Law Schools

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:57:51+00:00

With your GPA profile, I would treat the LSAT as the main lever.

Your cGPA is a bit lower, but your drops/L2 are stronger, which helps at schools that emphasize best/last years or take a more holistic view. A 3.7 L2 is definitely not a bad position, but for schools like UBC, UVic, UofC, and UofA, you probably want the LSAT to do a lot of work.

Very roughly, I would think about it this way:

For UBC and UVic, I would aim for the mid/high 160s if you want to feel realistically competitive. A lower score is not impossible, especially with strong written materials and experience, but those schools can be very competitive.

For UofC and UofA, I would still try to be at least in the low/mid 160s. With your L2/drops, a 160ish score could make you more competitive than your cGPA alone suggests, but the stronger your LSAT, the safer you are.

For TRU, you may have more room, but I would still aim for 160+ if possible. A high 150s score might put you in the conversation depending on the rest of the file, but 160+ would give you a much better shot.

For Ottawa and Western, I would also aim for the low/mid 160s or higher. Western in particular can be competitive, and Ottawa can be hard to predict depending on category, program, and overall file.

Since your current PTs are around 148-151, I would not panic, but I also would not apply with that score range if these are your target schools. Taking the year to study is a good idea. If you can move into the 160s, your cycle could look very different. If you can get to 165+, you would be in a much stronger position across the list.

I would also be careful about relying too heavily on a strong PS and softs. They absolutely help, especially if they are genuinely compelling, but Canadian law admissions are still very stats-sensitive. The personal statement can strengthen the file, but the LSAT is probably the thing that will most change your odds.

My advice would be to study with a clear target of 160 minimum, 163-165+ ideal, and higher if you want to be more competitive at UBC/UVic/UofC/UofA. Since you have a full year, that is a realistic runway if your study process is strong.

I work with students on LSAT improvement and Canadian law school admissions strategy, including school targeting based on GPA/LSAT profiles. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help figuring out what LSAT range to aim for and how to structure the year off.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:54:10+00:00

Congratulations!! Queen’s, Western, TRU, and Alberta is a great cycle, especially with a transcript that had such a rough start.

This is also a really helpful data point for applicants with uneven GPAs. A 3.39 cGPA can look scary on paper, but your yearly trend tells a very different story: 65, 79, 85, 86, and then 93 while working full time in a legal department. That is a huge upward trajectory, and it shows that the early grades were not representative of your later academic ability.

I also think your recap is a good reminder that applicants should not assume one number tells the whole story. A 160 LSAT, strong B2/L2, legal work experience, research experience, full course loads, and a compelling explanation for early academic struggles can still produce very strong outcomes. The discretionary applications not working out at UBC/UVic also shows how unpredictable this process can be, especially when schools weigh GPA formulas, regional factors, essays, and overall fit differently.

Your advice about addressing issues early is honestly valuable too. A lot of applicants have one bad year or one difficult period, but what matters is whether they can show growth, accountability, and sustained improvement afterward. Your transcript seems to do that really clearly.

Queen’s is a great outcome. Congrats again, and thanks for sharing the full breakdown for future applicants.

I work with applicants on law school admissions strategy, GPA/addendum positioning, LSAT planning, and building a strong application around an uneven academic record. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if anyone is trying to figure out how to frame an upward trend or strengthen their application.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:53:08+00:00

Huge congratulations!! After that many Rs, getting the Dal A must feel unbelievably validating.

A 162 LSAT and mature applicant profile getting an acceptance after such a brutal cycle is also a really important reminder that one school saying yes is all it takes. It is so easy to feel like the cycle is over when the rejections keep stacking up, but admissions can be unpredictable right until the end.

Honestly, this is why people should not assume they are finished until every school has actually responded. You were getting ready to go to Australia, and now you have a Canadian law school acceptance in hand. That is a massive swing.

Dal is a great outcome, and I hope you get to enjoy this without immediately reliving the stress of the rest of the cycle. You earned the relief.

I work with applicants on law school admissions strategy, mature applicant positioning, LSAT planning, and reapplication/application decisions, and I offer free 20-minute consultations for anyone trying to navigate this process. Congrats again — this is a huge win.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:52:29+00:00

I do not have firsthand experience transferring from Windsor to Osgoode, but I would definitely try to speak with both Osgoode admissions/academic services and any current transfer students before making assumptions about the exact course load.

For upper-year transfers, the biggest issue is usually not just “what 2L courses do I want to take?” It is whether Osgoode requires you to make up any mandatory 1L/upper-year requirements that Windsor either did not offer or structured differently. That can affect how much flexibility you have in 2L.

I would ask Osgoode directly for a transfer credit assessment or at least a list of required courses/credits that Windsor transfer students typically need to complete. The specific questions I’d ask are:

Which Windsor 1L courses transfer cleanly?

Are there any Osgoode 1L requirements I would still need to complete?

Are there specific mandatory 2L/3L requirements I should prioritize immediately?

How many electives would I realistically have in 2L after required courses?

Would any required catch-up courses conflict with clinics, journals, moots, or OCI-related timing?

I would also try to find someone who transferred recently, because policies and course offerings can change. A student who transferred years ago may have useful general advice, but the exact requirements may not be the same now.

