Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Sorry everyone - I am growing anxious as the days go on. I know 92 is the auto admit and it's harder the farther you are from that, but is 91.85 too low? Should I start looking into other options instead? 

Share this post


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

That's a fine index. I would be worried if it's below 91.5X

Okay thank you!!

Share this post


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

That's a fine index. I would be worried if it's below 91.5X

Good thing I applied with like a 90.5 I think. Look you miss 100% of shots you don’t take. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's a fine index. I would be worried if it's below 91.5X

My index was a 91.5 or 91.6 last year. I think I was about 40th-60th on the waitlist when it got ranked. I withdrew my app and committed to UofA as there wasn't much movement on the waitlist last year.

Edited by flyingfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, splittinrocks said:

Good thing I applied with like a 90.5 I think. Look you miss 100% of shots you don’t take. 

Absolutely. I would still apply and it depends on how strong the pool of applicants is as it varies year to year.

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

    • This is based on your extensive experience in private practice and hiring?
    • je pense que d'ici demain on devrait avoir des réponses
    • If your aim is to be in government, it's a different calculus than private. Private firms seem to be more skeptical of policy roles, even in relevant subject matter. They prefer someone with an "interest" in the subject matter but who's picked up hard legal skills - even in a different subject.
    • Do you have an idea of why it doesn't draw a lot of interest? 
    • If the policy position is in the same field, it would seem to be relevant experience and not just a "filler" position. I have no relative experience for this question, but would imagine the transfer from policy back to law would become more problematic the longer you held the policy position, but shouldn't be too problematic early on (and "I took an available position in my area, but am interested in moving back into law" is a decent sales pitch if you take a later job interview). For example, if you did the policy job for 1 year, then went to move back to a firm, your "lost time" is less as you've hopefully gotten the relevant exposure to the law, but aren't senior enough that there's an issue in learning to be an associate (ie. handling grunt work). It may even be beneficial experience as it adds a different prospective to the problems. However, 5 years of policy before moving back? Might be a different story, as you are more closely aligned with a 2-3yr associate in realm of associate tasks you are familiar with, but probably don't want to be treated like an intro associate task-wise (all speculating, depends entirely on both policy experience and the tasks your transfer back into). In short, you're not forever excluded from looking for openings while holding the policy job, so if it's of potential interest this may be a "FT is better than contract" conclusion. And who knows, maybe you love the policy job?

×
×
  • Create New...