Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

44 Decent People

About bigtruss

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The tuition fee point is a really good one. Still, you can expect to pay approximately U of T JD domestic tuition as an LSE LLB international student, so depending on your debt aversion you may or may not find that worthwhile given the increased opportunity LSE is likely to afford you over any Canadian school in the space you're interested in. The point about being an EU citizen is true too, though it's not as big of an obstacle as it might seem on the surface if you're a Canadian or US citizen. If that's the case, you don't need a work visa to work in Europe, you simply need to apply for residence and a work permit in the country (e.g. potentially Belgium, Switzerland, the Netherlands) you end up working in upon your arrival there. The bigger roadblock this can cause is that there's a de facto onus placed on you to convince the employer you're interviewing with that you're committed to working there long enough to make employing you worthwhile to them. This is essentially a non-issue at the EU, UN, etc... where people bounce around contract-to-contract and city-to-city across countries anyways. As far a Brexit, I think you're definitely right to an extent, though Oxbridge and UofL schools + firms in the City of London (the law/finance district) will always have tremendous pull. Plus I don't think that the people who actually voted to leave would care much about the talent redirection factor even upon reflection 😂
  2. This is a really important point. It's very hard to land a job, let alone do a good job, in the spaces you're talking about without being near-fluent or better in English and at least one of French, Spanish, or German. I'd still push you to attend LSE or UCL, assuming you hold an LLB offer to those schools right now, if you're relatively confident this is the career you want to pursue because: 1) Getting into one of them for an LLM after getting a Canadian JD is not a guarantee and your prospects in this space with something like a Canadian JD+Essex International Human Rights LLM are on average nowhere near as good as with an LSE/UCL LLB or LLM; 2) UVic doesn't have any exchanges to universities that provide a high probability of being helpful in the pursuit of your goals (maybe Utrecht, but time there is unlikely to help you get a foot in the door the way LSE or UCL will); 3) If you attend UBC or McGill it's not a complete guarantee you'll be able secure an exchange to a school like Sciences Po, Paris II, or KCL; 4) Even if you do, having 4 months over the next 3 years to build a network in Europe on exchange is nowhere near the same as living in Europe for 3 years and building a network as part of the community at LSE or UCL; and 5) This is just a personal opinion but I've spent significant time in Vancouver, Montréal, and London. The former two are cool but the latter is really something special. You might just fall in love with London and want to secure a training contract as a UK solicitor, who knows? Life is short and trying something new could be very rewarding and help you grow. Also if you'd like, you can PM me and I can put you in touch with a friend of mine who is an upper-year LLB student at one of LSE/UCL, just let me know!
  3. Email received at 3 p.m. OLSAS cGPA: 3.91 LSAT: 170 Withdrew immediately, good luck to all of you!
  4. You're going to get a lot of Canadian bias on this forum because it's a Canadian forum. This is obviously anecdotal but I've lived in Europe, did my Master's at a top UK school, and have quite a few friends working at the EU, the Hague etc. Some people knew McGill and thought of it as a really good school, a few knew U of T but only because Toronto is seen as a little brother version of London as a city, and absolutely nobody knew what the hell any other Canadian university or law school was (including Ottawa, Osgoode, and my undergrad alma mater UBC, which aren't bad schools). My experience going abroad was very clearly that Canada is not a country on anybody outside of Canada's mind. Studying law in the UK is not like in Canada where you can grad in the top 25% of your class from TRU/Windsor and it's basically equivalent to graduating in the top 50% of your class from UBC or Osgoode. Hiring in the UK (and to my knowledge across Europe and in the institutions you talked about) is very prestige driven. Oxbridge, LSE, Sciences Po? Great. Edinburgh, UCL, KCL? Do well and you're good. Anything less well known? Very difficult to get where you want to get to. You are absolutely better off going to LSE or UCL than any school in Canada given your goals and yes "LSE" is much more valuable than "JD" given those goals IMO. As far as I know, attaining your goals would be considered a bit of a "unicorn" outcome from even a top Canadian school like McGill or Toronto, but it's comparatively very accessible from LSE despite your field of interest being notoriously small and tough to break into. The one thing you might want to consider though is that if you've already done a Bachelor's in North America you might resent being in a classroom with 18 year olds for 3 years and essentially starting from scratch chasing your career goals after 4 years of hard work. If you're just starting uni then no big deal. Also, if your goals change coming back to Canada to practice will be a pain (NCA etc.) and people won't be impressed by an LSE degree the same way they are in Europe. Hope that's helpful!
  5. Exact same timeline for me last year and I haven't heard anything this year. It feels like I'm gonna have to withdraw before I get a decision because I have a scholarship offer in the US I'm really excited about that I have to accept in mid-April and withdraw all other apps in order to keep 🙄 Wishing you all good luck!!
  6. Hey mate. 3.91 OLSAS CGPA. No B3, i did my undergrad over 5 years and took some summer courses. 170 LSAT (1 write). ECs are probably strong (published author, Master's from a Tier 1 school, some volunteering and spoke at some internationally renowned events). I thought my personal statement and optional essay were good but (BIG BUT) I never said a word about why I wanted to go to U of T in particular so that might have something to do with the likely WL/R coming my way. Wasn't a top choice for me (I want to go to the US or maybe McGill) so I'm not too concerned. Hope this is helpful and keep your head up!
  7. Different person but I'm also not a fan of McGill's admissions process (fine with admissions that go beyond GPA and LSAT, think McGill makes things a bit more subjective than I'd consider optimal). I still applied because even if I don't like their approach to admissions: 1) Tuition is cheap relative to most other schools with good reputations. (e.g. fluked my way into a half-tuition Butler scholarship at Columbia and still couldn't dream of being able to afford going there). 2) The city of MTL is so much fun and a great place to live as a young adult. 3) I still have a healthy respect for the university and the law school even if I wish admissions were a little different.
