McGill vs. Dalhousie

[CommeCiCommeCa]

4 hours ago, CroffleKing said:

To your question, and again I'm also an incoming student so take that into consideration when I say this - but Dalhousie seems to not only be a solid pick for the personal reasons you list, but it also seems like a damn good choice for you based on the opportunities and course offerings when I look at their courses. I think the only good reason McGill would win is the name recognition, and I'm of the opinion that isn't a good reason to pick where you go to school compared to the personal reasons you list and when Dal seems to have a lot going on in their academic calendar that should appeal to someone interested in international opportunities.

I would push back slightly on this point. The name brand recognition of McGill is not the only good reason to attend the university, from an international law perspective. The roster of exceptional professors who have had impressive international careers is part of the reason as well, again, assuming a strong interest in international law. For example, there are former International Criminal Court prosecutors as professors, current sitting arbitrators for the ICC in Paris, Hong Kong, and Singapore, some profs have acted as lead drafters for ILO and UN Conventions and Treaties, I know of multiple professors who presented evidence for, or spoke at important in international fora like the UN, the OECD, the EU Parliament, etc. just during my time at the Faculty, multiple professors have chaired various UN Committees, and the list goes on.

My point is that McGill has a roster of professors with significant work experience and connections in this area, who can help students navigate the very difficult path that is required to have a career in this area. McGill is also one of a handful of North American law schools that has been designated by the ICJ for the purposes of accepting clerkship applications for clerkship positions in the Hague at the Court, Montréal hosts a couple UN institutions, and the bijural and bilingual nature of the program lends itself well to work in international institutions. 

While I fully acknowledge that Dal is a fantastic school, and that the financial aid you have received from them is fantastic, and should most certainly factor into your decision, if you were to make a decision based solely on which school will open the greater number of opportunities for an international career, McGill is the clear choice between the two, in my opinion.  

[Conge]

On 3/24/2025 at 2:04 PM, CleanHands said:

I'm open to correction but my understanding is that the horrible, predatory scholarships requiring deliberately unrealistic GPA requirements to renew are basically an American and not Canadian thing (although Canadian ones can require students to simply maintain good academic standing). I don't think Dalhousie sets people up to fail in that respect.

If it's the Schulich scholarship, I don't think it's hard to keep, but I wasn't a strong enough applicant to get one, so I can't say for certain. Anecdotally, I know a few ppl that did have them, and they kept them despite be solidly B students. This 10+ years ago now though. 

On 3/24/2025 at 8:45 PM, CommeCiCommeCa said:

I would push back slightly on this point. The name brand recognition of McGill is not the only good reason to attend the university, from an international law perspective. The roster of exceptional professors who have had impressive international careers is part of the reason as well, again, assuming a strong interest in international law. For example, there are former International Criminal Court prosecutors as professors, current sitting arbitrators for the ICC in Paris, Hong Kong, and Singapore, some profs have acted as lead drafters for ILO and UN Conventions and Treaties, I know of multiple professors who presented evidence for, or spoke at important in international fora like the UN, the OECD, the EU Parliament, etc. just during my time at the Faculty, multiple professors have chaired various UN Committees, and the list goes on.

My point is that McGill has a roster of professors with significant work experience and connections in this area, who can help students navigate the very difficult path that is required to have a career in this area. McGill is also one of a handful of North American law schools that has been designated by the ICJ for the purposes of accepting clerkship applications for clerkship positions in the Hague at the Court, Montréal hosts a couple UN institutions, and the bijural and bilingual nature of the program lends itself well to work in international institutions. 

While I fully acknowledge that Dal is a fantastic school, and that the financial aid you have received from them is fantastic, and should most certainly factor into your decision, if you were to make a decision based solely on which school will open the greater number of opportunities for an international career, McGill is the clear choice between the two, in my opinion.  

As a Dal grad, I agree with this. I think this is a really simple analysis (though I am a simple person): all other things being equal, if you want to work in Atlantic Canada, Dal is the better choice. If you want to work any where other than Atlantic Canada, McGill is the better choice. 

