing access to justice".

Let me flip the question around on you - why should Windsor or Queen's or Ottawa even still have law schools? Shut the doors and let the schools run in run-off mode and let Ryerson open its doors instead. Arguing that because they've been doing it longer they should keep doing it is just arguing for inertia.

Share this post


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

Law school in September is going to be rough. Should I just keep working for the company where we built this chimney last fall?

119349696_10158762026495948_625687492245

Y'all are roasting me for a comment that has nothing to do with the nature of this thread. 

Having said that, nice chimney. I'm actually studying Armory v Delamirie right now, which is a case about a chimney sweep who found a jewel (personal property case about finder's law). Interesting coincidence. YOu should check it out. Fascinating case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armory_v_Delamirie

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most people are roasting you for being a douchebag that managed to prove me right in a single post.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

This is how I know you're disingenuous - you're shifting the goal posts. The title of the thread is literally "Convince me why Ryerson is a good idea" - that's asking to be argued with, and not limited to "adding something new to the market" or "enhancing access to justice".

Let me flip the question around on you - why should Windsor or Queen's or Ottawa even still have law schools? Shut the doors and let the schools run in run-off mode and let Ryerson open its doors instead. Arguing that because they've been doing it longer they should keep doing it is just arguing for inertia.

Because Windsor, Ottawa and Queen's are institutions with a longstanding history and an established alumni network. Sure, let's shut down Queen's, which sends clerks to the SCC every year so Ryerson can operate its new, technologically superior law school that emphasizes tech and uses tech to prepare the lawyers of the future by using tech.

Did I mention tech?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

This is how I know you're disingenuous - you're shifting the goal posts. The title of the thread is literally "Convince me why Ryerson is a good idea" - that's asking to be argued with, and not limited to "adding something new to the market" or "enhancing access to justice".

Let me flip the question around on you - why should Windsor or Queen's or Ottawa even still have law schools? Shut the doors and let the schools run in run-off mode and let Ryerson open its doors instead. Arguing that because they've been doing it longer they should keep doing it is just arguing for inertia.

No, you're projecting what you think I meant, and then insist that I'm disingenuous because you misunderstood. What do you think my argument was in the OP?

And whether Ryerson should replace another Canadian law school is an interesting question. That would make sense if they provide a better legal education and were a better value. Is that the case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

Because Windsor, Ottawa and Queen's are institutions with a longstanding history and an established alumni network. Sure, let's shut down Queen's, which sends clerks to the SCC every year so Ryerson can operate its new, technologically superior law school that emphasizes tech and uses tech to prepare the lawyers of the future by using tech.

Did I mention tech?

Ryerson isn't going to send any clerks? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rusty164 said:

No, you're projecting what you think I meant, and then insist that I'm disingenuous because you misunderstood. What do you think my argument was in the OP?

And whether Ryerson should replace another Canadian law school is an interesting question. That would make sense if they provide a better legal education and were a better value. Is that the case?

I'm not projecting - I'm reading the words you write, like again "convince me Ryerson is a good idea". That's pretty unambiguous.

What does a "better legal education" entail? Does U of T provide a better legal education than Western? If so, shut down Western if better legal education is a necessary condition. Also I think it's obvious if a school was shut down with Ryerson filling the void, the legal education provided would only go up as candidates and faculty flowed to that school.

As for better value? I think so. How many Queen's law school candidates are local to Kingston and how many Western law school candidates are local to London? I'd wager a minority. So Ryerson provides more value by being more central to the majority of candidates and therefore saves on living expenses or for people that can't leave the city or its environs for other reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, legallybrunette3 said:

Ryerson isn't going to send any clerks? 

The question was why shouldn't we shut down Queen's so Ryerson could operate and bring the market back into equilibrium. 

I said Queen's is an established institution with a longstanding history evidenced by its strong employment placement and the fact that it sends clerks to the SCC every year. None of which Ryerson currently does. 

I think you're missing the point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

Because Windsor, Ottawa and Queen's are institutions with a longstanding history and an established alumni network. Sure, let's shut down Queen's, which sends clerks to the SCC every year so Ryerson can operate its new, technologically superior law school that emphasizes tech and uses tech to prepare the lawyers of the future by using tech.

Did I mention tech?

So you agree, the only argument in favour of those schools is inertia? You have no objective basis on which they are superior other than having been around longer.

  

Just now, HopefulLawyer97 said:

The question was why shouldn't we shut down Queen's so Ryerson could operate and bring the market back into equilibrium. 

I said Queen's is an established institution with a longstanding history evidenced by its strong employment placement and the fact that it sends clerks to the SCC every year. None of which Ryerson currently does. 

I think you're missing the point. 

 

No shit Ryerson doesn't send clerks to the SCC. The SCC doesn't hire 1Ls.

Edited by Rashabon

Share this post


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

So you agree, the only argument in favour of those schools is inertia? You have no objective basis on which they are superior other than having been around longer.

Why is Harvard better than Brooklyn College of Law? Are we really having this argument? Because it's kind of dumb, no offence. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So you agree, the only argument in favour of those schools is inertia? You have no objective basis on which they are superior other than having been around longer.

  

 

No shit Ryerson doesn't send clerks to the SCC. The SCC doesn't hire 1Ls.

You're completely missing the point man lol. You're the one who proposed shutting down one of Canada's better law schools in favour of Ryerson. Come on now. 

Edited by HopefulLawyer97

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

You're completely missing the point man lol. You're the one who proposed shutting down one of Canada's better law schools in favour of Ryerson. Come on now. 

If you were to shut down Queen's Ryerson would fill that void easily. That's the point you're missing. There's nothing objectively wrong with Ryerson. The only argument against it is an argument that it hampers employment prospects for other students (as evidenced by your own posts), which again is an entitlement issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, legallybrunette3 said:

https://www.brooklaw.edu/ this one? 

I don't think that's a fair comparison. It's had 120 years to prove itself. 

Length of operation really has nothing to do with what I’m arguing. Queens has things that Ryerson doesn’t, and the same is true about Harvard and Brooklyn Law. Period. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HopefulLawyer97 said:

Length of operation really has nothing to do with what I’m arguing. Queens has things that Ryerson doesn’t, and the same is true about Harvard and Brooklyn Law. Period. 

But Ryerson doesn't have those things potentially as a result of length of operation, no?

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.

×
×
  • Create New...