Applying 3 years after post secondary education without degree, with a 157 lsat to ubc uvic and ualberta, should I retake the lsat? My gpa with drops would probably be high 3s or low 4s

[peppyparadox]

I am intl student in a country where almost no one takes the lsat, I had no resources or help as such and I would have to pay a shit ton to get tutoring etc, should I write this in my personal statement, considering Ualberta and uvic are holistic and pray for ubc lol? Or should I retake? Which again would be an expensive affair? 

 

[LMP]

I don't really see what the issue is with the LSAT. You can get most of the resources online and there's really no need for tutoring. 

 

All three schools you mentioned are fairly stats focused, take from that what you will. 

[peppyparadox]

8 minutes ago, LMP said:

I don't really see what the issue is with the LSAT. You can get most of the resources online and there's really no need for tutoring. 

 

All three schools you mentioned are fairly stats focused, take from that what you will. 

I mean tbh the way things are taught in north america is fairly different and hard for others to instantly cope, add to that the language issues you get quite the mix but thank you for your honesty 

[Borat]

Keep in mind that UVic takes GPA on a 4.33 scale, UofA on a 4.0 scale, and UBC takes percentages. UVic and UBC drop your lowest 6 or 4 courses (respectively), while UofA only looks at your last 2 years (i.e. 20 courses). Calculate your GPA for each of these schools individually in order to assess your competitiveness. 

Realistically you don't really have a chance at UBC, with a 157 LSAT you would need a 90% or higher GPA to be competitive. Same goes for UVic. For UofA if your L2 GPA is 4.0 (the maximum), you might have a shot at getting in, but last cycle there was pretty competitive and only a handful of people in the general category got in with sub-160 scores. I would definitely recommend re-taking the LSAT, as even with a perfect GPA you'd probably need 160+ to be competitive for these schools. If you can't/don't want to retake, apply to a broader range of schools to increase your chances.

Have you tried using Khan Academy? It's free and personally I found it to be basically all I needed to get the score I was aiming for. If you search online you'll probably find some other resources as well. From what I've seen most people don't take classes or tutoring, so don't feel that it's necessary to get a high score. Regardless of where one lives, anyone who chooses to take classes or tutoring has to pay, so I don't believe that's something worth noting on your application.

[CleanHands]

1 hour ago, peppyparadox said:

I am intl student in a country where almost no one takes the lsat, I had no resources or help as such and I would have to pay a shit ton to get tutoring etc

Fucking weak, bro.

Didn't require anything more than a handful of prep tests for me to get a 99th percentile score.

ETA - Language barrier is a fair point. But way too often on these forums we get people who suck at the LSAT acting like it's all a class issue amounting to who has the resources to pay tutors, and that's bullshit.

Edited October 28, 2021 by CleanHands

[peppyparadox]

8 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Fucking weak, bro.

Didn't require anything more than a handful of prep tests for me to get a 99th percentile score.

ETA - Language barrier is a fair point. But way too often on these forums we get people who suck at the LSAT acting like it's all a class issue amounting to who has the resources to pay tutors, and that's bullshit.

Chill out lmao, you know far too less to get call me weak or anything, if you have nothing nice to say then dont say anything at all

 

[CleanHands]

Just now, peppyparadox said:

Chill out lmao, you know far too less to get call me weak or anything, if you have nothing nice to say then dont say anything at all

That's not how the Internet works.

[peppyparadox]

12 minutes ago, Borat said:

Keep in mind that UVic takes GPA on a 4.33 scale, UofA on a 4.0 scale, and UBC takes percentages. UVic and UBC drop your lowest 6 or 4 courses (respectively), while UofA only looks at your last 2 years (i.e. 20 courses). Calculate your GPA for each of these schools individually in order to assess your competitiveness. 

Realistically you don't really have a chance at UBC, with a 157 LSAT you would need a 90% or higher GPA to be competitive. Same goes for UVic. For UofA if your L2 GPA is 4.0 (the maximum), you might have a shot at getting in, but last cycle there was pretty competitive and only a handful of people in the general category got in with sub-160 scores. I would definitely recommend re-taking the LSAT, as even with a perfect GPA you'd probably need 160+ to be competitive for these schools. If you can't/don't want to retake, apply to a broader range of schools to increase your chances.

Have you tried using Khan Academy? It's free and personally I found it to be basically all I needed to get the score I was aiming for. If you search online you'll probably find some other resources as well. From what I've seen most people don't take classes or tutoring, so don't feel that it's necessary to get a high score. Regardless of where one lives, anyone who chooses to take classes or tutoring has to pay, so I don't believe that's something worth noting on your application.

I understand what you're saying but you do realise the conversion rate max paying for the same thing a lot more expensive but yeah I'll look  for resources online thanks!

 

Just now, CleanHands said:

That's not how the Internet works.

You make sure of that, don't you

 

[Renerik]

Holistic doesn't mean a school will overlook a poor component of your candidature. Retake the LSAT. 

