Jump to content
MBows94

Chances with low GPA (2.75) and L60 (3.06)

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, TheGeneral said:

Whose to say the OP won't excel in law school abroad?  There have been several Canadians now who have gone abroad now and become lawyers in Canada.  Just a basic google search will reveal plenty of lawyers who got their legal educations abroad.  

How many of those lawyers gave honest accounts of what they went through to become lawyers in Canada? PS, I'm conducting this google search right now, and I'm not finding the lawyers you're speaking of. 

Edited by RelaxingTimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all of the replies. I was thinking of more holistic schools but obviously I should've included that at the beginning before this spiraled into a "Peter Hogg is smarter than OP" war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

No offence to OP, but I have a feeling that Mr. Hogg could have done a bit better than a 2.75 undergrad GPA. What considering the Harvard LLM and Monash SJD. 

So you're saying I won't get into Harvard?

Edited by MBows94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MBows94 said:

Thanks for all of the replies. I was thinking of more holistic schools but obviously I should've included that at the beginning before this spiraled into a "Peter Hogg is smarter than OP" war.

You mentioned your L60, but what about B2? Ryerson and Queen's are both B2 schools specifically. Even if your B2 is uncompetitive for Queen's, i.e. below 3.60, it may be good enough for Ryerson coupled with your work experience (particularly if it's unique and can tie into motivation to be a lawyer). 

The other school that comes to mind is Windsor, which has a fairly low cGPA median, and as per their stated admissions practices, they factor a lot of elements into their assessment of cGPA (e.g. difficulty of undergrad program). That may be helpful if your GPA is from MIT engineering, for example, or another obviously tough program. 

It's worth mentioning that because your GPA is fairly uncompetitive, you will really need strong soft factors, and you will likewise need to effectively highlight those in your personal statement to convince the adcoms that you'd make a great law student who is more than able to handle the pressures. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MBows94 said:

So you're saying I won't get into Harvard?

You’re probably not going to get into any Canadian law school with your current application. If you pull off an exceptional LSAT, say 170+, you may have a shot at some schools, but admissions chances for splitters are hard to predict and it’s far from a guarantee. 

Your current GPA, to be frank, is quite poor. It does not demonstrate any real scholastic aptitude and does not suggest you will succeed in law school. In order to gain admission, you’ll need to show the admissions committee that your GPA doesn’t accurately reflect your academic abilities.

If I were you, I would write a diagnostic LSAT and see where you sit. If you’re in the 160+ range as a diagnostic, you can likely hit a 170+ with studying. Then, write the LSAT and apply. 

If you’re short of a 160+, I would likely give up on attending law school. It’s possible, although not likely, that you’ll be able to grind your way to a 170+, but I don’t think it would be worth the effort. That’s particularly true when you consider that admission is not guaranteed even if you hit a 170.

“Give up on your dreams” is rarely popular advice, but I think it’s often good advice. A lot of people waste a lot of time trying to get into law school, and they often miss out on years of pursuing meaningful and engaging alternative careers. 

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BlockedQuebecois said:

You’re probably not going to get into any Canadian law school with your current application. If you pull off an exceptional LSAT, say 170+, you may have a shot at some schools, but admissions chances for splitters are hard to predict and it’s far from a guarantee. 

Your current GPA, to be frank, is quite poor. It does not demonstrate any real scholastic aptitude and does not suggest you will succeed in law school. In order to gain admission, you’ll need to show the admissions committee that your GPA doesn’t accurately reflect your academic abilities.

If I were you, I would write a diagnostic LSAT and see where you sit. If you’re in the 160+ range as a diagnostic, you can likely hit a 170+ with studying. Then, write the LSAT and apply. 

If you’re short of a 160+, I would likely give up on attending law school. It’s possible, although not likely, that you’ll be able to grind your way to a 170+, but I don’t think it would be worth the effort. That’s particularly true when you consider that admission is not guaranteed even if you hit a 170.

“Give up on your dreams” is rarely popular advice, but I think it’s often good advice. A lot of people waste a lot of time trying to get into law school, and they often miss out on years of pursuing meaningful and engaging alternative careers. 

