[Merged] Best Undergrad Degree for Law Career?

[1xTiMeR]

I'm a grade 12 student with an average of 86% that happens to know nothing about what degree to pursue before applying to law schools.

Going to use the following Gr.12 University level courses:
Philosophy
Economics
Food Science
Advance Placement World History
English
Law - 84% (2nd lowest mark)

My question is...

1. What subject is best to major for my undergrad degree to follow a career in Law, keeping in mind that I have no specialties in any disciplines.

Please share any insights regarding Law programs in general. I have the option to practically enroll anywhere within Ontario and tuition or resident fees is not a problem.

Thanks!

[ekashyap]

Hi,

I believe any law program in Ontario requires students to have a 3-4 year undergraduate degree.

Following quote from this link http://www.law.utoronto.ca/prosp_stdn_content.asp?itemPath=3/6/15/6/0&contentId=983#undergraduate

How many years of an undergraduate program do I need in order to apply to the U of T Faculty of Law?

Applicants must have successfully completed THREE years of an approved course leading to a degree at a recognized university, no later than the end of May in the year of entry. However, prospective applicants should be aware that almost all of our students have completed a four-year degree. In recent years, approximately five applicants a year have been admitted without a four-year undergraduate degree.

----

Ask around but I believe you need some degree regardless of how irrelevant it is to even apply for law school.

[thelefteyeguy]

I'm a grade 12 student with an average of 86% and was hoping to enroll into UofT's Law Program to branch into somewhere in the discipline.

Going to use the following Gr.12 University level courses:
Philosophy
Economics
Food Science
Advance Placement World History
English
Law - 84% (2nd lowest mark)

My questions are...

1. Would it be difficult to proceed into this field with the courses listed above?

2. Do I have a good chance to obtaining any scholarship with my average?

3. How is the competition within UofT enrolling students and future years ahead?

4. Any alternative schools offer better teachings of law?

Please share any insights regarding Law programs in general. I have the option to practically enroll anywhere within Ontario and tuition or resident fees is not a problem.

Thanks!


it's a long long road ahead;)

[west]

Hi,

I believe any law program in Ontario requires students to have a 3-4 year undergraduate degree.

Following quote from this link http://www.law.utoronto.ca/prosp_stdn_content.asp?itemPath=3/6/15/6/0&contentId=983#undergraduate

How many years of an undergraduate program do I need in order to apply to the U of T Faculty of Law?

Applicants must have successfully completed THREE years of an approved course leading to a degree at a recognized university, no later than the end of May in the year of entry. However, prospective applicants should be aware that almost all of our students have completed a four-year degree. In recent years, approximately five applicants a year have been admitted without a four-year undergraduate degree.

----

Ask around but I believe you need some degree regardless of how irrelevant it is to even apply for law school.

You don't need a degree to enroll into a law school but you just need to have a good GPA. Although almost everyone choose to go to law school after they complete their degree.

[phomp]

Do they have an undergrad law program at U of T? I think if you applied with your marks that you would probably get into an undergrad program at U of T.

If they do not have an undergrad law program, you still need a undergrad to get into the law program. Would recommend a 4 year undergrad in something you believe you can obtain a high GPA in. Physchology is actually a good undergrad for law school if you believe you can get a great GPA in it but they take applications from any undergrad.
You also have to write an LSAT and obtain a pretty good score.

Good luck!

[asdfvcx]

Here are some links mentioned on an earlier thread where you can find more information about law school.

http://lawbuzz.ca/ and http://www.lawstudents.ca/forums/


And as already mentioned, it's very uncommon for people to get accepted into law school until after they have received there first degree (or at least have completed 3 years of university).

[alex_d10]

I'm surprised the guy is in grade 12 and still has not done research about how to get into the field he's interested in. Kids these days...

Realistically, most people that get into Law have a degree under their belt. The minimum requirement is 3 years of university and a great GPA/LSAT score.

[1xTiMeR]

I'm surprised the guy is in grade 12 and still has not done research about how to get into the field he's interested in. Kids these days...

Realistically, most people that get into Law have a degree under their belt. The minimum requirement is 3 years of university and a great GPA/LSAT score.

After skimming through the law forum, I now do understand the purpose of the undergrad degree enabling a chance to law school.

Here are some links mentioned on an earlier thread where you can find more information about law school.

http://lawbuzz.ca/ and http://www.lawstudents.ca/forums/

And as already mentioned, it's very uncommon for people to get accepted into law school until after they have received there first degree (or at least have completed 3 years of university).


Thanks for the sites! Very much appreciated!

Do they have an undergrad law program at U of T? I think if you applied with your marks that you would probably get into an undergrad program at U of T.

If they do not have an undergrad law program, you still need a undergrad to get into the law program. Would recommend a 4 year undergrad in something you believe you can obtain a high GPA in. Physchology is actually a good undergrad for law school if you believe you can get a great GPA in it but they take applications from any undergrad.
You also have to write an LSAT and obtain a pretty good score.

Good luck!

Thanks, now I understand the idea of the undergrad degree. I've started looking into the LSAT preparation handbook, not in too far as I'm limited with time.

You don't need a degree to enroll into a law school but you just need to have a good GPA. Although almost everyone choose to go to law school after they complete their degree.

Awww, I haven't even started with my GPA (hs student >.<)

Hi,

I believe any law program in Ontario requires students to have a 3-4 year undergraduate degree.

Following quote from this link http://www.law.utoronto.ca/prosp_stdn_content.asp?itemPath=3/6/15/6/0&contentId=983#undergraduate

How many years of an undergraduate program do I need in order to apply to the U of T Faculty of Law?

Applicants must have successfully completed THREE years of an approved course leading to a degree at a recognized university, no later than the end of May in the year of entry. However, prospective applicants should be aware that almost all of our students have completed a four-year degree. In recent years, approximately five applicants a year have been admitted without a four-year undergraduate degree.

----

Ask around but I believe you need some degree regardless of how irrelevant it is to even apply for law school.

^ I know understand!! I see the light~

Guys, my mistake. I got the impression that I'd obtain a Bachelor of Laws after completing 3-4years worth of law courses by attending UofT's faculty of law.

My question now is... What undergrad is best to aspire into a law career?

I had no intentions of finding insights of attending law school, though, it would be a later option.

I have my facts all wrong i guess :confused:

thanks for the replies however:)

[quantifinance]

Do a degree where you can get as highest GPA as you can to increase your chance of getting accepted. So just do whatever you think will be good at.

[VivienM]

Guys, my mistake. I got the impression that I'd obtain a Bachelor of Laws after completing 3-4years worth of law courses by attending UofT's faculty of law.

My question now is... What undergrad is best to aspire into a law career?

I had no intentions of finding insights of attending law school, though, it would be a later option.

