General Discussion Regarding Foreign Law Schools

[BondGuy]

On 2/18/2024 at 5:04 PM, PzabbytheLawyer said:

Does Bond filter out candidates on any performance metric at all if you're Canadian?

No one will deny the entry criteria are lower than Canada - but yes. I know some Canadians who were rejected when they applied and had to improve their grades. 

The Australian approach is less about entry criteria and more about grades in the program. Not uncommon that no person received an "A" equivalent at all (the coveted "HACH D"), and the averages were almost always in mid to low 60s.  The "Gentleman's B" wasn't really a thing. Speaking from experience😏, those High Distinctions were really, really, difficult to get. 

Good reading here, where it notes: 

Quote

generally, only 2–5% of students who pass (that is, who achieve raw marks of 50 or more) may be awarded a High Distinction grade, and 50% or more of passing students are awarded a basic Pass grade. 

  @ZineZ I hope this qualifies as "new" information - happy to have post removed if not (with apologies in advance).

 

On 2/18/2024 at 5:04 PM, PzabbytheLawyer said:

Experienced in my eye is often a stand in for assessing merit.

Agreed, hence my use of "and".

[BlockedQuebecois]

31 minutes ago, BondGuy said:

The Australian approach is less about entry criteria and more about grades in the program. Not uncommon that no person received an "A" equivalent at all (the coveted "HACH D"), and the averages were almost always in mid to low 60s.  The "Gentleman's B" wasn't really a thing. Speaking from experience😏, those High Distinctions were really, really, difficult to get. 

It's not terribly clear to me what you are trying to argue here. What conclusion are you trying to say we should draw from the fact that Australian schools have lower curves than Canadian schools? 

[PzabbytheLawyer]

3 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

It's not terribly clear to me what you are trying to argue here. What conclusion are you trying to say we should draw from the fact that Australian schools have lower curves than Canadian schools? 

 

42 minutes ago, BondGuy said:

No one will deny the entry criteria are lower than Canada - but yes. I know some Canadians who were rejected when they applied and had to improve their grades. 

The Australian approach is less about entry criteria and more about grades in the program. Not uncommon that no person received an "A" equivalent at all (the coveted "HACH D"), and the averages were almost always in mid to low 60s.  The "Gentleman's B" wasn't really a thing. Speaking from experience😏, those High Distinctions were really, really, difficult to get. 

Good reading here, where it notes: 

  @ZineZ I hope this qualifies as "new" information - happy to have post removed if not (with apologies in advance).

 

Agreed, hence my use of "and".

Yeah. I never said Bond doesn't have a curve, just that the curve is only indicative of the candidates performance relative to the class at Bond.

An A is just as rare at Canadian law schools than at Bond.

[BondGuy]

6 minutes ago, PzabbytheLawyer said:

An A is just as rare at Canadian law schools than at Bond.

As someone that has reviewed way too many law school transcripts as part of Canadian OCIs multiple years over, I can't say I agree. At least not during my time there. 

9 minutes ago, PzabbytheLawyer said:

Yeah. I never said Bond doesn't have a curve, just that the curve is only indicative of the candidates performance relative to the class at Bond.

I never said you never said that.
Curve didn't really work like that, as indicated with the "no A's awarded". The curve was only used, in my experience, to bring grades down. Keep the HDs limited to those that earned them and weren't just "top of the pile". 

12 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

It's not terribly clear to me what you are trying to argue here. What conclusion are you trying to say we should draw from the fact that Australian schools have lower curves than Canadian schools? 

I'm not "arguing" anything, first of all. I'm pointing to a difference in systems. UK, Aus have LLBs (i.e. undergrads + JDs, each of which qualify one to practice) so barrier to entry on legal degrees isn't the same as in Canada - the system relies on grades to separate wheat from chaff. I hope this helps clarify for you. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

Two points.

First, an LLB is not an undergraduate plus a JD. It is an undergraduate degree in law. 

Second, it's true that in the UK and Australia, grades are used to separate wheat from the chaff. That's why most folks with LLBs in both jurisdictions do not end up practicing as barristers or solicitors. That procedure for separating wheat from chaff is of course defeated if, prior to the stage where grades are used to separate wheat from chaff, the individual moves from that jurisdiction to a jurisdiction which does not use grades to separate wheat from chaff and instead uses another system (e.g. law school admissions). 

In those circumstances, you end up with a whole lot of chaff in the Canadian wheat. 

[BondGuy]

Quote

First, an LLB is not an undergraduate plus a JD. It is an undergraduate degree in law. 

