Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Canadian Law Students => Topic started by: June on August 08, 2006, 11:05:48 PM

Title: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: June on August 08, 2006, 11:05:48 PM
I have a low GPA from my undergrad, but am doing really well on LSAT practice exams. applying to law schools for September 2007. what are my chances for McGill. im worried that the LSAT is not required.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on August 08, 2006, 11:39:04 PM
The LSAT is required, but McGill puts emphasis on the GPA.  Check their website if you want to know more.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FlashInThePan on August 09, 2006, 10:48:23 PM
I'm pretty certain for McGill they require you to be bilingual since there will be some exams in French. That's what turned me off since I haven't taken French since grade 10.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: gillesthegreat on August 09, 2006, 10:49:19 PM
Quote
how the whole Canadian system works.

Divide the money by 20, multiply the civility by 50. And great maple syrup.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: gillesthegreat on August 09, 2006, 10:51:42 PM
From their website:

"All applicants must have substantial reading ability in, and aural comprehension of, both English and French."

Aural?
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Elemental on August 10, 2006, 07:34:24 AM
The LSAT is required, but McGill puts emphasis on the GPA.  Check their website if you want to know more.

Actually, the LSAT is NOT required at all. If you do it, they will consider it as a factor, but they do not require applicants to do the LSAT.

And basically, it's a tough school to get into. I would equate to being the closest thing to an Ivy League school in Canada (along with UofT). 

Actually, McGill was an Ivy League school in much earlier times, before it was decided that Ivy League schools would be American only.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Elemental on August 10, 2006, 07:37:15 AM
From their website:

"All applicants must have substantial reading ability in, and aural comprehension of, both English and French."

Aural?

Interesting.  You only need to be able to understand it.  Reading and hearing, mind you, but no speaking or writing?

Yup, thats right. The thing is, any student is allowed to answer questions (on exams or in-class) in either language.  However, some of the material presented in classes will be taught in French, and some of the textbooks are French as well, hence the need to have reading and aural comprehension skills.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on August 10, 2006, 11:32:58 AM
The LSAT is required, but McGill puts emphasis on the GPA.  Check their website if you want to know more.

Actually, the LSAT is NOT required at all. If you do it, they will consider it as a factor, but they do not require applicants to do the LSAT.

And basically, it's a tough school to get into. I would equate to being the closest thing to an Ivy League school in Canada (along with UofT). 

Actually, McGill was an Ivy League school in much earlier times, before it was decided that Ivy League schools would be American only.

McGill is not on par with U of T.  Sorry to say.

It IS, however, MUCH cheaper.  Which is awesome.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Elemental on August 10, 2006, 12:12:28 PM
The LSAT is required, but McGill puts emphasis on the GPA.  Check their website if you want to know more.

Actually, the LSAT is NOT required at all. If you do it, they will consider it as a factor, but they do not require applicants to do the LSAT.

And basically, it's a tough school to get into. I would equate to being the closest thing to an Ivy League school in Canada (along with UofT). 

Actually, McGill was an Ivy League school in much earlier times, before it was decided that Ivy League schools would be American only.

McGill is not on par with U of T.  Sorry to say.

It IS, however, MUCH cheaper.  Which is awesome.


No need to be sorry, lol... I don't go to McGill, and have no plans to either.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Geo_Storm on August 12, 2006, 06:54:45 PM
hey june

Did you try the French proficiency self-test on the Mcgill Website? having lived in the province for 15 years I thought it was a joke even if i attended English school throughout.

My LSAT teacher also said that students make English notes for French documents and then share them. So even if you can't read french you might be ok.

Anyways, I'm also worried that my 3.44 and 164 LSAT might no be enough to get into McGil. I'm getting my bachelor's from McGill in electrical engineering. Can't wait!
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Elemental on August 13, 2006, 05:59:22 PM

Anyways, I'm also worried that my 3.44 and 164 LSAT might no be enough to get into McGil. I'm getting my bachelor's from McGill in electrical engineering. Can't wait!

I think you still got a shot!  ;)

A 3.44 in a difficult degree program (i.e. NOT Arts) is not easy, and a GPA in the 85th percentile is even better
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: bobotheclown on August 18, 2006, 05:40:51 PM
The LSAT is required, but McGill puts emphasis on the GPA.  Check their website if you want to know more.

Actually, the LSAT is NOT required at all. If you do it, they will consider it as a factor, but they do not require applicants to do the LSAT.

And basically, it's a tough school to get into. I would equate to being the closest thing to an Ivy League school in Canada (along with UofT). 

Actually, McGill was an Ivy League school in much earlier times, before it was decided that Ivy League schools would be American only.

McGill is not on par with U of T.  Sorry to say.

It IS, however, MUCH cheaper.  Which is awesome.


No offense, but you lost any credibility on this subject after you made the erroneous claim that the LSAT is required.

Now, let me preface the rest of my post by saying that I don't attend McGill law school.

That said, McGill is certainly on par with U of T law. Is U of T considered the toughest law school in Canada to get into? @#!* ya! But just as Harvard is still comparable to say NYU even if Harvard is tougher to get into (in general) and a little more prestigious, you can def. compare U of T to Mcgill - they're the two premier Canadian law schools.

McGill seems to put a huge emphasis on GPA even if your lsat is killer. IE if you have a 3.65 gpa and a 164 lsat your chances seem better if you hold a 3.9 gpa with no lsat or even a "subpar" lsat like 157 or so. This is based on numbers of friends who got into Mcgill law and others who got rejected.

As far as the French...well, I wouldn't sweat it too much. Based on the level of French that my friends can speak, I wouldn't be too worried about the not so tough French component.

Hope that helps.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on August 18, 2006, 06:23:18 PM
bobo the clown.  How apt.

McGill is not on par with U of T.  Sorry to say.

It IS, however, MUCH cheaper.  Which is awesome.


No offense, but you lost any credibility on this subject after you made the erroneous claim that the LSAT is required.

Right.  A single erroneous (irrelevant) claim equals entirely inaccurate argument.  From the start of this post, you already prove to be quite thick.

Also, it turns out the claim isn't that erroneous.  If you have written the LSAT, it is required that you report it to McGill.  And, considering the OP is probably applying to more schools than just McGill, he/she's likely to have written the LSAT.

Clown.

Now, let me preface the rest of my post by saying that I don't attend McGill law school.

That said, McGill is certainly on par with U of T law. Is U of T considered the toughest law school in Canada to get into? @#!* ya! But just as Harvard is still comparable to say NYU even if Harvard is tougher to get into (in general) and a little more prestigious, you can def. compare U of T to Mcgill - they're the two premier Canadian law schools.

HA!

1.  Your analogy is terrible, because it proves my point.  Harvard isn't comparable to NYU on many levels.  They're similar, but they're not close enough.

2.  In terms of everything but European name recognition and Quebec law, U of T beats McGill. 

Look, clearly these are the two premier schools in Canada.  That said, if you want an analogy, McGill is more like a mid-range T14 while U of T is Harvard.  It's more difficult to get into, its scope is greater, and its placement more extensive.     

McGill seems to put a huge emphasis on GPA even if your lsat is killer. IE if you have a 3.65 gpa and a 164 lsat your chances seem better if you hold a 3.9 gpa with no lsat or even a "subpar" lsat like 157 or so. This is based on numbers of friends who got into Mcgill law and others who got rejected.

This isn't disputed.

As far as the French...well, I wouldn't sweat it too much. Based on the level of French that my friends can speak, I wouldn't be too worried about the not so tough French component.

