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

[123]

11 hours ago, CleanHands said:

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

32 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.

I think LSAT tutoring and prep books are useful for test takers struggling with technique on different questions and overall test-taking strategy. They're not a silver bullet, though. Only a certain percentage of the test is attributable to knowledge and technique. After that, a lot of it is being able to process the information quickly enough to get through the sections on time without error, and being able to tackle the more advanced questions that are weird enough that no one had a chance to prep for them. 

My opinion is that there are diminishing returns on prep. I think it's beneficial to know enough about the test that you'll have some idea how to tackle almost everything on the test. And practice can engrain techniques and bring you up to speed. But after a certain point, aptitude, and not knowledge, determines how many questions you can answer correctly. Because the test is designed so that only a certain percentage of takers can correctly answer the 19 - 25 questions per section needed to make it into the eightieth percentile and up.

If OP's problem is that they truly cannot access something like the powerscore books or a few preptests, then yes, socioeconomic disadvantage is probably a barrier. But if they understand what to do on the test, and can get enough practice to bring themselves up to speed, then it's a lot less clear that tutoring is, to put this in LSAT terms, either a necessary or sufficient condition to achieve the six to thirteen point increase that they likely need to make themselves reliably competitive at the schools they're asking about.

[peppyparadox]

48 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

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.)

Aw dude why are you being a big hypocrite. 

 

[Yogurt Baron]

59 minutes ago, CleanHands said:

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 reminded of a Malcolm Gladwell piece about how NHLers are disproportionately born earlier in the year, which means they disproportionately were the oldest/biggest kids on their teams as little kids, which means they played better when they were five, which means they got more opportunities when they were six. I think you and I are in agreement: these kinds of advantages are helpful for marginal cases, and it's unfair that that's so often the tiebreaker for marginal cases. But you and I are also fundamentally in agreement that whether or not you're a marginal case to start with is a function of ability. This whole tiresome argument could be avoided if the people instigating it were just better at stuff.

For me, I did okay on the LSAT, never broke the bank, was strong on the reading comprehension and atrocious on the puzzles. I'm happy to own that, when it comes to the specific kind of intellect reflected by that section of the LSAT, 90% of takers are smarter than I am. If I'd been rich enough to avoid a tutor, could I have bumped that number down to 89%? Maybe or maybe not, but so what? Our aptitudes are what they are.

[CleanHands]

11 minutes ago, Yogurt Baron said:

I'm reminded of a Malcolm Gladwell piece about how NHLers are disproportionately born earlier in the year, which means they disproportionately were the oldest/biggest kids on their teams as little kids, which means they played better when they were five, which means they got more opportunities when they were six. I think you and I are in agreement: these kinds of advantages are helpful for marginal cases, and it's unfair that that's so often the tiebreaker for marginal cases. But you and I are also fundamentally in agreement that whether or not you're a marginal case to start with is a function of ability. This whole tiresome argument could be avoided if the people instigating it were just better at stuff.

Sorry for derailing but I can't resist because this is neat.

Funny enough there's a blog post written by a former NHL goaltender that goes to precisely your point: https://www.nhl.com/stars/news/outliers-a-myth/c-677844

In summary, the general trend of players being born earlier in the year was true but the top draft picks were just innately talented enough that their births didn't follow the trend (at least in the year this was written). So as you suggest it only appears to make the difference for marginal NHL players and not people who would be elite players regardless (although this point seems entirely lost on the writer of the post).

[Whist]

14 hours 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? 

 

As it is said, the juice might not be worth the squeeze. 

I'm not trying to toot my own horn, but when I took the LSAT, I didn't know anyone else who was or who'd gone through the process already. I self-taught using Khan Academy (a free resource), old PowerScore books, and test booklets. I got the 80th percentile on my own and while maybe tutoring would've gotten me to improve somewhat, I didn't bother because I got offers and the rest is history. Not being able to have access to a tutor is not a good argument for holistic consideration. I don't know what your GPA would be if converted, but UBC and UVic are out with those stats. A 157 and a 4.0 might get you into UofA, although the fact that you don't have a full degree throws a wrench in things. Out of 185 admits in the 2021 cycle, only two are international and four have less than a full degree. In terms of language barrier, if you're struggling with the English on the LSAT, you would struggle with the English in law school.

The entire endeavour of law school will cost you money perpetually. Retaking the LSAT, getting a tutor, flying here, paying for paperwork, paying international tuition, buying a suit, buying textbooks, and so on. If you are not prepared to take on an expensive affair, you should reconsider law school. I'm actually curious why you want to study law in Canada in particular - it would probably be cheaper to do where you're from. 

Edited October 28, 2021 by Whist

[Whist]

(Ignore. I did a doo-doo and accidentally replied instead of editing.)