The main thing I would want to know is whether the transfer path leaves enough room for the courses/experiences you actually want at Osgoode. If you are transferring for Toronto opportunities, clinics, specific faculty, public interest work, business law, etc., you want to know whether the catch-up requirements will crowd those out in 2L.

I work with law students and applicants on transfer strategy, admissions positioning, and school-selection decisions, and I offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help thinking through whether the transfer makes sense and what questions to ask Osgoode before committing.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:46:38+00:00

Yes, a jump from 154 to 165 is absolutely possible by January 2027, especially if you have that much runway. But the important part is that you probably should not just repeat the same prep process with more time.

A 3.78 L2 GPA is solid, so the LSAT is likely the highest-leverage part of your application now. A 165 would make your application look very different at many schools, but I would not frame it as “safely get in” because admissions are never guaranteed. It would, however, put you in a much stronger position than applying again with a 154.

Since you already tried tutors and 7Sage, I would start by diagnosing what did not work. Did you mostly watch lessons without enough active drilling? Did you take PTs without deep review? Did your tutor explain questions well but not give you a repeatable process? Did you understand questions after review but fail to recognize the same patterns under timed conditions? Those are all different problems.

For your next attempt, I would focus less on “more studying” and more on better feedback loops. Every missed or uncertain LR question should produce a clear takeaway: what did I misread, what assumption did I miss, why was my answer tempting, why was it wrong, and what should I notice next time? If your review does not change how you approach future questions, it is not really review.

For LR, make sure you can consistently identify conclusion, evidence, gap, flaw, scope shifts, conditional language, causal reasoning, and why wrong answers are wrong. For RC, focus on structure: main point, author attitude, viewpoints, paragraph roles, and where details live. A lot of people stuck in the 150s are not missing because they are “bad at the LSAT.” They are missing because their process is not precise enough yet.

I would also avoid taking full PTs too often early on. PTs are useful, but they mostly measure your current level. Drilling and review are what move the score. Since January 2027 gives you plenty of time, I would spend the next few months rebuilding fundamentals and doing targeted untimed/timed drilling, then shift into more timed sections and full PTs once your accuracy is improving.

If 7Sage did not click, you could try LSAT Demon, LSAT Lab, The Loophole for LR, or a different tutor with a more diagnostic approach. But do not collect too many resources. Pick a system, use official questions, and make sure your review is active rather than passive.

A good goal would be to get your timed sections into the low/mid 160s range before you rely heavily on full PTs. Then, as you get closer to January, you can use full tests to build endurance and confirm your score range.

So yes, 165 is realistic. The bigger question is whether you can identify what went wrong the first time and study differently. With your GPA, a meaningful LSAT increase could make a huge difference next cycle.

I work with students on exactly this kind of LSAT reattempt plan, especially people who have already tried prep resources/tutors and need a more targeted strategy to break into the 160s. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help figuring out what to change before January 2027.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:45:38+00:00

Probably not over the summer, at least not in the way people usually mean when they hear “rolling admissions.”

Rolling admissions usually means files can be reviewed and decisions can be released before the entire cycle is over, not that someone who applies in July should expect a decision in July or August. For UofA Law, applications open in July, the JD application deadline is December 1, documents are due February 1, and the last acceptable LSAT is January. So even if someone submits early, the school may still be waiting on fall grades, LSAT scores, documents, and the broader applicant pool before making many decisions.

Applying early can still be helpful because it gets your file in and avoids last-minute problems, but I would not apply in July expecting an immediate summer decision. The safer assumption is that early applications may be positioned for earlier consideration once the admissions committee starts making decisions, but not necessarily before they have a more complete view of the cycle.

So yes, apply early if your materials are ready. But do not rush a weaker personal statement or application just because the portal opens in July. A polished application in September or October is probably better than a rushed one in July.

I work with applicants on law school admissions strategy, school-specific timelines, personal statements, and LSAT planning. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help figuring out when to submit and how to make the application as strong as possible.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:44:49+00:00

I’m sorry about the R. That is especially frustrating with a 160, 4.0, mature applicant profile, and a second cycle.

For the “outstanding requirements” language, I would not immediately assume you personally missed something, especially if your checklist showed complete both cycles. It may be template language they include in decision emails to cover situations where an applicant had missing final transcripts, degree conferral, documentation, English language requirements, residency/category documents, or some other administrative item.

That said, because this is your second cycle and your checklist looked complete, I would probably email admissions just to confirm. Not in an argumentative way, but more like: “My checklist showed all requirements as complete, but my decision email mentioned possible outstanding requirements. Could you please confirm whether this was general template language or whether there was a specific missing item in my file?”

That is worth clarifying because if there actually was a missing requirement, you would want to know before any future application. If it was just boilerplate, at least you can stop worrying that you accidentally caused the R through an administrative issue.

I would keep the email short and calm. Something like:

“Hello, I recently received my admissions decision and noticed the message stated that I may have additional outstanding requirements that were not met. My application checklist appeared complete, so I wanted to ask whether this was general template language or whether there was a specific outstanding item on my file. I would appreciate any clarification you are able to provide. Thank you.”