Hope that helps.

Nor is this.  That said, you still need at least a basic knowledge of the language to get by.  Nothing extensive, though.

However, you're still a f-ing clown. 

HTHXOXO
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: gillesthegreat on August 18, 2006, 06:39:19 PM
Quote
In terms of everything but European name recognition and Quebec law, U of T beats McGill. 

Isn't that what matters the most?
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on August 18, 2006, 06:42:40 PM
 :D :D :D

You're right.  How am I going to get that job in Brussels?
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Doraemon on August 19, 2006, 12:34:01 AM
:D :D :D

You're right.  How am I going to get that job in Brussels?

McGill best in Europe. Harvard best in Asia.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Geo_Storm on August 19, 2006, 12:38:49 AM
Thanks Elemental for saying that I still have a chance. I actually quite like my chances to McGill.
Btw, how did you figure that a 3.44 is a 85th percentile? Just calculated the average for my classes, the average gpa for the classes I attended at McGill electrical engineering is 2.95. No idea if that's high or low. especially compared to American universities.

Anyways, from what i've heard, McGill does nto require the LSAT because it is unfair to make prospective French speaking students do a standard test in their second language and use it as a comparison.

Also in the U of T vs McGill argument. I think both command great reputations. And attending either schools would be a good one. Definitely comparable to a T14 school. But U of T does have more stringent requirements for admission number wise. But McGill teaches civil law as well, and if you want practice in Quebec you better have that. Plus there are many countries in the world that uses civil law as well.

Bottom line, I'd be happy at either U of T or Mcgill.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Doraemon on August 19, 2006, 12:41:06 AM
Now, seriously, for non-Quebec and North American law, McGill isn't really on par with UofT. The tuition UofT Law charges is an indication of its prestige. Having low tuition has caused Osgoode Hall (and, of course, its association with York didn't help) to decline. McGill will start to feel the heat as they are not able to compete for the best profs without more provincial funding or ability to raise the tuition significantly.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Doraemon on August 19, 2006, 12:48:34 AM
Bottom line, I'd be happy at either U of T or Mcgill.

Good luck on the application, by the way. You do have a shot; I suspect being in a tough engineering programme definitely helps, not only because of the slightly lower average GPA, but also because that diversity in the class is highly sought after.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: gillesthegreat on August 19, 2006, 12:50:52 AM
Plus schools usually give add a few points to their own grads applying to law school
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Geo_Storm on August 19, 2006, 12:56:58 AM
Now, seriously, for non-Quebec and North American law, McGill isn't really on par with UofT. The tuition UofT Law charges is an indication of its prestige.

Not true.
Quebec tuitions are still under the province imposed tuition freeze. If the freeze if lifted, which it might under Charest, you'll see the tuition sky rocket. The tuition could easily double or triple withing 3 to five years.

Makes my undergraduate degree so much more special. The fact that I lived home, my McGill bachelors only cost about 10,000 dollars. compare that to paying 6 figures for a undergraduate from any American University. and yes a bachelor's from Yale would be nice, but at what cost?
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Elemental on August 19, 2006, 06:08:11 AM
Thanks Elemental for saying that I still have a chance. I actually quite like my chances to McGill.
Btw, how did you figure that a 3.44 is a 85th percentile? Just calculated the average for my classes, the average gpa for the classes I attended at McGill electrical engineering is 2.95. 

Sorry. I meant to say that a LSAT score in the 85th percentile or above is still great.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: bobotheclown on August 20, 2006, 01:22:19 PM
bobo the clown.  How apt.

McGill is not on par with U of T.  Sorry to say.

It IS, however, MUCH cheaper.  Which is awesome.


No offense, but you lost any credibility on this subject after you made the erroneous claim that the LSAT is required.

Right.  A single erroneous (irrelevant) claim equals entirely inaccurate argument.  From the start of this post, you already prove to be quite thick.

Also, it turns out the claim isn't that erroneous.  If you have written the LSAT, it is required that you report it to McGill.  And, considering the OP is probably applying to more schools than just McGill, he/she's likely to have written the LSAT.

Clown.

Now, let me preface the rest of my post by saying that I don't attend McGill law school.

That said, McGill is certainly on par with U of T law. Is U of T considered the toughest law school in Canada to get into? @#!* ya! But just as Harvard is still comparable to say NYU even if Harvard is tougher to get into (in general) and a little more prestigious, you can def. compare U of T to Mcgill - they're the two premier Canadian law schools.

HA!

1.  Your analogy is terrible, because it proves my point.  Harvard isn't comparable to NYU on many levels.  They're similar, but they're not close enough.

2.  In terms of everything but European name recognition and Quebec law, U of T beats McGill. 

Look, clearly these are the two premier schools in Canada.  That said, if you want an analogy, McGill is more like a mid-range T14 while U of T is Harvard.  It's more difficult to get into, its scope is greater, and its placement more extensive.     

McGill seems to put a huge emphasis on GPA even if your lsat is killer. IE if you have a 3.65 gpa and a 164 lsat your chances seem better if you hold a 3.9 gpa with no lsat or even a "subpar" lsat like 157 or so. This is based on numbers of friends who got into Mcgill law and others who got rejected.

This isn't disputed.

As far as the French...well, I wouldn't sweat it too much. Based on the level of French that my friends can speak, I wouldn't be too worried about the not so tough French component.

Hope that helps.

Nor is this.  That said, you still need at least a basic knowledge of the language to get by.  Nothing extensive, though.

However, you're still a f-ing clown. 

HTHXOXO


My friend MaraudingJ, where do I begin...

You state that your claim "isn't that erroneous", I didn't realize that there are levels of making a mistake. An error is an error. So lets face it, you're wrong. Does that make everything you say after that ERRONEOUS comment less credible? Absolutely!!!

My analogy is terrible?! Sure thing...yet if you pick up the new US News magazine you'll see that Harvard and NYU law schools are virtually identical in terms of ranking - Harvard has a slight edge. Now lets look at how that relates to McGill and U of T. Similarly, U of T had a slight edge as well, and that's only in recent years. In fact, you'd have many intelligent people that would argue McGill still has a cachet that U of T does not have in the US or elsewhere, such as Europe (which you mentioned youself). In case you're not too familiar with geography and demographics, Europe isn't that small.

Don't kid yourself, U of T is not "like Harvard". Go survey 100 Westerners and ask them where they'd rather attend, Harvard or U of T, and lets see the results, especially considering U of T prices are now comparable to American schools.

You're right about one thing though... I'm thick. But in all the right places.

Bobo
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: bobotheclown on August 20, 2006, 01:28:04 PM
Now, seriously, for non-Quebec and North American law, McGill isn't really on par with UofT. The tuition UofT Law charges is an indication of its prestige. Having low tuition has caused Osgoode Hall (and, of course, its association with York didn't help) to decline. McGill will start to feel the heat as they are not able to compete for the best profs without more provincial funding or ability to raise the tuition significantly.

That's partially true.

I don't think charging more makes a school more reputable. Actually, a big attraction for the people I know is that they're able to attend a first rate law school in McGill and not walk away with a huge debt a la many U of T law students. In fact, many of them chose McGill over such schools as U of T and top tier American universities such as UVA, Georgetown, etc.

Bobo
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on August 20, 2006, 02:52:51 PM
My friend MaraudingJ, where do I begin...

