Ryerson Law Reputation

[SDBP]

Hi all, 

After receiving an offer of admission to LASL, I've been doing some further reading about the school and it seems that the general public perception (at least from folks on this forum) is that this school is less of a top pick and more of a "last resort" option for students who would generally not be competitive elsewhere (other than perhaps Windsor). However, based on the admission stats from LSAC**, and the self-reported admission stats on this forum, it would seem that this program is quite competitive, even though it's only 3 years old. From what I can tell, most accepted applicants from the past 3 cycles have between a 3.60-3.8 OLSAS CGPA,  a B20 of 3.9-4.0, and LSAT slightly on the lower end, with most self-reported scores falling between 157-162. 

That said, from the threads on this forum, it seems that Windsor is the only other school that Ryerson is compared to, and even then, Windsor seems to win out as the preferred school. However, based on stats alone, Ryerson seems fairly on par with UofM, UofS, UofC and even Queens. So it seems odd that schools such as TRU, Bora Laskin, UNB, and even Windsor seem to be regarded as better options than LASL.  As someone new to this forum (and to the legal education world), I wonder if there is something I'm missing here -- I'm well aware that this is a very new program, and with that comes uncertainty and risk, however, given the location, progressive curriculum, 1L placement, and clear interest for this program (~6% acceptance rate 2021; ~9% acceptance rate 2020), I fail to understand why LASL has been dragged through the mud as much as it has. As someone considering attending Ryerson law this fall, I'm not so much trying to defend LASL, as I am wanting to engage in an open and honest discussion with those who have an opinion on the matter. 

Fall 2021 JD Admissions: 2521 applicants, 152 enrolled first-year class

Fall 2020 JD Admissions: 1953 applicants, 171 enrolled first-year class

**https://www.lsac.org/choosing-law-school/find-law-school/canadian-law-schools/ryerson-university-faculty

I was so excited when I received my offer, but now I worry I'm second-guessing myself.  The cost and commitment of moving to TO to pursue a 3-year degree is no small undertaking  - I just want to ensure it's worth the investment. 

Cheers, 

S. 

 

Edited February 23, 2022 by SDBP

[Rashabon]

It's largely just the fact that it's new and has no alumni network, the traditional law school infrastructure and had some weird marketing gimmicks when the school was announced. But by all accounts it seems to be doing fine as a school overall and the stigma isn't really prevalent in the actual profession, mostly just from law students that want to preserve their spot.

TRU went through something similar and seems to be a relatively well accepted part of the BC legal market at this point.

Ryerson wouldn't be my top choice but it's by no means necessary to think of it as a last resort, and there's only one program in Canada that's truly a last resort option (Windsor dual JD).

[aspiringlawyer]

I think the main reason LASL is regarded as maybe a "last resort" is because they haven't graduated their first class yet. But a lot of their law professors teach at Osgoode as well so I don't see how the educational aspect can be deemed less worthy. 

Having spoken to some lawyers, they are quite excited for the inaugural class to get into the legal job market because of Ryerson's reputation for having industry ready students. 

[CleanHands]

14 minutes ago, aspiringlawyer said:

Having spoken to some lawyers, they are quite excited for the inaugural class to get into the legal job market because of Ryerson's reputation for having industry ready students. 

I'm not going to knock Ryerson generally, but this is absurd. Both because no sincere and competent lawyer would describe fresh JD grads from any school as "industry ready" and because it makes no sense to call Ryerson law grads "industry ready" while acknowledging that they have no law grads yet in the same sentence (and nobody would care about Ryerson's programs other than law or extrapolate them to the law school).

Honestly this goes to @Rashabon's point about Ryerson law's incredibly annoying marketing. They provide some rinky-dick practical placements for students and then claim this is innovative and makes fresh grads practice ready (note: pretty much every law school in the country has clinical options that are vastly superior to Ryerson's offerings and most students participate in--the only difference is that Ryerson makes it mandatory), and every applicant out there who has no clue what this field entails buys and regurgitates this sales pitch. It doesn't help that the LSO absurdly granted them an articling exemption (which was clearly more out of concern for the resulting graduates-to-positions ration than a reflection of Ryerson's program), which helps reinforce this nonsense take.

