Thoughts on the LNAT

heh, yep, I did. I have 7.5 in IELTS and 20 in LNAT. seem enough? Actually they did not require IELTS from me as I study fully in English... anyways
John Gardner: r u already at uni? which one if yes :/ *curious*

Much of the debate above concentrates on the importance of understanding and comprehending law as a subject and the difficulties that may be faced by a student whose first language is not English.

However, comprehension of the subject matter is only half the battle when it comes to law and that is especially the case in practice. The other essential skill, touched on by Mr Gardner above, is the ability to express oneself clearly, concisely and accurately. The successful lawyer is, on the one hand, able to utilise language to create a convincing argument on behalf of his client and, on the other hand, able to summarise complex issues of fact and law in a way in which his lay client can easily understand. The latter skill is by far the more challenging.

The irony is that those for whom English is not their first language can actually be better at expressing themselves simply and clearly. A more limited vocabulary is not necessarily a disadvantage when trying to distil complex concepts into understandable prose. Unfortunately, many members of the profession still seem to be of the view that the longer the word, the more convoluted the paragraph, the denser the letter of advice - the more impressed the client!

Much of the debate above concentrates on the importance of understanding and comprehending law as a subject and the difficulties that may be faced by a student whose first language is not English.

However, comprehension of the subject matter is only half the battle when it comes to law and that is especially the case in practice. The other essential skill, touched on by Mr Gardner above, is the ability to express oneself clearly, concisely and accurately. The successful lawyer is, on the one hand, able to utilise language to create a convincing argument on behalf of his client and, on the other hand, able to summarise complex issues of fact and law in a way in which his lay client can easily understand. The latter skill is by far the more challenging.

The irony is that those for whom English is not their first language can actually be better at expressing themselves simply and clearly. A more limited vocabulary is not necessarily a disadvantage when trying to distil complex concepts into understandable prose. Unfortunately, many members of the profession still seem to be of the view that the longer the word, the more convoluted the paragraph, the denser the letter of advice - the more impressed the client!

Also I think the essay part is stupid because again people get different questions and I think some people will be unfairly disadvantaged if they don't know a great deal about any of the topics in the questions (I realise they'd still be able to write a fairly coherent essay but someone with more knowledge but the same level of intelligence and essay writing skill would surely be able to write a better one).

The essay part isn't about knowledge, though, is it? Many of them are fairly open-ended, and your ability to come up with a convincing, well-argued passage is more about your deconstruction of the question, and, basically, how you assemble the argument. You can't just cram the essay full of facts.

At least, that was my interpretation of it.