You state that your claim "isn't that erroneous", I didn't realize that there are levels of making a mistake. An error is an error. So lets face it, you're wrong. Does that make everything you say after that ERRONEOUS comment less credible? Absolutely!!!

My analogy is terrible?! Sure thing...yet if you pick up the new US News magazine you'll see that Harvard and NYU law schools are virtually identical in terms of ranking - Harvard has a slight edge. Now lets look at how that relates to McGill and U of T. Similarly, U of T had a slight edge as well, and that's only in recent years. In fact, you'd have many intelligent people that would argue McGill still has a cachet that U of T does not have in the US or elsewhere, such as Europe (which you mentioned youself). In case you're not too familiar with geography and demographics, Europe isn't that small.

Don't kid yourself, U of T is not "like Harvard". Go survey 100 Westerners and ask them where they'd rather attend, Harvard or U of T, and lets see the results, especially considering U of T prices are now comparable to American schools.

You're right about one thing though... I'm thick. But in all the right places.

Bobo


Listen up, asshat.  If you don't understand the points being made, then don't argue them.  You dawdle off on tangents that indicate you didn't quite grasp what was being said.

1.  There are certainly levels of being erroneous, and denying this already paints a clear picture of how much you're going to struggle as a lawyer, but that's not what I'm here to argue.  The point that you didn't grasp is that, even though I was wrong about McGill requiring the LSAT, I was right in that, if the LSAT has been written, it is required.

2.  A single erroneous claim that is not the premise of an argument does not invalidate that argument, nor does it reduce one's credibility more than marginally.  A lot of what occurs on this board is hearsay.  I admitted my mistake and did some research, as I proved when I made the claim in point 1

3.  Harvard has more than a "slight" edge on NYU, but that's immaterial.  The analogy I made was stronger than that.  It was Harvard versus mid-T14.  U of T has the edge in education quality, student quality, reach, and employment prospects.  And McGill doesn't have better reach to Europe -- it has better name recognition in Europe, a point you didn't grasp.  McGill is more of a high-quality small market school, while U of T is the premier law school in Canada.  Mid-T14 versus Harvard.

4.  If you're usually in the habit of turning analogies into literal comparisons, then there's not much hope for you.  Of all the red herrings you threw out, this is the most puzzling.  I never said U of T is literally the same as Harvard -- if you made this assumption, I suggest you work on your reading skills (which I'm suggesting anyway).  At best, in terms of US schools, U of T would rank in the T10 somewhere.  In fact, one might even say that McGill is to U of T as U of T is to Harvard!  Or are you going to struggle with that one, too?

Bye now, clown.   
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: bobotheclown on August 20, 2006, 04:55:02 PM
My friend MaraudingJ, where do I begin...

You state that your claim "isn't that erroneous", I didn't realize that there are levels of making a mistake. An error is an error. So lets face it, you're wrong. Does that make everything you say after that ERRONEOUS comment less credible? Absolutely!!!

My analogy is terrible?! Sure thing...yet if you pick up the new US News magazine you'll see that Harvard and NYU law schools are virtually identical in terms of ranking - Harvard has a slight edge. Now lets look at how that relates to McGill and U of T. Similarly, U of T had a slight edge as well, and that's only in recent years. In fact, you'd have many intelligent people that would argue McGill still has a cachet that U of T does not have in the US or elsewhere, such as Europe (which you mentioned youself). In case you're not too familiar with geography and demographics, Europe isn't that small.

Don't kid yourself, U of T is not "like Harvard". Go survey 100 Westerners and ask them where they'd rather attend, Harvard or U of T, and lets see the results, especially considering U of T prices are now comparable to American schools.

You're right about one thing though... I'm thick. But in all the right places.

Bobo


Listen up, asshat.  If you don't understand the points being made, then don't argue them.  You dawdle off on tangents that indicate you didn't quite grasp what was being said.

1.  There are certainly levels of being erroneous, and denying this already paints a clear picture of how much you're going to struggle as a lawyer, but that's not what I'm here to argue.  The point that you didn't grasp is that, even though I was wrong about McGill requiring the LSAT, I was right in that, if the LSAT has been written, it is required.

2.  A single erroneous claim that is not the premise of an argument does not invalidate that argument, nor does it reduce one's credibility more than marginally.  A lot of what occurs on this board is hearsay.  I admitted my mistake and did some research, as I proved when I made the claim in point 1

3.  Harvard has more than a "slight" edge on NYU, but that's immaterial.  The analogy I made was stronger than that.  It was Harvard versus mid-T14.  U of T has the edge in education quality, student quality, reach, and employment prospects.  And McGill doesn't have better reach to Europe -- it has better name recognition in Europe, a point you didn't grasp.  McGill is more of a high-quality small market school, while U of T is the premier law school in Canada.  Mid-T14 versus Harvard.

4.  If you're usually in the habit of turning analogies into literal comparisons, then there's not much hope for you.  Of all the red herrings you threw out, this is the most puzzling.  I never said U of T is literally the same as Harvard -- if you made this assumption, I suggest you work on your reading skills (which I'm suggesting anyway).  At best, in terms of US schools, U of T would rank in the T10 somewhere.  In fact, one might even say that McGill is to U of T as U of T is to Harvard!  Or are you going to struggle with that one, too?

Bye now, clown.   

I'm always amused when someone uses verbal and personal attacks on an anonymous message board towards an anonymous poster and then figures he or she is going to be taken seriously, especially in light of the fact that they’ve already made factual errors.

1. So there are levels of being erroneous? By all mean, please clarify.
I'd love for you to tell your professor or a client, "well I was wrong, but I was close, so that should count for something." An error is an error. This isn’t grade 6 math - there are no points for being close.

2. I only really addressed two points that you made. Point one was that the LSAT is required at McGill. Pont two was that McGill is not on par with U of T. The latter is obviously subjective, so you can't be wrong per se. In any event, to say that "a single erroneous claim" does not "reduce one's credibility more than marginally" is ridiculous. Your error shows you aren't informed about one of the two schools you refer to, a school that bears the subject of this thread. Yet you expect people to take you seriously when you subjectively claim that U of T is leaps and bounds better than McGill. As if.

3. You state that "Harvard has more than a 'slight' edge on NYU". Well, according to several reputable sources and rankings (See US News), the word ‘slight’ is fairly accurate. You also claim that "McGill doesn't have better reach to Europe -- it has better name recognition in Europe." Those two seem to go hand in hand, don't you think? A more recognizable name often opens more doors, which is how many people choose schools in the first place. Anyway, my point being is not that McGill is the better school (I’m not saying it isn’t either) - my point is that the "Harvard vs. T14" school theory does not hold much weight. Again, I'd say an NYU or Yale vs. Harvard comparison is more appropriate, both top schools in their country.

4. You’re fooling yourself if you think the gap is that large.

Bobo
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Geo_Storm on August 20, 2006, 07:09:53 PM
wow, control urselves bobo and maraudj.
Point of the post was to tell June if he/she had a chance to get into McGill with a low GPA.
Doing well on the LSAT definitely helps you get into McGill.
Acutally I had a friend who I presume had an average GPA, an amazing community service resume but refused to do the LSAT. He got waitlisted last I heard.

