Are any re-applicants starting to feel like this is a bit futile?

[existentialdread]

Mostly a rant and i'm going to be a bit whiny for a second, but here we go:

 

Does anyone else reapplying for their second, third, or fourth time just feel like this process is becoming completely pointless with how competitive things have gotten?

 

I have a 3.6 L2 but I feel like without a 165+ I just have no hope at this point and I truly don't know if a score in the 90th percentile is achievable. I have already spent 3.5 years of my life working towards this, taking extra classes, studying for and writing the LSAT multiple times while working a f/t job. This will be my third application cycle and I don't know if I have it in me to do this again if I don't get it this time. I have hired a tutor at the cost of $200 a session for what I think will be my final write in January. I've spent thousands between application fees, LSAT prep, additional classes to boost GPA, etc. I've delayed starting a career. I'm not sure at what point it makes sense to turn my attention elsewhere. I ain't getting any younger. 

 

Feeling pretty shitty today. 

 

Edit: I really don't mean to sound entitled, I know just wanting something badly isn't enough. It is just crummy to feel like maybe you actually aren't good enough for a thing that you really want and have worked hard towards. 

Edited September 25, 2021 by existentialdread
clarity

[Yogurt Baron]

14 minutes ago, existentialdread said:

Does anyone else reapplying for their second, third, or fourth time just feel like this process is becoming completely pointless with how competitive things have gotten?

Rookie.

...

I mean.

Hi!

I'm sorry you're feeling bad. I want to reply to a few parts of your post that I relate to, or have at one time in my life related to. The things I'm going to say are general, and some will apply more to you than others, but believe me, I've seen a thousand of this exact post and I know this terrain.

I've been bumming around these boards for a distressingly long time, and you know what I've seen a lot of, especially from people named things like "existentialdread"? I'll tell you what: the idea that "law school admissibility" is synonymous with "being good enough". I think a few different things happen.

1. Especially for folks who weren't born rich, law and medicine are the only capital-P Professions they even know of. The background you need for law school is less sciencey, and therefore seems "easier" to a lot of people. So if you want to be the kind of prestigious professional they make movies about, "lawyer" feels from that perspective like your one shot. The problem isn't that you're not good enough to get into law school; the problem is that no one makes movies about occupational therapists.

2. The law school admissions process is streamlined in a way that makes it appealing. I've been binge-reading Tom Breihan's column at Stereogum about the history of Billboard #1 songs, and...there is no surefire way to make a Billboard #1 song. There's no sense that making it to #1 equates with being the best song or the most talented musician, unless you're really into "Winchester Cathedral" by The New Vaudeville Band. If two people start businesses out of their dorm rooms, there's no clear, objective, external X factor that says which one is going to be Mark Zuckerberg and which one is going to be...you know, me. By contrast, there's an orderliness to law school admissions. You take the standardized test, and whoever's best gets in, right? So if you're best, you'll get in, right? And it hurts not to be the best!

But it's not about being "the best" in some generalized sense. It's very granular. Most law students get there by being excellent at very specific things, including "puzzles about who can sit next to who". Maybe those aren't for you. That's okay.

This is something the lawyers here could maybe help you tease out better than I can, if any of them are inclined: do you actually want to be a lawyer, at all? Do you want to do that work, day-to-day? What kind of work? If your answer is, "Yes, of course I want to be a lawyer - any kind, doing whatever! That'll show my mother!", or, "It will be a good thing to have on my resume when I run for city council," then...good news. You're one of the many, many, many posters we've had who wants to be a lawyer for the sake of being somebody, and there are hundreds of other paths to being somebody.

In terms of your kind of just being on the cusp of admissibility and fretting about things getting more competitive, I sympathize mildly. There was a day when any kind of school admissions or entry into most professions was as simple as, "Okay, this person looks the part, they're in." Things should keep getting more competitive. Lawyers wield a ton of power over real people's real lives; that shouldn't be an easy get. But the encouraging news is, you've shown promise. One incredibly enervating notion kicking around admissions culture is the idea that it's easy to improve on the LSAT - because, after all, most of these people aren't even taking prep courses! And it's only a few more points that you need! This bugs the shit out of me. This may have changed with COVID, but until recently, it was logistically challenging to write the LSAT - you had to get a passport photo, you had to pay a shitload of money. I'm sure a very few people write it on a lark, but mostly, you're up against comparatively bright people who are comparatively serious about performing well on the test. If you're getting (say) a 160, you're outperforming four out of five of these comparatively serious people. That suggests that you have some aptitudes that can serve you well in some career.

