UBC vs UVic (again)

[petunia434]

I've been accepted to both UBC and UVic and I feel soso excited and grateful! But right now I have no idea which one to choose - my deadline for UBC is March 1st, so a couple weeks away. I don't know anyone who has attended either program and no one in my immediate family/social circle has pursued law school so I feel a bit lost atm. 

• Lived in SK my whole life, not familiar with either city so I can't 'go where I want to work' yet (but I need to get out of SK lol which is why I applied out of province)
• I don't know anybody in either city 
• Main interests are social justice/human rights law and labour and employment law. I see that UBC has a social justice specialization, as well as a lot more variety in upper-year social justice courses. However, I have also heard that Uvic is more social-justice-oriented in general, whereas UBC has more of a corporate focus, so not sure which program would be best here (I have no interest in Biglaw and want to avoid corporate law as much as possible). 
• I have bad performance anxiety and I've been in highly competitive environments w my peers for as long as I can remember, so I'm really hoping to take a break from that and minimize the feeling of competition among other students. I know law school is inherently competitive and I can't avoid it entirely but I'd like to avoid it as much as I can
  • I know everyone's experience will be different and it's also dependent on your cohort so this is tough to evaluate but any advice/testimonials are welcome

Having a very hard time deciding and my time is running out. Any advice would be immensely appreciated! 

[CleanHands]

Congrats on having two great schools to choose from. You really can't go wrong.

As a UBC grad I suspect UVic may be a bit of a better fit for you culturally based on what you've written. But either school will equip you to do the kind of work you want to do.

[Ramesses]

UBC is more rounded in the event you change your mind and want to do big law. 

[CleanHands]

15 minutes ago, Ramesses said:

UBC is more rounded in the event you change your mind and want to do big law. 

Ugh...

[CleanHands]

Screw it.

I'm sorry to stir the pot (kind of, not really) and belabour the point that I tried to convey very succinctly in the previous post, but @petunia434, I would strongly encourage you to completely ignore @Ramesses's post above.

And I felt it was worth coming back to this thread and emphasizing this both for the OP and others who know what they want to do when they start law school and know that it's not Big Law, because this will be far from the first such comment you'll hear on your law school journey. There's this perception of OCIs and Big Law as the prize everyone's chasing, people will encourage you to apply even though it's not what you want to do, and if you do succumb to the noise and apply (because you have "nothing to lose" by doing so) and get an offer you will hear all kinds of bullshit rationalization as to why you should for a few years before doing what you really wanted and was the whole point of you going to law school in the first place.

Every damn cycle it's the same thing.

You know generally what you want to do and clearly what you don't want to do. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise and don't put yourself in a position where a decade from now you stumble upon this post again and ask what the fuck happened to yourself and why you've put in 70 hour weeks for years to work against the very values that drove you to apply to law school in the first place.

It never ceases to amaze me the number of highly motivated, intelligent, diligent people in law school who are too chickenshit to stick to their convictions and who get swept along by other people's conception of success and prestige. Just don't be one of those people.

[123]

11 hours ago, CleanHands said:

Screw it.

I'm sorry to stir the pot (kind of, not really) and belabour the point that I tried to convey very succinctly in the previous post, but @petunia434, I would strongly encourage you to completely ignore @Ramesses's post above.

And I felt it was worth coming back to this thread and emphasizing this both for the OP and others who know what they want to do when they start law school and know that it's not Big Law, because this will be far from the first such comment you'll hear on your law school journey. There's this perception of OCIs and Big Law as the prize everyone's chasing, people will encourage you to apply even though it's not what you want to do, and if you do succumb to the noise and apply (because you have "nothing to lose" by doing so) and get an offer you will hear all kinds of bullshit rationalization as to why you should for a few years before doing what you really wanted and was the whole point of you going to law school in the first place.

Every damn cycle it's the same thing.

You know generally what you want to do and clearly what you don't want to do. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise and don't put yourself in a position where a decade from now you stumble upon this post again and ask what the fuck happened to yourself and why you've put in 70 hour weeks for years to work against the very values that drove you to apply to law school in the first place.

It never ceases to amaze me the number of highly motivated, intelligent, diligent people in law school who are too chickenshit to stick to their convictions and who get swept along by other people's conception of success and prestige. Just don't be one of those people.

I agree, but also look at it differently. Factually, this is all true -- it's what happens every year. But I think the result is a good thing.

Most of the best social justice lawyers are all a little weird. They're people who want to represent abusive moms and drug dealers. They're the ones that really care about giving voice to the marginalized, either because they're able to see the humanity that others don't, they understand that things like forced separation from parents can be equally traumatizing to some forms of parental abuse, and they want to make sure that the government machinery doesn't bulldoze the little people. They do work that isn't fun. It isn't as lucrative. And doing the day-to-day job does require a real sense of conviction. 

I'll say that for some people, it is harder to know what exactly you want to do after law school. I think @CleanHands has said elsewhere that he came to law school basically wanting to practice criminal law. I didn't have that clarity. I came to law school interested in labour law, and maybe willing to do some form of civil litigation. I also thought that maybe I was too soft or middle-class to handle the drug-dealers and violent criminals. I only discovered that I wanted to do these kinds of cases and that I could after I did a bunch of clinical work in 2L. So I am a little more sympathetic to keeping an open mind, including to corporate and other forms of big law. 

But I also think that the recruit marketing and law school noise is a good first test for whether you're a fit for a social justice practice. Frankly, if you express interest in social justice work, and someone else responds by telling you to apply for a job that isn't a social justice job to keep your options open, that should strike you as bullshit. Why would someone interested in representing single mothers or protecting the best interests of the child in custody battles be a logical fit for a corporate firm. When people said that stuff to me, it seemed like nonsense. One of my friends badgered me enough that I tried to write a generic letter for the 2L recruit, and I couldn't do it. Because I have ... I'm not sure what to call it. Rage? Stubbornness? Iconoclasm? Whatever it is that makes us criminal, family, immigration, housing, and social assistance lawyers get-up and go: I feel like you need some of that when the recruit pressure kicks in. And if you have it, trust it. 

Likewise, if you really feel compelled to apply for corporate jobs by peer pressure and the benefits of working in those roles, I say trust that, too. I think there's a way that if the OCI marketing works on you, maybe that is the way you should go. Because if you came to law school dedicated to protecting the rights of the vulnerable, and all it took was a wink from BLG and the judgment of some classmates to start writing cover letters about your interest in commercial transactions, I don't know if you're going to want to slog it out in remand court or at the LTB.  Those clients are vulnerable. They need people who will stand by them, and who won't be pressured into taking the convenient, comfortable way out. 

Sure, the hypocrisy of people saying they believe one thing, while doing another is socially annoying. But the recruit process is a great clarifier on students' priorities. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by realpseudonym

[Byzantine]

I will say that one advantage of UBC is that you can start at the Law Students' Legal Advice Program (LSLAP) in 1L. You can immediately start working with individuals on their human rights, employment, criminal, and other legal issues and see if you enjoy that kind of work. I go to UBC so I'm not sure if that's an option at UVIC, maybe someone else can chime in. UVIC obviously has upper year clinical options but not sure if you can do that 1st year. I really enjoyed doing LSLAP in 1L and think I learned a lot from it. 

But yeah I don't think you can go wrong either way. I also go into both schools and the main thing that led me to accept UBC was already living/having family in Vancouver and LSLAP. 

I haven't found people at UBC very competitive. People are very friendly IMO. I'm sure the same is true at UVIC. 

Feel free to PM if you have any further questions about UBC

Edited February 15, 2023 by Byzantine
spelling

[CleanHands]

4 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

I'll say that for some people, it is harder to know what exactly you want to do after law school. I think @CleanHands has said elsewhere that he came to law school basically wanting to practice criminal law. I didn't have that clarity. I came to law school interested in labour law, and maybe willing to do some form of civil litigation. I also thought that maybe I was too soft or middle-class to handle the drug-dealers and violent criminals. I only discovered that I wanted to do these kinds of cases and that I could after I did a bunch of clinical work in 2L. So I am a little more sympathetic to keeping an open mind, including to corporate and other forms of big law. 

But I also think that the recruit marketing and law school noise is a good first test for whether you're a fit for a social justice practice. Frankly, if you express interest in social justice work, and someone else responds by telling you to apply for a job that isn't a social justice job to keep your options open, that should strike you as bullshit. Why would someone interested in representing single mothers or protecting the best interests of the child in custody battles be a logical fit for a corporate firm. When people said that stuff to me, it seemed like nonsense. One of my friends badgered me enough that I tried to write a generic letter for the 2L recruit, and I couldn't do it. Because I have ... I'm not sure what to call it. Rage? Stubbornness? Iconoclasm? Whatever it is that makes us criminal, family, immigration, housing, and social assistance lawyers get-up and go: I feel like you need some of that when the recruit pressure kicks in. And if you have it, trust it. 

Fair enough.

Yeah, my post was sort of venting my own annoyance and was based around my own experience. Because as you say, I went to law school wanting to do criminal law, and the only thing that changed is that I learned about things like review panel hearings for civil mental health detention that I wanted to do in addition to that. But I was very vocal from 1L introductions about what I wanted to do, and when OCI application time came around it was like none of the other students (except those wired similarly) really believed me and they thought it was crazy not to put one's hat in the ring (even for something one explicitly stated they had zero interest in). Even friends of mine who knew me pretty well and were well aware of my objectives would ask about Big Law applications and when I said I had no interest whatsoever without fail they'd try to pitch to me that suchandsuch Big Law firm has a great white collar crime group. It was annoying and incomprehensible to me.

4 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

Likewise, if you really feel compelled to apply for corporate jobs by peer pressure and the benefits of working in those roles, I say trust that, too. I think there's a way that if the OCI marketing works on you, maybe that is the way you should go. Because if you came to law school dedicated to protecting the rights of the vulnerable, and all it took was a wink from BLG and the judgment of some classmates to start writing cover letters about your interest in commercial transactions, I don't know if you're going to want to slog it out in remand court or at the LTB.  Those clients are vulnerable. They need people who will stand by them, and who won't be pressured into taking the convenient, comfortable way out. 

Sure, the hypocrisy of people saying they believe one thing, while doing another is socially annoying. But the recruit process is a great clarifier on students' priorities. 

I'm more ambivalent about this than you though, because I'm not very far out of law school and I have friends who are literal first year calls in Big Law already reaching out to me and asking questions about my career path and how to pivot because they had went to law school saying they wanted to do the same things I did, then they surrendered to the noise and they have already realized they hate it and made a mistake. The higher income they made during articles and early practice is definitely not worth them now being junior lawyers and having absolutely no relevant/useful experience whatsoever for the kind of law they want to do.

And I do think there are true believers and there are phonies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk, but precisely because of all the noise we're talking about, there is an in-between subset of people who were sold on the idea that they could have their cake and eat it too. That they could chase prestige and money and they wouldn't actually be compromising on the type of work and careers they wanted to have. That Big Law would "open doors" across the board in the industry rather than just opening specific doors containing things they weren't interested in, allow them to pay off debt before making financial sacrifices (not realizing this was offset by how much they were setting themselves back in the alternate career they wanted), allow them to get great training (that they failed to realize has no relevance whatsoever to their desired path), etc. I believe there were people confused by this because it's the kind of bullshit that lots of people inexplicably tried to sell me on because they couldn't believe what they were chasing wasn't the ultimate, most desirable end goal for absolutely everyone and the top of a universal law hierarchy. There's bizarre gaslighting about it. So for that reason I do think it's worth saying up front, yeah, all of that is bullshit.

4 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

Most of the best social justice lawyers are all a little weird. They're people who want to represent abusive moms and drug dealers. They're the ones that really care about giving voice to the marginalized, either because they're able to see the humanity that others don't, they understand that things like forced separation from parents can be equally traumatizing to some forms of parental abuse, and they want to make sure that the government machinery doesn't bulldoze the little people. They do work that isn't fun. It isn't as lucrative. And doing the day-to-day job does require a real sense of conviction. 

Well, pardon me, I guess I'm just insane as you explained
Or maybe sanctifying the sadistic is deranged

-"Blockbuster Night, Pt. 1," RTJ

Edited February 15, 2023 by CleanHands

[123]

1 hour ago, CleanHands said:

in-between subset of people who were sold on the idea that they could have their cake and eat it too. That they could chase prestige and money and they wouldn't actually be compromising on the type of work and careers they wanted to have. That Big Law would "open doors" across the board in the industry rather than just opening specific doors containing things they weren't interested in, allow them to pay off debt before making financial sacrifices (not realizing this was offset by how much they were setting themselves back in the alternate career they wanted), allow them to get great training (that they failed to realize has no relevance whatsoever to their desired path), etc. I believe there were people confused by this because it's the kind of bullshit that lots of people inexplicably tried to sell me on because they couldn't believe what they were chasing wasn't the ultimate, most desirable end goal for absolutely everyone and the top of a universal law hierarchy. There's bizarre gaslighting about it. So for that reason I do think it's worth saying up front, yeah, all of that is bullshit.

Yeah, that advice does fly around law schools, and I agree that we might as well tell people that it's bullshit. Because it is.

I think we're almost on exactly the same page, so I don't know why I'm bothering. But here's my thing. And there's no way to say this without sound like a dick to some law students, so I'm sorry, but I also believe this. If someone accepts the advice "yes, spending several years at a corporate firm closes no doors, and you will eventually transfer to a completely unrelated and vastly less lucrative practice area" and relies upon it without proper due diligence, then I have a bridge to sell them. I'm not saying people never make the switch from big law to social justice law. I know a handful of people who have. But it is not a logical plan or way to approach one's career. It strikes me as almost hopelessly naive. And that is a bad thing. 

You don't have to be a legal genius to do what I do. It's not like some form of high-level theoretical science, where you need the raw brainpower to calculate the way space and time unfolds in the outer edges of the known universe. But you need basic savviness. A lot of what I've dealt with early-on in my practice is pure bullshit. Like bail clients who are telling me some story about how they have to get out immediately, because it's their brother's funeral tomorrow and they can't miss it, when really, they're in terrible opioid withdrawal and that's why they want release. Or last week I had opposing counsel with a deadline that day email me with a made-up problem in my record, and insisting that I make a motion to cure it, which also reset his filing deadlines. You don't need to be a genius to figure out what was happening there. You need to be able to read between the lines. And then you need the basic tact and tenacity to tell counsel to get stuffed, but in a way that allows him to save face, so that we resolve his need for an extension in a way that minimizes expense and delay.

Cops, judges, co-counsel, clients all have their own agendas. I have colleagues, who honestly, seem like they're always getting taken for a ride. They're putting up witnesses who are getting torn apart. They're taking bad cases. They're either coming out too hot with their positions in hearings and getting smacked down by decisionmakers or they're getting pushed around. And I've gone through hiring students and staff a couple of times in the past year, and I lean on interviews and references way more than I thought I would. The grades and experience in the last few candidates are often largely the same. The difference was whether they could convey the mixture of toughness, empathy, and judgment that they'd need to handle intakes and meetings with my vulnerable, but also sometimes manipulative clients. Some of the students seemed like doe-eyed kids. And the student who came onboard last summer, and who is coming back as my first articling student, did thrive, in part because she's savvy and skeptical in addition to having passion and compassion. 

Anyway, I apologize, because for whatever reason, this post really turned into a journey. And I am in no way helping anyone choose between UBC and Uvic. But if I have something hopefully helpful for any students reading, it's that critical thinking shouldn't just be a marketing buzzword for expensive liberal arts schools. Every Canadian law student has analytical ability and is theoretically smart enough to parse noise and law school bullshit. That doesn't mean you have to do it alone. If things don't make sense, it's not a bad idea to get a second read on things by coming somewhere like here, or going to someone else who would have more wisdom than your fellow law students. But I don't know why students aren't applying the same critical faculties to their professional future that they would substantive work. And if "oh yeah, starting at Faskens won't setback your goals of advancing social justice at all, there's a tonne of transferrable skills in serving banks and crystal meth addicted migrants" doesn't activate your bullshit detector, then I couldn't imagine having you work with me. But I will take payment for that bridge via e-transfer or bank draft.  

Edited February 16, 2023 by realpseudonym

[petunia434]

15 hours ago, CleanHands said:

Fair enough.

Yeah, my post was sort of venting my own annoyance and was based around my own experience. Because as you say, I went to law school wanting to do criminal law, and the only thing that changed is that I learned about things like review panel hearings for civil mental health detention that I wanted to do in addition to that. But I was very vocal from 1L introductions about what I wanted to do, and when OCI application time came around it was like none of the other students (except those wired similarly) really believed me and they thought it was crazy not to put one's hat in the ring (even for something one explicitly stated they had zero interest in). Even friends of mine who knew me pretty well and were well aware of my objectives would ask about Big Law applications and when I said I had no interest whatsoever without fail they'd try to pitch to me that suchandsuch Big Law firm has a great white collar crime group. It was annoying and incomprehensible to me.

I'm more ambivalent about this than you though, because I'm not very far out of law school and I have friends who are literal first year calls in Big Law already reaching out to me and asking questions about my career path and how to pivot because they had went to law school saying they wanted to do the same things I did, then they surrendered to the noise and they have already realized they hate it and made a mistake. The higher income they made during articles and early practice is definitely not worth them now being junior lawyers and having absolutely no relevant/useful experience whatsoever for the kind of law they want to do.

And I do think there are true believers and there are phonies who talk the talk but don't walk the walk, but precisely because of all the noise we're talking about, there is an in-between subset of people who were sold on the idea that they could have their cake and eat it too. That they could chase prestige and money and they wouldn't actually be compromising on the type of work and careers they wanted to have. That Big Law would "open doors" across the board in the industry rather than just opening specific doors containing things they weren't interested in, allow them to pay off debt before making financial sacrifices (not realizing this was offset by how much they were setting themselves back in the alternate career they wanted), allow them to get great training (that they failed to realize has no relevance whatsoever to their desired path), etc. I believe there were people confused by this because it's the kind of bullshit that lots of people inexplicably tried to sell me on because they couldn't believe what they were chasing wasn't the ultimate, most desirable end goal for absolutely everyone and the top of a universal law hierarchy. There's bizarre gaslighting about it. So for that reason I do think it's worth saying up front, yeah, all of that is bullshit.

Well, pardon me, I guess I'm just insane as you explained
Or maybe sanctifying the sadistic is deranged

-"Blockbuster Night, Pt. 1," RTJ

 

13 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

Yeah, that advice does fly around law schools, and I agree that we might as well tell people that it's bullshit. Because it is.

I think we're almost on exactly the same page, so I don't know why I'm bothering. But here's my thing. And there's no way to say this without sound like a dick to some law students, so I'm sorry, but I also believe this. If someone accepts the advice "yes, spending several years at a corporate firm closes no doors, and you will eventually transfer to a completely unrelated and vastly less lucrative practice area" and relies upon it without proper due diligence, then I have a bridge to sell them. I'm not saying people never make the switch from big law to social justice law. I know a handful of people who have. But it is not a logical plan or way to approach one's career. It strikes me as almost hopelessly naive. And that is a bad thing. 

