Jump to content
Rusty164

Please convince me why Ryerson is a good idea

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

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.

Are you trying to say that Ryerson is objectively as good as Queens? Because if you are please let me know so I can stop replying. Because at that point this entire argument has been a waste of time and I’m not going to sit here and try to convince you otherwise, because to do so would be like trying to convince a QAnon conspiracy theorist that QAnon isn’t real. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

Are you trying to say that Ryerson is objectively as good as Queens? Because if you are please let me know so I can stop replying. Because at that point this entire argument has been a waste of time and I’m not going to sit here and try to convince you otherwise, because to do so would be like trying to convince a QAnon conspiracy theorist that QAnon isn’t real. 

What is magically innate about Queen's/Kingston that sets it apart from another law school that couldn't replicate the experience given sufficient time and funding?

What I find the most interesting about all these threads is the people the most vehemently opposed to Ryerson are students (key word: students) at other law schools. Not even the 0Ls, and certainly not practicing lawyers, who generally don't see the same stigma for Ryerson students as other students do.

I think it's just entitlement and insecurity. If Ryerson was truly objectively bad and the students there were all duds like people argue, then there's a lot of ink spilled paternalistically worrying about their outcomes. Let them sink then, if that's the outcome people think is the case. If they aren't competing for SCC slots or Bay Street or all the other cushy jobs these supposedly superior schools with longer pedigrees have in spades, then let the Ryerson kiddos fail on their own merits.

But that of course is not why people object to Ryerson, so we go back around in circles to avoid the point which is that students hate Ryerson because it makes them anxious they won't get jobs because Ryerson grads will fill those spots instead. And they might be right! I'd wager if you graphed reaction to Ryerson across the schools, U of T students would have less animus towards Ryerson than students from another school.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone starting their first year in the fall I think that every school across Canada should kick out their current crop of students, and put a 5+ year moratorium on any new students coming in after me. We're facing a crisis both in the quality of lawyers in this country, and in the number of available jobs. I'm sure we can all agree that my proposal is the only natural solution to this. The fact that it would benefit me personally is immaterial. 

In all seriousness though, and as many others have touched on this thread, the only "valid" argument I see against Ryerson is the fear of competition from current students, and I think that's a frivolous argument at best. 

Now if we want to talk to about Ryerson's marketing copy rubbing people the wrong way I'm happy to have that conversation. I can't stand marketing buzzwords at the best of times. 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

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

Except for that one guy Bob Loblaw, JD, MD, M.Eng, DDS, PhD etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, legallybrunette3 said:

Did anyone account for the boomers? I think I read here before that there is a forced retirement age at certain firms. 

For equity partners, but that's mostly at large firms. You lose equity partner status but I'm pretty sure you can still work. 

Read this, it's pretty interesting. 

McCormick v Fasken

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13663/index.do

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Contrary to what a lot of people presume, there is actually a lot of unfulfilled legal jobs in the market that are desperately seeking out qualified candidates. The market is not as saturated as you may think it is. I'm seeing many job postings for legal positions asking for 3+ years experience being reposted time and time again even during the COVID period. The issue is not that there are too many law students and law school graduates but that many are lacking the experience these employers are looking for, and in many cases, it's not even because there are not enough opportunities to gain this experience requirement, but because many students simply do not want to pursue these jobs.

There are lots of opportunities in rural regions and smaller towns outside of the metropolitan cities. There are lots of opportunities in personal service areas of law when you show a demonstrated interest, build a network, and get some experience. Not everyone has to gun for traditional Big law and government. There are many law adjacent jobs out there, companies hiring more junior in-house lawyers, and access to justice work that is begging for lawyers but are not in a position to pay or pays peanuts. If you attend a Canadian law school, I really do not think you should be concerned about competition from Ryerson law students because there is a market that needs lawyers in certain areas of law, regions, and experiences. My concern is more with the alarming number of foreign trained lawyers flooding the market desperately working as law clerks, legal assistants, and paralegals to get their foot in the door. Compared to these candidates, almost everyone here is going to be in a much better position with respect to career prospects. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, 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. 

 

24 minutes ago, 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. 

The people from Queen's who got SCC clerkships wouldn't be any less deserving if they went to Ryerson though. I'm not sure if you know a lot of SCC clerks but the school they went to is not one of the top factors that got them there. I'm not sure that there's something Queen's has that another school doesn't which got them the clerkship. 

Additionally, a person I know from Queen's who received an appellate clerkship in the last few years had an LSAT score in the mid-high 150s and an average undergraduate GPA. Statistically, that person is probably similar to a lot of the students who would go to Ryerson and yet they're in the top 10% of our class. Who's to say some of the top students from Ryerson's class wouldn't also be one of the top students at your school or my school if they had that opportunity? And why should they be disadvantaged for an SCC clerkship or Bay Street job just because of the school they go to? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, QMT20 said:

 

The people from Queen's who got SCC clerkships wouldn't be any less deserving if they went to Ryerson though. I'm not sure if you know a lot of SCC clerks but the school they went to is not one of the top factors that got them there. I'm not sure that there's something Queen's has that another school doesn't which got them the clerkship. 

Additionally, a person I know from Queen's who received an appellate clerkship in the last few years had an LSAT score in the mid-high 150s and an average undergraduate GPA. Statistically, that person is probably similar to a lot of the students who would go to Ryerson and yet they're in the top 10% of our class. Who's to say some of the top students from Ryerson's class wouldn't also be one of the top students at your school or my school if they had that opportunity? And why should they be disadvantaged for an SCC clerkship or Bay Street job just because of the school they go to? 