Just keep an open mind to whether this is actually what you want, and, if so, figure out a way to make it happen. Everyone has a bad day sometimes. You'll be fine.

Oh, and: two hundred dollars a session for an LSAT tutor?  That's...you know what, I don't even know what to do with that. My experience has been that that level of investment is often reflective of...well, mostly existential dread. I suspect you'll be fine no matter what happens, and I'm cheaper than your LSAT tutor. (You owe me $190.)

[GGrievous]

3 hours ago, existentialdread said:

I've spent thousands between application fees

Sorry for how you're feeling man, I do know what you mean, and I don't think you're a hopeless case. I do think however that statement says a lot. I think you're rushing into applying without putting yourself in the best position to apply first. My advice, and do with this what you will, is to not apply to any more schools until you have the LSAT you need, or you've taken courses to boost your L2. You're pouring money into the process and then you're having to rush on the back end with the LSAT. I would say get the LSAT first, get the GPA first, then worry about applying. Just my two cents. Really wish you the best, it's a tough, terrible, soul-sucking process I know.

[CleanHands]

At the risk of sounding like a dick, real talk: it doesn't get any easier once you get admitted. In fact, law school admissions are a really low bar compared to what's to come if one gets admitted:

• Competing on the curve against fellow law students for grades.
• Competing against those same peers for summer and articling jobs.
• Competing against other hires on the job during articles and in one's early career.
• Competing against opposing counsel on files.
• Competing against other lawyers to make partner or in the marketplace as a sole or small practitioner, depending upon your path.

At every stage you're competing against highly motived, intelligent people.

I find it hard not to sound like a dick here but it's really difficult for me to feel sympathy towards people who believe that getting admitted to a Canadian law school is difficult. It really is not, for most people who are actually suitable and equipped to perform in this field. It certainly isn't difficult compared to everything to follow that flows from admission to law school. And this is a profession that needs some quality control in terms of who gets in given the responsibilities it entails.

Not every career is for every person out there. Law was like my 4th or 5th choice of career after pursuing and failing at other professions I wasn't suited for or where I couldn't overcome barriers to entry. So in that sense I sympathize with the feeling of wanting to do something and not being able to. But on the other hand I can say from experience that there are other paths available and one or two of them being obstructed will not prevent you from living a fulfilling and meaningful life if you adapt accordingly.

Anyways, I wish you the best of luck with whatever shakes out for you. But rather than give you encouragement to press onwards with this law thing (if you've applied for three cycles you really don't need my encouragement or anyone else's at this point) I just want to emphasize that if you have to do something else that's not as devastating as it probably feels just this moment to you. And given a few years (if you don't end up in law school) you'll almost certainly realize this.

Edited September 26, 2021 by CleanHands

[GGrievous]

9 hours ago, CleanHands said:

-snip-

I don’t disagree, but I think it’s important to note that stats that would have gotten people in just a few cycles ago, or even last cycle, would not get people in this cycle. I know they also applied in “easier” cycles if this is indeed their third or fourth time, but I also don’t know how much improvement took place. 

When it comes to applying there’s no doubt there’s a certain level of luck involved. Obviously a more competitive cycle is a more competitive class all around so your point is totally valid. But I also think the frustration from someone with (and I don’t know what their LSAT is but at least not a terrible GPA) is valid.

Edited September 26, 2021 by Barry

[QueensDenning]

Not trying to be a dick, but if you’ve spent years trying to get into law school I think it might be time to try something else. Cleanhands’ post above really made sense to me. At the end of the day, almost everyone I know in law school got in on their first try and had many choices. If your finding it this hard to get in, your chances don’t look good in terms of how you’ll perform relative to your classmates. And your completely shut out of a LOT of opportunities if you don’t do well in law school academically.

