Hi, I'm a Canadian teaching English at a university in Seoul, South Korea. I'm 34 and trying to change careers. I have a BA from UBC from many years ago that involved a failed year, lots of beer and bad times. I have since finished an online MA in a different subject and did fairly well (77%). I have written the LSAT twice and my best score was, tragically, a 58%/153. I am registered to write again in October (Third time since Feb. 2007), but I am stumped by Logic Games. Aren't most of us? I have been accepted to 2 LLB 2-year programs in the UK but I am going to defer them till 2009. Most law schools in Canada don't look at graduate degrees but it's the best I have right now. What do you think I should do?
a) Take more undergrad courses online starting in January and hope for Canadian 2010 admission?
b) Focus on the LSAT and delay it until December or February?
c) Go to the UK and deal with the National Committee on Accreditation later?
d)Suck on a shotgun?
Thanks in advance.
3
BA GPA 51%, MA GPA 77% + LSAT 58% = Forget Canada?
Started by kcraigsejong, Sep 08 2008 03:08 AM
63 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Members
- 9 posts
Posted 08 September 2008 - 07:51 AM
kcraigsejong said:
Hi, I'm a Canadian teaching English at a university in Seoul, South Korea. I'm 34 and trying to change careers. I have a BA from UBC from many years ago that involved a failed year, lots of beer and bad times. I have since finished an online MA in a different subject and did fairly well (77%). I have written the LSAT twice and my best score was, tragically, a 58%/153. I am registered to write again in October (Third time since Feb. 2007), but I am stumped by Logic Games. Aren't most of us? I have been accepted to 2 LLB 2-year programs in the UK but I am going to defer them till 2009. Most law schools in Canada don't look at graduate degrees but it's the best I have right now. What do you think I should do?
a) Take more undergrad courses online starting in January and hope for Canadian 2010 admission?
b) Focus on the LSAT and delay it until December or February?
c) Go to the UK and deal with the National Committee on Accreditation later?
d)Suck on a shotgun?
Thanks in advance.
a) Take more undergrad courses online starting in January and hope for Canadian 2010 admission?
b) Focus on the LSAT and delay it until December or February?
c) Go to the UK and deal with the National Committee on Accreditation later?
d)Suck on a shotgun?
Thanks in advance.
c) or d) are your best bets
but even the UK usually wants a 3.0 or 2.8gpa...
even if you take more courses they still look at your first degree
:/
#3
-
- Members
- 350 posts
Posted 08 September 2008 - 08:10 AM
You work in South Korea now, so I am wondering why you are opposed to working in Britain after British law school.
If you are looking to work exclusively in Canada, I would advise getting into a Canadian law school. If you go to a British law school there is the problem with accreditation as you mentioned. Equally as important is the fact that the laws and customs of every country (even common law countries) are slightly different. You would learn things about Britain that have no relevance in Canada while failing to learn relevant things about Canada. Furthermore, you would have to move to a new country after law school and begin the process again of getting established in a new area, moving all your stuff, etc -- both time-consuming and expensive.
You have a shot right now of applying to a Canadian school as a mature student. I would say that the odds of applying as mature are in your favour considering the graduate work and international experience. If that does not work, you should work on upping both your LSAT and GPA (but ruin your mature student status when you re-enrol in undergraduate work).
Summary: if you absolutely must work in Canada then a+b are better than c or d.
If you are looking to work exclusively in Canada, I would advise getting into a Canadian law school. If you go to a British law school there is the problem with accreditation as you mentioned. Equally as important is the fact that the laws and customs of every country (even common law countries) are slightly different. You would learn things about Britain that have no relevance in Canada while failing to learn relevant things about Canada. Furthermore, you would have to move to a new country after law school and begin the process again of getting established in a new area, moving all your stuff, etc -- both time-consuming and expensive.
You have a shot right now of applying to a Canadian school as a mature student. I would say that the odds of applying as mature are in your favour considering the graduate work and international experience. If that does not work, you should work on upping both your LSAT and GPA (but ruin your mature student status when you re-enrol in undergraduate work).
Summary: if you absolutely must work in Canada then a+b are better than c or d.
#4
-
- Members
- 157 posts
Posted 08 September 2008 - 02:31 PM
a) is not an option. im pretty confident that there is not a single Canadian law school that will accept post-degree marks as part of your GPA calculation.
b) is not much of an option, even if you score a 180, you're not getting accepted anywhere with a 1.0 GPA. period. You did mention that you failed a year, and many schools drop years/credits from your undergrad marks. Research those and see if your GPA becomes more competitive, if you can get into the 3.0 (73-76) range you may have a shot, (an extremely marginal shot) as a mature student. Understand that schools are looking for people with exceptional "relevant" experience to make up for a poor GPA (government, union etc.) that indicates a potential to succeed in law school.
c) is setting yourself up for many years of headaches and disappointment. It is extremely difficult to make the jump from the UK to Canada and it is most certainly not something you should "just worry about later." Know exactly what you are getting yourself into. You're probably not coming to Canada to practice.
I don't know what schools you were accepted to in the UK with your stats, but I can only assume that they are diploma mills. I expect that you're going to have trouble finding a job the UK should you even be thinking about that.
d) is not necessary. You say you are looking for a career change. Unless you have an urgent, pressing desire to get into law that simply must be satisfied, I think you really need to consider whether you're willing to go through the many trying years that you are thinking about setting yourself up for, with little chance of it actually translating into something fruitful. You're well advised to think about a different career. If you're having that much difficulty with the LSAT, you're probably not going to enjoy the content of law school anyway.
b) is not much of an option, even if you score a 180, you're not getting accepted anywhere with a 1.0 GPA. period. You did mention that you failed a year, and many schools drop years/credits from your undergrad marks. Research those and see if your GPA becomes more competitive, if you can get into the 3.0 (73-76) range you may have a shot, (an extremely marginal shot) as a mature student. Understand that schools are looking for people with exceptional "relevant" experience to make up for a poor GPA (government, union etc.) that indicates a potential to succeed in law school.
c) is setting yourself up for many years of headaches and disappointment. It is extremely difficult to make the jump from the UK to Canada and it is most certainly not something you should "just worry about later." Know exactly what you are getting yourself into. You're probably not coming to Canada to practice.
I don't know what schools you were accepted to in the UK with your stats, but I can only assume that they are diploma mills. I expect that you're going to have trouble finding a job the UK should you even be thinking about that.
d) is not necessary. You say you are looking for a career change. Unless you have an urgent, pressing desire to get into law that simply must be satisfied, I think you really need to consider whether you're willing to go through the many trying years that you are thinking about setting yourself up for, with little chance of it actually translating into something fruitful. You're well advised to think about a different career. If you're having that much difficulty with the LSAT, you're probably not going to enjoy the content of law school anyway.
