Turn on thread page Beta

LSE LNAT 2019 *new* watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    not sure if anyone's noticed, for 2019 entry LSE law applicants are required to take the LNAT.

    the day has come, (screams).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    So it begins ... JohanGRK.

    OP, how did you find this out? Were you just checking their LLB 2019 page?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Doonesbury might this not be more appropriate in the law forum?

    Probably worthy of a sticky too. This will take many applicants by surprise.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    yes, it's published for 2019 entry
    (Original post by Notoriety)
    So it begins ... JohanGRK.

    OP, how did you find this out? Were you just checking their LLB 2019 page?
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Notoriety)
    Doonesbury might this not be more appropriate in the law forum?

    Probably worthy of a sticky too. This will take many applicants by surprise.
    Moved
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    "All applicants applying to study the LLB (course code M100) at LSE for entry in 2019 (or deferred entry in 2020) are required sit the Law National Admissions Test (LNAT). The LNAT is not required for any other programme at LSE.

    "Why has LSE introduced the LNAT?
    Each cycle LSE receives a very high volume of highly-qualified applicants to study the LLB. The LNAT will provide additional information about applicants’ aptitude for the study of law and is intended to be used alongside existing assessments in order to make fair admissions decisions."

    http://www.lse.ac.uk/study-at-lse/Un...y-Requirements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notoriety)
    So it begins ... JohanGRK.

    OP, how did you find this out? Were you just checking their LLB 2019 page?
    So returnmigrant was right all along... Blimey this was a surprise.

    Not sure what the implications will be w.r.t. the quality of applicant. While I'm happy that they're not using it as a cut-off like KCL, I think that they should at least bother reading the essays when it comes to the most borderline of decisions. The LNAT essay is written under timed conditions and cannot be proofread for any longer than a minute or two, unlike the personal statement. It does therefore give an indication as to the sophistication of the candidate.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohanGRK)
    So returnmigrant was right all along... Blimey this was a surprise.

    Not sure what the implications will be w.r.t. the quality of applicant. While I'm happy that they're not using it as a cut-off like KCL, I think that they should at least bother reading the essays when it comes to the most borderline of decisions. The LNAT essay is written under timed conditions and cannot be proofread for any longer than a minute or two, unlike the personal statement. It does therefore give an indication as to the sophistication of the candidate.
    Yes, seems returnmigrant has some inside sources and knew a few months before everyone else.

    I wonder why they did it. Probably the task of distinguishing between hundreds of similarly qualified students, with equally polished PSs, was difficult without the aid of interviews or the LNAT. I am not sure what this means for the applicant; I assume you will know better than me, but there are people who bomb the LNAT get rejected from the likes of Bristol and find their way onto the much more competitive LSE course. I recall two people saying that on here (I think one being flatlined). Maybe these people will have to go to Warwick or ... perhaps worse ... QMUL!

    Wonder if Cambridge will be influenced by this. The last elite course standing.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Notoriety)
    Wonder if Cambridge will be influenced by this. The last elite course standing.
    Influenced to do what? They used to use LNAT didn't they?

    Yep: https://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/news/00047...lnat-test.html
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Influenced to do what? They used to use LNAT didn't they?
    Yes, they stopped using it from 2009 onwards. But a decade is ancient history in education.

    I guess Cambridge might attract those applicants who are anxious about performing poorly on the LNAT. After all, if you've got 5 choices, why put Oxford as well as LSE/UCL/KCL/Durham, when you can put Cambridge and know that if you do perform terribly on the LNAT there is at least one elite school who might consider you.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Notoriety)
    Yes, they stopped using it from 2009 onwards. But a decade is ancient history in education.

    I guess Cambridge might attract those applicants who are anxious about performing poorly on the LNAT. After all, if you've got 5 choices, why put Oxford as well as LSE/UCL/KCL/Durham, when you can put Cambridge and know that if you do perform terribly on the LNAT there is at least one elite school who might consider you.
    Well if they didn't rate the LNAT I doubt they'd return to it... I haven't seen any data to confirm if the CLT is a better predictor of Tripos success, but I imagine it must be otherwise they'd have reverted.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doonesbury)
    Well if they didn't rate the LNAT I doubt they'd return to it... I haven't seen any data to confirm if the CLT is a better predictor of Tripos success, but I imagine it must be otherwise they'd have reverted.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I am not saying that they're likely to change anything. I was just wondering what the impact might be.