Who's going to be more deserving of a clerkship, someone who graduates at the top of their class at Ryerson or someone who graduates at the top of their class at U of T? Both have the same grades. But getting to the top of the class of U of T is obviously going to be harder. 

Once again, for context, my SCC clerkship point wasn't an argument in itself, but was meant to elucidate the point I was making with respect to @Rashabon's argument that Queen's could easily be replaced by Ryerson and we wouldn't lose out on anything, which I find to be untrue, since Queen's is a top school, partially evidenced by it's employment data and the fact that it sends clerks to the SCC every year.

You guys are grasping at a microcosm in a macrocosm. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Watching a 1L tell someone with an appellate clerkship about how some people deserve appellate clerkships more than others is almost as entertaining as the time that same 1L told a bunch of practicing lawyers about the job market for practicing lawyers.

ETA: To perhaps be substantively helpful here, people at the top of their class at most schools will be at the top of their class at other schools. I was at the top of my class at Osgoode, and I know medalists from other schools, including ones perceived as better or worse than mine. I’ve personally never felt any of them were less intelligent than me. They’re all very bright, talented individuals who could easily have pushed me down a spot in the rankings at my school. 

And I think people who don’t know what they’re talking about on this subject, like 1Ls who don’t even have a clue whether they’d get an interview for a clerkship yet, let alone actually receive one, should probably refrain from commenting on the intelligence of people who get them and how difficult it is to be at the top of your class. 

Edited by BlockedQuebecois

Share this post


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

Who's going to be more deserving of a clerkship, someone who graduates at the top of their class at Ryerson or someone who graduates at the top of their class at U of T? Both have the same grades. But getting to the top of the class of U of T is obviously going to be harder. 

Once again, for context, my SCC clerkship point wasn't an argument in itself, but was meant to elucidate the point I was making with respect to @Rashabon's argument that Queen's could easily be replaced by Ryerson and we wouldn't lose out on anything, which I find to be untrue, since Queen's is a top school, partially evidenced by it's employment data and the fact that it sends clerks to the SCC every year.

You guys are grasping at a microcosm in a macrocosm. 

By virtue of this argument Queen’s and Western are undeserving of all of their SCC clerkship sand Bay Street spots.

Share this post


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

By virtue of this argument Queen’s and Western are undeserving of all of their SCC clerkship sand Bay Street spots.

Not necessarily, because Queens and Western aren't bottom feeder schools that accept people who wouldn't have been accepted anywhere 1 year ago but for the opening of a new law school (Ryerson). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread just had to pop off before I get my friday weekly Panda Express. Sheesh I'm going to have to catch up on this, brb.

Share this post


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

Not necessarily, because Queens and Western aren't bottom feeder schools that accept people who wouldn't have been accepted anywhere 1 year ago but for the opening of a new law school (Ryerson). 

That cutoff is totally arbitrary though.

Share this post


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

Watching a 1L tell someone with an appellate clerkship about how some people deserve appellate clerkships more than others is almost as entertaining as the time that same 1L told a bunch of practicing lawyers about the job market for practicing lawyers.

I'm just making an argument for argument's sake. 

18 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I was at the top of my class at Osgoode

Not surprised. Send me your summaries pls

Share this post


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

Not necessarily, because Queens and Western aren't bottom feeder schools that accept people who wouldn't have been accepted anywhere 1 year ago but for the opening of a new law school (Ryerson). 

 

4 minutes ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

I'm just making an argument for argument's sake. 

Not surprised. Send me your summaries pls

You’re free to say what you want on this forum (at least in so far as the mods don’t stop you). I’ve tried to suggest gently that you might want to consider these kinds of comments, and commenting on things you don’t know about, more carefully. 

But you should know that it’s very easy to piece together who someone is from their post histories, and posts like this, where you call some schools “bottom feeders” and your “thanks baby” style comments are the kind of thing that make people want to spend the five minutes perusing your post history and looking on LinkedIn for you.

I say that as someone who made more than my share of dumb, ill considered comments that I regret on this forum before, particularly when I was a 1L. I hope that people don’t hold those comments against me, and that my decision to be more thoughtful in my responses will convince those that would hold it against me that I’m no longer that person or hold those beliefs. But it’s a lot easier if you just don’t burn that social capital in the first place. 

Just some food for thought, I’m going to tap out of this thread now. 

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has hit like eight out of the Top Ten "Things Students Post Every Damn Year".

OP (& friends) go back and read the TRU thread from five or six years ago. There was another You arguing exactly this (complete with directing people to cases you just read so they can educate themselves - dude, stop). Also complete with a debate about what you meant versus what you said, complete with pretend outrage and supposed knowledge about various hiring practices, complete with jaw-droppingly entitled remarks and then complete denial that they're entitled.... just.... just everything. It's kind of amazing.

 

Some good stuff here so thanks everyone who has kept the tone up.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been my experience lately that the students who don't secure articles are failing to look in the right places. Even on this forum, recently, a 3L complained about not securing articles and assumed they had to wait for next year's articling recruit.

So I don't think Ryerson will affect articling placement at other schools by more than a few percent. I also don't think Ryerson will affect the quality of law school grads or the profession in any meaningful way.

  • Like 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.

×
×
  • Create New...