Law Applicants 2012

i know someone who got 10 out of 40 in her LNAT and has got an offer an the university of birmingham for law

I haven't got that much money, my parents won't finance it and with the books, revision guides and papers needed to increase your chances of doing well I just couldn't afford it.

It's not unheard of, but it is extremely rare. My friend's brother got into KCL to do Law with 9/30 on the old-style LNAT.

The whole point is that it's not something you can prepare for. It is a test of aptitude, and Pearson Vue take pains to stress this point. All I did was two practice tests, both available free from the website, and got a very respectable score. Avoiding LNAT unis on the basis of the £50 it costs to take the test seems bewildering to me, I have to say.

Hey all!

I'll also be applying for Law in September and like a few of you here will probably be avoiding the LNAT - my shortlist at the moment is Cambridge, LSE, Warwick, York and Lancaster (I got 7A*s and 5As at GCSE and I'm hoping for 4 good As in my History, English Lit, Spanish and Economics AS levels when results drop in August).

I know you're trying to avoid LNAT unis, but I was under the impression LSE use it? Cambridge don't do the LNAT, but they have their own entrance exam for law - which I imagine would be relatively similar.

I know you're trying to avoid LNAT unis, but I was under the impression LSE use it? Cambridge don't do the LNAT, but they have their own entrance exam for law - which I imagine would be relatively similar.

The whole point is that it's not something you can prepare for. It is a test of aptitude, and Pearson Vue take pains to stress this point. All I did was two practice tests, both available free from the website, and got a very respectable score. Avoiding LNAT unis on the basis of the £50 it costs to take the test seems bewildering to me, I have to say.

This is just my position on the matter and it's the line I take. Different opinions may warrant different arguments and I'm sorry if I've made any generalisations or belittled anyones successes. I assure you, I didn't mean to.

After some deliberation between English Language and Law, I've decided to opt for Law and will be applying in Autumn. I'm not purposefully avoiding the LNAT, although the only university I'm looking at which requires it is Manchester. My others ones are Leeds, York, Warwick and Durham - although I can't make the Open Days for the last two and so will have to research them myself.

If you have money it will seem 'bewildering'. I have three reasons for deciding to not sit the LNAT. Firstly, I cannot afford the £50. I do not have a job (unless you count volunteering for the Citizens Advice Bureau and somehow, people never do). Moreover, I am not given money by my parents.Therefore, I really cannot spare the £50 or the additional study guides that my Guidance Teacher has said better your chances by enabling you to understand the system effectively.

Secondly, though I have considered a few LNAT universities and although I am fairly certain that I will be able to achieve the necessary grades to get into these Universities the more I look at them, the more I decide that I don't fancy them. This isn't purely because of the LNAT either. The two places I considered were Kings College London and Glasgow and the reason I am not taking or applying for them is London is too far away from my family and friends and Glasgow is not 'my' city. I didn't particularly like it. I have been more making the argument that the LNAT is not a fair or accurate representation of ability to study law (shown by my comment about the Aberdeen Law Professor and the LNAT seeming like a pretentious additional Law Qualifier).

Thirdly, I have of late been taking the opinion that the LNAT is an unfair way of creating a further class divide in the field of law and it is something I do not want to encourage. This is not really an influencing factor in my decision to not go to Glasgow or Kings as my previous arguments detail however, this is the position I am taking. Law is already a very 'high-class' profession with the majority of successful applicants coming from children with parents of Higher-managerial households. These parents have a lot of money to throw into their child's education, including the ability to pay for them to take the LNAT as well as every additional study guide available. Mine do not have that money to give to me, nor do I want them to. Fair enough, you have to have an 'aptitude' for Law to theoretically pass the test, however, for people like me who simply cannot afford the LNAT it is an unfair way of attaching further, pretentious qualifications to Law.

This is just my position on the matter and it's the line I take. Different opinions may warrant different arguments and I'm sorry if I've made any generalisations or belittled anyones successes. I assure you, I didn't mean to.

Durham requires the LNAT.

The purpose of the LNAT is to differentiate between the swathes of straight-A students applying to the top universities, not to create a class divide, so I am sorry that it seems that way to you. It has actually proven to be a fairer test than A-levels, with scores being roughly evenly distributed between males, females, state school students and public school students. The reason for the fee is that Pearson Vue are a private company like any other, and must make their money somehow.

If you honestly cannot afford to take the test, nor find any institution willing to fund you for it, then that is a legitimate and immovable barrier. And that is bad. But if you want to do something about it, write to the government. A personal boycott on the LNAT universities will do little but entrench the class divide that you perceive.

P.S. As I have said, Pearson Vue neither supply any extra support materials for extra cost, nor endorse any that are produced by third parties. I think your Guidance Teacher's advice is misleading. Please bear this in mind, and read up on their website before telling other people that further resources will better their LNAT scores. That is not the official line, and may well put off many people in a similar position to yourself.

I see everyone on TSR is preparing themselves for mooting.

I see everyone on TSR is preparing themselves for mooting.

To be honest, I probably got a teeny bit up myself and 'impassioned' there. I read it after I sent it and thought 'that makes me sound like an absolute tw*t'. It's just reading the statistics and seeing articles that say more people of a higher class get in to do law and you do feel up against it. I've always been determined to do Law but you hear stories about the upper-classes having an upper hand and then the statistics seem to back it up. I truly am sorry for coming off like a bit of a d*ck.

I just find with the LNAT it does seem to be the more famously reputed Universities like Durham, Oxford and even to some extent Glasgow that want it. It does kind of seem like it puts people who maybe have to struggle a bit for the money on the back foot, especially if they pay the money then are unsuccessful in their application. Tbh, I can't really afford to take the test and to a further extent I don't really have the need to since the places I fancy going don't need it so it's not so much as me having a 'personal boycott' but rather a b*tch about something I don't particularly like the idea of :P Don't get me wrong, I did consider some LNAT universities, but at the end of the day they didn't seem like the place for me. The LNAT was just another Con on the Pros/Cons list.

Also, as far as advice in school I have to go on what my Guidance Teacher says. She may be wrong but I trust that she's trying to give me the best possible advice she can. It's the way things go.