    But an argument for Cambridge possibly taking it up. Are the same people who were running admissions in 2008 (when the decision was made) still in place, has the standard of the LNAT improved?

    In 2006/2007 (essentially the year off which the 2008 decision was made) the average score was 8/30 (27%). In the next year, it jumped to 16.7/30 (56%). It seems like the incredibly low and inexpressive scores were an in-house problem when Cambridge made the decision, hence the sudden increase the next year. I say inexpressive because it was a test where everyone did badly -- well, what does that say? If this informed Cambridge's making the decision, it has evidently been fixed (it's around 50% nowadays). LSE has decided to take it up now, and Cambridge is the odd one out.

    EDIT: Reason Cambridge stopped using: "the multiple-choice section of the test do not provide sufficiently distinctive and useful information within the Cambridge admissions process to justify applicants being required to sit the LNAT and pay the fee involved in doing so" So it does seem to be tied to the low and thereby inexpressive scores which plagued early LNAT.

    The Cambridge model (as you know; I am just saying this to form the argument) is to interview the majority/all viable candidates. Suppose that fewer people do decide to apply to Oxford now the "safety" of LSE has been taken off the cards, Cambridge will have more applicants and more applicants to interview. They interview a decent number, based on the principle of giving everyone a chance. Now could they interview the same percentage of students, expose them to the CLT, if they suddenly have a 25% spike in applicants? Maybe they could handle a spike for an anomalous year, but a systemic increase? A pre-interview assessment may well be needed to filter out the lost causes.

    All conjecture and I don't really think they will or must go back to the LNAT, but an argument.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Just came back from a really satisfying poo which gave me the time to think about this somewhat more clearly.

    Things will be bad for applicants. Gone are the days when a person who saw themselves getting low scores in the LNAT could swap out, say, Durham or UCL for LSE so as to give themselves a chance. Adding an extra hurdle is never a good thing.

    Now, as to the impact on LSE, things get interesting. I predict the following:

    - LSE will start losing its outliers (i.e. the flatlineds of the world - people with low LNAT scores but great A-levels) by the implicit urge that must exist within admissions to give at least some weight to the LNAT MCQ. Hence, it will start competing with UCL/KCL/Durham more directly for firm offerholders. Is this good for either of the four unis? No. More offers to the same group of candidates --> lower yields --> higher offer rates to compensate. The university that may actually benefit from this is Bristol, with its push towards attracting A*AA applicants (i.e. people who will firm, not insure, their law course), and with its tolerance of *****y LNAT scores. But then again I don't see anyone turning down LSE or UCL (or even King's) for Bristol anytime soon. And this of course depends on whether LSE will be willing to take on the 4A* person with a 20 in the LNAT anyway (they probably will, in this climate).

    - Oxford may be hurt by this. As Notorious says, a person who doesn't feel that they're gonna do great on the LNAT will no longer see the Oxford + LSE + UCL/KCL/Durham combo as viable given that all three universities will be asking for a presumably high LNAT (Oxford and UCL both have averages at 26-27 points for offerholders, chances are that LSE will be around that level). Hence, you may see people who have no particular familial/geographical/educational attachment to Oxford as a uni going for Cambridge. However, the exact numbers will depend on a billion different factors, most importantly, how risk averse the applicant is, and whether they'd meet Cambridge's far more stringent formal academic criteria.

    - LSE will lose out on some of its mainland Chinese and other non-native-speaker applicants. You know, the people who scraped the UGAA and paid for a tailored personal statement. I can think of at least three of these "how the **** are these people here when they can barely express their thoughts in English" people on my course. Good riddance, I say. The only thing these people do is keep UCAS tariffs high and offer rates low (given that they'll undoubtedly fail an Oxbridge exam test and interview).

    - LSE may stop being the black horse of the law admissions process. A lot of people seem to either put it as an aspirational top choice, or don't put it on their five choices at all, because of the low offer rate and the few data points used in the selection process. A move towards the LNAT may change perceptions somewhat (even though this will have to be weighed against the people who only applied to LSE because admissions are so unpredictable who are now deterred by the LNAT).

