lookingaround

Gonna go out on a limb & guess specific technical questions like argument attire vary substantially depending on jurisdiction. (The response you've gotten may be from someone who happens to know you're in Ontario, but you don't say that, or anywhere in the question)

If your mistakes are simple technical errors, then you just need to be familiar with the test format (especially with the new on computer system), and slow down and be methodical. Can prepare some using the tools at https://www.lsac.org/lsat/lsat-prep/how-prepare-digital-lsat It doesn't matter if you get the right answer if you then select and submit the wrong one - that's purely on your diligence

Just picking another answer isn't going to help you. Try writing out, by hand, beside each and every answer why one of them is right and four of them are wrong. This act of explanation will force you to internalize the logic.

Large firms may offer a wide range of general services. Individual lawyers in those situations will often be hyper-specialized, and know everything there is to know about one very specific section of that area. This level of expertise is a way to justify high bills - you have someone in the office who lives and breathes that particular clause. If you want to be a 'well-rounded lawyer', you'd be more likely to be at the other end of the spectrum, where a sole practicioner in a small city might help people with a variety of legal problems, not knowing the details to the exactitude of the specialist, but being competent in several different areas, such as family/property/wills. Family is certainly not an area that is limited - it's one of the ones you can be confident will exist in every community across the country. Now, whether there's enough work in that to sustain a practice is another question (see: general practice). I can't imagine, although have never bothered to research so could be completely up the wall on this, that there are many large firms doing OCI recruits with substantial family practices. This seems a good time to mention, it doesn't seem clear what type of work you want to be doing. Governments and large firms hire through the On Campus Interview process, and a lot of careers officer time is spent on them, and they're certainly often a way to pay off debt quickly, but they're only one part of legal employment. Do you want to work in a glass tower in a major city? If so, that will necessarily limit your scope to that sort of employer. If you don't, OCIs could be a much smaller part of your world.

You lose nothing by getting the application in early. If your app is good enough, they'll admit you on a completed application, but if it's not then you won't be rejected with an outstanding test date.

If you have a JD, then if you're ever on a plane and they ask "Is there a Doctor on board?" you can hit the button, and discuss with the flight crew whether or not a second-entry undergraduate degree which is neither a terminal nor a medical degree, but which contains "Doctor" in the name, qualifies for the word, and how the American Bar Association apparently thinks the answer is 'yes'. If you have an LLB, you'd better hope you're a single man, since it means "bachelor", so could be awkward if you need to explain to your significant other that lawyers are suggesting you're not married, or if you thought you weren't the right gender to ever be one. This doesn't qualify you though by itself to go on reality tv, as you would merely be a bachelor, not the bachelor. Either way, you'd have a law degree.

My instinctive reaction was to say check out the transfer discussion threads in the Schulich subforum, but I did that, and discovered the last such discussion was very brief, in 2017 (on like, page 8), which mentioned how infrequent it is. Combine that with the fact that they don't even list transfer requirements on their website - it suggests you talk with the Associate Dean if you're interested (https://www.dal.ca/faculty/law/programs/jd-admissions/admission-requirements.html) - I suspect transferring in or out is fairly unusual. Which kinda makes sense - Dal isn't normally mentioned as either anyone's (ew, I hate using these phrases, but they do get the point across) 'last-chance-schools', and nor is it normally considered 'best of the best'. The people who go there probably want to be there & stay there. Going to one school hoping to transfer to another is always a crapshoot - you have no idea where you'll end up in your class, and if it'll be an option or not. There's nothing wrong with applying to both, and hoping to get into NS but having NB as your backup. But if you apply to NB never intending to spend more than a year there, that could be more of a problem for you personally, in the event that you don't manage to. Most law students don't transfer. I don't think there are any statistics around, but certainly of the ones who want to, not all succeed (most? Who knows). You don't want to put yourself in a position where you're in a place you're unhappy in preference to waiting a year. On the other hand, you don't want to indefinitely delay a career just because of a preference. I'd say the relevant advice really depends how you feel about UNB, and if it's a backup you'd be willing to get a degree from or not.

Plenty of schools are based purely on numbers, and won't even know if/what extracurricular activities you had. Of the ones that do, a 173/3.5 is very unlikely to be derailed by failing to write 'debate club president'. Your LSAT is excellent and GPA is good.

Increasing your GPA is far more important. Every school looks at GPA (in some combination, whether it's entirely, just some years, just some credits). Not every school even looks at extra curriculars ('pure numbers schools'). Even at schools that do, numbers are more important. At the moment, your numbers need work to make you a competitive applicant for anything post undergrad (and a good LSAT score for law school). Focus on that instead of thinking about what 'looks good on a resume'. Good grades look better than anything, and most extra curriculars look like very little.

*shrug* Sorry, I have next to no knowledge of Ontarian admissions, but plenty of people around here do

152 won't get you far. But if you can get into the high 150s or low 160s, with your 3.5 first two years (if that is your B2?) you could have options, especially on the prairies and/or in later admissions rounds.

Write the LSAT. Heck, even write a practice LSAT. At this point all that can be said is you have next to no chance at Alberta (who use last 2) and Ottawa (cGPA) as no LSAT will make up for 2.x If you write the practice LSAT on the LSAC website and get something in the 140s, law school probably isn't in your future without some serious upward trajectory in studying. If you naturally score a 175 you might well have options. Trying to gauge admissions chances without an LSAT is at best a fools errand, but when you're starting with such a low GPA component of the admissions matrix, it becomes utterly vital.

If you want to complete the LSAT, you need to write the written portion. If you don't want to complete the LSAT, and to risk LSAC either sending schools an incomplete test, or no test result at all, you're free to do so.

Or the UK, where you have no financial requirement and just need to have successfully finished high school (tuition is paid after graduation and, basically, varies depending on earnings). In both of those situations, 'getting a law degree' is open to just about anyone who wants one (more challenges appear later - Americans typically face harder bar exams, and Brits have a tiny number of training contracts that make articling look wide open).

http://www.allard.ubc.ca/current-students-alumni Allard Careers & Events; UBC's careers website & jobs board.