Looks like you're trying to find an excuse for not having a higher LSAT score. If you want to go to one of those three schools, get over that hang-up and do better. Money and language barrier be damned.

[Kobe]

1 hour ago, peppyparadox said:

I am intl student in a country where almost no one takes the lsat, I had no resources or help as such and I would have to pay a shit ton to get tutoring etc, should I write this in my personal statement, considering Ualberta and uvic are holistic and pray for ubc lol? Or should I retake? Which again would be an expensive affair? 

 

I don't understand why people seem to think holistic means you can get in with bad stats. You likely have close to 0 chance at UBC with your LSAT score. UAlberta I would guess is your best bet. At any rate you are already applying without a degree, and many schools explicitly state they have higher standards for students without degrees. Just retake the LSAT, it's really not hard to move from 157 to low 160s. 

Also just seeing @Renerik beat me to the point on holistic admissions. 

[peppyparadox]

 @Renerik and @Kobe Thank you, I guess I will retake the lsat 

[Darth Vader]

You have mentioned language barriers. Even if you get in, do you think you have the academic capabilities to perform in law school at a high level in either the English or French language?

[peppyparadox]

1 hour ago, Darth Vader said:

You have mentioned language barriers. Even if you get in, do you think you have the academic capabilities to perform in law school at a high level in either the English or French language?

Yeah for sure

 

[Rashabon]

Then sounds like the language barrier wasn't the issue on your LSAT, it was an aptitude issue.

[peppyparadox]

2 hours ago, Rashabon said:

Then sounds like the language barrier wasn't the issue on your LSAT, it was an aptitude issue.

I think I meant to say that, the way the LSAT is worded is pretty different from what we usually do around here + not a native speaker but with the extra curricular stuff and experience I've had I think I am well versed with legalese, which is different from the LSAT per se 

 

Just now, peppyparadox said:

I think I meant to say that, the way the LSAT is worded is pretty different from what we usually do around here + not a native speaker but with the extra curricular stuff and experience I've had I think I am well versed with legalese, which is different from the LSAT per se 

 

Adding to my original point it will also help that in college I will help that I didnt in case of the lsat ie no peers taking it or mentors or seniors to advice

[Yogurt Baron]

2 minutes ago, peppyparadox said:

I think I meant to say that, the way the LSAT is worded is pretty different from what we usually do around here + not a native speaker but with the extra curricular stuff and experience I've had I think I am well versed with legalese, which is different from the LSAT per se 

 

Yeah, no.

[peppyparadox]

1 minute ago, Yogurt Baron said:

Yeah, no.

oh god no how will I live without yogurt barons validation 

[North]

10 hours ago, CleanHands said:

Fucking weak, bro.

Didn't require anything more than a handful of prep tests for me to get a 99th percentile score.

*Tips Fedora*

[CleanHands]

Genuine question for real though; how many admits actually need/receive tutoring for the LSAT? Unsurprisingly a lot of people on the forums, subreddits, etc talk about LSAT tutoring as the people who need the help turn to such places to ask how to improve. And then you get people like OP citing a lack of tutoring to justify a mediocre LSAT score as if it's a given that most people receive tutoring, but nobody I met in law school actually required that.

Also I'm hugely biased but a big booster of the LSAT particularly when these arguments about socioeconomic privilege are invoked. Because for many of us the LSAT is the great equalizer while some people have to work during undergrad, or care for family members, etc, and others don't have such obligations.

[Yogurt Baron]

39 minutes ago, peppyparadox said:

oh god no how will I live without yogurt barons validation 

Look. You can either come in here as a supplicant looking for advice, or you can cop attitude about how much better than everyone you are.

I've been on this board and its predecessor for thirteen years. I've seen hundreds of people who were too stupid to write a decent LSAT, and were also too stupid to understand their own limitations. I've seen how it goes for them. I'm not an expert in much, but I'm an expert in how it always goes for people who have bad attitudes, big egos, and absolutely no basis for either. And I'm telling you, I've seen "I'll be fine, I know 'legalese'" before, and I'm telling you, it doesn't work like that.

4 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Genuine question for real though; how many admits actually need/receive tutoring for the LSAT? Unsurprisingly a lot of people on the forums, subreddits, etc talk about LSAT tutoring as the people who need the help turn to such places to ask how to improve. And then you get people like OP citing a lack of tutoring to justify a mediocre LSAT score as if it's a given that most people receive tutoring, but nobody I met in law school actually required that.

Also I'm hugely biased but a big booster of the LSAT particularly when these arguments about socioeconomic privilege are invoked. Because for many of us the LSAT is the great equalizer while some people have to work during undergrad, or care for family members, etc, and others don't have such obligations.

For me, the socioeconomic piece is that if you've got two people writing 155s, being able to afford tutoring might be able to bump the richer of the two up to a 158. It doesn't apply to people writing at the 99th percentile, at which point that's basically just talent.