I have my facts all wrong i guess :confused:

I wrote a long, long, long post about this in the past... in a thread where someone wanted law school advice for her daughter. You should be able to search for it...

Bottom line. You want something that
a) you'll do well in
b) is reputable (hint: stick with the 'classic' universities, U of T, Queen's, McGill, etc for central/east)
c) you can talk about in an interview for a legal job down the road (a LOT of firms will ask "so, how did you go from _____________ to law?")
and d) can stand alone should you not get into law school straight out of undergrad (there are a LOT of people with way more education/experience than a 4 year undergrad around law schools, believe me).

[VivienM]

I wrote a long, long, long post about this in the past... in a thread where someone wanted law school advice for her daughter. You should be able to search for it...

Okay, it was this thread. http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/law-school-619872/ My post is #8, though lots of other people said useful things too. :)

There's this thread too with good law school info - http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/become-lawyer-624288/ .

[1xTiMeR]

I wrote a long, long, long post about this in the past... in a thread where someone wanted law school advice for her daughter. You should be able to search for it...

Bottom line. You want something that
a) you'll do well in
b) is reputable (hint: stick with the 'classic' universities, U of T, Queen's, McGill, etc for central/east)
c) you can talk about in an interview for a legal job down the road (a LOT of firms will ask "so, how did you go from _____________ to law?")
and d) can stand alone should you not get into law school straight out of undergrad (there are a LOT of people with way more education/experience than a 4 year undergrad around law schools, believe me).

I'm not planning to work with any private firms. Since I already got a foot into Metro Hall's (ext. of City Hall) Human Resource department, I have valuable resources in finding a law related position with the city.

I am thinking of majoring in law (not possible from what i know), then minoring in Human Resource as a backup if law doesn't work out. From my perspective, my plan doesn't make sense in regards to honing law skills, but it does as a backup plan.

[1xTiMeR]

Okay, it was this thread. http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/law-school-619872/ My post is #8, though lots of other people said useful things too. :)

There's this thread too with good law school info - http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/become-lawyer-624288/ .

Thank you so much !

[Nettles]

A political science degree at a non-difficult university?

A lot of people do criminology but I don't think you need that if you're going to be the non-court/administrative type of lawyer right?

[1xTiMeR]

A political science degree at a non-difficult university?

A lot of people do criminology but I don't think you need that if you're going to be the non-court/administrative type of lawyer right?

I may or may not. I'm can't put my finger on which branch of law I want to go into.

[VivienM]

A political science degree at a non-difficult university?

That's a great way not to get admitted :)

[VivienM]

I may or may not. I'm can't put my finger on which branch of law I want to go into.

Most people even towards the end of law school don't really know what branch they want to go into.

Many people come in wanting to be Crown attorneys and end up going into tax law (and not on the government side, either)... so... who knows.

[Nettles]

Well, it's a trade-off. Everyone seems to say that you need a high GPA which you aren't necessarily gonna get at a UofT.

I also don't understand how some of my friends who wanna go into court law can...I mean they're not great communicators, I could see them behind a desk.

[1xTiMeR]

That's a great way not to get admitted :)

Lol, I need to continue the family tradition of attending UofT

Most people even towards the end of law school don't really know what branch they want to go into.

Many people come in wanting to be Crown attorneys and end up going into tax law (and not on the government side, either)... so... who knows.

I'll see what I have interest in I guess.

Well, it's a trade-off. Everyone seems to say that you need a high GPA which you aren't necessarily gonna get at a UofT.

I also don't understand how some of my friends who wanna go into court law can...I mean they're not great communicators, I could see them behind a desk.

Oh well

[bestknightmare]

take anything that give possible highest mark.
law school doesnt have pre-req. only LSAT

[VivienM]

Well, it's a trade-off. Everyone seems to say that you need a high GPA which you aren't necessarily gonna get at a UofT.

To quote the U of T law admissions policy:
The most competitive applicants are those with a consistent record of academic achievement over three or four years in a challenging undergraduate program, and, if applicable, in graduate work as well.
(Emphasis is mine)

They don't want "high GPA". They want "high GPA in a program with a reputation for being hard".

There's a reason far more of their students went to U of T/Queen's/McGill/etc than, say, Carleton or Trent or Brock or whatever. :)

I also don't understand how some of my friends who wanna go into court law can...I mean they're not great communicators, I could see them behind a desk.

Litigation is NOT about being a great oral communicator, IMO. It's about preparation, skill, attention to detail, etc... especially if you're doing non-jury work.

At the end of the day, the judge has before him/her your written submissions, his/her notes of the questions you asked and the witnesses' answers, and a transcript if there was a court reporter.

I don't know how many legal transcripts you've read, but fancy oratory doesn't show on a transcript. Thoughtful, well-researched questions that elicit the answers the judge is looking for do.

[flexwong]

take anything that give possible highest mark.
law school doesnt have pre-req. only LSAT

except if you are from a program that focuses heavy on critical writing, reading and research you'll be at a definite advantage b/c law school focuses on those areas.

OP, you'll probably change your mind about 10 more times before you decide what you really want to do.

[sexpuppet6000]

Philosophy students tend perform the best on the LSAT test.

Law schools look at GPA and LSAT. An outstanding GPA is not much without an accompanying LSAT, and vice versa. That being said, since philosophy students tend to perform the best on the LSAT, philosophy training [philosophy undergrad] would be a good idea to prep.

[alv077]

Do a degree where you can get as highest GPA as you can to increase your chance of getting accepted. So just do whatever you think will be good at.

A political science degree at a non-difficult university?

A lot of people do criminology but I don't think you need that if you're going to be the non-court/administrative type of lawyer right?

Secret option number 2 is to do an undergrad in something that will put food on the table if law school doesn't pan out. You expose yourself to unnecessary downside risk by majoring in a fluffy undergrad major.

Just saying... in your position, I would much rather have a little tougher time getting into law school but know that my undergrad degree will fetch me a decent salary if I don't end up getting in. 86% should be enough for the 2nd tier b-schools - I would go for something along the lines of wlu bba for undergrad, keep the marks competitive and shoot for law school then.

[Octavius]

Secret option number 2 is to do an undergrad in something that will put food on the table if law school doesn't pan out. You expose yourself to unnecessary downside risk by majoring in a fluffy undergrad major.

Just saying... in your position, I would much rather have a little tougher time getting into law school but know that my undergrad degree will fetch me a decent salary if I don't end up getting in. 86% should be enough for the 2nd tier b-schools - I would go for something along the lines of wlu bba for undergrad, keep the marks competitive and shoot for law school then.

+1

I would recommend the OP take a business/commerce undergrad. Chances are that they would find someway to use it and further their career if law school either doesn't pan out or if you couldn't get in.

Most of my classmates did their undergrad in business. If I could go back and do it all again, I probably would have as well...not that it really matters all that much at this point in my life anyway.

