Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by BlockedQuebecois

  1. The best part of this absurd thread is that I, according to the Dosko theory of college enrolment, washed out of my psychology major after getting 96% in the course and then went on to my "second choice" of one of the more academically rigorous hard sciences.
  2. Popularity of major does not equal popularity of declared major for first year students. Before getting snarky you should check to see you've googled the right thing.
  3. What's the point of pointing out a timeless imperfection if you don't suggest a solution?
  4. This is kind of a red herring. Nobody is saying that uGPA is a perfect predictor of 1L success, they're saying that on the population level uGPA is a decent predictor of 1L success. Now, are there better metrics? For sure. uGPA relative to their class and adjusted for average high school GPA of the admitted class would likely be a really strong predictor. But we don't have that information, and in a world of incomplete information, we have to try out best to make the decisions we can with the data we have, which is where the LSAT comes in (as providence and 0joe said). It's an objective piece of data to accompany the possibly subjective piece of data and help make the best decision possible. Anyways, I'll note (along the lines of @Diplock's comment) that most of the complaints about "harder" programs or schools comes from students that didn't manage to do well in the "harder" program or school. If we took them seriously we'd end up with ridiculous scenarios where the easiest science major at the second best university in a city is considered "hard enough" to make up for well below average grades.
  5. Yes, the LSAC study and many other independent ones. Even studies which purport that uGPA and LSAT are overvalued as predictors accept as a premise that they are predictors. If you've got evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it though.
  6. Do you honestly think high scoring applicants like your hypothetical would not get in? I imagine that students likely to succeed would be likely to be given a loan (or scholarship by the school), and students unlikely to succeed would not. The only big effect I see happening would be that the children of rich parents would no longer be heading abroad to study law, they'd stay at home. Anyways, I feel like we're branching a bit from what I said. I think that expanding admission is a bad idea and a bad outcome for nearly every party involved. I just don't necessarily think it's "unethical".
  7. Nah, the LSAT at least is definitely a bit racist, just like the SAT. Hey look, @providence and I agree on something social justice related!
  8. I don't think funding would be that big an issue. If banks refused to loan the money then admission rates would fall until law schools stepped in and addressed the problem, likely by making admissions standards more rigorous in order to make the loans more attractive to banks. Either that or by providing more scholarships to high academic achievers. Either way, schools in the US are able to pull it off, is there something structurally different about Canada that makes it impossible? Re: ethics, though there is definitely information asymmetries, I don't think it's that significant. Your chosen example is more an example of students being willfully ignorant or not doing sufficient research than it is a lack of available information.
  9. I don't see why this would be unconscionable, and no, you don't refund them. If people want to spend thousands of dollars for a 50% chance of passing 1L then let them. These are smart people with undergraduate degrees (or at least 3 years of them). As long as the failure rate is not hidden I see nothing "unconscionable" about it, in principle. Though @maximumbob's post made me think we should not allow them to use government student loans on this endeavour.
  10. You think that blindly guessing on a multiple choice test with 5 answers per question would result in you getting ~30% right?
  11. It would impact thousands of people, not "some". It would impact every student who is currently able to get into law school on their own merits under the current admission scheme.
  12. I don't think there's any serious discussion about this from decision makers, and though I'm worried this is going to go off track quickly, I'll engage briefly. There is strong evidence that the LSAT and uGPA are predictive of 1L success, with the LSAT being more predictive. That means that, on a population level, the LSAT and GPA are not an admission barrier to students who would otherwise excel. Now there are definitely exceptions, but law schools have already identified those exceptions and taken steps to admit them. Nearly every Canadian law school offers some form of "access" category, as well as some type of "mature" category. Those categories are ostensibly designed to admit students who are the exception. I've yet to see any compelling argument that there are a significant numbers of students who have no access or mature claim that would excel in law school. If someone has evidence of this they can present it, but I doubt it exists. Not only this, but we have an excellent natural experiment to see what would happen if professional schools lowered their standards – Caribean medical schools. And what we see is that a tiny fraction of students manage to progress, an even smaller number manage to secure residencies, and those that do are often not very professionally successful. And do you know why that is? Because uGPA and MCAT scores are predictive of medical school success. So, what you would end up with is a mirror of the Caribean medical school system in Canadian law schools, with an unidentified but likely very small number of students benefiting and thousands of students, who can currently get into law schools in Canada, suffering the myriad downsides (larger classes, likely increased costs, less time with professors, more scarcity in clinic opportunities, etc).