Edited October 28, 2021 by Whist

[WiseGhost]

@peppyparadox I really don't understand why people are downplaying the impact of language barrier on scores. The LSAT is designed to have tricky wording and it has questions (especially in reading comp) where knowing the right answer depends on having a nuanced understanding of a certain word. The LSAT is an aptitude test. If you score relatively well despite being ESL, I am willing to bet that your actual aptitude is greater than the majority of mother tongue applicants with the same score. @Whist I don't really buy that someone ESL who receives a 157 on the LSAT wouldn't have the english level for law school. A 157 is not a bad score on an exam that native speakers often find difficult. 

However, other posters have a point about resources not being an excuse. There are plenty of cheap or free resources out there, particularly if you go used or obtain them through legally dubious means. 

Edited October 28, 2021 by villiuski

[Rashabon]

People have lost the plot a little bit. The initial idea was not that the score was necessarily reflective and couldn't be improved with resources or whatever. It was indignation at someone genuinely thinking that was worthy of an access-type claim. 

[Whist]

1 hour ago, villiuski said:

@peppyparadox I really don't understand why people are downplaying the impact of language barrier on scores. The LSAT is designed to have tricky wording and it has questions (especially in reading comp) where knowing the right answer depends on having a nuanced understanding of a certain word. The LSAT is an aptitude test. If you score relatively well despite being ESL, I am willing to bet that your actual aptitude is greater than the majority of mother tongue applicants with the same score. @Whist I don't really buy that someone ESL who receives a 157 on the LSAT wouldn't have the english level for law school. A 157 is not a bad score on an exam that native speakers often find difficult. 

However, other posters have a point about resources not being an excuse. There are plenty of cheap or free resources out there, particularly if you go used or obtain them through legally dubious means. 

OP implied that the reason they thought they'd have a hard time doing better on the LSAT/why they should be evaluated holistically is the technical language parts are difficult, despite them being fluent in conversational English. They distinguish this technical part of English as not being the same thing as legalese, and claim they're familiar with legalese. While (almost) everyone entering law school has to learn what the phrase "de facto expropriation" means, not everyone entering law school isn't going to be able to infer what "cognizance" means. I agree that a 157 isn't an inherently awful score, and I'm not saying they won't be able to manage law school, but if their issue is the technical parts of the language alone, they might have a harder time.

Anecdotal, and not a law school story, I had a non-native English speaker in a STEM class in undergrad who felt she should be graded more leniently on quizzes because she struggled with the technical language. She was clearly totally fluent in conversational English, but had a hard time being examined on the material because those particular words were not common English. Native speakers might not know a specific definition of an uncommon word, but it is easier for us to infer a meaning compared to a non-native speaker. 

Edited October 28, 2021 by Whist

[scooter]

 

1 hour ago, villiuski said:

The LSAT is an aptitude test. If you score relatively well despite being ESL, I am willing to bet that your actual aptitude is greater than the majority of mother tongue applicants with the same score.

The LSAT isn't a general aptitude test. The LSAT is specifically a test of reading comprehension, logical reasoning, and analytical reasoning in English. It's used to measure a candidate's aptitude of those specific skills in English. Non-English speaking schools don't require the LSAT for this very reason.

Practicing law in English requires a strong command of the English language, does it not?

If someone's English skills affect their reading comprehension and logical reasoning on the LSAT, I think it's reasonable to infer that their English skills might also affect their performance in law school, and the legal profession, if that work is being done in English.

Your command of the English language affects your LSAT performance, but that is an intended feature of the test.

 

[Kobe]

I believe the LSAT is much more learnable than people let on in this thread. If you are someone like @CleanHands you just have natural ability and can get 99th percentile score without much prep that's certainly aptitude. That experience seems pretty out of the ordinary. I started from a 155 diagnostic and using 7sage (which is actually quite cheap) was able to score 168 in the space of 3.5 months of prep. I don't think my aptitude changed, I just had to practice and understand the test. If OP is serious about law school bumping a 157 into the 160s should be pretty easy given they have the aptitude for law school. The LSAT should not be a barrier to anyone who is capable of doing well in law school, it's a test that is very learnable. Probably just getting a firm grasp on conditional logic for LR and the games section would be enough. 

My point being this is certainly not access claim worthy, using fluency as an excuse but wanting to practice law in english does not make any sense to me. The test is learnable and cheap options for prep exist, dropping a couple hundred dollars on 7sage should not be a barrier if you are talking about spending tens of thousands on a JD. 

 

[WiseGhost]

@scooter As a Anglo-Quebecer who will likely study in French at a civil law school if not accepted to McGill, I strongly doubt that the "in-English" aspect of the LSAT matters nearly as much as you think it does. Language skills can be improved. There are quite a few anglophones who become excellent lawyers practicing in French, and the reverse is also true. Assuming that an ESL speaker's performance on the LSAT is comparable to a native speaker is quite frankly absurd. There is a reason that the LSAT is optional for McGill. Making it mandatory would unfairly disadvantage francophones. Let us acknowledge that the LSAT is designed to test the aptitude of native speakers in a highly artificial environment under time pressure. 

