how US school choices translate in Toronto

[SickAndTired]

I am a US citizen with an MBA and am looking at focus on corporate/business law.  I wasn't accepted to Osgoode (which was a long shot to say least for me).  It is a very long story of why I didn't apply to other Ontario schools...no I won't go into it. lol

I am considering practice options in the Toronto area after I finish law school.  I have no grasp to how my US degree will be viewed when looking for jobs.  On all the various law school admissions boards, there is endless discussion about "T-14 or Bust" and virtually all of our law schools are regional in their domestic market value.  I'm still waiting for a lot of my decisions letters now, but am looking at a range of T2 schools, maybe low T1.

Can any Canadians give me some perspective on how school name/US rank will be viewed if I do try to go north of the boarder after graduation?

How are you all (Canadian nationals) viewing your choice of US schools if your end goal is to return to Canada, Ontario specifically, after school? 

Your advice, observations, and general comments would be greatly appreciated.

[!закон и право!]

Well, you'll never get into legal academia without a JD from the T-14. Aside from that though, any law degree in the US is valid to practise.

However, you will have to go through a gruelling accreditation process (see the NCA) before ever being allowed to secure an article. Moreover, because of the relatively limited American alumni base within Canada, you may have some trouble ever finding an article in the first place. I think this is where "brand name" may matter. A Harvard JD for example will have a much easier time impressing recruiters than one from Cooley.

Then, of course, you'll have to sit for the Ontario bar.

The lesson is, if you intend to practice in Canada, get a Canadian law degree.

ETA:

Has Osgoode sent "regret" letters yet? I thought those were sent en masse in June.

[MorningStar]

I agree with the above poster.  If your grades aren't good enough to get into a T-14ish school in the US and you can't get into any Canadian law schools, I suggest taking some time off and boosting your LSAT score.  If you can't get your lsat up and your gpa sucks, you need to seriously rethink whether you've got what it takes to have a successful legal career, period. 

The US schools you're looking at are, as you noted, regional, which means just that.  They carry little to no sway outside of their respective regions.  This problem is even more acute if you're trying to cross back into Canada.  You're way way better off going to a lowly Canadian school like Windsor and working your butt off to pad your resume before trying to make it on Bay street than you are spending 100k on Washburn College of Law.

[bigs5068]

!закон и право!"Well, you'll never get into legal academia without a JD from the T-14. Aside from that though, any law degree in the US is valid to practice."


You are absolutely right you will NEVER get into legal academia without a JD from a T-14 oh actually wait here is just a small list of professors at USF that didn't get JD's from T-14's. There are more professors at USF that didn't go to T-14, I just got tired of copying and pasting. This is just one example and every law school would show similar results. Ranking obviously means something, but the reality is that it is more on the person not the school.

John M. Adler
Professor,
JD, University of New Mexico

 Deborah Wald
Adjunct Professor
BA, University of Massachusetts
JD, Northeastern University

 Randy Riddle
Adjunct Professor
BA, University of Notre Dame
JD, Golden Gate University

 Jason Stein
Adjunct Professor
BA, UC Santa Barbara
JD, New College of California

Richard Trachok
Adjunct Professor
BS, University of Nevada
JD, California Western School of Law


Patricia Fitzsimmons
Assistant Professor and Director of the Child Advocacy Clinic
BS, Marquette University
MA, Northern Illinois University
JD, New College of California

 Thomas A. Nazario
Assistant Professor of Community Legal Education
BA, City University of New York
MA, City University of New York
JD, University of San Francisco

Bill Ong Hing
Professor
BA, UC Berkeley
JD, University of San Francisco

Carmen M. Aguirre
Adjunct Professor
BA, UC Berkeley
JD, Golden Gate University

 Thomas J. Moses
Adjunct Professor
BS, Long Beach State University
JD, McGeorge School of Law

 Aaron Isherwood
Adjunct Professor
BA, University of Chicago
JD, University of Oregon

 
I could go all day with this list, but I just love how people talk out of their ass and say that there is no way you can every do anything unless you go to Harvard. At any ABA school or hell CBA school you learn the same f*ing thing, if you are a good attorney it will show when you get to the real world. You can talk about how great a school you went to for years to come, but it is it what you do in the real world that really counts.

[MorningStar]

Did you even bother to read what OP is asking about?

Moreover, please me though it may, I'm not going to get all e-peen on USF, the profs you linked, and a couple of the incomprehensible sentences you included in your post.  Clearly,!закон и право! was somewhat overstating.  However, the fact remains that it is obscenely difficult to break into legal academia from a non-top ranked school.  Obviously this statement is contingent on your definition of "legal academia," which I'm going to assert colloquially implies actively publishing, tenured/tenure track, preferably judicially cited,and recognized within the legal academic community.  This does not include most practitioners turned faculty, legal writing professors, part-timers, etc.  According to that criteria,!закон и право!'s advice is more or less correct (though clearly it doesnt preclude the occasional longshot).