Thank you for an actual piece of advice this time. Stick to that in the future. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing to consider is you've been working for 2 years already, you could work for a couple more years (5 I believe is the minimum) and apply in the mature category. It's not a guarantee you'd get in but if you have good softs, apply in the mature category and have a really good LSAT it would improve your chances! 

Edited by parkersophie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MBows94 said:

Thank you for an actual piece of advice this time. Stick to that in the future. 

Here’s another piece of advice: nobody owes you shit, so don’t act like they do. 

Don’t come onto a forum where you have no reputation or track record, ask for advice, and then whine when you receive anything but direct and helpful responses to your query. It reeks of entitlement and makes people less likely to help you, now and in the future. 

You may not recognize this, but saying you’re no Peter Hogg actually is advice – it was dismissing a users asinine advice that you consider attending a foreign law school based on a career path that, to be honest, you are less likely to embark on than a mission to Mars. Just because the advice came in a form you found unpleasant doesn’t mean it wasn’t advice.

So instead of trying to clap back at me for suggesting you’re not a literal genius, maybe sit down, be humble, and be appreciative of the people who volunteered their time and energy to answer your question. 

Edited by BlockedQuebecois
  • Like 5
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MBows94 said:

Thanks for all of the replies. I was thinking of more holistic schools but obviously I should've included that at the beginning before this spiraled into a "Peter Hogg is smarter than OP" war.

Is there anything that contributed to your earning a low GPA during your undergrad that you could explain away to a holistic school? Any barriers, extraordinary circumstances, hardships, etc? If not, you hardly stand a chance of being admitted.

Edited by RelaxingTimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really, really want to go to law school, and are able to perform on the LSAT, consider starting another undergraduate degree. Demonstrate that you are academically capable of succeeding in law school by getting straight A grades for 2 years. 

This is a far superior alternative to going abroad for law school. Moves like that made out of desperation rarely end well. 

Come back here with an actual LSAT score, too. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TheGeneral said:

Last I checked the top Constitutional guy in Canada, Peter Hogg was a lawyer from New Zealand.  How many people know of him?

Peter Hogg came to Canada in the 1970s. The practice of law in Canada is very different now than it was half a century ago. Also, using arguably the most acclaimed Canadian constitutional lawyer as an example of a foreign-trained lawyer who made it in Canada after immigrating is a paradigm example of survivorship bias.

Share this post


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

Peter Hogg came to Canada in the 1970s. The practice of law in Canada is very different now than it was half a century ago. Also, using arguably the most acclaimed Canadian constitutional lawyer as an example of a foreign-trained lawyer who made it in Canada after immigrating is a paradigm example of survivorship bias.

Not really, law still is based on precedent and the adversarial process not much different than half a century ago.  One can really tell on this site just how jealous are the traditional path advocates of others who have chosen a different path.  Let me tell you the truth. In regards of the entire world, Canada does not matter at all except being the little brother to the United States. The Bar Call that matter most is New York, and the Solicitors Roll which matters most is England and Wales.  Why? Because New York and London are centers of international trade.  The New York Bar is essentially open to anyone with a law degree, and England and Wales if you study in the UK you are eligible to do the LPC rather easily.  You can also train as Legal Executive.  Let's remember where common law originated.  It wasn't Canada.  A lot of people commenting here don't think internationally and have a one track mind.  In the QS rankings, only 1 Canadian university -U of T is in the top 25 (at 20).  The University of Queensland beats UBC.  Out of 200 international universities, UVic is second from the bottom.  Take a look here:  https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/university-subject-rankings/2020/law-legal-studies   I am glad I travel frequently out of Canada, because people in Canada are so narrow minded  thinking Canada is the best country in the world for everything, and all other countries are impoverished, and backwaters etc who look up to Canada.  However,  deep down we Canadians know Canada is nothing without America at our Southern border.  If the USA was Mexico, Canada would be vastly different.  We have no sports teams that can compete internationally except Hockey, we have no identifiable 'Canadian' foods except Tim Hortons, no real culture as we are a hodge podge of immigrants, and we do not have the best education anymore (again see above).  In fact all education in Canada is going down due to it being  Constructionist and focused on SJW ism -focusing on feelings not facts.     