As for what area of the law you want to go into, it's crazy to that far ahead. I always found Criminal law interesting, and indeed it is, but I'm finding myself enjoying my Contracts class much more. My Torts class is actually pretty interesting as well.

Do your best, do well on the LSAT and you should have few issues in getting accepted somewhere in Canada.

[adehbone]

Know lots of people who decided on Law School from good undergrad bschools because of the weak job environment.

On the other hand what is wrong with kids these days, you have LSAT prep books already seriously? yet you have not had time to look at them that much yet? I sure hope not go play fantasy sports, party, enjoy life.

Law school like top MBAs, Investment Banking, Consulting is full of crazy type-A overachievers which have come up with their own unique story. Find your passion and story, but you will never find if your doing flippin LSAT books in high school. Man most of these professions have boring internships and first couple years as a junoir, enjoy your life now and get good grades you will sure miss it later on.

[Yu_Qing]

Generally, philosophy, economics and quant programs such as engineering/ mathematics provide good training for logical/analytical reasoning that is necessary to do well as a lawyer. People who major in these areas tend to score the highest not just on the LSAT, but GMAT, GRE and MCAT.


With that being said, you can still major in any field you choose to if you are not interested in these areas. I suggest you choose something you love but also keep in mind that getting into law school isn't easy. Even if you majored in a program that "promised" (i can't think of better word) high grades, keep in mind that it depends on how competitive your peers will be during the admissions process.

I'm not sure if you are aiming for schools like U of T or U.Windsor, etc... but I imagine that overall, law school is a competitive process- even more so than graduate programs like the MBA.

[1xTiMeR]

Philosophy students tend perform the best on the LSAT test.

Law schools look at GPA and LSAT. An outstanding GPA is not much without an accompanying LSAT, and vice versa. That being said, since philosophy students tend to perform the best on the LSAT, philosophy training [philosophy undergrad] would be a good idea to prep.

Thanks for your input. I do generally have interest in philosophy but to not make it to law school and only have a philosophy major is not the best to get other jobs?

Secret option number 2 is to do an undergrad in something that will put food on the table if law school doesn't pan out. You expose yourself to unnecessary downside risk by majoring in a fluffy undergrad major.

Just saying... in your position, I would much rather have a little tougher time getting into law school but know that my undergrad degree will fetch me a decent salary if I don't end up getting in. 86% should be enough for the 2nd tier b-schools - I would go for something along the lines of wlu bba for undergrad, keep the marks competitive and shoot for law school then.

What are 2nd-tier b-schools? I tried google but came up with business related schools.

I do need a bachelors that will enable me to succeed in other fields. I do not have many options in regards to my limited graduating courses. Any other options I can try?

+1

I would recommend the OP take a business/commerce undergrad. Chances are that they would find someway to use it and further their career if law school either doesn't pan out or if you couldn't get in.

Most of my classmates did their undergrad in business. If I could go back and do it all again, I probably would have as well...not that it really matters all that much at this point in my life anyway.

As for what area of the law you want to go into, it's crazy to that far ahead. I always found Criminal law interesting, and indeed it is, but I'm finding myself enjoying my Contracts class much more. My Torts class is actually pretty interesting as well.

Do your best, do well on the LSAT and you should have few issues in getting accepted somewhere in Canada.

With my graduating courses, I don't have the necessary prerequisites to try a business/commerce approach... Or do I? I feel I'm very limited because I didn't take any sciences or maths. I have an urge to take human resource being already experienced with the city.

I have a feeling I'll be into contract, international, or tort laws.

Know lots of people who decided on Law School from good undergrad bschools because of the weak job environment.

On the other hand what is wrong with kids these days, you have LSAT prep books already seriously? yet you have not had time to look at them that much yet? I sure hope not go play fantasy sports, party, enjoy life.

Law school like top MBAs, Investment Banking, Consulting is full of crazy type-A overachievers which have come up with their own unique story. Find your passion and story, but you will never find if your doing flippin LSAT books in high school. Man most of these professions have boring internships and first couple years as a junoir, enjoy your life now and get good grades you will sure miss it later on.

You're assuming I'm living the life of a hermit, or an anti-social person who RFD's all day. Well if that is the case, you're terribly wrong. I'm a person who have played sports (made it to OFFSA for volleyball), partied like a "rockstar", and still enjoys life's luxuries of being an academic student that is very socially active.

I have found the passion I've been looking for and it involves law. However, I can see how you might assume me being anti-social person who has taken the initiative to get the LSAT and lives the life of a hermit. Perhaps it's amongst youngsters today to not readying themselves with life's responsibilities by putting thought into it but I sure have.

I enjoy life reading the LSAT :twisted:

Generally, philosophy, economics and quant programs such as engineering/ mathematics provide good training for logical/analytical reasoning that is necessary to do well as a lawyer. People who major in these areas tend to score the highest not just on the LSAT, but GMAT, GRE and MCAT.


With that being said, you can still major in any field you choose to if you are not interested in these areas. I suggest you choose something you love but also keep in mind that getting into law school isn't easy. Even if you majored in a program that "promised" (i can't think of better word) high grades, keep in mind that it depends on how competitive your peers will be during the admissions process.

I'm not sure if you are aiming for schools like U of T or U.Windsor, etc... but I imagine that overall, law school is a competitive process- even more so than graduate programs like the MBA.

Thanks for the input. Engineering or other math/science related courses is out of question b/c I've limited myself with my high school courses.

Any other suggestions on which to major in? I have very limited specialties.

Thanks for everyone's input!

[sexpuppet6000]

Thanks for your input. I do generally have interest in philosophy but to not make it to law school and only have a philosophy major is not the best to get other jobs?





I'm glad you phrased your comment in the form of a question and not a statement.

One can argue, and many on this board have, that all social science/humanities majors are useless. However, I dare you to try to compare the opportunities that would bestow an English major or a Sociology major or a Psychology major upon graduation. I can't really see one social science/humanities major having a distinct advantage over another in terms of landing a job. However, I think philosophy provides the greatest advantage over of these. Philosophy is the foundation that every area of study is first formed. Philosophy forces critical thinking skills. Being well-trained as a philosopher trains you to think critical about everything. Being trained in, for example, sociology, only trains you to be critical of social structures.

[wilkens]

Philosophy students tend perform the best on the LSAT test.

Law schools look at GPA and LSAT. An outstanding GPA is not much without an accompanying LSAT, and vice versa. That being said, since philosophy students tend to perform the best on the LSAT, philosophy training [philosophy undergrad] would be a good idea to prep.

Actually this is not true but it is what I thought as well.

I was just reading in a peer-reviewed journal a week ago (can track down the article if necessary) that found math and physics students had the highest average LSAT scores. Philosophy is in the middle to upper area of average highest scores but not as high as I would have thought.

