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.

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.

Second Cambridge Interview

I went to my second Cambridge interview yesterday. I took a much more low-key approach to this one, knowing from my previous experience that advanced preparation is useless.

This one was quite short and mostly subject-related. They said they were trying to assess my potential aptitude for studying law and I failed to find the desired answer for several questions. I think my interviewers were actually stunned into silence by my stupidity, or at least that's how it felt at the time. My prediction is that I won't be accepted there either.

Which makes my American applications more important! Deadlines, deadlines everywhere!

Okay, now I'm just getting annoyed!

So I got my rejection from Oxford a few days ago and was somewhat ambivalent about it. I guess I just didn't know what to feel. On one hand I was disappointed because I thought I actually had a good shot at getting in. On the other hand I was not terribly surprised because I had also been telling myself that it was a long-shot. It's funny how the psyche protects itself like that.

Yesterday I received a rejection from Cambridge. The Husband and I drank a bottle of wine between us and I spent about 24 hours in a psychological tailspin, thinking about 'plan B--what to do when I don't get in to law school'. There is literally nothing else I would want to do.

I am still working on my applications for US law schools, and I'm feeling quite nervous about it because I had thought I would be a better candidate for British law schools than American ones--turns out I'm not a great candidate for British law schools either. I meant to apply much earlier but... [insert generic excuse here]. For that 24 hour period they seemed to be my only hope.

Just now I got an email from a different college at Cambridge asking if I wanted to interview with them. This is part of the Winter Pool. After the first round of interviews, which I attended, the rejects get 'pooled' and other colleges can invite them for interview. So I'm being called back to interview for another college.

Considering that I have been on an emotional roller coaster, this latest development is just plain annoying! They dangle an Oxbridge education in front of you by inviting you for an interview and rubbing their awesomeness in your face, then reject you, telling you you're not good enough. Then they bait you again--well I'm not falling for it! I'm not getting excited about this interview since it will most likely come to nothing. (See my psyche's wheels grinding? Self-preservation comes first.)

Anyhoo, that's the news. I've said it before but I think it might actually be coming true: this blog has become a record of my mediocrity.

Interviews, Christmas and More

I am now at home in my Hometown in my Home Midwest State. We have been enjoying a pretty fat Christmas. I have a new netbook which I'm writing on. I have a few things to write about, including my interviews. If I were a really generous, self-less person I would post every single last detail about my two interviews at Cambridge and Oxford. (It is rare for one person to be interviewed by both.) I'm not going to do that. I may talk about it more later, but right now I'm going to be circumspect about the whole thing. One thing I can say is that this is a once in a lifetime experience and it somewhat defies description.

In other news, commenter DA has gotten back to me and asked a few more questions, which I am happy to answer. I'm really pleased he's been following my blog and am delighted with the power of this series of tubes.

I'll answer his questions now.

Where did I apply for schools in the UK?

I applied to Cambridge, Oxford, University College London, The London School of Economics and King's College London. I am most interested in Cambridge and Oxford, though, depending on what happens I'm open to them all. I am not currently on a course. I have interviewed at Cambridge and Oxford.

And this question about the UCAS application: UCAS has no area I can see under qualifications for my degree (Bacc - United States), what did you put on yours?

I had this problem as well and rang the UCAS helpline to ask what to do. They are very helpful. You need to put your qualification under 'degree'.

And... any last advice?

Nothing specific. Relax, have fun, be yourself.

Getting back to the Cambridge and Oxford interviews. They will have made their decisions by now and it is very likely that sitting on the doorstep of my flat in London right now are two letters one from each indicating my acceptance or rejection. This is somewhat distressing. But I'm going back in a few days and will find out which it is.

I have nothing more to report now except I'm having a lovely holiday at home.

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.