Windsor (Single JD) vs. Ryerson

[historicaladvantage]

3 hours ago, QueensDenning said:

Please don't go to law school if you plan on going into "tech or entrepreneurship." There are many cheaper, quicker, less stressful and more effective ways to get into these fields. 

Sorry, I probably should have been clearer. When I said tech and entrepreneurship, I meant legal tech and entrepreneurship. I.E., working in the sector of legal technology, opening your own law firm, or studying patent and trademark law. I 100% agree with you, no one should go to law school unless they intend on practicing law or working in the legal sector. 

[Twenty]

• If someone wants to work in the legal technology space as a non-practicing lawyer, I would echo what @QueensDenning said.
• If someone wants to open up their own law firm (as a junior lawyer), they should go to whatever law school will minimize student debt. 
• If someone wants to practice patent and trademark law (which is different from commercial transaction work involving tech companies), I am unsure if Windsor and Ryerson are significantly different. Though I admit that I am not too familiar with their programming, just know that other law schools have strong reputations in IP law. 

Edited June 22, 2021 by Twenty

[historicaladvantage]

23 minutes ago, Twenty said:

• If someone wants to work in the legal technology space as a non-practicing lawyer, I would echo what @QueensDenning said.
• If someone wants to open up their own law firm (as a junior lawyer), they should go to whatever law school will minimize student debt. 
• If someone wants to practice patent and trademark law (which is different from commercial transaction work involving tech companies), I am unsure if Windsor and Ryerson are significantly different. Though I admit that I am not too familiar with their programming, just know that other law schools have strong reputations in IP law. 

 

First, I agree with all your points, so thank you for making them. I do think if your plan is to solely work in legal technology, get a different degree. No point going through law school for that. I also think going to any school will allow you to open a solo practice, so going to the cheapest place may make sense for certain individuals. Also, I don't think Ryerson's main focus is transactional law vis-a-vis tech companies, at least based on what I've read/heard. 

From what I've head about the school, Ryerson places a big emphasis on teaching lawyers how to be entrepreneurial and progressive with their law degrees, and that entrepreneurship happens to extend into tech for Ryerson. Don't shoot the messenger, lol. They want lawyers to not only use technological advancements to improve access to justice and the client experience, but also consider new ways to create startups that use technology to augment legal services. For example, Ryerson's legal innovation zone: https://www.ryerson.ca/zone-learning/legal-innovation-zone/about/

This does not mean that they do not want their students to practice law. They want them to simply think about the administration of legal services through the lens of tech and entrepreneurship. 

With respect to IP, Ryerson has created major inaugural research initiatives in the intellectual property space that intersect with its technological curriculum. I do not think they have a reputation yet when it comes to actually researching IP or teaching it, but I think it's safe to say the school emphasizes intellectual property research and teaching nonetheless (in conjunction with research initiatives of "market governance" + "access to justice"). See the following: https://www.ryerson.ca/law/faculty-and-research/research-initiatives/

I would like to finish with a disclaimer: at the end of the day, this is all advertisement from Ryerson. I did not attend Ryerson for law school, so I can't say if any of this is blowing smoke or not. I've only spoken to one student from the school who echoed all of the above, but it's a small sample size. However, based on what I've heard from this student and what I've read about the school, they have a large stream of their program dedicated to technology and to legal entrepreneurship. 

Edited June 22, 2021 by historicaladvantage

[QueensDenning]

3 hours ago, historicaladvantage said:

Sorry, I probably should have been clearer. When I said tech and entrepreneurship, I meant legal tech and entrepreneurship. I.E., working in the sector of legal technology, opening your own law firm, or studying patent and trademark law. I 100% agree with you, no one should go to law school unless they intend on practicing law or working in the legal sector. 

When you say legal tech, what exactly do you mean? Are you talking about a legal tech company? something like Blue Jay Legal? Because what capacity do you envision working in? If you're on the content side, you're not working a "tech" job, you're working a legal job. If you're in sales, sure, having a law degree might be great, but no "tech" education is really useful there, and you don't even need a law degree for those jobs. And on the tech side of the company, you need real tech knowledge - i.e. compsci/machine learning/nothing to do with lawschool/"tech" lawschool.