IMO, the LSAT is unique test that you can only prepare for by studying specifically for. Majoring in a certain subject in undergrad may start you off at 5 points higher than someone from a liberal arts background but those points can easily be made up simply by studying for the LSAT.

[alv077]

First of all, here is a breakdown of score by major:
http://www.phil.ufl.edu/ugrad/whatis/LSATtable.html

However, consider the fact that...
- philosophy as a major is more or less one huge lsat prep course (exaggeration, but they do take courses on logic)
- there is an increased pressure for philosophy majors to get into law school - other majors know they have a decent 50k'ish cushion there if they don't get in

What are 2nd-tier b-schools? I tried google but came up with business related schools.

With my graduating courses, I don't have the necessary prerequisites to try a business/commerce approach... Or do I? I feel I'm very limited because I didn't take any sciences or maths. I have an urge to take human resource being already experienced with the city.

Any other suggestions on which to major in? I have very limited specialties.

Thanks for everyone's input!

Top tier: Ivey, Schulich, Queens
2nd tier: UTSC management, WLU BBA, UTSG commerce

Why don't you have the courses for business? Please tell me you at least did Calculus... If not, there's still time to do it. Human resource is a specialization within business school.

[1xTiMeR]

First of all, here is a breakdown of score by major:
http://www.phil.ufl.edu/ugrad/whatis/LSATtable.html

However, consider the fact that...
- philosophy as a major is more or less one huge lsat prep course (exaggeration, but they do take courses on logic)
- there is an increased pressure for philosophy majors to get into law school - other majors know they have a decent 50k'ish cushion there if they don't get in



Top tier: Ivey, Schulich, Queens
2nd tier: UTSC management, WLU BBA, UTSG commerce

Why don't you have the courses for business? Please tell me you at least did Calculus... If not, there's still time to do it. Human resource is a specialization within business school.

Unfortunately, I didn't approach any science/math/business courses. You're emphasizing business and maths and I do understand the benefits, however, I dislike them with a passion.

I'm planning to enroll with UofT after this year but haven't decided which courses to take. From what I know, Human Resource prerequisite is only english.

[Octavius]

Unfortunately, I didn't approach any science/math/business courses. You're emphasizing business and maths and I do understand the benefits, however, I dislike them with a passion.

I'm planning to enroll with UofT after this year but haven't decided which courses to take. From what I know, Human Resource prerequisite is only english.

You may hate the subject only because you had horrible teachers. I despised Grade 12 and OAC Business and Accounting, but I rather liked these subjects in the few courses I took of them in University.

The reason why we're suggesting business, engineering, etc, is because these degrees will increase your chances in securing employment in the "real world" if you don't end up going to law school. In addition, lawyers with engineering backgrounds aren't very common so you'd have a leg up on the competition come job application time.

Anyway, if you truly despise these areas, then by all means, avoid them like the plague because you won't do well in something that you hate. I would try to lean more towards the "professional" degrees rather than the ones that won't really lead you anywhere upon graduation (sociology, psychology, etc).

[UWO Engineer]

Anyone ever wonder how pre-law majors, on average, obtain lower LSAT scores then students from non-law focused majors? I feel that they would/should have a few courses in pre-law that directly deal with LSAT prep.

[tylaw83]

Do Bioengineering for undergrad.

Intellectual Property is a huge thing.

Specialize in IP and you can make a killing on fees...

[1xTiMeR]

You may hate the subject only because you had horrible teachers. I despised Grade 12 and OAC Business and Accounting, but I rather liked these subjects in the few courses I took of them in University.

The reason why we're suggesting business, engineering, etc, is because these degrees will increase your chances in securing employment in the "real world" if you don't end up going to law school. In addition, lawyers with engineering backgrounds aren't very common so you'd have a leg up on the competition come job application time.


Something quite opposite from what I heard from a history teacher came up today. My exact question, "Which degree is best to major to pursue a law career", and an answer along the lines of, "Having a pure science or math degree will be good if you do find a job within that field, otherwise, it's rendered useless because who needs a pure biochem major in a ___ environment." Some shun from those who go into arts/philosophy/history majors but those are in demand in any field because they need people who think 'outside the box'. I do agree and I hope this to be true. However, I there may be too many students in arts?

[tylaw83]

Anyone ever wonder how pre-law majors, on average, obtain lower LSAT scores then students from non-law focused majors? I feel that they would/should have a few courses in pre-law that directly deal with LSAT prep.

That's because political science majors drag down the average of pre-law students lol.

And you don't need much LSAT prep. Do 5 practice tests...review after each one and you're ready to go. If you don't do well, then you aren't lawyer material..period.

[1xTiMeR]

Do Bioengineering for undergrad.

Intellectual Property is a huge thing.

Specialize in IP and you can make a killing on fees...

I have no prerequisites to go into engineering. I'm in a very limited situation and I regret not taking no science/maths.

Intellectual Property looks interesting. I'll keep that in mind.

[1xTiMeR]

That's because political science majors drag down the average of pre-law students lol.

And you don't need much LSAT prep. Do 5 practice tests...review after each one and you're ready to go. If you don't do well, then you aren't lawyer material..period.

I would imagine myself not doing too well because keeping in mind of my current academic status and allotted work in general. If you 'fail', there are always improvement. With improvement comes hard work and if you can't handle that, then I will consider you aren't lawyer material. Otherwise you can be whatever you want, only if you're willing to work for it.

[UWO Engineer]

That's because political science majors drag down the average of pre-law students lol.

And you don't need much LSAT prep. Do 5 practice tests...review after each one and you're ready to go. If you don't do well, then you aren't lawyer material..period.

That's not correct at all...The LSAT is the most learnable standardized test around, but for most, the learning curve takes time; in the order of months. The timing between questions is key and can really **** you up, for example.

Correlation between becoming a successful lawyer and LSAT score is widely debated. Hell, the correlation between LSAT score and law school performance is viewed as weak by some.

And pre-law is considered pre-law and political science is considered political science.

http://www.uic.edu/cba/cba-depts/economics/undergrad/table.htm

A little outdated but

[UWO Engineer]

I have no prerequisites to go into engineering. I'm in a very limited situation and I regret not taking no science/maths.

Intellectual Property looks interesting. I'll keep that in mind.

IP Law is mind numbing and you need an undergrad in a scientific field to practice.

[Asad_A203]

That's not correct at all...The LSAT is the most learnable standardized test around, but for most, the learning curve takes time; in the order of months. The timing between questions is key and can really **** you up, for example.

Correlation between becoming a successful lawyer and LSAT score is widely debated. Hell, the correlation between LSAT score and law school performance is viewed as weak by some.

And pre-law is considered pre-law and political science is considered political science.

http://www.uic.edu/cba/cba-depts/economics/undergrad/table.htm

A little outdated but

+1. Material on the LSAT is not difficult by any extent, learning the procedure to handle them is a matter of weeks. Able to do such tasks in a time constraint environment is a whole different scenario.

