Can someone explain this?

10

On YouTube, there was a video of a girl who graduated from her law degree at Leeds University who decided to take the LNAT exam aged 21 just to see how she’d do. She did really well and got 40/42.

By contrast, according to FOI reports, no student at Oxbridge who applied has ever scored so high in the last 5 years of data. By students I mean 17/18 year olds who apply. This includes offer-holders who get scores averaging at 28 or at the highest point at 36.

Is this surprising or would you expect a 21-year old law graduate who didn’t go to Oxbridge to have more advanced skills than an Oxbridge offer-holder aged 17/18?

I thought Oxbridge students were meant to be really smart.

Reply 1

DataVenia

Volunteer Team, Clearing and Applications Advisor

21

Original post

by m_040106

On YouTube, there was a video of a girl who graduated from her law degree at Leeds University who decided to take the LNAT exam aged 21 just to see how she’d do. She did really well and got 40/42.

By contrast, according to FOI reports, no student at Oxbridge who applied has ever scored so high in the last 5 years of data. By students I mean 17/18 year olds who apply. This includes offer-holders who get scores averaging at 28 or at the highest point at 36.

Is this surprising or would you expect a 21-year old law graduate who didn’t go to Oxbridge to have more advanced skills than an Oxbridge offer-holder aged 17/18?

I thought Oxbridge students were meant to be really smart.

You're comparing a 17/18 year-old who, whilst clearly "really smart" hasn't studied Law to degree level with a 21 year-old who's just graduated.

That 21 year-old may have been just as smart as those who applied to Oxbridge, but chose not to apply there. Or she may have not quite had the grades to apply, but she's now studied Law to degree level for three years. The results you've cited don't seem unexpected to me.

Reply 2

UoL Students

Official Rep

16

Original post

by m_040106

On YouTube, there was a video of a girl who graduated from her law degree at Leeds University who decided to take the LNAT exam aged 21 just to see how she’d do. She did really well and got 40/42.
By contrast, according to FOI reports, no student at Oxbridge who applied has ever scored so high in the last 5 years of data. By students I mean 17/18 year olds who apply. This includes offer-holders who get scores averaging at 28 or at the highest point at 36.
Is this surprising or would you expect a 21-year old law graduate who didn’t go to Oxbridge to have more advanced skills than an Oxbridge offer-holder aged 17/18?
I thought Oxbridge students were meant to be really smart.

Hello,

This is a really good question and there are multiple reasons for the outcome of this result. Firstly, maybe the student was very smart naturally which helped lead to such a high mark. Another possible explanation is that the skills she developed from her law degree helped her to score these high marks. That's because a law degree trains you to think analytically, pay attention to detail and how to write critical essays.

If you have any further questions please do let me know.

Charlie
Law LLB Student

Reply 3

cksiu

Universities Forum Helper

15

What's the point comparing a graduate with a Year 13?

Reply 4

username7579750

1

I'm not sure if this question is genuine or not. You are comparing individuals at different life stages. It does not matter which uni the former went to, they still went to uni and has transferable skills in comparison to an undergrad applicant. She had 3 years of uni, this is not something to take lightly. Also, Oxbridge has the advantage of being able to assess applications holistically thanks to the admissions tests and interviews, hence why LNATs are a part of an application, not the entire or main basis of it.

(edited 9 months ago)

Reply 5

gjd800

20

Entirely normal.

Can someone explain this?

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Articles for you

How The Student Room is moderated