    - I don't know whether the profile of successful candidates at LSE will shift towards countries with native English speakers because of the LNAT. It's a tricky test to do well in unless you're a careful reader and have a good command of the subtleties of a text (and good vocabulary for those irritatingly technical articles). There are no stats on average scores by country in which the test is sat, which is a shame

    - I really hope that LSE start rolling out more entrance tests across the board. That's just a personal hope. Either way, this is definitely a reversal of the "we don't wanna do entrance exams because rich people do better in them" bs you heard from their admissions people a few years back.

    P.S. The LNAT is a fantastically compromised test. It's the best example of 'good idea', bad execution I can think of outside the TEF.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JohanGRK)
    Just came back from a really satisfying poo which gave me the time to think about this somewhat more clearly.

    Things will be bad for applicants. Gone are the days when a person who saw themselves getting low scores in the LNAT could swap out, say, Durham or UCL for LSE so as to give themselves a chance. Adding an extra hurdle is never a good thing.

    Now, as to the impact on LSE, things get interesting. I predict the following:

    - LSE will start losing its outliers (i.e. the flatlineds of the world - people with low LNAT scores but great A-levels) by the implicit urge that must exist within admissions to give at least some weight to the LNAT MCQ. Hence, it will start competing with UCL/KCL/Durham more directly for firm offerholders. Is this good for either of the four unis? No. More offers to the same group of candidates --> lower yields --> higher offer rates to compensate. The university that may actually benefit from this is Bristol, with its push towards attracting A*AA applicants (i.e. people who will firm, not insure, their law course), and with its tolerance of *****y LNAT scores. But then again I don't see anyone turning down LSE or UCL (or even King's) for Bristol anytime soon. And this of course depends on whether LSE will be willing to take on the 4A* person with a 20 in the LNAT anyway (they probably will, in this climate).

    - Oxford may be hurt by this. As Notorious says, a person who doesn't feel that they're gonna do great on the LNAT will no longer see the Oxford + LSE + UCL/KCL/Durham combo as viable given that all three universities will be asking for a presumably high LNAT (Oxford and UCL both have averages at 26-27 points for offerholders, chances are that LSE will be around that level). Hence, you may see people who have no particular familial/geographical/educational attachment to Oxford as a uni going for Cambridge. However, the exact numbers will depend on a billion different factors, most importantly, how risk averse the applicant is, and whether they'd meet Cambridge's far more stringent formal academic criteria.

    - LSE will lose out on some of its mainland Chinese and other non-native-speaker applicants. You know, the people who scraped the UGAA and paid for a tailored personal statement. I can think of at least three of these "how the **** are these people here when they can barely express their thoughts in English" people on my course. Good riddance, I say. The only thing these people do is keep UCAS tariffs high and offer rates low (given that they'll undoubtedly fail an Oxbridge exam test and interview).

    - LSE may stop being the black horse of the law admissions process. A lot of people seem to either put it as an aspirational top choice, or don't put it on their five choices at all, because of the low offer rate and the few data points used in the selection process. A move towards the LNAT may change perceptions somewhat (even though this will have to be weighed against the people who only applied to LSE because admissions are so unpredictable who are now deterred by the LNAT).

    - I don't know whether the profile of successful candidates at LSE will shift towards countries with native English speakers because of the LNAT. It's a tricky test to do well in unless you're a careful reader and have a good command of the subtleties of a text (and good vocabulary for those irritatingly technical articles). There are no stats on average scores by country in which the test is sat, which is a shame

    - I really hope that LSE start rolling out more entrance tests across the board. That's just a personal hope. Either way, this is definitely a reversal of the "we don't wanna do entrance exams because rich people do better in them" bs you heard from their admissions people a few years back.

    P.S. The LNAT is a fantastically compromised test. It's the best example of 'good idea', bad execution I can think of outside the TEF.
    Great post and I think we are all thankful for the poo for its facilitating your musings.

    I remember sitting the CLT and not being that impressed. I was not in my own bed the night before, had terrible sleep, woke up at 7am to get washed and ready, then had to be in the hall for the test at 8.30am. Some twonk was sat next to me writing so furiously the table was shaking all over; had such murderous thoughts I couldn't even ascertain what I thought of the Privy Council hearing death penalty appeals, or whatever the tosh was. Similar, the LNAT is a load of bull; many idiots fluke it and a great many outliers scupper it, for reasons unbeknownst. But I guess it is easier than making a qualitative assessments of thousands of PSs that LSE currently has to struggle with.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notoriety)
    Great post and I think we are all thankful for the poo for its facilitating your musings.