Sorry, some ambiguity as I'm typing this out pretty quick. I am saying you qualify for practice with either a JD or LLB, the latter being an undergrad. Hence followed by the "each of which qualify one to practice" meant to indicate there are two distinct degrees each qualifying you for practice.  I hope this helps clarify for you. 

Quote

In those circumstances, you end up with a whole lot of chaff in the Canadian wheat. 

Unless the employer does their diligence and asks for a transcript from juniors, which any diligent employer does and should. In that case, the applicant will need to explain what I have just explained to you (and, in fact, Bond provided a form letterhead explanation at one point as it was so common an issue). 

The overall point, to be clear, is that the systems are just different. Canada weeds out front end; Aus back end. I didn't even comment on the merits or implications of either, just pointing you to how systems differ. 

I think this borders on "rehashing" as per @ZineZ's warning, so I'll step away now. 

Hope this helps. 

[BlockedQuebecois]

I think everyone here understands that the Canadian legal system weeds folks out prior to law school based on undergraduate grades plus LSAT and the Australian one weeds out folks after law school based on law school grades. The point that is being made to you is that if someone moves jurisdictions between the stages where folks are weeded out, they avoid the weeding. I'm surprised you're resisting that suggestion, as that is essentially the value proposition of Bond for Canadian students.

I also think it's hard to see how Bond providing a letter explaining that in Australia low grades are common is helpful to your argument that Canadian employers will weed out Bond students on the basis they got low grades. It seems to me that actually weighs directly against the point. 

Also, for the record, I am not confused about this. I am asking you to clarify your position because it's illogical (and because you seem to be purposefully trying to obfuscate your position), not because I don't understand how grading or entrance to the legal profession in Australia works. 

Edited February 22 by BlockedQuebecois

[BondGuy]

5 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I am not confused about this.

Coulda fooled me

[PzabbytheLawyer]

@ZineZI'm wondering if it's helpful to have a separate thread on a genuine discussion on foreign law schools? I only mention it because there's genuine discussion to be had on the issue, especially (if) some argue it ties to access to justice issues (not that I agree with that position).

 

Just a thought.

[ZineZ]

10 hours ago, PzabbytheLawyer said:

@ZineZI'm wondering if it's helpful to have a separate thread on a genuine discussion on foreign law schools? I only mention it because there's genuine discussion to be had on the issue, especially (if) some argue it ties to access to justice issues (not that I agree with that position).

 

Just a thought.

Yeah. I'll split it off and put in a conversation when I'm near my computer. I think there's a constructive discussion to be had if we can do it without needing to lock down a thread. 

My hesitation and concern is, and always will be, around creating a discussion which makes current students and alumni feel like they're being ostracized on the forum.  Not saying it's happening - but it's something I keep top of mind. 

That being said, it doesn't help the forum and the profession to not discuss issues and benefits. It's fundamentally important to do so. 

But let's just remember to be respectful to our NCA colleagues and students. 

[ZineZ]

It's been split!

[epeeist]

On 2/22/2024 at 1:23 PM, BlockedQuebecois said:

Two points.

First, an LLB is not an undergraduate plus a JD. It is an undergraduate degree in law. 

...

[portion only quoted]

Also, in Canada at least, a JD is an undergraduate degree in law also. Only the title changed.

See e.g. from a quick search: https://www.uwindsor.ca/law/alumni/41/instructions-changing-your-degree-designation "...The change in degree designation from an LLB to a JD is a change in title only. The entrance and degree requirements remain unchanged. A Windsor Law JD will continue to be a second-entry, undergraduate professional degree program...."

My recollection around the time of the change for other law schools they explicitly noted this similarly (e.g. Queen's IIRC), it's not only Windsor because of their dual degree program with Detroit.

Now, it's possible substantive changes have been made at some schools since then, I'd be happy to be informed if that is the case. But unless that has been done, a Canadian JD is not a graduate degree, still undergrad.

[BondGuy]

Thanks for this. 

I don't have much to add to my previous post on the issue here.

My direct messages remain open to candidates thinking about NCA (and Bond in particular). 

[epeeist]

I'm curious, other than (1) poor reputation, i.e. however good a foreign legal education may be objectively, subjectively a disadvantage in Canada so makes sense to warn people; and (2) concerns over allegedly poorer candidate quality (i.e. lower marks to enter foreign law school ); are there any objective or apparently objective bases for denigration? Are there genuine objective reasons for considering the quality of common-law education at a decent foreign law school to be worse than a Canadian law school with a not-so-great reputation?

