75 replies to this topic

[CaptainCrunchMan]

muffins, on 14 February 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

I am equally surprised at the 3.5/169 rejection. Did you use any racist language in your PS (just kidding)?
Maybe an LOR back fired.

I wonder if its a 3.5 OLSAS though. Sometimes there is a significant discrepancy between GPA as calculated by your home institution and OLSAS. And Ottawa is a GPA school, so a 3.5 OLSAS is probably too low...although I am surprised they got dinged so early!

lawlady11, on 14 February 2012 - 06:30 PM, said:

Not yet (and forgot to answer, finishing my BAH this year!) Applied to Queen's, UBC, Dal, Osgoode, and Western besides Ottawa...

I'm surprised you haven't got Dal/Queens/UWO yet, assuming as I mentioned above that your 3.5 is in fact your OLSAS GPA. Maybe your PS/LORs weren't so good?

[muffins]

It must have been softs, LORs or PS that did it in for this person assuming that 3.5/169 is an accurate representation of his/her stats.

I find it unfathomable that a law school would reject someone with those stats and reasonable softs/ps/lors. Ottawa can be an unpredictable school though.

[meager]

Jax29, on 14 February 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

Question about course load - would taking 4.5 credits in my 4th year be okay if I took 6 full credit courses in my third year (two 0.5 credit courses in the summer)?

I'm not sure how it works at Ottawa, but at Osgoode for example, when looking at your last two/best two years, they'll look at two years which add up to 60 credits meaning, if you 'overloaded' in one year (fall-winter-summer), it can compensate for a reduced course load in another year, as long as you have 60 credits worth across two years.

If that didn't make sense, I can dig up an email from the admissions office that explains it a lot better.
How Western and Queen's look at it I'm not sure of.

[Rathergofishing]

meager, on 14 February 2012 - 09:01 PM, said:

I'm not sure how it works at Ottawa, but at Osgoode for example, when looking at your last two/best two years, they'll look at two years which add up to 60 credits meaning, if you 'overloaded' in one year (fall-winter-summer), it can compensate for a reduced course load in another year, as long as you have 60 credits worth across two years.

If that didn't make sense, I can dig up an email from the admissions office that explains it a lot better.
How Western and Queen's look at it I'm not sure of.

Many York students who applied in this and last 2 cycles may have impacted by the "strike" in 2009. Most can have to either drop some courses or have to add one more year. Like myself, I have to add another year so that I can complete.

To add up to last 2/Best 2 60+ credits, I need the last 3 years for 63 credits ( 27 credits, 18 credits and 18 credits). My first and second years' mark weren't that great and I hope they don't take any one of those 2 years with 30 credits each.

I also worked 30 hours a years during the last 3 years to pay ffor my own tuition too. Are they not penalizing those who has to work and unable to take a full course load then ?

[staffer]

Rathergofishing, on 15 February 2012 - 08:06 AM, said:

Many York students who applied in this and last 2 cycles may have impacted by the "strike" in 2009. Most can have to either drop some courses or have to add one more year. Like myself, I have to add another year so that I can complete.

To add up to last 2/Best 2 60+ credits, I need the last 3 years for 63 credits ( 27 credits, 18 credits and 18 credits). My first and second years' mark weren't that great and I hope they don't take any one of those 2 years with 30 credits each.

I also worked 30 hours a years during the last 3 years to pay ffor my own tuition too. Are they not penalizing those who has to work and unable to take a full course load then ?

We're all just speculating based on past cycles. I don't think anyone here can answer such a specific question - you should contact the adcomm.

[Phoenix-Wright]

lawlady11, on 14 February 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

Rejected today as well. Really...Valentine's DAY!?
CGPA: 3.5
LSAT: 169

Rejected with a 3.5/169?! This is blasphemy! This is madness!

Madness? No, THIS IS UOttawa!!

[Bonin18]

Lol. Sorry to hear that phenox. Their loss really, solid stats!

Edited by Bonin18, 15 February 2012 - 04:05 PM.

[alex88]

meager, on 14 February 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

Lawlady1, did you take a full course load throughout undergrad? Full course load as in 5 half year classes per term, 10 in a year?
I know some students with stellar stats were denied acceptance because they took a "full-time course" load which was not necessarily a full course load while in their undergrad.