#5
-
- Members
- 2 posts
- LocationWindsor
Posted 08 September 2008 - 09:32 PM
I am not to sure about getting back into Canada with a UK law degree, but I have a friend with a degree in international law from the UK who, after working in the Cayman Islands for an Amrican law firm for a few years was able to get accredited in the US...took a long time however.
#6
-
- Members
- 2,011 posts
Posted 08 September 2008 - 11:53 PM
Wow, lessons learned on this forum and institutional memory here has taken a beating lately. A few observations:
1. You have no chance of getting accepted to a Canadian law program. As in zero.
2. If you are determined to go the UK route, be aware you're facing a serious uphill battle to a) become eligible to write the bar (as in, do the NCA thing) and b) find employment afterwards. Now "a" is doable if you aren't too deterred by time and expense. "B" is more of a crap shoot. Do your research before you walk into that issue blindly.
3. Not to be a jerk, but your 77% average in your MA (which was online, no less) does not represent doing "fairly well." Graduate marks are graded to an A curve. B+ actually represents a fairly poor grade, and you've barely averaged even that. I don't know what the full story is there, but be careful on this topic if you're talking to anyone who's actually done graduate work. Your situation may or may not be exceptional in some way, but you only sound like a fool if you don't even realize how graduate work is normally graded.
4. Hermann doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and is one of the worst examples of baseless cheerleading I've seen on this site in some time.
All the best, seriously. But be aware of what you're buying into. In the best case scenario I can imagine, you aren't looking at employment as a lawyer in Canada much earlier than 40. That's two years for your law degree in the UK, two more to meet the 11-14 NCA exams/courses you'll be required to produce to even be allowed to article. Time spent looking for a job, 10 months articling (and you may be forced to accept a really shitty one, to article at all) and presto, you're 40.
You wanted an honest answer, so be realistic or forget about it entirely. It could be done. Most things can theoretically be done. But do you really want it that badly?
Cheers.
1. You have no chance of getting accepted to a Canadian law program. As in zero.
2. If you are determined to go the UK route, be aware you're facing a serious uphill battle to a) become eligible to write the bar (as in, do the NCA thing) and b) find employment afterwards. Now "a" is doable if you aren't too deterred by time and expense. "B" is more of a crap shoot. Do your research before you walk into that issue blindly.
3. Not to be a jerk, but your 77% average in your MA (which was online, no less) does not represent doing "fairly well." Graduate marks are graded to an A curve. B+ actually represents a fairly poor grade, and you've barely averaged even that. I don't know what the full story is there, but be careful on this topic if you're talking to anyone who's actually done graduate work. Your situation may or may not be exceptional in some way, but you only sound like a fool if you don't even realize how graduate work is normally graded.
4. Hermann doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and is one of the worst examples of baseless cheerleading I've seen on this site in some time.
All the best, seriously. But be aware of what you're buying into. In the best case scenario I can imagine, you aren't looking at employment as a lawyer in Canada much earlier than 40. That's two years for your law degree in the UK, two more to meet the 11-14 NCA exams/courses you'll be required to produce to even be allowed to article. Time spent looking for a job, 10 months articling (and you may be forced to accept a really shitty one, to article at all) and presto, you're 40.
You wanted an honest answer, so be realistic or forget about it entirely. It could be done. Most things can theoretically be done. But do you really want it that badly?
Cheers.
#7
-
- Members
- 32 posts
Posted 09 September 2008 - 12:29 AM
Ok, thank you. I guess lawyers are the ones to ask when you need hard answers to hard questions. Anyone else?
#8
-
- Members
- 32 posts
Posted 09 September 2008 - 01:51 AM
Epicurus:
[quote]
c) or d) are your best bets
but even the UK usually wants a 3.0 or 2.8gpa...
even if you take more courses they still look at your first degree
:/[/quote]
Thank you for the advice. I got into Leicester, Sheffield and Queen's Belfast for 2 year LLB's/MA Law programs. They all told me that a 70% average in my MA would get me in and it did.
Hermann:
Thank you as well.
[quote]
You work in South Korea now, so I am wondering why you are opposed to working in Britain after British law school.[/quote]
Actually, I'm not entirely opposed to it. But I am Canadian and I would like to make it home eventually.
[quote]
If you are looking to work exclusively in Canada, I would advise getting into a Canadian law school. If you go to a British law school there is the problem with accreditation as you mentioned. Equally as important is the fact that the laws and customs of every country (even common law countries) are slightly different. You would learn things about Britain that have no relevance in Canada while failing to learn relevant things about Canada. Furthermore, you would have to move to a new country after law school and begin the process again of getting established in a new area, moving all your stuff, etc -- both time-consuming and expensive.
[/quote]
I know. Serious obstacles.[quote]
You have a shot right now of applying to a Canadian school as a mature student. I would say that the odds of applying as mature are in your favour considering the graduate work and international experience.[/quote]
Thank you for the optimism. Others on this thread seem to disagree.
[quote]If that does not work, you should work on upping both your LSAT and GPA (but ruin your mature student status when you re-enrol in undergraduate work). Summary: if you absolutely must work in Canada then a+b are better than c or d.
[/quote]
I see. Good point. Thanks.
andrew2:
Thank you as well.[quote]
a) is not an option. im pretty confident that there is not a single Canadian law school that will accept post-degree marks as part of your GPA calculation.[/quote]
Really? Wow. As an aside, UVic told me last year that a good average in an MA would give me another shot at getting in and it could repair some of the damage from a BA.
[quote]
b) is not much of an option, even if you score a 180, you're not getting accepted anywhere with a 1.0 GPA. period. You did mention that you failed a year, and many schools drop years/credits from your undergrad marks. Research those and see if your GPA becomes more competitive, if you can get into the 3.0 (73-76) range you may have a shot, (an extremely marginal shot) as a mature student. Understand that schools are looking for people with exceptional "relevant" experience to make up for a poor GPA (government, union etc.) that indicates a potential to succeed in law school.[/quote]
Wow. Ok. Thank you. I did have a government job in Canada years ago, perhaps that might help me. Forget the LSAT- 1 vote.
[quote]
c) is setting yourself up for many years of headaches and disappointment. It is extremely difficult to make the jump from the UK to Canada and it is most certainly not something you should "just worry about later." Know exactly what you are getting yourself into. You're probably not coming to Canada to practice.
I don't know what schools you were accepted to in the UK with your stats, but I can only assume that they are diploma mills. I expect that you're going to have trouble finding a job the UK should you even be thinking about that.[/quote]
Wow again. Actually, I got into Leicester (No. 8 for Law according to the Times), Sheffield (No. 40 for Law) and Queen's (No. 27 for Law). Not the worst, but this is not the place to debate UK law schools' relative merits.