As for U of T vs McGill, well I'll really give it serious consideration when I get admitted to both. But for admissions, McGill requires LORs but no LSAT (because of language) while U of T requires LSAT but no LORs (presumably because it is more number base). There, go start a new post about that.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: mjb on August 20, 2006, 07:15:14 PM
I've looked it up. Average lsat at McGill is 161. Its not hard to get into :)
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: bobotheclown on August 20, 2006, 07:19:52 PM
wow, control urselves bobo and maraudj.
Point of the post was to tell June if he/she had a chance to get into McGill with a low GPA.
Doing well on the LSAT definitely helps you get into McGill.
Acutally I had a friend who I presume had an average GPA, an amazing community service resume but refused to do the LSAT. He got waitlisted last I heard.

As for U of T vs McGill, well I'll really give it serious consideration when I get admitted to both. But for admissions, McGill requires LORs but no LSAT (because of language) while U of T requires LSAT but no LORs (presumably because it is more number base). There, go start a new post about that.

For the most part, I'd have to disagree with you. Sure, it's possible to get into McGill with a low gpa (although I'm not sure how you personally quantify low), but like I mentioned gpa is what they're looking for. The higher the gpa the better, even if it means accepting people with lower lsat scores and a high gpa. A 3.9 and a 157 is better than a 165 and a 3.65 (obviously this isn't an exact science, but purely based on people I know).

MJB, a 161 is nothing special and wouldn't cut it at most T-14 American schools, but McGill has a higher standard when it comes to GPA, so its a little deceiving and thus I wouldn't really sat "its not that hard to get into".

Bobo
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on August 20, 2006, 07:24:36 PM
It's good ownage when clearly they had no comprehension of what they were reading.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on August 20, 2006, 07:50:49 PM
I can't believe I'm wasting more time on this, but I am.  *shrug*

I'm always amused when someone uses verbal and personal attacks on an anonymous message board towards an anonymous poster and then figures he or she is going to be taken seriously, especially in light of the fact that they’ve already made factual errors.

Heavy irony.  Let's move on.

1. So there are levels of being erroneous? By all mean, please clarify.

There are degrees of being right, and degrees of being wrong. 

The LSAT proceeds on the first point.  There is a BEST answer, which does not preclude all five answers from being RIGHT.  I'm sure you've written this test, so you'd know what I'm talking about.

By the same standard, answers can be LESS or MORE wrong.  For instance, saying that McGill is located in Ireland is clearly wrong.  Saying that the LSAT is required, however, is only partially correct -- the LSAT IS required, but ONLY IF it was written.  McGill does not require one to write the LSAT for admission, but if one has done it, it MUST be reported.

From the website (to which I directed the OP, which makes the rest of this thread entirely moot, and yet I'm still here arguing):

Quote
Applicants are not required to take the LSAT; however, if a candidate has taken or will be taking the LSAT, the score will be considered. Applicants must report the date(s) of sitting(s) and supply their LSAT identification number in the appropriate places on the application. Failure to do so will adversely affect chances of admission.

I'd love for you to tell your professor or a client, "well I was wrong, but I was close, so that should count for something." An error is an error. This isn’t grade 6 math - there are no points for being close.

What the @#!* does this have to do with professors or clients?  Again, your analogies stink.  Besides, even if they were good analogies, there would still be situations in which being partially correct was fine.  Especially when it comes to professors.

This isn't a debate about professions.  It's an online message forum.  Advice is often based on hearsay.  A client wouldn't come begging for advice here, either.  My claim about degrees of right and wrong is specifically part of an epistemological argument. 

2. I only really addressed two points that you made. Point one was that the LSAT is required at McGill. Pont two was that McGill is not on par with U of T. The latter is obviously subjective, so you can't be wrong per se.

But you challenged it all the same, so don't hide your head in the sand now.

You said:
Quote
That said, McGill is certainly on par with U of T law. Is U of T considered the toughest law school in Canada to get into? @#!* ya! But just as Harvard is still comparable to say NYU even if Harvard is tougher to get into (in general) and a little more prestigious, you can def. compare U of T to Mcgill - they're the two premier Canadian law schools.

So, you used an exaggerated ad hominem to make me look stupid, and then took issue with my new claim.  An analogy?  You called me a racist, and then took issue with a claim I made about Nigerian politics.

In any event, to say that "a single erroneous claim" does not "reduce one's credibility more than marginally" is ridiculous. Your error shows you aren't informed about one of the two schools you refer to, a school that bears the subject of this thread. Yet you expect people to take you seriously when you subjectively claim that U of T is leaps and bounds better than McGill. As if.

1.  Right.  Because all the information delivered on this board is based in years of study.

OR I made a claim, then went back and did some research on it when I was wrong.  In the process, I discovered that I was only partially wrong.  I also found some resources on which to base further claims.  See my next post.

2.  Don't put words in my mouth.  I said U of T is recognizably better than McGill, not "leaps and bounds".  I compared it to the difference between Harvard and a mid-range T14.  Would you argue that Harvard is "leaps and bounds" better than Michigan?  No.  Would you argue that it still is better?  Yes. 

3. You state that "Harvard has more than a 'slight' edge on NYU". Well, according to several reputable sources and rankings (See US News), the word ‘slight’ is fairly accurate.

Yeah, I did say that.  I also said that's immaterial.  I don't understand why you keep harping on it. 

I also said:

Quote
Harvard isn't comparable to NYU on many levels.  They're similar, but they're not close enough.

I stand by this.  See the next post.

You also claim that "McGill doesn't have better reach to Europe -- it has better name recognition in Europe." Those two seem to go hand in hand, don't you think? A more recognizable name often opens more doors, which is how many people choose schools in the first place.

Most of the public would tell you that Harvard is the best law school in the country.  Almost all major ratings sources indicate that Yale is the best, and have done so for years.  Most people wouldn't even list Yale in their top three.

Name recognition means nothing.  Reach is backed up by statistics.  Do you have any?

Anyway, my point being is not that McGill is the better school (I’m not saying it isn’t either) - my point is that the "Harvard vs. T14" school theory does not hold much weight.

Yes, it does.  See my next post.

Again, I'd say an NYU or Yale vs. Harvard comparison is more appropriate, both top schools in their country.


No.  See my next post.

4. You’re fooling yourself if you think the gap is that large.

Bobo

Brilliant comeback.  I applaud thee.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: farouk on August 20, 2006, 08:44:18 PM
I know that I'm stating the obvious here, but you guys have to agree on criteria before you can compare the two schools.  You can compare student quality (numerical and holistic, though I personally believe "holistic" to be a bunch of horseshit), faculty in terms of quality and to student ratios, job placement, class choices, clerkships, layman prestige (though this is a moronic reason to choose a school), and more I'm sure.

Then there are those factors that you can't compare, like mcgill's dual degree program.  I believe that Toronto is a superior school, but I may (assuming I get accepted) choose mcgill because I can practice anywhere in Canada, or perhaps because I'm interested in Canadian comparative law.  It really depends on what I want to do.

So if you are arguing about Bay Street placeent, the winner is obvious.  Considering other criteria, it's not so clear. 

I do think that student quality at Toronto is numerically superior (same GPA, higher LSAT), but some people may put more weight on "well-rounded applicants".
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on August 20, 2006, 08:50:27 PM
ON THE COMPARISON BETWEEN MCGILL AND U of T (both of which are great schools!):

Despite the fact that U of T has been on top of the MacLean's ratings for a while, I won't be using those, as a letter of intent to boycott those ratings was recently signed by 11 of the Canadian heavyweight universities, and, more importantly, I can't access them online - http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/08/14/macleans-universities.html .