I have a near bilingual understanding of French, and on the test needed for admission for UdeM, I received a score far above required. I would still shit a brick if someone asked me to take a French equivalent of the LSAT. 

Edited October 28, 2021 by villiuski

[Renerik]

1 hour ago, villiuski said:

@scooter As a Anglo-Quebecer who will likely study in French at a civil law school if not accepted to McGill, I strongly doubt that the "in-English" aspect of the LSAT matters nearly as much as you think it does. Language skills can be improved. There are quite a few anglophones who become excellent lawyers practicing in French, and the reverse is also true. Assuming that an ESL speaker's performance on the LSAT is comparable to a native speaker is quite frankly absurd. There is a reason that the LSAT is optional for McGill. Making it mandatory would unfairly disadvantage francophones. Let us acknowledge that the LSAT is designed to test the aptitude of native speakers in a highly artificial environment under time pressure. 

I have a near bilingual understanding of French, and on the test needed for admission for UdeM, I received a score far above required. I would still shit a brick if someone asked me to take a French equivalent of the LSAT. 

As a Franco-Quebecois, I get what op is saying. I read, count and think in French. If RC was in French I would have done better with less studying.

That said I got a 95th percentile score (169), twice, as ESL. OP is just looking for an excuse.

Edited October 28, 2021 by Renerik

[scooter]

1 hour ago, villiuski said:

I would still shit a brick if someone asked me to take a French equivalent of the LSAT. 

I think most English speakers would shit a brick if they had to take the LSAT ... in English 😂

[BlockedQuebecois]

I wrote the Spanish LSAT once, after someone mentioned it was a thing on the old forum. For reference, I principally know Spanish as a result of knowing some French and the words of those two languages being somewhat similar some of the time. I have also been to Mexico twice. 

I don’t recall my exact score, but it was above the 90th percentile (so >165, I believe?).

The LSAT is definitely harder in a language you aren’t proficient in (duh), but it’s not a test that relies on trick questions, idioms, or plays on words. Assuming you can understand what is being asked (which, as demonstrated by my Spanish LSAT, is a low bar), I don’t think your score should change that much between languages. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by BlockedQuebecois

[scooter]

15 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I wrote the Spanish LSAT once

Someone add this to the BQ quote wall

[ZukoJD]

33 minutes ago, BlockedQuebecois said:

I wrote the Spanish LSAT once, after someone mentioned it was a thing on the old forum. For reference, I principally know Spanish as a result of knowing some French and the words of those two languages being somewhat similar some of the time. I have also been to Mexico twice. 

I don’t recall my exact score, but it was above the 90th percentile (so >165, I believe?).

The LSAT is definitely harder in a language you aren’t proficient in (duh), but it’s not a test that relies on trick questions, idioms, or plays on words. Assuming you can understand what is being asked (which, as demonstrated by my Spanish LSAT, is a low bar), I don’t think your score should change that much between languages. 

I actually had a friend translate the LSAT for me into Estonian, which is a language I was fairly certain I’d heard of at the time, from a country whose existence I was probably aware of. I believe I had also bumped into an Estonian man once before on the train on my way to work. He spoke no words in Estonian to me, but his gaze made think « wow, this fellow could certainly be from thereabouts. »
 

Anyhow, I scored somewhere around the 97th percentile (so, > 170 I believe?). 
 

I think this thoroughly illustrates that LSAT success is but a state of mind. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by ZukoJD

[Darth Vader]

15 hours 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. 

It was pretty obvious that he was joking because almost no one has a 99th percentile score, so this isn't an insult. 

This forum isn't even 6 months old yet. You're reading too much into comments if you think there is a systemic problem of people being nasty to each other year. Answer this one question honestly. Where else can a law applicant and law student get better, and more realistic, feedback on Canadian law schools than this forum and the Discord server? I have noticed a significant amount of applicants now flooding this forum, far outnumbering the number of lawyers posting here. There are some applicants who already think they are law students/lawyers in their attitudes and posts. 

To quote @Diplock - a senior lawyer - from the old law students forum (because comments like yours have been seen ad nauseum on forums like this):

Quote

First, it's a free, anonymous internet forum - it's bound to be negative sometimes. Second, you're reading selectively. There is definitely encouragement on this forum. Third, when I ask a question here, I'm asking people for their honest opinion. People in real life have a tendency to hold back. I certainly do. When I'm talking to people, I have other concerns. I want them to like me, I'm worried about hurting their feelings, or I'm busy, and don't want to invest a lot of time into someone else's problems. So, I'm trying to present myself in a certain way. My advice might reflect that.