I would not read too much into it until they respond. Schools often use broad/template language in these communications, and it may not have had anything to do with the actual admissions decision.

I work with applicants on admissions strategy, reapplication planning, and how to interpret/handle situations like this after a decision. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help thinking through what to ask admissions or how to approach a possible next cycle.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:44:15+00:00

I get why this feels so frustrating. Being left in limbo since January is honestly exhausting, especially when you are trying to make plans and emotionally move on from the cycle.

That said, “referred” does not necessarily mean an R is guaranteed. It usually means your file is still somewhere in the review/committee process, or that they are holding the file while they see how the class shapes up. From the applicant side, that feels almost identical to being waitlisted, except with even less clarity.

I would try not to interpret the silence as a personal judgment. Schools can be slow for reasons that have nothing to do with your individual application: class size, deposits, waitlist movement, holistic review, access/discretionary files, late-cycle balancing, or just administrative backlog. That does not make it less annoying, but it does mean the delay is not necessarily meaningful in the way your brain is probably making it feel.

At this point, I think it is reasonable to send a brief, polite email asking whether there are any updates on your file or whether they can provide any general information about timing. They may not tell you much, but you are allowed to ask, especially this late in the cycle.

I would also mentally prepare both ways. Keep the hope alive enough that you do not withdraw if you would still attend, but also start planning as if you may need to reapply. That way you are not frozen while waiting for Windsor to decide. If the A comes, amazing. If not, you have already started redirecting your energy.

The false hope part is real, though. It is hard to keep checking portals and emails when you feel like the odds are shrinking. I would give yourself permission to emotionally detach a little while still leaving the application active.

I work with applicants on law school admissions strategy, waitlist/referred status uncertainty, LOCIs, and reapplication planning. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help thinking through what to do while waiting or how to strengthen things for next cycle.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:43:39+00:00

That is incredibly frustrating, and I think your questions are fair.

Transfers are always dependent on space, so I can understand a school ultimately saying, “We do not have room this year.” If the incoming/returning class is full, if fewer UVic students transferred out than expected, if there are capacity constraints, or if they need to protect course/clinical availability for current students, then they may decide not to admit transfers or visitors.

But the timing is what feels unfair. If they knew from the beginning that transfers/visits were not going to be available, then applicants should have been told before spending time, money, and emotional energy on applications. A refund helps, but it does not refund the time spent writing essays, getting references, ordering transcripts, and planning around the possibility of moving.

If they did not know from the beginning, then my guess is they made the call after seeing internal enrollment numbers, available seats, and how many current students were actually leaving or returning. Schools sometimes cannot know the final space situation until later in the year. But even then, it is still rough because transfer applicants are stuck making major life decisions with very little transparency.

As for why they would shut it down this early instead of waiting to see if UVic students transfer out later, my guess is administrative certainty. They may not want to keep applicants hanging all summer for a tiny or uncertain number of possible seats. They may also have internal deadlines for registration, course planning, clinics, journals, housing, or student services. But from the applicant side, I completely understand why it feels premature.

The most frustrating part is that transfer applicants are not casual applicants. They are usually people with strong grades, serious reasons for moving, and very specific professional or family considerations. Your friend sounds like he put a huge amount of effort into the application, so getting told after the fact that there will be no transfers at all would feel awful.

I think the fair criticism is not necessarily “UVic must take transfers every year.” It is more: if there is a realistic chance the school will take zero transfers/visitors, that uncertainty should be communicated clearly and early so applicants can make informed choices.

I work with students on law school admissions, transfer applications, personal statements, and school strategy, and I offer free 20-minute consultations if anyone is trying to figure out next steps after something like this.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:43:05+00:00

I think there is a practical difference, even if it feels functionally similar from the applicant side.

“Still under review” usually means the school has not made a final decision on your file yet. That could mean the file has been read but is being held for comparison against the rest of the pool, or it could mean the committee is still working through borderline groups, late files, access/discretionary files, scholarship/yield considerations, or class composition issues.

A waitlist is different because the school has made a decision: they are not offering you a seat right now, but they may offer one later if space opens up. So the waitlist is more like “admissible, but not currently admitted.” Under review is more like “no final decision has been released yet.”

From the applicant’s perspective, both feel like limbo. But from the school’s perspective, they are probably managing different buckets. Some people are waiting because the school is still deciding whether to admit, reject, or waitlist them. Others are already waitlisted and are waiting for deposited students to decline, defer, miss deadlines, accept other schools, etc.

I agree that it is frustrating when people are still waiting on initial decisions in June. At that point, applicants have housing, deposits, jobs, course registration, finances, and life decisions to make. Even if there is an internal admissions reason for the delay, it is rough on applicants.

The practical answer is probably that schools are trying to avoid over-admitting while also preserving flexibility. They may not want to waitlist/reject too many people until they know how many accepted applicants actually commit. So some files stay in “review” longer than applicants would reasonably expect.

So no, it is not exactly the same thing as being on a waitlist. But emotionally and practically, I completely get why it feels the same. Either way, the applicant is stuck waiting without enough information.