I don't hate Ryerson or think it's a terrible school or choice. I do find all of these assertions about the superiority of Ryerson relative to established schools self-evidently ridiculous and annoying. As @Rashabonalluded to, I suspect some of the bristling some people have expressed about these things has been incorrectly conflated by many readers as a broader attack on Ryerson law as an institution.

Edited February 23, 2022 by CleanHands

[Rashabon]

15 minutes ago, aspiringlawyer said:

Having spoken to some lawyers, they are quite excited for the inaugural class to get into the legal job market because of Ryerson's reputation for having industry ready students. 

Yeah not to belabor the point but this is bullshit. Ryerson doesn't have any such reputation. What they have is the same thing Lakehead has, which is its students in theory don't need to article. But the majority of them will still probably article unless they set up their own shingle. There's not a single reason I can think of where it is actually beneficial to have a fresh from school graduate as an associate instead of an articling student. I guess in theory some of the litigators might be able to have them legally do things that articling students can't, but that's a small niche, and you end up having someone with the knowledge equivalent of an articling student purporting to be an associate, and also skipping them a year ahead on the pay scale. Almost no benefits to lawyers from this arrangement. But again, great if you want to be a sole practitioner of some kind or immediately step into a tiny practice where the principal wants a lawyer to take over without having to go through the formalities of overseeing an articling student.

[Pecan Boy]

46 minutes ago, SDBP said:

clear interest for this program (~6% acceptance rate 2021; ~9% acceptance rate 2020)

[...]

Fall 2021 JD Admissions: 2521 applicants, 152 enrolled first-year class

Fall 2020 JD Admissions: 1953 applicants, 171 enrolled first-year class

I am going to hypothesize that the 6-9% enrolment rate is not so much attributable to Ryerson being highly selective but is far more attributable to the fact that people who got accepted at Ryerson often go to other schools instead (because, as you've said, it is perceived as a last resort).

[Ryn]

58 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

I guess in theory some of the litigators might be able to have them legally do things that articling students can't, but that's a small niche, and you end up having someone with the knowledge equivalent of an articling student purporting to be an associate, and also skipping them a year ahead on the pay scale. Almost no benefits to lawyers from this arrangement.

This is what kind of irks me about the IPC. The whole reason the program was developed for Lakehead is because there was (and probably still is, since there hasn't been enough time) a dearth of lawyers in Northern communities. As a result, many of those communities are underserved, and would continue to be so if there wasn't some sort of incentive to bring lawyers to the north, vis a vis having articling "attached" to your law school experience so you could skip fighting for an articling placement in a region where there are few existing opportunities. Plus, the cost of law school being lower and there being no risk of having to take an underpaid or unpaid articling gig for a year after law school helped too.

So I get that. But that does not translate to Ryerson at all. I won't speculate on why the law society took this route with the school, but I think it's generally a bad move.

There are only a few niche circumstances I could ever see "not having to article" from Ryerson actually being something beneficial. In 95% of the cases, I can almost guarantee an articling experience would be hands-down more beneficial for the student and of course the firm that ends up hiring them as an associate. All this will end up doing is creating a second-class tier of associates from Ryerson who effectively have to article while calling themselves lawyers.

I can't speak for the quality of education at the school, nor for its reputation, since we have no idea yet. But I just can't see the IPC being a net benefit to the vast majority of Ryerson students. In fact, I'd consider it a hindrance.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Ryn
Fixed the quote to be of the actual text I wanted to respond to.

[Darth Vader]

I am someone that considers Ryerson a last resort school in Ontario. I stand by that belief. I find that the only people here who don't consider it a last resort school, are the Big Law folks who mainly point to Ryerson's 1L and 2L hiring stats. 

