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.

Orientation Week--Humiliation , Experimentation and Vindication!

What a week this has been.

My school has students take a class during orientation week, an introduction to law and legal reasoning. It sort of operates as a mini-class, giving you an idea of what a full-length class is like. We have reading to prepare, we are examined under the Socratic method in class, we learn some substantive and some procedural law (as well as a bit of legal history and a bit about American and British legal structures) and we take an abbreviated exam at the end of it, part multiple choice, part legal essay/short answer.

I am so glad they have us do this. It has given me some time to sort out exactly how I want to learn this year—because it is not like anything I have done previously. We’re students and, of course, we read and study written material. But from here on out, our reading is pretty much going to be confined to case law. There will not be a lot of exposition and we will have to derive principles of law from the cases themselves—they will not be laid out for us. This class has been essential in giving us a conception of what that’s like. It has also been crucial for sorting out the mechanics of how I’m going to work. I mentioned earlier how I’ve been using OneNote. At first I was loving it and I loved that you could make lecture recordings right alongside your note-taking. Now that I’ve finished this little class, I’ve decided I probably won’t use OneNote anymore. (There are certain inconveniences about it that mean it would be easier to just use Word. And... like anyone is going to want to listen to their lectures one more time, right?) But at least I’ve decided definitely to use the computer for note taking. I also think I have a strategy for how to prepare for exams, which is the most important thing. Everything depends on exams in law school, so you’ve got to get your strategies down. I’m glad I had this small class to experiment with before the real classes start.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

We did our volunteering one afternoon early in the week; it had rained all morning. A group of 40 of us got bussed out to a nature trail where there were some park rangers waiting for us in the parking lot. They told us that they had cut down a bunch of baby trees from the forest—because they take nutrients and light from other trees?—they had all been piled up about a quarter mile down the trail. We were to bring them up to the wood chipper parked in the parking lot. Pretty simple. So we just did trip after trip after trip. Of course what happens when 40 people march up and down in a moderate rain on a woodland path—oh—by the way—dragging trees behind them? It turns into a mudslide and everything gets filthy, including the people moving the trees. Despite which it was actually kind of fun. My mood was significantly elevated by a particular circumstance, which I will relate now!

The dean of admissions was in our group (also getting filthy, he’s a nice guy) and, seeing my name tag, he told me that he was sorry if I had suffered some distress over the confusion with the deposit because, in fact, the IT people had looked into and it turned out that I had NOT made a mistake! The online program logs people off after 30 minutes without their knowing it. They have since fixed this problem. And there was actually one other person whom this defect effected. He said that if it had been just one person who reported this problem they might not have believed the story and they might not have looked into it. So I must thank that poor other person who went through the terrible time I went through. I wouldn’t normally wish it on anyone else but thank goodness it happened to just one other person!

Oh sweet, sweet, delicious VINDICATION!

I hope that takes me off the shit list, but I don’t think it does because all the admin people seem to know my name, and not in a good way.

Moving right along...

My class has been really interesting. I made some serious studying mistakes, which I will not make again, thanks to this class. (More on that later.) I have been really enjoying the material and the work—the mental processes are... I hesitate to say it because it’s so nerdy... but it’s fun. After taking this exam, I was embarrassingly thinking, I wish I could write more! I may not think that if it turns out I did really poorly. I don’t know what it is. I’ve always enjoyed studying law.

In class, I felt I should sit tight for the first few days and not try to volunteer, lest I make a fool of myself early on and develop a reputation as a dolt. But on the second day, I did volunteer. HINT: If you don’t want to get called on, just volunteer when you have something worth saying. I thought I had this whole case figured out and I was thinking no one else was getting it but me, and I’d just sort them out by stating the obvious. So I volunteered. And I was promptly shut down. My cheeks burned for a moment, but then I decided others had said dumber things and that we would all say some dumb things this year. And if anyone was thinking I was stupid, well they were stupid! Let’s just give everyone a break, shall we?

