Au revoirs, mes amis!

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.

Resurgam

I am sitting in the Shaw Library at the London School of Economics. It’s one of those old-fashioned grand libraries: a wood paneled room, topped with a glass dome, its walls lined with portraits of former university presidents. Various bookshelves are ranged against the walls, heaving with dusty books, their spines yellowed and tilting behind milky glass. Red upholstered armchairs are clustered around the room. The library is only sparsely populated, most students having finished their exams and decamped, setting up in pubs to relax, drink and watch World Cup. The ones that remain in the library study or write feverishly; some are on Facebook; some are asleep.

I have not experienced the hush rustling quiet of a student library since I finished my master’s degree. I have spent the last two years planning on re-entering academia this fall to begin a law degree. I could just as well have said, ‘to begin my life’. The last four years, since I moved to England, have felt like a long and fruitless detour to the one thing I have wanted to do since I was a junior in college: go to law school and become a lawyer. I bear the most blame for this. The first year, while my husband was in graduate school, I spent temping. It was a job of mindless number crunching and paper pushing. The second year I did my master’s degree. I thought it would help me get into law school. The third I spent doing an internship that, in practical terms, finished four months before I left it. I thought it also would help me get into law school. The eight months since the end of my internship have constituted a long and punishing period of unsuccessful job hunting. I put this down to the recession and consequentially the scarcity of job openings in my field, combined with my lack of substantial work experience. I am classically over-educated and under-experienced. I have been very frustrated and discouraged by this situation but I have taken comfort in the thought that I would enter law school in the fall after which I would have gained some qualities of employability. I was very sanguine about it... until the rejections began pouring in.

In the meantime, my husband was accepted to a PhD program with full funding, a teaching position and a stipend. We planned to move back to the US, something I was so very excited about, until I realized that I was not returning to do anything. I only faced more of the same situation as London: endless fruitless job hunting—only this time it would be more difficult because we would be moving to a much smaller city with fewer job opportunities in my field. A few weeks ago I began submitting applications to various jobs in New York and Washington D.C., where I thought I might have more success. It would require my husband and I to live a substantial distance apart from each other—at least 2 hours by plane—but my husband understands that I can’t spend another year doing nothing of value for my career. Law school? It seems impossible. I have an offer from University College London but feel I don’t want to live in London anymore, much less with my husband halfway across the world. I have been rejected or waitlisted at every US school to which I applied. I have never felt so hopeless and so helpless about my future. I have contemplated giving up on law altogether. I have tried to accept (once again) reduced expectations for my future. I have even contemplated getting pregnant and resigning myself to a life of stay-at-home motherhood simply because I am clearly not smart enough to have a career.

It was around this time that my wonderful (though sometimes meddling) mother-in-law mentioned my situation to some lawyer friends of hers who also happen to work on the Law Faculty of my first choice Midwest Law School. One of them suggested I call him. I was not happy about having to discuss my failure with a member of the profession I wanted to enter but talking to him raised my spirits a bit. He gave me very useful advice about people in my Home State to contact who might know of job opportunities there. He also suggested that likely the reason I did not get into law school this year was because it was simply a particularly difficult year. Many more people applied and would likely accept admission because of the recession and this made it very challenging for more mediocre (my word, not his) candidates like myself. He also said that it was possible I could still be accepted because, at this time of year, a lot of candidates are sifting their various offers, declining or accepting offers, which may open up places for people to be taken off waitlists. Consequently, if candidates who are accepted to one school are offered a position at a better school, this opens up more places, which gives everyone still waiting a bit more of a chance. After talking to him I was more optimistic but still generally skeptical that anything would change.

Only two weeks later I got an email asking me if I was still interested in entering Midwest State School to study law and what was the likelihood that I would accept if given an offer. I said: 1.) Hell yeah I was still interested and 2.) The likelihood that I would accept was 100 f**king per cent. That was last Friday.

This Monday, I got the email that I had been accepted to study law at my first choice, Midwest Law School. So as it turns out, I’m going to be a lawyer after all!

Recap

I have not been writing on this blog because there is not much to report except a steady stream of rejections and, frankly, I'm embarrassed. At this point and for the foreseeable future, I am certainly common, but I am no law student. I think, however, that it might still be useful for me (and for you) to try to understand what has happened. I am trying to decide what is the best way to approach this project which will include, as I promised, full disclosure on the Oxbridge interviews. A good place to start is to take a short inventory of where I have applied and the outcomes. I am deeply disappointed in this list and embarrassed but I figure internet anonymity protects me to a large extent. Here is the list:

US Schools:

Midwest School (1st choice): Wait Listed

Northern School: Unsuccessful

Great Lakes School: Unsuccessful

UK Schools:

Cambridge: Unsuccessful

Oxford: Unsuccessful

King's College London: Unsuccessful

London School of Economics: Unsuccessful

University College London: Accepted

The executive summary is that I've been accepted to a UK school and wait listed at my first choice, but rejected everywhere else.

