Jump to content
cryingrightnow

2.91/3.31/3.1 LSAT: 177 Chances

Recommended Posts

I know the LSAT score is high, but the cGPA is abysmal. Should I apply in Canada at all, or only to the states. Thanks in advance!

Share this post


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

I know the LSAT score is high, but the cGPA is abysmal. Should I apply in Canada at all, or only to the states. Thanks in advance!

Is 3.31 your L2 or B2?

You will get into Manitoba at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, NeverGiveUp said:

Is 3.31 your L2 or B2?

You will get into Manitoba at least.

It is my L2, and I was more so wondering for Ontario schools and maybe UBC

Edited by cryingrightnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NeverGiveUp said:

Is 177 your only LSAT score?

If so you will get into UofA with L2 3.31.

You also may get into Western, UNB, TRU, USask, etc.

You will get into UBC if your GPA after drops is 74% or higher:

http://lsutil.azurewebsites.net/UBC/Predict

You should have a shot at Georgetown and Northwestern.

Good luck!

Yes, the 177 is my only score. Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, cryingrightnow said:

I know the LSAT score is high, but the cGPA is abysmal. Should I apply in Canada at all, or only to the states. Thanks in advance!

That is a great LSAT Score, how did you prepare for it, and what was your undergrad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With a 177 I think schools would be dumb to reject you, not saying that they won't, but scoring a 177 is damn hard to ignore. I would say that you have a decent chance at any schools that definitely uses an index. I would also assume that if you have some sort of reason that your GPA is low, then you could apply for access. If you can qualify for access category I would assume you would get multiple offers. I'm no expert by any means but that is my best guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ConcernedApplicant said:

With a 177 I think schools would be dumb to reject you, not saying that they won't, but scoring a 177 is damn hard to ignore. I would say that you have a decent chance at any schools that definitely uses an index. I would also assume that if you have some sort of reason that your GPA is low, then you could apply for access. If you can qualify for access category I would assume you would get multiple offers. I'm no expert by any means but that is my best guess. 

Thank you for your kind words, 

Unfortunately, the cGPA matters a lot more in Canada and I don't really have any excuse other than I was working full-time (which, isn't really a good excuse because I did it to myself). Regardless, thank you for your encouragement. 

Share this post


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

That is a great LSAT Score, how did you prepare for it, and what was your undergrad?

I studied for an entire year, bought the powerscore books and read all of them in 2 months and then just did a practice test a day. My undergraduate was in engineering sciences with a focus in engineering physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, cryingrightnow said:

I studied for an entire year, bought the powerscore books and read all of them in 2 months and then just did a practice test a day. My undergraduate was in engineering sciences with a focus in engineering physics.

So you graduated from engineering?

You may get into any law school in Canada.

Edited by NeverGiveUp

Share this post


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

I studied for an entire year, bought the powerscore books and read all of them in 2 months and then just did a practice test a day. My undergraduate was in engineering sciences with a focus in engineering physics.

That makes a lot of sense. Thats really impressive, and with an undergrad like that, the low GPA also makes sense. I would suggest applying to some of the holistic schools and tailoring your personal statement to better reflect your attributes as well as why you want a career in law

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, cryingrightnow said:

Thank you for your kind words, 

Unfortunately, the cGPA matters a lot more in Canada and I don't really have any excuse other than I was working full-time (which, isn't really a good excuse because I did it to myself). Regardless, thank you for your encouragement. 

Fair enough, I worked 25ish hours a week for one year and it was tough enough, can't imagine full time for the whole 4 years. My cGPa is 3.33, with a L2 of 3.57 so I feel your pain on how much cGPA matters in Canada. It is possible that for a school like York who allows students to fill out a "Part B" of their application without having to qualify access that could maybe help explain your situation. Also for schools like Windsor, you would have a shot because you clearly show the aptitude required as seen from your LSAT score. I would be very surprised if you didn't get in anywhere. Good luck! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeverGiveUp said:

So you graduated from engineering?

You may get into any law school in Canada.

Let's not get carried away.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, erinl2 said:

Let's not get carried away.

Oh don’t worry, he knows  the engineering degree doesn’t mean much haha.

Edited by Improbability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly you’re score is so impressive. Please keep all of us updated as to what law school you got into. I am writing the lsat in June. I am in full study mode at the Moment and I too plan on doing one practice test everyday all of april and May. 

All the best 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Improbability said:

Oh don’t worry, he knows  the engineering degree doesn’t mean much haha.

I think Erin is referring to the "You may get into any law school in Canada" part.

Yes the lsat is high but both the cgpa and L2 are significantly below avg. So no not any school. Chances? Yes. Any school? I wouldn't say any school. But definitely a chance at a couple of schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, CrimNation said:

I think Erin is referring to the "You may get into any law school in Canada" part.

Yes the lsat is high but both the cgpa and L2 are significantly below avg. So no not any school. Chances? Yes. Any school? I wouldn't say any school. But definitely a chance at a couple of schools.