  13. But I just bought a new club and I haven't even had the chance to take the sticker off yet... (Fair warning, I'll edit it down)
  14. LSAC articles almost always concern American law schools, not Canadian ones.
  15. Sigh, okay, let's tackle this "science" myth. I really didn't want to, because I don't think it's terribly productive, but I'm getting a bit tired of you indirectly trashing other degrees. Before I start, let me state that I'm a science graduate who took the same core courses as you – though I'll note that I also took upper-level mathematics, chemistry (organic, inorganic, and physical), biochemistry, and microbiology courses. First, the facts: law schools, by and large, don't care about the "difficulty" of your degree. The only Ontario school to openly acknowledge degree difficulty is U of T, and it's a pretty open secret that they really only take that into account for the truly difficult sciences. That means engineering, math, and probably physics. Biology is not what anyone would consider a difficult science degree. And let's be real, even if U of T I'm unconvinced that biology is even marginally more difficult than most humanities degrees. In fact, I'm so unconvinced of that argument that I would go so far as to say biology is widely regarded as the easiest science degree. Amongst my classmates, 400 level biology courses were taken as "easy" electives. Not only that, people in my program complained when they had exhausted their science electives and were forced to head over to the philosophy or history departments to have their asses kicked by a form of thinking that is completely foreign to most science undergrads. That's right, people in my program preferred taking the most "difficult" biology courses over 200 level courses in the humanities. Your "woe is me" act regarding your degree will not win you friends, and it certainly won't get you accepted to law school. Doubly so for your absurd proposition that your hypothetical 4.0 would have gotten you "eaten up by Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Osgoode, [and] UofT". You're not that smart. If you were, you would have done better in your science courses. Think about this: a 3.2 is likely right around median for your degree. That means that ~50% of your classmates did better than you over the course of their degrees. Not only that, if we drop your 4.0 sociology courses (since you view them as throw away courses), you're likely in, what, the bottom third of your class? You didn't shoot yourself in the foot by taking biology. You shot yourself in the foot by not doing well at it. /rant
  16. Not wanting to move out and being unable to afford it are different things. As I said, some schools have lower tuition that would partially or completely offset the cost of moving out. With roommates it may even save you money.
  17. No, I just wanted to correct your statement regarding GPAs. You're an edge case at Osgoode. If you were to score very well on the LSAT (2020 is probably right, around a 170) and write a compelling personal statement with part B (for mental health) filled out you may have a chance, but I also wouldn't be surprised if you were rejected. Do you have any extracurriculars or other strengths? Why can you only afford Osgoode? Several universities have tuition much lower than Osgoode. That could partially or completely offset the cost of moving. For example, UBC's tuition is currently around 11k or so. (P.S. @JDhopeful2020, Osgoode doesn't have "access claims", just part B considerations. I'm sure that's what you meant, but I thought I should clarify for OPs sake) ETA: I think your extracurriculars are interesting. That would likely help you. No idea what "politics" you're referring to though.
  18. This year there were no self-reported (on this site) applicants accepted with a GPA in the 2.0s this year. The lowest regular applicant accepted had a GPA of 3.29.
  19. OSAP doesn't have unlimited funds – some people getting more does mean that someone is going to get less. Maybe not this year, but at some point in the future. The idea that OSAP should only consider tuition costs is equally absurd. Why should you, living at home, have lower private debt and more public funding than the person living away from home paying the same tuition? That's the absurd proposition here.
  20. What are you talking about, OSAP is definitely distributing a set amount of funds between a number of people. And OSAP does consider the tuition costs in their calculation – if your tuition costs were lower OSAP would provide less money.
  21. The absurdity of what situation? Nothing about the situation is absurd. You're saving tens of thousands of dollars by living at home, so the government isn't going to give you tens of thousands of dollars because there are people not living at home that will have higher costs. That's not absurd, and it makes perfect sense.
  22. You're not being punished for it, the government is acknowledging that you'll save tens of thousands of dollars by living at home and therefore funnelling that money to students who are in worse financial shape that can't live at home, for a variety of reasons. I can't even imagine the thought process you must have to feel so entitled that this is "unfair" and that you're "being punished". Yeesh.
  • Create New...