Jump to content

CleanHands

Members
  • Content Count

    704
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

CleanHands last won the day on October 25

CleanHands had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1145 Good People

3 Followers

About CleanHands

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

7210 profile views
  1. Maybe this isn't the right place for it, but the OP has also written: "My work experience is VERY limited due to my learning disorders" "working while in school is almost impossible to do" "my working memory is in the 4th percentile." "I was born with Non-verbal learning disorder and disgraphia" At the risk of sounding offensive or at least insensitive...and fully expecting that I'll be jumped on for saying this...I recognize that there is value in having people with various lived experiences and perspectives in the legal profession, but @Wouldratherbealawyer I would highly recommend you consider a different career that is more suited to your aptitudes. You've written that your conditions impair your writing ability, your memory and your ability to maintain a heavy workload. All of these are absolutely vital skills in the legal profession. Even with accommodations I think you would be in for an absolutely miserable time working as a lawyer. It's actually hard for me to think of a profession that sounds less suitable for you. I can appreciate that this sucks, as law is basically my 4th or 5th career choice because I was medically disqualified from the careers I had initially wanted to do earlier in my life. And we shouldn't exclude people lightly for things they don't choose. But at a certain point one needs to question whether there are enough accommodations out there to make a given career work for a given individual.
  2. Perfect, that's a compelling narrative for an access claim. Thanks for elaborating. In any case (as you seem aware of from the thread title), Queen's is a B2 school and your B2 and LSAT are right on their medians. So you'd have a solid shot regardless. But they also purport to take a somewhat holistic approach in addition to those factors, making it a bit of a black box. The access claim should mitigate any concerns about your cGPA to the extent that that normally factors in. I'm afraid I can't be any more specific or helpful than that, but I would suspect odds are in your favour more than not.
  3. When were your conditions diagnosed? Were they being treated, were you being given accommodations, etc, during your undergrad studies? Are they being managed now? I ask because such considerations will only be relevant and give rise to a legitimate access claim if they impacted your undergraduate performance but will not impact your law school performance. I.E. if your "very strong upward trend" was the direct result of receiving a diagnosis and/or treatment and/or accommodations for something that was not being properly addressed before, you would have a strong access claim, but if no such changes occurred at any point in your studies, the access category would not be appropriate.
  4. This is rubbish. A master's is a soft (everywhere but UofA, I think?) and work as a paralegal or legal assistant before law school is very common and references from lawyers mean nothing. I don't mean to disparage that user, but you simply don't know what you are talking about if you think that is some sort of exceptional background by law school applicant standards that would give someone an edge. I wanted to dispel that. I was one of your 5'6 NBA players. I generally agree with your point about having reasonable expectations and giving realistic answers to posters in these situation. My blind diagnostic LSAT score (under timed conditions etc) was a 167. This was going into it knowing absolutely nothing about the test aside from how much time I needed to allot to each section. I felt like the test absolutely kicked my ass and I was running out of time, before I scored it. I was able to get a 170+ on my first write with minimal studying consisting of basically just learning how to diagram logic games and writing a handful of practice tests to get the timing down. I sincerely believe that it would not be possible for me to score less than a 165 on the LSAT even if I was extremely drunk when I wrote it. I don't even know what the different categories of questions are called and would not be able to explain how it all works to people (I regularly see people on this forum with LSATSs in the 150s who can articulate LSAT concepts far more intelligently than me)--it is just intuitive for me. I mention this not to brag, but to go to your point--I was a low GPA, high LSAT splitter, but it was incredibly apparent to me, incredibly early, that I had a natural aptitude for the test (and TBH it's the only thing in my life that I clearly had such effortless, strong aptitude for--I wish I had talent for something more practical!). In my time on this site, I have encountered posters with similar undergraduate GPAs to me, some of whom appeared to have a natural aptitude for the LSAT and some of whom did not. I have tended to give those different categories of people different advice. To the OP (@Josh4567), I would ask how much effort you put into the LSAT. If it was minimal, I would say you have a shot and to study it, retake, and reapply. If your 158 was the result of a significant amount of effort to obtain the best score possible, I would be concerned. I chimed in specifically because I saw you write this. You and the other poster are in agreement that such candidates exist, but they are rare. As to what you wrote above that, I'm sorry to say it comes across as a bit defensive. There are going to be exceptions to rules, but GPA and LSAT do have some predictive value re: success in law school. And law school grades likewise aren't totally predictive of how one will perform as a lawyer, but they aren't meaningless either. Just focus on yourself as an individual and don't worry about aggregates, and don't try to use anecdotes to disprove aggregates because that's not compelling. I do think people should balance their ambitions with an assessment of how realistic they are. Speaking for myself, if I didn't get at least a mid 160s LSAT, I would not have bothered applying to any non-L2/B2 schools (my cGPA was garbage but L2/B2 was competitive). When I advise people in similar situations, I apply the same standards to them that I did to myself.
  5. All hope is certainly not lost, but you want to buckle down and crush your last two years and the LSAT. I had a garbage cGPA myself and ended up having my pick of the litter where law schools were concerned. The good news is that if you end up going to law school, you won't suffer the same shock from receiving some B's that most of the class will.
  6. Did you even read what you posted? "Moreover, we have noted over time that the strongest mature applicants tend to have academic records and LSAT scores that approach the competitive level of general category applicants." The OP is far from screwed, but the mature category barely changes the equation where required stats are concerned.
  7. If you think that discrepancy is interesting: those of us who were "taught" property law by Tony Sheppard learned absolutely nothing about property law at all!
  8. Yeah, @BuddyBoy just wait and see how the class dynamic changes and how people don't talk quite so loudly come January. haha
  9. 1L summer law jobs are themselves very rare (at UBC approx 10% of the class lands them, I dunno about other schools) so you can imagine that articling offers at that stage are even rarer.
  10. Congratulations, you must be very proud.
  11. My understanding is that the current 1L class is the first to have been admitted under the new criteria. I'm a current UBC 3L and when I applied they still used the index system and didn't care about personal statements, like you mentioned.
  12. In addition to what was mentioned above, there was other outdated information in that post. This used to be the case but UBC now weighs the personal statement equivalent to the LSAT and GPA: "Your academic performance, LSAT score and personal statement are given equal priority in this category" Per https://allard.ubc.ca/programs/juris-doctor-jd-program/admissions/jd-admissions-program-eligibility
  13. With a 2.0GPA and a half-finished degree? Mature category doesn't compensate for that.
  14. Four semesters equates to two years of school left, yeah? The good news it that there are schools out that that look at your last or best two years. So you'll want to focus on doing well in your remaining years, getting a good LSAT score, and applying to those L2/B2 schools. Don't waste the application money on cumulative GPA schools; even if you were able to make a solid access claim there is no salvaging a 2.0.
  15. If you get a 178 you won't need to raise your GPA. If you get a 140 you'd still be screwed with a 4.0 cGPA. Hence nobody can give you any reasonably competent advice without an LSAT score.
×
×
  • Create New...