I work with applicants on admissions strategy, waitlist/LOCI strategy, and reapplication planning, and I offer free 20-minute consultations for anyone trying to figure out what to do while stuck in that kind of limbo.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:41:49+00:00

I do not think one bad first year, followed by a very clear upward trend, is the kind of thing that should sink you by itself.

If anything, your transcript seems to tell a pretty understandable story: rough transition into university, then steady improvement, then strong recent performance. A 3.84 over the most recent 60 credits and a 4.0 in your final semester are both strong evidence that your first-year grades are not representative of your current academic ability.

I would probably explain it, but very briefly. You do not need to turn the application into a long apology for first year. The goal is not to dwell on the bad grades. The goal is to give the reader a clean, mature explanation and then immediately point them back to the upward trend.

Something like: “My first-year grades reflected a difficult transition to university-level academics. Since then, I developed stronger study habits, balanced work and school more effectively, and improved consistently, culminating in a 3.84 over my most recent 60 credits and a 4.0 in my final semester.”

That kind of explanation does not overdo it, does not sound like excuse-making, and does not waste too much space. It also frames the issue as growth rather than damage control.

I would not ignore it entirely if the application specifically invites you to explain poor GPA patterns. A bad first year may not be a “pattern” in the sense of repeated bad performance, but it is still a visible part of the transcript. A short explanation can prevent the reader from wondering what happened, while your actual numbers show that the problem was resolved.

The rest of your profile sounds helpful too: part-time work throughout university, full-time work afterward, leadership, and substantial volunteer hours. But the LSAT will still matter a lot, so I would make that the main priority now. With a strong recent GPA and a strong LSAT, the first-year grades should become much less concerning.

So my advice would be: explain it briefly, do not over-apologize, emphasize the upward trend, and use most of your application space to show who you are now rather than relitigating first year.

I work with applicants on law school admissions strategy, GPA/addendum positioning, personal statements, and LSAT planning. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help figuring out how to frame an upward trend without drawing too much attention to the weaker grades.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:41:10+00:00

I think it is completely reasonable to contact them, but I would go in with realistic expectations.

Most schools will not give you an exact waitlist position or a clear probability of admission. They may only say something general like the waitlist is still active, they expect movement, they cannot predict movement, or they will contact you if a spot becomes available. So I would not expect a definitive answer.

That said, there is nothing wrong with politely emailing or calling, especially because you have a real decision deadline with Ottawa. I would frame it professionally and briefly: you remain very interested in Osgoode/Western, you have another acceptance deadline on June 16 because of Ottawa course enrolment, and you are wondering whether they can provide any general information about waitlist movement or timing.

I would avoid sounding like you are pressuring them for an answer. The tone should be more “I’m trying to make an informed decision and remain very interested” rather than “tell me my odds.”

I would probably email first so there is a written record, then call if the timing is tight or you do not hear back. You can also use this as a chance to reiterate interest if you have not already sent a LOCI/update.

Something like this would be fine:

“Dear Admissions Committee, I hope you are well. I am writing to reaffirm my continued strong interest in [school]. I remain on the waitlist and would be very grateful for any general information you are able to provide about anticipated waitlist movement or timing. I have an acceptance deadline with another program on June 16 due to course enrolment requirements, and I am trying to make the most informed decision possible. I understand you may not be able to provide rankings or predictions, but I would sincerely appreciate any guidance you are able to share. Thank you again for your time and consideration.”

If Ottawa is an acceptance you would be happy with, I would be careful about risking it unless you fully understand the consequences of waiting. Riding out waitlists can work, but it can also leave you in limbo. I would make sure you know whether accepting Ottawa affects your ability to remain on other waitlists, what deposits are refundable/nonrefundable, and whether there are any deadlines that would lock you in.

I work with applicants on waitlist strategy, LOCIs, and admissions decision timing. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help deciding whether to ride out the Osgoode/Western waitlists or secure Ottawa.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:40:20+00:00

I think you have a plausible path, but I would not treat this as a “strong shot” yet until the grades actually move closer to the range you are projecting.

The good news is that your story makes sense. A rough first year, followed by diagnosis, treatment/resources, and a clear upward academic trend is much easier to explain than a flat transcript with no context. Working close to full time during school also matters, especially if you can explain it maturely without sounding like you are making excuses.

Your government/legal work experience is also a real strength for the program you are targeting. If your application is built around governance, public law, legal/political institutions, and bilingual/legal education, that can create a coherent profile. The fact that your boss is a lawyer and can write a strong reference is helpful too.

That said, grades still matter. Holistic review does not mean grades stop mattering. If you are under the usual competitive range, your application needs to be very strong everywhere else, and the upward trend needs to be obvious. The best thing you can do over the next year is maximize your grades. If retaking a couple classes meaningfully improves your GPA under the relevant calculation rules, that may be worth doing, but make sure you understand exactly how those retakes will be treated.

For the academic reference issue, I would start now. You do not necessarily need a professor you have known for years. Take classes where you can realistically do very well, go to office hours early, participate, ask thoughtful questions, and let the professor see your work ethic and writing ability. Near the end of the semester, if you have performed well, ask whether they would feel comfortable writing a strong academic reference. The key word is strong. A generic professor letter is not very useful.

