Jump to content
passeri

Holistic Review Process

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Ryguy96 said:

Anyone think I stand a chance at all for holistic review consideration with a 3.49 L2 and 158 LSAT?

Also applied to UofC, TRU, Sask, DAL. My EC's are where I shine so i'm praying! 

it is hard to be sure for holistic review for it is totally subjective. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ryguy96 said:

Anyone think I stand a chance at all for holistic review consideration with a 3.49 L2 and 158 LSAT?

Also applied to UofC, TRU, Sask, DAL. My EC's are where I shine so i'm praying! 

The problem with making predictions for holistic/individual consideration /access applications is that, by their nature, they are more individual and subjective, and therefore difficult to quantify. 

So I hope your EC's and Statement are good enough to overcome your 3.49/158, and you probably have a better chance than my 2.95/163, but unlike with 'Normal' applications,  it's not like we can plug these into a formula with any confidence.

Let's cross our fingers though!

-GM

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, lawyer123 said:

it is hard to be sure for holistic review for it is totally subjective. 

4 minutes ago, GrumpyMountie said:

The problem with making predictions for holistic/individual consideration /access applications is that, by their nature, they are more individual and subjective, and therefore difficult to quantify. 

Yeah, completely understood! The uncertainty makes things difficult. It would be nice if there was something similar to the regular index formula at which you knew you would at least be considered for holistic review, but oh well. 

Best of luck to you both!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, lawyer123 said:

it is hard to be sure for holistic review for it is totally subjective. 

 

13 hours ago, GrumpyMountie said:

The problem with making predictions for holistic/individual consideration /access applications is that, by their nature, they are more individual and subjective, and therefore difficult to quantify. 

So I hope your EC's and Statement are good enough to overcome your 3.49/158, and you probably have a better chance than my 2.95/163, but unlike with 'Normal' applications,  it's not like we can plug these into a formula with any confidence.

Let's cross our fingers though!

-GM

To further this, I'm taking a law course in another faculty right now at the University with a prof who used to be on the admissions committee as recently as 2019 and he outright confirmed to me that the reason they don't publish their process is because it is completely subjective. Minimum LSAT for consideration is around 150, depending on admission cycle.

His off-the-record comments to myself after class were: At the holistic review stage, they are basically looking for students that will diversify their cohort and make the school "look better". For example, they look closer at those with experience in fields other than the typical applicants, such as those with a background in engineering, planning, medicine, nursing and military. They also take a closer look those with graduate degrees, since they expect these applicants to be more mature and are usually more purposive in their reasoning for applying to law school, as is often displayed in their personal statements. As well, accepting more students that already have graduate degrees gives the school more prestige and it's something they can brag about in their stats (couldn't tell if they were joking about this point) & funding proposals to the University.   

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

To further this, I'm taking a law course in another faculty right now at the University with a prof who used to be on the admissions committee as recently as 2019 and he outright confirmed to me that the reason they don't publish their process is because it is completely subjective. Minimum LSAT for consideration is around 150, depending on admission cycle.

His off-the-record comments to myself after class were: At the holistic review stage, they are basically looking for students that will diversify their cohort and make the school "look better". For example, they look closer at those with experience in fields other than the typical applicants, such as those with a background in engineering, planning, medicine, nursing and military. They also take a closer look those with graduate degrees, since they expect these applicants to be more mature and are usually more purposive in their reasoning for applying to law school, as is often displayed in their personal statements. As well, accepting more students that already have graduate degrees gives the school more prestige and it's something they can brag about in their stats (couldn't tell if they were joking about this point) & funding proposals to the University.   

What you said makes perfect sense to me. It does depend on how the committee see/think the applicant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My hope is that, at this phase, they're also willing to look at and disregard one bad academic year, because it's just the one bad year (in the middle of my L60) that is screwing me over. (Like a 1.0 GPA in one year, and a 3.78 in my other six (!) Years through 3 programs, along with a 163 LSAT. I also have some other good "soft" attributes, but these won't be good enough if they don't look past the L60 on the numbers front.

I am sure the process is fair and I'm not second-guessing it. Just sucks to know that if I have a shot, it'll have to be because the holistic review committee crowds around a calculator to crunch the numbers in my favour, and frankly they may prefer to just focus on the applicants who are somewhat closer to having the numbers they're looking for without doing a bunch more math. ;)

-GM

Share this post


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

My hope is that, at this phase, they're also willing to look at and disregard one bad academic year, because it's just the one bad year (in the middle of my L60) that is screwing me over. (Like a 1.0 GPA in one year, and a 3.78 in my other six (!) Years through 3 programs, along with a 163 LSAT. I also have some other good "soft" attributes, but these won't be good enough if they don't look past the L60 on the numbers front.