[BlockedQuebecois]

4 minutes ago, Yogurt Baron said:

I'm an expert in how it always goes for people who have bad attitudes, big egos, and absolutely no basis for either.

They become the 45th President of the United States?

[CleanHands]

8 minutes ago, Yogurt Baron said:

For me, the socioeconomic piece is that if you've got two people writing 155s, being able to afford tutoring might be able to bump the richer of the two up to a 158. It doesn't apply to people writing at the 99th percentile, at which point that's basically just talent.

Sure, absolutely having access to those resources makes a difference, but you could apply that logic to literally any enterprise though. E.G. "maybe I could have made the NHL if my parents hired experts to train me from birth; therefore not getting into the NHL isn't a reflection on my athletic abilities compared to those that did make it." At a certain point there's a grain of truth but it's mostly whining and excuse-making.

I'm just griping because I I've seen the same thing posted 100 times between this forum and the old one (like you have, as you alluded to). And nobody ever has the self-awareness, humility and willingness to admit that maybe the aren't that bright and a less than stellar LSAT score might be a reflection of that.

(Also the OP's score isn't even that bad, 71st percentile. But they aren't content to even accept that they are "merely" somewhat above-average.)

Edited October 28, 2021 by CleanHands

[Ben]

10 hours ago, CleanHands said:

Fucking weak, bro.

Didn't require anything more than a handful of prep tests for me to get a 99th percentile score.

ETA - Language barrier is a fair point. But way too often on these forums we get people who suck at the LSAT acting like it's all a class issue amounting to who has the resources to pay tutors, and that's bullshit.

There’s no reason to treat people like this and then hide behind “it’s the internet” when they rightly point out that you’re being nasty for no reason. It’s so weird to fire “fucking weak bro” at someone putting themselves out there and asking for help. You get nothing out of this and you just take someone down a peg when you could’ve conveyed all the information you wanted to without doing it. 
 

im going to edit this quickly in light of the above to say that the pattern of being cruel to people asking for advice and then acting like somehow it’s a favour to them is so common on this board that I’d call it a systemic problem. You don’t need to be this nasty to people nervous about professional school to say what you are trying to say. 

Edited October 28, 2021 by Ben

[123]

12 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

Genuine question for real though; how many admits actually need/receive tutoring for the LSAT?

LSAC does collect data on this stuff.

Quote

Of the nine methods listed, self-study was the most popular method for all 4 testing years studied, and using a book not published by the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) was a close second. Official LSAC test-preparation materials and commercial test-preparation schools were also heavily used across testing years.

On average, respondents reported using two to three methods to prepare for the LSAT. For the 4 testing years covered by this report, approximately 35% of the respondents for each testing year reported using one testing method; 11–23% of the respondents reported using two, three, or four methods.

The most significant finding in the analysis of users versus nonusers of each method was that LSAT scores were higher for respondents who reported using the sample test available on LSAC’s website, official LSAC test-preparation materials, non-LSAC books or software, commercial test-preparation schools, and self-study methods. LSAT score means were lower for respondents who reported using sample questions available on LSAC’s website, undergraduate institution test-preparation courses, other preparation, and no preparation.

 But you'd have to request the full report to see anything particularly informative. 

[peppyparadox]

51 minutes ago, Yogurt Baron said:

Look. You can either come in here as a supplicant looking for advice, or you can cop attitude about how much better than everyone you are.

I've been on this board and its predecessor for thirteen years. I've seen hundreds of people who were too stupid to write a decent LSAT, and were also too stupid to understand their own limitations. I've seen how it goes for them. I'm not an expert in much, but I'm an expert in how it always goes for people who have bad attitudes, big egos, and absolutely no basis for either. And I'm telling you, I've seen "I'll be fine, I know 'legalese'" before, and I'm telling you, it doesn't work like that.

For me, the socioeconomic piece is that if you've got two people writing 155s, being able to afford tutoring might be able to bump the richer of the two up to a 158. It doesn't apply to people writing at the 99th percentile, at which point that's basically just talent.

I think its rather obvious who is butthurt here, no doubt you are an expert when it comes to people with bad attitudes. I simply asked for advice there is no need to put me down or anything. Make better use of your time champ. 

45 minutes ago, Ben said:

There’s no reason to treat people like this and then hide behind “it’s the internet” when they rightly point out that you’re being nasty for no reason. It’s so weird to fire “fucking weak bro” at someone putting themselves out there and asking for help. You get nothing out of this and you just take someone down a peg when you could’ve conveyed all the information you wanted to without doing it. 
 

im going to edit this quickly in light of the above to say that the pattern of being cruel to people asking for advice and then acting like somehow it’s a favour to them is so common on this board that I’d call it a systemic problem. You don’t need to be this nasty to people nervous about professional school to say what you are trying to say. 

Thank you for saying this, I saw @CleanHands  other replies and they seem rude as well, genuinely just don't reply if you have nothing to say. Considering ya'll are older than me I sure hope to not be a bitter person post law school, may you find the courage to be kinder.