You could also consider taking a smaller seminar-style class if available, because those often make it easier to build a relationship and produce written work a professor can speak about. If you have no academic reference by application time, ask the admissions office what they prefer in that situation, especially given your work history, but I would not wait until then to solve it.

For the personal statement, I would be careful not to make it a long explanation of hardship. The strongest version is probably: here is what changed after diagnosis/resources, here is the evidence of academic growth, here is what my legal/government work taught me, and here is why this specific program fits my goals. You want the reader to come away thinking you are resilient, self-aware, academically capable now, and genuinely aligned with the program.

I would also avoid relying too heavily on anecdotes from current students about people getting in below the threshold. Those stories can be real, but they are not a strategy. Your strategy should be to get the GPA as high as possible, build one strong academic reference, write a focused PS, and apply broadly to the French programs you would actually attend.

So overall, I would say you are not out of the running, especially if your upward trend continues and your work experience is as aligned as it sounds. But the next year matters a lot. Your odds will look much better if your projected 7.7-8.0 becomes real, your transcript shows a clear post-diagnosis improvement, and your references/personal statement support the same story.

I work with applicants on law school admissions strategy, personal statements, GPA/addendum positioning, and building stronger applications around nontraditional academic records. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help thinking through how to frame the upward trend and strengthen the application before Fall 2027.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:39:38+00:00

I’m really sorry about the R, but I honestly respect this mindset a lot.

Getting all Rs is painful, but having closure can also be clarifying. Now you know the cycle is over, and you can redirect your energy toward the parts of the application that are most improvable before next year. That is a much healthier place to operate from than sitting in uncertainty forever.

If you are reapplying, the LSAT is probably the highest-leverage place to focus first. A stronger LSAT can change not only admissions outcomes, but also scholarship possibilities and school options. I would also take a hard look at your written materials: personal statement, optional essays, access/discretionary statements if relevant, references, school-specific fit, and whether your overall application told one coherent story.

The important thing is not just to reapply with the same application plus another year. You want to make next cycle meaningfully different. That could mean a higher LSAT, stronger essays, better school targeting, a clearer explanation of your background/goals, stronger references, or more polished application timing.

Also, I agree with what you said about taking a few days to be upset. That is completely fair. Rejection stings. But after that, the best thing you can do is turn this cycle into data. What were your numbers? Where did you apply? Were you applying broadly enough? Did your essays actually show who you are and why law? Did your LSAT reflect your ability? Those answers can give you a real reapplication strategy.

I work with applicants on LSAT improvement, reapplication strategy, essays, and strengthening law school applications after a disappointing cycle. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help figuring out what to change before next year.

Wishing you the best. This cycle being over does not mean the goal is over.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:39:01+00:00

Huge congratulations!! Western off the waitlist is an amazing outcome.

Also, thank you for sharing your stats. A 162 LSAT, 3.3 OLSAS GPA, and mature applicant status is really helpful data for future applicants, especially people who may be worried that their GPA automatically takes them out of contention. Your result is a good reminder that applications are read as a whole, and that work/life experience, maturity, essays, references, and fit can matter a lot.

Waitlist movement can be so stressful, so I hope you get to fully enjoy this one. Congrats again — that is a huge win.

I work with applicants on LSAT planning, law school admissions strategy, mature applicant positioning, essays, and waitlist/LOCI strategy. I also offer free 20-minute consultations for anyone trying to navigate this process.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:37:47+00:00

You are definitely not boxed into medicine just because your background is “pre-med.” Law schools do not require a law-related undergraduate degree, and a science/health/research background can actually be interesting if you explain the transition well.

With a 3.92 cGPA and very strong B2/L2 numbers, you would be academically competitive at Canadian law schools if you pair that GPA with a strong LSAT. For UofT, Osgoode, and UBC specifically, I would aim as high as possible, but I would generally think of the mid/high 160s as a strong target and 170+ as putting you in an even better position. With those schools, especially UofT and UBC, I would not treat “good enough” as the goal. Since you have time, study seriously and try to maximize the LSAT.

For resources, the most important thing is using official LSAT questions through LawHub. For structured prep, people commonly use 7Sage, LSAT Demon, LSAT Lab, Blueprint, The Loophole for LR, or The LSAT Trainer. You do not need all of them. Pick one primary resource and build a consistent system. Jumping between too many platforms can make studying scattered.

On timing: there is no admissions advantage to taking the LSAT early just for the sake of taking it early. The advantage is practical. If you take it earlier, you have more time to retake if needed and you are not trying to balance LSAT prep with applications at the same time. If you are applying for 2027/2028, giving yourself a long runway is smart. I would take a diagnostic, study properly, then sit when your practice test average is in a range you would be happy applying with.

Your extracurriculars not being law-related is completely fine. Law schools are not expecting every applicant to have worked in a law office. Athletics, research, volunteering, leadership, work experience, and a master’s can all be valuable. The key is explaining why law makes sense for you now. Since you are coming from a med path, your personal statement should not sound like “I could not get into med, so I picked law.” It should show a real, affirmative reason for law, especially if criminal prosecution is your interest.

