McGill, GPA's and LSAT

[Geo_Storm]

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?

[Elemental]

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.

[bobotheclown]

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

[bobotheclown]

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

[FossilJ]

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.   

[bobotheclown]

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

[Geo_Storm]

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.

[mjb]

I've looked it up. Average lsat at McGill is 161. Its not hard to get into

[bobotheclown]

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

[FossilJ]

It's good ownage when clearly they had no comprehension of what they were reading.