Jump to content
legallybrunette3

What's the deal with school rankings?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

Anomaly 

There are multiple people with stats in that neighbourhood in the Osgoode thread. Neither Your friend’s GPA nor having to “crush the LSAT” are the problems.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

There are multiple people with stats in that neighbourhood in the Osgoode thread. Neither Your friend’s GPA nor having to “crush the LSAT” are the problems.

The median stats last year were 3.69/161. 3.5 is nowhere near 3.69. For reference, someone with a 3.5 would have to take 26 additional equal credit courses with a 4.0 in each to get near that median. If someone got in with 3.5/159, I’d say it’s probable that they either filled out part b, had some incredible ECs or worked before applying. 3.5 wouldn’t even be the 25th percentile GPA for Oz. You can’t realistically look someone in the face and tell them they have a good chance of getting in with a 3.5/159 purely based on stats alone. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

The median stats last year were 3.69/161. 3.5 is nowhere near 3.69. For reference, someone with a 3.5 would have to take 26 additional equal credit courses with a 4.0 in each to get near that median. If someone got in with 3.5/159, I’d say it’s probable that they either filled out part b, had some incredible ECs or worked before applying. 3.5 wouldn’t even be the 25th percentile GPA for Oz. You can’t realistically look someone in the face and tell them they have a good chance of getting in with a 3.5/159 purely based on stats alone. 

So go for 3.5/163 or 164. That’s still not crushing the LSAT and now above median on it. Again, not the problem. Also there are three other 5 other schools in Ontario beyond Osgoode, U of T and Ryerson

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

The median stats last year were 3.69/161. 3.5 is nowhere near 3.69. For reference, someone with a 3.5 would have to take 26 additional equal credit courses with a 4.0 in each to get near that median. If someone got in with 3.5/159, I’d say it’s probable that they either filled out part b, had some incredible ECs or worked before applying. 3.5 wouldn’t even be the 25th percentile GPA for Oz. You can’t realistically look someone in the face and tell them they have a good chance of getting in with a 3.5/159 purely based on stats alone. 

so can we then agree that the law schools that refused your depressed, deathly majored friend either:

  1. admitted people with ECs / backgrounds / work histories that made for a more desirable class composition (in their view), OR
  2. admitted people with purely better stats

?

doesn't seem like a flaw in the selection process to me, but i am relatively new here

 

 

Share this post


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

So go for 3.5/163 or 164. That’s still not crushing the LSAT and now above median on it. Again, not the problem. Also there are three other 5 other schools in Ontario beyond Osgoode, U of T and Ryerson

Having an lsat slightly above the median with a GPA well below the median isn’t going to add much value to your app lol

Edited by HopefulLawyer97

Share this post


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

so can we then agree that the law schools that refused your depressed, deathly majored friend either:

  1. admitted people with ECs / backgrounds / work histories that made for a more desirable class composition (in their view), OR
  2. admitted people with purely better stats

?

doesn't seem like a flaw in the selection process to me, but i am relatively new here

 

 

1. He actually didn’t apply. At a certain point, having a low GPA diminishes someone’s propensity to spend money and time studying for the LSAT and applying, knowing your chances are significantly hampered. 

2. Sure, we can hypothesize in our situation that applicants who were admitted had potentially better stats. Doesn’t change the fact that his ugrad major probably made him less competitive compared to someone with a 4.0 in basketweaving from Concordia lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

2. Sure, we can hypothesize in our situation that applicants who were admitted had potentially better stats. Doesn’t change the fact that his ugrad major probably made him less competitive compared to someone with a 4.0 in basketweaving from Concordia lol

well no, right? it makes him less competitive compared to people from similar backgrounds with better stats, which as we've shown are admitted in great numbers by a school you would consider the opposite of 'lesser'

the rest are filled with students from different backgrounds, interests, goals, etc., which is great because law schools want a varied, diverse class

i wish your friend would have worked harder :(

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

He actually didn’t apply. At a certain point, having a low GPA diminishes someone’s propensity to spend money and time studying for the LSAT and applying, knowing your chances are significantly hampered

A 3.5 is nowhere near low enough to give up studying for the LSAT. Especially if you are considering this person to be very smart and coming from an academically rigorous program. 

