This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Which uni is best for law in Uk?
- Low 2:1 in Law
- UCL, LSE OR KCL for law?
- Top unis for law with wrong a-levels
- Supercurriculars
- Firm Choice
- Second Bachelors Degree at Oxbridge? (2.1 from mid/top RG uni)
- Academic requirement for senior status law
- Which universities are targeted by employers?
- Obsessed with Oxbridge?
- Durham Law Job Prospects
- Best universities for magic circle law firms
- UCL VS LSE employability
- Realistic advice for economics
- Do I have a chance at getting into Oxford Law?
- Law vacation schemes
- How good/elite is the University of St. Andrews?
- A level options
- Oxbridge
- how to better my university application
Note to prospective Oxbridge law applicants in 2008
dont be put off by what you read here about the LNAT... just as you should not feel encouraged by any of it.
To take a pretty extreme example....
friend of mine applied with 9A*'s and 1A at GCSE, 5A's at AS and prediction of 4A's at A level. Got 25/30 on the LNAT and was rejected from Oxford. Those who have done the research will also see that there are people on here who at least claim to have offers with below average scores.
conclusion.... its only worth as much as the bloke who picks up the paper to look at your application thinks it is.
To take a pretty extreme example....
friend of mine applied with 9A*'s and 1A at GCSE, 5A's at AS and prediction of 4A's at A level. Got 25/30 on the LNAT and was rejected from Oxford. Those who have done the research will also see that there are people on here who at least claim to have offers with below average scores.
conclusion.... its only worth as much as the bloke who picks up the paper to look at your application thinks it is.
Scroll to see replies
I diagree, there are many people on this forum who have got average or below average LNAT scores and got interviews. Although their are people who did badly who may have got interviewd had they done better thats not my point.... what i think people dont appreciate when they apply for law (certainly in the school i come from anyway) is that with teh LNAT you can only prepare so much and at the end of teh day differnt admissions staff consider it in very different lights.... so dont be put off by the LNAT, you get what you get and as its an apptitude test i think most would agree the help of preparation (bar the essay part) is pretty pointless lol
The LNAT is very important. Okay, Oxbridge is a bit different as it doesn't seem to factor so much into their final decision but it can have an effect when they are deciding whether or not to interview you. Yes, there are exceptions but they probably have exceptional applications, disregarding the LNAT. Not to mention the LNAT is vitally important to some of the other LNAT universities.
I got 13 on the LNAT and got an interview, so yes it can be done.
You made a point about school only being able to prepare you a certain amount. That's the whole damn point of the LNAT. With most A-levels they can basially train you to be a performing seal: expert in jumping through hoops and picking up nigh on full marks.
As the poster above said, she got an interview, but did she get an offer, I don't know? There is a large difference (even at Oxford). Perhaps they only look at your LNAT once they have made their decision to invite you to interview so that they dont get accused (again) of unjustified prejudice against applicants with certain attributes on their forms. AFter all, they must be sick of people knocking them down for one thing ofr another in their admissions process. Who the hell knows, and tbh, who cares. You got an offer or you didn't... it is factually irrelevant what stage you got to. Different colleges will use different things. Get over it.
As the poster above said, she got an interview, but did she get an offer, I don't know? There is a large difference (even at Oxford). Perhaps they only look at your LNAT once they have made their decision to invite you to interview so that they dont get accused (again) of unjustified prejudice against applicants with certain attributes on their forms. AFter all, they must be sick of people knocking them down for one thing ofr another in their admissions process. Who the hell knows, and tbh, who cares. You got an offer or you didn't... it is factually irrelevant what stage you got to. Different colleges will use different things. Get over it.
ytm8
dont be put off by what you read here about the LNAT... just as you should not feel encouraged by any of it.
To take a pretty extreme example....
friend of mine applied with 9A*'s and 1A at GCSE, 5A's at AS and prediction of 4A's at A level. Got 25/30 on the LNAT and was rejected from Oxford. Those who have done the research will also see that there are people on here who at least claim to have offers with below average scores.
conclusion.... its only worth as much as the bloke who picks up the paper to look at your application thinks it is.
To take a pretty extreme example....
friend of mine applied with 9A*'s and 1A at GCSE, 5A's at AS and prediction of 4A's at A level. Got 25/30 on the LNAT and was rejected from Oxford. Those who have done the research will also see that there are people on here who at least claim to have offers with below average scores.
conclusion.... its only worth as much as the bloke who picks up the paper to look at your application thinks it is.
This is horrible advice and i hope that very few potential applicants of Oxbridge for 08 read it.
Yes there are occasions when people with an excellent LNAT score (and grades etc) get rejected from interviews but there are, very probably, far more people with low LNAT scores who get rejected.
And it is also true that a good LNAT score doesnt guarentee you anything, but neither does a bad one! The only difference is that a good score can contribute to your chances of getting accepted into oxbridge, whereas a bad one can damage them. So it is absolutely worth being concerned about (and worried, if being worried motivates you to practise for it).
(To the Poster: An example of a rejected applicant with a really good LNAT score only proves that people with high scores CAN get rejected but there are probably plenty more examples of people with high LNAT scores who actually got offers).
Molière
I got 23 and no interview. Maybe wrong college?
wrong college / bad luck or crappy application. seems harsh thou. but this is exactly my point, you can do good o bad in the lnat and still get interviews or rejected! people should not be so hung up on it, seems to me like the universitys who seriously consider the LNAT are the top-middle ones such as your Bristols and Nottingham etc.
Molière
I disagree. If you have a below average LNAT, you won't even get an interview. Make sure you work hard on it and do well.
I disagree - LNAT scores are only 1 factor...