[Darth Vader]

3 hours ago, QueensDenning said:

When you say legal tech, what exactly do you mean? Are you talking about a legal tech company? something like Blue Jay Legal? Because what capacity do you envision working in? If you're on the content side, you're not working a "tech" job, you're working a legal job. If you're in sales, sure, having a law degree might be great, but no "tech" education is really useful there, and you don't even need a law degree for those jobs. And on the tech side of the company, you need real tech knowledge - i.e. compsci/machine learning/nothing to do with lawschool/"tech" lawschool.

Also, almost every lawyer you see working in the tech space started off in a traditional Biglaw setting and are corporate and IP lawyers at their core. They are not people doing the jobs that require skilled developers. No one is hiring a lawyer to do coding. 

It seems to me like Ryerson is ultimately gearing up their students to work in Biglaw, and then pursue those technology and entrepreneurship routes in the corporate space. No one is paying 20k+ in tuition and taking courses in coding and IP law to do access to justice work. 

If the 1L recruit trend continues, then Ryerson will place many of their students in the Biglaw market, and the school will naturally shift in this direction as that is where the students are landing jobs. So the outcome is that Ryerson is not really doing things differently from other law schools. Windsor is doing things differently because they have a social justice and access to justice mandate that they follow through with. Meanwhile, Ryerson is teaching its students about intellectual property, legal technology, entrepreneurship, and all the other things that Biglaw is looking for nowadays. Tech companies hire Biglaw lawyers for the most part. This trend is not likely to change because of some law school courses taught at Ryerson. 

[historicaladvantage]

6 hours ago, QueensDenning said:

When you say legal tech, what exactly do you mean? Are you talking about a legal tech company? something like Blue Jay Legal? Because what capacity do you envision working in? If you're on the content side, you're not working a "tech" job, you're working a legal job. If you're in sales, sure, having a law degree might be great, but no "tech" education is really useful there, and you don't even need a law degree for those jobs. And on the tech side of the company, you need real tech knowledge - i.e. compsci/machine learning/nothing to do with lawschool/"tech" lawschool.

I wouldn't personally work at a legal tech company since I've graduated law school and am now doing my own thing, and yes, Blue Jay Legal is what I meant. Encouraging proficiency in technology like this and being the kind of lawyer interested in expanding the network of technological legal mediums is a huge part of Ryerson's curriculum.  As for the compsci requirement, Ryerson law school actually has two mandatory courses in second year for its students that teaches them about code:  JUR 204 Data, Code and Social Innovation and JUR 403 Coding Intensive. 

[Lycidas]

15 hours ago, historicaladvantage said:

Ryerson can be good because it allows you to skip articling. In what little time it's been around it's developed a solid reputation. Windsor is undoubtedly more established, but the reputation of Windsor is merely good, not stellar with employers. 

 

I agree with BQ above. I genuinely think Ryerson's reputation 5 years from now will be significantly better than Windsor. Windsor has a very uncomfortable stigma attached to it. Ryerson did very well in the 1L recruit (hilariously so) and Toronto is a way better city to live in than Windsor, expenses aside. 

If it came down to it I'd take Ryerson over Windsor. 

[QueensGrad]

Where are the 1L recruit numbers from 2021? I don’t see them on UV.

[QMT20]

2 minutes ago, QueensGrad said:

Where are the 1L recruit numbers from 2021? I don’t see them on UV.

On the old forum, I believe @BlockedQuebecois went through the list of firms that participated in the 1L recruit (except for BLG) and counted the number of Ryerson students that landed there in total. The firms covered included Blakes, McCarthy's, Davies, Dentons, Aird Berlis, and Sherrard Kuzz and out of those firms 1L classes there were 6 Ryerson students in total. 