[quote]d) is not necessary. You say you are looking for a career change. Unless you have an urgent, pressing desire to get into law that simply must be satisfied, I think you really need to consider whether you're willing to go through the many trying years that you are thinking about setting yourself up for, with little chance of it actually translating into something fruitful. You're well advised to think about a different career. If you're having that much difficulty with the LSAT, you're probably not going to enjoy the content of law school anyway.
[/quote]
Thank you. Realistic. You may be right.
Rbelang:
Thank you, too.
[quote]I am not to sure about getting back into Canada with a UK law degree, but I have a friend with a degree in international law from the UK who, after working in the Cayman Islands for an Amrican law firm for a few years was able to get accredited in the US...took a long time however.[/quote]
Yes, these people seem to be few and far between.
Diplock:
Thank you.
[quote]
Wow, lessons learned on this forum and institutional memory here has taken a beating lately. A few observations:
[/quote]
I suppose the UK backdoor into Canadian law fantasy has been brought up before, I will search for more info.
[quote]
1. You have no chance of getting accepted to a Canadian law program. As in zero.[/quote]
Unless I do another undergrad degree? Because I'm too old? Because my LSAT is a joke? What if it improves? Anyway, you may be right.
[quote]
2. If you are determined to go the UK route, be aware you're facing a serious uphill battle to a) become eligible to write the bar (as in, do the NCA thing) and b) find employment afterwards. Now "a" is doable if you aren't too deterred by time and expense. "B" is more of a crap shoot. Do your research before you walk into that issue blindly.
[/quote]
Right, that's why I'm deferring the UK till 2009. I am not so sure it is a solution.
[quote]
3. Not to be a jerk, but your 77% average in your MA (which was online, no less) does not represent doing "fairly well." Graduate marks are graded to an A curve. B+ actually represents a fairly poor grade, and you've barely averaged even that. I don't know what the full story is there, but be careful on this topic if you're talking to anyone who's actually done graduate work. Your situation may or may not be exceptional in some way, but you only sound like a fool if you don't even realize how graduate work is normally graded.[/quote]
Ok, in my defence it is from an Australian school which seem to be like UK schools where nobody gets anything over an 80. Additionally, I've never actually been inside a graduate school so I haven't really interacted with many graduate students. I will take your advice, however.
[quote]4. Hermann doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and is one of the worst examples of baseless cheerleading I've seen on this site in some time.
[/quote]
Ok. I just got here. Hermann, I hope you don't take that to heart.
[quote]All the best, seriously. But be aware of what you're buying into. In the best case scenario I can imagine, you aren't looking at employment as a lawyer in Canada much earlier than 40. That's two years for your law degree in the UK, two more to meet the 11-14 NCA exams/courses you'll be required to produce to even be allowed to article. Time spent looking for a job, 10 months articling (and you may be forced to accept a really **** one, to article at all) and presto, you're 40.
You wanted an honest answer, so be realistic or forget about it entirely. It could be done. Most things can theoretically be done. But do you really want it that badly?
Cheers.[/quote]
Cheers as well. Do I want it that badly? Maybe. Maybe not. Testing the waters. Danke.
[quote]
c) or d) are your best bets
but even the UK usually wants a 3.0 or 2.8gpa...
even if you take more courses they still look at your first degree
:/[/quote]
Thank you for the advice. I got into Leicester, Sheffield and Queen's Belfast for 2 year LLB's/MA Law programs. They all told me that a 70% average in my MA would get me in and it did.
Hermann:
Thank you as well.
[quote]
You work in South Korea now, so I am wondering why you are opposed to working in Britain after British law school.[/quote]
Actually, I'm not entirely opposed to it. But I am Canadian and I would like to make it home eventually.
[quote]
If you are looking to work exclusively in Canada, I would advise getting into a Canadian law school. If you go to a British law school there is the problem with accreditation as you mentioned. Equally as important is the fact that the laws and customs of every country (even common law countries) are slightly different. You would learn things about Britain that have no relevance in Canada while failing to learn relevant things about Canada. Furthermore, you would have to move to a new country after law school and begin the process again of getting established in a new area, moving all your stuff, etc -- both time-consuming and expensive.
[/quote]
I know. Serious obstacles.[quote]
You have a shot right now of applying to a Canadian school as a mature student. I would say that the odds of applying as mature are in your favour considering the graduate work and international experience.[/quote]
Thank you for the optimism. Others on this thread seem to disagree.
[quote]If that does not work, you should work on upping both your LSAT and GPA (but ruin your mature student status when you re-enrol in undergraduate work). Summary: if you absolutely must work in Canada then a+b are better than c or d.
[/quote]
I see. Good point. Thanks.
andrew2:
Thank you as well.[quote]
a) is not an option. im pretty confident that there is not a single Canadian law school that will accept post-degree marks as part of your GPA calculation.[/quote]
Really? Wow. As an aside, UVic told me last year that a good average in an MA would give me another shot at getting in and it could repair some of the damage from a BA.
[quote]
b) is not much of an option, even if you score a 180, you're not getting accepted anywhere with a 1.0 GPA. period. You did mention that you failed a year, and many schools drop years/credits from your undergrad marks. Research those and see if your GPA becomes more competitive, if you can get into the 3.0 (73-76) range you may have a shot, (an extremely marginal shot) as a mature student. Understand that schools are looking for people with exceptional "relevant" experience to make up for a poor GPA (government, union etc.) that indicates a potential to succeed in law school.[/quote]
Wow. Ok. Thank you. I did have a government job in Canada years ago, perhaps that might help me. Forget the LSAT- 1 vote.
[quote]
c) is setting yourself up for many years of headaches and disappointment. It is extremely difficult to make the jump from the UK to Canada and it is most certainly not something you should "just worry about later." Know exactly what you are getting yourself into. You're probably not coming to Canada to practice.
I don't know what schools you were accepted to in the UK with your stats, but I can only assume that they are diploma mills. I expect that you're going to have trouble finding a job the UK should you even be thinking about that.[/quote]
Wow again. Actually, I got into Leicester (No. 8 for Law according to the Times), Sheffield (No. 40 for Law) and Queen's (No. 27 for Law). Not the worst, but this is not the place to debate UK law schools' relative merits.
[quote]d) is not necessary. You say you are looking for a career change. Unless you have an urgent, pressing desire to get into law that simply must be satisfied, I think you really need to consider whether you're willing to go through the many trying years that you are thinking about setting yourself up for, with little chance of it actually translating into something fruitful. You're well advised to think about a different career. If you're having that much difficulty with the LSAT, you're probably not going to enjoy the content of law school anyway.
[/quote]
Thank you. Realistic. You may be right.
Rbelang:
Thank you, too.
