I promised I would come back to UK law interviews and I will here. I also want to give some final words about why I chose to go to a US school instead of a UK school, even though I got into one of each.
The major reason why I decided to go to The University of Pomorum instead of University College London is that it’s just a better situation for me, for reasons which I have enumerated elsewhere. They are good reasons and basically decisive in this decision. But there are other reasons why I might have chosen not to go the UCL anyway. It’s certainly a wonderful school with a great law faculty especially. But practicing in the US is difficult when you have a law degree from overseas. That would have limited my freedom significantly whenever we decided to come back; we would certainly have come back to the US—we never intended to stay in the UK indefinitely. I did not want to have the additional burden of meeting bar requirements for overseas lawyers when I came back to the US in addition to the difficulty of finding work in this economy. The UK legal job market is very limited, particularly among barristers. I was told many times that the Crown Prosecution Service (which is where I would have worked eventually) is a very good place to work with regard to life-work balance. However, I felt overall there wouldn’t be as much opportunity or variety for me in the UK.
With regard to the job market, I suspect and feared that hiring in the UK would revolve around certain social barriers. There are certain socio-cultural aspects of British society that I find difficult to deal with. Britain is an extremely classist society in a way which is repugnant to the American sensibility. In the US, we don’t really have a class system that operates along the same lines as here. Class in the US refers almost exclusively to economic status. People can move between classes simply by virtue of the amount of money they have or are thought to have. In Britain, there is really very little social mobility, especially so when you look in immigrant communities. Class in the UK is about where you’re from, who your family is, what kind of accent you have, where you went to school. It’s something intangible and irrevocable about your innate self that doesn’t depend on your own merits or success.
All of those previous factors feed into the one factor that separates Britons into two types: Oxbridge graduates and everyone else. Take a look at a list of Members of Parliament, or government ministers, or newpaper editors, or judges, or any other category of prominent members of society and you’ll notice that graduates from two British universities prevail. This is no accident. Oxbridge graduates are favored in many ways in British society (for example: in a friend’s workplace, when sorting through resumes, only Oxbridge graduates are considered, without regard to any other factor).
There are people who would argue that Oxford and Cambridge are two of the best universities in the world and being accepted to them reflects a level of intelligence and competence that makes one an excellent candidate for any number of positions. That would be fine with me, if I had any clear idea of what Oxbridge admissions officers are even looking for when they make their admissions decisions.
Part of the problem is that Oxbridge really do take only the highest qualified candidates. For people who don’t know, British high school students have to take exams called A-levels for entry to university. The minimum grades for entry to Oxbridge have been three As in A-levels. However, due to various factors (including grade inflation, dumbed down exams and intense competition at the high levels) Oxbridge colleges routinely reject candidates that have these marks because they have so many applicants who meet those requirements. Because grades are no longer an objective measurement for university admissions, Oxbridge has been falling back on more subjective assessments. Therein lies my biggest problem. Different degree programs are subjectively assessed differently. For law, for example, Cambridge has the Cambridge Law Test (they stopped using the LNAT a few years ago, I think for very good reasons). But the biggest subjective assessment tool is the interview.
The interview baffles me basically because I don’t see the point of it. It is too short and too subject oriented. The decisions made as a result of interviews are too opaque. It isn’t clear what the interviewers are looking for and how your answers affect their admissions decisions. I don’t see how spending 20 minutes with a person can tell you much about them personally. Even less informative, in my opinion, is the subject interview where, for law, you are expected to exercise legal reasoning to answer various interview questions in relation to a certain situation, comparing a situation with a bit of a statute, or something along this line.
I think it is unrealistic for interviewers to expect students who have never studied law to be able to make strong or correct legal arguments after such a short acquaintance with the law. It is almost as if they are trying to detect an innate ‘sense’ for the law. I imagine that some very clever people can demonstrate that and some give the right answers by accident. But I would think that most people don’t have that until they start studying law. Isn’t learning this and developing those skills the point of law school? If someone doesn’t have this skill, does it mean they can’t acquire it? I don’t think so.
I don’t think that anyone can effectively prepare for this type of interview. And I don’t think that just because a person cannot give you the ‘correct’ legal answer means they will not make a good law student. How can you test for skills or an ability or for knowledge which is to be learned in the course for which the student is applying? What is the best preparation for an Oxbridge law interview? The answer seems to be: learn as much law as you can. Seriously, substantive law. That is the only thing that I think can help someone who doesn’t have an innate sense of the law.
Beyond subject answers, what are interviewers looking for? Supposedly it’s about the ability to reason and express ideas well on your feet. The opacity of the interview process raises the suspicion that what interviewers are ultimately looking for or, more generously, are ultimately attracted to in candidates is a certain manner, a certain presentation, a forthrightness, a self-confidence—in short, ‘poshness’ which is synonymous with class. This is the kind of thing that is taught in expensive private schools which cater to the ‘posh’ classes. Private schools also help students through the Oxbridge admissions process much more than public schools are able to do. For example, they can provide interview training to help their candidates get in. Public schools can’t hope to do the same amount to help their students get into Oxbridge and it is no wonder that so few of them do get into Oxbridge.
One concrete piece of advice I can offer to law candidates is something my friend who went to Oxford told me. I did not employ it well in my interviews, partially because I didn’t quite understand what they were asking at the time. I was asked about my goals and why I would want to do another degree to achieve them. I guess in my head I always assumed I’d go to law school after my undergrad degree and master’s degree, simply because that’s how it worked out. I also always felt that I wanted to be a lawyer. That was basically the answer I gave, that I wanted to be a lawyer. But looking back, what they were really asking was, ‘If you do this course, do you just want a degree at the end that will let you be a lawyer or do you want to do this course for its own sake?’ What I should have said, in my most chirpy voice, was, ‘My master’s course was interdisciplinary and I always loved the law classes the most. I took as many law classes as I could simply because I enjoy studying it. That’s why I want to do a law course now.’ The professors who are interviewing you want to know that you are going to be a keen and engaged student for them to teach—if not, they don’t want to teach you. You have to express your enthusiasm for the subject, and I think, for the actual day-to-day work.
You should think of Oxbridge (or any university) as a place that offers a service, i.e. teaching you for a number of years and then awarding you a degree. They want to know that you’re not just in for the degree at the end, but that you are going to enjoy the course as a whole all along. And to be honest, if you don’t anticipate you’re going to enjoy your course of study, you probably shouldn’t do it. Now, it might take some time to find the enjoyment in it, but if you’re dreading it and hate the work, you’re going to have a hard time. I suppose that is fairly obvious.
This is the last thing I have to say about my law school admissions process. I wish you the best of luck with yours.