There may be caveats to this simple analysis. E.g., I've heard from colleagues in Vancouver that Dal actually has a really strong alumni presence there, and it a good choice for the Vancity market. Better than McGill? I dunno. 

[cl18]

On 3/24/2025 at 12:25 PM, Iheart1457 said:

Ok, but what are the conditions for renewing that Dal scholarship? How realistic is it that you get it renewed? I do not know you so I cannot answer those types of questions, but they are things to ask since nothing worse than starting 2L in a panic after losing out on renewing the scholarship. McGill has good financial aid that has come in clutch for me two years back to back now. 

If you want a career that goes international, McGill would have the edge with BCL/JD and being a bilingual program; however, I would also suggest learning a third language if you haven't already (being bilingual is not that impressive stuff at the UN according to a former SCC Justice that I met). I would compare the two school's international exchange program options since that would help you with your career ambitions.

Personally,I chose McGill because I wanted to study in both FR/EN and like collecting degrees as if I am Thanos collecting his infinity stones. I also chose it because I really liked the student body's vibe: supportive yet driven. Capable of making fun of ourselves but also proud. My background is unconventional for a law student and I felt like I fit right in since McGill tries to pick a cohort with diverse academic backgrounds. The profs are also all amazing and have been nothing but supportive as I chase my ambitions.

On a side note, I personally think it best to have a chance to live on your own (aka away from home) at least once as a student to 1) get that student experience and 2) build your independence and resilience before you join a law firm as an articling student (which will be busy af and stressful). I don't know if you lived on your own yet during undergrad, but there is a certain IDGAF energy you learn to develop when living on your own and going through tough times. Moving to Montreal from my hometown was one of the best decisions I made in terms of personal growth. I also love how much there is to do in MTL and that the transit system is functional. My only complaint is that McGill Law is at the top of a hill....which means you would graduate with nice calf muscles lol.

Overall, congrats and your offers and scholarships! That is huge. Let me know if you come to McGill next fall, it would be my pleasure to answer any other questions!

 

 

 

Thank you for your response! That's a great question. I'd have to maintain a B+ average to keep the scholarship, which is a pretty high expectation but I am currently a 4.3 GPA student (on 4.3 scale) so if I keep up the hard work I've been doing I can see that being achievable. I totally understand what you mean and the bilingual aspect of the program is super appealing. Although I'm bilingual, I don't necessarily enjoy speaking French (really i only do it out of necessity), so I'm not sure it will be all that enjoyable to me, and probably not super helpful if I come back to NS to practice. It's good to hear that McGill has good financial aid. I've had a couple of meetings about it and it seems (at least for first year) they don't have a ton to offer although they're super kind and open about it.  

Edited March 27 by cl18

[cl18]

On 3/24/2025 at 3:27 PM, CroffleKing said:

Have you perused Dal's offerings which relate to international law? I see they (like most other schools I've looked at) have plenty of upper year courses which adopt an international perspective on various areas of law (e.g., international human rights law). What stood out to me, though, was the massive number of international law classes which aren't typically available at other schools. There is an option to do international business law in the UK in the spring sessions: these opportunities seem more common (e.g. the London UK based international business law opportunity through UCalgary.) What stands out more is the less common option of being able to also do a Public International Law course in the UK. Dal has a clear focus on international law - a lot of it is maritime law/law of the sea, but I feel like this area of law would be as close of a fit as any for a uniquely international area of law at least in the sense that there are huge implications in that area when it comes to diplomacy, trade, and armed conflict. And you could earn a certificate in that area on route to your JD which, while the utility of it is probably pretty niche, it would be a unique thing that might be a fun thing to drop in conversations at dinner parties. There are also some unique courses with an international lens/focus that play on Dal faculty members' strengths in environmental and health law. I also see some practicum opportunities that have a clear international focus in this list I pulled.

