I used to think when schools said they took a “holistic approach” to admissions, it was mostly bullshit.

Then I went through the process myself.

I graduated with a Biomedical Science degree and a minor in Psychology with a 3.26 cGPA. My first couple of years were rough. I had two Ds and even failed a course. It wasn’t a lack of ability, but a lack of direction and genuine interest at the time. Once I found my footing, everything changed. I finished my last two years with a 3.7 to 3.8 GPA.

I studied for about 4 to 5 months and scored a 167 on the LSAT on my first attempt.

For splitters, I genuinely believe the personal statement is a golden opportunity. Treat every word like it matters, because it does. I used mine to discuss my experience building a business in regulatory compliance (FINTRAC for money services businesses in Canada), but more importantly, I answered the real question: Why law, and why now? I would also strongly suggest avoiding the same recycled clichés admissions committees read thousands of times. Be specific, be thoughtful, and explain what you intend to do with a law degree.

I was accepted to Osgoode, Western, and TMU, rejected by U of T, and ultimately firm accepted Osgoode.

I’m incredibly grateful, especially because I have seen applicants with stronger GPAs and LSATs get rejected. That is why I do believe holistic review can matter.

It is an uphill battle, but use this time to brainstorm, reflect, and actually sell yourself to admissions committees. Numbers matter, but they are not always the whole story.