McGill has law students that have done their undergrad in the US.
No, you don't have to take the LSAT, but if yu, they look at it.
No, you don't have to take the LSAT, but if yu, they look at it.
QuoteYou've got to be kidding if you think they've heard of any of those three Cegeps.
Reads like you should take a second look at the post ...
And incidentally, most apps will ask about your high school. You kinda sorta have to put it there.
You might want to insert a quick sentence in there both about what CEGEP is and about the 7-semester thing. If you're lucky, they will have heard of Marianopolis. I would however wager a considerable sum that they've never heard of Dawson or Vanier.
"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.
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. Queenís University
10. University of Victoria
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):QuoteI 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.
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.
So, you used an exaggerated ad hominem to make me look stupid, and then took issue with my new claim.
Name recognition means nothing.
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.
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.
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.