I am not sure why the location is relevant when Ryerson placed the same percentage of students as Windsor in the Toronto 2L recruit, and less than Osgoode, Western and Queen's. As Ryerson literally placed the same percentage of students in the 2L recruit as Windsor, I do not see why we would not compare them. Ryerson placed 4 students in the 1L recruit and suddenly this makes the school on the same level as other, more established schools?

https://ultravires.ca/2021/11/toronto-summer-2022-2l-recruit-numbers/

https://ultravires.ca/2021/09/toronto-summer-2021-1l-recruitment-results/

Keep in mind that those posting in the acceptance threads are a small sample size, and most people who get in with mediocre stats would not want to advertise this fact publicly. I know a number of people that went to Ryerson because it was the only school they got into, or one of the only ones (with others being similarly lowly ranked). The application to acceptance ratio does not matter because people with competitive stats would not apply to Ryerson and save their money. When I was applying to law school, I did not apply to Windsor for that reason. 

The progressive curriculum is a marketing gimmick. Most law schools require you to take courses in legal ethics and indigenous law now. The fact that you have to take coding bootcamp courses at Ryerson does not make it progressive. I have a number of friends working in the legal tech sector and any tech work gets farmed out to people with actual experience in these areas like developers and engineers. 

My main issue with Ryerson is not even the fact that it is new, has had sketchy marketing gimmicks, is hugely expensive, and is less competitive to get into. My main issue is the fact that law school is not just about academics but practical learning, which you have also mentioned in your post. How do you compare the IPC to established clinical programs and internships offered by every other established law school? For students interested in areas like criminal or family law, Ryerson does not offer much. It branded itself as an access to justice school when it came out, and is now pushing the corporate bandwagon on its students — and the high tuition rate does not help either. 

Take @CleanHands post here as an example. Ryerson does not offer even a quarter of what UBC offers its students that are interested in pursuing criminal law. There is nothing wrong with the traditional law school approach. Most law students will end up going into traditional law jobs anyways.

https://canlawforum.com/topic/2021-osgoode-versus-ubc-criminal-law/?do=findComment&comment=20874

Edited February 23, 2022 by Darth Vader

[FlamingJohnn51]

honestly as someone who is going to Windsor and was the only school I applied to in Ontario, I am happy with my decision, yes the stats are not as good as say UofT or Queens but you've got to realize that yes they have better Bay Street placements at the end of the day it is you as an individual who has to work hard for your positions and where you will go! 

[steph17]

What about Ryerson Law’s reputation vs American law schools reputation in Canada (not T14 but within the top 50) ie, Boston University, Fordham, Temple U ? 

[Rashabon]

At that point you're asking the wrong questions because Americans don't go through any formal recruits and have to apply as NCA candidates, so their prospects are by default 10 times shittier.

But to answer that question generally, those schools have zero reputation in Canada. It's like asking what Ryerson's reputation is in the U.S. A blip on the radar.

[Pendragon]

14 minutes ago, steph17 said:

What about Ryerson Law’s reputation vs American law schools reputation in Canada (not T14 but within the top 50) ie, Boston University, Fordham, Temple U ? 

Strange comparison. To work in the US or Canada? All the top 50 US schools probably have better US Big Law placement rates than Ryerson does in Canadian Big Law. 

https://www.uchastings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/2020-NALP-Summary-Redacted.pdf (this school is ranked #50 and the employment statistics don't seem too bad in the US).

However, a top 50 US law degree means nothing in Canada. If you're not going to a T14—and even within the T14 some schools like Virginia and Michigan aren't that well known here—then the school won't be well regarded by employers here. 

[allrise97]

On 2/23/2022 at 1:34 PM, CleanHands said:

I'm not going to knock Ryerson generally, but this is absurd. Both because no sincere and competent lawyer would describe fresh JD grads from any school as "industry ready" and because it makes no sense to call Ryerson law grads "industry ready" while acknowledging that they have no law grads yet in the same sentence (and nobody would care about Ryerson's programs other than law or extrapolate them to the law school).

Honestly this goes to @Rashabon's point about Ryerson law's incredibly annoying marketing. They provide some rinky-dick practical placements for students and then claim this is innovative and makes fresh grads practice ready (note: pretty much every law school in the country has clinical options that are vastly superior to Ryerson's offerings and most students participate in--the only difference is that Ryerson makes it mandatory), and every applicant out there who has no clue what this field entails buys and regurgitates this sales pitch. It doesn't help that the LSO absurdly granted them an articling exemption (which was clearly more out of concern for the resulting graduates-to-positions ration than a reflection of Ryerson's program), which helps reinforce this nonsense take.

