Jump to content
Jamieson

High LSAT (173), abysmal gpa (2.0)

Recommended Posts

On 2018-04-12 at 1:53 PM, Jamieson said:

I scored 173 on the LSAT, but my gpa is only a 2.0. Do I at least have a shot at some of these lower tier schools like Thompson River? For what it’s worth, I’d actually prefer to work at some small firm in flyover country (I imagine they’re less snobby about name brand).

As you've been told above, I don't see you being admitted anywhere in Canada even if your L2 is 2.5. You would need to get your L2 up to at least 3.0 I would think before being admitted. Even at TRU. Maybe even a 2.8 or 2.9 could be accepted possibly. Worth a shot to calculate your index score at Manitoba though. For u of a, even with a 2.5, you would be out based on their apparent index calculation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2018 at 4:53 PM, Jamieson said:

I scored 173 on the LSAT, but my gpa is only a 2.0. Do I at least have a shot at some of these lower tier schools like Thompson River? For what it’s worth, I’d actually prefer to work at some small firm in flyover country (I imagine they’re less snobby about name brand).

Apply broadly, especially to schools that drop 25% your lowest marks like Manitoba, UNB and Uvic, and you will get in somewhere. The whole point  behind the GPA and LSAT requirements is to show that you have the intellectual aptitude to handel law school and eventually the profession. Your 99th percentile LSAT is more than enough proof of that, so someone, somewhere will let you in. Especially later in the admission cycle when you're competing with people with high 150 LSATs.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, shawniebear said:

Apply broadly, especially to schools that drop 25% your lowest marks like Manitoba, UNB and Uvic, and you will get in somewhere. The whole point  behind the GPA and LSAT requirements is to show that you have the intellectual aptitude to handel law school and eventually the profession. Your 99th percentile LSAT is more than enough proof of that, so someone, somewhere will let you in. Especially later in the admission cycle when you're competing with people with high 150 LSATs.

 

UNB put me on the waitlist with a 3.2(after drops) and 165 so I think OP wouldn't fare well at UNB. Also, Uvic? Seriously? have you seen the caliber of applicants getting accepted there? Their drops aren't lenient enough for OP to get in. Unless theres an access claim I'm missing out on here. Manitoba though is possible like I said. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

take a part time semester of bird courses and absolutely dominate it. then call the admissions office and talk to the dean about it. it'll help. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, hmyo said:

take a part time semester of bird courses and absolutely dominate it. then call the admissions office and talk to the dean about it. it'll help. 

That’s a downright horrible idea. Nobody who ever takes a load of bird courses does well, because nobody can ever find a flying fuck to give about them, and in their mind it’s already free marks. It’s amplified if all of your courses are pointless birds. 

 

Of course, this depends on your definition of doing well. But for what OP needs, I very highly doubt he can pull 90s across the board doing this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took a few courses that could be described as bird courses during undergrad. I did very well in them but that's because I was interested in the material. Students who weren't interested didn't do very well but did better than you'd expect them to have done given that they put in little to no effort.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, your LSAT says you're pretty smart, which leads me to conclude that you probably just didn't give a fly about undergrad. And whatever, academics aren't for everyone. But what makes you think your time in law school will be any different? If anything, it's more brutal than undergrad, and if you could barely manage Cs there, I can't imagine what your average grade will be at a school where nearly everyone had an A average going in.

So, OP — what makes you think law school will be any different vis a vis your motivation/interest/ability to muster grades good enough to get hired after graduating?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, shawniebear said:

Apply broadly, especially to schools that drop 25% your lowest marks like Manitoba, UNB and Uvic, and you will get in somewhere. The whole point  behind the GPA and LSAT requirements is to show that you have the intellectual aptitude to handel law school and eventually the profession. Your 99th percentile LSAT is more than enough proof of that, so someone, somewhere will let you in. Especially later in the admission cycle when you're competing with people with high 150 LSATs.

 

UVic will drop your 18 worst credits of your 120 credit degree, they don't drop your 25% lowest marks. And their L2 is still 2.5.

 

OP is not going to be competitive for UVic https://www.uvic.ca/law/assets/docs/admissfinaid/LSAT-GPA Demographic Chart.pdf

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ryn said:

I mean, your LSAT says you're pretty smart, which leads me to conclude that you probably just didn't give a fly about undergrad. And whatever, academics aren't for everyone. But what makes you think your time in law school will be any different? If anything, it's more brutal than undergrad, and if you could barely manage Cs there, I can't imagine what your average grade will be at a school where nearly everyone had an A average going in.

So, OP — what makes you think law school will be any different vis a vis your motivation/interest/ability to muster grades good enough to get hired after graduating?

