The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by LornaSandison1
Yes, why else would they use it? To measure the standard of your soufflé-making skills?


So you're telling me that you well and truly believe that being forced to answer questions on long, complicated pieces of text in a timed environment whilst under pressure is a good way of determining aptitude for a Law degree? I'll agree that determining how well somebody writes an essay is a good way of seeing if they'll be suited to a law degree, but the MCQ section most definitely is not.

This argument has been done to death before, but I find it hard to believe that somebody can actually think that the LNAT is a good way of seeing aptitude for a Law degree.
Reply 1861
Original post by lastminute123
Hey sorry about your rejection, can I ask when you applied / sent off ur ucas?


4th of Nov, Lnat done on 18th of Nov i think
Original post by Doughnuts!!
So you're telling me that you well and truly believe that being forced to answer questions on long, complicated pieces of text in a timed environment whilst under pressure is a good way of determining aptitude for a Law degree? I'll agree that determining how well somebody writes an essay is a good way of seeing if they'll be suited to a law degree, but the MCQ section most definitely is not.

This argument has been done to death before, but I find it hard to believe that somebody can actually think that the LNAT is a good way of seeing aptitude for a Law degree.


The essay is useful for obvious reasons, and the MCQs because they involve critical thinking and interpretation, which are also vital for a law degree. However, I agree with you when you say that the time pressure is not really akin to a law degree.

But that wasn't my point. Whether or not we think the LNAT is a good indicator of ability is irrelevant. The fact is, that that is what the university admissions tutors use it to assess, and you can't change that.
Reply 1863
Original post by TimmonaPortella
The fact is that if more private school kids are represented then they are the better candidates. They deserve to be better represented. I see nothing fair in saying that the candidates with the greatest merit should make it, except when they had the benefit of private schooling.
If you work hard enough you can get into the top uni's from any background, anyway.

Not that these 'issues' of social fairness are for the law firms to deal with in their recruitment policy. Private companies hire the best workers available; if they happen to come from a rich background, you don't really have any ground for complaint while they were hiring on merit. To be honest, you wouldn't really have any ground for complaint if they were hiring purely based on the affluence of the candidate. It's a private company.

I disagree with this drive to give kids the same opportunities, to be honest, if by that you mean abolish private schools and make state school attendance mandatory. I cannot agree with the state interfering in private transactions and arrangements in such a way.
Besides which, whatever you do, you will never control conditions to the extent that all opportunities can be fair. People will always come from different backgrounds; there will be some read to and made to read more as children, some whose parents will spend time counting and adding with them and some whose won't. How will you control those factors?


"If you work hard enough" has it's own problems.
For example, I often hear people say things like "if you're intelligent but poor, go to a grammar school" but the fact is, intelligent kids from poor backgrounds simply won't get that chance usually, as their parents won't apply for them. "Working hard" will not get you there on it's own, you need to have the motivation to do so.

Again, I don't think it's the responsibility of firms to attempt to right the situation, and I agree, best candidate for the job. I would advocate the scrapping of private insitutions, and enforce state schooling throughout. I understand the issues surrounding some people will still gain access to extra help, but that's something that cannot be helped, and I'd rather level the field at the intial stage than do nothing at all.

I also understand the argument "people who don't want to learn, won't, and will affect others" but the converse is also possible, and seems to be the case in places like Finland.
Reply 1864
Original post by Doughnuts!!
So you're telling me that you well and truly believe that being forced to answer questions on long, complicated pieces of text in a timed environment whilst under pressure is a good way of determining aptitude for a Law degree? I'll agree that determining how well somebody writes an essay is a good way of seeing if they'll be suited to a law degree, but the MCQ section most definitely is not.

This argument has been done to death before, but I find it hard to believe that somebody can actually think that the LNAT is a good way of seeing aptitude for a Law degree.


It at least tests one's ability to read, and write, with both having to be done under timed conditions, pressure on, and the reading part is possibly the hardest exam we'll ever have to do.

I think it's very useful, at least, now there are 42 it is. Before, the ambiguous questions could wreck your entire application, but with more questions, you get more 50/50s correct.
Original post by Mann18
"If you work hard enough" has it's own problems.
For example, I often hear people say things like "if you're intelligent but poor, go to a grammar school" but the fact is, intelligent kids from poor backgrounds simply won't get that chance usually, as their parents won't apply for them. "Working hard" will not get you there on it's own, you need to have the motivation to do so.

Again, I don't think it's the responsibility of firms to attempt to right the situation, and I agree, best candidate for the job. I would advocate the scrapping of private insitutions, and enforce state schooling throughout. I understand the issues surrounding some people will still gain access to extra help, but that's something that cannot be helped, and I'd rather level the field at the intial stage than do nothing at all.

I also understand the argument "people who don't want to learn, won't, and will affect others" but the converse is also possible, and seems to be the case in places like Finland.


Seems like we're more similar than we were previously willing to admit... :beard:

I just want to jump in to the debate and say that privately educated people are indeed misrepresented in the top professions and I think that it's unfair. It's unfortunate that because they can afford to buy better schooling at a young age- and therefore end up having more opportunities available to them- they end up at better unis and with better jobs. Of course law firms should only recruit from the top universities (which will of course have the highest proportion of privately educated people) but I think that more should be done to help state schooled students get to these top universities.