The only two rankings that I'm left with are the following:

1.  The Top-Law-School Rankings, which I think is an amalgamation from a variety of different sources, although I can't be sure (and it must be noted that, from memory, it looks very similar to the last MacLean's ratings):

         1. University of Toronto
         2. University of British Columbia
         3. McGill University
         4. York University
         5. University of Ottawa
         6. University of Manitoba
         7. Dalhousie University
         8. University of Alberta
         9. Queen’s University
        10. University of Victoria

http://www.top-law-schools.com/canadian-law-school-rankings.html

2.  The Canadian Lawyer Magazine report card on law institutions in Canada, which surveys 500 recent graduates on their experience.  A different view, I'd say.

   1. Osgoode Hall (York University) B+ (#4, B)
   2. University of Toronto B+ (#2, B)
   3. University of Victoria B+ (#1, B+)
   4. University of Calgary (N/R)
   5. University of Windsor B (#11, B-)
   6. McGill University (N/R)
   7. Dalhousie University B- (#12, B-)
   8. University of New Brunswick B (#3, B)
   9. University of Western Ontario B- (#5, B)
  10. University of Alberta B (#6, B)
  11. Queen's University B- (#8, B)
  12. University of Saskatchewan B- (#7, B)
  13. University of Ottawa B- (#9, B-)
  14. University of Manitoba C+ (#10, B-)
  15. University of British Columbia C+ (#13, C+)

Interestingly enough, these rankings are completely different from the previous one (and the MacLean's one, which, IIRC, is very similar to the TLS ranking, if not completely the same).  A fascinating view from new associates.

In the first case, U of T is on top, two spots ahead of McGill.  In the second, U of T is second, four places ahead of McGill.  After looking into this survey, it would appear that the reason McGill doesn't have an official grade is because there weren't enough responses for accurate comparison, but that its ranking was the result of the responses that the magazine did get.  Here's a link to 2005's survey for more information on the process:  http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/images/stories/pdfs/lawSchoolsResults.pdf .

A link to the magazine:  http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/
A link to the 2006 ratings which can't be procured from the magazine without a subscription (yet): http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/02/canadian_law_sc.html

You can find a discussion on the Canadian universities' decision to boycott MacLean's on Leiter's Blog.  Here's an apt and pertinent comment from the Blog (http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2006/08/11_canadian_uni.html):

Quote
I am glad to see some action on this question -- a sizeable number of my classmates at the University of Victoria school of law enrolled there because it had garnered first place in the Macleans law school rankings the previous year. The problem with this was that these same students had not considered the political character of the school, nor it's well-known focus on environmental and aboriginal law. They grumbled constantly about the lack of business and corporate-commercial upper year course offerings, and whined openly about the school's "political correctness." Without the Macleans ranking, perhaps they might have researched the school in detail before applying.

There is another Canadian magazine which also ranks law schools -- I believe it's Canadian Lawyer magazine. I heard (from a former dean of UVic Law) that although the methodology is supposedly more sound, it is primarily a ranking by graduates of their particular schools. It seems to me that, unless the interviewees graduated at least five years previous to the survey, the results would be questionable indeed (since law graduates from some schools are viewed more favourably than others, as a matter of expediency on the part of firms). Thus, the more reliable responses would also be the less current ones, and subsequently the value of the entire endeavour seems suspect. Assuming my information is correct.

This italicized comment may be true, but if so, it would indirectly indicate the level of prestige with which certain institutions are regarded -- a strange way of finding out how law firms rank the schools, but a way, nevertheless. 


From these rankings, it would appear that, within a small pool of major candidates, U of T is ranked considerably better, not only by "independent" sources (MacLean's ratings are notoriously "corrupt"), but also by recent graduates and, indirectly, law firms.  While McGill fluctuates in the middle of the upper half of these rankings (much like UMich), U of T stays on top (much like Harvard).


Now, to compare NYU and Harvard.  Here are the statistics for the two schools, taken from the USNews rankings we all love to hate:

(NAME - OVERALL SCORE - PEER ASSESSMENT - LAWYER/JUDGE SCORE - GPA - LSAT - ACCEPT RATE - ST/FAC RATIO - '04 GRADS EMPLOYED @ GRAD - EMPLOYED AFTER 9 MTHS - BAR PASS IN JURISD - OVERALL BAR PASS)

3. Harvard - 91 - 4.9 - 4.8 - 3.68-3.92 - 170-176 - 11.5% - 11.0 - 97.1% - 99.5% - 95.9% - 75%
4. NYU     - 86 - 4.6 - 4.5 - 3.60-3.89 - 168-172 - 21.0% - 11.1 - 96.3% - 99.4% - 97.1% - 75%

I don't even know why I'm doing this.  It's irrelevant, as I already stated twice.  The proper analogy is Harvard to mid-range T14.  But let's address this.

As expected, Harvard has more than a "slight" edge in numbers.  While the GPAs are close, the 25th percentile for Harvard is almost a full tenth of a grade point higher.  More importantly, while LSAT scores from the 97 percentile to the 99 percentile make up the 25/75 split at NYU, at Harvard the band is from the 98.2 percentile to the 99.7 percentile.  The Harvard acceptance rate is also much lower, but that's probably just because of the huge number of applications they get.  As expected from elite institutions, the rest of the figures are virtually the same across the board for the T14 (jobs secured and bar passage), except in California where the fiendish bar exam makes the numbers dip a bit.

Most crucial, however, are the peer rankings and the lawyer/judge rankings.  These assessment scores give one an idea how others in the business view the school.  Out of 5, three tenths is a major difference.  In fact, here, the top three schools (which are only "slightly" different) are very similar, whereas there is a remarkable drop down to the fourth position.  Probably why we all know it as "HYS". 

The reason this analogy is irrelevant is because NYU doesn't fluctuate that much in the rankings, either.  It's been pretty steady near the top for a while.  A school that DOES fluctuate, however, is the University of Michigan, which at one time was at #3 (right behind Harvard), went back down to the teens (IIRC), and is now climbing back up to 8. 

Coincidentally, while its GPA and LSAT numbers are a little lower than NYU's, its peer assessment and lawyer/judge assessment scores are identical.  Maybe there is something to be said for your analogy, after all.  But you'd still be incorrect in considering it only a "slight" difference.  The real "slight" difference is between NYU and other mid-T14 schools, as indicated by the USNews rankings.


It would appear that Harvard and NYU are similar, but not in the same echelon.  NYU and UMich, on the other hand, are very similar.  Harvard, according not only to public opinion, but also to its peers and lawyers and judges, is recognizably better than both NYU and UMich.  Just like U of T, according to the rankings that are available, is recognizably better than McGill.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Geo_Storm on August 20, 2006, 09:03:15 PM
It's too hard to compare a program that teaches Civil and Common Law (McGill, Ottawa and others) vs one that teaches purely Civil(UdeMontreal) vs one that eches just Common (U of T, UBC, Osgoode etc).
Just go to the one where you think you'll get the most out of it.

In the end you aren't doing much wrong by choosing McGill over U of T or vice versa.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: bobotheclown on August 20, 2006, 09:16:06 PM
I can’t believe I’m wasting my time with this, BUT…

Quote
There are degrees of being right, and degrees of being wrong. 

The LSAT proceeds on the first point.  There is a BEST answer, which does not preclude all five answers from being RIGHT.  I'm sure you've written this test, so you'd know what I'm talking about.

By the same standard, answers can be LESS or MORE wrong.  For instance, saying that McGill is located in Ireland is clearly wrong.  Saying that the LSAT is required, however, is only partially correct -- the LSAT IS required, but ONLY IF it was written.  McGill does not require one to write the LSAT for admission, but if one has done it, it MUST be reported.

