The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Law Applicants 2011 Offer Thread

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Doughnuts!!
But the interview sees how your thought process works and tests your legal reasoning skills whilst the LNAT most definitely does not?


Well, surely the LNAT also tests one's thought process, just more indirectly than an interview does. Aside from a wild guess, you won't get the question right unless you think through it properly. As for legal reasoning skills, I'm not sure I agree - the topics you discuss in an interview may be legal in nature, but the interviewer can't ask you anything about the law as such, since it is assumed that no one has studied it. So I'd say that both the LNAT and interview test very similar things.
Original post by LornaSandison1
Ah, that sounds good. My main worry was that some candidates might take the question very much on face value. :P


I quite enjoyed the essay question, although the multiple-choice texts weren't that bad.
Original post by jimmyatemyworld
They may not be able to do it with renowned barristers but they can do it abroad! It's called getting a job and saving to do it! The UK only has relative poverty and due to benefits I'm sure there is no one who has to get a job to aid their parents at 16/17.


I don't think that's wholly relevant, to be honest. Whilst universities might see work experience abroad as 'impressive', it's unlikely to affect the outcome of your application, at least for the top universities.
Original post by micky022
I quite enjoyed the essay question, although the multiple-choice texts weren't that bad.


Glad you did. I hated it all!
I just got my first offer! Unconditional, from King's! Oh, I'm so relieved, I thought my LNAT was awful (I still don't know how I did, they didn't tell me), and that my application was too late, but I guess something somewhere in my application was okay in the end.
Reply 2025
Avatar for Nicola21
Nicola21
Just received an offer from London School of Economics! So shocked!!

I now have 3 offers :biggrin:
Reply 2026
Avatar for mizzlfp
mizzlfp
Reckon UCAS has just lost me in translation somewhere
Original post by LornaSandison1
Well, surely the LNAT also tests one's thought process, just more indirectly than an interview does. Aside from a wild guess, you won't get the question right unless you think through it properly. As for legal reasoning skills, I'm not sure I agree - the topics you discuss in an interview may be legal in nature, but the interviewer can't ask you anything about the law as such, since it is assumed that no one has studied it. So I'd say that both the LNAT and interview test very similar things.


But the interview does test legal reasoning skills: by working through a legal problem, you're displaying logic skills and showing that you can think in the way a Law degree needs you to be able to think. The LNAT doesn't test that.

I think that we're never going to agree tbh. :colonhash:
Original post by Nicola21
Just received an offer from London School of Economics! So shocked!!

I now have 3 offers :biggrin:



Original post by jennie_lin
I just got my first offer! Unconditional, from King's! Oh, I'm so relieved, I thought my LNAT was awful (I still don't know how I did, they didn't tell me), and that my application was too late, but I guess something somewhere in my application was okay in the end.


I am very happy for you both :smile:
Original post by Doughnuts!!
But the interview does test legal reasoning skills: by working through a legal problem, you're displaying logic skills and showing that you can think in the way a Law degree needs you to be able to think. The LNAT doesn't test that.

I think that we're never going to agree tbh. :colonhash:


There are other texts aside from legal ones that necessitate logical thinking and critical reasoning. Perhaps the LNAT would be better using texts that are more legal in nature, but I don't see anything too wrong with being able to analyse a range of texts.

Maybe.
Original post by jennie_lin

Original post by jennie_lin
I just got my first offer! Unconditional, from King's! Oh, I'm so relieved, I thought my LNAT was awful (I still don't know how I did, they didn't tell me), and that my application was too late, but I guess something somewhere in my application was okay in the end.


Well done!!!!!!! What are your A-Levels if I may ask? I'm still waiting for King's and Queen Mary, I guess waiting is better than a rejection lol.
Reply 2031
Avatar for Nicola21
Nicola21
Original post by Potiron
I am very happy for you both :smile:



Thank you :smile:
Original post by LornaSandison1
There are other texts aside from legal ones that necessitate logical thinking and critical reasoning. Perhaps the LNAT would be better using texts that are more legal in nature, but I don't see anything too wrong with being able to analyse a range of texts.

Maybe.


Interviews could make candidates go through any sort of logic based problemn and they'd still be better than the LNAT. My main beef with the LNAT is that:

•

It's not good enough at testing analysis skills as it's more about which answer is the most correct out of very similar answers. I'd prefer it if it the focus of it was less on differentiating betwen very similar answers and more on simply locating the conclusion etc.

•

They should also throw in some problem-solving questions.

Original post by High As A Kite
Hey, can someone take time to look at my sig and cast an opinion on what they would do? *in terms of firm/insurance* ... I know the decision lays with me so please don't rant! I just want to know what other people think, because it's good to gain other opinions.

