• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About thepaperchase

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

74 profile views
  1. Your username rang a bell from lurking this forum a few years ago so I went through your post history. You indicated several times that you scored a 160 on the LSAT (you said you got the 160 on the June 2015 LSAT, so the score hasn't expired). Now you are saying that you have a 158. Is this 158 a typo? Please explain this.
  2. There is no way to convert a cGPA value to a percentage value - you can only do the reverse (for individual grades). Use your transcript to calculate your percentages (take into account weight of courses). I don't understand how someone can have a 3.84 cGPA and not be able to figure this stuff out.
  3. Same thing happened to me haha. Glad I'm not the only one.
  4. Osgoode's median LSAT is 161 - says so on their website. So how is 163 an average LSAT? And please don't say because Ryn's tool says so.
  5. Do schools publish the number of offers they give out? I don't see this information online. I thought they only published information pertaining to the number of applicants and the number of people who enrolled. I hope you didn't equate the enrollment numbers with the number of offers given out, as the former is always a much smaller number than the latter due to the fact that not everybody who gets an offer will end up enrolling.
  6. Where are you getting this 50% assumption from?
  7. Is English your first language? I hope you don't take offence to that - I'm genuinely curious. I think a 3.36 cgpa/3.7 L2/160 would give you a solid shot at Western and Queen's. Take a look at past Accepted threads and you'll see many people who have been accepted with similar numbers. That being said, it's obviously always beneficial to have a higher LSAT, so if you feel like you can improve your score, I would go for it.
  8. The fact that Ottawa hasn't made a decision on your file yet doesn't necessarily mean that they were waiting for your February score. They may have just not gotten to your file yet.
  9. Did you bother looking at the posts in this thread? Look at the posts directly above yours - there's people who said they were admitted with <3.5 GPAs.
  10. jessica123 v. BlockedQuebecois is pure theatre.
  11. I don't understand why you're giving your collected data more weight than the data that Osgoode itself has published. Osgoode's data is based on the numbers of ALL applicants whereas your data is based on the numbers provided by applicants on this forum. Wouldn't you agree that the people posting their stats on this forum are not actually representative of the actual applicant/admitted pool, given that the stats posted in your "predictor" tool do not actually match up with the numbers the law schools themselves have provided? Let me give you an example to crystallize what my issue with your predictor is here. So you gather your data from the "Accepted" threads on this forum. Let's say there's an Accepted thread for Law School X where every year 5 people post that they've been accepted with 4.0 GPAs and 170 LSATs. Does that mean that these are the numbers required to get into Law School X? The answer is no - those just happened to be the numbers of the people who have posted in the thread. Now, I understand that this is an extreme example and it isn't directly comparable to what you're doing - your predictor uses way more than 5 people and this greater sample size presumably makes it more accurate - but the point is that the sample size you are using is still not close to the actual number of applicants/admitted people at any given school. Now, I didn't want this post to come off as rude because I think you created your predictor with the intention of helping folks in the law school applicant process, but I would caution against overriding actual comprehensive data provided by schools in favor of your own, less comprehensive data. When a law school says that the median LSAT is 161 - as Osgoode has in this case - then I think it's wrong and somewhat irresponsible to say, "But you should actually treat that number as being closer to 163 because that's what I have found in my data." If you adopt that sort of mindset, you might end up significantly altering the life path of someone who using your predictor; they might, for instance, decide to forego applying to specific schools that seem exceedingly difficult to get into. Ultimately, that's on them for relying on a predictor that you yourself have cautioned against taking too seriously, but at the same time, I think it's incumbent upon you to not nudge them in that direction by giving precedence to your numbers over the numbers published by the law schools.