  8. Not an expert on the topic by any means but I would suggest trying to stay patient and not bother reaching out. I don't think you'll get anything from admissions other than "our holistic review process requires time, we contact all applicants as soon as we're able to come to a decision, please be patient etc.". As a Canadian who is applying to law schools in the US and has done a degree abroad before I know the added stress of things like Visas and finding accomodation in an unfamiliar place and how that makes having some certainty ASAP feel even more important. I would say just try your best to distract yourself, the days are long but the months are short and everything will work out for you!
  9. I agree with a lot of what you're saying but for me this has nothing to do with rejection sucking. The GPA and LSAT medians are competitive relative to other Canadian law schools at large, they are not competitive relative to the top law schools in North America (they're similar to U of Alabama and Arizona State in the US for example). The things I take issue with are the degree to which 'soft' factors are weighed relative to stats in McGill's evaluation, and the lack of transparency over that degree to which they matter. For McGill to suggest that good stats are necessary but not sufficient (which doesn't even hold true in some outlier cases) isn't very helpful. e.g. U of T will tell you that 2/3 of their evaluation of the merits of your application is judged on the basis of GPA and LSAT with a slight skew towards GPA and the other 1/3 is based on 'soft' factors. McGill gives you nothing similar. I have a degree from one of the world's top grad schools and have been through some really tough interviews at well known companies, my experiences there never left me feeling like I didn't know where I fell short (which I did numerous times), didn't know where I excelled, and didn't know how to improve for the next go around. I appreciate your offer to create a new thread, if others have more to say I think it could be interesting but I'm at peace with this and appreciate the chance to give my two cents, thank you!
  10. infer what you want mate i reaalllyy don't care 😂
  11. Agree completely. I love MTL and I legitimately wanted to attend but at this point I'm indifferent as to whether I get in or not given that the school has an Adcomm that operates as though it can infer enough from a resume and a 2-3 page statement to not only supplement analysis of, but in many cases completely override, years of academic performance and all that goes into LSAT results.
  12. I'm assuming you're addressing me. The LSAT means very little to me, as does law school, the idea of being a lawyer etc. I was originally making a point about high diagnostic scores not being necessary to achieve a high LSAT scores because I didn't think it would be good for an applicant to read what was written and think their 3.3 GPA and 159 diagnostic meant they should give up on applying to law school. Now I'm just trying to point out that this is an abnormal admissions cycle, people are scoring 170+ on the LSAT at a much higher rate since the Flex became a thing, and it's not necessarily the case that an influx of people on this forum claiming to have a 170+ on the LSAT is representative of an increase in people lying about their LSAT score. I appreciate you taking the time to explain the effort you and other regulars on this forum put into to helping others and I'm sure many people have benefitted from your hard work. I understand that you and other regulars would want to ensure that people on the forum are being honest as everyone using the forum stands to benefit from that honesty, all I'm saying is that there is evidence for you to consider that suggests the problem you're trying to combat might not be as severe as your intuition and experience alone could have you believe. Thanks.
  13. I appreciate you pointing this out but yes I read the entirety of the post and regardless of whether a prospective applicant is a splitter and is trying to compensate for a low GPA with a high LSAT score, I disagree with the notion that they require a high diagnostic score for an attempt to obtain that high LSAT score to be worthwhile and wanted to explain why. With regard to whether a prospective applicant ought to use the forum to obtain advice while claiming that their hypothetical 170+ LSAT score is a valid LSAT score, I agree that this would be irresponsible and problematic because of the potential adverse psychological effect this could have on other applicants if the phenomenon becomes widespread and creates the illusion that that there are far more 170+ scores than is actually the case. I think it's worth mentioning though that 170+ scorers are up ~70% compared to this time last cycle and that this is indeed possible because LSAT scores are correlated with predicted percentiles based before the test and not actual percentiles based on how real test takers performed on that administration of the test. That coupled with the fact that people who have high scores are more likely to want to talk about their score provides some backing for the idea that it's not necessarily the case that people lying is as widespread a problem as it seems.
  14. The LSAT is a very "learnable" test so I completely disagree with suggesting that anyone with a diagnostic under 160 not invest heavily in doing well on the test or law school applications in general. Banking on scoring a 170+ is probably never a good idea for someone early in the process of studying but a high diagnostic score is by no means a requirement for eventually scoring a 170+ on the actual test, especially if you have a lot of room for improvement the Logic Games section, which uses a way of reasoning most people simply haven't engaged with before. I had a 156 diagnostic, studied for only 6 weeks while working full time, and scored a 170 on the July flex, mainly because I had no idea how to do logic games until I poured all of my free time and energy into studying them like crazy for that 6 week period. I'm sure plenty of other people could see similar improvement and shouldn't just give up or even temper expectations simple because their diagnostic score wasn't an 80th percentile score or better compared to people who have finished studying and are writing the actual test.
  15. Accepted via email. GPA 90.7% (UBC undergrad, before drops), LSAT 170. Unlikely to attend but very grateful for the offer!
  • Create New...