[Darth Vader]

I'm actually glad to hear that you've tried to get into Canadian law schools multiple years instead of just taking the easy way out and going abroad to a school that will accept anyone with a pulse. It shows that you have some basic common sense or at least that you don't have money to just drop on a whim. 

What is your cGPA and LSAT score at now? Where have you applied in the past and did you get waitlisted anywhere? 

Why do you want to go to law school and be a lawyer? 

Have you looked into alternative career paths like public policy? I've recently advised quite a few people about the policy path which they realized was more suitable for them than law school, as a lot of people going into law school want a government/public sector job and a 9-5 schedule. 

Have you looked into an MBA and other business degrees? I've recently advised a lot of people that only want to go to law school to be a corporate lawyer to just do an MBA and go into consulting, investment banking, marketing, etc. If they already have a business degree and are working in a steady job now, and they only want to go to law school to be a corporate lawyer, I have advised them to stay put. Telling us a bit more about your educational background and work experience may help us guide you better. 

There are very few people out there that are law school or bust, and have to go to law school. Like @CleanHands, I think law was the right path for me and I would not have done as well in most other fields, but I can clearly see that many of my fellow peers would have done just as well, or be better off, if they had not gone to law school. Law is a high-stress profession that will take a lot out of you and is not for people that can't handle responsibility and stress on an almost daily basis. The "grass is not always greener on the other side." There are lots of meaningful careers that pay well and offer a much better work-life balance outside of being a lawyer. I would explore those options and not get caught up in this idea that "you have always wanted to be a lawyer." Because maybe you don't actually want to be a lawyer, and just like some aspects of it like money, prestige, think you'll be helping society on some grand scale, etc. 

[lawess]

I'd have to disagree with some of the other commenters here, especially @CleanHandsand @QueensDenning! Anyone who tries to tell you that maybe you're just not "cut out" for law school is both inaccurate and unproductive. It's the difference between a fixed mindset and a growth mindset. You should also be weary of people on here who may try to discourage you from entering law because they may have their own reasons, like wanting less competition, more feelings of "prestige," etc.

That being said, you should have really stopped to objectively re-evaluate yourself somewhere along this process. Do your study methods really work? What experience/extracurriculars do you need to start leaning into? You have a pretty decent L2, so after the first round of unsuccessful applications, I would have started to re-strategize. What are your personal statements like?

Also, don't worry about your age. You will literally be doing law from the day you graduate until almost the day you die. What's one or two more years of prep work? It makes no difference. If you need those extra years out of law school to do what it takes to get into your dream school, find some legal experience or just mature more, then take them! I'm in law school now and I'm a few years older than most of the students (by like 2 or 3 years, so not much) and I honestly feel like that benefits me because I have more useful work experience and I'm more mature than some of them.

I had a lot of the same feelings when I was applying, and I think for a lot of us who didn't grow up with the skills and attitudes required to succeed in law school, it definitely is a learning curve. But it's so learnable. I had to teach myself a lot throughout the process (not just about the LSAT, but about time management, perseverance, etc.) and I feel more confident in myself going into law school. But I think you should honestly and realistically evaluate your process. What is most effective, where are you going wrong, and more. And DON'T apply or write the LSAT until you know you're ready. Have you applied to any safety schools? 

Best of luck! You absolutely can do this. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

[GGrievous]

26 minutes ago, kilgoretrout said:

you should have really stopped to objectively re-evaluate yourself somewhere along this process.

 

On 9/25/2021 at 3:30 PM, existentialdread said:

taking extra classes, studying for and writing the LSAT multiple times... hired a tutor at the cost of $200 a session..LSAT prep, additional classes to boost GPA, etc.

 

[lawess]

5 minutes ago, Barry said:

 

 

It looks like OP is putting in a lot of effort. In my opinion, there's a difference between trying harder and re-strategizing. Do you know what I mean? It's like working harder vs. working "smarter." As I wrote above, OP shouldn't apply to schools or even retake the LSAT until they can honestly gauge how they're doing.

[GGrievous]

13 minutes ago, kilgoretrout said:

re-strategizing

like hiring a tutor this time?

