Jump to content
ethers1636

Access Category

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone,

Just wondering if anyone has some insight to share into the access category for Queens law. Under the criteria, it states that unique life experiences can be considered for the access category. I am a healthcare professional with 3 years experience working in a critical care setting. I feel this is a unique background from typical applicant. Should I try for access? If I apply under access, am I still considered under the general category if the committee disagrees? Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Access is more for people who have encountered barriers that a typical applicant would not to help them be competitive despite whatever caused them to be access. For example, someone with a documented learning disability that can still succeed and demonstrates as much to the adcom applies access for lowered admission requirements. As far as "unique life experiences" go, they are more so referencing traumatic life experiences, something outside the norm. Things like "my mom passed away right before exams", while tragic, would not qualify someone as an access applicant. It could be used as a means of explaining away lower grades/LSAT, but not for access. 

To answer your questions briefly - Unless there are certain barriers that you haven't listed, no you should not apply as access. Your experience would actually be considered a soft factor as a general applicant, and I encourage you to reference it. As for your second question, yes you are still considered under the general applicant metrics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2018 at 10:21 PM, bhaywardio said:

Access is more for people who have encountered barriers that a typical applicant would not to help them be competitive despite whatever caused them to be access. For example, someone with a documented learning disability that can still succeed and demonstrates as much to the adcom applies access for lowered admission requirements. As far as "unique life experiences" go, they are more so referencing traumatic life experiences, something outside the norm. Things like "my mom passed away right before exams", while tragic, would not qualify someone as an access applicant. It could be used as a means of explaining away lower grades/LSAT, but not for access. 

To answer your questions briefly - Unless there are certain barriers that you haven't listed, no you should not apply as access. Your experience would actually be considered a soft factor as a general applicant, and I encourage you to reference it. As for your second question, yes you are still considered under the general applicant metrics. 

what about being a first generation immigrant from a low income household?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, naynay123 said:

what about being a first generation immigrant from a low income household?

Depends on the school, I know for sure Osgoode considers first generation immigrants applicable for their "section b" or whatever it was called. Low income household is pretty standard fare for a lot of applicants, so I wouldn't bank on that

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2018 at 4:46 PM, ethers1636 said:

Hi everyone,

Just wondering if anyone has some insight to share into the access category for Queens law. Under the criteria, it states that unique life experiences can be considered for the access category. I am a healthcare professional with 3 years experience working in a critical care setting. I feel this is a unique background from typical applicant. Should I try for access? If I apply under access, am I still considered under the general category if the committee disagrees? Thanks!

what is your cGPA, L2, B2 , B3 and LSAT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Queen's access is specifically left vague so lots of people feel that they can use it. Your work experience definitely qualifies you for access, and yes, if the committee does not think you should be considered in access, you are moved to the general category with no detriment to your application. 

Coming from someone who is intimately familiar with this process at Queens, I would advise future applicants to disregard Bhaywardio's advice. It is entirely incorrect for Queens. 

Edited by CoffeeandLaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2018 at 12:11 PM, CoffeeandLaw said:

Queen's access is specifically left vague so lots of people feel that they can use it. Your work experience definitely qualifies you for access, and yes, if the committee does not think you should be considered in access, you are moved to the general category with no detriment to your application. 

Coming from someone who is intimately familiar with this process at Queens, I would advise future applicants to disregard Bhaywardio's advice. It is entirely incorrect for Queens. 

Straight from Queen's admissions

"Queen’s Faculty of Law is committed to enhancing diversity in legal education and the legal profession. To this end, the Faculty encourages applications from candidates whose backgrounds, qualities or experiences allow them to make unique contributions to the law school community, the legal profession and society in general.

The Admissions Committee will consider these factors:

  • disability
  • educational and financial disadvantage
  • membership in a historically disadvantaged group
  • age
  • life experience
  • any other factor relating either to educational barriers you faced, or to your ability to enrich the diversity of the law school community and the legal profession

You must demonstrate the following capabilities:

  • that you have strong potential to complete the JD program
  • that you have the ability to reason and analyze
  • that you can express yourself effectively orally and in writing, and
  • that you possess the skills and attributes necessary to cope with the demands of law school

Traditional measures of academic performance and LSAT scores may be given comparatively less weight in this category, while non-academic experience and personal factors confirming your special circumstances or unique qualities may be given comparatively more weight.

