Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bhaywardio

Factors Other Than CGPA/LSAT?

Recommended Posts

Does anyone have any insight as to the weight law schools place on things such as;

- where your undergrad took place?

- how long you were there?

- the amount of credits/type of degree?

For example, I graduated from college and transferred 45 credits into my 4 year undergraduate degree. Will law schools count this as a negative aspect of my application? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I keep on hearing on the forums here is that law schools don't care what your program was or what school it came from. Just how well you did on the LSAT and your GPA. Plus some schools will take your ECs and refereneces into consideration if they are required on the application.

What I have heard is rare is students in law school who have not completed their undergraduate degree. But that may be a correlation and not causation.

I am just repeating what I have heard around. Feel free to correct me!

Best of luck!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only UofT explicitly states that they care about your program/course selection as well as your institution(s) you attended. I suspect there's still biases within the admissions council members, but it isn't policy to use those as a basis of comparison (outside of Toronto).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, RNGesus said:

Only UofT explicitly states that they care about your program/course selection as well as your institution(s) you attended. I suspect there's still biases within the admissions council members, but it isn't policy to use those as a basis of comparison (outside of Toronto).

This is what I figured. Thankfully I have no interest in Toronto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bhaywardio said:

Does anyone have any insight as to the weight law schools place on things such as;

- where your undergrad took place?

- how long you were there?

- the amount of credits/type of degree?

For example, I graduated from college and transferred 45 credits into my 4 year undergraduate degree. Will law schools count this as a negative aspect of my application? 

No weight except at the U of T as noted earlier in this thread. Even at the U of T I don't expect it is much more then a rounding error.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2018 at 2:11 PM, Constant said:

No weight except at the U of T as noted earlier in this thread. Even at the U of T I don't expect it is much more then a rounding error.

It makes difference on the margin. When it comes to the last few remaining spots, they're definitely more critical in their evaluation, as they should be. 

Let's face it... 

A 3.7 in engineering is harder to get than a 3.7 in a social science. A 3.7 at U of T is harder to get than a 3.7 at Ryerson in a comparable program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, jokesonyou said:

It makes difference on the margin. When it comes to the last few remaining spots, they're definitely more critical in their evaluation, as they should be. 

Let's face it... 

A 3.7 in engineering is harder to get than a 3.7 in a social science. A 3.7 at U of T is harder to get than a 3.7 at Ryerson in a comparable program.

This is quite an erroneous statement. Courses are not objectively hard or easy, the difficulty of a course has to do with the unique abilities, leaning style, etc. of the person taking it. I guarantee that an engineer would fail my honours political science seminar, just as I'm sure I would fail a thermodynamics class. 

Your claim is one that is begging for a pissing contest, for which is there is no basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, crh20 said:

This is quite an erroneous statement. Courses are not objectively hard or easy, the difficulty of a course has to do with the unique abilities, leaning style, etc. of the person taking it. I guarantee that an engineer would fail my honours political science seminar, just as I'm sure I would fail a thermodynamics class. 

Your claim is one that is begging for a pissing contest, for which is there is no basis.

It's not a pissing contest... It's the truth that few want to admit. I myself don't have an engineering degree, but it's a well-known fact that engineering departments (at least at my school) have the lowest curves relative to other subjects. And yes, on average, the quality of a student graduating from U of T or McGill is not comparable to students from Ryerson, York and so on. AdComs know this; let's not pretend they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jokesonyou said:

It's not a pissing contest... It's the truth that few want to admit. I myself don't have an engineering degree, but it's a well-known fact that engineering departments (at least at my school) have the lowest curves relative to other subjects. And yes, on average, the quality of a student graduating from U of T or McGill is not comparable to students from Ryerson, York and so on. AdComs know this; let's not pretend they don't.