[Phaedrus]

21 minutes ago, kilgoretrout said:

I'd have to disagree with some of the other commenters here, especially @CleanHandsand @QueensDenning! Anyone who tries to tell you that maybe you're just not "cut out" for law school is both inaccurate and unproductive. It's the difference between a fixed mindset and a growth mindset. You should also be weary of people on here who may try to discourage you from entering law because they may have their own reasons, like wanting less competition, more feelings of "prestige," etc.

No. What I would suggest is inaccurate and unproductive is encouraging someone without demonstrable aptitude to enter a program to chase (what is becoming increasingly clear is) a pipe dream. The application process is competitive, law school is competitive, practice is competitive, and life in general is competitive. Your suggestion itself is a fixed mindset that focuses on spending valuable money and time on a dream, something @Yogurt Baron talked extensively about.

Perhaps @CleanHands and @QueensDenning were harsh in their replies, but sometimes that's necessary and desirable. You asked whether OP has evaluated their study methods, ECs, commitments, approach. Certainly, these are things to examine after underperforming on the LSAT the first time. Hell, maybe even the second time. But if this is someone's third or fourth kick at the application can and they've paid for tutors and sought all the help that's out there, I'm going to question whether the person has enough self-awareness to identify and change their unsuccessful habits, or whether they're unable to make the necessary improvements.*

More senior members here can speak to the premise that LSAT scores and GPA don't correlate to success in practice, but I'd never suggest there's no relationship between the two. There will always be an exception to the rule, that non-competitive candidates can make excellent lawyers, but they're exceptions. We shouldn't be promoting the sort of single-minded pursuit of dreams that can cost someone years of time and emotional investment. At some point, a person needs to cut their losses, redefine success in their lives, and focus on strengths. 

What @Yogurt Baron discusses is a growth mindset. 

* I acknowledge that there are those who face insurmountable barriers to performing well on paper, because they have dependents, must work full time, etc. These individuals might very well make brilliant lawyers if they had a chance. I have deep empathy for them, and the admissions process can be improved, but there is an inescapable reality that has to be faced in the meantime. Sometimes we don't get what we want. Sometimes we can't be the things we think we are. There comes a time when we need to recognize harsh facts/circumstances and choose to proceed in a way that sets ourselves up for success.

[GGrievous]

13 minutes ago, Phaedrus said:

-snip-

I agree with all of this but just to be fair to OP they haven't, at least in my opinion, demonstrated a particular lack of awareness about this. The picture would also look different if there was a big jump between attempts, or if their LSAT score is high 150's/low 160's vs. sub 158. They did say this is their 3rd and likely last time, and they hadn't hired the tutor yet. Still think the warnings and advice have been good for OP to receive. 

Edited October 14, 2021 by Barry

[Yogurt Baron]

Since I was tagged: I really, really don't want to shit on the OP when they're already down, and it's difficult for me to engage with this new person without at least implicitly being unkind about the OP, which I don't want to do. OP seems like good people and I wish them only the best. But I will say a couple of more things.

I don't really agree with the cheerleading aspect of KT's post, but I do agree with the notion that if what you're doing isn't working, it's a good idea to reassess how you're doing it and even whether you should be doing it. For me, I reached a point where I'd maxed out my capacity on the LSAT in the mid-160s. My brain isn't set up for logic games. For me, I could spend $200 on an LSAT tutor, $2,000, or $2 trillion, and I'm still not getting above a 165. My aptitudes are what they are. Everybody has limitations. That's okay.

I think it's true that, in most pursuits, a beginner can improve with practice and effort. But there are diminishing returns, especially when you're competing against a really strong pool of others who are also trying to improve, and not just trying to learn a new song on the guitar. If you're trying to go from an 80th-percentile LSAT to a 90th-percentile LSAT, what you're trying to do is leapfrog over a bunch of people who are incredibly bright. That's not so easily done.

I also chortled aloud at the notion that anyone is dissuading less-competitive applicants to apply because they're somehow afraid of competition. That's just wrong on so many levels. 

[Phaedrus]

I should clarify that I wasn't intending to dog pile OP. Rather, I was speaking to the habit we can have of being unhelpfully optimistic about repeat applicants in general. Hope can be reasonable and advice for improvement can come at later than usual times, but there comes a point where persistence is unreasonable. The sunken cost fallacy is real and it's easy to fall prey to wishful thinking.

