Students’ Cognomos horror stories from this year
For any 1Ls or transfer students who remain blissfully unaware of Cognomos, it is an algorithm used by the Faculty for upper-year course enrolment. Students are required to rank around double the necessary credits into categories of “Favourite,” “Great,” “Good,” and “Acceptable.” Contrary to what you may initially think, putting a course in the category of “Favourite” or “Great” by no means guarantees you will receive it, as the system is based on a lottery supposedly meant to maximize student happiness (spoiler: it doesn’t).
At this point, articles sharing students’ laundry lists of Cognomos complaints have become a fixture in UV. Frustrated students like me write them year after year, but has the Faculty addressed any of our concerns? I think you know where this is going.
Cognomos itself is not an award-winning algorithm (as anyone who has used it could probably deduce), but the economic theory underlying it was awarded a Nobel Prize in 2012. Nevertheless, Nobel Prizes don’t matter to the law students repeatedly getting screwed over by Cognomos. Many 2Ls and 3Ls shared their 2023 Cognomos stories with me for this piece. And as much as ripping on Cognomos is a notable U of T Law pastime, the fact that these sorts of articles have to be written every year begs the question of what—if anything—could actually get those in charge to understand that our course matching system needs to change. We pay exorbitant amounts of tuition and risk having our career options limited and law school experiences damaged by an algorithm, which just isn’t right.
Despite being in their final year of law school, 3Ls are not given any priority over 2Ls in the course selection process. They have to rank remaining mandatory courses highly, spending their limited Cognomos “budget” without receiving any assurance that they will get in over 2Ls who have another full year ahead. Administration claims they will ensure that 3Ls get into the classes they need, but their approach of going in and fixing things after the fact is a headache—one that could be reduced by simply giving 3Ls some degree of priority in the first place.
This oversight is far from the only one. Students reported several one-off mishaps that administration made this year, including forgetting to add a course when they first ran the allocation, running allocation early without communication to students, and listing incorrect course times. Imagine my horror and that of others who found out during the first session of Criminal Procedure that the class went until 9pm, not 8pm, as was advertised on Cognomos.
Technical errors also abound. Many had trouble with the site’s authentication process. The discrepancies between Cognomos and ACORN schedules delayed Quercus enrollment, meaning people could not access course syllabi or readings. One 2L JD/MA student was even barred from accessing the website at all, having to contact administration to resolve the issue just days before the course selection deadline.
Did you want to do an externship or full-time clinic this year? Hopefully, you did your own research and didn’t rely on administration’s communication, given that there was none and that many of the application deadlines were before the first Cognomos allocation. While this issue is a bit more understandable, it still feels like a ball was dropped. Summer flies by and gets incredibly busy very quickly. Many students are focused on their summer jobs and don’t want to think about school any more than they have to. So, a reminder email or two (which the Faculty clearly has no problem bombarding us with during the school year) would have been helpful.
Another question: did you want to know where you are on a course waitlist? Well, you might be able to see your position, but you might not. I love a good mystery, but I don’t want my waitlist position to be one. No one seems to be able to get a straightforward answer as to why Cognomos is selectively vague about waitlist positions. Even if it’s simply because I am in a very low position, it’s not like my feelings will be hurt. It’d be better to be realistic with students and allow them to scope out other options. You also have to do your own investigative work if you want to figure out why a course is flagged. Apparently, it would make things too easy if Cognomos was just straightforward and identified the issue for you—we are at U of T Law, after all!
Many students voiced frustration over not getting high-demand classes even after ranking them as “Favourite”—the highest option in Cognomos. Evidence Law with Professor Shaffer was a source of great disappointment for many who placed it at the top of their list, myself included. Obviously, not everyone can secure their desired spots in the most popular classes, but it’s not like the demand for these classes is kept secret from the administration. Rather than perpetuating the issue of high demand and low availability that results in many disappointed students, administration should put in the work to create more spots in these popular classes, perhaps by having more than just one section. Multiple sources reported that they did not receive any classes they had ranked as “Favourite,” “Great,” or “Good,” and were instead slotted into only their “Acceptable” classes. These stories demonstrate the pitfalls of using an algorithm to determine placements. None of us chose U of T Law—and agreed to pay upwards of $33,000 in tuition each year—hoping to have an “acceptable” experience.
Intensive placements did not go any smoother than course ones, with many students not being put into any intensives and some receiving ones they did not even rank.
Not getting a particular class is not only disappointing, but it can also limit career options. One 3L, who plans to work in corporate law after graduation, has not gotten into or been placed high on the waitlist for Business Organizations, a foundational course on the law of business corporations, despite prioritizing it in rankings in 2L and 3L. This fact has also rendered her unable to take any of the courses highly relevant to corporate law for which Business Organizations is a pre- or co-requisite, such as Corporate Transactions and Securities Regulation. Another 3L expressed sadness over never getting into Family Law, making it unlikely she could ever practice in the field. Moots often have pre/co-requisite requirements as well, meaning one’s luck (or lack thereof) with the Cognomos draw can severely limit their mooting eligibility. For example, if, like the previous 3L, you do not get a spot in Family Law, you cannot participate in the Walsh Family Law Competitive Moot. These requirements seem arbitrary given that the point of a moot is essentially to self-study a problem in a specific area of the law, which U of T Law students are arguably more than capable of doing even without a concrete course background. Nevertheless, the hands of the Moot Court Committee are tied.
We could probably dedicate a whole issue of UV to exposing Cognomos problems, but the administration may still choose to remain ignorant of the algorithm’s errors. Although we may laugh at student horror stories like the ones shared above, it’s important to continue to highlight the fact that this is a faulty system, and Cognomos’ shortcomings can have real consequences.