Edited by Re7o
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

well no, right? it makes him less competitive compared to people from similar backgrounds with better stats, which as we've shown are admitted in great numbers by a school you would consider the opposite of 'lesser'

the rest are filled with students from different backgrounds, interests, goals, etc., which is great because law schools want a varied, diverse class

i wish your friend would have worked harder :(

 

Ummm when schools admit people they don’t compare your stats to other applicants who came from the same major lol. Regardless, being in the top 10% of an Eng class and graduating with a 3.8 is going to be harder than being in top of a BA class, some of which aren’t even curved. I took some 3rd and 4th year BA electives where almost everyone in the class got an A lol. I’m not quite understanding what you’re getting at here, but the bottom line is not every university major is equal in terms of rigour/difficulty, and by and large, school admissions don’t account for this.

This is going to be my last post here because I’m starting to regret brining up the painfully obvious point that some ugrad programs are objectively harder than others. I should’ve known that a world of butthurt would be unleashed, but the dialogue exchange has been quite interesting nevertheless. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

Ummm when schools admit people they don’t compare your stats to other applicants who came from the same major lol. Regardless, being in the top 10% of an Eng class and graduating with a 3.8 is going to be harder than being in top of a BA class, some of which aren’t even curved. I took some 3rd and 4th year BA electives where almost everyone in the class got an A lol. I’m not quite understanding what you’re getting at here, but the bottom line is not every university major is equal in terms of rigour/difficulty, and by and large, school admissions don’t account for this.

This is going to be my last post here because I’m starting to regret brining up the painfully obvious point that some ugrad programs are objectively harder than others. I should’ve known that a world of butthurt would be unleashed, but the dialogue exchange has been quite interesting nevertheless. 

This is just categorically not true. Schools take the majors and institutions into account in assessing.

Anyway your friend’s judgment to not even write the LSAT with a 3.5 shows more about why they are a potentially bad candidate than even their GPA would. To claim no law school would admit them without even trying is cowardly, and just let’s himself claim unearned martyrdom.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

Having an lsat slightly above the median with a GPA well below the median isn’t going to add much value to your app lol

And which adcom did you serve on again? Your experience as *checks notes* never been to law school doesn’t seem to add much value.

in any event, as an example, U of A admitted 5 students with a 3.5 GPA and a 161-162 lsat. It’s not a fool’s errand to apply and a 3.5 isn’t that difficult to overcome.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

Ummm when schools admit people they don’t compare your stats to other applicants who came from the same major lol. Regardless, being in the top 10% of an Eng class and graduating with a 3.8 is going to be harder than being in top of a BA class, some of which aren’t even curved. I took some 3rd and 4th year BA electives where almost everyone in the class got an A lol. I’m not quite understanding what you’re getting at here, but the bottom line is not every university major is equal in terms of rigour/difficulty, and by and large, school admissions don’t account for this.

This is going to be my last post here because I’m starting to regret brining up the painfully obvious point that some ugrad programs are objectively harder than others. I should’ve known that a world of butthurt would be unleashed, but the dialogue exchange has been quite interesting nevertheless. 

watch any account of adcomms members speaking of their experiences, they are building a class which involves a lot of micro and macro decisions when it comes to its composition, especially true for a school that could be considered top tier

you just got shown that 21% (the largest of the chunks) of UofT admits are from deathly majors, what do you want law schools to do? dedicate half their fucking class to stem majors just to appease you and your friend's insecurities?

 

Edited by lolschool
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

This is just categorically not true. Schools take the majors and institutions into account in assessing.

Just to support this point, UofT Law explicitly says this in their admission policies. 

“Moreover, we take into account the nature of the program and the undergraduate institution (or institutions) at which an applicant has studied. Specifically, programs and institutions have varying grading practices, which we take into account in our assessment. In general, the Admissions Committee examines each applicant's academic record with a view to meaningful and fair comparisons of undergraduate performance.”

https://www.law.utoronto.ca/jd-admissions-policies

Share this post


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

And which adcom did you serve on again? Your experience as *checks notes* never been to law school doesn’t seem to add much value.

in any event, as an example, U of A admitted 5 students with a 3.5 GPA and a 161-162 lsat. It’s not a fool’s errand to apply and a 3.5 isn’t that difficult to overcome.

Had to come out of temporary retirement cause this one is just too good. 

1. I am in fact in law school  

2. 5 students in a first year class of 175. Thats 2.8% bro. Who’s going to spend time and money studying and applying for a 2.9% chance. And you need a top 15% LSAT just for that chance. Come on bro. 
 