I'm in the process of trying to get Sheffield to change my course to straight or international law.

thank you to those who have time --


1. Stop thinking about choices until you have all the info from Sheffield.

2. I see that 2 of your choices involve a year abroad. How important is that? If you really do want to go abroad I would have thought that experience would make the UEA/Sheffield (if you get the chance) your first choice and insurance. Studying abroad is a wonderful way to learn about another culture.

I have talked to one of the Sheffield staff comparing the straight Law and international Law. She said that the straight law course was more popular than the international course, possibly because it involved extra expense but she thought that the students who went abroad gained enormously from the experience. I was there with a family member but would have loved to have done the course myself.

3. What other factors do you want to consider? - Sheffield is a much cheaper place to live than Reading or Sussex. Sheffield seems to be really popular with the students who go there. Reading is a lovely campus. I know nothing about UEA apart from the fact that it is in EA and it is a well-respected university.

As I said before you really do need to wait for Sheffield's answer and then consider all the factors. Everyone has their own priorities. I know an international student who chose Sheffield because he was a lifelong fan of Sheffield Wednesday. A seemingly random reason but he loved the place and has done really well in the finance sector.

Good luck with your choice. Make it when you can. Then do not do anything about it until nearer the deadline
Original post by Doughnuts!!
Interviews could make candidates go through any sort of logic based problemn and they'd still be better than the LNAT. My main beef with the LNAT is that:

•

It's not good enough at testing analysis skills as it's more about which answer is the most correct out of very similar answers. I'd prefer it if it the focus of it was less on differentiating betwen very similar answers and more on simply locating the conclusion etc.

•

They should also throw in some problem-solving questions.



So it tests your ability to draw fine distinctions, which, in fact, is what studying law involves. 'Locating the conclusion', whilst I'm sure that is helpful (albeit very much like an OCR Critical Thinking exam), is not essentially what admissions tutors are looking for (in my opinion). You can be taught fairly quickly to find where an argument's reasons and conclusion are; drawing fine distinctions is something more of a skill that is not easily taught but is vital nonetheless.

What do you mean by problem-solving questions? How long do you want this exam to be?! :tongue:
Original post by High As A Kite
Hey, can someone take time to look at my sig and cast an opinion on what they would do? *in terms of firm/insurance* ... I know the decision lays with me so please don't rant! I just want to know what other people think, because it's good to gain other opinions.

I'm in the process of trying to get Sheffield to change my course to straight or international law.

thank you to those who have time --


Personally I would go with one of the year abroad options. There are so many people who graduate with law degrees these days, so I think having a year's experience abroad - particularly if you're learning another language - puts you a cut above the rest on the job market. It also helps broaden your knowledge about other cultures and the differences between legal systems and why they exist.

Yes, a year abroad does involve a little more expense (although the ERASMUS scheme is heavily subsidised) but in the end, I think it's worthwhile.

However, there are potential draw backs to going abroad:
- The distance from home, which can be a big problem for some people, I imagine.
- Particularly if you're going to a country where the language is not English, it can be a daunting experience. You will be prepared for your year abroad, but not fluent, so it will involve a lot of hard work to keep up with other students for whom the language comes naturally.

So I guess, as other answerers have said, it entirely depends on what you want to do. Go visit the universities and see where you feel most at home. You will do best at the place where you are happiest.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Doughnuts!!
But the interview does test legal reasoning skills: by working through a legal problem, you're displaying logic skills and showing that you can think in the way a Law degree needs you to be able to think. The LNAT doesn't test that.

I think that we're never going to agree tbh. :colonhash:


I am pretty sure their views on the LNAT would be different if they didn't hold an offer from UCL :tongue:
Unconditional for LSE.
o...m....g! :biggrin:
Original post by Adelaide123
Unconditional for LSE.
o...m....g! :biggrin:


well done that is amazing :smile:
Original post by LornaSandison1
So it tests your ability to draw fine distinctions, which, in fact, is what studying law involves. 'Locating the conclusion', whilst I'm sure that is helpful (albeit very much like an OCR Critical Thinking exam), is not essentially what admissions tutors are looking for (in my opinion). You can be taught fairly quickly to find where an argument's reasons and conclusion are; drawing fine distinctions is something more of a skill that is not easily taught but is vital nonetheless.

What do you mean by problem-solving questions? How long do you want this exam to be?! :tongue:


:beard:

Fine, I'll agree that drawing fine distinctions is a good skill to have for a Law degree BUT the degree to which you need to do it in the LNAT is too much. Some questions are absolutely ridiculous in that you get 5 answers which can all be perfectly correct. Sure, when you're trying to work out the ratio decidendi in a long judgement, you'll need to employ those skills, but it will not be anwhere near as difficult as it is in many LNAT Q's.

Original post by teaandcoffee
I am pretty sure their views on the LNAT would be different if they didn't hold an offer from UCL :tongue:


Agreed. :rolleyes:

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you