Can someone explain this? Law

[janeeire244]

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 last5 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 reallysmart.

What?

So a non-Oxbridge graduate who had been studying the subject for three years does better than someone who hasn’t?

Leeds isn’t some ex-poly DDD offer type place. Their current typical offer is A*AA: hardly low.

Going to Oxford isn’t the only measure of smartness whatever you mean by that. I think I’m quite “smart”. I went to Leeds though so maybe not .

This is a joke right? You can't understand that intelligent people can go to other universities? Or that a teenager has less education that someone who holds a degree?

Surely LNAT tests a particularly way of thinking which will be a discipline acquired and developed during the degree course. A sample of one doesn't really prove anything.

I'm a lawyer and I find the question absurd. Comparing a Russell Group law graduate (Leeds is very hard to get into) with a 17/18 year old school leaver is preposterous. Would you compare a graduate of medicine with a school leaver doing the UCAT? If you've done a degree in the subject, naturally you should be able to ace the test which is the ENTRY test for the degree, regardless of which university you've attended.

I've just looked at a practice version on the Pearson site.

They're comprehension questions - a young adult who has completed degree level study in Law is going to have more experience of reading the sort of language used in the sources and the frankly ancient online multiple choice computer format than a 17 year old child applying to Oxford who has been writing essays and answering GCSE papers.

If you're implying that someone who has studied for three years shouldn't score higher than someone at A-levels then you're implying that the Leeds degree is useless.

In fact I'd be surprised if they didn't. I'd be less surprised if they scored 100% than to find they did better.

It is very likely that a student on the point of applying to Oxbridge to study Law hasn't ever actually studied it at all. So of course a smart layperson would do worse in a test than someone who had recently completed three years of graduate study in the subject.....

Then, interestingly, how come mature applicants (aged 21+) and those doing a second undergrad degree have similar acceptance rates to 17/18 year olds at Oxford at law? Surely they’d be more intelligent so would have stronger applications.

Probably because they've been out of academia some time and having good commercial experience from a job doesn't translate back well to the academic thinking you have to do to get into law school and then pass the exams.

I was a "late" applicant to law school. I hadn't worked at all for 5 years (had been SAHM) and had no relevant legal work experience. I managed to get a TC at a large regional firm and went to law school as a single parent in my 30s. It was hard. I'd been out of uni several years and getting back to that way of thinking was hard.

The end of this story is I qualified and many years later I'm a partner in a (different) law firm. I just finished reviewing applications for our vac scheme and was interested to note both the very high academic calibre of all applicants but also the clear difference between those (most) who clearly thought their academics spoke for themselves; and those who had evidently researched our firm and had something intelligent to say about why they wanted to work there. It's very competitive trying to get a TC and being academically "strong" only puts you on the starting line.

Also I think you're confusing "acceptance rates" with "pass rates" for the exam referred to in the OP.

It is not difficult to "get in" to law school in this country if you can pay for it yourself. It is hard to get a training contract. Without a training contract you cannot qualify as a solicitor. Most people who do qualify, get their training contract secured before starting law school, first because most law firms pay the law school fees for their trainees, and secondly because paying for law school yourself without knowing you will be able to qualify as a solicitor is a massive financial gamble that few can afford to take.

Why would they be "more intelligent"? They might know more by virtue of having done the degree and be more mature, but that doesn't in itself make them more intelligent.

You again. Get over your Oxbridge obsession . You missed the grades, are resitting, refused to contemplate a foundation year, didn't even apply this year and are not suited for law. Move on.

Is this a piss take?

you really think a school kid is going to be better at a legal reasoning test than a RG university law graduate? Come on now. Give your head a wobble.

You again. Get over your Oxbridge obsession

Oh is that who it is. I remember the original thread but didn't remember the OP's name.

And Oxbridge students aren’t necessarily more intelligent than students who go to other universities. Plenty of highly intelligent kids either didn’t get in or have zero interest in going there.

You don’t sound the most blessed on the intelligence front yourself OP if you need to ask these questions

Fully agree with that as a Cambridge graduate. Loads of intelligent people didn't get in. As I recall you passed the interview but then didn't make the grades. You have to do both. Turning down the foundation year could have been a big mistake but I think they've got off lightly. You wouldn't have survived the supervision system, I needed cake after every one to one to get my sugar levels back up. Loved it but hard work . You can't make a valid argument on a talk board, so your chances in a supervision don't look great. And less so in a court of law.

I'd probably get you a restraining order to the whole city of Oxford if it were possible.