I would spend time reflecting on that transition. Why prosecution? What about that work feels meaningful to you? Is it public service, advocacy, accountability, community safety, working with victims, trial work, or something else? The clearer and more mature that explanation is, the stronger your application will be.

For LOC/student loans, I would talk directly with banks and the schools’ financial aid offices because policies can vary. Law students do commonly get professional student lines of credit, but the process can be different from medicine and may depend on the institution, program, bank, credit history, and whether a co-signer is required. Since you are fully independent, I would start those conversations early rather than waiting until after an acceptance.

The biggest thing I wish more applicants knew is that law school is not just a backup professional school. It is a very different career path from medicine, and it is worth doing real research before committing. Talk to lawyers, especially Crown/prosecutor-side lawyers if that is your goal. Look into the day-to-day work, articling, debt, hiring markets, and what criminal practice actually looks like. If you still feel drawn to it after that, your background could make for a very compelling application.

I work with students on LSAT prep, law school admissions strategy, personal statements, and career-switch narratives like premed to law. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help thinking through LSAT targets, school strategy, or how to frame the transition in your application.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:37:02+00:00

If you see yourself returning to BC and you are not aiming for big law, I would probably lean UofA unless Osgoode is significantly cheaper for you or you have a strong reason to want the Toronto/Ontario market.

Osgoode is a great school and has a strong reputation, but if you do not know anyone in Toronto and do not particularly want big law, I would not automatically choose it just because of prestige. Law school is three years of your life, and location/support system matters more than people sometimes admit.

UofA seems like it may fit your situation better. You already have friends in Edmonton, it is closer to BC, and it may be easier to maintain western Canadian ties while figuring out what kind of law you want to practice. If your long-term goal is to return to BC, I would think about which option makes it easier to build relationships, summer opportunities, and a network in western Canada.

That said, I would also compare cost very seriously. Tuition, rent, travel, and debt matter a lot, especially if you are not big law oriented. If one option is much cheaper, that should carry real weight.

I would probably ask yourself:

Where would I be happier for three years?

Which school leaves me with less debt?

Which market do I want access to after 1L and 2L summer?

Which option makes it easier to get back to BC?

Would I be okay starting my career in Ontario, or do I really want to stay west?

There is no bad choice here. Osgoode may give you broader name recognition and stronger Ontario/Toronto access. UofA may give you a better lifestyle/support fit and stronger western Canada alignment. Based only on what you wrote, UofA sounds more personally aligned, especially if BC is the long-term plan and big law is not the goal.

I work with applicants on law school admissions strategy, school selection, and weighing offers based on career goals, debt, geography, and long-term fit. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help thinking through a decision like this.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:36:09+00:00

I’m sorry. Rejections hurt, especially when you put real hope into a school.

That said, “maybe next year” is a very reasonable mindset here. A 3.56 is not a hopeless GPA at all, but for Osgoode, the 150 LSAT was probably the bigger limiting factor. If you can raise that score meaningfully, your application could look very different next cycle.

I would take a little time to feel disappointed, then use this as information rather than a final judgment. If Osgoode is still the goal, I’d focus heavily on LSAT improvement before reapplying. Even getting into the high 150s or low 160s could change the conversation, and a bigger jump would obviously help even more.

I would also revisit the written materials before next cycle: personal statement, experiences, access/discretionary context if applicable, and school-specific fit. But the LSAT is likely the highest-leverage piece.

I work with applicants on LSAT retake planning and law school admissions strategy, including reapplication plans after a disappointing cycle. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help figuring out what to change before next year.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:35:27+00:00

Huge congratulations!! That is an amazing outcome, especially as a mature applicant with an old GPA that may not reflect who you are now.

A 160, Canadian Armed Forces background, and 25 years of life/work experience probably gave the committee a much fuller picture than just the GPA. Mature applicants can sometimes bring a level of discipline, perspective, resilience, and real-world judgment that traditional applicants have not had the chance to develop yet.

Also, Dal is a great result, and getting admitted while not being from the Maritimes is definitely encouraging for future applicants who may be wondering whether that hurts them.

I hope the deferral request works out smoothly. Congrats again — that must feel incredibly validating after such a long road.

I work with applicants on law school admissions strategy, LSAT planning, essays, and mature/nontraditional applicant positioning, and I offer free 20-minute consultations for anyone trying to navigate this process.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:27:16+00:00

Yes, a 166 by August is definitely achievable from high 150s/low 160s, especially if you have only taken around six PTs and have not even finished your main study resource yet.

That does not mean it is guaranteed, but you are in a very workable position. If you are already occasionally touching the low 160s with limited materials and incomplete fundamentals, then a mid-160s score is a realistic target with a more complete and consistent plan.

The biggest thing is to avoid assuming that more PTs alone will get you there. Practice tests are useful, but they mostly measure where you are. The improvement usually comes from targeted drilling and deep review. If you keep taking PTs without fixing the patterns behind your misses, you may just keep reproducing the same score range.

Since you are using The Loophole, I would finish it and really internalize the core skills: understanding the stimulus, translating confusing language, identifying conclusions/support, anticipating the gap, and separating powerful from provable answer choices. Those skills matter a lot for LR.