Make sure you guys are prepping for the LSAT in the exact same conditions you will be doing so in the actual examination, I made the mistake of not doing so and unfortunately ended up with a crappy LSAT score (time was my biggest conflict) even though my practice tests were consistently 165-168.

[tylaw83]

That's not correct at all...The LSAT is the most learnable standardized test around, but for most, the learning curve takes time; in the order of months. The timing between questions is key and can really **** you up, for example.

Correlation between becoming a successful lawyer and LSAT score is widely debated. Hell, the correlation between LSAT score and law school performance is viewed as weak by some.

And pre-law is considered pre-law and political science is considered political science.

http://www.uic.edu/cba/cba-depts/economics/undergrad/table.htm

A little outdated but

If you really need months to get down the timing and the format of the questions, you really need to ask yourself if you're a naturally logical person. You don't have to have quick reasoning and adaptive abilities if you plan to stay outside the courtroom, but if you plan to go the barrister route...you might have a problem...you better be able to make up for it with a damn good memory...

And prelaw? So the curriculum is just a mad jumble of the arts courses like english, psyc, poli sci, communications, etc? Why on earth would anyone take such horrible dysfunctional route???

[alv077]

Something quite opposite from what I heard from a history teacher came up today. My exact question, "Which degree is best to major to pursue a law career", and an answer along the lines of, "Having a pure science or math degree will be good if you do find a job within that field, otherwise, it's rendered useless because who needs a pure biochem major in a ___ environment." Some shun from those who go into arts/philosophy/history majors but those are in demand in any field because they need people who think 'outside the box'. I do agree and I hope this to be true. However, I there may be too many students in arts?

There is a little bit of bias coming out from your teacher since he is heavily invested into the BA. I never quite understood the notion that arts students could, "think outside the box" any better than a student from other disciplines. Same goes for the, "I may not be book smart... but I'm street smart", argument.

[MedallionFund]

Something quite opposite from what I heard from a history teacher came up today. My exact question, "Which degree is best to major to pursue a law career", and an answer along the lines of, "Having a pure science or math degree will be good if you do find a job within that field, otherwise, it's rendered useless because who needs a pure biochem major in a ___ environment." Some shun from those who go into arts/philosophy/history majors but those are in demand in any field because they need people who think 'outside the box'. I do agree and I hope this to be true. However, I there may be too many students in arts?

Uh, no - sorry to break it to you, but arts/philosophy/history majors are most certainly NOT in demand in every field. In fact, most have an incredibly difficult time finding employment after they graduate. And I wouldn't say they "think outside of the box" - a prerequisite for thinking outisde of the box is being able to...well, to think! Something I'm not sure most liberal arts majors are able to do.

You made a big mistake shying away from science/math in HS, and you'll be paying for it later. If I were you, I'd stay another year, and complete the prereqs for a math/physics/engineering program.

It's not a coincidence that math/physics majors dominate the LSATs, as has been demonstrated already in this thread.

[pop9751]

Hi there I am a first year undergrad student. I am at U of T (buisness) and I was wondering if where you get your undergrad degree from really matters for law school (I did want to go to U of T law in the future) because honestly although first year is not killing me I was contemplating switching to York cause if there is an easier route to law school, I'd prefer to do more with my time then just studying. So basically I am wondering if anyone here has advice as to whether I should switch to York for something easy and hopefully get super high GPA or if I should merely transfer to another program here at U of T and possibly get higher GPA.

ps. Do you think U of T Law would think I'm dumb b/c I switched schools or something for undergrad and reject my application? (I think that might be a stupid question but sorry lol)

Please help me :)

[notsoanon]

Something quite opposite from what I heard from a history teacher came up today. My exact question, "Which degree is best to major to pursue a law career", and an answer along the lines of, "Having a pure science or math degree will be good if you do find a job within that field, otherwise, it's rendered useless because who needs a pure biochem major in a ___ environment." Some shun from those who go into arts/philosophy/history majors but those are in demand in any field because they need people who think 'outside the box'. I do agree and I hope this to be true. However, I there may be too many students in arts?

He
is
lieing.

[MedallionFund]

He
is
lieing.

Heh. What do you expect from a history teacher?

[sexpuppet6000]

Actually this is not true but it is what I thought as well.

I was just reading in a peer-reviewed journal a week ago (can track down the article if necessary) that found math and physics students had the highest average LSAT scores. Philosophy is in the middle to upper area of average highest scores but not as high as I would have thought.

IMO, the LSAT is unique test that you can only prepare for by studying specifically for. Majoring in a certain subject in undergrad may start you off at 5 points higher than someone from a liberal arts background but those points can easily be made up simply by studying for the LSAT.

Ok - well, clearly the difference here is in the material that we both have viewed. Do math/physics majors perform undoubtly and absolutely better than all other areas of study? Obviously, no. Does a philosophy student perform undoubtly and absolutely better than all other areas of study? Again, no.

My suggest is that philosophy tends to prep ione, insofar as to think critically and analytically so one has the tools to perform well on such a test. This does not suggest that a philosophy student will automatically do well without further preping specifically for the LSAT. Your opinion is that the LSAT is a unique test and to do well, one must prepare specifically for it. However, if you took a stranger off the street with no formal education and put him through LSAT prepping, he probably wouldn't do as well as a Harvard undergraduate student. My point is that what one studies preps one intellectucally to be more adaptive to certain types of questioning and reasoning. This does not necessarily translate into absolute point value results on a test, but it does reflect how capable one would be on certain areas of testing.

[MedallionFund]

Ok - well, clearly the difference here is in the material that we both have viewed. Do math/physics majors perform undoubtly and absolutely better than all other areas of study?

Actually yes.

Physics/Math (160.0)
Economics (157.4)
Philosophy/Theology (157.4)
International Relations (156.5)
Engineering (156.2)

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/09/01/a-tip-for-students-interested-in-law-school/

And the gap between 1st and 2nd is significantly larger than the gap between the others.

Math/physics majors are trained to think analytically, and upper year courses require advanced logic. Coincidentally, this is what the LSAT is focused on.

[UWO Engineer]

Actually yes.

Physics/Math (160.0)
Economics (157.4)
Philosophy/Theology (157.4)
International Relations (156.5)
Engineering (156.2)

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/09/01/a-tip-for-students-interested-in-law-school/

And the gap between 1st and 2nd is significantly larger than the gap between the others.

Math/physics majors are trained to think analytically, and upper year courses require advanced logic. Coincidentally, this is what the LSAT is focused on.

I'm taking the MCATS for shits and giggles next year -- cold. What's the stats on how i'll fare?

[1xTiMeR]

He
is
lieing.

Heh. What do you expect from a history teacher?