I got an interview at Clare, Cambridge with a really poor LNAT and just got an offer from Bristol aswell!!!! So other things can make up for that, eg my Alevel courses are good/good ps etc.
Mensan1
And it is also true that a good LNAT score doesnt guarentee you anything, but neither does a bad one! The only difference is that a good score can contribute to your chances of getting accepted into oxbridge, whereas a bad one can damage them. So it is absolutely worth being concerned about (and worried, if being worried motivates you to practise for it).
QUOTE]
There is only so much practise you can do, ulitmately it tests your skills and natural ability, therefore i think if you dont do well on it, you are either unlucky, it wasnt your day or you arent good enough.
I've been told that someone was rejected from Oxford on the basis of LNAT, he then reapplied the year after, was given a place and then received the highest first in the year (possibly "ever" but that might not be true)
So don't base everything on LNAT when applying.
I was rejected from Ox after interview based on my LNAT "not being as high as some of the other applicants" (from feedback)
However I think my 2nd interview performance was also a factor.
They say it and it's true... its a combination of everything.
So don't focus on some things and ignore others, but remember LNAT isn't everything.
So don't base everything on LNAT when applying.
I was rejected from Ox after interview based on my LNAT "not being as high as some of the other applicants" (from feedback)
However I think my 2nd interview performance was also a factor.
They say it and it's true... its a combination of everything.
So don't focus on some things and ignore others, but remember LNAT isn't everything.
There are plenty of oxbridge stories like that floating around. How many of them are actually true, and how many of them were simply made up or exaggerated is debateable.
The "story" above was told to me by a trainee I work with who went to Oxford... so I assume he is more likely to know what hes talking about!
The prof. involved who rejected the person was Alan Bogg... fellow at hetford college.
either way I was just making a point that LNAT isn't the be all and end all... its got to be a well balanced application.
The prof. involved who rejected the person was Alan Bogg... fellow at hetford college.
either way I was just making a point that LNAT isn't the be all and end all... its got to be a well balanced application.
I didn't expressly say your's was made up, and clearly you have proved me wrong... however, there are plenty of really silly stories out there which exist in about 3 different forms concerning admissions which are dodgy.
Whether you actually said it or not is beside the point you implied that almost all the information regarding applications were questionable if not crap.
I was simply proving the contrary to offer hope to those with lower LNAT scores.
(I haven't heard any others, so I wouldn't know anyway)
I was simply proving the contrary to offer hope to those with lower LNAT scores.
(I haven't heard any others, so I wouldn't know anyway)
Why are you so damn confrontational? Seriously, if you had said that in your original post I would never have questioned it! However, there are plenty of so called "stories" out there which are either not true or exaggerated, as indicated by the vast number of variations which exist on pretty much the same background. I said it was debateable how true they are,,, I suggest you learn to interpret simple words, you must really struggle with statutory/judicial language.
I merely said it as a warning to people not to believe everything they hear. Which is fair enough especially in this case. If he did well in LnAT the next year, then well done him... the fact is he got rejected when he did badly and there's no way of knowing you will do better next year, or better in interview etc. Bye.
I merely said it as a warning to people not to believe everything they hear. Which is fair enough especially in this case. If he did well in LnAT the next year, then well done him... the fact is he got rejected when he did badly and there's no way of knowing you will do better next year, or better in interview etc. Bye.
Three points:
1. When I was interviewed at Oxford in December, there were apparently 30 candidates for 6 places. Presumably all were plausible candidates.
2. Entry to Oxbridge not only needs an element of luck, but is a privilege, not a right for those who get the requisite grades. That said, the factors considered are a lot broader than 20 years ago, when, for example, you didn't do a personal statement. I don't remember UCCA (UCAS' predecessor) using references, either, and certainly not the 3 I had to submit for Oxford.
3. When I did my first degree at Cambridge, I never met anyone who I thought was too dim to be there. I met plenty of people who seemed far brainier than me (and I was top of my year at school for all 3 of my subjects); there were many undergraduates who had obviously had a better secondary education than me; and quite a few who, although higher academic achievers than I was, had absolutely no personality or savoir-vivre and would probably never do well in life by most normal people's standards.
1. When I was interviewed at Oxford in December, there were apparently 30 candidates for 6 places. Presumably all were plausible candidates.
2. Entry to Oxbridge not only needs an element of luck, but is a privilege, not a right for those who get the requisite grades. That said, the factors considered are a lot broader than 20 years ago, when, for example, you didn't do a personal statement. I don't remember UCCA (UCAS' predecessor) using references, either, and certainly not the 3 I had to submit for Oxford.
3. When I did my first degree at Cambridge, I never met anyone who I thought was too dim to be there. I met plenty of people who seemed far brainier than me (and I was top of my year at school for all 3 of my subjects); there were many undergraduates who had obviously had a better secondary education than me; and quite a few who, although higher academic achievers than I was, had absolutely no personality or savoir-vivre and would probably never do well in life by most normal people's standards.
Related discussions
- Which uni is best for law in Uk?
- Low 2:1 in Law
- UCL, LSE OR KCL for law?
- Top unis for law with wrong a-levels
- Supercurriculars
- Firm Choice
- Second Bachelors Degree at Oxbridge? (2.1 from mid/top RG uni)
- Academic requirement for senior status law
- Which universities are targeted by employers?
- Obsessed with Oxbridge?
- Durham Law Job Prospects
- Best universities for magic circle law firms
- UCL VS LSE employability
- Realistic advice for economics
- Do I have a chance at getting into Oxford Law?
- Law vacation schemes
- How good/elite is the University of St. Andrews?
- A level options
- Oxbridge
- how to better my university application