It’s not martyrdom. In economics that’s called rational choice. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think U of T might be an anomaly, or at least be in the minority, on assessing the difficulty of one’s undergrad. The collective wisdom on this site, at least from what I’ve read, is that most schools don’t take it into account.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, HopefulLawyer97 said:

1. He actually didn’t apply. At a certain point, having a low GPA diminishes someone’s propensity to spend money and time studying for the LSAT and applying, knowing your chances are significantly hampered. 

It takes no money and three and a half hours to get a diagnostic LSAT score. Your point only makes any sense if someone did that and got an abysmal diagnostic. In which case the 3.5 GPA isn't even their main issue.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HopefulLawyer97 said:

Had to come out of temporary retirement cause this one is just too good. 

1. I am in fact in law school  

2. 5 students in a first year class of 175. Thats 2.8% bro. Who’s going to spend time and money studying and applying for a 2.9% chance. And you need a top 15% LSAT just for that chance. Come on bro. 
 

It’s not martyrdom. In economics that’s called rational choice. 

 

Sorry I misread one of your posts, you're a 1L. Big accomplishment, I wish I could relate. Certainly gives you authoritative views on admissions committees, "bro".

Yeah one school as an example and the tougher one to get into in Alberta - and I only picked that specific LSAT range. They let in 8% of their class with a 3.5. And yeah no shit you need a top 15% LSAT, are you now saying your friend should both shit the bed in school and on the LSAT and still get admitted despite not having any additional factors besides "went to an engineering program"? Come on "bro", that's asinine.

Western's mean cumulative GPA is 3.5 with a mean LSAT of 161. https://law.uwo.ca/future_students/jd_admissions/class_profiles.html

Queen's best two years average is 3.73 with an average LSAT score of 160. 

Ottawa asks for an A average and above a 157.

Winsdor doesn't even post stats as far as I can tell because they shit all over GPA and LSAT in their admissions criteria FAQ.

Your friend is just a born loser if they gave up without even attempting the LSAT just because they had a 3.5.

  • Like 7
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people who are already in law school care about this topic at all? 

  • Like 9
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, lugubriousgame said:

This also heavily compounds the privilege point made above about UofT, but which in my opinion applies across the board. I know many individuals for whom not "interning" was not an option given their financial background, if only to ensure they didn't finish undergrad in an abyss of debt. This necessarily meant taking more "rigorous" programs which they were banking on for internships and employment after undergrad if all else didn't workout. Many of these individuals tended to view the "BA 4.0 to law school" route as a class signal and a point of privilege - some days I am inclined to agree.

 

4 hours ago, lugubriousgame said:

-Snip-

I was going to leave this being the first to just leave a "confused" rating because I didn't feel it warranted anything more than that, but since you've doubled down and this thread has devolved to the point where I can't derail it any more than it already has been...

The idea that "elite" undergraduate programs and internships are full of disadvantaged students and community colleges are full of privileged rich kids who take fluff courses and don't have to work is just bizarre, even to the point of standing out for that quality in a thread full of people making weird claims. That's why it comes across as sour grapes.

There's a legitimate argument to be made about the relative difficulty of different undergraduate programs and the "fairness" of treating them equally in law school admissions. Lord knows it's been hashed out over and over here (and frankly that's largely what the LSAT is for). But this is the worst argument on the subject I've seen yet.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Tagger said:

Why do people who are already in law school care about this topic at all? 

An essential part of 1L is arguing about pointless things 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

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.


  • Recent Posts

    • This is probably beside the point, but what's the ethnic background that would lead to the name "seallover?" And is that a direct translation or does it just sound very similar? Kids can be cruel sometimes. The love between a man or woman, and a seal, can be a beautiful thing. You should be proud that your culture embraces it.
    • One of the major determining factors, in answering that question, is what is the ratio of support staff to lawyers in the firm? If we assume for the sake of argument that it's 1:1, which could either amount to a personal assistant for each lawyer or else a shared assistant and some staff that serve the office generally, then a big part of the overhead attributed to supporting that lawyer is paying the other staff. Then the whole rest of the firm's overhead, attributed to that lawyer, is the difference between the lawyer's pay and the staffer's. Salary is a big part of overhead, but lawyers aren't the only people at a firm getting paid. They are just the only one's who imagine their billings are "theirs" in some rightful way. It always amuses me how often lawyers get caught up in worrying about whether they are being properly paid, to the point that they forget to account for how other people are paid.
    • $160 is simply a mathematical placeholder, for the user of the formula to replace with their own rate. 
    • You sure about that rate, it seems like a really low rate for a first year associate

×
×
  • Create New...