You don't have to be a legal genius to do what I do. It's not like some form of high-level theoretical science, where you need the raw brainpower to calculate the way space and time unfolds in the outer edges of the known universe. But you need basic savviness. A lot of what I've dealt with early-on in my practice is pure bullshit. Like bail clients who are telling me some story about how they have to get out immediately, because it's their brother's funeral tomorrow and they can't miss it, when really, they're in terrible opioid withdrawal and that's why they want release. Or last week I had opposing counsel with a deadline that day email me with a made-up problem in my record, and insisting that I make a motion to cure it, which also reset his filing deadlines. You don't need to be a genius to figure out what was happening there. You need to be able to read between the lines. And then you need the basic tact and tenacity to tell counsel to get stuffed, but in a way that allows him to save face, so that we resolve his need for an extension in a way that minimizes expense and delay.

Cops, judges, co-counsel, clients all have their own agendas. I have colleagues, who honestly, seem like they're always getting taken for a ride. They're putting up witnesses who are getting torn apart. They're taking bad cases. They're either coming out too hot with their positions in hearings and getting smacked down by decisionmakers or they're getting pushed around. And I've gone through hiring students and staff a couple of times in the past year, and I lean on interviews and references way more than I thought I would. The grades and experience in the last few candidates are often largely the same. The difference was whether they could convey the mixture of toughness, empathy, and judgment that they'd need to handle intakes and meetings with my vulnerable, but also sometimes manipulative clients. Some of the students seemed like doe-eyed kids. And the student who came onboard last summer, and who is coming back as my first articling student, did thrive, in part because she's savvy and skeptical in addition to having passion and compassion. 

Anyway, I apologize, because for whatever reason, this post really turned into a journey. And I am in no way helping anyone choose between UBC and Uvic. But if I have something hopefully helpful for any students reading, it's that critical thinking shouldn't just be a marketing buzzword for expensive liberal arts schools. Every Canadian law student has analytical ability and is theoretically smart enough to parse noise and law school bullshit. That doesn't mean you have to do it alone. If things don't make sense, it's not a bad idea to get a second read on things by coming somewhere like here, or going to someone else who would have more wisdom than your fellow law students. But I don't know why students aren't applying the same critical faculties to their professional future that they would substantive work. And if "oh yeah, starting at Faskens won't setback your goals of advancing social justice at all, there's a tonne of transferrable skills in serving banks and crystal meth addicted migrants" doesn't activate your bullshit detector, then I couldn't imagine having you work with me. But I will take payment for that bridge via e-transfer or bank draft.  

I really do appreciate this back-and-forth - it's also really good to be reminded that my interests are not likely the majority and I should be expecting some pressure/influence from other people or peers who pursue biglaw!! Awesome reminders of the trait balances you need to pursue social justice law and this let me take some time out of my day to to confirm i know what i want to pursue with as much certainty as I can have at this point lol. 

That said, any specific UVic/UBC comparisons are still very welcome. I figure that I can’t go wrong as they are both great schools but I’ll take all the info/advice I can get!

[AeroVan26]

@petunia434 Im in the same boat between Uvic and UBC. Which one did you go with, and why, if you dont mind me asking?

[Goldenbears19]

On 2/14/2023 at 9:47 PM, petunia434 said:

I've been accepted to both UBC and UVic and I feel soso excited and grateful! But right now I have no idea which one to choose - my deadline for UBC is March 1st, so a couple weeks away. I don't know anyone who has attended either program and no one in my immediate family/social circle has pursued law school so I feel a bit lost atm. 

