THE INDEPENDENT STUDENT NEWSPAPER OF THE UNIVERSIT Y OF TORONTO FAC ULT Y OF LAW
•
u tra vzres MARCH 25, 20 0 3
VOLUME4 ISSUE__G_ _
SINCE 1999
WWW.ULTRAVI~ES.CA
Articling scheme outmatched Ousted two-tier system problematic BY BEN PERRIN T he Law Society of Upper Canada has decided ro terminate the matching system fo r articling positions, replacing it with more umfied rules similar to those that apply to the summer job application process. . .\fter consulting the SIX Ontano law schools and McGill Cmversity's l'aculcy of Law, Convocation voted on February 27_ to adopt new rules that abolished the m_a tchmg program. The pre";ous system consisted of firms that participated in the match and those that followed separate rules for making offers of employment. The matching program, also employed by other pmfes~ional programs like mcdt· one was run bv the '\ational ~1atchmg Scn~cc. The com.pan. charged participating law firms per position they offered through the match ltrm parucipation has always been voluntary.
Confusion among ~tudents about the sys· tem, pressure from the firms for early acceptance of offers, and high costs tO the firms participating in the match were all apparent. The relevance of the march has been steadil) dechning. The decline has hastened given the increased rehance of fmr:.s ?~ their summer programs and a loss of cnucal mass" participanng in the match. The number of frrms participating in the Toronto match in 2002 was 37, down from 60 ftrms in 1998. Based on statistics gath· ered br the Career Development Office on ' the graduating class of 2003, onIy ..,t._'"Ofto ~ f students reported having found thctr arn· clcs through the match. . . . The match still exists for arnchng post· rions in the Calgary market, which has not experienced a similar decline in usc of the matching program. . . The new ru\c~ apply to the aruchng
procc:;s for this summer. 1mcrvk·~-s bcgm "lt c.hdn't mnk<:: scn-;c:- to ha·'<~ a two nercd on a :\onday mornmg, ..,;\th offers hcmg t~ of offer nnd a c. ptnn • u -n-o" •na W :dno.<hy M & :ro."IV-~..ko1~"""111e'-"""' 4 hour pcnud m \\ hrch offers arc left open Bonnt .uldhcrg, \ 1 tant Dean, C:1rr r lor suinm<'C posmon:;. howe \ c:r, the rJC\\ Scrvu.cs. " \\ c supported cl•mrmwon p( th e anidrng ruk:. only kee p rht• frr~! round of dual sysrcm." \ccordmg to ( ;oJJbcrg. prohkms haH' offc~ open unttl that Thursday at noon. always cxilm·d with the rwin system, sin ce PLEASE SEE MLsuc ·~ ON PAGE 2 the match was nL·vcr made mandatory.
Students condemn accessibility study Provostial report allegedly plagued by bias BY SIMREN DESAI On \pril3, U ofT Provost Shrrlc.:y '\leuman wlll ask Governing Councll to ranfy a law school tuition h1ke for the entering class of 2003 to S16,000, an increase of 14.3% from the current level. Citing her controversial "Study on Accessibility and Career Choice at the Faculty of La'";" '\leuman wtll argue that the increase is acceptable because recent hikes in tuition at the faculty have not influenced accessibility, financial aid, and career choice for U of T law students. She will, however, face strong opposition by a coalinon of student representatives from within and without the law school who arc furious over what they sec as a faulty
methodology and manipulative interpretation of the finchngs in order to silence opposition and push a tuition htke through Governing Counol (Gq. Faculty Council member Lindsay Forbes (II) points out that "there is sclecoon bias in the sample since it reflects only those stu· dents who accepted a spot at the sch09l, and not a rando1Tl17ed sample." Other students argue that the examination of a future accessibility threat using ret· rospectivc data is a flawed approach. "The last class considered by this study paid $5,500 in fees and we're talking about tnpling this [tn 2003]," stresses ,\aron Delancy (II), another Faculty Council representative.
Students celebrate at this year's Law Ball, h eld a t H art House. Over 200 students and their guests attended the event. Pboto courluy ofJ'1dflint Kong. The study grew from a GC resolution passed last spring, immediately subsequent to irs approval of the frrst of five $2000 annual increases in tuition mandated by the law school's contentious five-year plan. Governing Council resolved that "there should be no further substantial increase in tuition fees for the J.D program in the Faculty of I.aw until the Governing Council is satisfied that there has been no reduction
UVINDEX • • • • •
STUDENTS ON EXCHANGE, PS-9 EXAM STRESS RELIEF, P14-15 ACCESSIBLITY RESPONSES, P16 LUST FOR THE LAW, P20-21 YEAR IN REVIEW, P26-27
PLEASE SEE "FACULTY,~ PAGE 2
All research and no files makes Jack and Jill very bored students. www.casselsbrock.com/student.asp