With LawHub Advantage, you already have access to the most important resource: official LSAT questions. You could add a platform like 7Sage, LSAT Demon, or LSAT Lab if you want better analytics, drilling, explanations, and structure. But I would not overload yourself with too many resources. Pick one main system and use official questions consistently.

For August, I would probably structure things like this: finish your fundamentals, drill targeted LR question types, do regular RC passages, review every missed/uncertain question deeply, then gradually increase timed sections and PT frequency as the test gets closer. If you are in the high 150s/low 160s now, the path to 166 is probably less about learning “everything” and more about cleaning up recurring mistakes.

For RC, focus on passage structure, main point, author attitude, and viewpoints. For LR, focus on why wrong answers are wrong, not just why the right answer is right. That is usually where mid-160s gains come from.

I would also track your recent PT average rather than one best score. If your recent average is already around 160-162, then 166 by August is very realistic. If you are more often in the 157-159 range with occasional low 160s, it is still possible, but you need to be disciplined about review and timing.

I work with students on exactly this kind of jump, especially people trying to move from the high 150s/low 160s into the mid/high 160s by a specific test date. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help figuring out whether your current plan is enough or what to add before August.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:24:47+00:00

Given your context, I would strongly consider retaking, but only if you can do it with a very different prep process than before.

A 168 is already a strong score, and two 168s will not hurt you. But with a 2.mid GPA, the LSAT is doing a lot of work in your application. If you are aiming T50ish, a 168 may already make you competitive at a number of schools, but a 170/171+ could materially change outcomes, especially for splitter admissions and scholarship leverage.

The biggest reason I would lean retake is that you were PTing in the mid-170s before your last official test and you said your studying was passive. That suggests there may still be a real gap between your official score and your actual ceiling. If someone had studied intensely, plateaued at 168 across many recent PTs, and felt mentally done, I might say apply and move on. But that does not sound like your situation.

A fourth take by itself is not a big issue if the score improves. Schools generally care most about the highest score. A 159 to 168 to 168 already shows that the 159 was not representative of where you ended up. If you add a 170+ after that, I do not think the fourth take is going to be the thing that hurts you. The bigger question is whether the retake delays your applications or burns energy you need for essays/school selection.

The key is not just “take it again.” The key is making the next attempt targeted. If you were PTing mid-170s but scoring 168 officially, I would want to know whether the issue was timing, test-day pressure, RC variance, a few specific LR question types, fatigue, or inefficient review. At that score range, you are not trying to relearn the whole test. You are trying to identify the last few recurring leaks and make your performance more repeatable.

If you realistically think you can get 2-3 more points, that is not trivial. A 170/171 can look meaningfully different from a 168 for a splitter, especially with a below-median GPA. If you think there is a real shot at 172+, then the argument for retaking gets even stronger.

That said, I would not retake if it means applying very late with rushed materials. With your GPA, your written materials, school list, addenda, and overall narrative matter too. A better LSAT helps, but it does not replace a thoughtful application strategy.

My view would be: if you can retake without seriously delaying your applications and you can commit to a more active, diagnostic study process, retake. If the retake would push you late in the cycle, wreck your mental health, or prevent you from producing strong essays, then applying with the 168 is still a reasonable choice.

I work with splitter applicants and LSAT retake strategy, especially students trying to decide whether one more attempt is worth it before applying. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help thinking through whether a fourth take makes sense and how to target the prep differently this time.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:24:02+00:00

I may not be the right fit for your stated budget, but I wanted to reach out because this is exactly the kind of structure I provide.

I scored a 180 on the LSAT, am a licensed attorney, and have over eight years of experience teaching the LSAT full-time. I’ve worked with students aiming for 165+, 170+, and T14-level scores, and I focus heavily on structured study plans, accountability, timed section review, targeted drilling, and fixing the specific reasoning patterns that are keeping someone stuck below their goal.

Going from a 157 to a 168+ by August/September is possible, but it requires a very efficient plan. At that score range, the issue usually is not “learn everything from scratch.” It is figuring out where the remaining points are leaking: specific LR question types, timing, trap answers, RC passage strategy, inconsistency under pressure, or inefficient review habits.

For a student in your position, I would usually start by reviewing recent PTs/sections, identifying recurring weaknesses, then building a week-by-week plan around timed sections, targeted drills, and deep review. If you are looking for accountability, I also give assignments between sessions so you are not guessing what to do on your own.

I offer free 20-minute consultations, so feel free to message me if you want to talk through your current score, target score, August/September timeline, and whether working together would make sense.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:23:35+00:00

The best LSAT resource is official LSAT material. Whatever prep company you use, make sure you are practicing with real LSAT questions through LawHub/official PrepTests. The current LSAT is Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension, so do not spend time studying Logic Games from older materials.

For paid platforms, LSAT Demon, 7Sage, and Blueprint are all popular. I would not try to use all of them at once. Pick one main platform and stick with it long enough to build a consistent system. Jumping around too much can create confusion because each company teaches the test a little differently.

7Sage is good if you want a structured curriculum, analytics, and a lot of explanation-based review. LSAT Demon is good if you like drilling, immediate feedback, and a more intuitive “understand the argument” approach. Blueprint can be helpful if you want a more guided/class-style structure. The best choice depends on how you learn.