Well, today I went to the guidance department and asked the same question. She explained how Science/math/business students are indeed 'tunneled vision' and do have equal chances in succeeding in all sorts of fields other than their majored one. The Art students shall not be shunned as they branch into various fields which they find interest in that obviously does not include math/science/business related field but does not automatically put them out of them either.

Eg, Person with art degree entering a business firm, unlikely but very plausible - earnings do range however dependent on role and with seniority and years of experience still can make a decent amount of 50k-80k+.

IMO, the years of excessive number of art students graduates, they have been picking up careers that stray away from math/science/business, but they pick up roles within the industry that interest them; choices that aren't limited from sciences/maths/business industries. It's black and white regards of which jobs are available for art graduates - not many high paying ones, but luck may put them into a position of 80k+. You may ask on what bases I am making these statements, and I'm answering them on the basis of observation; I'm within HR of Toronto and I see on the daily bases Art holding applicants applying for jobs that aren't their specialization.

[MedallionFund]

But are they getting those jobs that they are applying for? The statistics say no.

Look, you can major in social science if you desire, and gamble on whether or not you can land a decent paying job after you graduate, but the odds are heavily against you. The majority of liberal art graduates who land high paying jobs in finance, marketing or whatever, come from top schools - and I'm not talking about top schools in Canada like U of T, I'm talking about Ivy League schools like Harvard and Yale.

[Octavius]

But are they getting those jobs that they are applying for? The statistics say no.

Look, you can major in social science if you desire, and gamble on whether or not you can land a decent paying job after you graduate, but the odds are heavily against you. The majority of liberal art graduates who land high paying jobs in finance, marketing or whatever, come from top schools - and I'm not talking about top schools in Canada like U of T, I'm talking about Ivy League schools like Harvard and Yale.

+1

FWIW, I talked to my high school guidance counselor prior to entering my undergrad. Most of what she said didn't apply or was wrong.

You gotta do the research on your own. Find some adults and talk to them. Better yet, do a search on job websites and see what requirements they're looking for in terms of education.

You won't find many requiring a BA in anything...you will however find many requiring engineering/business/math/science (not so much so)/etc.

OP's history teacher is an idiot if he truly believes in what he said. My opinion is that he didn't want to tell the high school kids that his BA in History served him no purpose other than to let him into teacher's college so he can finally put it to use.

[sexpuppet6000]

Ok - well, clearly the difference here is in the material that we both have viewed. Do math/physics majors perform undoubtly and absolutely better than all other areas of study? Obviously, no.



Actually yes.

Physics/Math (160.0)
Economics (157.4)
Philosophy/Theology (157.4)
International Relations (156.5)
Engineering (156.2)

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/09/01/a-tip-for-students-interested-in-law-school/

.

Actually, no.

What you've done here is you've cited a statistic. And statistics don't represent absolutes. I suggested that Physics/Math majors don't ABSOLUTELY perform better than other majors. In which case, they don't. Have math/physics majors performed the best throughout the entire history of the LSAT?

Moral of the story: statistics don't represent absolutes. Thus...no.

[Asad_A203]

If you really need months to get down the timing and the format of the questions, you really need to ask yourself if you're a naturally logical person. You don't have to have quick reasoning and adaptive abilities if you plan to stay outside the courtroom, but if you plan to go the barrister route...you might have a problem...you better be able to make up for it with a damn good memory...

?

Can you please point me in the direction of individuals nailing 170+ scores (the scores the tier 1 law schools are looking at minimally) without months of training?

I don't understand your argument. You are first saying if you are unable to do LSAT questions sucessfully right off the bat, you should be questioning your ability of being a lawyer. This statement you are also hinting that your LSAT performance is linked to your performance as a lawyer. Then you mention if it takes you months to reduce your time, you are not a very logical person and should stay out of a courtroom as a lawyer.

If individuals are able to improve their performance on the LSAT by reducing their time or better understanding the question format after months of training, wouldn't that be a sign that it is a learnable skill or ability? Now since you believe LSAT performance is strongly correlated to your performance as a lawyer, wouldn't it be logical to conclude individuals who learn such a skill after months of training would be able to apply it succesively in their practice under the exact same time constraints they sucessfully demonstrated on the LSAT?

[1xTiMeR]

But are they getting those jobs that they are applying for? The statistics say no.

Look, you can major in social science if you desire, and gamble on whether or not you can land a decent paying job after you graduate, but the odds are heavily against you. The majority of liberal art graduates who land high paying jobs in finance, marketing or whatever, come from top schools - and I'm not talking about top schools in Canada like U of T, I'm talking about Ivy League schools like Harvard and Yale.

Thanks for everyone's help.

It looks like no matter how much I defend the art degree, math/business/sciences dominate the job market.

The only major i can achieve is an art one. I think it's possible for myself to get more than a decent job with my experience within the city which is the last grain of hope.

I'm thinking of majoring in one of the following: human resource, english, philosophy, history, political science, or some nature within law.

Again, thanks for everyone's input!

[UWO Engineer]

Thanks for everyone's help.

It looks like no matter how much I defend the art degree, math/business/sciences dominate the job market.

The only major i can achieve is an art one. I think it's possible for myself to get more than a decent job with my experience within the city which is the last grain of hope.

I'm thinking of majoring in one of the following: human resource, english, philosophy, history, political science, or some nature within law.

Again, thanks for everyone's input!


There's nothing wrong that man. Do what you gotta do. I'll see you in Law School in 5 years.

[VivienM]

Ok - well, clearly the difference here is in the material that we both have viewed. Do math/physics majors perform undoubtly and absolutely better than all other areas of study? Obviously, no. Does a philosophy student perform undoubtly and absolutely better than all other areas of study? Again, no.

My suggest is that philosophy tends to prep ione, insofar as to think critically and analytically so one has the tools to perform well on such a test. This does not suggest that a philosophy student will automatically do well without further preping specifically for the LSAT. Your opinion is that the LSAT is a unique test and to do well, one must prepare specifically for it. However, if you took a stranger off the street with no formal education and put him through LSAT prepping, he probably wouldn't do as well as a Harvard undergraduate student. My point is that what one studies preps one intellectucally to be more adaptive to certain types of questioning and reasoning. This does not necessarily translate into absolute point value results on a test, but it does reflect how capable one would be on certain areas of testing.

In my experience, the philosophy people tended to do best at law school. Maybe not on the LSAT, but in actual law school exams and papers...

[VivienM]

Can you please point me in the direction of individuals nailing 170+ scores (the scores the tier 1 law schools are looking at minimally) without months of training?

Months of training??

I'm sorry, but... if you need months and months of training to get the LSAT score needed to get you into a particular law program, that's not a good sign.

One dirty little secret about the LSAT and law school: it's about time management. Any idiot can get a perfect LSAT score... given three times the time. Same with a law school exam. What makes a law school exam hard is that you don't have enough time. In both cases, those who can work fast (and moderately accurately) have a big advantage.