I don't hate Ryerson or think it's a terrible school or choice. I do find all of these assertions about the superiority of Ryerson relative to established schools self-evidently ridiculous and annoying. As @Rashabonalluded to, I suspect some of the bristling some people have expressed about these things has been incorrectly conflated by many readers as a broader attack on Ryerson law as an institution.

I second this. This thread is really disheartening to read. I got into Ryerson and USask, and even though I am holding out for an institution to closer to home if I were someone else reading this thread set one going to Ryerson I would feel bad about myself and my competence to see other people bashing a school. If you look up current prospective students which I have done many of them are working for law firms on Bay Street but here this thread is of students not even yet in Law school belittling them based on the institution they choose.

I dont doubt a schools reputation plays a part, but what plays also plays a part when you apply to positions is you, your history, competence in law school grades etc. This thread to read for students who are considering Law at Ryerson have been accepted slightly feels like a slap in the face and that they shouldn't be proud or excited about their accomplishment. 

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by allrise97

[LMP]

1 minute ago, allrise97 said:

I second this. This thread is really disheartening to read. I got into Ryerson and USask, and even though I am holding out for an institution to closer to home if I were someone else reading this thread set one going to Ryerson I would feel bad about myself and my competence to see other people bashing a school. If you look up current prospective students which I have done many of them are working for law firms on Bay Street but here this thread is of students not even yet in Law school belittling them based on the institution they choose.

I dont doubt a schools reputation plays a part, but what plays a bigger apart when you apply to positions is you, your history, competence in law school grades etc. This thread to read for students who are considering Law at Ryerson have been accepted slightly feels like a slap in the face and that they shouldn't be proud or excited about their accomplishment. 

 

The post you are replying to doesn't really come off as a slap in the face to me. It is just a reasonable response to the fanaticism that often surrounds Ryerson students. 

I have no qualms about Ryerson students. But c'mon, the bay street comment is disngenous. The stats have been posted above, is anyone here claiming that Ryerson places below what the statistics say? Moreover, the post you are repaonding to didn't even mention Bay Street!

[allrise97]

2 minutes ago, LMP said:

The post you are replying to doesn't really come off as a slap in the face to me. It is just a reasonable response to the fanaticism that often surrounds Ryerson students. 

I have no qualms about Ryerson students. But c'mon, the bay street comment is disngenous. The stats have been posted above, is anyone here claiming that Ryerson places below what the statistics say? Moreover, the post you are repaonding to didn't even mention Bay Street!

I quoted the post to agree with what they were saying... there are so many threads on this forum talking about Ryerson's reputation not just this one. Just search it. 

[LMP]

2 minutes ago, allrise97 said:

I quoted the post to agree with what they were saying... there are so many threads on this forum talking about Ryerson's reputation not just this one. Just search it. 

You absolutely did. That's my mistake and I apologize for the oversight.

But I stand by the rest of the comment. 

[Darth Vader]

37 minutes ago, allrise97 said:

I second this. This thread is really disheartening to read. I got into Ryerson and USask, and even though I am holding out for an institution to closer to home if I were someone else reading this thread set one going to Ryerson I would feel bad about myself and my competence to see other people bashing a school. If you look up current prospective students which I have done many of them are working for law firms on Bay Street but here this thread is of students not even yet in Law school belittling them based on the institution they choose.

I dont doubt a schools reputation plays a part, but what plays also plays a part when you apply to positions is you, your history, competence in law school grades etc. This thread to read for students who are considering Law at Ryerson have been accepted slightly feels like a slap in the face and that they shouldn't be proud or excited about their accomplishment. 

