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.

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.

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.

Oxbridge Collegiate System

Did I ever explain this whole Oxbridge college thing? Let me tell you something about that.

Oxford and Cambridge Universities use a collegiate system. That is, there are two distinct parts of the 'university' as a whole. First, there are academic departments called faculties--faculty of law, of economics, etc etc etc. The faculties are responsible for delivering lectures and administering exams. That is their job, exclusively. Second, there are a collection (around 30 at each university) of colleges. A college can roughly be thought of as a combination of an American-style dorm and a Hogwart's-style house. Each student is a member of a college and all their university activities outside of lectures and exams take place in college. They live in college, do sports with their college, have social events, student government and all those types of things with their college mates.

Also, and this is the most important aspect, each college will have several fellows in each subject who are employed in the faculties of the university. They are members of the college in which they are fellows and are responsible for being what in the US we would call TAs (teaching assistants). The faculties handle lectures and the colleges handle small group sections, which my university called discussions. Other American universities call them seminars, tutorials, small group, or whatever. Obviously in lecture there can be hundreds of students. In order to discuss the subject and answer questions, you have a discussion section of around 30 students. In the Oxbridge collegiate system, because the numbers are so small and because each college employs several fellows, undergraduates will have these discussion sections (with an eminent expert in each field of study) in groups of two or three. Sometimes one-on-one. If you are a fan of learning and discussing what you're learning with someone with so much knowledge to impart, you understand what an amazing system this is. This is what separates Oxbridge from everywhere else in the world.

It's also one of the reasons I want to go there.

I did my master's degree at another well-regarded British university (let's call it my Master's University) and unfortunately had a disappointing experience in some ways. Most importantly I was disappointed in the commitment level of the other students. They didn't seem genuinely interested in the subject and it diminished the academic experience for me. I like learning, I loved the subject I was studying (mostly). It frustrates me to be in classes with people who fail to prepare for discussion, who have no enthusiasm for the subject at hand. I suspect that since Oxbridge are such aspirational institutions I would be with students who are more keen and I would really appreciate that.

Gunner in the making.

If I Go to Law School in the States: Here is the Situation

I am trying to decide right now what law schools to apply to. Here is the situation: I don't have a great LSAT score so I'm taking the LSAT again this September. In about 10 days. I should probably be studying.

Anyway, I'm going to try to push up my LSAT score to make me competitive for the Top 14 schools in the States. This is because I want a 'good legal education', a concept I will have to define later (note to self). If I don't improve my LSAT score significantly, I have a difficult situation to deal with.

Here is the situation.

My Husband is a smart guy and he has done really well academically and is in many ways much smarter than me. He, like me, went to a large State University in the American Midwest on a full scholarship. He did really well and has since done post-graduate degrees at Oxbridge University (ie Oxford or Cambridge, I'm not going to say which) and is now doing a master's degree in Economics at a very highly regarded British... shall we say... school... of economics (I bet you can guess which). He wants to do his PhD directly after he finishes his master's degree this year.

Unfortunately, he married a woman who has not been as academically successful and--at least in America--would not be able to go to as good a grad school as one to which he might apply to do his PhD. There is the possibility that he and I could go to two different universities of different caliber which are in the same city or urban area. This is definitely a feasible option.

The problem with this option is that while Husband might be able to get funding, my law degree will be funded almost entirely on student loans. I have been strongly advised that before I take on $150,000 of debt to attend an expensive law school, I should consider my career goals and what I can reasonably anticipate will be my income in that career and decide how much debt I can take on accordingly. I want to be a prosecutor or possibly a public defender. Not high paying jobs. Kids do go to $50K-a-year law schools and fund it entirely on debt but afterward they often find their career options are severely limited by the fact they now have to start paying off that debt. That's okay if you can get a job in a big corporate environment or in a lucrative private practice. In light of my career goals and future earning expectations (and the fact that I am so. sick. of being poor) I think it is wise to graduate with as little debt as possible.

This means it doesn't make much sense to go to a lower caliber state law school in the same location as the Husband, particularly when I could just go to my alma mater's law school on in-state tuition for less than half the cost of out-of-state tuition at a second tier school or any of the Top 14 schools.

So my alma mater is a large State University in the Midwest with a law school that is in the Top 25. It has a good reputation and according to its statistics its gradates are working all over the country (sometimes it can be a problem that your school is not highly regarded elsewhere and you can't get a job outside your geographical region). It has a great library which I actually used for studying while on holiday during my master's degree. It is located in my Hometown, where I would have free housing and a much less expensive and much more comfortable lifestyle than a big city. I would live only 2 miles from campus and be able to bike or take a free bus. I would be nearer to family and friends. Why would anyone go to a lower-ranked state law school at twice the price when they have this great alternative?

Because I would have to be apart from my Husband. :( That's not a good thing and almost tips everything in the balance towards saying, fuck it, I'll pay the price, take on the extra debt, so that I don't have to be in a long-distance relationship with my Husband for three years.

My Husband could go to this Midwest State School to do his PhD but it would be a major step down, the Midwest State School is not great for Economics and, given his excellent academic record, he can do much better and indeed must do better than Midwest State School if he is to realise his career goal of being a college professor.

So at the moment it seems that what is best for me is to go to Midwest State School and what is best for Husband is to continue at his British Economics School for his PhD. We are at an impasse and have to weigh the issues carefully. And quickly. I should be applying for schools now and haven't even decided where to apply.