I was accepted to U of O for 2012 and my stats are 3.5, 165. Took 4 classes a semester most semesters (because of AP credits from high school). Looks like the acceptance process is really a crap shoot. Mind you I hear that the personal statement is weighted quite heavily.

[alex88]

CaptainCrunchMan, on 14 February 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

I wonder if its a 3.5 OLSAS though. Sometimes there is a significant discrepancy between GPA as calculated by your home institution and OLSAS. And Ottawa is a GPA school, so a 3.5 OLSAS is probably too low...although I am surprised they got dinged so early!



I'm surprised you haven't got Dal/Queens/UWO yet, assuming as I mentioned above that your 3.5 is in fact your OLSAS GPA. Maybe your PS/LORs weren't so good?

I have a 3.5 OLSAS and was accepted. "Maybe your PS/LORs weren't so good" - starting to wonder this too.

[S.N.A.I.L.]

If you are rejected this early with a 3.5/169 you must have really messed up your personal statement.... or you are lying.

[tng11]

S.N.A.I.L., on 16 February 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

If you are rejected this early with a 3.5/169 you must have really messed up your personal statement.... or you are lying.

Rubbish. There's a lot more to this process than we think there is.

[vanillacupcakes3]

S.N.A.I.L., on 16 February 2012 - 07:35 AM, said:

If you are rejected this early with a 3.5/169 you must have really messed up your personal statement.... or you are lying.

tng11, on 16 February 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

Rubbish. There's a lot more to this process than we think there is.

Agreed, lets not speculate about things we quite honestly don't know about. Thank you to lawlady for giving us the information you did, let's not deter people from information sharing by making allegations...

[Yoshi]

I could get crucified for saying this, but honestly I'm glad to hear that a high LSAT does not guarantee a spot at Ottawa (no offense to lawlady, who I am sure is a great candidate and who will get in at another equally as good or better school). Let's face it, the LSAT is just a hoop to jump through and is not really all that relevant to law school despite LSAC's attempts to legitimize its use through statistical analysis. And yes, I am speaking from the perspective of someone who did not do all that great on the LSAT, but I don't think the difference between how you answer 5 multiple choice questions on the exam (say the difference between the mid-150's and 160) should actually hold as much weight as it does in the admission process. All this said, I think that Ottawa may be one of those schools that, for whatever reason, just does not rely on the LSAT as an indicator of Law School success as much as other schools do and that this characteristic is not necessarily a negative one.

Once again, this is just my opinion so others can and should disagree if they feel I am distorting or misrepresenting any information.

[WannaBeLaw99]

Yoshi, on 16 February 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

I could get crucified for saying this, but honestly I'm glad to hear that a high LSAT does not guarantee a spot at Ottawa (no offense to lawlady, who I am sure is a great candidate and who will get in at another equally as good or better school). Let's face it, the LSAT is just a hoop to jump through and is not really all that relevant to law school despite LSAC's attempts to legitimize its use through statistical analysis. And yes, I am speaking from the perspective of someone who did not do all that great on the LSAT, but I don't think the difference between how you answer 5 multiple choice questions on the exam (say the difference between the mid-150's and 160) should actually hold as much weight as it does in the admission process. All this said, I think that Ottawa may be one of those schools that, for whatever reason, just does not rely on the LSAT as an indicator of Law School success as much as other schools do and that this characteristic is not necessarily a negative one.

Once again, this is just my opinion so others can and should disagree if they feel I am distorting or misrepresenting any information.

That's a can of worms that didn't need to be opened in this thread. That discussion's been had ad infinitum, and, from what I've seen every time it gets brought up, the LSAT and an applicant's GPA are relatively equal as measures of future law school grades. The LSAT might just be another hoop to jump through, but strictly in the sense that achieving a high GPA is a jumping through a hoop. That said, Ottawa's strategy of almost totally ignoring LSAT scores in reviewing applicants is definitely interesting, as it gives applicants (with phenomenal GPAs) who may have scored lower than their potential a legitimately great option, if they're not inclined to attempt scoring higher.