Thanks for mentioning it, @Barry

 

[Goku560]

On 9/25/2021 at 6:18 PM, Yogurt Baron said:

Rookie.

...

I mean.

Hi!

I'm sorry you're feeling bad. I want to reply to a few parts of your post that I relate to, or have at one time in my life related to. The things I'm going to say are general, and some will apply more to you than others, but believe me, I've seen a thousand of this exact post and I know this terrain.

I've been bumming around these boards for a distressingly long time, and you know what I've seen a lot of, especially from people named things like "existentialdread"? I'll tell you what: the idea that "law school admissibility" is synonymous with "being good enough". I think a few different things happen.

1. Especially for folks who weren't born rich, law and medicine are the only capital-P Professions they even know of. The background you need for law school is less sciencey, and therefore seems "easier" to a lot of people. So if you want to be the kind of prestigious professional they make movies about, "lawyer" feels from that perspective like your one shot. The problem isn't that you're not good enough to get into law school; the problem is that no one makes movies about occupational therapists.

2. The law school admissions process is streamlined in a way that makes it appealing. I've been binge-reading Tom Breihan's column at Stereogum about the history of Billboard #1 songs, and...there is no surefire way to make a Billboard #1 song. There's no sense that making it to #1 equates with being the best song or the most talented musician, unless you're really into "Winchester Cathedral" by The New Vaudeville Band. If two people start businesses out of their dorm rooms, there's no clear, objective, external X factor that says which one is going to be Mark Zuckerberg and which one is going to be...you know, me. By contrast, there's an orderliness to law school admissions. You take the standardized test, and whoever's best gets in, right? So if you're best, you'll get in, right? And it hurts not to be the best!

But it's not about being "the best" in some generalized sense. It's very granular. Most law students get there by being excellent at very specific things, including "puzzles about who can sit next to who". Maybe those aren't for you. That's okay.

This is something the lawyers here could maybe help you tease out better than I can, if any of them are inclined: do you actually want to be a lawyer, at all? Do you want to do that work, day-to-day? What kind of work? If your answer is, "Yes, of course I want to be a lawyer - any kind, doing whatever! That'll show my mother!", or, "It will be a good thing to have on my resume when I run for city council," then...good news. You're one of the many, many, many posters we've had who wants to be a lawyer for the sake of being somebody, and there are hundreds of other paths to being somebody.

In terms of your kind of just being on the cusp of admissibility and fretting about things getting more competitive, I sympathize mildly. There was a day when any kind of school admissions or entry into most professions was as simple as, "Okay, this person looks the part, they're in." Things should keep getting more competitive. Lawyers wield a ton of power over real people's real lives; that shouldn't be an easy get. But the encouraging news is, you've shown promise. One incredibly enervating notion kicking around admissions culture is the idea that it's easy to improve on the LSAT - because, after all, most of these people aren't even taking prep courses! And it's only a few more points that you need! This bugs the shit out of me. This may have changed with COVID, but until recently, it was logistically challenging to write the LSAT - you had to get a passport photo, you had to pay a shitload of money. I'm sure a very few people write it on a lark, but mostly, you're up against comparatively bright people who are comparatively serious about performing well on the test. If you're getting (say) a 160, you're outperforming four out of five of these comparatively serious people. That suggests that you have some aptitudes that can serve you well in some career.

Just keep an open mind to whether this is actually what you want, and, if so, figure out a way to make it happen. Everyone has a bad day sometimes. You'll be fine.

Oh, and: two hundred dollars a session for an LSAT tutor?  That's...you know what, I don't even know what to do with that. My experience has been that that level of investment is often reflective of...well, mostly existential dread. I suspect you'll be fine no matter what happens, and I'm cheaper than your LSAT tutor. (You owe me $190.)

Are you an LSAT Tutor??

[CleanHands]

1 hour ago, Goku560 said:

Are you an LSAT Tutor??

This can't be a sincere question in response to a post where someone stated they hit their LSAT ceiling in the mid-160's, so I assume it's some kind of sarcasm implying YB doesn't know what they are talking about or something, but I don't get that either.

