Thoughts on the LNAT

Just thought I'd set up a thread so people can say what they thought of the LNAT - either those of you who have sat it, planning on sitting it, or just want to make a comment about it. Here are my thoughts:

I believe that the LNAT is not the right test to determine whether to accept applicants for law for a number of reasons:

1. It has nothing to do with law. I know that it may seem difficult to establish a law test when the people sitting it would have had very little (or even no) experience of law. However, if the test required candidates to read a legal judgement or an extract from a legal textbook, and then answer questions then it would hold some relevance to law.

2. The LNAT claims to test analytical skills. I think it would be difficult for a candidate applying to the top Unis not to be taking analytical subjects. All subjects from maths to history require an element of analysis, and law is not at all concerned exclusively with analysis.

3. One of the main reasons that the LNAT was formulated was because the top Unis needed an application test to narrow down their applicants. This would seem to hold some ground as universities such as Oxbridge require the test. However, universities such as Manchester metropolitan and Norwich (from 2007) will require the test, and I think we can safely say that these universities are not ones that have overwhelming numbers of admissions. Also, some of the very top universitites don't require the test, such as LSE and Warwick (which has 20 applicants per place!).

4. Some tests will be harder than others. This is inevitable with dozens of different tests taken on different days. Instead, one test sat on one day is needed, to ensure a uniformity of fairness.

5. Candidates applying to Oxbridge will have to sit the LNAT especially early, meaning they will only have 2/3 weeks to prepare. Surely this is no where near as good an indicator as an AS, where the candidate has had nearly a year to prepare.

It really does seem to me as though the universitites using this test just use the LNAT as they need a way to sort through their applicants, and the LNAT is the quikest way of doing this. But this is just my opinion, say what you think!

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Crazy Mongoose

I actually quite liked the LNAT. It really is that rare thing, a test you cannot prepare for.

Reply 2

slsl

Its a good test, but unfair towards students applying who do not speak english as a mother tongue (like myself)

Reply 3

Colly

don't mean to be rude but if you have trouble with the level of english needed for the lnat do you not think you'll struggle with studying law at university

Reply 4

jeffreyweingard

Colly

don't mean to be rude but if you have trouble with the level of english needed for the lnat do you not think you'll struggle with studying law at university

slsl just said it is unfair to foreign students and didn't say that he/she struggled.

Reply 5

Colly

well the point still stands, if any student struggles with the english needed for the lnat they'll struggle studying law imo

Reply 6

Blondie22

uea, norwich has been doing it from the start one of the universties that made it up, shows how LITTLE the op knows about it and probably universties in general.

Reply 7

Rich*a

i thought it was pointless really as i dont feel it changed my application much.. i got a very very poor 11/30 and still managed to get on a course that takes 6 ppl, with average AS grades!

Reply 8

TommehR

I think the test is quite effective to be honest. Universities wouldn't use it if they didn't find it useful. You need to bear in mind that it only makes up one part of the application process. An average (or worse) LNAT score in no way precludes your acceptance into a prestigious Law school in the same way that an excellent score in no way guarantees a place.

1. You've provided the answer to your own point here. People applying to university to do Law will generally not have studied any Law. To devise a Law test for such people would be futile. You are going to university to learn the Law. You shouldn't have to know Law already to get into university. Even if you got candidates to read a legal judgement you would still be testing the same analytical skills that the questions, at present do. You wouldn't be able to ask questions about legal principles as people just wouldn't know them.

2. I agree with you about other subjects requiring analytical skills. However, I think in most subjects these analytical skills are prerequisites for answering questions rather than they themselves being tested which is what the LNAT tries to do. I personally think that most subjects should have admissions tests which test analytical skills.

3. Why shouldn't other Schools use it as part of the application process? It'll give the universities another aspect with which to judge candidates.

4. I see where you are coming from but I think that on the whole this isn't really going to be a problem. The test has been designed in such a way so as to try and eradicate any discrepancies. Everybody is going to find different things simpler than others and thus there is a variety of different questions type designed to assess as wide a range as possible.