Courses I flagged after looking:
Maritime Law and Practice
Private International Law
International Law
Fisheries Law
Law of the Sea
Coastal Zone Management
International Environmental Law
International Trade Law
Ocean Law and Policy
International Human Rights Law
Marine Environmental Protection Law
Immigration and Refugee Law
International and Transnational Criminal Law
International Humanitarian Law/Law of Armed Conflict
Law of International Trade and Shipping
European Union Law
Refugee Law and the Criminal Asylum Seeker
Refugee and Forced Migration Law
Theory and Practice of Mediation and Conflict Transformation in Northern Ireland
International Commercial Arbitration
International Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Practicum
International Human Rights Law Advocacy
International Investment Law

I have no idea what McGill looks like for curriculum in these areas and I'm not going to take the time to pull and list out the offerings from both schools because I'm sure McGill is strong too if that's specifically part of why you applied there. But, to continue with that great analogy from @Naj you will easily make it to second base or further with the 'international law' imagined partner in that analogy if you go to Dal. It looks like you could build all of your electives in your JD only taking courses with some sort of international focus. Whether that would be a good idea is a different discussion, but it certainly seems possible at Dal as long as things line up for you with scheduling and when the faculty decides to offer these courses.

As a last note, I lived in Halifax for quite some time. I did undergrad and grad school there. As anyone would tell you who has lived there, there is a huge Canadian Forces presence, Coast Guard, and a lot of Federal Government work going on in that city for it's size. I'm not trying to assume these would be places you might land which are rooted in Canada, OP, but rather I'm suggesting there is an opportunity there for you to get the sorts of experiences and exposures that could make you more competitive for jobs in Global Affairs or other areas of the federal government. It would likely be a less advantageous place to be for things related to international commerce, but I don't know how strong Montreal is for that either (outside of perhaps it being a bilingual city with presumably more French speaking countries doing business in it than Toronto.) It's also worth noting that Dal has multiple course codes for 'directed readings' and 'practicum' which are open ended so it would be a good city to find opportunities to earn credit getting the exposure you want, and I'm sure based on the course offerings that there are lots of faculty who could potentially supervise a directed readings course in a specific area you wanted to dig into. And I guess on that note, and I'm sure you have your reasons, but wouldn't Ottawa be an ideal place for you based on the location and the faculty and the courses they have on offer? 

To your question, and again I'm also an incoming student so take that into consideration when I say this - but Dalhousie seems to not only be a solid pick for the personal reasons you list, but it also seems like a damn good choice for you based on the opportunities and course offerings when I look at their courses. I think the only good reason McGill would win is the name recognition, and I'm of the opinion that isn't a good reason to pick where you go to school compared to the personal reasons you list and when Dal seems to have a lot going on in their academic calendar that should appeal to someone interested in international opportunities.

Thanks for your detailed response! I went through Dal's course list and I also noticed there are a ton of great "international" type course options. Dal's pretty known for marine and environmental law so i imagine that also factors into it partially. I'm also really interested in their certificate in Criminal Justice that you can get alongside the JD, which also has many options for IHL and human rights law, etc. 

In regards to your question about Ottawa, I honestly didn't even apply to any Ottawa schools purely because of the cost (both the cost of the applications and that they are some of the most expensive schools in Canada). I only applied to McGill & Dal, and figured if I didn't get into either of those I'd try again next year, as Halifax & Montreal are the only two places I'd really want to live. 

I've also been considering the pros of McGill and it seems to me the only major beneficial things it would bring me are (1) name recognition and potentially more opportunities because of this (2) a "new city" experience, which, I agree, aren't really solid reasons to give up such a perfect opportunity at Dal. 

Thanks for all your input!

On 3/24/2025 at 5:14 PM, MyWifesBoyfriend said:

I think the issue here is you’re conflating an interest in international law with employment avenues towards international law. 

Practically every school has a roster of international law courses, or something adjacent to it, whether it’s clinical or extracurricular. So this isn’t really a special plus for Dal.