Semantics my friend. Semantics.

Bottom line, if someone doesn’t bother to do full research about such a basic thing as whether the LSAT is required, I’m going to skeptical about what they say about that particular school.

Quote
So, you used an exaggerated ad hominem to make me look stupid, and then took issue with my new claim. 

I’m glad you can admit you look stupid.

Quote
Name recognition means nothing. 

I hope you’re kidding.

Name recognition means more than one can measure numerically. Aside from geography, and cost of tuition (which usually is moot as schools in certain countries tend to cost the same), recognition is what many people base their choices on. Recognition also affects other areas. 

Bobo
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: farouk on August 20, 2006, 09:20:00 PM
"1.  The Top-Law-School Rankings, which I think is an amalgamation from a variety of different sources, although I can't be sure (and it must be noted that, from memory, it looks very similar to the last MacLean's ratings)"

I'm going to make a website called "really great law schools" and put up my own rankings without any background info.  Maybe you can quote my rankings as well.

"2.  The Canadian Lawyer Magazine report card on law institutions in Canada, which surveys 500 recent graduates on their experience.  A different view, I'd say."
 
This survey is useless:
1)self-selection
2)insufficient respondees
3)based completely on limited perceptions

Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: bobotheclown on August 20, 2006, 09:25:53 PM
ON THE COMPARISON BETWEEN MCGILL AND U of T (both of which are great schools!):

Despite the fact that U of T has been on top of the MacLean's ratings for a while, I won't be using those, as a letter of intent to boycott those ratings was recently signed by 11 of the Canadian heavyweight universities, and, more importantly, I can't access them online - http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/08/14/macleans-universities.html .

The only two rankings that I'm left with are the following:

1.  The Top-Law-School Rankings, which I think is an amalgamation from a variety of different sources, although I can't be sure (and it must be noted that, from memory, it looks very similar to the last MacLean's ratings):

         1. University of Toronto
         2. University of British Columbia
         3. McGill University
         4. York University
         5. University of Ottawa
         6. University of Manitoba
         7. Dalhousie University
         8. University of Alberta
         9. Queen’s University
        10. University of Victoria

http://www.top-law-schools.com/canadian-law-school-rankings.html

2.  The Canadian Lawyer Magazine report card on law institutions in Canada, which surveys 500 recent graduates on their experience.  A different view, I'd say.

   1. Osgoode Hall (York University) B+ (#4, B)
   2. University of Toronto B+ (#2, B)
   3. University of Victoria B+ (#1, B+)
   4. University of Calgary (N/R)
   5. University of Windsor B (#11, B-)
   6. McGill University (N/R)
   7. Dalhousie University B- (#12, B-)
   8. University of New Brunswick B (#3, B)
   9. University of Western Ontario B- (#5, B)
  10. University of Alberta B (#6, B)
  11. Queen's University B- (#8, B)
  12. University of Saskatchewan B- (#7, B)
  13. University of Ottawa B- (#9, B-)
  14. University of Manitoba C+ (#10, B-)
  15. University of British Columbia C+ (#13, C+)

Interestingly enough, these rankings are completely different from the previous one (and the MacLean's one, which, IIRC, is very similar to the TLS ranking, if not completely the same).  A fascinating view from new associates.

In the first case, U of T is on top, two spots ahead of McGill.  In the second, U of T is second, four places ahead of McGill.  After looking into this survey, it would appear that the reason McGill doesn't have an official grade is because there weren't enough responses for accurate comparison, but that its ranking was the result of the responses that the magazine did get.  Here's a link to 2005's survey for more information on the process:  http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/images/stories/pdfs/lawSchoolsResults.pdf .

A link to the magazine:  http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/
A link to the 2006 ratings which can't be procured from the magazine without a subscription (yet): http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/02/canadian_law_sc.html

You can find a discussion on the Canadian universities' decision to boycott MacLean's on Leiter's Blog.  Here's an apt and pertinent comment from the Blog (http://leiterlawschool.typepad.com/leiter/2006/08/11_canadian_uni.html):

Quote
I am glad to see some action on this question -- a sizeable number of my classmates at the University of Victoria school of law enrolled there because it had garnered first place in the Macleans law school rankings the previous year. The problem with this was that these same students had not considered the political character of the school, nor it's well-known focus on environmental and aboriginal law. They grumbled constantly about the lack of business and corporate-commercial upper year course offerings, and whined openly about the school's "political correctness." Without the Macleans ranking, perhaps they might have researched the school in detail before applying.

There is another Canadian magazine which also ranks law schools -- I believe it's Canadian Lawyer magazine. I heard (from a former dean of UVic Law) that although the methodology is supposedly more sound, it is primarily a ranking by graduates of their particular schools. It seems to me that, unless the interviewees graduated at least five years previous to the survey, the results would be questionable indeed (since law graduates from some schools are viewed more favourably than others, as a matter of expediency on the part of firms). Thus, the more reliable responses would also be the less current ones, and subsequently the value of the entire endeavour seems suspect. Assuming my information is correct.

This italicized comment may be true, but if so, it would indirectly indicate the level of prestige with which certain institutions are regarded -- a strange way of finding out how law firms rank the schools, but a way, nevertheless. 


From these rankings, it would appear that, within a small pool of major candidates, U of T is ranked considerably better, not only by "independent" sources (MacLean's ratings are notoriously "corrupt"), but also by recent graduates and, indirectly, law firms.  While McGill fluctuates in the middle of the upper half of these rankings (much like UMich), U of T stays on top (much like Harvard).


Now, to compare NYU and Harvard.  Here are the statistics for the two schools, taken from the USNews rankings we all love to hate:

(NAME - OVERALL SCORE - PEER ASSESSMENT - LAWYER/JUDGE SCORE - GPA - LSAT - ACCEPT RATE - ST/FAC RATIO - '04 GRADS EMPLOYED @ GRAD - EMPLOYED AFTER 9 MTHS - BAR PASS IN JURISD - OVERALL BAR PASS)

3. Harvard - 91 - 4.9 - 4.8 - 3.68-3.92 - 170-176 - 11.5% - 11.0 - 97.1% - 99.5% - 95.9% - 75%
4. NYU     - 86 - 4.6 - 4.5 - 3.60-3.89 - 168-172 - 21.0% - 11.1 - 96.3% - 99.4% - 97.1% - 75%

I don't even know why I'm doing this.  It's irrelevant, as I already stated twice.  The proper analogy is Harvard to mid-range T14.  But let's address this.

As expected, Harvard has more than a "slight" edge in numbers.  While the GPAs are close, the 25th percentile for Harvard is almost a full tenth of a grade point higher.  More importantly, while LSAT scores from the 97 percentile to the 99 percentile make up the 25/75 split at NYU, at Harvard the band is from the 98.2 percentile to the 99.7 percentile.  The Harvard acceptance rate is also much lower, but that's probably just because of the huge number of applications they get.  As expected from elite institutions, the rest of the figures are virtually the same across the board for the T14 (jobs secured and bar passage), except in California where the fiendish bar exam makes the numbers dip a bit.

Most crucial, however, are the peer rankings and the lawyer/judge rankings.  These assessment scores give one an idea how others in the business view the school.  Out of 5, three tenths is a major difference.  In fact, here, the top three schools (which are only "slightly" different) are very similar, whereas there is a remarkable drop down to the fourth position.  Probably why we all know it as "HYS". 