5. I'm sorry, I don't understand this at all. Why would somebody applying to Oxbridge only have 2/3 weeks to prepare? If somebody knows that they want to do Law from quite early on (as I imagine a lot of Oxbridge candidates do) then they will already know that they have to do the LNAT and so will have as much time as the want to prepare. Besides, at the end of the day, short of doing practice papers and reading some Critical Thinking books, there isn't really all that much you can do to prepare. The test is intended to test ability, not what you have been able to memorise.

As for the point about the LNAT disadvantaging those whose native language is not English, I would like to echo what others have said. If a person's adeptness at English poses a problem when taking the LNAT then it is unlikely that they will be able to fully engage with a Law degree which includes large amounts of reading of complex text.

Anyway, with a bit of luck JohnGardner will be along presently to respond more authoratatively as I believe he runs or plays a part in the running of the LNAT.

Reply 9

Happy1

i dont know how unis use it really... each weights it differently.

To be honest, law s far too competetive these days, and it must be incredibly difficult for the unis to try and choose the best candidates.

The only people disadvantaged by LNAT are those who find it very very very difficult and get very low scoes... people who probably shouldnt be applying for such an academic course anyway.... so surely it works in that respect.

Reply 10

SirScally

Just to throw my thoughts into the fray...

I think that the LNAT is an effective way of testing a person's aptitude for legal study. With hindsight, I find that when I am reading law reports and academic articles, I have to employ the types of skills that the questions in the LNAT are designed to force you to use. For example, the value of being able to sum up the main point of a writer's argument will be obvious to anyone who is studying law.

Regarding the point about preparation for the test. The whole point of the LNAT is that it is meant to be a test of raw ability. Of course there are various tactics to try and improve your score (e.g. critical thinking books, practice tests), but given that almost everyone taking the test will be doing such things, than it still evens out. The bell curve that shows the distribution of LNAT scores (available on the website) is a good indicator of the level playing field that is created.

Oh, and regarding the assertion that the test is just another way of whittling down applications - I know for certain that at Cambridge at least, the Colleges are still piloting the test, and are eagerly waiting to see how we (the first 'batch') all do in exams, before they start relying on the LNAT scores too heavily.

Best of luck with exams everybody! :biggrin:

Reply 11

different?

Personally i was not a fan of the LNAT, although i do see the need for some kind of test.

Reply 12

Benjy

Norwich has not been doing it from the start, look at their law school webstie. Shows how LITTLE you know Blondie 22.

Reply 13

TommehR

Benjy

Norwich has not been doing it from the start, look at their law school webstie. Shows how LITTLE you know Blondie 22.

Actually, this shows how little you know. University of East Anglia required the LNAT this year. It is not adopting it in 2007 as you seem to suggest. I shall quote from their website:

http://www.uea.ac.uk/menu/study_and_research/undergrad/ugprospectus/subjects/law.html

However, the Law School is a member of the National Admissions Test for Law Consortium (LNAT). In order to apply for a place at the Law School for entry in September 2006 on any of our undergraduate degrees, it will be necessary (in addition to having academic qualific ations such as A-levels) for an applicant to have sat the test at one of a number of test centres.

UEA was one of the eight original universities to use the LNAT. From the LNAT website:

http://www.lnat.ac.uk/changes.html

Three new participating universities (University of Glasgow, King's College London, Manchester Metropolitan University).

Stop making yourself seem more stupid.

Reply 14

pezz

didn't like the lnat-as for effectiveness-seems to be the case for the majority but as with any timed multiple choice-you will find people who on any other given day would score 11/12 but managed to score 20 on the day; and others vice versa-not that I fit into this category-with a modest above average score of mine.

Reply 15

Benjy

TommehR

Actually, this shows how little you know. University of East Anglia required the LNAT this year. It is not adopting it in 2007 as you seem to suggest. I shall quote from their website:

UEA was one of the eight original universities to use the LNAT. From the LNAT website:

Stop making yourself seem more stupid.

When have I ever said anything about the University of East Anglia?

The point I was trying to make was that there is inconsistency in the standard of universities using it. For example, universities such as Manchester metropolitan and, from 2007 Norwich will be using it and they cannot be considered as 'top' unis for law. No where in my original post did 'sugggest' or even mention anything about the university of East Anglia!