But that is what I said. This is from my initial post: Notice I say might. Also note that I was referring to OP's specific case.

"A general rule of thumb is if you are at or above both medians, you should get in. If you are below one, you might have to compensate with the other."

LOL. You have a problem with my rule of thumb? It is a true statement. If you are above both, you should get in. Nowhere do I say being close enough is not sufficient. If I list one condition for admission, it does not mean being close enough does not cut it? no shit. that is how an average works, it is just the scores of the average student (some are below and some are above). But, like I said, in general, if you are above both, you will probably get in. My statement is not false nor is it misleading, it is the truth. Yet you downvoted my post and went off about medians not mattering. You also made an absurd generalization of being close enough is "all you need." Now this is your response:

"medians do not matter" and "being close enough to the median is all you need for Canadian schools".

I am sorry but your statements, if true, basically guarantee admission if one is close to medians. Please note the language that I use that recognizes that law school admissions is an imperfect science and is specific to OP's question.

I am not thinking about the American system. I clearly and explicitly state, to guarantee admission one should be above both; however, if one is below the other, they can compensate (more so than at a T-14 school). Your response is medians do not matter? The examples that I used were to prove that your claim that "medians do not matter is false" because for the most part, they are the sole determinant of admission. If you are applying to the top law schools in Canada (or any law school for that matter), your GPA and LSAT are basically ALL that matters.