You also state: "At any ABA school or hell CBA school you learn the same f*ing thing"
We get it, you have a chip on your shoulder.  Still, these kinds of statements do you a disservice.  Do you really think that a CBA school teaches you the "same thing" as Stanford?

Finally, I respect the vehemence with which you insist that despite going to a lower ranked law school you will be succesful in legal practice (I'm taking it as implied).  I wonder though, coming out of high school, did you insist you were going to succeed in college?  I'm sure you did, regardless of the quality of your high school education.  And yet what was the result?  3.08 GPA, 155 LSAT.

[bigs5068]

Yea I do actually think you learn the same thing at New Mission or Stanford. I am pretty sure the elements of negligence are still duty, breach, causation, and damages no matter where you learned it. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure don't change and neither does the UCC.  Believe or not at each school the words in the books are the same. So yes you do learn the same material at any law school.  Actually any type of schooling for that matter, believe it or not 1 + 1=2 and 5 x 5=25 and George Washington was the first President. Those things don't change whether you learned them at the most prestigious pre-school or somewhere in Compton. I really don't have a chip on my shoulder, I just think it is funny that people say these bold statements that you can't do things from certain schools. It just really cracks me up that's all, sorry your so butt hurt about it.

Obviously you are right that Stanford will open more doors than a CBA school or a tier 4, but you do learn the same things. However, even if you go to a prestigious school and are a smug pain in the ass nobody is going to want to deal with you. The reality of it all is that it is what you do in the real world that matters. If you went to Harvard and do a bad job your employer is not going to keep you around. If you went to Cooley and do a great job they will keep you around. I remember at my last job they had 10 interns and the only one that didn't get offered a full time job at the end of it was a girl who was in the top 10% of her class at University of Michigan.  Can you guess why she didn't get the job? The answer is because she did a terrible job all summer and was a pain to work with.  Her academic record didn't help her in the real world.

Then in regards to my numbers I have never claimed to be a genius. I am 6'9 260 guy who only went to college because I got a basketball scholarship. I am not some rich kid whose parents spent 10,000 or whatever it is for an LSAT prep course. Sorry I didn't get a 4.0 either. I had to travel all the time for basketball and practice four hours a day for a coach that was a Navy Seal and made us do crazy sh*t for those four hours.  On top of all that crazy practice I had to work 20 hours a week to help my family out. Even with all that stuff I actually had a lot of fun in college, so that kept my GPA down as well. After I graduated with my horrendous 3.08 I got some pretty cool jobs, so I guess I would consider my college career a success despite my atrocious and embarrassing 3.08 . Anyways, dude keep using words like vehemence and maybe one day you will get to first base with a girl.  Most importantly keep sticking your nose up to people, it will get you really far in life.  

[beaudry]

Osgoode is very competitive for sure. If you did not get in there, I suggest you wait a year and apply to a broader range of Canadian schools. Western and Queen's also have good reputations, with slightly lower entrance averages. Dalhousie and UBC also place well in Ontario, and Windsor is a good backup.

You should ask Osgoode for feedback on your application and see if you have a chance with them. Maybe rewriting the LSAT is worth it or maybe you will get in on a second try.

I would go for a cheaper Canadian school over a lower ranked American one; you can always write the NY bar with an LLB or JD from Ontario.

[fakedyfake]

So yes you do learn the same material at any law school.  Actually any type of schooling for that matter, believe it or not 1 + 1=2 and 5 x 5=25 and George Washington was the first President. Those things don't change whether you learned them at the most prestigious pre-school or somewhere in Compton.

he he he - that's so cute that you think 1+1 always equals 2.  I think you just proved the point that you don't learn the same things everywhere.

[bigs5068]

I think you proved my point actually further. Yes 1 + 1 in some completely abstract useless theoretical way can come out differently, but who the hell cares.  If you want to go to an elite school that spends hours teaching you the nuances of how 1 + 1 can in some abstract theoretical way not equal 2 awesome good for you,that will be real helpful in life.  I will apply the basic concept of 1 + 1=2 as applied to real world.  If you have one client come in with a set of facts that you might win a case on and another client comes in with a completely different set of facts then you have another client.  Guess what will happen you will have TWO CLIENTS AND TWO CASES TO WORK ON.  Because in any practical useful way to use the simple concept of 1 + 1=2 that is the result.

So maybe the top private elementary school teaches you that  1 + 1=2  does not always work and these  same "geniuses" probably went on to run wall street and probably used b.s. useless theories to screw everything up. Instead of their preppy school teaching them actual useful knowledge like if you don't have any money you shouldn't be handing out to people that can't pay you back.  I am sure there preppy private school overlooked that common sense concept and instead they wasted time learning why 1 +1 doesn't equal 2 and everybody felt really smart, but oh yea who the hell cares of 1+1 doesn't equal 2 if you go through a complex mathematical formula to come to that.   

[the white rabbit]

So yes you do learn the same material at any law school. 

This is not actually true.  Some schools place more emphasis on what the law is.  Others focus more on why the law is what it is.