And if it takes you months and months of training to be able to do the LSAT quick enough... how are you going to do your law school exams quick enough? Spend months preparing for each exam? No wonder law students are so stressed...

[VivienM]

Something quite opposite from what I heard from a history teacher came up today. My exact question, "Which degree is best to major to pursue a law career", and an answer along the lines of, "Having a pure science or math degree will be good if you do find a job within that field, otherwise, it's rendered useless because who needs a pure biochem major in a ___ environment." Some shun from those who go into arts/philosophy/history majors but those are in demand in any field because they need people who think 'outside the box'. I do agree and I hope this to be true. However, I there may be too many students in arts?

Your history teacher hasn't met the gazillions of bio_____________ people working for IP firms...

If you can handle a career working on Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) and patent infringement cases, then there are PLENTY of jobs for lawyers with science backgrounds.

[1xTiMeR]

Your history teacher hasn't met the gazillions of bio_____________ people working for IP firms...

If you can handle a career working on Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) and patent infringement cases, then there are PLENTY of jobs for lawyers with science backgrounds.

She was merely speaking from experience and goes to show how little one can pick up knowledge not related to her field. I'm here to value people's opinions, whether they are strongly bias or not but to be able pick up the tiniest valid information in the end and to accept is up to you. Insight of the real world is what really matters in the end.

This thread has been very successful and I have gained valuable insight. A thanks to all contributors. As for forum crawlers, hoped you learned a thing or two.

[UWO Engineer]

Months of training??

I'm sorry, but... if you need months and months of training to get the LSAT score needed to get you into a particular law program, that's not a good sign.

One dirty little secret about the LSAT and law school: it's about time management. Any idiot can get a perfect LSAT score... given three times the time. Same with a law school exam. What makes a law school exam hard is that you don't have enough time. In both cases, those who can work fast (and moderately accurately) have a big advantage.

And if it takes you months and months of training to be able to do the LSAT quick enough... how are you going to do your law school exams quick enough? Spend months preparing for each exam? No wonder law students are so stressed...

Or...Maybe it's because the LSAT is a prospective law student's single most important exam, ever. Making it a pretty big deal...And since the material is learnable, and is easiar to get through with practice...they spend a lot of time practicing?

Just spit balling here...But if I have an exam that dictates my future plans and I have as much time to study for it as I want...well i'm going to take a lot of time to study.

[VivienM]

Or...Maybe it's because the LSAT is a prospective law student's single most important exam, ever. Making it a pretty big deal...And since the material is learnable, and is easiar to get through with practice...they spend a lot of time practicing?

Just spit balling here...But if I have an exam that dictates my future plans and I have as much time to study for it as I want...well i'm going to take a lot of time to study.

Have you done the LSAT? It's not a biology exam. The material is not learnable. But, especially with the analytical reasoning or whatever it is they call the logic games, you can definitely develop some skills to let you answer those questions faster.

And that's what the LSAT is. It's a time game. Give yourself an hour to do that analytical reasoning thing, and you'll get a fabulous score, but guess what? On the real day, you get half an hour.

With all due respect since you claim to be "spit balling", have you gone to law school? Have you done the LSAT? Have you hung out around a bunch of law-school-bound folks? Sure, people study for it (as they should - if you're unfamiliar with the style of the thing, you're in trouble), but not for months and months and months on end...

[UWO Engineer]

Have you done the LSAT? It's not a biology exam. The material is not learnable. But, especially with the analytical reasoning or whatever it is they call the logic games, you can definitely develop some skills to let you answer those questions faster.

And that's what the LSAT is. It's a time game. Give yourself an hour to do that analytical reasoning thing, and you'll get a fabulous score, but guess what? On the real day, you get half an hour.

With all due respect since you claim to be "spit balling", have you gone to law school? Have you done the LSAT? Have you hung out around a bunch of law-school-bound folks? Sure, people study for it (as they should - if you're unfamiliar with the style of the thing, you're in trouble), but not for months and months and months on end...

You should stop talking. The material is definately learnable. If you take a cold diagnostic and find RC or LG to be your problem sections...you research strategies that help with those sections, apply them and see how you fare. It's a repeated process.

And that's what the LSAT is. It's a time game. Give yourself an hour to do that analytical reasoning thing, and you'll get a fabulous score, but guess what? On the real day, you get half an hour.

And you're in UofT Law? Letting in anybody these days. Thanks captain obvious, that's been the point of this entire banter...You can learn to do the LSAT in the proper time by practicing it under timed conditions.

I'm doing Fluid Mechanics, so please SHHHHHH

[VivienM]

You should stop talking. The material is definately learnable. If you take a cold diagnostic and find RC or LG to be your problem sections...you research strategies that help with those sections, apply them and see how you fare. It's a repeated process.

So you're arguing semantics, now?

That's not learning the material... at least not by my definition. Learning 'the material' is how you do bio exams, the Ontario bar exams, or other things that test your knowledge.

The LSAT isn't about knowledge. It's about solving particular types of problems quickly. Of COURSE you can learn how to get better at solving those particular types of problems quickly - I have never claimed otherwise.

But you can't take an LSAT book, memorize it from page 1 to 800, claim you "learned the material", and get a perfect score.

And you're in UofT Law? Letting in anybody these days. Thanks captain obvious, that's been the point of this entire banter...You can learn to do the LSAT in the proper time by practicing it under timed conditions.

Do I need to send you a copy of my framed law school diploma, sir?

Or perhaps you'd like my LSAT score confirmation email (though honestly, it's now so old I don't even remember what it says - I did the damn thing in Dec. ... 2003. Gah, so long ago)?

I'm doing Fluid Mechanics, so please SHHHHHH

Unlike you, sir, I
a) won't participate in a thread about fluid mechanics
b) will not pretend to know anything about what it takes to get into engineering programs,
c) will not pretend to know anything about the type of PEOPLE who get into engineering programs or what they did to get there,
and d) will not be an arrogant, defensive prick if, notwithstanding a), b), and c) I was to somehow find myself debating engineering or fluid mechanics with you.

[phomp]

\
Unlike you, sir, I
a) won't participate in a thread about fluid mechanics
b) will not pretend to know anything about what it takes to get into engineering programs,
c) will not pretend to know anything about the type of PEOPLE who get into engineering programs or what they did to get there,
and d) will not be an arrogant, defensive prick if, notwithstanding a), b), and c) I was to somehow find myself debating engineering or fluid mechanics with you.

oh snap!

[Asad_A203]

Months of training??

I'm sorry, but... if you need months and months of training to get the LSAT score needed to get you into a particular law program, that's not a good sign.

One dirty little secret about the LSAT and law school: it's about time management. Any idiot can get a perfect LSAT score... given three times the time. Same with a law school exam. What makes a law school exam hard is that you don't have enough time. In both cases, those who can work fast (and moderately accurately) have a big advantage.