The reason this analogy is irrelevant is because NYU doesn't fluctuate that much in the rankings, either.  It's been pretty steady near the top for a while.  A school that DOES fluctuate, however, is the University of Michigan, which at one time was at #3 (right behind Harvard), went back down to the teens (IIRC), and is now climbing back up to 8. 

Coincidentally, while its GPA and LSAT numbers are a little lower than NYU's, its peer assessment and lawyer/judge assessment scores are identical.  Maybe there is something to be said for your analogy, after all.  But you'd still be incorrect in considering it only a "slight" difference.  The real "slight" difference is between NYU and other mid-T14 schools, as indicated by the USNews rankings.


It would appear that Harvard and NYU are similar, but not in the same echelon.  NYU and UMich, on the other hand, are very similar.  Harvard, according not only to public opinion, but also to its peers and lawyers and judges, is recognizably better than both NYU and UMich.  Just like U of T, according to the rankings that are available, is recognizably better than McGill.


Recognizable in Canada maybe. I'm not so sure about elsewhere. So, like many others have mentioned, if I were to choose between the two schools I'd make my choice based on where I wanted to study (among other factors such as where my family's located, price, friends, etc.)

Bobo

Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: farouk on August 21, 2006, 03:32:37 PM
"McGill rides on a decades-old and utterly inexplicable reputation"

That was my impression as well, though I can't really support it.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: bobotheclown on August 21, 2006, 05:02:11 PM
Quote
Still, neither school has any significant wow-factor south of the border. If anything, they have a "huh?" factor.

I tend to agree with you there.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: bobotheclown on August 21, 2006, 05:03:33 PM
"McGill rides on a decades-old and utterly inexplicable reputation"

That was my impression as well, though I can't really support it.

No one can. The people who go there -- and McGill apologists, of course -- will generally try to rationalize it away, but I have as close as one can come to a controlled experiment: two brothers who went to these two schools one year apart, frequently compared notes, and actually agreed that UT >> McGill and that McGill's rep is ancient.

For whatever reason though, McGill remains, oftentimes, the only Canadian school many Americans have heard of.

Wow, I see you should be teaching research methods.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on August 21, 2006, 06:36:52 PM
"1.  The Top-Law-School Rankings, which I think is an amalgamation from a variety of different sources, although I can't be sure (and it must be noted that, from memory, it looks very similar to the last MacLean's ratings)"

I'm going to make a website called "really great law schools" and put up my own rankings without any background info.  Maybe you can quote my rankings as well.

"2.  The Canadian Lawyer Magazine report card on law institutions in Canada, which surveys 500 recent graduates on their experience.  A different view, I'd say."
 
This survey is useless:
1)self-selection
2)insufficient respondees
3)based completely on limited perceptions



Meh.  It's all I had to work with.  I'll post the MacLean's ratings if/when I find them.

Also, I don't necessarily think the survey is useless.  It at least paints a picture of graduate experiences.  Maybe useless as a survey, per se, but a useful narrative, nevertheless.

Either way, I concur with the last few posts in this thread.  I also hereby vow my full support to the ALAMAR rankings, which are clearly superior to and more prestigious than all other rankings combined.
 
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: farouk on August 21, 2006, 08:02:19 PM
All Hail ALAMAR!!!!!

Make our decisions for us!!
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: bobotheclown on August 21, 2006, 09:58:15 PM

Quote
If you knew anything about me, you'd likely find this remark quite funny.

I don't. But I still got a chuckle.


Bobo

PS, what's this about Roberto Alomar?
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: thegourmetpig on October 16, 2006, 12:52:25 PM
you people are all insane and don't know what you're talking about. BUT, just to throw my two cents (which are extremely relevant here). i had a 3.18 GPA and a 164 LSAT, and I got into mcgill, even though my application was late. i barely got into wisconsin in the US school i applied to. a few T20 waitlists, but that was about it.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: rizz on October 16, 2006, 01:07:20 PM
you people are all insane and don't know what you're talking about. BUT, just to throw my two cents (which are extremely relevant here). i had a 3.18 GPA and a 164 LSAT, and I got into mcgill, even though my application was late. i barely got into wisconsin in the US school i applied to. a few T20 waitlists, but that was about it.

May I ask what were your extra currics and year trends? 3.18 sounds very low for a school that weights GPA so heavily.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: thegourmetpig on October 20, 2006, 08:43:01 AM
ok. a couple of caveats to this...went to a very selective and very difficult school in the US for undergrad. LOTS of ECs, and especially leadership. and no, i was not in a frat. my work experience after college is also very impressive. and my GPA the last two years is a 3.6, and same in my major. personal problems hindered my GPA my first two years, and this was explained in a letter.

but still. 3.18, 164. mcgill begged me to come. and i'm from montreal, so it's not because they would be getting my higher tuition money.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: bandaidstick on October 20, 2006, 08:48:29 AM
Your LSAT is a bit low for penn and nyu . . . and your gpa is really low for both schools - even at a 3.6. I can't speak to McGill. good luck! Honesty is not fun, but hey, I'm not in Penn's league either, so it's nothing I'm not experiencing too.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: thegourmetpig on October 22, 2006, 01:46:57 PM
I got a 171 this time around.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: warholmuse on December 08, 2006, 01:34:02 PM

Anyways, I'm also worried that my 3.44 and 164 LSAT might no be enough to get into McGil. I'm getting my bachelor's from McGill in electrical engineering. Can't wait!

I think you still got a shot!  ;)

A 3.44 in a difficult degree program (i.e. NOT Arts) is not easy, and a GPA in the 85th percentile is even better

Although i really admire those in so-called "tough" programs like engineering, i'd have to disgaree with your inference that getting a high mark in the ARTS is easy. Actually i would say it's harder to get a high gpa in a program like English than it is to get a high gpa in a program like Health Sciences or maths.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on December 08, 2006, 01:53:47 PM

Anyways, I'm also worried that my 3.44 and 164 LSAT might no be enough to get into McGil. I'm getting my bachelor's from McGill in electrical engineering. Can't wait!

I think you still got a shot!  ;)

A 3.44 in a difficult degree program (i.e. NOT Arts) is not easy, and a GPA in the 85th percentile is even better

Although i really admire those in so-called "tough" programs like engineering, i'd have to disgaree with your inference that getting a high mark in the ARTS is easy. Actually i would say it's harder to get a high gpa in a program like English than it is to get a high gpa in a program like Health Sciences or maths.


Don't even try to convince him/her.  People are blind to these sorts of things.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: warholmuse on December 08, 2006, 01:56:25 PM
*Sigh*
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on December 08, 2006, 02:03:49 PM
If it makes you feel any better, my brother is currently doing his PhD in the engineering physics/nanotechnology department here at the U of A, and he agrees with that sentiment.  That's because there's a certain level of objectivity and certainty in science grading -- you generally know what to study for and what not to study for, and you can generally know how many you got "right" and how many you got "wrong" with little room for debate.  In Arts, most of this is at the prof's discretion, and most profs don't like to dish out really high marks. 

