Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    'Relatively impervious to coaching' (http://www.lnat.ac.uk/faqs.html). In my opinion, after taking the sample test, this is an incredibly inaccurate assertion from the LNAT consortium (the group responsible for the test's development).
    I believe this test, like any other test, requires those being tested to display a certain degree of knowledge in a certain field. Even though the founders of this test claim it is testing ‘fundamental intellectual skills’, these skills are still being tested via an examination which ascertains the level of a law applicant's 'fundamental intellectual skills' basing them inexorably on previously ascertained knowledge (otherwise the skills could not be tested).
    Is it not true that an applicant with the following attributes will be more successful at the test:

    - Thorough experience of critical thinking and analysis
    - Thorough experience of formal texts
    - Knowledge of reasoning and structuring of arguments
    - Knowledge of logical functions such as induction and deduction

    Therefore, those who have been taught the basis of this knowledge (and acquired the fundamental skills tested in the exam) will consequently fare more favourably than those who have not been taught in a certain way and acquired the required skills for success in the LNAT. This has two main implications:

    1- This test is not fair to those whose exposure to logically based texts involving elements such as exposure of solecisms is limited. This disadvantaged group (who otherwise have an equally high intellectual capacity as others) would mainly be composed of applicants whose backgrounds or schooling has not introduced them greatly to the aforementioned elements of thought.

    2- There is an opportunity now for those taking the test to improve their performance in the actual exam through careful familiarisation with the format and concepts related to the exam.

    Does anyone else have thoughts on this matter?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    i agree entirely with everything you've said. The fact that the tests rely on passages so long means that it is likely to be even easier to manipulate with coaching. What I find infuriating is the belief that these tests aren't 'impervious to coaching' when in fact there is a very real strategy to them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I agree
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone whos got experience of critical analysis from an english/history curriculum will find this test achievable.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Anyone whos got experience of critical analysis from an english/history curriculum will find this test achievable.
    Out of interest have you looked at the test? I only do English out of those two subjects and managed to get 19/24, whereas a friend doing Eng, History and Theology (which one would assume is the best prep.) got 11/24. While I think people can MASSIVELY improve their performance on these tests, some people are naturally better at them.

    Out of interest; what kind of scores are people getting on the practise test? What does everyone think is the easiest/hardest passage- for me the easiest was definitely Writing for Children but I found some passages quite hard.

    What does everyone think of the essays?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I got 17/24. The test is fundamentally based on how effectively you're able to discern each individual passage- this gets progressively difficult the more time you've spent on the test and when you're on the fifth or sixth passage you have to concentrate a lot harder (at least, that was my experience). I also found questions where you have to say what was NOT expressed or stated a lot harder because each of the statements' connotations were so similar.
    The essays were very topical and I reckon there was a good selection there (albeit, a selection favouring those with political knowledge). I think I did pretty well on the essay, but it's really the multiple-choice that counts (especially if you're applying to Oxford where they'll be using it to pre-select applicants for interviews).
    In effect, continuous practise (not on the same questions but on different types of questions involving critical thinking) under timed-conditions will yield the best results in the actual test. I recommend either downloading A level critical thinking sample questions (from http://www.ocr.org.uk/OCR/WebSite/do...ver=PRODUKTION) or sample LSAT papers (the US equivalent of LNAT) from http://www.uea.ac.uk/law/support_pages/law_test.html
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah I definitely agree about the not questions being more difficult, although i found the nearest/closest to be the hardest. I thought passage 7 was tough, but 8 was ok. 4 was the best.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    To me it seems that profeciency in English would be a big help in this test; which if nything prejudices against those who do Science A-levels.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    To me it seems that profeciency in English would be a big help in this test; which if nything prejudices against those who do Science A-levels.
    Which just help fuel the old universities who prefer candidates to have English and history, which is probably quite a few of the universities in this scheme anyway.

    I would like to know the most popular A level(s) choices of the most successful law graduates based on their degree classification as a percentage.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    At Cambridge some colleges prefer students to have a science, and all of them have a penchant for students who offer complimentary AND contrasting A Levels. Most of the top universities are apparently very sceptical of applicants who offer two or three perceived 'doss' subjects.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    lucid, I completely agree with what you've both said. I had some time on my hands recently and I went through the preparation class notes and books that my older brother had for the GRE, a US test for entrance into general graduate level courses i.e. not law,medicine or business. I'm sure that this preparation albeit minor helped me with a few points that I would have otherwise missed. I scored 20 by the way which I was very pleased with. The books he had were quite expensive and you only really need the reading comprehension and general tips section. He had the Princeton Review prep book which was the goodie. www.cataga.co.uk is doing a book although it is not on sale and I don't know if it would be ready in time for us. I guess we'll see soon. Does anyone know if Kaplan will be doing a book? Is anyone else? I checked out the AS level critical reasoning text book, it has too much unrelated stuff to be really appropriate, but if any University professor at those law schools would like to do us a favour....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    Which just help fuel the old universities who prefer candidates to have English and history, which is probably quite a few of the universities in this scheme anyway.

    I would like to know the most popular A level(s) choices of the most successful law graduates based on their degree classification as a percentage.
    Hey ill join ur law society ... i'm starting my 2nd yr of a-levels and hoping to go onto Law at uni
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by feistyfeline)
    Hey ill join ur law society ... i'm starting my 2nd yr of a-levels and hoping to go onto Law at uni
    Cool I'll add you to the members list :cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What does everyone think of the essays?[/QUOTE]


    Those essays are absolute rubbish and have got nothing to do with law in form or substance.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Six Dinners Sid)
    Those essays are absolute rubbish and have got nothing to do with law in form or substance.
    Certainly nothing to do with law in substance - and rightly so. The test is meant to test ones ability to think critically and argue, not to test their knowledge of law.

    As for form, there are similarities to law. You are asked to argue and that involves testing and criticising various arguments. That is something which is required in law and, indeed, most other subjects. You would be surprised that the vast majority of the population cannot argue. It is easy to get good A levels without this ability. You may well succeed in a career without this ability. What you cannot do, however, is successfully see your way through a law degree without being able to argue. The LNAT, therefore, gauges an ability that A levels do not, and this is why it should prove useful.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by muncrun)
    What you cannot do, however, is successfully see your way through a law degree without being able to argue. The LNAT, therefore, gauges an ability that A levels do not, and this is why it should prove useful.
    I guess you could argue that this can be used to see the ones who achieve AAA who would do poor at university and those who may even have lower grades who could be better off at university such as AAB.

    I'm rather curious about this test. Might take it for fun in the future
 
 
 

University open days

  • University of Exeter
    Undergraduate Open Days - Exeter Campus Undergraduate
    Wed, 24 Oct '18
  • University of Bradford
    Faculty of Health Studies Postgraduate
    Wed, 24 Oct '18
  • Northumbria University
    All faculties Undergraduate
    Wed, 24 Oct '18
Poll
Who do you think it's more helpful to talk about mental health with?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.