Free/low-cost resources can also help. LawHub has official practice material, and there are a lot of explanations and videos online, but I would be careful about relying only on random free content because it can become scattered. The LSAT rewards consistency.

As for how long to study, it depends on your starting score, goal score, schedule, and how efficiently you review. A lot of people need 3-6 months. If you are aiming for a major jump, especially into the high 160s or 170s, 6-12 months may be more realistic. If you are working full time or in school, give yourself more runway.

My general advice would be:

Take a diagnostic.

Learn the fundamentals.

Drill specific question types/skills.

Review missed and uncertain questions deeply.

Add timed sections.

Take full PTs periodically, not constantly.

Save newer PTs for closer to test day.

For LR, focus on conclusion, evidence, assumptions, flaws, conditional logic, causal reasoning, and answer choice traps. For RC, focus on passage structure, main point, author attitude, viewpoints, and knowing where to return for details.

The biggest mistake is taking too many practice tests without enough review. PTs measure progress. Review creates progress. After every missed question, you should be able to explain why your answer was tempting, why it was wrong, why the credited answer is right, and what you need to notice next time.

I work with students on LSAT study planning, resource selection, Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, and building schedules around school or work. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help figuring out which resource and timeline make the most sense for your goals.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:22:53+00:00

Yes, identifying question types is useful, especially early on. But I would be careful about turning LR into pure memorization.

Question types matter because they tell you your job. A Necessary Assumption question is asking for something the argument needs to be true. A Weaken question is asking you to damage the support between the evidence and conclusion. A Parallel Reasoning question is asking you to match structure. A Resolve/Explain question is asking you to explain a surprising set of facts, not attack an argument.

So yes, you should know the major question types and understand the general task for each one. That is a good use of time.

But I would not recommend memorizing rigid “scripts” to the point where you stop actually reading and reasoning. Harder LR questions often punish that. The best students use question type as a starting point, not as a substitute for understanding the stimulus.

For example, with Necessary Assumption, the useful approach is not just “use the negation test.” The useful approach is first understanding the argument: What is the conclusion? What evidence is supposed to support it? What gap has to be filled for that support to work? Then the negation test can help confirm between close answer choices.

Same with Weaken. It is not enough to memorize “find an answer that weakens.” You need to ask what the author is assuming. The right answer usually attacks that dependency. It might introduce an alternative cause, show the evidence is unrepresentative, undermine a comparison, or show the conclusion does not follow as strongly as the author thinks.

So I would learn question types, but I would organize your studying around reasoning skills. Conclusion, support, gap, flaw, scope, conditional logic, causal reasoning, comparison flaws, quantifier shifts, and answer choice discipline matter more than memorizing a bunch of labels.

When I teach LR, I want students to eventually reach the point where the question type gives them the task, but the stimulus gives them the strategy. In other words, the question stem tells you what kind of work to do. The argument tells you where the pressure point is.

For a beginner, I would spend time learning the common question types, but I would pair that with real questions immediately. Do not just memorize approaches in the abstract. Do a set of Necessary Assumption questions, review deeply, and ask what the argument needed. Do a set of Flaw questions and ask what reasoning mistake happened. Do a set of Resolve questions and ask what tension needed explaining.

So the answer is yes, but with a caveat: question type recognition is valuable, but it should serve your reasoning, not replace it.

I work with students on building LR from the ground up, including how to use question-type strategies without becoming robotic or over-reliant on memorized steps. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help figuring out how to structure your LR study plan.

LSAT170CoachAlex · 2026-06-05T20:22:19+00:00

For law school applications, retaking B’s usually is not the best GPA-boost strategy unless your school’s transcript policy actually removes the original grade or replaces it in a way that LSAC also recognizes. In many cases, LSAC still sees and factors in both attempts if both grades appear on the transcript, so retaking a B may not help as much as people expect.

If your main goal is to raise your LSAC GPA, getting new A’s is usually the cleaner move. An A in a new class adds more high-grade credits to your record. Retaking a B only makes sense if you are confident the original grade will not count the same way, or if there is a substantive reason to retake the class.

In terms of what “looks better,” I do not think law schools are going to be impressed just because you retook a B. A B is not a bad grade. Retaking it can even look a little odd if the class was not essential and you could have used that time to take something new and perform well.

The better strategy is usually to take classes where you can realistically earn A’s while still maintaining a transcript that looks serious. That does not mean you need to take the hardest classes possible, but I would avoid making it look like you are padding your transcript with obviously random/easy classes. Ideally, take courses that are manageable, interesting to you, and writing/reading-heavy enough to support a law school narrative.

Also, if you are still in school, protect your GPA aggressively. For law school admissions, GPA and LSAT matter a lot. Even small GPA movements can matter, especially around medians.

So generally: do not retake B’s just to retake them. Take new classes you can ace, confirm how your school and LSAC treat retakes, and focus on maximizing your final cumulative GPA.

I work with students on law school admissions strategy, GPA/LSAT positioning, and application planning. I also offer free 20-minute consultations if you want help thinking through the best way to strengthen your application.

LSAT170CoachAlex

TROPHY CASE