 

Dude, chill. OP created this thread with this question:

As someone new to this forum (and to the legal education world), I wonder if there is something I'm missing here -- I'm well aware that this is a very new program, and with that comes uncertainty and risk, however, given the location, progressive curriculum, 1L placement, and clear interest for this program (~6% acceptance rate 2021; ~9% acceptance rate 2020), I fail to understand why LASL has been dragged through the mud as much as it has. As someone considering attending Ryerson law this fall, I'm not so much trying to defend LASL, as I am wanting to engage in an open and honest discussion with those who have an opinion on the matter. 

Almost everyone that has responded here, including myself, is a lawyer or law student/articling student. We are engaging in an open and honest discussion about Ryerson law as OP intended when they created this thread. I have yet to see anyone respond to my comments about the negatives I perceive with this law school. I have also shared the Ultra Vires hiring numbers which is more reliable than anecdotes you may have looked up on LinkedIn or the firm websites. 

Seeing as how you are not even in law school yet, I am not sure why your takeaway from all this is that a bunch of "students not even yet in Law School" are belittling Ryerson students. This thread is about Ryerson's reputation in comparison to other law schools. We have all been through the hiring process ourselves. There are a mix of people here who commented who work in different legal fields. At least one person has been on the hiring side of things. I think you might want to actually read what is being said here carefully without automatically brushing it off as people not in law school yet bashing Ryerson.

No one is saying that you should not be proud of your accomplishment. You are going to be a lawyer. It is a remarkable feat. But this is a separate question from how Ryerson compares to other law schools in terms of reputation, which is what OP was asking about when they created this thread. 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Darth Vader

[Mr. Deeds]

On 2/23/2022 at 3:25 PM, aspiringlawyer said:

I think the main reason LASL is regarded as maybe a "last resort" is because they haven't graduated their first class yet. But a lot of their law professors teach at Osgoode as well so I don't see how the educational aspect can be deemed less worthy. 

Having spoken to some lawyers, they are quite excited for the inaugural class to get into the legal job market because of Ryerson's reputation for having industry ready students. 

This made me chuckle. "Industry ready students", meanwhile, Ryerson's inaugural class is only in 2L right now and not a single student is even in the industry yet meaning there is no such "reputation" for their law students. Even so, the legal market is very different than the market for fresh undergrads. I'll have to mirror the opinions of most others law students/articling students/lawyers on this thread and say this:

Just take their advice. They are not here to belittle anyone, they are only here to give you factual and realistic information. Ryerson is a new school, they have no reputation in the legal market. They placed like 40 students in the Toronto recruit this year - not to bad for a new school but let's not take this out of context. Work hard and do well in your first year and set yourself up for success once you reach the recruit. The more you fill your head with unrealistic fantasies, the more it takes a toll on your mentality. 

Good luck in law school, and I look forward to seeing where you end up. 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Mr. Deeds

[123]

On 2/23/2022 at 3:05 PM, SDBP said:

I fail to understand why LASL has been dragged through the mud as much as it has. As someone considering attending Ryerson law this fall, I'm not so much trying to defend LASL, as I am wanting to engage in an open and honest discussion with those who have an opinion on the matter. 

My knowledge of Ryerson comes almost exclusively from these forums. If I wasn't here, I would probably only be loosely aware that Ryerson has a law school. I'm going to guess that's not totally atypical for sole practitioners and small firms lawyers like me. I'm guessing that lawyers don't have some overwhelming prejudice against Ryerson. Instead, I'm guessing that we, as busy practitioners (especially when we aren't actively recruiting talent like the big firms do), probably know very little about the school.

In that sense, I think the school's novelty could be a bit of a disadvantage relative to students from established schools. All else being equal, I'll take the known over the unknown when hiring. For me, then, it would be a question of how you can ensure that all else isn't equal, by gathering up enough experience as a student to make yourself a compelling candidate irrespective of the school. 

Edited February 25, 2022 by realpseudonym

[Darth Vader]

57 minutes ago, realpseudonym said:

My knowledge of Ryerson comes almost exclusively from these forums. If I wasn't here, I would probably only be loosely aware that Ryerson has a law school. I'm going to guess that's not totally atypical for sole practitioners and small firms lawyers like me. I'm guessing that lawyers don't have some overwhelming prejudice against Ryerson. Instead, I'm guessing that we, as busy practitioners (especially when we aren't actively recruiting talent like the big firms do), probably know very little about the school.