Anyway, the next day I said something really smart that no one else knew and felt totally awesome, until I got over confident, volunteered again and said something sort of moderately stupid. I do not think I am one to go on the law school emotional roller coaster, so I’m letting these roll off my back and will just do the very best I can and hope everyone else does the same

There are those who are making nuisances of themselves in class... yes—the gunners have announced themselves. Now, how do you know if you’re a gunner? It seems that gunners don’t really seem to know they are gunners, so here is a little checklist:

1.) If you are quoting Kant and no one asked you to, you’re a gunner.
2.) If you are asking questions about substantive due process, and we’re working on ‘what is a statute?’, you’re a gunner.
3.) If you think you’re at the head of the class because you were a philosophy major and did pretty well on the LSAT, and you want everyone to know it, you’re a gunner, and you’re an idiot.

We had an orientation session with upperclassmen with no professors or administrators around, for the really candid questions. The best piece of advice was, ‘Just calm the fuck down.’ So much of law school stress is self-induced and really, you must just calm the fuck down. This was also the primary message I got from Scott Turow’s book, One L. I meant to post a proper review of One L but, heck, I don’t have time to do that anymore. So I’ll just say that One L was really interesting. He talks a lot about the stress and the oppressive workload, but he never explains how he got through it. It would have been useful to learn how one person managed to handle the law school workload, especially at Harvard Law School. So don’t go to One L looking for study tips. Do look at 1L of a Ride by McClurg (can’t remember the first name). It’s full of useful information, and I think it even helped me during the introductory class and certainly on the exam. So many people at the law school don’t seem to have a clue what is going on. Do some research before you go to school, because you don’t always have to learn as you go, especially when that has such high-stakes consequences.

Other random tips I learned this week:

--Read footnotes—they’re interesting and sometimes hold key information.
--Brief every case, but brief it keeping in mind what you’re looking for—know what you’re supposed to be getting out of it by contextualizing it. I went to bed the night before the exam feeling okay about how I reviewed. Then, at some point in the night, I realized that I had been studying all the wrong things. I had been studying the substantive law, when actually this course was about and I should have been studying the legal reasoning and basic legal principles in the judgments. I woke up early in the morning (as I had been doing all week actually) and made a quick cheat sheet (open book exam) of some basic legal principles and the development of some legal reasoning in lines of litigation. And this cheat sheet was absolutely crucial for me in the exam. Of course, I could not rely heavily on it, it was just to have the exact language laid out and in one place. But it was crucial.
--DON’T just highlight in your book without going back immediately and extracting the main points in a note format. I read and highlighted everything for my introductory class the week before and it was a complete waste of time because I did not retain any of it and I had to go back and take actual computerized notes on it anyway. It was annoying. Particularly with cases, because they’re so dense, highlighting just will not do. You have to extract the facts and rules and, very important, put them in your own words as much as possible.

I think it’s going to be a difficult but rewarding three years.

Things are picking up around here, although orientation is still two and a half weeks away. I am helping The Economist move to Cowville at the end of this week, then I may spend some time in Cowville while he is in a pre-orientation math camp (hello--so elementary school). I will spend the time decorating and fitting out his new apartment and hopefully doing some studying of my own. At some point I will then come back down and start preparing for my orientation and for classes to start. Once orientation starts, all my down time will be devoted to full on study for the first week of classes, then on and on and on. Soon it will be final exams, then Christmas, then back into it.

I have picked up some materials for the first class we have to take, Intro to Law. I'm ridiculously excited to start. But I'm holding off though and just reading 1L prep books from my summer reading list (in between running errands--I've gone to Target a million times since I've been back in town). The one I'm reading now, '1L of a Ride' by Andrew J. McClurg, is quite easy reading, written in a colloquial language and giving good advice.

I also got a law school locker today, along with my locker combination (hello--so high school).

I have a little advantage in that I'm living in town, am here before most of the other students, already have my ID card, etc. so I can do things before other people can. I love how well I already know this town and the university.

I also had to submit my loan papers--I'm definitely taking out loans all three years. Tuition went up $6000 from two years ago! Thank goodness I'm an in-stater.

What I'm Doing to Prepare for Law School

Now that I’m a 0L, I’ve been getting full swing into the 0L thing. What am I doing to prepare for 1L?

I have been advised over and over and over again that the summer before 1L should not be spent trying to learn law because

a.) You won’t understand anything anyway and

b.) The first year of law school is a very brief and intense period before which you should rest, relax and gird yourself for the forthcoming work.