I'm not really all that impressed with a 3.6/3.7 out of Arts, while I am when it's from someone out of Engineering/Genetics.  However, a 3.9/4.0 in Arts is impressive, and probably more difficult to get than a similar mark in most science-related degrees.  I think the mark where it shifts for me is around 3.7 to 3.8.  It still takes a shitload of work to manage this in any degree, but your chances are just much lower in Arts -- you have to count on so many factors beyond "what's right and wrong".
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Doraemon on December 08, 2006, 03:13:34 PM
Although the engineering curriculum is in general more demanding, I am less impressed by excellent grades in engineering than top grades in arts. Top engineering students can consistently get 95%+, whereas a top student in English would find it hard to crack 90%. So I think an engineer's 90% is less impressive than an English major's 90%. An engineer's 95% would be comparable to an English major's 90%. I think this is what warholmuse was trying to say.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on December 08, 2006, 03:17:57 PM
This is precisely what I said.

Which is not surprising, given that I was completely agreeing with her.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Doraemon on December 08, 2006, 03:24:29 PM
This is precisely what I said.

Which is not surprising, given that I was completely agreeing with her.


Indeed. I declare myself in agreement with both of you.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on December 08, 2006, 03:32:02 PM
Most excellent!
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: warholmuse on December 08, 2006, 05:44:42 PM
Haha, how swell it is to all be in agreement.

Anyway, I am still really curious as to how my school's 12 point grading system will convert into a gpa.

Hmmm...
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: nerfco on December 08, 2006, 06:27:18 PM
I would argue it is much harder to maintain a good GPA in my major (physics), than it would be in English. In an English major, it may be tough to get a 90 in a class, but I would argue it is relatively easy to get an 80 or 85. In physics, I would argue it takes much more work to get an 80 in a class, and still takes more work to get a 90 or higher than it does in English. As evidence of this, my last four upper-level physics classes had class averages of 59%, 61%, 39%, and 50%.

I would, however, concede that once you have already reached 90, it would be much harder to change that mark into a 97 in English than in physics. (However, at my school, there is no difference between 90 and 97 to a GPA--both are 4.33.)

This likely varies from school-to-school however. Math, at my institution, is much easier than physics--class averages tend to hover around 75% rather than 55%. It would be quite easy to maintain a high GPA in math relative to physics at my school.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on December 08, 2006, 06:32:13 PM
Fair enough.  Still doesn't allow people to summarily dismiss the difficulty of an Arts degree as did the poster that we were responding to.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Geo_Storm on December 08, 2006, 09:29:39 PM
put it this way, i'd have a lot more ease maintaining my 3.5ish gpa in arts than in engineering, which I am. That said i do agree that the possibility for an A in every engineering class is more within grasp. The difficulty lies in getting A in every class every semester, it takes an insane amount of work.

back to the topic, i'd say my engineering degree adds to law school diversity, and therefore boosts my chances on a diverse-driven, less-number-driven law school such as mcgill. Plus i'm from mcgill, gotta count for something.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: warholmuse on December 09, 2006, 12:43:52 AM
I generally agree with most of your thoughts. I would say it takes more insane studying and perhaps hard work to get As in areas such as physics or engineering, and a lot of the time students are not able to reach that high level. However, areas such as English or political science may take less hardcore studying and less hard work in general, but profs rarely give out very high marks (85% and above) even when the student produces high quality work.

In other words, more hard work and perhaps, brain power is needed to get high marks in areas such as engineering and physics, but such marks (85% and above) are more likely to be given in those areas than in areas such as English.

Therefore, the overall average for a program like physics may be lower than a program like English, but the top students in physics are likely to have higher marks than the top students in English.

All in all, i really admire students in programs like physics and engineering. I see their textbooks and it's pretty insane. And they do study like mad dogs. But then again, writing a 3500-4000 word essay on Crusade and Jihad, as i am doing now, takes a lot out of you.  8)
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Captain on December 20, 2006, 11:24:10 AM
The LSAT is required, but McGill puts emphasis on the GPA.  Check their website if you want to know more.

Actually, the LSAT is NOT required at all. If you do it, they will consider it as a factor, but they do not require applicants to do the LSAT.

And basically, it's a tough school to get into. I would equate to being the closest thing to an Ivy League school in Canada (along with UofT). 

Actually, McGill was an Ivy League school in much earlier times, before it was decided that Ivy League schools would be American only.

McGill was never an Ivy League. The Ivy League is an NCAA sports conference. McGill has never participated in NCAA division 1. That said, most people consider it on par with an Ivy League education.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: ace0260 on December 21, 2006, 07:56:00 PM
Yeah Id like to second that. McGill was NEVER been in the formal ivy league (1950s) or the informal athletic conference for the original 9 colonies and Army, Navy, Rutgers, and William and Mary. That said, McGill did often play against ivy schools namely Harvard.

Also, I wouldnt agree with the statement that McGIll provides an ivy caliber education. The Ivy League has many unique charactersitics that transcend beyond academic quality however it may be defined. Extremely sizeable endowments and low undergrad populations change the entire scope of education. I would equate McGill, as a public school, to top US state schools such as Michigan, Illinois, or the UC's which are often called "public ivies"
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Geo_Storm on December 22, 2006, 12:57:55 AM
Yeah Id like to second that. McGill was NEVER been in the formal ivy league (1950s) or the informal athletic conference for the original 9 colonies and Army, Navy, Rutgers, and William and Mary. That said, McGill did often play against ivy schools namely Harvard.

Also, I wouldnt agree with the statement that McGIll provides an ivy caliber education. The Ivy League has many unique charactersitics that transcend beyond academic quality however it may be defined. Extremely sizeable endowments and low undergrad populations change the entire scope of education. I would equate McGill, as a public school, to top US state schools such as Michigan, Illinois, or the UC's which are often called "public ivies"


I'd say McGill carries the reputation of an IVY although the academics might be slightly below. Btw, modern football was borne out of a game between McGill and Harvard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_football#McGill_v._Harvard.2C_1874_.26_Harvard_v._Yale.2C_1875
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on December 22, 2006, 01:09:40 AM
From my experience, it's only those who attend/have attended McGill that try to argue it carries the reputation of an Ivy.


It doesn't.  Get over it.  It's not a big deal.  It's still a great school.

Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: ace0260 on December 23, 2006, 05:04:49 PM
Yes, McGill and Harvard played the first football game. No, McGill was never in the Ivy League.


And again, noone is questioning McGill's academic caliber. I just believe there is a distinct experiential difference between the Ivies and top state schools. That said, McGill is very well-known internationally, probably better known than less research-based ivies like Dartmouth and Penn.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: Geo_Storm on December 23, 2006, 10:48:35 PM
From my experience, it's only those who attend/have attended McGill that try to argue it carries the reputation of an Ivy.


It doesn't.  Get over it.  It's not a big deal.  It's still a great school.



I'm glad I went there. That's all that matters.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: gillesthegreat on December 30, 2006, 10:01:25 PM
Football? Really? And they still waste time and efforts claiming the first hockey game was played on the main grounds? Sheesh!
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on December 30, 2006, 10:30:47 PM
Football? Really? And they still waste time and efforts claiming the first hockey game was played on the main grounds? Sheesh!


hahahahahaha

Well, I'll give them this much: it was hockey that led them to football via rugby in the first place.
Title: Re: McGill, GPA's and LSAT
Post by: FossilJ on January 04, 2007, 07:26:53 AM
McGill is not on par with U of T.  Sorry to say.

McGill is certainly on par with U of T law. Is U of T considered the toughest law school in Canada to get into? @#!* ya! But just as Harvard is still comparable to say NYU even if Harvard is tougher to get into (in general) and a little more prestigious, you can def. compare U of T to Mcgill - they're the two premier Canadian law schools.

Oh this is precious.  NYU is on par with Harvard?

Jesus.  Stay away from all that *&^%.  hahaahha