In that sense, I think the school's novelty could be a bit of a disadvantage relative to students from established schools. All else being equal, I'll take the known over the unknown when hiring. For me, then, it would be a question of how you can ensure that all else isn't equal, by gathering up enough experience as a student to make yourself a compelling candidate irrespective of the school. 

This goes back to what I was saying about the importance of clinics and experiential education. Often when people talk about Ryerson, they just point to the OCI stats and newer curriculum, but no one addresses what clinics Ryerson has to offer its students. Every law school in Ontario has its own clinic like U of T Downtown Legal Services, Osgoode CLASP, Queen's Legal Aid, etc. But Ryerson doesn't have one yet. They're working at it and hired some new people to help build it up, but it is going to be a while before it gains any sort of reputation. 

Compare Ryerson's selection of experiential programs to other Ontario schools and it is really lacking. So what do students who don't get a job in Big law or opt out of it have to show prospective employers that want to see these experiences? How are they able to compete with the Windsor students who have a stacked resume of clinic and courtroom experiences? 

[BlockedQuebecois]

6 hours ago, Darth Vader said:

Compare Ryerson's selection of experiential programs to other Ontario schools and it is really lacking.

Is it? When I look at Ryerson’s clinical opportunities, it seems like they have quite a few interesting ones. Comparing it to Western’s and Windsor’s clinical offerings, for instance, I definitely wouldn’t say Western or Windsor’s are better (and if they are, it doesn’t seem that Ryerson’s are “really lacking” – it’s at best marginal).

Now obviously a lot turns on the quality of the clinical opportunities, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest Ryerson’s are of lower quality

Edited February 25, 2022 by BlockedQuebecois

[Darth Vader]

51 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Is it? When I look at Ryerson’s clinical opportunities, it seems like they have quite a few interesting ones. Comparing it to Western’s and Windsor’s clinical offerings, for instance, I definitely wouldn’t say Western or Windsor’s are better (and if they are, it doesn’t seem that Ryerson’s are “really lacking” – it’s at best marginal).

Now obviously a lot turns on the quality of the clinical opportunities, but I haven’t seen anything to suggest Ryerson’s are of lower quality

Does Ryerson have any in-house legal clinics that you do for course credit (like the intensive programs run at Osgoode)? I don't think they do. What I see on the website looks like things you'd do with Pro Bono Students Canada. Windsor's selection is pretty extensive. They even have judicial internships. Western offers less selection but the Community Legal Services is a good one that you can do full-time for course credit. It also has internship options at places like WHO, Canadian Red Cross, and other international organizations.

https://www.ryerson.ca/law/students/clinical-and-experiential-learning/

https://www.uwindsor.ca/law/341/clinical-and-experiential-learning#:~:text=Welcome to Windsor Law's Clinical,about law-in-action. 

https://law.uwo.ca/legal_clinics/index.html

https://law.uwo.ca/future_students/international/international_summer_law_internship_program.html

[BlockedQuebecois]

My understanding is most, if not all, of Ryerson's clinical opportunities during the semester are for credit in upper years, as is the standard practice at Canadian law schools. From the looks of it, several of their clinics are also full time. I’ve obviously never attended Ryerson though, so I’m open to correction. They don't currently have an in-house legal clinic, though as the site you linked to notes, they're in the process of establishing one. 

I also question how much you really need to build up clinic infrastructure at a school which, as part of its mandate, requires all its third year students to complete a 15-week professional placement. I would think there is relatively little difference between working in the criminal law division of CLASP for a semester, for example, and working with a criminal law practitioner for a semester. Clinic infrastructure may be helpful from the school's perspective, in that they don't need to find as many partners to support the professional placement, but I don't think students need to worry that much about it.

In any event, my overall point is I don't think Ryerson students are going to have a difficult time competing with "Windsor students who have a stacked resume of clinic and courtroom experiences"—between their clinic offerings, external opportunities, and the professional placement, I think they'll be perfectly competitive. 

Edited February 25, 2022 by BlockedQuebecois