The advice from a British book called Letters to a Law Student by Nicholas J. McBridge is that if you get your books and can study the first few chapters of each, you’ll be a little bit ahead when school starts.

A friend of mine who just graduated from the University of Pomorum Law School this past year has also advised me that I should just try to enjoy myself. He said that once school starts, things will not be bad, just different.

I told him I was only worried about wearing myself out enjoying myself this summer. For one I’m going on a million vacations. I just came back from Scotland. In a few days, I’m going to go to Ireland. Then I’m going to Boston for a family reunion. After that I’m going to visit my brother-in-law where he and his fiancé live. I won’t say where, but I will say it will include a beer brewery tour and a fancy new modern art museum.

After that I’m helping The Economist move to Cowville, then returning to Pomorum City for the briefest of moments before the school year actually starts!

McBride has a few more pieces of advice. First, he suggests that although you shouldn’t read law, you should read a lot to get used to the volume of material. Second, he suggests you should read things you won’t have time to read in school, particularly about different subjects to law. He also suggests that you read a study skills book well before school starts. Third, he thinks you should cultivate an interest in politics and economics. Scott Turow also has an interesting take on this issue, which I will write about later.

Following that advice, here is my reading list for sliz-ummer 2010:

One L—Scott Turow DONE

Never Let Me Go—Kazao Ishiguro DONE

King Leopold’s Ghost—Adam Hochschild ALMOST done

Infidel—Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Gilead—Marilynne Robinson

Moby Dick—Herman Melville

The Rule of Law—Tom Bingham

1000 Days to the Bar—Tonsing

1L of a Ride—McClurg

Succeeding in Law School—Ramy

I might also add a straight study skills book to the mix because I seem never to have developed those myself.

I’ve also been reading from the blogs, such as this post by Dennis Jansen, about what law students should be wearing to orientation and beyond. I’ve realized that my wardrobe is not suited to a semi-professional environment and that I will have to remedy this once I get back to Pomorum City. I do not want to veer too far into a non-law related subject, but I do think that the way you dress is important to the way you are viewed as a professional. It sucks, but there it is.

I feel the following is a delicate issue.

I have always had difficulty finding clothes that fit well and this is especially problematic when it comes to professional dress. You don’t want to look sloppy, or unkempt, or vulgar. The way I see it is that, far from being fashionable, you should try to look so effortlessly well-maintained and well-groomed that your clothes become a non-issue. There should be nothing positive or negative that stands out about your clothes, so that your work and your manner come through as the strongest impression left upon people. Office politics being what they are I know it is impossible to completely escape scrutiny of one’s clothing, especially if one happens to be a woman who works with other women. I want to stick, so far as it is possible, to my ‘ethic’ or philosophy of workplace clothing.

Consequently I’ve realized that I have to lose some weight. I am about to say something controversial, without apology; it’s just what I think at the moment:

You can be a fat man and still be viewed as a professional. It is harder for a fat woman to be viewed as professional.

Women’s clothing always affects the way they are perceived professionally more than men’s. I will see in time if this opinion in correct.

Anyway, I have to get into shape. Since appearances are so important, I’m just going to take this as part of my ongoing professional development. It wouldn’t hurt to be a bit healthier too.

I also got some pre-orientation reading in the mail from Pomorum. I had to fill out the FAFSA for the first time as an independent. It turns out I am eligible for the low-interest student loans, but I think for the first year, I will be able to pay from my savings. And since I will not be paying rent, my living expenses are going to be quite small. I want to delay taking out loans for as long as possible. Luckily, The Economist has full funding and a stipend at Cow College, so we will keep our debt load relatively low. Still, we will end up at least $100,000 in debt between us. This is an amount of money I cannot possibly conceptualize right now, so I won’t try. I think, like most people my age, I’ll just think about it later. What else can we do?

I’m off to continue ‘preparing for law school’ by enjoying the crap out of myself.

Judgment for the Plaintiff in the Amount of One Career

See previous post if you are confused about place and person names.

On the train to Edinburgh (pronounce it ed-in-brrrrrrra; roll the ‘r’).

