Jump to content

Chux

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Chux

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

156 profile views
  1. Well your friend is a genious I guess and you must be too I know a bunch of people who went to law school and not a single one did anything outside of studying with the exception of one of them but she didn't do much other than help me with a couple of events. I don't think what you did is the norm sorry to say.
  2. The reading comprehension part of the test is sort of pointless because they only give you 35 minutes to read a book's worth of stuff and answer a ton of questions. Ya I didn't do so well on that section but that doesn't mean I don't understand what you guys are trying to say. Why are you being mean about it? I'm not saying that grades and LSAT are meaningless what I'm trying to say is that they shouldn't be taken for face value because they're inaccurate since they don't represent the vast majority of what a lot of potentially successful law students are capable of. I honestly don't know what a good solution is for an admissions committe but I'm saying that what they're doing now is not good enough. I'm sure you worked hard in your school but so did I and also on a bunch of stuff outside of class. Does that mean that I don't deserve the same recognition that you get? How's that fair?
  3. Obviously all of you will be for the current system because you all got in and I can understand how that would make someone feel special and say that the system is fair. I'm saying it's NOT actually fair because it's making it so an entire group of people who would be potentially great at law are not even given the CHANCE to try. @YogurtBaron thanks for your long response I think it's helpful to have someone here who also went through the same stuff I am going through but your grades are (I assume if you had a bunch of F's and I dont have any of those) worse than mine plus you have medical conditions so you would qualify for the access category--- which is actually holistic!--- so I get why you were able to get in. I disagree with what you said about admitting more lawyers would take away spots from those who "deserve" it --- I'm saying that if you re align your standards to be actually holistic and not fake holistic than more people would have chance. I don't want to list them because I know people would probably able to find out who I am if I did since I was very involved in a lot of stuff at a major Canadian university, BUT I can tell you that I was actively involved in student life as a leader in many clubs and campus wide events, I was also on committees for the university and did a ton of advocacy work for provincial and national organizations. These things obviously took up a lot of time and effort and even more than what you would end up doing for a single course which is why I am so frustrated that it's not something that matters even though it has meaning (and I think more meaning than some classes I had) I'm just trying to make a point ---- which is that Canadian law school admissions are unfair. I am not trying to argue here to change the position I'm in (I know the forum can't do anything about that) I'm trying to get a sense for why you are all so adamant about saying that the current system is great when it's not What you're saying is that you're OKAY WITH the fact that you had to put in even more time after all of the extra stuff you did in your undergrad to get int o law school? Don't you see how that's stupid? They're basically saying that nothing else but your grades matter and the whole holistic thing is a joke. See even though you had an amazing personal statement and really good EC's you STILL WEREN'T GOOD ENOUGH--- only when you got good grades were you admitted. It basically meanst that you could have totally done NOTHING but get good grades and STILL BE ADMITTED. How is that fair? How is that holistic? Me being involved in the stuff I did demonstrates leadership, ability and tenacity and that stuff makes for being a good lawyer. Not everything is about grades which is what I'm trying to say but all of you are saying that actually pretty much all that matters are grades. Of course you would because you have them! But I'm saying there is more to potential then that. OK everyone look I want to make it clear to all of you that I'm not complaining about the fact that my grades and LSAT aren't good enough for law school (well I sort of am but hear me out). I get it and I know that if I want to get into a law school in Canada I have to do something about it. The whole point of me posting here other than to vent about an unfair process is that the SYSTEM is messed up. I'm trying to say that it's biased towards a small group of high stats people who obviously see NOTHING WRONG with the system but is totally ignoring a whole group of us who actually have potential to be good but did a ton of stuff in undergrad and weren't able to spend all day in the library. I get that some of you are smarter than me of course that's a given but I know that I'm just as capable as most of you but I'm getting penalised for the extra work I put in to university life. My whole argument is about law school admissions. I know what I have to do given the current system if I want to go to law school (and I am working on it) I was just complaining that it SHOULDNT BE LIKE THIS.
