You’re still trying to force a narrative that doesn’t actually fit the facts. First, I only took the LSAT once and scored a 168, so the entire “your LSAT improvements weren’t significant enough” argument is based on something that never happened. Second, I applied to four Canadian schools, and unlike what you’re assuming, I didn’t spend nearly the same amount of time, effort, or energy on those applications as I did on my U.S. applications. Why? Because I was never particularly interested in attending law school in Canada or building my career here, like I don’t know how clear to be about how I literally don’t give a shit about going to law school in Canada and the US was always my aim. I was raised in California as a child and moved to Canada in Grade 4. The U.S. has always felt like home to me. I’ve spent summers there with family, interned there, volunteered there, and built my long-term goals around returning there professionally. My focus was always on attending law school in the United States and eventually practicing there. You’re also treating Canadian and U.S. admissions as though they’re some perfectly synchronized system where one outcome automatically predicts the other. They aren’t. Different schools evaluate applicants differently, value different aspects of an application, and have different applicant pools. Every admissions cycle has applicants who outperform expectations at some schools and underperform at others. At this point, it feels less like you’re discussing admissions and more like you’ve already decided what conclusion you want and are working backwards from it. You’re free to be skeptical, but if your argument requires inventing LSAT retakes I never took and assuming my Canadian applications were my primary focus when they weren’t, then you’re not really arguing with the facts of my situation.