    I remember sitting the CLT and not being that impressed. I was not in my own bed the night before, had terrible sleep, woke up at 7am to get washed and ready, then had to be in the hall for the test at 8.30am. Some twonk was sat next to me writing so furiously the table was shaking all over; had such murderous thoughts I couldn't even ascertain what I thought of the Privy Council hearing death penalty appeals, or whatever the tosh was. Similar, the LNAT is a load of bull; many idiots fluke it and a great many outliers scupper it, for reasons unbeknownst. But I guess it is easier than making a qualitative assessments of thousands of PSs that LSE currently has to struggle with.
    I have to say that I think that the CLT is better because it tests your interest in, and knowledge of, the barebones of law. You can't answer the PC question unless you know what the PC is! You can't answer a question on some debate within jurisprudence unless you've swotted up on a bit of that before the exam! Much better than the LNAT essay, which is a 40-minute 600-word stump of a thing, usually concerning everyday issues like regulation of smoking etc. I think that the best question I had answered during the LNAT exam itself was something along the lines of "Are bikinis are equally oppressive as burkas?". By contrast, the questions in my practice papers were "My First Debate"-tier. I can't believe that 17 and 18 year olds were being asked to write on whether they thought that social media was "bad" or whether parents should beat their kids.

    I think that the LNAT MCQ is actually a pretty good measure of one's ability to understand abstract ideas within a reasonably short period of time. What irritates me is the bunching. Each question you mess up will move you several percentiles down the bell curve. There's only a 2-point difference between the average LNAT scores of interviewees and offerholders at Oxford for Christ's sake - and that's 2 out of 42! That's a difference of 5% in the raw mark for a difference of 30% in the number of candidates interviewed (45% of applicants get interviews, 15% get offers). Any exam where 90% of candidates score within 25% of the possible grades is a ****ed up exam that needs recalibrating.

    I think that LSE and its ilk should start interviewing. Imperial does it, and it's a grades-heavy uni with a 50% offer rate. Stop paying stupendously high amounts of money to satisfy the jobsworths in your SUs, and use the savings to hire a full-time tenured academic from a crappy university to become your full-time interviewer (they already do this with the people who teach their 'legal skills' programmes). They only need to book a one-hour Skype call with a set of shortlisted candidates (top 1000? 700?), which shouldn't be that tough given that LSE and UCL take their sweet time in giving out offers over the course of four or five months. The interview can be a chat about anything the university thinks it needs more info on, and couple possibly include some probing into the stuff the candidate mentioned on the P.S. (particularly books they claim to have read!) This way, you cut down on both the amount of P.S. ********ting and the number of admitted students who plainly speak English properly.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Good, introduce more people to the stress of entrance exams.



    My anus is still recovering from the TSA and CAT
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Notoriety)
    I wonder why they did it. .
    Many Unis are dropping reading Personal Statements for a whole range of subjects. Firstly they are too often 'fake' - over polished by teachers/parents, or not written by the applicant at all. 'Reading' is always subjective - interpreting a PS against any scoring rubric will always be a bit hit-and-miss. This all means they are not only a daft way of assessing applicants but this is unfair/discriminatory towards those who dont have access to all this 'help' or haven't done impressive work-experience and or extra-curriculars. Reading PS is also hugely time-consuming and if its not identifying the best applicants, a waste of time. Interviewing is also unfair - those from lower achieving schools will not be as confident, and academics bring all sorts of unconscious prejudice/attitudes to the task.

    LNAT is taken by the applicant and only the applicant. The ability to work quickly under pressure, to score well in the MCQ, and write a short essay in concise English, is a far better test of the fundamental abilities/skills required for Law. Its also more transparent and equitable.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    As someone who has been able to secure offers at UCL/KCL this cycle, but had to sit the UGAA, this is annoying. I would have much rather used my LNAT for LSE entry as opposed to having to teach myself GCSE Maths again.

    Seems like a sensible from them? Maybe as a mature student I would have had to sit the UGAA as well.. who knows.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?

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.