I totally get advising people with a choice against pursuing a non-Canadian law degree (with exception of significant reputation for e.g. HYS or Oxbridge and even then there are concerns) to warn them about the domestic perception and/or costs, but my impression from other threads is that there's more of a hate-on because people with lower marks are becoming lawyers. Which leads into other discussions like the above at which point is there winnowing. I tend to think many lawyers have too high an opinion of themselves (as do many others, but e.g. medicine is a genuinely difficult program not just difficult to get in, law is much more difficult to get in in Canada than the program itself, the cost and time to become a lawyer is in my view artificially inflated).

 

[CleanHands]

4 minutes ago, epeeist said:

I'm curious, other than (1) poor reputation, i.e. however good a foreign legal education may be objectively, subjectively a disadvantage in Canada so makes sense to warn people; and (2) concerns over allegedly poorer candidate quality (i.e. lower marks to enter foreign law school ); are there any objective or apparently objective bases for denigration? Are there genuine objective reasons for considering the quality of common-law education at a decent foreign law school to be worse than a Canadian law school with a not-so-great reputation?

I totally get advising people with a choice against pursuing a non-Canadian law degree (with exception of significant reputation for e.g. HYS or Oxbridge and even then there are concerns) to warn them about the domestic perception and/or costs, but my impression from other threads is that there's more of a hate-on because people with lower marks are becoming lawyers. Which leads into other discussions like the above at which point is there winnowing. I tend to think many lawyers have too high an opinion of themselves (as do many others, but e.g. medicine is a genuinely difficult program not just difficult to get in, law is much more difficult to get in in Canada than the program itself, the cost and time to become a lawyer is in my view artificially inflated).

You're a part-timer lawyer-in-name-only. If you actually did regular litigation work with opposing counsel of varying credentials you wouldn't be asking any of these questions. The difference in quality of an average Canadian law school grad versus a Canadian who went to a practically open admissions UK school or Bond is readily apparent. There are, of course, exceptions. But it really should not be too much of a surprise that significantly less selective schools attract significantly less impressive candidates. There is obviously no empirical study about this or anything but that's an absurd ask.

This isn't about having a high opinion of Canadian-trained lawyers, it's about having an appropriately low opinion of Canadians who need to go to foreign open admissions (or close enough) schools to become lawyers.

And it really isn't about quality of education, it's about quality of candidates going in. I think most Canadian-trained lawyers would agree that most of our 3 years in our JD programs was a waste of time.

[epeeist]

A bot says what?

[BondGuy]

Quote

If you actually did regular litigation work with opposing counsel

Respectfully, if we take you at your word that you are drawing your conclusions from a sample of lawyers in a specific practice area, one where the OC has a lower barrier to entry, and those OC interacting with a junior (I believe you've previously said you're a 1st or 2nd year) - perhaps your sample itself is a little skewed which biases your evaluation, no? 

Some food for thought. 

I went to school with plenty of smart people, and many are killing it. I personally know alumni that own very successful Toronto based firms (we are talking multi-millionares), great civil litigators, bay street trained lawyers, partners at boutiques, etc.  

I still stand by my advice in my linked post above. It is a challenge.  But people go for different reasons and you consistently seem to gloss over that. 

Myself - I didn't even apply in Canada. Personal circumstances led me to go. 

Typed from mobile, for the record. 

[Hegdis]

Ok everyone, this is teetering on the edge of an exchange of personal attacks so let’s dial back a bit. Sharing info is good. Not everyone is going to agree. Context matters. Arguments don’t need to go on endless loop.

No sealioning please. 

[Diplock]

4 hours ago, Hegdis said:

Ok everyone, this is teetering on the edge of an exchange of personal attacks so let’s dial back a bit. Sharing info is good. Not everyone is going to agree. Context matters. Arguments don’t need to go on endless loop.

No sealioning please. 

Okay. Now I want a definition of "sealioning."

[canuckfanatic]

33 minutes ago, Diplock said:

Okay. Now I want a definition of "sealioning."

Quote

Rhetorically, sealioning fuses persistent questioning—often about basic information, information easily found elsewhere, or unrelated or tangential points—with a loudly-insisted-upon commitment to reasonable debate. It disguises itself as a sincere attempt to learn and communicate. Sealioning thus works both to exhaust a target's patience, attention, and communicative effort, and to portray the target as unreasonable. While the questions of the "sea lion" may seem innocent, they're intended maliciously and have harmful consequences.

— Amy Johnson, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (May 2019)[6]

This comic by David Malki is the source, I believe:

Edited March 14 by canuckfanatic

[Diplock]

Okay, well. I don't know about anyone else here, but I learned something today. Thanks!

[Lawstudents20202020]

@DiplockThat makes you one of today's lucky 10,000

https://xkcd.com/1053/

[Hegdis]

It’s a very useful term to have, especially on forums like ours where things get heavily discussion-based and historical beefs between posters can be a thing.