[emphasis added]

Related to another recent post and other posts, you don't know, I don't know. Some people do poorly in their first degree and well in law school because they were not great at the subject of their first degree, nothing to do with lack of work or the skills needed for law school (i.e. me!). Now, I totally agree that someone with a poor GPA needs to figure out why and whether or not it relates to the chances of success in law school or not, and if I were wagering not knowing anything else I would probably agree with "probably", but that's for OP to figure out.

Not that it's typical, but I found law school much easier than my first degree and had much more free time. I also drank much more alcohol in law school, but for fun not stress-related reasons, including during class... :drinkers:

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, epeeist said:

Some people do poorly in their first degree and well in law school because they were not great at the subject of their first degree, nothing to do with lack of work or the skills needed for law school (i.e. me!).

I mean, sure, but I’d say that’s the exception more than the rule. There’s a reason why undergrad grades are so strongly correlated with success in law school, and I don’t think it does anyone any favours to ignore that in exchange for the hope that they’ll be an outlier. 

Also, you had grades good enough to get admitted to law school, which seems to suggest that they weren’t too terrible. My main concern, if I were on an adcom and saw OP’s marks, is that they wouldn’t be able to take law school school seriously enough, or do well enough that it would be worthwhile to admit them. There would have to be some sort of evidence that rebuts that presumption and so far OP has not provided it. Not to say it doesn’t exist, but he or she should definitely think about what’s going to be said in their PS because the school is going to want to have an answer. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2018 at 12:00 AM, BlockedQuebecois said:

But surely if we're going to be assholes to a school, it should be Brock? I have to assume it's the only school in North America named after their first frat boy.

Just kidding. I don't know where Brock is, so I can't make fun of it. 

It's in St Catharines, home of casinos, really good peaches and 97.7, htz fm. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, thereleasestg said:

It's in St Catharines, home of casinos, really good peaches and 97.7, htz fm. 

I'm not going to lie. I don't know where St. Catherines is either. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm not going to lie. I don't know where St. Catherines is either. 

It's near Niagara Falls, hence the casinos. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2018 at 1:53 PM, Jamieson said:

I scored 173 on the LSAT, but my gpa is only a 2.0. Do I at least have a shot at some of these lower tier schools like Thompson River? For what it’s worth, I’d actually prefer to work at some small firm in flyover country (I imagine they’re less snobby about name brand).

What did you study during your undergrad? Genuinely curious to know. Also for what its worth, I have friends that went to both Brock and UofT and I can basically confirm that you would have done better at Brock (regardless of what some of the people here believe) based on what i've heard and regardless of what you studied. 

That being said not all is lost because a UofT undergraduate degree is a firm achievement. Sounds like you had fun during your university career so kudos to you. Good luck with your admissions cycle. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The University of Calgary and University of Alberta focus on your last X amount of credits (I think it equals out to about 2 years worth of full time classes). It could be worth taking some extra university classes. Maybe contact them and ask if they will calculate your GPA including the classes taken outside of your degree if you are able to do that. If you can get a 173 on the LSAT, I think you are capable of working hard and getting good grades. Plus, you will have a lot of motivation as you got an end goal in sight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2018 at 5:50 PM, LawSchoolHopeful2017 said:

UNB put me on the waitlist with a 3.2(after drops) and 165 so I think OP wouldn't fare well at UNB. Also, Uvic? Seriously? have you seen the caliber of applicants getting accepted there? Their drops aren't lenient enough for OP to get in. Unless theres an access claim I'm missing out on here. Manitoba though is possible like I said. 

I am a little but surprised as to why UNB wait listed you, considering the fact that I had very similar stats (164 LSAT and 3.5 GPA after drops) and  not only was I accepted, I was offered a $6000 scholarship. And for the record I am an Ontario boy with no Atlantic Canada connection. In any event, with all due respect the difference between a 165 and 173 LSAT is night and day. There are not that many people with that kind of LSAT score, less than 1% to be exact, and of those students very few of them would ever apply, much less attend, a school like UNB or Manitoba. So i think if op did apply, I think the ad-coms would have a very difficult time turning him away. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, BasketballGuy said:

regardless of what some of the people here believe)

I don't believe it. It's simply true. To pretend otherwise is to spread falsities to high schoolers keen to go to law school who may miss out on an excellent institution like u of t, simply because of fear that they won't get into law school if they did.

Not that highschoolers should care about getting into law school 4 years later. But they do. So at the very least let's not get them missing out on excellent education in light of wholly unsubstantiated claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pzabbythesecond said:

I don't believe it. It's simply true. To pretend otherwise is to spread falsities to high schoolers keen to go to law school who may miss out on an excellent institution like u of t, simply because of fear that they won't get into law school if they did.

Not that highschoolers should care about getting into law school 4 years later. But they do. So at the very least let's not get them missing out on excellent education in light of wholly unsubstantiated claims.

Also, Brock is a "party school." So you might go there expecting easy grades because "if you can walk and talk, you can go to Brock" and get distracted by all the social stuff, whereas you might focus more at U of T because other serious students you meet motivate you.