[quote]I am not to sure about getting back into Canada with a UK law degree, but I have a friend with a degree in international law from the UK who, after working in the Cayman Islands for an Amrican law firm for a few years was able to get accredited in the US...took a long time however.[/quote]
Yes, these people seem to be few and far between.
Diplock:
Thank you.
[quote]
Wow, lessons learned on this forum and institutional memory here has taken a beating lately. A few observations:
[/quote]
I suppose the UK backdoor into Canadian law fantasy has been brought up before, I will search for more info.
[quote]
1. You have no chance of getting accepted to a Canadian law program. As in zero.[/quote]
Unless I do another undergrad degree? Because I'm too old? Because my LSAT is a joke? What if it improves? Anyway, you may be right.
[quote]
2. If you are determined to go the UK route, be aware you're facing a serious uphill battle to a) become eligible to write the bar (as in, do the NCA thing) and b) find employment afterwards. Now "a" is doable if you aren't too deterred by time and expense. "B" is more of a crap shoot. Do your research before you walk into that issue blindly.
[/quote]
Right, that's why I'm deferring the UK till 2009. I am not so sure it is a solution.
[quote]
3. Not to be a jerk, but your 77% average in your MA (which was online, no less) does not represent doing "fairly well." Graduate marks are graded to an A curve. B+ actually represents a fairly poor grade, and you've barely averaged even that. I don't know what the full story is there, but be careful on this topic if you're talking to anyone who's actually done graduate work. Your situation may or may not be exceptional in some way, but you only sound like a fool if you don't even realize how graduate work is normally graded.[/quote]
Ok, in my defence it is from an Australian school which seem to be like UK schools where nobody gets anything over an 80. Additionally, I've never actually been inside a graduate school so I haven't really interacted with many graduate students. I will take your advice, however.
[quote]4. Hermann doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and is one of the worst examples of baseless cheerleading I've seen on this site in some time.
[/quote]
Ok. I just got here. Hermann, I hope you don't take that to heart.
[quote]All the best, seriously. But be aware of what you're buying into. In the best case scenario I can imagine, you aren't looking at employment as a lawyer in Canada much earlier than 40. That's two years for your law degree in the UK, two more to meet the 11-14 NCA exams/courses you'll be required to produce to even be allowed to article. Time spent looking for a job, 10 months articling (and you may be forced to accept a really **** one, to article at all) and presto, you're 40.
You wanted an honest answer, so be realistic or forget about it entirely. It could be done. Most things can theoretically be done. But do you really want it that badly?
Cheers.[/quote]
Cheers as well. Do I want it that badly? Maybe. Maybe not. Testing the waters. Danke.
#10
-
- Members
- 350 posts
Posted 09 September 2008 - 08:36 AM
Hi kcraigsejong 8) I'm going to talk to Diplock for a bit...
You are making one of the most common mistakes in discrediting an argument: you are asking a different question then I was. I was telling him my opinion of how best to achieve his goal and you are telling him your opinion of whether or not his goal is easily achieved.
I work in student services of my school (tutoring, editing essays for people with learning disabilities) and I deal with a lot of students that are struggling to pass a course. It is probably clear to everyone why my advice in that situation can never be "give up/ drop out." People didn’t think I would succeed at college when I applied as a grade 9 drop out with a GED. I not only succeeded, but I won the Governor General’s Medal (bronze), transferred to university, and I’m now sitting with a 4.0 GPA with plans of law school.
In kcraigsejong's case it's a big question of how badly he wants it and how many sacrifices he is willing to make. Nobody on this internet board can predict admissions without a doubt; all we can do is give opinions. Nobody here knows kcraigsejong capabilities or factors in his life which make him a better candidate than someone with a better GPA or LSAT.
The presence of a graduate degree is better then no graduate degree on a law school application. International job experience is also preferable to being 25 and never having left your home town. I do not know how significant these factors are.
In regards to those universities which look at the best 2 years of study, kcraigsejong could certainly complete 2 more years of undergrad work (or better yet, a second degree) and be judged on those.
You are right though, Diplock, that it would be a hell of a lot of work, tuition, and time for kcraigsejong to complete that additional undergrad work. Even then, there is no guarantee that he'd get a competitive GPA like 3.7 - 4.0 and also have a competitive LSAT (ex. 160+). It would depend on what kcraigsejong feels capable of.
Quote
4. Hermann doesn't have a clue what he's talking about and is one of the worst examples of baseless cheerleading I've seen on this site in some time.
You are making one of the most common mistakes in discrediting an argument: you are asking a different question then I was. I was telling him my opinion of how best to achieve his goal and you are telling him your opinion of whether or not his goal is easily achieved.
I work in student services of my school (tutoring, editing essays for people with learning disabilities) and I deal with a lot of students that are struggling to pass a course. It is probably clear to everyone why my advice in that situation can never be "give up/ drop out." People didn’t think I would succeed at college when I applied as a grade 9 drop out with a GED. I not only succeeded, but I won the Governor General’s Medal (bronze), transferred to university, and I’m now sitting with a 4.0 GPA with plans of law school.
In kcraigsejong's case it's a big question of how badly he wants it and how many sacrifices he is willing to make. Nobody on this internet board can predict admissions without a doubt; all we can do is give opinions. Nobody here knows kcraigsejong capabilities or factors in his life which make him a better candidate than someone with a better GPA or LSAT.
The presence of a graduate degree is better then no graduate degree on a law school application. International job experience is also preferable to being 25 and never having left your home town. I do not know how significant these factors are.
In regards to those universities which look at the best 2 years of study, kcraigsejong could certainly complete 2 more years of undergrad work (or better yet, a second degree) and be judged on those.
You are right though, Diplock, that it would be a hell of a lot of work, tuition, and time for kcraigsejong to complete that additional undergrad work. Even then, there is no guarantee that he'd get a competitive GPA like 3.7 - 4.0 and also have a competitive LSAT (ex. 160+). It would depend on what kcraigsejong feels capable of.
#11
-
- Members
- 32 posts
Posted 09 September 2008 - 05:49 PM
Thank you, Hermann. I know it won't be easy.
#12
-
- Members
- 2,011 posts
Posted 09 September 2008 - 10:51 PM
In quick reply to Hermann, you are simply mischaracterizing your previous statements. As in, I'd say you're lying if I thought you were malicious, but really I simply think you're wrong. You claim you weren't addressing the OP's likelihood of success in applying to Canadian schools? I'll simply quote you back at yourself.
The above quotation isn't encouragement to keep trying. It isn't a pep talk. It's a flatly incorrect evaluation of what virtually everyone else with a passing familiarity with Canadian law schools knows about their admissions standards. The emphasis is your own, btw, and not even mine.