  • Competitive applicants should have at least a “B+” average (GPA 3.3) in their best two years of their undergraduate degree program at a full course load along with an LSAT score of at least 154. 
  • For a student who does not have two years at full course load (ie. at part-time load), more emphasis will be placed on their CGPA, as calculated by OLSAS, which should be at least a 3.0

I have bolded the relevant parts. I'm not sure how intimate you are with the process, but unless you're with adcom I have to disagree. It clearly states that it should be an educational barrier, not just a unique life experience. It does go on to say "any experience that would enrich the diversity of the law school", but that is largely dependant on what OP's experience is precisely. 

Granted, considering OP's experience they may be a mature applicant, which queen's does not account for as its own category. It could very well be possible that it is under the access category. 

Again, if you are with adcom I acquiesce to your experience. But from my experience in applying access in the last year, the prevailing theme was "this category is designed to help provide access to people who may not be as competitive for x reason"

Edited by bhaywardio
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 12:11 PM, CoffeeandLaw said:

Queen's access is specifically left vague so lots of people feel that they can use it. Your work experience definitely qualifies you for access, and yes, if the committee does not think you should be considered in access, you are moved to the general category with no detriment to your application. 

Coming from someone who is intimately familiar with this process at Queens, I would advise future applicants to disregard Bhaywardio's advice. It is entirely incorrect for Queens. 

Having a similar degree of experience with the admissions process at Queen's, I would also disagree with Bhaywardio's advice as it pertains to Queen's. I think we all know that there is more nuance to the admissions process than that which is posted on the admission's website.

My advice would also be for applicants to take a expansive view of what can fall into the access category...as you can even see from the open-ended drafting helpfully highlighted by Bhaywardio, it was designed to be interpreted as such.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: deleted response because I did not initially realize how long ago this thread was posted and realize my response is most likely not needed by this time.

Edited by torontohermione

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • [portion only quoted, omitted text includes "[portion only quoted]" comments] Re first part, I'm also thinking of, not leave, but (thinking about non-law workplace examples), the tensions created by e.g. parents needing/wanting time off or leaving at a set time or whatever being accommodated, but non-parents not for the things they want to do. I see part of reducing stigma not only making leave available (and encouraged, in the sense of no stigma) to parents generally, but some provision for non-parents wanting the possibility of leave time even if unpaid or low-paid (i.e. maybe not a year!). Also, what about the other way? If man A takes off a year for parental leave, then another year for medical leave, should he be credited for those two years as if he were a high-billing rainmaker, like woman B who was present and working and achieving for those two years? Should he be credited as if he were a high-billing rainmaker, ahead of woman C, who was present and doing average but not great? If woman D has a year of maternity/parental leave, with benefits topped up so earning 100%, should she be credited with the time equally with woman E who never was on leave? Etc. Re hours and billables and rainmaking, are there lawyers with great contacts who can bring in lots of business and farm it out to other lawyers, who are in a position to negotiate, hey, I'll bring this much business, but I don't want to have to work the long hours?  I was reading this piece by Jordan Furlong recently which among other things (including disparity between compensation for women and men) noted his failure to understand why partners have high billing targets (rather than farming out the work they bring in). https://www.law21.ca/2018/09/how-compensation-plans-are-wrecking-law-firms/ Also in terms of what he was saying about valuing or not, I'm thinking of the stereotype (or examples?) of some lawyers are aggressive and boastful and land clients who end up being not particularly happy with billings or results, other lawyers are quieter and not so good at landing the clients but better at serving them and producing results the clients like and so they stay with the firm, but compensation tends to reward the former?
    • Wow, what a jump in LSAT scores! Congratulations! That's so impressive, seriously. I'm sure some law schools in your area would accept you. However, you need to make sure your personal statement is very well written and provides not only a succinct overview of your life and work experiences, but also your motivations for wanting to pursue a legal career at this age. Also make sure that you explain the reasons for why your GPA is on the lower side. 
    • Accepted  GPA: 85.4 w/drops LSAT: 168
    • Love this!  Accepted too! Can't wait to meet you guys! For stats:  UBC Percentage was 85% with drops LSAT: 164, 166  I applied late, so not sure which LSAT mark was looked at.
    • Accepted!!! GPA 86.5 with drops, 161 lsat (just got the november 2018 write results so they are moving quickly) 
×