HopefulLawyer97

yes. they admit separately.

You’ll need 160+ to get the GMAT waived at both schools. Should be ok for Queens and Western law as per the last 2 years CGPA. Not sure if you know but Ivey requires a minimum solid 2 years work experience for admission. Most regular track MBAs will have 4-5 years. Smith prefers work experience but it is not necessary. I was told that they’ll waive it for otherwise exceptional candidates.

My two cents: The Canadian legal market is fine. UofT, Osgoode, Queens and Western all have articling rates over 90%. The remaining 10% or so typically either pursue a non-conventional career or further academic study. While all articling positions aren't made equal, the likelihood you being unemployed or even underemployed after graduating from one of these schools is low. Comparing the US market to the Canadian market is like comparing apples and oranges. First off, the school "prestige" factor is much more important in landing a job (any job) in the US than Canada. Secondly, I think the quality of education and the network you are exposed to at any Ontario law school is more than sufficient for getting a job here. There are a lot of private law schools (read cash cows) still operating in the US with dismal employment rates. As of now I don't think there are any true "cash cow" law degrees in Canada. I'm fairly optimistic about the legal market here. While factors like emerging AI and the preference for in-house attorneys (pressure for less lawyers to do more) may place some downward pressure on the market for law grads, I think things will be fine for the foreseeable future. If not I guess I'll learn to code or something.

Osgoode, Western, Queens.

Rewrite to be safe. I got rejected first round this year with a 3.65 162. I thought I was in good shape based on previous years threads but obviously not.

165+ and you’re a “presumptive admit.” 160 you’ll have no problem- you’ll probably make first round with that. I’d say 158 would be the lowest to feel moderately confident with your GPA given that 159 was last year’s median. Also, if 160 is low maybe I shouldn’t have been popping champagne bottles when I got a 162 😂

@HumanCalculator The LSAT is a very learnable test. A lot of LSAT success comes from learning the specific strategies for each question type, perfecting them and developing muscle memory (autopilot). In my opinion, learning how to take the LSAT is more like learning how to play an instrument than studying for a test. You have to get the mechanics down first. If you're anything like the vast majority of people, you can't expect to score 160+ right away, the same way you can't expect to play a Bach suite on piano within your first week of piano lessons. Breaking 160 in 4 months is definitely doable depending on your study schedule and what resources you use. I did it in 3 and my diagnostic score was abysmal. I couldn't even make it through a single game. It was bad. If I can give you some advice, try to relax and trust the process. Studying for the LSAT has the tendency to make people feel dumb or inept, especially at the beginning. It sure made me feel that way when I started. I'm willing to bet that that if you were smart enough to get a 4.0/4.3 GPA, you're smart enough to score 160+ on the LSAT. Can you do it in 4 months? It's certainly doable. But if it takes you a bit longer, that's perfectly fine too. Like capitalttruth said, there's no rush to get into law school. Best of luck, and feel free to PM if you have any questions.

We must only breed with other law students as to keep the gene pool pure. I want my children to come out of the womb already knowing how to ruin a conversation by telling everyone how hard law school is. I want my children to be genetically predisposed to starting useless fights on lawstudents.ca regarding some trivial matter that has no bearing on anybody's life.

Here are stats that aren’t 6 years old and from Wikipedia: https://www.fordham.edu/download/downloads/id/14558/Class_of_2019_at_10_months.pdf 1) This implies an 89% 10 month employment rate. 2) Hiring at 500+ lawyer law firms according to this is 32-33%. Hiring at firms with 251-500 lawyers is roughly 9%. So depending on what your parameters are for “big law,” these stats contradict yours. Tuition cost means nothing if you don’t consider ROI: ROI in terms of tuition and salary is similar Fordham: 160k median salary /150k tuition = 1.07 Osgoode: 110k salary (AT BEST) / 90k tuition = 1.22 Obviously paying a premium for being in NYC. Nature of the beast 160,000USD (217k CAD) starting salary compared to $110,000CAD in Canada AT BEST. Even if these stats are inflated by say, 20%, still better. Going to school in NYC offers better career mobility than North York. But Wikipedia.

Are you actually trying to say that career prospects out of Osgoode are going to be better than a US school in NYC that ranks in the top #15 for average salary at $160,000USD with robust large firm hiring? Because if you are that’s asinine. “I'm not sure how you figure that, given the infamously bleak US market where even T14s aren't exactly a guaranteed golden ticket.“ Uh oh. I guess everyone should turn down their Georgetown+ offers because CleanHands astutely pointed out that the US legal market isn’t a golden ticket anymore, a fact that everyone’s known since at least 2009. Canadian market isn’t a golden ticket either. On a weighted average based on factors such as market mobility, yeah, I think I’d choose the school in NYC.

Amazing. I don’t know what your preferences and financial circumstances are, but I’d take Fordham over any Canadian law school, except maybe U of T and McGill. For what it’s worth, QS ranks Osgoode and Fordham in the same bracket (100-150). Careers prospects are undoubtedly better out of Fordham compared Osgoode. NYC > North York. Just my two cents but I’d take Fordham and never look back. I wish I applied myself.

Fordham?

Bruh

...what

Oufff