Edited by WannaBeLaw99, 16 February 2012 - 10:33 PM.

[Yoshi]

WannaBeLaw99, on 16 February 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

That's a can of worms that didn't need to be opened in this thread. That discussion's been had ad infinitum, and, from what I've seen every time it gets brought up, the LSAT and an applicant's GPA are relatively equal as measures of future law school grades. The LSAT might just be another hoop to jump through, but strictly in the sense that achieving a high GPA is a jumping through a hoop. That said, Ottawa's strategy of almost totally ignoring LSAT scores in reviewing applicants is definitely interesting, as it gives applicants (with phenomenal GPAs) who may have scored lower than their potential a legitimately great option, if they're not inclined to attempt scoring higher.

Well you may be correct in calling attention to the frequent and redundant manner by which this topic is brought up, I would justify my decision to make such a statement as follows:

Many people in this post seem a little disheveled about the fact that someone with a high LSAT and decent GPA could be rejected from law school and seem to act as though something is wrong with the school or imply that the person may be being dishonest about their stats. While I wouldn't preclude the possibility of either of the former claims, I was attempting to merely posit that perhaps Ottawa's system of admission is simply different than other schools and that this difference does not necessarily imply inferior standards. I know the validity of the LSAT has been argued tooth and nail - and here I would put my personal doubts about it aside for the moment - but wanted to say that just because one school doesn't take it as seriously as others should not be taken as an indication that arbitrary standards are therefore at work. Just a suggestion. I was not looking to open up Pandora's box as you may or may not have been anticipating.

[theprophet89]

Yoshi, on 16 February 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

Well you may be correct in calling attention to the frequent and redundant manner by which this topic is brought up, I would justify my decision to make such a statement as follows:

Many people in this post seem a little disheveled about the fact that someone with a high LSAT and decent GPA could be rejected from law school and seem to act as though something is wrong with the school or imply that the person may be being dishonest about their stats. While I wouldn't preclude the possibility of either of the former claims, I was attempting to merely posit that perhaps Ottawa's system of admission is simply different than other schools and that this difference does not necessarily imply inferior standards. I know the validity of the LSAT has been argued tooth and nail - and here I would put my personal doubts about it aside for the moment - but wanted to say that just because one school doesn't take it as seriously as others should not be taken as an indication that arbitrary standards are therefore at work. Just a suggestion. I was not looking to open up Pandora's box as you may or may not have been anticipating.

We all wrote the same LSAT, but we didn't all do the same program/school. You could get a 4.0 from the shittiest school in Canada taught by nobody academics and be accepted to Ottawa.

You said it pretty well yourself, "this is coming from someone who didn't do well on the LSAT". I'm glad you were able to work hard and get that 4.0, but I don't think law school is for you if you can't figure out a 3 hour test. If you can't read a passage and explain the key components, then all the time in the world isn't going to get you through law school.

Rejecting a 169 in any circumstance is simply retarded. This person was in the TOP 5% of writers. Who the hell cares why they're GPA is only mediocre (3.5 is mediocre? da fuck?). Bad professors, bad school, illness, loss of loved ones, not giving a fuck, all lead to a bad GPA. If you can't figure out the LSAT, you simply do not think with the adequate level of intellect to survive the legal profession.

I wouldn't want a 150 writer as my lawyer. Imagine the "logic" they'd practice in court.

Edited by theprophet89, 17 February 2012 - 05:40 PM.

[Newfamous]

theprophet89, on 17 February 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

We all wrote the same LSAT, but we didn't all do the same program/school. You could get a 4.0 from the shittiest school in Canada taught by nobody academics and be accepted to Ottawa.

You said it pretty well yourself, "this is coming from someone who didn't do well on the LSAT". I'm glad you were able to work hard and get that 4.0, but I don't think law school is for you if you can't figure out a 3 hour test. If you can't read a passage and explain the key components, then all the time in the world isn't going to get you through law school.

Rejecting a 169 in any circumstance is simply retarded. This person was in the TOP 5% of writers. Who the hell cares why they're GPA is only mediocre (3.5 is mediocre? da fuck?). Bad professors, bad school, illness, loss of loved ones, not giving a fuck, all lead to a bad GPA. If you can't figure out the LSAT, you simply do not think with the adequate level of intellect to survive the legal profession.

I wouldn't want a 150 writer as my lawyer. Imagine the "logic" they'd practice in court.

Q: This argument is most weakened by...

A: The premise of the argument rests upon multiple assumptions.

Edited by Newfamous, 17 February 2012 - 07:29 PM.

[mashl030]

theprophet89, and your inaccurate and obscene use of the word 'retarded' shows your lack of intelligence. Was that really necessary?

[Yoshi]

theprophet89, on 17 February 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

We all wrote the same LSAT, but we didn't all do the same program/school. You could get a 4.0 from the shittiest school in Canada taught by nobody academics and be accepted to Ottawa.

You said it pretty well yourself, "this is coming from someone who didn't do well on the LSAT". I'm glad you were able to work hard and get that 4.0, but I don't think law school is for you if you can't figure out a 3 hour test. If you can't read a passage and explain the key components, then all the time in the world isn't going to get you through law school.

Rejecting a 169 in any circumstance is simply retarded. This person was in the TOP 5% of writers. Who the hell cares why they're GPA is only mediocre (3.5 is mediocre? da fuck?). Bad professors, bad school, illness, loss of loved ones, not giving a fuck, all lead to a bad GPA. If you can't figure out the LSAT, you simply do not think with the adequate level of intellect to survive the legal profession.

I wouldn't want a 150 writer as my lawyer. Imagine the "logic" they'd practice in court.

wow

that was simply something.

I don't disagree that the LSAT has its uses, I just have some skepticism about its overall validity and I am entitled to question that point as you are also entitled to disagree with me. Everyone who did well on the LSAT should be proud that they did so, but those who do not do as well are not necessarily of inferior intelligence or are somehow slackers; people learn and think in diverse ways and a 3 hour test may not always do justice to ones abilities. Also, you really don't know anything about my intelligence simply from the fact that I did somewhat mediocre on a standardized test. You also seem to make a whole base of assumptions regarding the LSAT; remember it is not an I.Q. test. All this said, you should really learn some etiquette for expressing your opinions in a respectful manner because the way you addressed me would not work very well if it was in the context of a professional environment.

As for Ottawa, I hear it is an excellent school.

[Radfahrer]

theprophet89, on 17 February 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

We all wrote the same LSAT, but we didn't all do the same program/school. You could get a 4.0 from the shittiest school in Canada taught by nobody academics and be accepted to Ottawa.

You said it pretty well yourself, "this is coming from someone who didn't do well on the LSAT". I'm glad you were able to work hard and get that 4.0, but I don't think law school is for you if you can't figure out a 3 hour test. If you can't read a passage and explain the key components, then all the time in the world isn't going to get you through law school.

Rejecting a 169 in any circumstance is simply retarded. This person was in the TOP 5% of writers. Who the hell cares why they're GPA is only mediocre (3.5 is mediocre? da fuck?). Bad professors, bad school, illness, loss of loved ones, not giving a fuck, all lead to a bad GPA. If you can't figure out the LSAT, you simply do not think with the adequate level of intellect to survive the legal profession.

I wouldn't want a 150 writer as my lawyer. Imagine the "logic" they'd practice in court.

I hope I'm not going to the same school as you if this is reflective of your attitude in real life. There's a huge sense of self-entitlement you're deriving from a 3-hour test, one that people may not do very well on because of nerves, illness, test centre distractions or whatever reason, so the same types of reasons you mentioned for a bad GPA. The thing is, the GPA actually demonstrates years of work, not just a single test. Most schools are forgiving enough to overlook a year or two of bad grades, and I'd actually be more concerned if someone couldn't show good and consistent academic performance for sometime at least.

I like the LSAT because I think it's a test that resembles law school examinations since you have to digest lots of text within a very time constrained period, but there's only so much it can tell about an applicant. Law schools aren't looking to build classes filled with drones who did the best on a 3 hour test, they're looking for a well-rounded group of people which is not only good for the school's image, but for yourself (why the hell would you want to be around people who do nothing but study all day?) I say this as someone who got a high LSAT (99% percentile) and had a sub 3.6 GPA which seems mediocre compared to applicants here.