I am sure the process is fair and I'm not second-guessing it. Just sucks to know that if I have a shot, it'll have to be because the holistic review committee crowds around a calculator to crunch the numbers in my favour, and frankly they may prefer to just focus on the applicants who are somewhat closer to having the numbers they're looking for without doing a bunch more math. ;)

-GM

Hi GM, I saw you got couple acceptances already, you shouldnt have to be worried too much coz the you will have somewhere to go even in worst case scenario. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My $.02 on the holistic process. Caution: this is my completely unsubstantiated opinion and more of a rant than anything of substance.

I think the admissions committee first and foremost wants to see that you have what it takes to succeed in law and the legal field. Sure, diversity and “making the school look good” could be factors, but the school looks bad if it produces lawyers who can’t stay afloat in the real world, and they don’t get tuition fees from people who fail out of first year. 

So what:

1. I think the PS is mostly about showcasing key characteristics that demonstrate potential for success. A person can use volunteer experience with the local food bank to show extraordinary dedication, and yet a rocket scientist might not get an offer if they don’t show how rocket scientry (is that a word?) is predictive of success. (Yes, I’m assuming that dedication predicts success - lots more such assumptions to follow)

2. A pattern of crappy grades and/or LSAT would likely overpower a “cool” resume. I think someone with borderline stats who shows remarkable grit from tree planting every summer is more likely to get an offer than an Olympic medalist with heinous stats.

3. I think there’s a valuable story to tell in how a person reacts to failure. Someone who fails a semester, reflects on what happened, implements changes, and then comes back with straight As (i.e. grit) is probably more likely to get in than someone with consistently borderline scores. (Aside: I’m a proponent of highlighting growth from failure rather than excuses for failure)

4. That said, we all know that those “holy shit!” resumes certainly have an advantage. Someone who negotiated the Colombian ceasefire and FARC reintegration is probably going to demonstrate critical thinking and communication skills under pressure, problem-solving, resolve, etc., while it might be tough to show similar characteristics from experience as a McDonald’s shift manager.

My advice: you can’t change your experience, but you can make it tell a valuable story. For those with remarkable experience (I’m talking to you, people who have pulled yourselves out of homelessness, single parents who have raised a family while working three part-time jobs, and people whose volunteer activities have literally changed lives), the experience alone is useless if you can’t explain how it shows potential to succeed.

Rant over. Thanks for indulging.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2020 at 10:28 PM, Kingifer said:

Thanks. I have a 3.6 and 157. But I also have a BA and MSc from the U of A. I've also worked there for about 3 years... I'm hoping with a holistic review they might reward me for dedicating my life to them lol. 

The vibe I got from u of a holistic review is it’s more for people who’ve had major cataclysmic life events rather than below competitive grades or work experience and stuff. I hope you get in but I’ve met a few people who got in from holistic review and I can say any law school would’ve let them in due to their circumstances that’s how crazy they were. 3.6/157 is right on the edge though so don’t give up. For perspective I had a 3.6/164 and got in sometime in Jan so it might be worth rewriting the lsat if you think you can improve 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2020 at 1:49 PM, TimTheEnchanter said:

My $.02 on the holistic process. Caution: this is my completely unsubstantiated opinion and more of a rant than anything of substance.

I think the admissions committee first and foremost wants to see that you have what it takes to succeed in law and the legal field. Sure, diversity and “making the school look good” could be factors, but the school looks bad if it produces lawyers who can’t stay afloat in the real world, and they don’t get tuition fees from people who fail out of first year. 

So what:

1. I think the PS is mostly about showcasing key characteristics that demonstrate potential for success. A person can use volunteer experience with the local food bank to show extraordinary dedication, and yet a rocket scientist might not get an offer if they don’t show how rocket scientry (is that a word?) is predictive of success. (Yes, I’m assuming that dedication predicts success - lots more such assumptions to follow)

2. A pattern of crappy grades and/or LSAT would likely overpower a “cool” resume. I think someone with borderline stats who shows remarkable grit from tree planting every summer is more likely to get an offer than an Olympic medalist with heinous stats.

3. I think there’s a valuable story to tell in how a person reacts to failure. Someone who fails a semester, reflects on what happened, implements changes, and then comes back with straight As (i.e. grit) is probably more likely to get in than someone with consistently borderline scores. (Aside: I’m a proponent of highlighting growth from failure rather than excuses for failure)

4. That said, we all know that those “holy shit!” resumes certainly have an advantage. Someone who negotiated the Colombian ceasefire and FARC reintegration is probably going to demonstrate critical thinking and communication skills under pressure, problem-solving, resolve, etc., while it might be tough to show similar characteristics from experience as a McDonald’s shift manager.

My advice: you can’t change your experience, but you can make it tell a valuable story. For those with remarkable experience (I’m talking to you, people who have pulled yourselves out of homelessness, single parents who have raised a family while working three part-time jobs, and people whose volunteer activities have literally changed lives), the experience alone is useless if you can’t explain how it shows potential to succeed.

Rant over. Thanks for indulging.

Thank you for this. You have given me hope. ❤️

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.



×
×
  • Create New...