Going forward, my goals are: to describe the application process I went through both in the UK and the US; to discuss what happened after I submitted my applications; to discuss what has happened since I heard back from all the schools; and finally to describe what my goals are from here on out.

Bits and Pieces

Hey ya'll I just wanted to say thanks for the comments by DA and by Alistair, I appreciate your support on my disappointment about Oxbridge. I still have a second shot but not too hopeful. Anyway, no need to dwell!

DA, to answer your other question. Was I ever serious about applying to King's College London, University College London or the London School of Economics? In truth, no, I wasn't interested when I first applied, but it was a matter of dragging and clicking boxes on a screen, so I did it. I also thought I was testing the waters as a precursor for Oxbridge admissions, but in fact the Oxbridge admissions period is almost over and I have heard next to nothing in the meantime from the other three. They have each confirmed receipt of my application and I have responded to their various requests for transcripts (by the way, transcripts are expensive!). Now that the Oxbridge admissions period is over, and I'm also doing my American applications, I'm beginning to get really nervous that I won't get into my preferred American law school at my Midwest State School alma mater. The application numbers have been massive this year and--looking at the calendar--I am submitting my applications much later than I should have done. These nerves make the potential of getting into the other three British schools much more important to me, as I don't want to delay law school another year. It's a sensitive and difficult thing, the admissions process.

DA, I'm glad to hear you've got through the UCAS and the LNAT. How did the LNAT go?

Anyway, speaking of my Midwest State School. I have had a strangely fateful and luck-driven life so far. I don't believe in fate or luck in my rational mind, but I cannot deny my life has been filled with some strange coincidences and connections, not all of them necessarily good. This requires a bit of background. When I was a child, my family and I did not live in my Midwest State but were driving through it when we were in a car accident in which my father died. As a result of this accident the rest of my family moved to this Midwest State permanently. I then grew up and went to school in this state. I met my husband in high school in this state. My husband brought me to Britain where I refined and clarified my career goals, to be a lawyer.

Now, going back to my Midwest State School's college of law. It has become my first choice, until I hear finally from Cambridge. I began to really worry that I would not qualify as a resident to get in-state tuition anymore, which would change my view of things considerably. As I read the university policy online, I didn't completely understand it so I called the registrar's office to run the situation by them. I grew up in my Midwest State and did my undergrad there, as a resident. However for the last 5 years I have been living out of the state--would I still be considered a resident for tuition purposes? The lady had the strangest attitude about it. She said the only important criteria were:

Did I graduate from a high school in this Midwest State? Yes. And do I have one parent living or buried in the state? At first I panicked because my mom moved out of the state a few years ago. Then I remembered, wait, my father is indeed buried in the state. So, yeah, I guess as a result of this totally random, accidental car accident I get in-state tuition at this Midwest State School.

Okay, now I've totally creeped everyone out. It's cool, people, but like I said my life has been filled with weird, serendipitous coincidences and connections. Honestly, I tentatively hope they don't stop now.

A bit of good news

A bit of good news... finally! I have been invited for an interview at Cambridge!!! Despite my many, many screw-ups in the application process. Cambridge admissions interviews are legendary for being bizarre and harrowing, which Cambridge insists is just a myth. Supposedly they ask you questions like, 'Would you rather be a banana or an apple?'; 'How many planes do you think are flying over Cambridge right now?'; 'What is the shape of an egg?'. There is no 'correct' answer to any of these questions, they just want to see how you handle them and what your thought process is. They also want to get an idea of whether you're really motivated and interested in the subject. I've never been interviewed for school admissions--wait scratch that, yes I have--but I think this will be a different kettle of fish.

So legendary are Oxbridge interviews that I've already had one nightmare about them and I only got the letter yesterday. In my nightmare my husband and I were in our hotel room in Cambridge getting ready for bed when all of a sudden this biker guy in black leather chaps with a giant black mustache was in the room, lobbing trivia questions at me. And I didn't know the answers to most of them! I just gave lame guesses. HORRIFYING!