If anything, McGill is still the intuitive choice for “international law” given the language requirement and civil law/JD degree. 

I understand what you mean, and I agree the dual degree would be beneficial in that way. I'm also not even positive what I'm interested in yet (I have many potential interests) - just looking into the options and seeing what kind of doors would be open to me. 

On 3/24/2025 at 8:20 PM, Iheart1457 said:

I did not mean to imply that Dal was setting them up for failure. I brought this up since I know that many undergrad scholarships in Ontario are renewed only if you maintain a certain GPA, which is very difficult for the STEM majors (sadly speaking from experience). The law schools I applied to were offering scholarships but only for my 1L. I attended McGill despite them offering me no scholarships since their tuition was more affordable than the other schools, even with the scholarships. 

Anyways, Canada or US, it is always prudent to read the terms and conditions associated with any scholarships. And don’t forget to write a thank you letter if possible!

Thanks for your input! You make a good point. My background is in criminology so I'm hoping that will give me a bit of a leg up at least for the first year. But of course, thinking of the GPA requirement is always super important to consider! 

Since you've said you are a current law student at McGill, maybe you can provide some insight into this for me: I've heard from quite a few people (lawyers, law students, law profs, etc.) that in comparison to Dal, McGill's law faculty is generally much more conservative. That might not mean much considering Dal has one of the most progressive law faculties in Canada, but just curious of your thoughts on that (wondering because I really want to lean away from more conservative schools, so again feels like Dal might be the better fit). Thanks!

Edited March 27 by cl18

[cl18]

On 3/24/2025 at 8:45 PM, CommeCiCommeCa said:

I would push back slightly on this point. The name brand recognition of McGill is not the only good reason to attend the university, from an international law perspective. The roster of exceptional professors who have had impressive international careers is part of the reason as well, again, assuming a strong interest in international law. For example, there are former International Criminal Court prosecutors as professors, current sitting arbitrators for the ICC in Paris, Hong Kong, and Singapore, some profs have acted as lead drafters for ILO and UN Conventions and Treaties, I know of multiple professors who presented evidence for, or spoke at important in international fora like the UN, the OECD, the EU Parliament, etc. just during my time at the Faculty, multiple professors have chaired various UN Committees, and the list goes on.

My point is that McGill has a roster of professors with significant work experience and connections in this area, who can help students navigate the very difficult path that is required to have a career in this area. McGill is also one of a handful of North American law schools that has been designated by the ICJ for the purposes of accepting clerkship applications for clerkship positions in the Hague at the Court, Montréal hosts a couple UN institutions, and the bijural and bilingual nature of the program lends itself well to work in international institutions. 

While I fully acknowledge that Dal is a fantastic school, and that the financial aid you have received from them is fantastic, and should most certainly factor into your decision, if you were to make a decision based solely on which school will open the greater number of opportunities for an international career, McGill is the clear choice between the two, in my opinion.  

You make a great point. It's all really difficult to consider because at this point I still don't fully know where my interests lie. I think ultimately I'd like to be working in Nova Scotia and doing something more 'local', but again, it's hard to say at this point. Thanks for all your input! 

On 3/26/2025 at 10:47 AM, Conge said:

If it's the Schulich scholarship, I don't think it's hard to keep, but I wasn't a strong enough applicant to get one, so I can't say for certain. Anecdotally, I know a few ppl that did have them, and they kept them despite be solidly B students. This 10+ years ago now though. 

As a Dal grad, I agree with this. I think this is a really simple analysis (though I am a simple person): all other things being equal, if you want to work in Atlantic Canada, Dal is the better choice. If you want to work any where other than Atlantic Canada, McGill is the better choice. 

There may be caveats to this simple analysis. E.g., I've heard from colleagues in Vancouver that Dal actually has a really strong alumni presence there, and it a good choice for the Vancity market. Better than McGill? I dunno. 