It's one thing to be encouraging. It's another to be flatly delusional on behalf of people who might rely on your advice. Your philosophy as an advisor is one I simply can't agree with. You think it can never be your job to advise students to stop attempting what is not practically possible? I think your priorities are fucked. Sometimes the best advice you can give someone is to stop punching into a brick wall and to try some other direction. Obviously you seem to think your aliegence
is owed more to the institution that pays you to encourage students, however, rather than the students who might need you to tell them the truth.
You have every right to be encouraging, but you obviously know zero about law school admissions. You'd be more honest if you'd simply admit that and cheerlead away. I wouldn't criticize you then. But as soon as you start predicting odds based on zero knowledge you've crossed the line from harmless encouragement to harmful speculation. You might want to consider the difference.
For the record, while no one here knows absolutely what an admissions committee will or will not do, that does not make every prediction equally speculative. You want to talk about logically errors? You just made a huge one there. There are people here on this board with the experience you clearly lack. Let them offer it with appropriate qualifications attached. When I don't know I admit I don't know. When I'm guessing I admit I'm guessing. But in this case I know. The OP isn't even within shouting distance of admission to a Canadian program. He could write a 170 LSAT and I'd still give him long odds - and he isn't going to jump from 153 after two sincere attempts to 170. Other people know this here. Let's see if anyone shows up to disagree.
Hermann said:
You have a shot right now of applying to a Canadian school as a mature student. I would say that the odds of applying as mature are in your favour considering the graduate work and international experience.
The above quotation isn't encouragement to keep trying. It isn't a pep talk. It's a flatly incorrect evaluation of what virtually everyone else with a passing familiarity with Canadian law schools knows about their admissions standards. The emphasis is your own, btw, and not even mine.
It's one thing to be encouraging. It's another to be flatly delusional on behalf of people who might rely on your advice. Your philosophy as an advisor is one I simply can't agree with. You think it can never be your job to advise students to stop attempting what is not practically possible? I think your priorities are fucked. Sometimes the best advice you can give someone is to stop punching into a brick wall and to try some other direction. Obviously you seem to think your aliegence
is owed more to the institution that pays you to encourage students, however, rather than the students who might need you to tell them the truth.
You have every right to be encouraging, but you obviously know zero about law school admissions. You'd be more honest if you'd simply admit that and cheerlead away. I wouldn't criticize you then. But as soon as you start predicting odds based on zero knowledge you've crossed the line from harmless encouragement to harmful speculation. You might want to consider the difference.
For the record, while no one here knows absolutely what an admissions committee will or will not do, that does not make every prediction equally speculative. You want to talk about logically errors? You just made a huge one there. There are people here on this board with the experience you clearly lack. Let them offer it with appropriate qualifications attached. When I don't know I admit I don't know. When I'm guessing I admit I'm guessing. But in this case I know. The OP isn't even within shouting distance of admission to a Canadian program. He could write a 170 LSAT and I'd still give him long odds - and he isn't going to jump from 153 after two sincere attempts to 170. Other people know this here. Let's see if anyone shows up to disagree.
#13
-
- Members
- 2,011 posts
Posted 09 September 2008 - 10:56 PM
To the OP - My observations aren't meant to be negative, they're meant to get you moving in a realistic direction sooner rather than later. If you insist on entering the legal profession, no matter what, then accept one of those UK options. Rock out your first year as hard as you can and try to transfer into a Canadian program after first year. At that time they'll look almost exclusively at your grades in first year law. That's your best option to get into a Canadian school, though far from a certain one. Otherwise, proceed as before through the NCA process and all it implies.
Luck with that. Seriously. But part of admitting it's hard is to stop waiting for a miracle to wipe away all your past history and to start taking the hard, slow, concrete steps it's going to take to move in a new direction. Hermann and I obviously disagree on approach, but that's the one I'd advocate.
Luck with that. Seriously. But part of admitting it's hard is to stop waiting for a miracle to wipe away all your past history and to start taking the hard, slow, concrete steps it's going to take to move in a new direction. Hermann and I obviously disagree on approach, but that's the one I'd advocate.
#14
-
- Members
- 157 posts
Posted 10 September 2008 - 12:43 AM
A 170 does not give the OP long odds. Even a 180 still gives him zero odds. He'd be looking to UBC or U of A (the most "splitter" friendly schools). However even with a 180, his index score - (GPA percentage) + (LSAT score x 0.6188) / 2 = 81.92 - which is in in another galaxy of the 90 he'd need to be considered in the regular category. This is secondary to the fact that their admissions page explicitly states that a GPA of less that 68% will not be considered anyway.
U of A will look at your last two, and even count some of your MA marks (although I'm unsure of how they'll view an online MA - which I'm thinking is probably in TESL) - but U of A averages your LSAT scores, and as you're about to write for the 3rd and final time - you don't have the option of writing TWO 180 LSATs. If you score a 180 your average would be in the 70th percentile (taking BOTH of your scores as 153 - which you claimed was your highest) - again, zero chance of admissions. There is no debate.
Hermann - "international work experience" and the like are viewed favourably by adcomms but they are very much "soft" factors that are very, very, very secondary to hard stats. This is the simple reality. One does not get into a Canadian law school with a 1.0 GPA because he/she taught English overseas. In terms of applicant-to-available-spots ratio, the discretionary categories are more competitive than the regular categories. To say that the odds are in the OP's favour if he applies mature is just jaw-droppingly erroneous, unless that "government job he had a few years back" was as a Cabinet Minister, or he finished in the top of his class at grad school.
Also, I will repeat the fact that going back to do two extra years of undergrad is not an option either. Schools will not consider those marks.
OP: These posts are not meant to bash you or insult you or demoralize you. They are meant to give you an accurate picture of your situation. Your situation is that you cannot re-write the LSAT and study in Canada. There is a remote chance that you could transfer to a Canadian school if you had a stellar year at a UK school, but it is a remote chance, like, on an ice-shelf in Antarctica remote. When you write your exams you need to draw on those deductive logic skills that the LSAT tests for. If you're struggling this much with the LSAT, I can't be too optimistic about your chances of having a 'stellar year" anyway.
If you finish the two year LLB program in the UK you will have difficulty in finding employment in the UK. But there are NGO's, not-for-profit orgs etc. that provide options also. Just understand that you are considering a difficult, costly, and lengthy process, and if you don't possess some insatiable thirst for the legal field, do some serious soul searching before you decide to jump into it, lest you regret it all two years down the road.
I'm also going to throw it out there that you might be interested in checking into the law schools in Hong Kong (City, HKU, I forget the other) - this obviously puts you much farther away from Canada - but the job market is better - especially if you have competency in any Asian language, they are highly competitive but they don't require the LSAT and I believe your MA marks will be looked at - you won't actually practice and you'll likely be confined to the corporate law field - but it's certainly a "career change," and may be worth checking out.