Original post by LornaSandison1
The essay is useful for obvious reasons, and the MCQs because they involve critical thinking and interpretation, which are also vital for a law degree. However, I agree with you when you say that the time pressure is not really akin to a law degree.

But that wasn't my point. Whether or not we think the LNAT is a good indicator of ability is irrelevant. The fact is, that that is what the university admissions tutors use it to assess, and you can't change that.


My original point was that I couldn't believe that you genuinely believed that it helped indicate aptitude for Law.

Meh, let's just agree to disagree.
Original post by Mann18
It at least tests one's ability to read, and write, with both having to be done under timed conditions, pressure on, and the reading part is possibly the hardest exam we'll ever have to do.

I think it's very useful, at least, now there are 42 it is. Before, the ambiguous questions could wreck your entire application, but with more questions, you get more 50/50s correct.


Maybe I was wrong about us being similar then! :p:

I think it should be replaced with a better exam tbh. OR unis should accept candidates with lower percentages than last year as we're the first year to have 42 Q's.
Just got an AAAB offer from King's College London.

Came through as an email from their MyApplication service a few minutes ago, but not on track yet.
Original post by Doughnuts!!
Seems like we're more similar than we were previously willing to admit... :beard:

I just want to jump in to the debate and say that privately educated people are indeed misrepresented in the top professions and I think that it's unfair. It's unfortunate that because they can afford to buy better schooling at a young age- and therefore end up having more opportunities available to them- they end up at better unis and with better jobs. Of course law firms should only recruit from the top universities (which will of course have the highest proportion of privately educated people) but I think that more should be done to help state schooled students get to these top universities.



My original point was that I couldn't believe that you genuinely believed that it helped indicate aptitude for Law.

Meh, let's just agree to disagree.


That's not what I believe. I personally am not 100% d'accord with the LNAT either, but unfortuantely what I think won't change how the exam is used in the selection process.

But ok, I'm cool with that.
(edited 13 years ago)
Original post by Doughnuts!!
Maybe I was wrong about us being similar then! :p:

I think it should be replaced with a better exam tbh. OR unis should accept candidates with lower percentages than last year as we're the first year to have 42 Q's.


That's flawed logic. Everyone is in the same boat with regards to the LNAT, so universities will still pick the best candidates even if their percentages are, on average, lower.
Original post by adamlaw
Hello :smile: Congrats on Cambridge and LSE!! Unfortunately, I was rejected by UCL too. However I'm not sure if it is because of my LNAT. May I ask if your reason for rejection frm UCL explicitly stated that it was due to your LNAT?


Hey!
Thank you very much, I was so happy with those offers so I will now forget about UCL
Yes they said that it was due to my LNAT not meeting the requirements so kind of expecting a rejection from Kings as well
Why did UCL reject you?
Also did you get a Cambridge offer? If so what college?

Good luck with everything btw! x
Original post by LornaSandison1
That's flawed logic. Everyone is in the same boat with regards to the LNAT, so universities will still pick the best candidates even if their percentages are, on average, lower.


Well no, it's not flawed as I essentially meant what you just stated. Of course universities should pick the best candidates, but they should be more understanding of the increased Q's.

Example:

KCL were known to accept people with just over 50% last year. They should lower their least acceptable mark to say 50%.

Spoiler

Reply 1872
Original post by Doughnuts!!
Well no, it's not flawed as I essentially meant what you just stated. Of course universities should pick the best candidates, but they should be more understanding of the increased Q's.

Example:

KCL were known to accept people with just over 50% last year. They should lower their least acceptable mark to say 50%.

Spoiler



The LNAT is by no means perfect.

However, it is up to individual universities to interpret the results. Indeed some put greater emphasis on the essay than others for example.

I am a firm believer that the LNAT can be useful for testing potential.
Original post by Doughnuts!!
Well no, it's not flawed as I essentially meant what you just stated. Of course universities should pick the best candidates, but they should be more understanding of the increased Q's.

Example:

KCL were known to accept people with just over 50% last year. They should lower their least acceptable mark to say 50%.

Spoiler



They should only do so if the results reflect a lower average than last year. If not, then they would have no reason to.

Spoiler

Original post by Milkplus-Mesto
Just got an AAAB offer from King's College London.

Came through as an email from their MyApplication service a few minutes ago, but not on track yet.


Nice one :smile:
Very jealous haha.
Original post by Howellsy
Have you to get an offer, however I'm staying optimistic because it's not like I've had 5 rejections.


Hey! I'm a Hertford Law with LSE (post-interview) reject too. Which language did you go for?
Reply 1876
Original post by TimmonaPortella
Snap. And I took the LNAT early too.


What are you grades like?
Original post by mizzlfp
What are you grades like?


They're in my sig :smile:
Reply 1878
Original post by TimmonaPortella
They're in my sig :smile:


Think I already asked you this... no wonder no uni wants me, clearly have no brain!
So are you predicted like... 7 A*s at A level?
Original post by mizzlfp
Think I already asked you this... no wonder no uni wants me, clearly have no brain!
So are you predicted like... 7 A*s at A level?


A*A*A*A*Aaa*
A in general studies, a in AS further maths, a* in EPQ.

I'll probably realistically only get A*A*AAAaa/A*A*A*AAaa though.

However, I do only have A*A*AABBBBC at GCSE, so it balances out :colonhash: