This sounds exhausting, and I struggle to see how it’s a rebuttal of the point others are making, which is that they should do a diagnostic and see if they need to waste time learning about the four kinds of logic games or whatever.  A bunch of people just have reasonably good logical reasoning skills and so don’t need to draw little doodles or whatever.

Hmm. I scored in the ~95th percentile when I wrote the LSAT and was PT'ing in the 170s -- so, might be worth providing my own personal viewpoint here as it seems to be an alternative one. It's interesting to me that people believe the LSAT is more of a natural aptitude test opposed to a preparation test nowadays. I could see this being the case more in the past (before an abundance of prep materials were so widely accessible). However, I would definitely say preparation is more important for achieving a high score.  The LSAT has become formulaic in a large sense. Preparation resources and platforms have made it so Logical Reasoning and Logic Games questions could be answered using quite foolproof systems. I remember when I was doing Games, I was able to break down the questions into one of four types. Based off that, I would use a specific chart and corresponding system that led to me always scoring 23/23 (I would get the odd substitution question wrong 1/10 tests). This was not really due to me having an aptitude for the LSAT but, instead, developing a strong, consistent system through preparation. The same was true for the LR section. If you could identify what type of question it is,  preparation resources nowadays provide candidates with a system to accurately answer these questions.  To hammer this point home: I had a close friend who was writing at the same sitting as me who had a diagnostic score, in what I believe, was the low 140s. The LSAT did not come naturally to him at all. He really struggled for the first month or so. He ended up scoring higher than me and insane LSAT preparation is one of the main factors he attributes to getting into UofT.  I guess I'll conclude by saying if the goal is a score of 159-162 (around ~80th percentile and usually good enough for law school admission to majority of the schools in Canada if you also satisfy the GPA requirements), then prep is still important but less so. This score is probably achievable by just doing some practice tests/questions. But, if you want anything higher, you're probably going to have to prepare heavily and develop strategies and consistent frameworks for answering questions. 

Extensive prep is obviously good for increasing admission chances. The reason to not prep extensively is that too much prep will likely inflate your sense of competence. If it takes you a year of study to achieve the median score at your target school, you should really reflect on whether you should attend that school. Because I guarantee that most your future classmates won’t have taken a year of prep to get that score, and you’ll likely underperform compared to them, as learning to write the LSAT is not the same as developing mastery over the skills for which the LSAT tests you.  By speaking about a year of prep, I’m picking an extreme. It’s all on a continuum, so it’s obviously not the same for those who needed less time to prep. But it’s not a bad idea to recognize when you’ve reached the limit of developing your natural aptitude and transitioned into purely grinding the test, stop there, just write the test, and apply with the score you get. 

Lol I understand what aptitude means. I'm saying that it's not the only factor in determining your LSAT score. Your aptitude is going to determine your starting point and your upper limit. Where you score in that range will be determined by how you prepare for the test. 

Same issue over here, rather unimpressed. Even if it's supposed to end access before articling (which wasn't my understanding at opening, and is ostensibly counter to the TD website which notes access continues during "post-graduate training" -- although admittedly it doesn't expressly clarify whether articling counts), you'd think they'd at least wait until June (when you graduate and cease to be an actively enrolled student) or August (when you usually get prompted to re-prove student status) and at least give some kind of notice before suddenly placing a hold against further drawing from it (no messages in my account; nothing on my account statements leading up; just a hold abruptly placed on an arbitrary day).  Thankfully I don't "need" it, but I imagine some may have found themselves in for a surprise the night of April 30 when trying to draw rent money from their abruptly-frozen line of credit. Poor form. Did you get it resolved? Worse case, you could probably still open a PSLOC with Scotia and transfer over any balance to close out the TD. 

Aim for the highest LSAT you can get, don't put a limit or don't tell yourself that there's a 'safe score'. People got rejected from Oz this cycle with very high stats. So, it's hard to tell you.  https://lsutil.azurewebsites.net/CGPA - calculate your cGPA here first.  Your ECs are average and the same level with the majority of KJDs.  Apply access sure but there's other reasons of applying access too, your situation may fit depending on what it says on the websites. Take a look at it and maybe your situation does qualify.  Focus on the LSAT, just take it and if you get high 160s, you have a good shot provided your cGPA is 3.5 per OLSAS.  Hard to chance you without an LSAT on file. That's why on the "Chances" page it says "When creating a new thread, please include your cGPA and LSAT in the post title."

I asked someone who was waitlisted in April on Reddit and they said that their email also said “summer waitlist”. Since then they’ve been accepted, so there’s some hope out there ! Just thought I’d add that here for those interested. Best of luck to all 😊