An increase in applications does not necessarily mean a more competitive cycle. People could just be applying more broadly this cycle. Most people do not apply to law school on a whim because the LSAT and application costs are a barrier. However, if there was fear that this cycle was going to be competitive (and I think there was) it would make sense for people to apply to more schools than they had initially planned to increase their chance of getting a offer.
Alternatively, if COVID scared people away from the labour market, and there were more impromptu law school applications this year, applications may be up significantly more than number of applicants. If I was applying to law school without having written the LSAT, I would apply to schools broadly in case I got a bad LSAT score. I have no idea if there is actually data to support that people who submit law schools applications without having written the LSAT apply to more schools than people who submit law school applications who already have an LSAT score though.
Maybe! It gives them more pathos, that's for sure. But I don't think that they'd be doing it solely for reputation or numbers. They already had plenty of numbers. I do think that they mostly did it to draw in more applicants with lower stats but great experiences who wouldn't otherwise apply. After all, their greatest asset as a business is sending out lots of successful lawyers.
I've referenced this once before, but in an earlier thread I heard about someone with a 93+ index getting rejected due to a bad statement. And in last year's acceptance threads I saw one person waitlisted while someone with the same stats got accepted. So there's evidence that they're following through with their criteria to an extent.
If you don’t get in this cycle, you could wait a couple of years and apply as a mature student. A few schools have that category (I can’t remember which I applied as mature, and which as ‘discretionary’ because I’m over 30). Usually defined as someone who’s been out of school for 5+ years. Anyways, apparently they are more forgiving or GPA and look to your resume (and LSAT, which you’d have time to work on). Just a thought!
U of T is the dream, and I know 162 is low for them-- though not unheard of, according to past acceptance threads.
My other stats are: OLSAS cGPA/B3 3.89 and L2: 3.91 (at U of T... don't think that matters, though). Also have a college diploma (4.0), worked at a non-profit for a while post-diploma and have worked extensively on research/book projects with several professors. A few other work experiences/volunteer works scattered throughout the years.
I know that I probably should retake the LSAT, but I've also heard that normally people don't improve much once they hit the 160s. I have a lot of personal/family obligations, go to school full time and work two part time research jobs, so I'm really trying to weigh the pros/cons before splitting my time up even more. PT consistently around 165-167 but when it comes to the actual test I tend to freeze up, I guess (first LSAT I cancelled score of 157). Any recommendations or opinions on whether I have even a bit of a shot without retaking or if I absolutely should are really appreciated, since I'm just torn!
PS. I also applied to Oz and Ryerson, which I'd be happy to get into. Just had my sights set on U of T for so long I guess it's hard to let go of hope, lol.
Now that some have mentioned that universities are businesses after all, I can’t help but wonder if the UBC’s new “holistic” admissions criteria is in part a business move just to gain more applicants...