[CheeseToast]

30 minutes ago, QMT20 said:

On the old forum, I believe @BlockedQuebecois went through the list of firms that participated in the 1L recruit (except for BLG) and counted the number of Ryerson students that landed there in total. The firms covered included Blakes, McCarthy's, Davies, Dentons, Aird Berlis, and Sherrard Kuzz and out of those firms 1L classes there were 6 Ryerson students in total. 

So we’re now basing a brand new school’s entire reputation on the fact that 6 of its students were hired through the 1L recruit? Lol. Oh sorry, and the fact that it’s in Toronto. 

[Ben]

16 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

So we’re now basing a brand new school’s entire reputation on the fact that 6 of its students were hired through the 1L recruit? Lol. Oh sorry, and the fact that it’s in Toronto. 

No lol, people are saying that early signs are promising and the fact that it's in Toronto means it will probably be able to attract strong students and faculty. What are you taking issue with there?

[pinball]

At the end of the day, as highlighted by the TRU fiasco, there is a certain amount of risk associated with attending a new(-ish) law school compared to an established one. It might be the lack of alumna to network with, it might be the inexperience of the administrative team causing issues for students (or prospective students), or it might be the lack of comfort from not knowing how employers will treat Ryerson students during the 2L recruit. You'll just have to take this into factor when making the decision - some people might have a higher risk tolerance than others. For some, staying in Toronto for law school is a huge factor. That's fair, and more useful to take into account than whatever marketing campaign Ryerson has conjured up about technology in law.

[QMT20]

29 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

So we’re now basing a brand new school’s entire reputation on the fact that 6 of its students were hired through the 1L recruit? Lol. Oh sorry, and the fact that it’s in Toronto. 

I never said anything about Ryerson's reputation. I only answered QueensGrad's question about where people were getting their Ryerson 1L recruitment numbers from. 

14 minutes ago, Ben said:

No lol, people are saying that early signs are promising and the fact that it's in Toronto means it will probably be able to attract strong students and faculty. What are you taking issue with there?

@Ben is exactly right. I don't think anyone can say what Ryerson's reputation will be based on 1-year as a law school and a single 1L recruit. Time will tell. But people who think that the law firms aren't going to hire students from Ryerson because of some "stigma" attached to being a new law school appear to be wrong based on 1L hiring. 

In my personal opinion, Ryerson will do well in the 2L recruit. Some of this has to do with location, but mostly it's my understanding that many firms want to support the new school and I think many firms will hire students from Ryerson to do that. Other firms might not hire any Ryerson students this year. Over time, as alumni from Ryerson progress in their careers in private practice and in the public sector, we'll have a more accurate perspective on how different employers view the law school. 

However, that's not to say anything against Windsor either, since the point of this thread was a comparison between these two schools. Windsor's reputation is fine and if you do well there, you'll also have lots of opportunities in private practice and in the public sector. 

[CleanHands]

On 6/18/2021 at 9:31 AM, green_olives said:

I am from the GTA and got comfortable with the idea of being close to home (I know not the greatest reason). 

Since I didn't see anyone else say this in two pages of responses, I just wanted to say that I don't think that this is a bad reason at all to favour one school over another.

I'd tell you not to place any weight on that if you wanted to work on Bay Street and were admitted to UofT but were thinking of attending Lakehead because you're from Thunder Bay and want to stay close to home. Or some similar situation where school choice would clearly materially impact the specific outcome you are seeking from law school.

But you haven't said anything about what your desired career outcomes are and, more importantly, regardless of whether Windsor or Ryerson is "better" in some broad sense, I don't think the distinction between the two is significant. So if you want to stay in Toronto, you should.

Windsor is a known quality, and that settled reputation and established graduate outcomes are...mediocre by the standard of Canadian law schools. Not terrible by any means, but not good enough to make this decision obvious. I was a Ryerson-basher because I hated their techno-hipster marketing and the ridiculous Law Society decision to permit Ryerson grads, and only Ryerson grads, to skip articling (and I still do hate those things). But at every step of the way so far Ryerson has been proving the naysayers wrong. Regardless of where Ryerson ranks in the pecking order when the dust settles, I think it's extremely unlikely that it will prove to be a substantially worse option than Windsor. So my view is that you shouldn't move to a city you'd clearly rather not be in to pursue a roughly equivalent enough option.