It isn't the Schulich Scholarship - it's a named scholarship but in everything except the name it's the exact same (same amount, GPA requirement, etc.). Thanks for your input! As a Dal grad, can I ask what area of law you work in now? and if you're still in NS? 

 

[WiseGhost]

McGill's faculty is conservative? 🤔 News to me. 

I would go to McGill because it leaves your doors open and you don't know what you want to do yet. 

Yes, Dal makes it easier to network in the maritimes, but if you want to go back, I doubt that firms in Novia Scotia are going to look down on a McGill grad with a strong regional connection. But if you change your mind and want to do work somewhere else, the McGill reputation and dual degree will likely benefit you. For DOJ jobs for example, I often see degree in common and civil law being listed as an asset. The opportunity to practice your French is another advantage - many interesting opportunities like clerkships are much more attainable if you are strongly bilingual, and studying in French attests to that.

Finally, the scholarship requirement for Dal also gives me the heeby jeebies. While a B+ does not look impossible to achieve on Dal's scale, it is an above average mark and I've seen strong students from undergrad fail to beat the curve in law school. Take the scholarship away and Dal is a lot more expensive than McGill! 

 

 

[ccq35]

3 hours ago, WiseGhost said:

McGill's faculty is conservative? 🤔 News to me. 

Seconding this – I have a hard time seeing most McGill law professors as “conservative”. Quite the opposite; even our black letter law classes take a largely critical view of the Canadian legal system and its perceived injustices, with lots of attention given to diverse perspectives. 

[cl18]

On 3/27/2025 at 9:56 PM, WiseGhost said:

McGill's faculty is conservative? 🤔 News to me. 

I would go to McGill because it leaves your doors open and you don't know what you want to do yet. 

Yes, Dal makes it easier to network in the maritimes, but if you want to go back, I doubt that firms in Novia Scotia are going to look down on a McGill grad with a strong regional connection. But if you change your mind and want to do work somewhere else, the McGill reputation and dual degree will likely benefit you. For DOJ jobs for example, I often see degree in common and civil law being listed as an asset. The opportunity to practice your French is another advantage - many interesting opportunities like clerkships are much more attainable if you are strongly bilingual, and studying in French attests to that.

Finally, the scholarship requirement for Dal also gives me the heeby jeebies. While a B+ does not look impossible to achieve on Dal's scale, it is an above average mark and I've seen strong students from undergrad fail to beat the curve in law school. Take the scholarship away and Dal is a lot more expensive than McGill! 

 

 

Sorry, what I meant is not that McGill faculty is necessarily conservative, but that it is more conservative than Dal when considering the two of them side by side (but I've also heard Dal is one of the most progressive so maybe that's not a fair comparison). This is just what I've heard from law profs in my area, but I appreciate your input! Thanks!

 

 

Edited March 29 by cl18

[cl18]

On 3/28/2025 at 1:06 AM, ccq35 said:

Seconding this – I have a hard time seeing most McGill law professors as “conservative”. Quite the opposite; even our black letter law classes take a largely critical view of the Canadian legal system and its perceived injustices, with lots of attention given to diverse perspectives. 

Thanks for your input! I appreciate it. What I meant was not that the faculty is necessarily "conservative" at McGill, but that in direct comparison to Dal, McGill tends to be more conservative than Dal - if that makes sense? (this is just what I've heard but no clue if it's accurate or not). 

[WiseGhost]

Not to get too deep, but I suspect that if one of the reasons you're citing for going to Dal is a more progressive environment (when McGill is also very progressive), the truth is that you'd simply prefer to go to Dal.

I do think that McGill is the better school for the reasons I've mentioned but Dalhousie is also excellent. Trust your heart at the end of the day. 

[MyWifesBoyfriend]

On 3/27/2025 at 7:34 PM, cl18 said:

I've heard from quite a few people (lawyers, law students, law profs, etc.) that in comparison to Dal, McGill's law faculty is generally much more conservative.

No you didn’t.

[cl18]

On 3/30/2025 at 11:56 PM, MyWifesBoyfriend said:

No you didn’t.