There is something more to the applicant getting rejected with a 169/3.5. Ottawa has already accepted a lower GPA than that, which proves that they're not just accepting purely on numbers (the UG major might have an impact.) Osgoode, Queen's, Western would all be glad to have those numbers, and if the same poster gets shut out of the 2 or all of them, there definitely was something wrong with the application.

[danman99]

Hate to be "that guy", but this is still the "rejected 2012" thread. Let us keep to the topic, no?

[Bonin18]

I understand why a few of you are offended by prophets use of words but to say the lsat is simply a "three hour test" is also a bit ridiculous. I think we can safely assume that a majority (lets put on our lsat caps, "at least 51%") of test takers earn their scores through a grueling preparation process. A successful score certainly gives an admissions committee at least some sense of the applicants aptitude.

In addition to this I think a good argument can be made by suggesting that it is a good equalizer. Study music, engineering, or science, we all must face the lsat. The best arguments made against the test (IMO) is that not all applicants have an equal amount of resources to compete fairly, such as the means neccessary to take time away from work when they are buried in undergrad debt, etc, etc.

Let's not get bitter here, people. Some people rock UG, some rock the lsat, some both....deal with it

[johnalm]

You know, it just kind of dawned upon me- you tell most people you have a 3.5 cgpa: people would be like "wow, great job man!"

But when it comes to this forum: 3.7 we call rock bottom. 3.8~3.9 is average. 4.0 is the only thing we call "good" lol.
3.5...god help you, your this close to failing!

Edited by johnalm, 22 February 2012 - 09:11 PM.

[staffer]

johnalm, on 22 February 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

You know, it just kind of dawned upon me- you tell most people you have a 3.5 cgpa: people would be like "wow, great job man!"

But when it comes to this forum: 3.7 we call rock bottom. 3.8~3.9 is average. 4.0 is the only thing we call "good" lol.
3.5...god help you, your this close to failing!

I think the combination of self-selection and people lying about their stats makes this a really overlooked issue. Keep in mind that the median GPA for Ottawa is only 3.7 - ie half of the people they admit have a GPA lower than that.

[Lawl]

Exit stage left for me (i.e. rejected), as of yesterday afternoon or today.

cgpa: 3.1 ("THERE'S yer problem!")
best 2: 3.6ish (might be a bit higher, but not 3.7)
last 2: not sure, but worse than best 2 by a smidgen.
lsat: 166

Edited by Lawl, 23 February 2012 - 09:05 AM.

[Phoenix-Wright]

Lawl, on 23 February 2012 - 09:04 AM, said:

Exit stage left for me (i.e. rejected), as of yesterday afternoon or today.

cgpa: 3.1 ("THERE'S yer problem!")
best 2: 3.6ish (might be a bit higher, but not 3.7)
last 2: not sure, but worse than best 2 by a smidgen.
lsat: 166

Its not you, its them.

They didn't deserve you anyways.

[longtimenosee]

Where do you see the status change on Infoweb? I haven't been rejected yet but I've got worse stats than quite a few people who've already been rejected... makes me think I'm looking in the wrong spot. I click on Admission, Faculty of Law, then it says:
You have applied for admission to the following direct access undergraduate program:
Fall 2012 - Juris Doctor
After I click that, it just says my application will receive fair consideration, etc...

Edited by longtimenosee, 23 February 2012 - 11:20 AM.

[Lawl]

Don't give me that it's not you it's me bullshit! At least have the decency to give it to me straight!!

haha just playin, I'm not particularly upset, Ottawa was a hail mary.

Longtimenosee: yes, that's what was updated. Until yesterday or today it said the same, that it will receive fair consideration etc, and when I logged in today round 11 am the message had changed.

[Political-Sal]

I have a question guys. Does Ottawa look primarily at your cGPA? Or does it mostly factor in your second year grades more favorably? Or do we even know?

[johnalm]

I think Ottawa is more of a cGPA school. They will even write off a horrible LSAT if you have a good cGPA.