In sum going abroad is not a bad move as many posters contend.  It's smart.  

  

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TheGeneral said:

One can really tell on this site just how jealous are the traditional path advocates of others who have chosen a different path. 

LMAO. Why on earth would those of us who were able to gain admission to a Canadian law school be "jealous" of those who are not competitive for Canadian law schools, for pursuing an inferior option that we all had open to us? The idea that as a UBC student I should be "jealous" of people who went to Bond is utterly nonsensical and laughable.

I'll leave others to address the rest of that absurd and long-winded rant, if this thread isn't locked before they have the chance to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

LMAO. Why on earth would those of us who were able to gain admission to a Canadian law school be "jealous" of those who are not competitive for Canadian law schools, for pursuing an inferior option that we all had open to us? The idea that as a UBC student I should be "jealous" of people who went to Bond is utterly nonsensical and laughable.

I'll leave others to address the rest of that absurd and long-winded rant, if this thread isn't locked before they have the chance to do so.

The reason you the great UBC law student get jealous is because the person who   went to Bond with a lower GPA has the same or better outcome than you.  They become a lawyer in Canada just as you did with supposed less merit.  That is why many on here trash foreign lawyers/schools.  They equate getting into law school with intelligence and hard work, so when someone gets in through the back door they whine.  

Edited by TheGeneral
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TheGeneral said:

The reason you the great UBC law student get jealous is because the person who   went to Bond with a lower GPA has the same or better outcome than you.  They become a lawyer in Canada just as you did with supposed less merit.  That is why many on here trash foreign lawyers/schools.  They equate getting into law school with intelligence and hard work, so when someone gets in through the back door they whine.  

The outcomes aren't "the same or better" generally, and they certainly aren't for the specific career interests I had going in to law school. I have been hired to article with an organization that simply doesn't hire foreign law grads (okay, possibly a HYS or Oxbridge grad with Canadian equivalency sorted out would be an exception, but a Bond grad would literally never be hired there). I attended a panel discussion last year where a practicing lawyer who was a Bond grad was asked by a student if they had interest in working in the capacity I'm now working in, and the panelist candidly admitted that they did have interest but they had no chance of getting hired in that role due to having "a foreign law degree" (and this person was an abnormally successful Bond grad). My supervisor had a foreign law degree (a respectable one, ranked in the 51-100 range in the link you provided) and successfully practiced international law previously, but despite that he still obtained a Canadian JD after that in order to be competitive for respectable legal positions here.

One of many things your analysis above fundamentally doesn't grasp is that law is jurisdictional. If you want to practice law in Canada (as I did), you should go to a Canadian law school (even above a "better" foreign school--which clearly isn't what you have in mind anyways). There isn't some global hierarchy where Canadian firms practicing Canadian law are generally going to hire Georgetown grads over Windsor grads.

I'll add that I was a low GPA/high LSAT splitter, so contrary to being some elitist prick who wanks off to my own "greatness," I'm more sympathetic to marginal candidates than most. When I started the application process (before getting an LSAT score), my own admission to a Canadian law school was far from guaranteed. But I did my homework and quickly learned that going abroad would be a terrible decision, so I ruled it out as an option. If I didn't get in to a Canadian law school, I wasn't going to any law school. I'd recommend the same to nearly everyone in the same position.

Edited by CleanHands
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to admire anyone who can go from hesitant 0L to international legal hierarchy expert in a little over a week. Throw in some legal vocabulary like "precedent", "adversarial process", and "common law", cite some international rankings for good measure, and baby, you've got a stew going. 

Edited by Tagger
  • Like 2
  • Haha 6

Share this post


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

I have been hired to article with an organization that simply doesn't hire foreign law grads

That's good for you, but not good for the legal consumer.  Hence, the reason there has been more and more opportunities for foreign law grads over time.  Everyday the monopoly of the traditionalists is being broken by foreign law graduates immigrating to Canada.  The 'jurisdictions' are becoming more and more reciprocal.  There was a time when nurses and teachers could not practice outside their 'home' provinces.  Now they have the freedom to work in any province due to reciprocal licensing processes. Likewise, the elitism of the law profession is breaking down.  The democratization of the profession is happening.   The Federation of Law Societies of Canada is breaking down walls, not putting them up. 