Sorry if I'm beating this thread to death.
U of A will look at your last two, and even count some of your MA marks (although I'm unsure of how they'll view an online MA - which I'm thinking is probably in TESL) - but U of A averages your LSAT scores, and as you're about to write for the 3rd and final time - you don't have the option of writing TWO 180 LSATs. If you score a 180 your average would be in the 70th percentile (taking BOTH of your scores as 153 - which you claimed was your highest) - again, zero chance of admissions. There is no debate.
Hermann - "international work experience" and the like are viewed favourably by adcomms but they are very much "soft" factors that are very, very, very secondary to hard stats. This is the simple reality. One does not get into a Canadian law school with a 1.0 GPA because he/she taught English overseas. In terms of applicant-to-available-spots ratio, the discretionary categories are more competitive than the regular categories. To say that the odds are in the OP's favour if he applies mature is just jaw-droppingly erroneous, unless that "government job he had a few years back" was as a Cabinet Minister, or he finished in the top of his class at grad school.
Also, I will repeat the fact that going back to do two extra years of undergrad is not an option either. Schools will not consider those marks.
OP: These posts are not meant to bash you or insult you or demoralize you. They are meant to give you an accurate picture of your situation. Your situation is that you cannot re-write the LSAT and study in Canada. There is a remote chance that you could transfer to a Canadian school if you had a stellar year at a UK school, but it is a remote chance, like, on an ice-shelf in Antarctica remote. When you write your exams you need to draw on those deductive logic skills that the LSAT tests for. If you're struggling this much with the LSAT, I can't be too optimistic about your chances of having a 'stellar year" anyway.
If you finish the two year LLB program in the UK you will have difficulty in finding employment in the UK. But there are NGO's, not-for-profit orgs etc. that provide options also. Just understand that you are considering a difficult, costly, and lengthy process, and if you don't possess some insatiable thirst for the legal field, do some serious soul searching before you decide to jump into it, lest you regret it all two years down the road.
I'm also going to throw it out there that you might be interested in checking into the law schools in Hong Kong (City, HKU, I forget the other) - this obviously puts you much farther away from Canada - but the job market is better - especially if you have competency in any Asian language, they are highly competitive but they don't require the LSAT and I believe your MA marks will be looked at - you won't actually practice and you'll likely be confined to the corporate law field - but it's certainly a "career change," and may be worth checking out.
Sorry if I'm beating this thread to death.
#15
-
- Members
- 32 posts
Posted 10 September 2008 - 01:54 AM
No, you aren't beating this to death. These are the hard facts that I need to know and I can't really get them from people here in Seoul. I appreciate all of your advice, everyone.
#16
-
- Members
- 2,011 posts
Posted 10 September 2008 - 09:09 AM
Hey andrew2. Yeah, I was trying to be fair to the topic and speaking off the cuff. My LSAT reference wasn't meant to imply the LSAT could get him into any stats-based school, but I was more thinking of Windsor, Ottawa, etc. where everything happens behind a big curtain and no one really knows how decisions are made. As in, Hermann is correct to the degree that no one ever really knows in some cases, but that doesn't make it wrong to say "zero chance."
Anyway, good to have some independent confirmation. I'm not quite as down on international law programs as you are, though I'm very leery of them. There are a few students at U of T who seem to have come out of that okay - though nothing compared to the numbers who try, I'm sure. Transfer after one year abroad is by FAR your best option if you go that route.
Anyway, good to have some independent confirmation. I'm not quite as down on international law programs as you are, though I'm very leery of them. There are a few students at U of T who seem to have come out of that okay - though nothing compared to the numbers who try, I'm sure. Transfer after one year abroad is by FAR your best option if you go that route.
#17
-
- Members
- 350 posts
Posted 10 September 2008 - 10:28 AM
Diplock, I'm willing to conceed that his chances may be low, and even that my cheerleading earlier was perhaps a bit too strong, but you should never talk in absolutes in a situation where you don't know all of the variables. Talking about having “zero chances” or “zero knowledge” about law school admissions either indicates that you have a problem with abstract thinking or that you are just careless in your terminology.
Saying that I have zero knowledge of law school admissions is just ridiculous. I have spend countless hours on the websites of Canada’s law schools, I have met personally with several academic advisors at my university about the matter, and I have examined statistics on admission at numerous websites. Your own knowledge of admissions is likely less than or equal to that, Diplock. I use the term “likely” rather than an absolute term like “certainly” or “zero chance” because my mind is always open to various possibilities. This is an internet message board, so I have no way of knowing if a fellow poster has inside knowledge on admissions. By the same token, when a guy like kcraigsejong comes in here, I am open to the possibility that he has exceptional qualifications which outweigh his GPA or LSAT.
The mature category is very different from the regular admission category. Like you quoted me saying earlier, his odds when applying in the mature category are favourable when compared to applying in the regular category. That quote did not say that his odds are favourable compared to you or me applying with our higher GPAs and LSATs. The University of Ottawa web site indicates:
I’m going to maintain my ‘folowo your dreams' attitude, and you maintain whatever attitude you like, Diplock. If you boil our two positions down we don’t really disagree that kcraigsejong’s chances are very poor, I’m just focusing on optimism while you are focusing on pessimism. From what I’ve seen on this forum your posts often blunt, negative, and slightly rude.
Your suggestion that kcraigsejong attend British law school and then attempt to transfer is very good advice and certainly more constructive than shooting him down.
One last thing, Diplock, if you intend to make a great big post refuting what I’m saying (lol) then go ahead, but I’m staying out of this thread from now on because I’ve said my piece. I have no interest in talking about it any further since I have no further constructive advice for kcraigsejong and arguing about the matter isn’t going to benefit anyone.
Saying that I have zero knowledge of law school admissions is just ridiculous. I have spend countless hours on the websites of Canada’s law schools, I have met personally with several academic advisors at my university about the matter, and I have examined statistics on admission at numerous websites. Your own knowledge of admissions is likely less than or equal to that, Diplock. I use the term “likely” rather than an absolute term like “certainly” or “zero chance” because my mind is always open to various possibilities. This is an internet message board, so I have no way of knowing if a fellow poster has inside knowledge on admissions. By the same token, when a guy like kcraigsejong comes in here, I am open to the possibility that he has exceptional qualifications which outweigh his GPA or LSAT.
The mature category is very different from the regular admission category. Like you quoted me saying earlier, his odds when applying in the mature category are favourable when compared to applying in the regular category. That quote did not say that his odds are favourable compared to you or me applying with our higher GPAs and LSATs. The University of Ottawa web site indicates:
Quote
Mature Applicants
Persons with or without postsecondary studies may be considered as Mature Applicants if they have five or more years of non-academic experience.