  4. Well I don't know because I haven't read what those EC's are or their personal statement. Obviously knowing absolutely nothing about them and no having access to that information, I would pick people with high stats but admissions people don't have that excuse since they have everyone's file with all the information. So I can't answer your question becuase it's not that simple. I'd make a good lawyer because I am passionate and capable and have proven myself to be valuable in leadership and in the advocacy work that I've done in my undergrad. None of these things are reflected in my GPA so obviously that's where the problem is but I don't think many people would have been able to have all the experiences I did and also get amazing grades unless they were geniouses in which case well, what can I say? They definitely deserve a spot in law school but MOST PEOPLE wouldn't be able to do both. Yes I know potential is vague but that should be something that's actually measured and at least some sort of understanding of what it means because right now there isn't. I told you that my GPA doesn't reflect my academic ability because it's only a part of the stuff I did in university instead of all of it, and law schools should understand that there is an advantage to having lawyers like that (and some of us maybe can be BETTER than those with high stats but less experiences --- I'm not saying that's me in this case but still) in your class.
  5. It's not JUST about what you write I mean obviously it should be compeling and you should be passionate but it's also about WHAT YOU DID and the experiences you had. If you have a great personal statement along with an amazing set of experiences then that should impress people.
  6. Actually be "holistic" instead of just pretending they are is my suggestion. Review every personal statement (and also make it longer than the 3000 characters that it is I can't write down everything I did and all the amazing experiences I had in that much space) and rank the experiences with other applicants. I know it's subjective but so is GPA. And I am also not suggesting that grades or LSAT shouldn't be a part of admissions I mean obviously someone who has a 2.0 or failed courses shouldn't be going to law school. Not just ANY club obviously. There are a lot of people who are really dedicated and put a lot of time into student life and getting experiences. These things are valuable and could be worth more than someone who got a 4.0 if that person didn't do anything but study all the time. Involving yourself in student life exposes you to things that DO make you well rounded and set you apart from everyone else and all I am asking is that be acknowledged because it's a real thing but the problem is law schools don't care even though they pretend they do. ...ffs why does everyone think I'm a troll :\
  7. @Aang: I took it as seriously as I could with all of the extra stuff I was doing. I obviously had a lot of obligations and I couldn't just say no to them (in fact I had to take over a few times from people who just left to do one thing or another making me do more work) but what I find the most frustrating is that you read all of these "about our admissions" pages for a ton of different schools and they say how holistic they are and how much they want a diverse class with well rounded experiences ect but then at the end of the day it's actually "no sorry it turns out we don't ACTUALLY care about that what we care about is your GPA which only measures like a 1/3 of what you are actually capable of lol". It's like why even advertise all the other stuff then? I was convinced that law schools took personal statements very seriously because after all, you want a well rounded class right? People who have had EXPERIENCES? Well silly me--- @MissjE: I agree that it would take forever to go through applications but really that's what it's about. Why take shortcuts? It's like the profs that don't actually care about making good exams so they generate two dozen questions from some test bank and make you fill in some circles. Why? "because it takes too long to mark 50 papers". It's just lazy. I completely feel I would be competitive if holistic schools actually did what they say they are supposed to be doing. @SlytherinKali: I'm working on all the stuff you said but it's still very frustrating that the process is so unfair. But thanks for wishing me luck PS I disagree with people saying that the process shouldn't change it absolutely should. It's not fair to the common public to lock potentially really good lawyers out of law school.