My husband (who needs a name in this drama-tragedy, so from now on he will be called The Economist) and I are going to spend a few days in Scotland on the Isle of Skye. We have gone to Scotland every summer since we have lived in Britain (except the first, but that’s a story for another time); we absolutely love it—if I could live anywhere in the world I would live in the northern Highlands. The landscape is so beautiful, rugged and spectacular as to make you doubt your eyes. In the summer the sun stays out until 11:30 at night. It is not overly warm and you have to have clear weather to really get the full enjoyment of it, but we have always been lucky in that respect. Plus, when we come to Scotland, it is always to go walking (or hiking as we might say in the US) and the cooler weather is ideally suited for strenuous outdoor activity. We are also very fond of Edinburgh (whence came many illustrious personages including Adam Smith and J.K. Rowling). It is out of the way, calm and relaxed, unlike London, yet still very cosmopolitan.

This year, we are taking the train to Edinburgh and renting a car to drive to Skye. Our route will take us through the extraordinary region of Glen Coe, along the western coast and across to the western isles. We rented a cottage on Skye and we’ll use that as a base for walking trips during the days, augmented with time for reading and relaxation. In addition, probably a good amount of time will be spent in the local pubs watching World Cup action.

I love a long train trip dearly and I will miss these times when we’re back in the US.

Still, there are other reasons to look forward to it. Now that I have been accepted to law school, I have gone from Total Failure to ambitious go-getter overnight. I return home in semi-triumph.

I do recognise that my life is about to change in significant ways. (For one, I have to stop using British spellings for everything.) I am moving back to the town where I grew up and where I went to college. I have deeply missed it in the times when England was kicking my butt. I wanted nothing more than to get into law school at The University of Pomorum and immerse myself in law study without the distractions of a big city. Now that it has happened, I’ve discovered the truth in the adage ‘Be careful what you wish for’.

There are so many good things about this situation. I’m going to a well-regarded, 1^st tier law school, paying in-state tuition. I will be living at my in-law’s house (they will not be living there during this time) so I will not be paying rent, not to mention that it is a really nice house. I will have a dishwasher (live in Britain for 4 years and you will be left in no doubt of how much a dishwasher adds to your quality of life). The combination of in-state tuition and not paying rent will mean that I will graduate with much less debt than most people and will therefore have more options when I graduate. Not to mention the amelioration of the burden of repaying the loans. I will, as I said, be able to immerse myself in the study of law without the distractions of big city life. This includes the fact that I will no longer have an outrageous commute to get anywhere—one of the prime benefits of small-town life. I will have a car (or at least access to one) which means greater independence, always a good thing. This being my hometown, I will have no learning curves when it comes to orientation. I know exactly where to go, where to shop, where to get books, where to get coffee, where to go to the gym, what traffic is like at various times of the day, and any number of other tidbits about living in a town with which my intimacy was forged in infancy. I will also know that access to the law school is hopeless on football Saturdays. I believe that my comfort with the town itself will help me get my feet under me when it comes to studying.

I used to work in the research laboratory of a very famous professor who had repeatedly been given offers from the most prestigious institutions in the country to move his lab there, but he chose to remain in my home state for more than 20 years now because he felt the other places were located in cities which would prove too distracting to his employees. I think there is a lot of sense in that notion (although his employees seemed to get up to a lot of mischief anyway). I hope that in the quiet and the calm tranquility of my hometown, I will be able to focus myself fully on school, achieving perhaps a state of one-ness with the law, absorbing the law, and otherwise learning to love the law with all my meek little heart!

Since this is my hometown and I plan to live here for a while I will also be able to work on the dreaded networking. The fact that you can be helped in your career just because of the people you know is completely distasteful and repellant to me, but apparently, as I am constantly told, it’s the way the world works. So who am I to fight it? (Secretly I’m going to destroy the system from within.)

One more thing: going home means that I can finally use all the wonderful gifts I got from my wedding four years ago which have been sitting in my in-law’s storage room, collecting dust and running out their warranties. My husband and I are the types of people who really enjoy things—not expensive things, not things that demonstrate wealth or status, but things that have sentimental value: that remind us of great trips we’ve taken or that make us think of the friends who gave them to us. Sometimes, like when we are home for Christmas, I like to just go visit my wedding things in the basement, thinking of the day when I will finally be able to use them and start making my own home. That day is coming soon!