In addition to past academic work and the LSAT, outstanding qualities as evidenced by previous career and life experiences are considered.
Persons with or without postsecondary studies may be considered as Mature Applicants if they have five or more years of non-academic experience.
In addition to past academic work and the LSAT, outstanding qualities as evidenced by previous career and life experiences are considered.
I’m going to maintain my ‘folowo your dreams' attitude, and you maintain whatever attitude you like, Diplock. If you boil our two positions down we don’t really disagree that kcraigsejong’s chances are very poor, I’m just focusing on optimism while you are focusing on pessimism. From what I’ve seen on this forum your posts often blunt, negative, and slightly rude.
Your suggestion that kcraigsejong attend British law school and then attempt to transfer is very good advice and certainly more constructive than shooting him down.
One last thing, Diplock, if you intend to make a great big post refuting what I’m saying (lol) then go ahead, but I’m staying out of this thread from now on because I’ve said my piece. I have no interest in talking about it any further since I have no further constructive advice for kcraigsejong and arguing about the matter isn’t going to benefit anyone.
#18
-
- Members
- 181 posts
Posted 11 September 2008 - 10:21 PM
although as the one poster showed there is a mature category that has less rigorous lsat/gpa requirements, from my experience these people still have solid gpa/lsat but would have been below the cut off for reg admissions, admissions wants to see evidence that the applicant can be successful in Cdn law school and you have not demonstrated this...i think the backdoor is your only way as I would give u a 0% shot of obtaining entrance in Canada...saying that phone every university in canada talk to the admissions and see what u find out
#19
-
- Moderators
- 2,966 posts
- LocationUniversity of Alberta
Posted 12 September 2008 - 12:29 PM
Hermann said:
I’m going to maintain my ‘folowo your dreams' attitude, and you maintain whatever attitude you like, Diplock. If you boil our two positions down we don’t really disagree that kcraigsejong’s chances are very poor, I’m just focusing on optimism while you are focusing on pessimism. From what I’ve seen on this forum your posts often blunt, negative, and slightly rude.
Your suggestion that kcraigsejong attend British law school and then attempt to transfer is very good advice and certainly more constructive than shooting him down.
Your suggestion that kcraigsejong attend British law school and then attempt to transfer is very good advice and certainly more constructive than shooting him down.
Such an attitude makes absolutely no sense. The obstacles the OP must overcome are astounding. Even schools that are holistic will not admit someone who they think cannot succeed at law school. What you are doing is beyond mere cheerleading, it is harmful. Leading him to waste money, and possibly years of his life trying to find a "backdoor".
No one seems willing to say that some people shouldn't be able to go to law school, but its the truth. The OP should give up since he has shown no aptitude for the law, and there are many other careers that will be more rewarding for him.
#20
-
- Members
- 7 posts
Posted 13 September 2008 - 06:43 AM
[quote name="andrew2"]a) is not an option. im pretty confident that there is not a single Canadian law school that will accept post-degree marks as part of your GPA calculation.[/quote
Uh, what? You know, this is fairly bold statement, given that it's patently incorrect.
U of A (which looks at the past 60 credits)]will be used in the assessment of an applicants GPA[/b]. Such courses must be completed at a senior level, unless part of a specific program of study, e.g. post graduate degrees or after degree programs. (Accepts Grad credits)
U of C
7. What is the undergraduate GPA calculation based on?
The undergraduate GPA calculation is based on an applicant’s last 20 half courses or 60 credit equivalents. This includes undergraduate courses taken after degree and during Spring/Summer sessions. Courses must be completed prior to December 31 of the year in which application is made to be considered in the GPA calculation. (Does not accept Grad credits)
UNB
The Admissions Index is determined using the applicant’s re-calculated Grade Point Average (GPA) (see below) and highest LSAT score. The GPA is weighted at 60% and the LSAT score at 40%. In recent years, the average re-calculated GPA of an admitted student has been approximately 3.8 (on a 4.3 scale) and the average LSAT score has been approximately 159. The range is typically 3.1 - 4.3 for the GPA and 150 - 173 for the LSAT.
The GPA is based on the applicant’s entire university academic record, including post-first degree work. The applicant’s marks are converted to their equivalent on the grade point scale used at the University of New Brunswick... (Of little help, given the avg., but there are drops)
In addition, Dal, Man., and I think Queens and Western, though I can't be bothered to confirm, all accept post-degree work in GPA calculations. That would mean about half the schools in the country, rather than the none of them you seemed to be sure about. People can't be faulted for conjecture, but come on, you can't just lie outright.
Uh, what? You know, this is fairly bold statement, given that it's patently incorrect.
U of A (which looks at the past 60 credits)]will be used in the assessment of an applicants GPA[/b]. Such courses must be completed at a senior level, unless part of a specific program of study, e.g. post graduate degrees or after degree programs. (Accepts Grad credits)
U of C
7. What is the undergraduate GPA calculation based on?
The undergraduate GPA calculation is based on an applicant’s last 20 half courses or 60 credit equivalents. This includes undergraduate courses taken after degree and during Spring/Summer sessions. Courses must be completed prior to December 31 of the year in which application is made to be considered in the GPA calculation. (Does not accept Grad credits)
UNB
The Admissions Index is determined using the applicant’s re-calculated Grade Point Average (GPA) (see below) and highest LSAT score. The GPA is weighted at 60% and the LSAT score at 40%. In recent years, the average re-calculated GPA of an admitted student has been approximately 3.8 (on a 4.3 scale) and the average LSAT score has been approximately 159. The range is typically 3.1 - 4.3 for the GPA and 150 - 173 for the LSAT.
The GPA is based on the applicant’s entire university academic record, including post-first degree work. The applicant’s marks are converted to their equivalent on the grade point scale used at the University of New Brunswick... (Of little help, given the avg., but there are drops)
In addition, Dal, Man., and I think Queens and Western, though I can't be bothered to confirm, all accept post-degree work in GPA calculations. That would mean about half the schools in the country, rather than the none of them you seemed to be sure about. People can't be faulted for conjecture, but come on, you can't just lie outright.
#21
-
- Members
- 7 posts
Posted 13 September 2008 - 06:57 AM
Put a gun to my head and I'd advise the OP to strongly consider a second undergrad. I realize that it would be a horrific pain, but mid to high achievement in a second undergrad (typically a 2-year) program would at least give at least a full further 60 credits to your name. Applying to a school which takes your last/best two would be feasible, and you could at least put off the LSAT for a year or so. Even schools that look at your full record would have some evidence of potential from the second program, and that could point to an admit in an individual circumstances category.
That being said, Belfast is a beautiful town.
That being said, Belfast is a beautiful town.