Uh sorry?? Yeah, I did. I didn't just pull that out of thin air and I'd have no reason to lie ?? I'm not sure why you keep returning to my post to comments things that are just condescending and/or rude but from now on it would be great if you could leave my posts entirely. Thanks. No need to respond to just be rude. 

[cl18]

On 3/30/2025 at 11:20 PM, WiseGhost said:

Not to get too deep, but I suspect that if one of the reasons you're citing for going to Dal is a more progressive environment (when McGill is also very progressive), the truth is that you'd simply prefer to go to Dal.

I do think that McGill is the better school for the reasons I've mentioned but Dalhousie is also excellent. Trust your heart at the end of the day. 

Thanks for your input. You're right that I should go with my gut and will probably end up choosing Dal. But in all honesty, I did hear from multiple people in my area that McGill is more conservative so I was curious what other people thought. Not sure why some people are insinuating that I'd lie about that when I'd really have no reason to (not aimed at you specifically). Thanks for your other points too. I see the benefits of both and agree with what you've said about McGill- at the end of the day, I'll probably stick with Dal as it seems to be the better choice for me. 

Edited April 7 by cl18

[StoneMason]

10 minutes ago, cl18 said:

Uh sorry?? Yeah, I did. I didn't just pull that out of thin air and I'd have no reason to lie ?? I'm not sure why you keep returning to my post to comments things that are just condescending and/or rude but from now on it would be great if you could leave my posts entirely. Thanks. No need to respond to just be rude. 

I think the issue many people in this thread, myself included, are having is that McGill has never been considered more or less conservative than Dal. It's just not a thing people are talking about given how non-conservative both schools are. There are good points for either school but this is really a non-factor. 

I'm not saying you're lying –– but I too have a hard time believing this is a comparison lawyers, law professors, and law students are spending much time deliberating on.

[cl18]

1 minute ago, StoneMason said:

I think the issue many people in this thread, myself included, are having is that McGill has never been considered more or less conservative than Dal. It's just not a thing people are talking about given how non-conservative both schools are. There are good points for either school but this is really a non-factor. 

I'm not saying you're lying –– but I too have a hard time believing this is a comparison lawyers, law professors, and law students are spending much time deliberating on.

That's fair, and I appreciate your input - that's why I put it out there: to see what other people thought about it. All I was doing was saying what I've heard from others, and that's what I've heard. I'd have no reason to lie and I have no stake in it either way. I just wanted to see what other people thought but I didn't realize it was such a point of contention that was going to piss people off ... 

[StoneMason]

3 minutes ago, cl18 said:

That's fair, and I appreciate your input - that's why I put it out there: to see what other people thought about it. All I was doing was saying what I've heard from others, and that's what I've heard. I'd have no reason to lie and I have no stake in it either way. I just wanted to see what other people thought but I didn't realize it was such a point of contention that was going to piss people off ... 

No one here is pissed off lol (excluding maybe you based on how you’ve reacted the last few posts). 

[MyWifesBoyfriend]

23 minutes ago, cl18 said:

Uh sorry?? Yeah, I did. I didn't just pull that out of thin air and I'd have no reason to lie ?? I'm not sure why you keep returning to my post to comments things that are just condescending and/or rude but from now on it would be great if you could leave my posts entirely. Thanks. No need to respond to just be rude

Many lawyers and law students have told me that Dalhousie is more dangerous because Count Dracula lives there. McGill is relatively less dangerous because they only have a bigfoot problem, and bigfoot does not pose a high safety risk hazard (so I've heard). You're not allowed to impugn my sources, but you need to assume my sources are credible and engage in the substance of my question. 

[cl18]

2 minutes ago, MyWifesBoyfriend said:

Many lawyers and law students have told me that Dalhousie is more dangerous because Count Dracula lives there. McGill is relatively less dangerous because they only have a bigfoot problem, and bigfoot does not pose a high safety risk hazard (so I've heard). You're not allowed to impugn my sources, but you need to assume my sources are credible and engage in the substance of my question. 