I get that many on here like to think they are special, like to think they are smarter than the average Joe Schmo because they view law as a ticket to the big leagues and prestigious.  It's not true as much anymore.  There has been rampant grade inflation in Canadian universities, degrees have not been worth the paper they have been printed on since probably the 1970's and LSAT scores can be prepped for by taking prep courses.  Everyone knows this.  There are more and more available seats in law schools everywhere.  With enough time and effort, anyone can become a lawyer in Canada, either from the frontdoor (Canadian law schools) or the backdoor (foreign).  

The best time to be a lawyer was in the 70's and 80's.  That was the golden era.  Many people here think and believe that law is still like that time.  Make partner, and have a big old oak desk.  Smoke a cigar like the Monopoly guy.  Corner office in a high rise.  Have cocktails in the afternoon.  100K salary. They don't see the financial stresses, the demanding clients, the high rates of divorce, mental health issues, and illness such as heart attack, or cancer.  

I'm an older person, who is on the fence about learning law later in life.  I like the subject.  I truly do from an intellectual perspective.  But I have lived and worked a long life, to know that a lot of youngsters here have a totally misguided view about the law.  

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TheGeneral said:

That's good for you, but not good for the legal consumer.  Hence, the reason there has been more and more opportunities for foreign law grads over time.  Everyday the monopoly of the traditionalists is being broken by foreign law graduates immigrating to Canada.  The 'jurisdictions' are becoming more and more reciprocal.  There was a time when nurses and teachers could not practice outside their 'home' provinces.  Now they have the freedom to work in any province due to reciprocal licensing processes. Likewise, the elitism of the law profession is breaking down.  The democratization of the profession is happening.   The Federation of Law Societies of Canada is breaking down walls, not putting them up. 

I get that many on here like to think they are special, like to think they are smarter than the average Joe Schmo because they view law as a ticket to the big leagues and prestigious.  It's not true as much anymore.  There has been rampant grade inflation in Canadian universities, degrees have not been worth the paper they have been printed on since probably the 1970's and LSAT scores can be prepped for by taking prep courses.  Everyone knows this.  There are more and more available seats in law schools everywhere.  With enough time and effort, anyone can become a lawyer in Canada, either from the frontdoor (Canadian law schools) or the backdoor (foreign).  

The best time to be a lawyer was in the 70's and 80's.  That was the golden era.  Many people here think and believe that law is still like that time.  Make partner, and have a big old oak desk.  Smoke a cigar like the Monopoly guy.  Corner office in a high rise.  Have cocktails in the afternoon.  100K salary. They don't see the financial stresses, the demanding clients, the high rates of divorce, mental health issues, and illness such as heart attack, or cancer.  

I'm an older person, who is on the fence about learning law later in life.  I like the subject.  I truly do from an intellectual perspective.  But I have lived and worked a long life, to know that a lot of youngsters here have a totally misguided view about the law.  

 

 

 

Ok boomer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheGeneral said:

[...]

I'm an older person, who is on the fence about learning law later in life.  I like the subject.  I truly do from an intellectual perspective.  But I have lived and worked a long life, to know that a lot of youngsters here have a totally misguided view about the law.  

 

If I cared enough, I'd take the time to point out how many ridiculous points you made. Instead I'll leave it at this: why should anyone take your (i.e., someone who has admittedly never practiced) advice over the other posters above who have practiced? I know whose opinions I'd value more.

But I'm just a youngster with a degree with inflated grades, whose degree was tarnished by all those damned SJWs, and is also worthless, as everyone appears to know. 

Share this post


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

If I cared enough, I'd take the time to point out how many ridiculous points you made. Instead I'll leave it at this: why should anyone take your (i.e., someone who has admittedly never practiced) advice over the other posters above who have practiced? I know whose opinions I'd value more.

But I'm just a youngster with a degree with inflated grades, whose degree was tarnished by all those damned SJWs, and is also worthless, as everyone appears to know. 

Ahh youth rage.  So prevalent in this day in age.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...