  8. No I understand that law school grading works like you say. I think that's fine because the whole point of UNDERGRAD is to have huge life changing experiences AND learn things so you become a better person. Obviously your going to have to hunker down for law school and that makes a lot of sense. If that's all you're doing then the way they grade you is fair. @ilovetacos I am strongly thinking about going to the US because I their system allows you to PROVE that you're going to be a good lawyer since they will actually give you a chance. But I don't want to stay in the US and I have read enough about the whole foreign degree thing to know that I'd have a super hard time getting jobs in Canada. But I'm still thinking about it. Also "they have stats and reputation to maintain" --- it's nice that Canadian schools are more interested in showing how great they are than giving people who have great potential to be lawyers a chance to serve clients (and I can imagine how many of them would actually be really good)
  9. ok I'm not talking about people who decide to go to law school after they've had a real job for several years. I can obviously see the reason why they would be admitted with that extra experience. I'm talking about people who go straight out of university. I mean if that's not something that law schools will even consider then why is it an option? People keep saying that their admissions are "holistic" but it's really really untrue if all they will take are 4.0 students and older people (and before someone calls me on it obviously I'm exagerating). If someone can't handle the work in law school then they'll fail out. I think that's perfectly fine. I don't think my GPA shows my academic ability because a whole piece of the university experience is missing from it. All you see by looking at a GPA is what a prof thought your work was worth in their class not what you are capable of OR what stuff you did ON TOP of the work for that prof. For example I held an event where 200 people came out to it and organized speakers and activities and everything from food to transportation and so on. It took MONTHS to plan for the whole thing. Isn't that worth AT LEAST the same as a 3 our final exam? Where is that on my transcript?? This is what I'm talking about and why I think it's unfair to just look at a number and go "oh that guy can't cut it" --- really?? And I can imagine how much more difficult it is to actually PRACTICE law once you are done with law school. But again if you suck at it then you won't get any clients (or you probably would not have made it through law school) so I don't think that's a problem either. Also I know no one called me stupid in this topic. In the one you linked to me the guy said "you just aren't that smart" which is what I was talking about when I said I'm not stupid.
  10. A B- is perfectly acceptable for masters programs, why is it not good enough for law school? Also I know my LSAT is not that great but I'm working on it--- again it was about time which I didn't have (and barely have now but again I'm working on it). And honestly think about how many people could have become amazing lawyers even though they didn't get super high grades in school. Giving people a chance to live up to their POTENTIAL is the most important and would be the best thing for everyone involved (including clients who may be missing out on great lawyers)
  11. Obviously grades are important to a point. I think WHY you want to be a lawyer is also really important (you always hear of those people who go into jobs like law or medicine who do it only for the money and don't care about anyone's welfair). I also think that your success in law school should be a huge sign of whether or not you're going to do your job right. That's why the US system makes so much sense --- people can get in with average grades (and maybe get in to better schools with above average grades) and they have to PROVE that they're good where it matters, not before they can even try at all.
  12. I can agree with some parts of that post but a lot of it is unfair. I can see how what I wrote sounds a lot like the sour grapes section but I don't have sour grapes I'm just criticising the system which I think is a legitimate criticism. To go there and call me not smart is just plain rude. Obviously someone who disagrees with the extremely high requirements of law school is an idiot right? That's totally not fair and very mean. I'm not stupid at all.
  13. OK I'm sure that there are some people who are able to do way more than I did and still get super amazing grades. I'm not saying I'm a genious or anything so obviously there will be people who have a 4.0 and a high LSAT and were president of the student federation or something. But WHY is that necessary? That's what I'm trying to get across. What about the people who didn't have the time to do that or weren't some sort of prodigy? I think that's doing an injustice to the whole profession if only those people are admitted because it's not holistic at all. And I'm studying to retake the LSAT but I'm working a full time job now and I don't have a lot of time. Back when I did take it I was very wrapped up in my extra cirriculars so I didn't really have a chance to study. I'm working on it but I have a hard time seeing why SOME PARTS (not all of it) of the test are important at all.
  14. @msk2012 ok when I said nothing else what I meant was that in terms of university life they didn't participate as much as they could because they spent what time they had studying. Probably "nothing else" was a bad way to say it but that's what I meant.
  15. I promise you this isn't a troll post I'm sorry if it came off like that I'm just super frustrated is all.
×
×
  • Create New...