I'm really not sure what your issue is. You assumed I was lying for some reason - and now you think it's funny to be rude and condescending about it. I'm not sure what the point of continuing to comment at all is honestly ... 

[BlockedQuebecois]

If you sincerely can't handle attending a school that is that is not conservative, but is slightly more conservative than another school that is also not conservative, maybe you should consider another profession? Being able to interact with ideas with which you disagree is a pretty fundamental part of being a lawyer. 

[cl18]

1 hour ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

If you sincerely can't handle attending a school that is that is not conservative, but is slightly more conservative than another school that is also not conservative, maybe you should consider another profession? Being able to interact with ideas with which you disagree is a pretty fundamental part of being a lawyer. 

Didn't say anything about what I can or can't "handle" - was just looking for general opinions on whether one was more conservative than the other, as that's what I'd heard. 

[Conge]

One school is located in the heart of arguably the most progressive jurisdiction in North America. The other is located in a socialist fishing village. Neither are conservative. 

[MyWifesBoyfriend]

OP I was admittedly rude to you in some of my posts, and I think I could have done better. I apologize for that. 
 

I get that the admit rumour mill is pervasive. I had some silly conceptions about how Osgoode is a socially “cold” campus back when I was an admit. I empathize with the uncertainty.

 

With that being said, you had a number of reasonable responses disabusing you of the McGill-conservatism myth. You received these responses, then doubled back on a “well that’s not what I meant, I was asking for relative conservatism.” When this was further challenged, you kept saying “that’s just what I heard.” When the fundamental assumption that ideological purity even matters was challenged, you said “I was just asking.” If you just want to go to Dal, go there! 

 

Listen, you don’t need to be the smartest person in the room. If you were wrong, you were wrong. That’s fine. It begins to rub people the wrong way when you get defensive about being wrong. This was my thought process at least, and it manifested as… sort of rude posts. I again apologize for this.

Edited April 7 by MyWifesBoyfriend

[CleanHands]

15 hours ago, cl18 said:

I'm really not sure what your issue is. You assumed I was lying for some reason - and now you think it's funny to be rude and condescending about it. I'm not sure what the point of continuing to comment at all is honestly ... 

Okay, I'm not going to pile on, but since you explicitly expressed confusion about the response you're getting I'm just going to give you some feedback for Internet forum interactions in general moving forward:

• You made an assertion claiming that multiple lawyers and law students told you something that is outright ridiculous and implausible to every lawyer and law student to have read it (I am a lawyer and I count myself among those who found it ridiculous and implausible).
• You continued to engage with everyone who balked at this and continued to double down on it, insisting multiple times that multiple lawyers and law students told you this.
• And here's the thing: you came to a forum populated by law students and lawyers to ask them whether they agree with said assertion, literally everyone told you that they disagree with it, and you continued to repeatedly assert that multiple law students and lawyers off the forums told you otherwise.

So, you're getting the response you're getting because:

• Instead of letting things lie you yourself prolonged the argument about this issue. You give the impression that you need to have the last word uncontradicted. Then you make the surprised Pikachu face when people continue to respond and disagree with you.
• You asked a question ostensibly to solicit the input of lawyers and law students, then when they all said the same thing, you kept going "but these OTHER lawyers and law students said the opposite." Okay, then why ask here if you've already gotten feedback from the demographic you want feedback from and that's the feedback you are married to? It annoys people because they responded trying to assist you and you are disregarding their input which you had expressly sought.

BTW I got ninja'd by @MyWifesBoyfriend while I was writing this and we're basically communicating the exact same thing, but I decided to still post this to emphasize that this is definitely what's going on here and everybody but yourself is aware of it.

Anyways that was way too longwinded of a dissection from me but I see this behaviour on Internet forums generally and this forum specifically so I'm throwing it out there for posterity. Hopefully someone will read this and not do this when they otherwise would have.

