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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Harvard isn't comparable to NYU on many levels. They're similar, but they're not close enough.
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
Pish, J only wants to waste YOUR time. Get wise.
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.
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.
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 Victoriahttp://www.top-law-schools.com/canadian-law-school-rankings.html2. 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.htmlYou 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.
Still, neither school has any significant wow-factor south of the border. If anything, they have a "huh?" factor.
Quote from: farouk on August 21, 2006, 05:32:37 PM"McGill rides on a decades-old and utterly inexplicable reputation"That was my impression as well, though I can't really support it.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.
"McGill rides on a decades-old and utterly inexplicable reputation"That was my impression as well, though I can't really support it.
Page created in 0.611 seconds with 18 queries.