Fair enough, I read it more like the fact that there is a chance that OP may get into 'any' law school possibly, not necessarily every law school. Being this much of a splitter is so rare it is hard to say what schools will think, it may depend heavily on personal statements who knows. Its so hard to predict because usually people with high 170s don't have a sub 3.0 cGPA right? Not disagreeing with anyone just pondering what may happen. I'm very interested in how this will turn out for OP and what school would be willing to take a shot at someone who is a splitter like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ConcernedApplicant said:

Fair enough, I read it more like the fact that there is a chance that OP may get into 'any' law school possibly, not necessarily every law school. Being this much of a splitter is so rare it is hard to say what schools will think, it may depend heavily on personal statements who knows. Its so hard to predict because usually people with high 170s don't have a sub 3.0 cGPA right? Not disagreeing with anyone just pondering what may happen. I'm very interested in how this will turn out for OP and what school would be willing to take a shot at someone who is a splitter like that.

I agree with everything you said except for the any VS every part. OP’s best bets are schools that emphasize LSAT (like Western) and schools that take drops (like Manitoba for example). 

The only way another school like UOttawa (who looks more at cgpa over lsat) would take the OP is if the OP has a legitimate Access claim and provided documentation. Then Ottawa can see the reasons behind the cgpa, look up to the lsat, and be more holistic towards that person. Although, there is little debate as to why someone’s cgpa was affected and not their LSAT, but that depends on the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CrimNation said:

I agree with everything you said except for the any VS every part. OP’s best bets are schools that emphasize LSAT (like Western) and schools that take drops (like Manitoba for example). 

The only way another school like UOttawa (who looks more at cgpa over lsat) would take the OP is if the OP has a legitimate Access claim and provided documentation. Then Ottawa can see the reasons behind the cgpa, look up to the lsat, and be more holistic towards that person. Although, there is little debate as to why someone’s cgpa was affected and not their LSAT, but that depends on the case.

Fair point, I guess some schools like Ottawa wouldn't weight the LSAT as highly, I just don't know which schools would care more. but I guess looking at the accepted posts past years Western and Ottawa seem to be the opposite of eachother like you said, Western caring about the LSAT much more than Ottawa, lots of people getting into Ottawa with mid 150s but nobody getting in with a low gpa unless they have an access claim. 

  • 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Thanks for taking the time to answer my previous question. I may be applying this cycle and have a question with regards to the Sketch part of the application. When I previously applied to Law School I added every little volunteer/extracurricular from the time I entered University. For simplicity purposes, I wanted to retain only the last 3-4 years of relevant experience. Would this be a problem for an individual that had more sketch items in a previous application 1-2 years ago? For example some activities are not included at all whereas they were on a previous application?  And just for the sake of knowing I guess, would you have access to and look back at a previous application if you were assessing a candidate?  
    • No, I think the bias is good because it makes whiny conservatives like you fill your diaper. Your first thought on hearing the Prime Minister did something racist was run to bump an old thread to try and score points for your “team”, because to you the racism isn’t really the issue, it’s just an opportunity to poke a lib in the eye.
    • I don't think that people are necessarily laughing at the essence of what you are saying.  What you are saying isn't completely crazy.  The pace at which you are suggesting this will all happen is likely, in part, what they are doubting.  The reactions may also be partly attributed to the fact that you haven't (I don't think?) actually practiced law at this point. I just don't think the legal profession will be completely revolutionized as imminently as your comments suggest.  While I (and probably others) can appreciate arguments that computers will replace certain functions currently done by humans and that some of Ryerson's tech-forward training could be helpful (if well executed), I think it will take time to get there.  While I do appreciate the need for lawyers to have more technical skills and to better integrate technology into law schools (whatever that means...I'm old), I don't understand how this translates to what seems to be your critique of the substance of law school (i.e. what is taught not the way it is taught).  I do think that law school, especially 1L, should continue to include the case reading, making legal arguments, etc. that you seem to criticize, both because I can't imagine a scenario where humans interacting with AI technology don't need a baseline level of knowledge of the law and because I don't think these changes are going to come all that quickly.  It is also pretty absurd to claim that summaries from 2003 are "the same".  75% the same?  Sure.  But actually the same?  Doubtful.  Even if they were "the same", that doesn't demonstrate that law school curricula are dated or make them irrelevant.  If that is the current state of the law, then that is the current state of the law.
    • Agreed. Also I’m at UBC (where OP also seems to attend) and I’ve had several recruiters at big firms tell me, unprompted, that we have a great CSO that understands exactly what the firms want. Probably since our CSO people have worked at large firms.  Just wanted to add that since I don’t think it’s helpful for OP to go down the path of thinking an incompetent CSO was his or her issue. 
    • Okay since I am getting laughs here. Fine, here's a fairly "primitive" model of how natural language processing algorithm can be used. Read this, its an open-source Python library designed for building legal tech software: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3192101 This is an easier to digest thing describing how AI is reshaping law.  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3381798
×
×
  • Create New...