[Yogurt Baron]

I'm a "people needlessly driving themselves insane over law school admissions" tutor. My lesson is, don't do that. That'll be $200.

(Damn it, I've got to start getting the money before I tell people the lesson. This is exactly why my tutoring business is floundering. Terrible business model.)

[123]

On 9/25/2021 at 6:18 PM, Yogurt Baron said:

This is something the lawyers here could maybe help you tease out better than I can, if any of them are inclined: do you actually want to be a lawyer, at all? Do you want to do that work, day-to-day? What kind of work? If your answer is, "Yes, of course I want to be a lawyer - any kind, doing whatever! That'll show my mother!", or, "It will be a good thing to have on my resume when I run for city council," then...good news. You're one of the many, many, many posters we've had who wants to be a lawyer for the sake of being somebody, and there are hundreds of other paths to being somebody.

Yeah, I want to stress this point. Being a lawyer is okay. Even though it's kind of hacky to link to my own post, I've already shared some general thoughts on the pros and cons of practicing law here, and I continue to think those things.

On @Yogurt Baron's point more generally, I agree. My lawyer friends don't lead drastically better lives than my non-lawyer professional friends. I can't say my colleagues seem seem any happier than average. Stress, long hours, and often relatively monotonous work take a toll. Drinking, weight gain, relationship breakdowns are not uncommon, because it's a demanding profession, and many of us make sometimes unhealthy tradeoffs elsewhere to accommodate those demands. 

Financially, the lawyers have relatively good long-term prospects. But honestly, so do most of my other friends who are teachers, software engineers, and academics, especially when you account for things like public sector pensions, etc. I even have a friend who dropped out of undergrad and is now a carpenter/musician/concert organizer, who just bought a house.

I'm not saying people shouldn't go to law school. But it's an oddly specific goal. And when you're struggling to get in, I sometimes wonder whether the juice will be worth the squeeze. Especially considering this: law isn't easy. It's not rocket science either, but it's enough of a pain in the ass that almost everyone who has the qualities to thrive in law is sufficiently diligent and intelligent to carve out a meaningful, successful career in something else. 

[Yogurt Baron]

Yes, one of the reasons I keep coming back here is to remind people that there are other paths that will meet some of the needs that some people are trying to meet when they go to law school.

I don't want to doxx myself, but I will say that after giving up on pursuing law, I've worked in several white-collar fields which are law-adjacent. Both of these fields are jobs that I did not know existed when I was a stupid 23-year-old applying to law school. I thought you could either go dig ditches, or become a lawyer, and one of those sounded like it would have air conditioning and the other didn't, so I decided I wanted to do the one with air conditioning.

Was I tremendously, almost unfathomably ignorant? Yes. Are a lot of first-gen arts majors that ignorant? In my experience, yes, a significant number are, and it correlates with socioeconomic class. To the professionals among you, it may sound insane that I keep hammering home, "Other jobs exist where you can work in an office and wear a suit," but I truly believe that some people out there need to hear that.

[SNAILS]

I think this issue has become stagnated on the question, "Do you really have the desire and drive to be a lawyer?"

This is a question which is appropriate for everyone from a 23-year-old KD-JD to an older person who has been trying to get into law school for some years. Of course, the factors are slightly different when you are a bit older, and the OPs situation brings up some questions. 

"Are there other fields of employment that might be preferable at this point?" This question has been brought up already by other people.

"Do you have competitive stats to get in?" This is the question I would focus on. The OP indicated a L2 of 3.6 but did not indicate exactly what their LSAT is. If it's at least 160 (158?), and if your cGPA  is maybe 3.4, then these are competitive stats and the usual advice for people with competitive stats  applies:

- apply broadly (Ontario wide, Canada wide) 

- sell yourself on life experience if applicable (many schools have mature student categories or take life experience into consideration).

- I'd usually say "work on your LSAT" but the OP seems to have put in their best effort already.

Evaluate your admission stats in the way the law schools do. What is your overall cGPA? What is your B20 (for Ryerson)?

If the truth of the matter is that your cGPA is 2.8 and your LSAT is 153 then this is a matter of simply having stats that are too low.

But if your stats are competitive (even if they are on the low end of competitive) then age and number of previous attempts to get in should not be a barrier.