When people post here, they're giving you a different range of perspectives that are more detached from social and relational pressures. You're right, insofar as you don't have to accept advice you get here. If you want to go law school and find a career in international elder law, then you have every right to try. But you're wrong to discount the discouragement as just "negativity and ridicule." When you post, you're asking for peoples' perspectives. The responses that I've seen you get, reflect the honest perspectives of university students and graduates. Again, it doesn't mean that they're necessarily right, or that you have to accept their words. But they're not the responses of people just trying to put you down or something (that does sometimes happen here - it's human nature). They're taking the time to tell you what they think.

Trashing everyone for being negative doesn't make this forum more positive. It just adds to the negativity. If you want to have a positive influence (not saying I do this - just that it's how I'd like to behave), then try receiving others' opinions with grace and respect. Then help out others when you can.
 

Quote

Right. Because "dream big" and "you can do anything you want to do" is somehow better advice. For that you don't need an online forum at all - you just need some posters with cats on them and self-affirmations to repeat every day.

The difference between advice you receive in person and advice you receive on the Internet (here or elsewhere) can be summarized very easily. When you know someone personally, you are special to them to at least some degree, and often to a very high degree. When taken as a special case, it's easy and even responsible to say "sure, chase your dreams!" and "you can do anything!" But when you don't know someone personally, you aren't special at all. And in that case, reality says that most kids are not going to be astronauts and professional ball players, no matter how much they might want to be. And pretending that every kid is going to space one day isn't just irresponsible, but willfully stupid.

Let me use a simple, every day example from my line of work. I represent people who get in trouble with the law. And today, as frequently happens, I explained to a client that I was taking precautions on his file based on the assumption that one day he might be charged with further crimes. Now, he'll swear up and down he will never be in trouble again. All of my clients say that. And I know (I damn well know) that statistically speaking, many of them will be in trouble again. If I were representing a friend's son, rather than some random client, I might be more invested in his success and I might be more inclined to believe that he, unlike my other clients, will stay out of trouble in the future. But no matter what I believe, or what I want to believe, the responsible course of action is still the same - to take reality into account, and to plan in every case for the likelihood that they may get in trouble again. Because that's my job.

If you want this forum to be a corner of the Internet where we simply assure every person who comes here that they are special, and they'll beat the odds, and achieve their dreams, and that settling for anything less is for everyone else in the world ... well, you can make a website for that, I guess. And you can fill it with rainbows and unicorns. But what the hell do you even think you are saying when you assure absolutely everyone in the world that they are special, and that it's only other people who have to settle for less than their dreams? By definition, everyone can't be special. You've just recreated the same nonsense where students come around here expecting that students in a class should receive grades in a distribution that proves everyone is above average.

If you want affirmation from people who think you are special, turn to people who know and who are invested in your success, in your family, etc. If you want advice from people who don't assume you're special at all, go to the Internet. If you can't handle that, your option is to not log on. But expecting the people who participate here to treat everyone as special is both irrational and professionally irresponsible. My very job dictates that I assume otherwise. Why would I do less on a forum?

 

 

[123]

2 hours ago, Darth Vader said:

There are some applicants who already think they are law students/lawyers in their attitudes and posts. 

To quote @Diplock - a senior lawyer -

The second one came from a senior lawyer. The first quote was by a student, which I only remember because the student was me.  I’m not sure my point was that people should always defer to lawyers on advice here (which admittedly you didn’t say, but I’m reading in to a certain extent based upon this and other posts). I agree with what @BlockedQuebecoissaid earlier, that there are certain questions current applicants and students would be more knowledgeable about. I don’t think someone’s opinions are less valid because the poster is less senior. We have an number of excellent student and applicant posters, to whom I would defer on a number of matters. 

Edited October 29, 2021 by realpseudonym

[Darth Vader]

5 hours ago, realpseudonym said:

The second one came from a senior lawyer. The first quote was by a student, which I only remember because the student was me.  I’m not sure my point was that people should always defer to lawyers on advice here (which admittedly you didn’t say, but I’m reading in to a certain extent based upon this and other posts). I agree with what @BlockedQuebecoissaid earlier, that there are certain questions current applicants and students would be more knowledgeable about. I don’t think someone’s opinions are less valid because the poster is less senior. We have an number of excellent student and applicant posters, to whom I would defer on a number of matters. 

My apologies. I saved some posts from the previous forum so thought that was from Diplock as I had it grouped together. 

I fully acknowledge that I was wrong about law students and lawyers having more knowledge on the law school admissions process than applicants. I stayed up to date with the admissions process even after I went to law school but BQ and you are right that most people don't. However, there are sometimes posts from applicants talking about law school and the legal profession, and law students talking about the legal profession, that are incorrect.

[Pantalaimon]

On 10/28/2021 at 6:21 PM, BlockedQuebecois said:

I wrote the Spanish LSAT once

OK but ...