And if it takes you months and months of training to be able to do the LSAT quick enough... how are you going to do your law school exams quick enough? Spend months preparing for each exam? No wonder law students are so stressed...

I understand time constraints is the biggest challenge of an LSAT, but given what the LSAT measures you on (your logical, reading, and analytical reasoning), would that not be the same skills you employ in practice and in law school? Why would time spent practicing such skills and performing them in quicker nature necessarily be a bad thing? If the LSAT truly has a strong correlation to your performance as a lawyer and within lawschool, it goes without saying that individuals who have practiced months to do such a set of behavior and have a good LSAT score as a result; would be able to do it within similar time constraints on exams and within courtrooms, etc. You cannot memorize the LSAT but you can improve on your ability to do such tasks with greater efficiency. The same skills you should theoretically be employing in law school and in practice and is the purpose of the LSAT.

If this is not the case (and you are the lawyer here), then the LSAT is not really an absolute indicator of your performance as a lawyer (since there are other variables in play, ones that are not being examined) and therefore can not be used with certainty to assess someone's success within the field. If someone can score higher on the LSAT, regardless of time studied, it should correlate to their ability in the given field, otherwise the test has no validity and should not be employed to gauge people's ability in the field.

If you study for months and can't improve your LSAT score to that of the desired program you are applying to, that it might be an indicator you might not be cut out for that law school (with the assumption their is a strong positive correlation between LSAT and actual performance), but studying for months and getting that LSAT score is not.

Personally, I have received acceptance letters with some even offering tuition reimbursement from Tier 3/4 universities in the states with my very crappy, mediocre, LSAT score. I can't apply to most Tier 1 law schools yet given I won't have my undergraduate degree for another 1.5 years, but I will be redoing the LSAT again and aiming at Tier 1 law schools or the following 3 in Canada (UBC, UofT, and York). I am leaning towards UBC since I am looking fairly competitive with their standards, don't need to have my undergraduate completed (compared to UofT and their very narrow admitted without a degree), and they have a JD program. But I will definitely let RFD now if a practiced higher LSAT score (if I get a higher one) was not a good indicator of my performance at these types of law programs if I do get admitted ;).


Just out of curiosity (honestly), what was your length of prep for the LSAT, your LSAT score, and the university you did your law program at? Did you find firms placing a big emphasis on the university you received your degree from?

[Octavius]

There's so many generalities in this thread.

At the end of the day, the LSAT is a test that is written over a 6 hour period on a Saturday morning (or afternoon). There has been plenty debate over the supposed correlation between LSAT performance and the applicant's performance in law school.

I know of at least a handful of people who didn't do very well on the LSAT and still managed to do very well in law school and now have very successful careers as lawyers. Obviously this is hardly a representative sample of all applicants accepted at law schools with lower LSAT scores. It's still worth keeping in mind though.

In my opinion, the LSAT is nothing more than an objective test that allows admissions people to compare apples with apples. This helps neutralize people with a BA in basket weaving and people with degrees in engineering. It's good in that respect, but I would hardly say that if someone does well on the LSAT that they are going to do well in law school.

In addition to being smart, you need to put in a lot of hard work. Some people just have the natural ability to do really well on the LSAT with no prep, but have the worst work ethic that anyone has ever seen. That'll end up with that person being on the lower end of the curve as a result.

Anyway, this is just the way I see it.

[VivienM]

If this is not the case (and you are the lawyer here), then the LSAT is not really an absolute indicator of your performance as a lawyer (since there are other variables in play, ones that are not being examined) and therefore can not be used with certainty to assess someone's success within the field. If someone can score higher on the LSAT, regardless of time studied, it should correlate to their ability in the given field, otherwise the test has no validity and should not be employed to gauge people's ability in the field.

I don't think the test IS used to gauge people's ability 'in the field'.

It's supposed to guess people's ability AT LAW SCHOOL.

If you hang around the legal field long enough, you'll find PLENTY of stories about the dude who barely graduated who somehow, 30 years later, is the top lawyer in ____________ area in town.

If you study for months and can't improve your LSAT score to that of the desired program you are applying to, that it might be an indicator you might not be cut out for that law school (with the assumption their is a strong positive correlation between LSAT and actual performance), but studying for months and getting that LSAT score is not.

I think we'll have to disagree on that one, then. :)

The problem is, I don't think that LSAT prep is generally beneficial other than at doing the LSAT. So, sure, you may have the same 165 or whatever as the next dude, but if he did it after a week or two of prep and it took you six months and three courses, I'm going to guess that you'll have more difficulty getting the same grades as him once in law school (though of course it's not impossible!)...

Personally, I have received acceptance letters with some even offering tuition reimbursement from Tier 3/4 universities in the states with my very crappy, mediocre, LSAT score. I can't apply to most Tier 1 law schools yet given I won't have my undergraduate degree for another 1.5 years, but I will be redoing the LSAT again and aiming at Tier 1 law schools or the following 3 in Canada (UBC, UofT, and York). I am leaning towards UBC since I am looking fairly competitive with their standards, don't need to have my undergraduate completed (compared to UofT and their very narrow admitted without a degree), and they have a JD program. But I will definitely let RFD now if a practiced higher LSAT score (if I get a higher one) was not a good indicator of my performance at these types of law programs if I do get admitted ;).

a) You don't want to go to law school too young, anyways. If you're 21 and in 3rd year undergrad, don't be in a rush to get to law school. You definitely want to have at least an undergrad degree though...
b) Who cares about JD vs LLB, unless you're going to the U.S. or something.
c) I know basically nothing about law programs outside of Ontario... so...

Just out of curiosity (honestly), what was your length of prep for the LSAT, your LSAT score, and the university you did your law program at? Did you find firms placing a big emphasis on the university you received your degree from?

Hmmm... I think I started doing LSAT prep a week and a half before the test or so? Wrote the stupid thing in December, which is a stupid idea because you have undergrad exams at the same time. And the test is in the MORNING, unlike the June one. Grrr. Don't remember my score (I did it in Dec 2003!), but it was good enough to get me into my first choice program. :) Which is all that matters, really.

As for firms, it's hard to say. By and large, I'd say (and it reflects my weaknesses) that firms value social/interview skills and life experience etc. far more than grades or the particular school you went to.

That being said, one key metric is HOW MANY people from a given school are interviewed. Most big Toronto firms will interview 60 applicants at U of T OCIs (for the all-important 2L summer jobs); at some other schools, they might only interview 20 or 40. (One team of interviews in one day can do 20). If they do only 20, then you'd better be in the 20 most desirable (and that does not mean highest grades) candidates from your school.

And of course, firms never find out your LSAT score, though they do see your grades.

[funzone36]

McGill has some intelligent people:

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/4530/mcgill.jpg (http://img262.imageshack.us/i/mcgill.jpg/)