[cl18]

3 hours ago, MyWifesBoyfriend said:

OP I was admittedly rude to you in some of my posts, and I think I could have done better. I apologize for that. 
 

I get that the admit rumour mill is pervasive. I had some silly conceptions about how Osgoode is a socially “cold” campus back when I was an admit. I empathize with the uncertainty.

 

With that being said, you had a number of reasonable responses disabusing you of the McGill-conservatism myth. You received these responses, then doubled back on a “well that’s not what I meant, I was asking for relative conservatism.” When this was further challenged, you kept saying “that’s just what I heard.” When the fundamental assumption that ideological purity even matters was challenged, you said “I was just asking.” If you just want to go to Dal, go there! 

 

Listen, you don’t need to be the smartest person in the room. If you were wrong, you were wrong. That’s fine. It begins to rub people the wrong way when you get defensive about being wrong. This was my thought process at least, and it manifested as… sort of rude posts. I again apologize for this.

Thank you for the apology, I appreciate it. All I was trying to do in my answers was clarify what my question was. I am not at all opposed to genuine answers to my question (this is why I asked), the only thing I am opposed to is when comments are rude or accusatory. This was the reason for my replies - I was only "doubling down" on your accusation that I had lied (because I hadn't), not that the McGill-conservatism myth was true (as I have clearly learned based on all these comments, it isn't true, and I accept that - but I had no way of knowing this before I asked). I clearly have a lot to learn about how people interact on this forum and from now on will be stepping back because it does not seem to be the place for me. 

[cl18]

3 hours ago, CleanHands said:

Okay, I'm not going to pile on, but since you explicitly expressed confusion about the response you're getting I'm just going to give you some feedback for Internet forum interactions in general moving forward:

• You made an assertion claiming that multiple lawyers and law students told you something that is outright ridiculous and implausible to every lawyer and law student to have read it (I am a lawyer and I count myself among those who found it ridiculous and implausible).
• You continued to engage with everyone who balked at this and continued to double down on it, insisting multiple times that multiple lawyers and law students told you this.
• And here's the thing: you came to a forum populated by law students and lawyers to ask them whether they agree with said assertion, literally everyone told you that they disagree with it, and you continued to repeatedly assert that multiple law students and lawyers off the forums told you otherwise.

So, you're getting the response you're getting because:

• Instead of letting things lie you yourself prolonged the argument about this issue. You give the impression that you need to have the last word uncontradicted. Then you make the surprised Pikachu face when people continue to respond and disagree with you.
• You asked a question ostensibly to solicit the input of lawyers and law students, then when they all said the same thing, you kept going "but these OTHER lawyers and law students said the opposite." Okay, then why ask here if you've already gotten feedback from the demographic you want feedback from and that's the feedback you are married to? It annoys people because they responded trying to assist you and you are disregarding their input which you had expressly sought.

BTW I got ninja'd by @MyWifesBoyfriend while I was writing this and we're basically communicating the exact same thing, but I decided to still post this to emphasize that this is definitely what's going on here and everybody but yourself is aware of it.

Anyways that was way too longwinded of a dissection from me but I see this behaviour on Internet forums generally and this forum specifically so I'm throwing it out there for posterity. Hopefully someone will read this and not do this when they otherwise would have.

I understand what you're saying entirely. As explained above, I was honestly not trying to "double down" on the conservatism thing. I was genuinely confused as to why people were accusing me of lying, so my response was only to explain that I was not lying (which I still maintain). I did not say whether the people I heard this from were right or wrong, which I've learned based on the responses that they were wrong. I appreciate genuine answers, and I accept them (which you can see in my above responses to others who genuinely answered my question). But I do maintain my belief that it is possible to answer a question without being blatantly rude ("No, they're not conservative" as opposed to "You're lying."), which, in my opinion, would make this forum a more positive and much less toxic environment. I am new to the platform, and maybe it's just not the place for me. 

Edited April 7 by cl18