I think the fact that I couldn't answer means I need to start preparing for this interview by reviewing all the law-related work I've been doing for the last several years. The fact that I was preparing for bed reflects how the interview may be designed to throw you off balance, hit you with things you don't expect. The lame guesses are what I fear my answers are going to seem like if I don't prepare. The leather biker guy---I remember in my dream thinking, 'Oh, at Cambridge they have all kinds' so I guess I should expect all kinds.

Being unemployed, sad and suffering with a prolonged and severe cold, this is a very welcome bit of news.

Kerfuffle

Oh. Dear. God.

I already submitted all my applications to British schools and thought all the details were correct. But then I got a paper copy of my Advanced Placement scores and found out I reported one of them wrong on my applications. I said I got a 5 but I got a 4!!!!! Oh mediocrity.

I had not thought about these scores for 8 years since I took the exams. 8 YEARS FOLKS. Yes I am old.

The only thing I could do is email each university I applied for and ask them to correct the mistake which has meant they attach a 'note' to my application. This is going to look awful. And now they want to have a copy of my AP score report. Each report is $25. Apps are expensive.

My life is a series of shambolic episodes

I took the LNAT, law national admissions test, today. It's the admissions test for studying law in Britain.

Let me tell you something about my life. It is a series of shambolic episodes.

Avid readers will remember the episode of my being almost too late to take the LSAT.

Today I took the bus down to central London at an indecently early hour to take the LNAT. I had my test confirmation ticket, which they said to bring and ID. Now, this is what their website says are valid forms of ID:

A current signed passport (an unsigned passport will be acceptable only if it is of a biometric type that does not allow for a signature)

A current signed photocard driving licence (full or provisional)

A current identity card, issued by the government of the country where the test centre is located, that carries your photograph and signature

Now I'm no lawyer, but it doesn't seem to specify that the driving license has to be issued by the government of the country where the test centre is located, unlike the current identity card option. So I think, 'Great, I don't have to needlessly carry my passport into town, I can just use my valid driver's license from my home State.' NO, NO YOU CAN'T. It doesn't say it has to be British BUT IT DOES. DIDN'T YOU KNOW THAT???

Reader, I did not know this because the LNAT website is a piece of shit. So is the LNAT for that matter.

It wasn't a complete disaster. I just had to go back home and get my passport and come back, which isn't a big deal except that is a 2 hour round trip in London. I did it though and got through the exam.

It's funny all the prep books tell you that just before the exam you should take your mind off it, distract yourself with something else. Well, I was certainly distracted.

Now my complaints about the exam itself.

This exam is ridiculous. First, I took several practice tests and got massively widely differing scores on each one, which shows that it isn't a very reliable measuring tool. Second, for each question you could make a strong argument that a different answer was correct. The exam simultaneously requires you to think less, making intuitive generalisations and to think more--for some questions you have to make several assumptions or logical jumps to get the correct answer. In other words, some questions require a gospel reading, some require further interpretation and you never know which is which. Third, it is an extremely badly written exam. The question stem will ask, 'What are the people in the article arguing?' but their correct answer will answer the question, 'What is the author of the article arguing?'. These are clearly different questions. Fourth, although they claim no outside knowledge is required to answer the questions, sometimes it really is. You would be at a particular disadvantage if you were not British or British-educated. The passages are often about British politics and education and require certain foreknowledge about such things as the European Union or Council of Europe political mechanisms or about British standardised testing. Luckily I have been here long enough that I'm familiar with most of it. How is someone outside of the UK supposed to know what GCSEs are? I don't think I had ever used the word 'accession' before I came to the UK and studied the EU. Fifth, the LNAT makes up its own definitions for words and expects you to know them. Assumption, assertion, opinion, suggestion, fact--you would have to have foreknowledge of how they define these to answer the questions correctly.

I will get my LNAT score in January. By the way, what the hell is that about? You get your LSAT score in 3 weeks and it helps you decide what law schools you can apply to. Here you have to finish your applications before you even have to take the exam. And you don't get your score back until after you've been interviewed? Surely that doesn't make sense.

Sometimes you have to give up questioning why Britons do things the way Britons do them. Thinking about the fact that I spent 4 hours on a bus today makes me really excited about studying law at my Midwest State School where a commute is 20 minutes tops.

This concludes all application activities for British universities. It is entirely out of my hands now.

Finalised Cambridge Application; Let me tell you something about... British admission requirements

I have finished the last component of the Cambridge application and can't do anything more for it now.

Let me tell you something about British admission requirements. British high school students have it rough. At the age of 16 they have to take these big exams called GCSE exams. The most eager students take 10 in one year. The scores you receive on these exams determine what classes you can take in the next two years. Then at the end of those two years you take another set of massive exams called A-level exams. A-level exams and results determine what subject you can study and at what university. How cruel is that? I can't imagine having to decide at the age of 15/16 what I'm going to major in at university! I guess that has something to do with the increasing popularity of conversion courses and post-graduate diplomas that basically qualify you in a subject completely different from the one you studied in college.