• Lived in SK my whole life, not familiar with either city so I can't 'go where I want to work' yet (but I need to get out of SK lol which is why I applied out of province)
• I don't know anybody in either city 
• Main interests are social justice/human rights law and labour and employment law. I see that UBC has a social justice specialization, as well as a lot more variety in upper-year social justice courses. However, I have also heard that Uvic is more social-justice-oriented in general, whereas UBC has more of a corporate focus, so not sure which program would be best here (I have no interest in Biglaw and want to avoid corporate law as much as possible). 
• I have bad performance anxiety and I've been in highly competitive environments w my peers for as long as I can remember, so I'm really hoping to take a break from that and minimize the feeling of competition among other students. I know law school is inherently competitive and I can't avoid it entirely but I'd like to avoid it as much as I can
  • I know everyone's experience will be different and it's also dependent on your cohort so this is tough to evaluate but any advice/testimonials are welcome

Having a very hard time deciding and my time is running out. Any advice would be immensely appreciated! 

Based on what you said regarding performance anxiety, UVic may be a better fit for you. UBC is highly competitive (in all areas) but there definitely will be that feeling of pressure pretty consistently. Not being from either place, Victoria is also significantly less overwhelming than Vancouver. I always think of it as a smaller, slower version of Vancouver. It’s also important to consider that you mentioned you want to avoid corporate law, which makes me think UVic seems like the better fit. Both Vancouver and Victoria are stunning places to live, Vancouver definitely being a little more on the expensive side. Cost of living is very high there with a very low vacancy rate, so keep that in mind when looking for where you’ll live. Either way, congratulations on being accepted to both and best of luck with your decision!

[Byzantine]

11 minutes ago, Goldenbears19 said:

Based on what you said regarding performance anxiety, UVic may be a better fit for you. UBC is highly competitive (in all areas) but there definitely will be that feeling of pressure pretty consistently. Not being from either place, Victoria is also significantly less overwhelming than Vancouver. I always think of it as a smaller, slower version of Vancouver. It’s also important to consider that you mentioned you want to avoid corporate law, which makes me think UVic seems like the better fit. Both Vancouver and Victoria are stunning places to live, Vancouver definitely being a little more on the expensive side. Cost of living is very high there with a very low vacancy rate, so keep that in mind when looking for where you’ll live. Either way, congratulations on being accepted to both and best of luck with your decision!

As a 2L at Allard I would disagree about UBC being highly competitive and that there's a constant feeling of pressure. Classmates are very friendly and welcoming. I heard people talk about competitiveness before coming, but my experience (and the experience of other classmates I've talked to) has been the opposite. I'd be interested to know what you're basing that statement off. 

 

YMMV but that's been my experience. 

[Chewy]

15 minutes ago, Goldenbears19 said:

Based on what you said regarding performance anxiety, UVic may be a better fit for you. UBC is highly competitive (in all areas) but there definitely will be that feeling of pressure pretty consistently. Not being from either place, Victoria is also significantly less overwhelming than Vancouver. I always think of it as a smaller, slower version of Vancouver. It’s also important to consider that you mentioned you want to avoid corporate law, which makes me think UVic seems like the better fit. Both Vancouver and Victoria are stunning places to live, Vancouver definitely being a little more on the expensive side. Cost of living is very high there with a very low vacancy rate, so keep that in mind when looking for where you’ll live. Either way, congratulations on being accepted to both and best of luck with your decision!

Do you attend UBC?

[Goldenbears19]

6 minutes ago, Chewy said:

Do you attend UBC?

No, I have friends that do! 

8 minutes ago, Byzantine said:

As a 2L at Allard I would disagree about UBC being highly competitive and that there's a constant feeling of pressure. Classmates are very friendly and welcoming. I heard people talk about competitiveness before coming, but my experience (and the experience of other classmates I've talked to) has been the opposite. I'd be interested to know what you're basing that statement off. 

 

YMMV but that's been my experience. 

I have friends that go there, so I’m just basing that off of what they’ve told me! I don’t personally go to UBC.