*not to say there aren't smart, serious students at Brock and party animals at U of T too - I'm addressing the stereotypes. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, BasketballGuy said:

Also for what its worth, I have friends that went to both Brock and UofT and I can basically confirm that you would have done better at Brock (regardless of what some of the people here believe) based on what i've heard and regardless of what you studied. 

I am not sure that is entirely true, at least from my experiences. Many of my friends at other schools have had much more work to do for similar courses and I also found their work harder at times. I also think it depends on the professor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pzabbythesecond said:

I don't believe it. It's simply true. To pretend otherwise is to spread falsities to high schoolers keen to go to law school who may miss out on an excellent institution like u of t, simply because of fear that they won't get into law school if they did.

Not that highschoolers should care about getting into law school 4 years later. But they do. So at the very least let's not get them missing out on excellent education in light of wholly unsubstantiated claims.

I'll bite, do you have any evidence to back up your assertion? Can you present any proof that the coursework at UofT is just as easy if not easier than the coursework at Brock? 

Before you dance around that question please keep in mind that without any evidence your claim becomes unsubstantiated. And like you said, we wouldn't want to be throwing around unsubstantiated claims now would we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I am more of an ambivert - I can be either introverted or extroverted, depending on the situation. For job interviews, I would generally be on the extroverted side of the spectrum. I also had the maximum number of interviews, and I was cautioned against it by people who thought it would be too much. This was some years ago, but from what I remember, it was unnecessary to do that many. It wasn't very exhausting for me, but I realize that the law school view of what is "hard" or "too much" or "tiring" is completely different from my experience. I had been through things in life much more intense and difficult than making small talk at a bunch of interviews and dinners, so it was fine. Some people found it hard to be "on" for so long, but that's where the extroverted tendencies help - that part was kind of fun when it wasn't terrifying or alienating. It does get complicated when you start getting into second and third interviews and dinners and so on because you can't do all of those and have to pick and choose.  So my issue wasn't so much the pace of the interviews, but just that it became apparent that there were only a few firms I had an interest in and a bunch of them where I really could not see myself working at all, but then I felt committed to keep selling myself to them having gone that far in the process. And of course you get caught up in everyone else's anxiety, so while it wasn't too demanding physically, it was emotionally - the extroverted side of you likely has lots of friends from law school going through the process and lots of 3L friends rooting for you and so my phone was constantly going off with people wanting to know how it was going, offering advice, complaining about their situation, etc.  As it turned out, I was able to predict which offers I would and wouldn't get and they lined up more or less with the firms where I had more of an interest, so there were a bunch of useless interviews where it was obvious I wasn't interested in them or them in me.  I would think 10 or 12 interviews are plenty and you should be able to narrow them down, but 20 will not be impossible, it's just silly.  I assume if you got 20, you have very good grades and an interesting resume, and if you're saying you're more of an extrovert, you're likely decent in interviews. I wouldn't think you have to worry about 20 interviews to maximize your chances of getting hired - that seems overly cautious to me. 
    • Just an FYI for whomever may be reading this, more than one account isn't allowed. If you have a reason for setting up a throwaway, it should be cleared with the mod team first. We can't be having every student who goes through the OCI process having duplicate accounts.  To the OP: you can continue this thread with the new account but for this thread only.  Once you receive answers to your questions, the second account will be suspended.
    • 1. I was referring to the difficulty of going from, say, Osgoode to a job in New York. Every year some students are hired by firms down south. (At U of T it can be as much as 10% of the class.) But these positions are highly competitive and firms are very grade selective. With respect to American law schools, conventional wisdom is that NY Big Law is the easiest market to get to. No one cares about ‘local ties’ in NY—and, more importantly, there are a ton of jobs. (The most competitive market is probably Washington, DC.) However! It’s still hard in the sense that you can quite easily go to a T14 law school and fail to secure a position.  2. It doesn’t really matter. You will have one year of work experience baked in to your student visa. Then, once you have a job, you apply for an H1-B through your prospective employer. If that doesn’t work out, you can fall back on NAFTAs TN status (knock on wood). You may be at a disadvantage with smaller firms, but the big shops hire foreign nationals all the time.
    • Thanks for the reply. 

      The two main issues you identify are cost and not being able to work in the public sector. I'm 99% sure that I want to work in the private sector, so the unavailability of public sector work isn't a problem for me. However, the cost is definitely something I'll have to consider; 300 grand (or more) is a hell of a thing to go through life with. I'd like to clarify a couple things:

      When you say "You can go to the NY from U of T, Osgoode, or McGill—but, that said, if your overriding concern is working in the US, you should know that it’s hard to pull off" are you saying that it would be difficult to pull off if I went to a Canadian law school, or difficult to pull off even if I went to school in the US?

      Would not being a permanent resident, as opposed to just not being a citizen, significantly impact my ability to find work in the private sector?

       
×