Anyway, I mentioned before that the British university applications process is much simpler than the American undergraduate system because of the UCAS clearinghouse. Unless you've been educated somewhere where you don't do GCSEs and A-levels as I was. This makes it a lot harder to fill in the electronic application. Luckily I got good help from the adviceline and also sent in all my high school and university transcripts to substitute for it.

Most of the people applying for these degree courses are 17-18 year olds. I am old enough to be their... babysitter. I also already have a bachelor's and master's degree. Now I'm going back for another bachelor's. Yes, I'm a mature student.

LSAT Score

We got back our LSAT scores this past weekend. I did achieve the goal I set for myself but didn't see much improvement overall which was disappointing. I guess in the end Ivey was right that it isn't worth it to retake the LSAT. I also think I was right that I simply hit my natural wall. It's a disappointingly low wall.

I was about to go into a rant about standardised testing, but I'll save that for another time!

Anyway, I guess this is pretty much what expected, though not what I hoped for. I hope it will at least be enough to get me into my Midwest State School. I don't know what will happen if I don't get into a law school. I'll probably just curl up into a ball and die. I can't think of any other thing I want to do as much.

One of my British applications was one day late! It was a paper application that I had to mail in. There have been postal strikes all over the UK which have been extremely disruptive. I sent it FedEx to avoid that problem. It was meant to be delivered next day. The day after that I got a call that it hadn't been delivered yet because the envelope covering had been ripped off. So it actually didn't get delivered until the day after the deadline. I have no idea whether the university will take it.

It's like the universe doesn't want me to get into law school.

The LNAT exam is one week from today and I haven't cracked a book for it yet. I figure all that work for LSAT didn't help much, it probably won't help with LNAT, so I'm not going to work too hard on it. Cynical, cynical, cynical and pessimistic.

**************

In happier news, we have our tickets to come home for Christmas. I'm looking forward to blissful peace, cold, warmth, food, family, friends, driving in the snow and some R&R.

British Applications: Mission Accomplished! Almost. (Let me tell you something about... British college applications)

I have submitted my British applications!

Let me tell you something about British college applications. They are SO much easier than American college applications! I know American law school apps go through a clearinghouse called LSDAS where you submit all your transcripts and information and you send a single application electronically to all the schools you want to apply to. In the UK they do that with undergraduate applications too with a system called UCAS. UCAS allows you to submit applications for up to 5 universities. I have mentioned the ones I'm applying to before.

Now that bit is done, there is only one more thing before my British applications are completely done and dusted: I have to take the LNAT. I'm registered and now I have to start preparing a bit. I have about 2 weeks.

And I have to start the American applications. Yikes!

UK Applications Update

I was having drinks with a friend of mine who read law at King's College London and was on my master's course at my Master's University. She has been a great resource for all my random questions while trying to figure out the British applications process. She also tends to forcefully argue her advice despite my objections... Thus I have been convinced that I should also apply to several other UK law schools including, surprise, King's College London. I have subsequent to the initial conversation been convinced that this is a good idea. In addition to Oxford and Cambridge, I'm applying to University College London, King's College London and the London School of Economics. So instead of two solid rejection letters, I'll get perhaps one acceptance and a handful of rejections. Or just a gigantic steaming pile of rejections.

Applications to Oxford and Cambridge

Dear readers, especially the one from Indonesia, I have had a busy few weeks since the LSAT. I have had to move apartments and am still in the process of unpacking and figuring out what goes where. This apartment, by the way, is a veritable comedy of fuck-up-edness. Everything in it is broken or so cheap it will be broken soon.

Anyway, I have also been in the process of submitting applications to Oxford and Cambridge. They both take UCAS applications. UCAS is a sort of clearinghouse, a single application you create online and submit to all the colleges to which you are applying. It is great for convenience, if you are a British high school student about to graduate. If you're a foreign-educated mature student, well it's a hell of a lot more difficult. However, they have a helpline which is extremely useful and has already seen a few calls from me. For Cambridge, you also have to submit a separate overseas student application, which is another hoop to jump. I am almost completely ready to send both applications off before the famous deadline of October 15th.

Now I'm applying to Oxford, I have to take the LNAT, the British equivalent to the LSAT. I have already spent some time preparing for it, and I hope my LSAT practice will aid me.

Also, I should get my LSAT score in a week or so. Stay tuned.