#22
-
- Members
- 44 posts
Posted 13 September 2008 - 06:35 PM
Anon. said:
Put a gun to my head and I'd advise the OP to strongly consider a second undergrad. I realize that it would be a horrific pain, but mid to high achievement in a second undergrad (typically a 2-year) program would at least give at least a full further 60 credits to your name. Applying to a school which takes your last/best two would be feasible, and you could at least put off the LSAT for a year or so.
Whooooah there... OP said he wanted to change careers, not that it's his life's mission to become a lawyer and only then can he die happy. There are other paths he can take that will cost far less and be far less risky, because let's be honest - he could very well just end up with another four year's worth of mediocre marks and >$20,000 in the hole.
He's in his mid-thirties already - maybe your advice would be feasible if OP was in his early twenties, but by the time he applies for and finishes a second undergrad, he'll be pushing forty. By the time he finishes a law degree/articling (that's assuming his marks cut it and he rewrites the LSAT and does well), it'll have been EIGHT YEARS at the very least. Not to mention at least $50,000 in tuition alone, not counting the cost of books and living expenses while going to school full time.
Even if he manages to slog through the academic portion, can you imagine the difficulty and prejudice he'd face trying to apply for articles? A guy in his forties competing with fresh young grads who have the energy to party all weekend and still pull 70 hours a week - it's just not going to happen.
For the sake of a "career change," OP should not risk falling into bankruptcy at a time when he should have a healthy nest egg saved up. I have the feeling that it's not the practice of law that OP is dreaming of, it's probably the prestige and financial security that his current occupation is not giving him. Law school is what everyone turns to when they can't think of anything else to do.
#23
-
- Members
- 7 posts
Posted 13 September 2008 - 07:30 PM
I was operating under the assumption that the OP also possessed free will, and was free to disregard any statement I made on an open message board. I mean, really, it's posted on a board fairly dedicated to law schools; "be an accountant" or an outright "don't bother", while in some cases appropriate, is fairly tangential.
#25
-
- Members
- 44 posts
Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:05 PM
Anon. said:
I was operating under the assumption that the OP also possessed free will, and was free to disregard any statement I made on an open message board. I mean, really, it's posted on a board fairly dedicated to law schools; "be an accountant" or an outright "don't bother", while in some cases appropriate, is fairly tangential.
You say that my advice and others' is "tangential"?
If you think giving a guy realistic advice instead of leading him into wasting time and money with false hopes is tangential, then I must say you'd make a fabulous ambulance chaser *ahem* injury lawyer. :lol:
#26
-
- Members
- 514 posts
- LocationThe Maritimes
Posted 18 September 2008 - 03:53 PM
"Mr. Simpson, the state bar forbids me from promising you a big cash settlement. But just between you and me, I promise you a big cash settlement. "
#27
-
- Members
- 157 posts
Posted 18 September 2008 - 05:06 PM
Anon. said:
That would mean about half the schools in the country, rather than the none of them you seemed to be sure about. People can't be faulted for conjecture, but come on, you can't just lie outright.
None of the schools that look at "last x years" or "last x credits" will accept post-degree credits as the exclusive basis for the GPA calculation.
I mentioned that U of A would look at the MA but the fact that they average the LSAT scores makes that fact moot.
Note the schools that say "courses at a senior level" - meaning that one can't just re-enrol in a new degree for x credits as one would be stuck taking the prerequisites for those senior courses.
The rest of those schools look at CGPA - and nothing is going to balance out a 1.0 CGPA to make it competitive.
You can argue that the point I made was worded poorly, but the point remains true. You've simply thrown out facts without putting them in their proper context.
#28
-
- Members
- 2,011 posts
Posted 18 September 2008 - 05:38 PM
I can't believe we're even still arguing about this. The OP's situation is thus:
His undergraduate GPA is awful. It's about as bad as it could be for a student who actually graduated.
His MA GPA is (though some may not have enough context to interpret this) below average. The B+ in grad studies is the C of law school. It passes. Not much more can be said about it. And it's from an on-line correspondence school.
His LSAT is just barely above average.
His post-school experience is marginally interesting, but only to those who think that any job is interesting because they've never held one. I know a dozen people personally who've taught English overseas.
This isn't meant to slam the OP. His situation is what it is and he came here seeking honest advice. It's meant to illustrate the fact that he is at absolute best very average in all the ways he'd be relying on to get into law school. And in case anyone is still unclear on this brutally average students are not admitted to Canadian law programs.
Anyone who has expressed the opinion that the OP should continue to hope to evade this truth based on his present situation has lost all credibility in my books. It's outside the realm of distant speculation and wholly in the realm of fantasy. IF the OP chooses to start a whole new undergraduate degree that might be different. But if he's going that route anyway, he might as well go with the UK option, no matter how many problems that comes with.
This thread, btw, is why the assholes down at Lawbuzz like to mock this site. And why we sometimes deserve it.
His undergraduate GPA is awful. It's about as bad as it could be for a student who actually graduated.
His MA GPA is (though some may not have enough context to interpret this) below average. The B+ in grad studies is the C of law school. It passes. Not much more can be said about it. And it's from an on-line correspondence school.
His LSAT is just barely above average.
His post-school experience is marginally interesting, but only to those who think that any job is interesting because they've never held one. I know a dozen people personally who've taught English overseas.
This isn't meant to slam the OP. His situation is what it is and he came here seeking honest advice. It's meant to illustrate the fact that he is at absolute best very average in all the ways he'd be relying on to get into law school. And in case anyone is still unclear on this brutally average students are not admitted to Canadian law programs.
Anyone who has expressed the opinion that the OP should continue to hope to evade this truth based on his present situation has lost all credibility in my books. It's outside the realm of distant speculation and wholly in the realm of fantasy. IF the OP chooses to start a whole new undergraduate degree that might be different. But if he's going that route anyway, he might as well go with the UK option, no matter how many problems that comes with.
This thread, btw, is why the assholes down at Lawbuzz like to mock this site. And why we sometimes deserve it.
#29
-
- Members
- 32 posts
Posted 18 September 2008 - 11:57 PM
Thank you all very much, again. Don't let my situation upset this forum.
#30
-
- Members
- 2,011 posts
Posted 19 September 2008 - 07:36 AM
kcraigsejong said:
Thank you all very much, again. Don't let my situation upset this forum.
Hey. Sorry, it's totally not your fault. You have as much right to ask for advice here as anyone, and judging by your civility probably more than most. This just happens to be a really bad example of how some people give advice based on what they wish were true (you seem like a nice guy - I wish you could easily follow your dream too!) rather than based on anything they know, should know, or bother to find out.
It totally wasn't your fault. And again, I wish you the best. I don't often advise student to go with international law schools, but if you really are a different student now and you're convinced your first year grades will reflect this, it might be one option.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
