Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


CleanHands last won the day on April 19

CleanHands had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2517 Good People


About CleanHands

Recent Profile Visitors

16071 profile views
  1. Rather than listing them all out, I will say that I applied very broadly and was accepted very broadly. Was rejected from UofT and did not apply to McGill, aside from that I received acceptances across the board and Western was really the anomaly. I was a mature student and had medical documentation with respect to my initial poor marks. Different schools categorized things in different ways so I don't recall what I did with each specific school, although I did avail myself of special categories where possible. Which made the Western decision even stranger as I was really close to their median L2 GPA and way above their LSAT standards (and they even claim on their website that "we will place greater weight on the last 2 years of full-time (or equivalent) undergraduate study in appropriate circumstances, typically where the cumulative average falls below 3.7"). I really didn't care by the time I was waitlisted as I had already accepted at my first choice of school (and I removed myself from the waitlist rather than waiting to see what happened), it was just unexpected. But anyways, this cycle I've seen some really strange admissions decisions across the board for many schools, so I guess this isn't unique to me or to Western and I would suggest applicants go into things without too much in the way of expectations and that people on the forum hedge the chance estimates they give people.
  2. I'm sorry to tell you that with a cGPA like yours, a 3.7 L2/B2 and a 173 LSAT, I was waitlisted at Western a few cycles back. Either they absolutely hated my personal statement, or they care more about cGPA than some people here claim. I got in (without being waitlisted) everywhere else but UofT, so I don't think my personal statement was notably terrible. Others here have had different experiences, I have no insider experience, I'm just telling you what my experience was. It was odd.
  3. To be fair to you, you're thinking rationally here: sometimes dropping out after 1L really is the best decision if it becomes clear that someone is not going to achieve their desired outcomes from it or be able to make it work financially. But when someone is in this situation it's extremely hard to approach it rationally. It's extremely rough and hard to have to walk away from something like a JD program as "a failure," have to explain to friends and family that one didn't get the grades or transfer or job they desired and realized they needed to cut their losses, having to figure out what else to do with their life now, etc. Sticking it out might not be the wisest or most economical or rational decision in all cases, but it's almost always the path of least resistance socially, professionally, etc. EDIT - To be clear I'd recommend people not gamble at all if this is a realistic situation for them to end up in (which it is for people planning to attend Windsor dual unless they have specific career interests in mind that are realistically attainable and financially viable).
  4. Almost nobody drops out, almost everyone sticks it out though an entire JD program once starting (even though in the case of Windsor dual loads of people go in planning to transfer and failing to do so). Sunk costs and all. There also are plenty of Canadian students who go to low-ranked schools abroad after being unable to get into any Canadian JD program, and who would be eager to transfer to Windsor dual if more students dropped out and thus transfer slots opened.
  5. This isn't how it works when grading on a curve. Relax and wait to get your mark back for now, once you receive it you can go from there. Often times if an exam seems incredibly difficult or crunched for time for you, it's likely that was the case for many other students who wrote it alongside you.
  6. "Disadvantage" relative to students who attended certain other schools? Yes, absolutely. Look at Toronto recruit numbers for Windsor compared to UofT and Oz; this is not a difficult question to answer. With that said, can you get a job in Toronto from Windsor? Yes. Your career interests are relevant here. If you want to work on Bay that is going to be an uphill battle. If you are okay working at a smaller shop that is less competitive in terms of recruiting, it won't be as much of an issue. You generally give good advice and, to be clear to the OP, you are drawing from more experience than I have. However, I think your experience of being near the top of your class at two different schools (one perceived to be more competitive than another) is colouring your response here a bit. Those with just decent grades at schools with strong reputations, placements and admission stats likely would not have had comparable outcomes had we been of similar class rank at certain other schools. You're essentially giving the impression that what school you attend is irrelevant to your employment outcomes and I would strongly dispute that.
  7. You're thinking of @Groucho, but yeah, he would post the exact same nonsense.
  8. TBF lawyers generalizing about EQ of another profession is the pot calling the kettle black. You're correct that it's very useful for lawyers, but lawyers are notorious for having low EQ compared to other professions (and this is backed by studies).
  9. Alternatively if he can't get a job, might as well spend that year smoking weed and playing video games. It will be cheaper than attending a master's program just to drop out, and just as productive. Not to mention, might as well enjoy the lack of responsibility before law school and then legal practice.
  10. Literally nobody here claimed that lawyering was the most intellectually demanding profession out there (by the way I had started writing this response before getting ninja'd by many others above--I don't mean to dogpile but fuck it, I will finish writing and posting this). You had initially written that lawyers tend to have average IQs, which is patently absurd. Then you edited that same post to say that their IQs tend to be in the high 120s, which would put them in the 95th-98th percentile, but characterized this as "not that high." Then you again wrote that "anyone" could be a lawyer. Everyone here is well aware that you don't need to have the horsepower of a Nobel Prize-winning physicist to be a competent lawyer. But whenever someone claims that any average Joe can do the job, that tells me they have very limited experience interacting with average Joes. Before I entered this field I repeatedly told a friend who works as an associate at a Sister that one of the attractive things about law that I think people in his position take for granted is being able to interact with reasonably intelligent people who will be able to engage in basic logical reasoning, because this isn't the reality for many people in terms of what they have to deal with on a daily basis. In addition to my own experiences validating that premise, I've increasingly seen posts on this forum that confirm for me that many people do, in fact, take this for granted. And honestly I'm pushing back because this sort of worldview and perception of the abilities of most people has broader implications for public policy, how we design systems and products, etc. Everyone who thinks this way needs to learn to expect less from people. /rant
  11. I don't blame you for expecting more from his 138 IQ or whatever he said it was before editing his post.
  12. I'm confident that nobody here who has worked a blue collar job would agree with this. Many of my former colleagues bore more resemblance to other higher primate species like chimpanzees and orangutans than they did to my law school peers, in terms of cognitive abilities.
  13. LOL I thought you were taking the piss and/or trolling so I wasn't going to respond, but based on your edit and attempt to "correct" yourself, you must actually be serious. Not going to comment on the intelligence of lawyers generally, or your assessment of what skills are most fundamental to the field, but I will just point out that a "high 120s" IQ is in the 95th-98th percentile. But by the sounds of it you watch a lot of Rick and Morty, so I guess that's low by your standards. But that's all relative and all.
  14. That sounds like a reasonable approach (and I suppose I misunderstood what you intended to imply in your earlier post; my bad). And by the way I'm sorry that you went through such a horrible experience and I totally think that yours is a great example of a case where rules should be more flexible. Congrats on your acceptances!
  15. I take your point but can't agree with your proposed approach in light of how common self-diagnosis of various mental illnesses, and conflation of common negative life experiences with exceptional trauma or mental illness, has become. To take people at their word would trivialize legitimate issues and legitimize trivial ones. This site regularly provides examples, with some of the inquiries users have about whether their situations are grounds for access claims when they clearly are not.
  • Create New...