[CheeseToast]

2 hours ago, Ben said:

No lol, people are saying that early signs are promising and the fact that it's in Toronto means it will probably be able to attract strong students and faculty. What are you taking issue with there?

I’m not necessarily taking issue with anything.

2 hours ago, QMT20 said:

I never said anything about Ryerson's reputation. I only answered QueensGrad's question about where people were getting their Ryerson 1L recruitment numbers from. 

Apologies, didn’t mean to single you out, my comment was aimed at this thread as a whole as opposed to any one person. 

[123]

14 hours ago, historicaladvantage said:

if your plan is to solely work in legal technology, get a different degree.

If your plan is to solely work in legal technology, then you have oddly specific plans. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

7 minutes ago, CheeseToast said:

Apologies, didn’t mean to single you out, my comment was aimed at this thread as a whole as opposed to any one person. 

Your take was equally bad as a response to the whole thread. 

Edited June 22, 2021 by BlockedQuebecois

[CheeseToast]

18 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

Your take was equally bad as a response to the whole thread. 

Great comment dude.

[LMP]

Another factor you may want to consider (and one that never seems to get addressed) is that Windsor actually has law specific facilities. Ryerson as of now doesn't have anything like a law building, and isn't exactly known for having the best lecture hall locations. I'm also not sure if they have a physical law library or something of the like. 

 

Now I should mention I actually love Ryersons location. I think it's a really cool part of Toronto. But in terms of where you'll be learning and studying as a law student, they are certainly lacking. Which for me would be a bit of a concern. Though they do have a cool looking student center.

[historicaladvantage]

1 hour ago, realpseudonym said:

If your plan is to solely work in legal technology, then you have oddly specific plans. 

😂 Yeah, I personally was never interested in this stuff. I went to Osgoode and a significant minority of people wanted to pursue this avenue of entrepreneurship at least as a side hustle. Some people are really interested in it, to the extent that they want it to play a really large part in their careers. Personally, I think legal tech is a bit like crypto--limited utility at present, unknown future market potential. It's enticing stuff but I'm not sure I'm convinced that law will really be as "dictated by" technology as Ryerson seems to proselytizing. I guess we'll see. 

Edited June 22, 2021 by historicaladvantage

[BlockedQuebecois]

7 minutes ago, historicaladvantage said:

Personally, I think legal tech is a bit like crypto--limited utility at present, unknown future market potential.

I’m skeptical of the idea that legal tech is going to do away with the need for lawyers or some other outlandish claim, but I don’t think it’s fair to say legal tech has limited utility currently. 

Things like Kira, Closing Folders, and the various e-discovery platforms have really revolutionized the way big law firms complete due diligence, close deals, and handle discovery during litigation. They’re all very useful and increase efficiency dramatically.

And the future market potential is clearly there, at least for programs that make big law firms more efficient. 

[123]

30 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

the various e-discovery platforms [...] handle discovery during litigation.

I think part of the challenge with tech in litigation is negotiating with the government.

Civil discovery for big law is one thing, as it's a stage of litigation driven more by private parties than anything else. But MAG, the tribunals, various government agencies, etc exercise a lot of control over rules of disclosure which restricts how litigants get to use and share information. For me, having DOJ lawyers consent to email disclosure was a COVID miracle. But I still can't even get them to accept links to file-sharing platforms when my records are over the file size limits, and I instead need to split them into multiple parts and send as separate emails. Obviously, that's not a huge deal with Adobe. But still a small example of the bottlenecks that entrenched bureaucracies and their IT departments can put on tech innovation.

