Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bubbless

Is a low GPA automatically a deal breaker?

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I am currently a third year in a bilingual university in Ontario and my GPA is around 3.1 (had a very bad incident happen to me first year and got diagnosed with clinical depression last year). 

I was born in QC but moved to ON at a young age, my ECs include: tutoring French since I was in grade 8, volunteer French tutor at my university, and recently became an activist for french minority rights in Ontario and joined the Université de l'Ontario francais project. I also worked two summers in the French education board and a job at the university. I have a really strong relationship with two of my profs who I believe would write excellent recommendation letters and would focus my PS on why I believe an education at McGill would help with my activism. 

My question is, is it worth even applying to McGill considering they put a lot of emphasis on academic excellence with my low GPA? Would my EC and PS be enough to save me from that?

Thank you in advance! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not well-versed in McGill's admissions process so I can't speak to it very much. However, more broadly, the point I was looking to make is that some schools have an "access" admissions application in which you can provide some context to the extenuating circumstances that caused your subpar grades. This could be grief, illness, victim of a crime, etc. It is quite a broad category and it is still very competitive, but it sounds like you've really become engaged in your community and worked really hard and the only thing on paper holding you back is your GPA, so maybe I'd look into McGill's admissions more and see if they have an access category or something like it, or if they don't, possibly open up your options a bit more and look into a school nearby or that fits your criteria of what you're looking for and apply there! McGill is a great school, but you'll receive a great legal education wherever you go, but I understand if you're looking to learn civil law that it narrows your options, but if unfortunately McGill is unaccommodating to your GPA circumstances going elsewhere would be a great alternative! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was admitted with a GPA comparable to yours with a similar reason behind it, but as mentioned above I did have a high lsat to help offset it, and it was quite clearly out of step with my other years of schooling if they looked at my transcript.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apply, talk about in your cover letter.

can get in with low gpa

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

    • Literally nobody here claimed that lawyering was the most intellectually demanding profession out there (by the way I had started writing this response before getting ninja'd by many others above--I don't mean to dogpile but fuck it, I will finish writing and posting this). You had initially written that lawyers tend to have average IQs, which is patently absurd. Then you edited that same post to say that their IQs tend to be in the high 120s, which would put them in the 95th-98th percentile, but characterized this as "not that high." Then you again wrote that "anyone" could be a lawyer. Everyone here is well aware that you don't need to have the horsepower of a Nobel Prize-winning physicist to be a competent lawyer. But whenever someone claims that any average Joe can do the job, that tells me they have very limited experience interacting with average Joes. Before I entered this field I repeatedly told a friend who works as an associate at a Sister that one of the attractive things about law that I think people in his position take for granted is being able to interact with reasonably intelligent people who will be able to engage in basic logical reasoning, because this isn't the reality for many people in terms of what they have to deal with on a daily basis. In addition to my own experiences validating that premise, I've increasingly seen posts on this forum that confirm for me that many people do, in fact, take this for granted. And honestly I'm pushing back because this sort of worldview and perception of the abilities of most people has broader implications for public policy, how we design systems and products, etc. Everyone who thinks this way needs to learn to expect less from people. /rant
    • Thank you so much.
    • Lawyers with those degrees have almost certainly long forgotten that material. The only reason I posted this is because, in response to neutral comments I made, people have let loose a deluge of insults towards myself, biochemistry and science generally. This whole thread is hilarious - a sort of smug belief that law requires some special innate intelligence because law is some grand intellectual endeavor. That's why all the average students from my high school chose law after having studied civics 101 in undergrad.
    • Beyond this misrepresentation of other forum members’ postings on the subject, you’re also comparing a job (that is, of lawyer) to a field of academic study (theoretical physics). Obviously this isn’t a fair comparison and I think most laymen would be equally stupefied by the dense stuff that comes out of legal academia as they would the stuff that comes out of physics academia.
    • I haven't read any posts which say this. If anything, most are saying that law requires only a reasonable level of intelligence. 

×
×
  • Create New...