Another benefit in my new life is that it will truly feel like life, or at least the next step, rather than a holding pattern, which is how England has felt for the last 2 years. Being a law student makes me feel like an adult—because only serious adults go the law school, right? Right?

You see, I have a 15 year plan which I will elucidate at another time. If I didn’t get into law school this year, it would have thrown my whole plan off. Disaster averted!

So you see, this situation is almost ideal and I know it is exactly what I need to do, what I should do; it is nearly the best possible outcome that was within the realm of possibility for me. But in my state of depression and longing for home, I did not give much thought to some of the downsides.

Unfortunately this does mean that I will not be living in the same place as The Economist.However, we realized some time ago that this was inevitable, considering that we only overlapped in applications on two schools, and neither of us got into either one. A lot of people have advised us that career-oriented couples often have to spend some time apart from each other, especially during grad school. We always viewed it as a last resort, and unfortunately it has come to just that. The good news is that we are only 2 hours’ drive apart which is not bad, considering that the other available option was for The Economist to stay in London and for me to be in the Midwest. We prefer this. We will both have a car and will alternate driving on the weekends. If we’re lucky one or both of us will avoid classes Friday or Monday. It is the best we can do. The Economist has applied to take a 1-bedroom apartment in Cowville, where he is doing his PhD. I am really delighted that I will have a roommate, my husband’s cousin, who is doing her MBA. She is a lovely girl I have always gotten along with and it will be nice to have a roommate.

Another negative to which I had not given much thought is the fact that my home state of Pomorum gets damn cold in the winter. Having lived in the highly temperate Britain for four winters, I’m scared I have become a real wimp about the cold. It troubles me because I am a Midwestern girl with cold, ice, snow, rain, tornadoes, humidity, thunderstorms and heat in my bones and I’m worried I’ve gone soft. I always love the bracing cold and the snow when I go home for Christmas, but I’ve only had it in small doses for the last four years. What will it be like to have months of it on end? Now that I’ll be living in a house, will I be expected to shovel snow?!!? This horrifies me, I always hated shoveling snow.

Plus, I’ve always found British winters to be much worse than Pomorum winters. In the UK, it never gets below freezing, so although it’s cold you never get snow. It’s just cold rain.Consequently, everything feels cold and clammy and wet rather than bone-chilling but dry. Plus, in the UK, you can go weeks without seeing a single ray of sunshine. Between the grey of the sky and the grey of the wet concrete, it can be pretty depressing. In Pomorum you get clear skies even in the winter with a layer of snow that reflects light all around and is, frankly, beautiful. I am counting on those sunny days to sustain me in the long cold winter months.

Another semi-con/semi-pro is the fact that we will be closer to our families. I put this in the overall con column because I am feeling wary about this at the moment. We love our families of course but we have really enjoyed our total freedom and independence these last few years. I am someone who particularly prizes liberty and independence, having seen too little of them as a child, and I am concerned what being so near family will do to my sanity.

Finally, I mentioned before that there isn’t much to distract in my hometown. Neither is there much to entertain. I will truly miss the big city arts of London: world-class museums, theatre, music, dance, etc. In my hometown, there isn’t much to do beyond going to the mall, seeing movies, going drinking and going bowling. It is a good study environment but not very exciting.Yet, I seriously doubt this will be a problem as my life will be consumed with school and little else.

So do the pros outweigh the cons in this situation?

Overall my judgment is for the plaintiff. The Isle of Skye notwithstanding, I cannot wait to begin my new life as a University of Pomorum law student.

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!

LNAT: Clarification

Hey, since people are still freaking out about their LNAT scores (one of the search terms that lead to this website was 'has anyone ever gotten an 11 on the LNAT') let me just clarify what I was saying before.

The LNAT is a bad exam. It's bad like Charles Manson. It doesn't do what it's supposed to do and it screws a lot of people.

The thing to remember is that the LNAT score is only one of many criteria used to assess you. It won't kill your application necessarily. The average is really low precisely for the reason that it's a poorly written test and that makes it extremely challenging to get the answer they want you to get.