If you want to access the broader admin, crim, and civil market you'd need to get governments to agree to a thousand little changes before you could really even start pitching to the smaller firms. I'm not signing up for services which create work-product incompatible with whatever tribunal rules I'm dealing with, and different court and tribunal systems still have lots of different rules. If someone wants to do all that government lobbying and procurement work, great. But prying MAG administrators away from their filing systems and fax machines doesn't sound like the kind of exciting market disruption most people think of when they dream of working in tech. 

Edited June 22, 2021 by realpseudonym

[y2199]

On 6/22/2021 at 1:41 PM, LMP said:

Another factor you may want to consider (and one that never seems to get addressed) is that Windsor actually has law specific facilities. Ryerson as of now doesn't have anything like a law building, and isn't exactly known for having the best lecture hall locations. I'm also not sure if they have a physical law library or something of the like. 

 

Now I should mention I actually love Ryersons location. I think it's a really cool part of Toronto. But in terms of where you'll be learning and studying as a law student, they are certainly lacking. Which for me would be a bit of a concern. Though they do have a cool looking student center.

Ryerson is a new law school, of course they don't have a law-specific building yet. It is currently in the process of being designed and they're planning construction. 

There is a law library too. 

[y2199]

I don't think that enough of Ryerson's accomplishments this past year have been highlighted enough on this forum. Even on the old forum I saw nothing but negative opinions.

- Ryerson Law placed first at the Canadian Client Consultation Competition which was won by a 1L team competing against upper years from Canadian law schools. They went on to represent Canada at the International competition in April.

- As has been previously mentioned, they did amazing for an inaugural year in the 1L summer recruit, and if you go to their LinkedIn and click "alumni" you'll be able to see the summer jobs that current students have landed. It is incredibly impressive.

- The professors there are EXTREMELY accomplished, with one of them recently just being appointed to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

- They have been sponsored and/or supported by numerous toronto-based law firms and lawyers 

- Going to a new law school gives you the opportunity to become the founder of a club, society, council with greater ease; lots of chances for resume boosters

Also, their interview process allows them to seek out bright minds and intelligence that go beyond a GPA and LSAT. I did my undergrad with pretty dumb people who still managed to get a high GPA.

I was in your exact same boat @green_olives, I had the choice between Windsor, Ryerson, and multiple other law schools. I went with Ryerson based on thorough research and conversations with lawyers and law students who have nothing but positive things to say about the school. Windsor and Ryerson both have their pros and cons, it's all up to what you feel is best for you.

Edited June 28, 2021 by y2199

[CleanHands]

@y2199Okay look, I wrote above in this thread "at every step of the way so far Ryerson has been proving the naysayers wrong" and I stand by that. But Ryerson students/admits like you aren't really doing the school any favours with these cringeworthy defences.

43 minutes ago, y2199 said:

- The professors there are EXTREMELY accomplished, with one of them recently just being appointed to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

This is true of every Canadian law school. Law professors across the country are more often than not some combination of JD gold medalist/SCC clerk/HYS or Oxbridge grad degree holder/etc. Put simply, there are more people with amazing profiles like than there are law professor jobs in Canada, so any new school that opens is going to be able to hire very impressive people.

So I fully agree with you about Ryerson's faculty, but that's not unique or a selling point and you're implicitly not giving other Canadian law schools enough credit when you emphasize this.

45 minutes ago, y2199 said:

Also, their interview process allows them to seek out bright minds and intelligence that go beyond a GPA and LSAT. I did my undergrad with pretty dumb people who still managed to get a high GPA.

Trying to spin admitting students with mediocre GPAs and LSATs into a *positive* thing with some nonsense about how they are able to see past that determine who is *really* a meritorious candidate is just silly. Ryerson hasn't figured out some magic formula that allows them to see something in candidates that no other school in the country is tuned into. Weak admission stats is not a plus. This is something the Ryerson groupies on the old forum kept asserting before they got scared off, and it's just as embarrassing a thing to write now as it was then.

Again, I say all of this as someone who encouraged the OP to attend Ryerson and who doesn't think it's a worse option than Windsor.