This does nothing to prove the relative difficulty of different programs. And even if it did, you're neglecting the possibility that intelligent people go into "less difficult" programs. The smart people don't funnel to engineering just because people deem it to be difficult, people study what interests them. We don't live in a Aldous Huxley book, people aren't assigned to any one field of study based on their intelligence. For this reason, intelligence exists in all disciplines and subsequently AdComs would be ignorant to favour certain applicants based on their field of study.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, crh20 said:

This does nothing to prove the relative difficulty of different programs. And even if it did, you're neglecting the possibility that intelligent people go into "less difficult" programs. The smart people don't funnel to engineering just because people deem it to be difficult, people study what interests them. We don't live in a Aldous Huxley book, people aren't assigned to any one field of study based on their intelligence. For this reason, intelligence exists in all disciplines and subsequently AdComs would be ignorant to favour certain applicants based on their field of study.

I'm not denying that smart people go into "difficult programs." However, there's a reason why admission averages for programs like Engineering across Ontario are significantly higher than social studies programs. More smart people go into STEM programs, hence why they're difficult and curved harder. But also, let's not pretend a social studies major's weekly schedule is comparable to a STEM major's schedule; they have longer class times and labs etc. All these factors make it obvious that STEM programs curve harder than social studies programs. 

Take proof as evidence from U of T Law's class profiles for the past few cycles:

https://www.law.utoronto.ca/about/jd-first-year-class-profile

How did Gender Studies and Social Sciences majors go from 4% of the class to 19% of the class in a few years time ? All UofT did was to change the admissions formula to give cGPA more weight relative to the LSAT. One would think that this would bias AdComs towards admitting those with higher GPAs. Oh look! Social Sciences and Gender Studies majors have increased substantially as portions of the class since those changes. Engineering and STEM grads have taken a beating! Is it due to other possibilities? Perhaps. But I think this data is pretty compelling evidence to suggest that social sciences majors have the highest GPA curves, on average. 

Edited by jokesonyou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jokesonyou said:

Perhaps. But I think this data is pretty compelling evidence to suggest that social sciences majors have the highest curves, on average. 

Nah...just make better lawyers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, folks, since you're both relatively new here,  I can assure you that this debate has taken place innumerable times on ls.ca. No one has ever succeeded in proving their case, let alone changing someone else's mind. So, let's just leave it at that and move on. 

As for the schools weighing what school you attended or major you studied, U of T seems to have been the only one who admits taking this into account. It is usually a part of the 1/3 PS assessment and it is weighed to the extent that they look at how previous grads from your particular program have done in 1L at U of T. Whether or not they still do this, I don't know but for anyone who is interested enough to inquire, I imagine U of T would be happy to confirm or deny. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, crh20 said:

This is quite an erroneous statement. Courses are not objectively hard or easy, the difficulty of a course has to do with the unique abilities, leaning style, etc. of the person taking it. I guarantee that an engineer would fail my honours political science seminar, just as I'm sure I would fail a thermodynamics class. 

Your claim is one that is begging for a pissing contest, for which is there is no basis.

2

The obvious problem here is that you're comparing an honours level course in a political science degree to a first-year engineering course. 

Regardless, I'd take the engineer in this bet every day of the week and twice on sundays. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Recent Posts

    • Obviously I can't speak for @QuincyWagstaff but I will say my experience was similar to his (had no issues receiving interviews for Crown positions in Toronto and went to a BC law school) and I only had a low B+ average (barely top third of the class).
    • Register for the exam, then all you have to do is email them that you're taking that exam (or indicate in your application) and they will hold off until January; schools don't even reject until way later.
    • I went from scoring pretty low on LG to -1/-2 by: 1. Reading the powerscore LG bible  2. Drilling LG by type (grouping, linear, hybrid) untimed and then timed 3. Drilling full timed sections, watching the 7sage explanation for each game and re-doing the ones where I missed inferences! I hope that helps! Good luck
    • I did the same thing. Could not find time to study at all.
    • I won't discuss this point further with either you or @QuincyWagstaff as you have seemingly no desire to change your ways. This is unfortunate and we all lose out. For others, perhaps more interested in learning about things, statistical significance can be found in any non-zero correlation given a sufficient sample size despite the differentiation that QW distinguishes as being an important one. It is something that has also given rise to the term "practical significance", to which QW and CH appear to be unware of. To put is succinctly, the difference between significant and insignificant is not itself significant.  Edit -Then again, I am on the spectrum. So maybe it's that.  

×
×
  • Create New...