Let me also caution future LNAT takers about one thing. When you practice LNAT, it is fine to start with the practice books, because they are very useful for learning the content and format of an unusual standardised exam; and they're good for learning strategies to tackle the exam, in a broad sense. When you want to really gauge how you're going to do on the actual exam, please, PleasE, PLEASE use official old exams from the LNAT website.

Here is a dirty little secret.

Prep books and prep book writers/publishers want you to think that they have helped you improve your performance on the test. They are always going to end their book by giving you practice tests that are either official but easier than the average exam, or tests that they have written themselves which are easier than the average real exam. I have used 3 or 4 prep books in my LSAT/LNAT career, from various publishers (including Kaplan). They all end by giving you practice exams which are easier than the actual exam. Do yourself a favour and don't get too excited when you get a 25 on your practice test. Go to the LNAT website and get the three official practice tests available there. They will give you a more accurate picture than anything else.

There, I've spoken my piece.

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.

Response to Comment Regarding LSAT and LNAT

How exciting, I got an actual question in the comments section! I will now dutifully answer it.

This comment comes from DA, who I hope will answer my question afterwards. The comment was

hi, I'm in almost the same situation as you...I'm an american, but living in the states trying to get into law school in London. I'm trying to figure out if there is any LSAT/LNAT conversion scoring, I've taken LSAT, but want to try and predict my results on LNAT. Any advice or are they wholly incomparable? Thanks!

Well, DA, you came to the right place.

First, as far as I know there are no set conversion tables and they would probably be pretty useless because the LNAT and the LSAT are two very different exams. In order to learn some of the basic differences between the two, check out this post. Also check out this post to learn why the LNAT is a stupid, stupid, stupid test.

Now as far as predicting your outcome, your guess is as good as mine. I took three practice exams and got one quite low score, one average score and one quite high score, which suggests it's not a very reliable test. The best thing you can do is just take some practice tests yourself.

My advice would be, first, to get a prep book on the LNAT and familiarise yourself with the format and content. Second, I would start reading the British newspapers because most of the excerpts in the LNAT come from there (especially the London Times and the Guardian) and it's always useful to learn their style. Third, I would take as many practice tests as you can and very, very carefully try to dissect the answer explanations, trying to learn what it is they want you to be thinking as you read. There are three practice tests available on the LNAT website and several prep books are available.

Now, I hope DA will answer some of my questions!

First, why are you trying to go to law school in London? I hope that's not impertinent, I'm just curious because it's an unusual choice. What are your career plans? What schools are you applying to? When are you going to be applying?

Yay internet.

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 Applications Applications!

One reason why this blog is so incoherent is that I change my mind on a daily basis about what exactly I'm going to do. Up until two days ago I was pretty sure Husband and I were going to move back to Midwest State next year, I would go to Midwest State School and he would go to Prestigious Midwest School, and we would just deal with a 3 and a half hour commute back to our Hometown on the weekends.

But a few days ago, Husband met up with some old friends from Oxbridge University, one of whom is now doing his PhD at British Economics School (which is what Husband wants to do, if it weren't for his little wifey who wants to go to law school). This friend, who is super duper smart, went to the best schools and did tons of math (which is what they want in Economics programmes) told Husband that he didn't get into a single American graduate economics programme! Husband also applied to tons of American graduate economics programmes for after university, but wasn't accepted to a single one (except oddly the Oxbridge University one--that's how we ended up in the UK in the first place). Well this friend knew why--because apparently the people they admit to these programmes are uber duper supercalifragalistic smart people who have not only gone to the top schools and graduated with good marks, but have worked in central banks, published papers, cured cancer and solved world hunger. I exaggerate, but basically they have spent their whole young adulthood aiming every career decision toward getting into one of these graduate economic programmes.

It is clear these programmes are very competitive and a lot more selective than we have previously believed. And even a master's degree from British Economics School isn't sufficient to get you in. Husband's friend basically said that Husband should be glad he is already in the British Economics School because he's much more likely to be able to do his PhD there than in any American school.

So now we're thinking Husband will definitely have to continue at British Economics School if he wants to do his PhD after his MSc. If I still decide to attend Midwest State School, we will be apart. But if I do a law degree here in the UK, we can be closer together.

So now, I'm opening that book again--Yes, I am definitely going to apply for UK schools as well as US schools. Just when I thought my life had gotten a whole lot easier.