Law entry should be made harder (1 Viewer)

[flashyGoldFish]

Law is one of the degrees with the biggest drop out rates. Often people get a surprisingly good ATAR and think 'I cant waste the ATAR so im going to do combined law' and end up dropping out either because they dont like it or because they arent up to it (and in the process blocking entry of someone with a slightly lower ATAR that is up to doing law).

We look at medicine and see how much harder it is to get in and even then it has a decent drop out rate.

So should law have a much harder entry path, one that requires maybe another test and/or interview. Or something else that will filter out people who will end up as drops out?

 

[shak99]

Law is one of the degrees with the biggest drop out rates. Often people get a surprisingly good ATAR and think 'I cant waste the ATAR so im going to do combined law' and end up dropping out either because they dont like it or because they arent up to it (and in the process blocking entry of someone with a slightly lower ATAR that is up to doing law).

We look at medicine and see how much harder it is to get in and even then it has a decent drop out rate.

So should law have a much harder entry path, one that requires maybe another test and/or interview. Or something else that will filter out people who will end up as drops out?

Even if there was another test, people would find a way around it and still get into law...get into second year, get bored or find it too difficult and then drop out.

As for people with slightly lower marks who really want to do law, tough luck. Do a different degree, get at least credit average (which isn't hard) and ask for a transfer.

 

[zhiying]

I think it is mostly because people don't get any exposure to law in high school and have no idea what is it entails.

Rather than another academic test on top of the high ATAR requirement, it might be better to make Legal Studies in HSC a prequisite, so at least people going into law has some exposure beforehand.

 

[albertcamus]

^ That would be a terrible idea, since HSC Legal Studies is a horrible course for law preparation since there's barely any legal principles in it.

IMO, with all the complaints of having low scaling humanities besides Economics, they should make a difficult and rigorous course for HSC that requires legal understanding and applying legal principles so that it's actually hard, which would also incline many high achievers (that would attempt to get into law either way) to pursue the HSC law-related course since it would probably scale higher, and incline more high achievers to pick the HSC law-related course and that would form a positive cycle that also gives some preparation for uni law.

 

[RishBonjour]

^ That would be a terrible idea, since HSC Legal Studies is a horrible course for law preparation since there's barely any legal principles in it.

IMO, with all the complaints of having low scaling humanities besides Economics, they should make a difficult and rigorous course for HSC that requires legal understanding and applying legal principles so that it's actually hard, which would also incline many high achievers (that would attempt to get into law either way) to pursue the HSC law-related course since it would probably scale higher, and incline more high achievers to pick the HSC law-related course and that would form a positive cycle that also gives some preparation for uni law.

In doing that and making so many prerequisites, you would be limiting people to courses based on their HSC subjects. Probably not the best way to go. At university, you get to try out different areas (e.g. Law) if you like it - stay - if you don't, drop out - others with lower marks can simply transfer. So current system is fine IMO.
They could have an interview though

 

[ilikecats]

Maybe more people should choose to do degrees they'd enjoy rather than degrees for prestige/because their parents wanted them too.

If professions like teachers, nurses, many science fields etc. were better paid in comparison to your white collar office jobs, a lot more naturally gifted people might study in those fields.

I think the general admissions system for many university degrees needs to be looked at. There is a saturation of many professions, and high drop out rates because everybody is doing it for prestige instead of studying their strengths and things they enjoy :c

 

[Emily Howard]

m8 u culd hav n atar of 99.95 but sum1 wif a passion 4 law with atar of lyk 85 doin better den u

 

[Crobat]

I've always had the opinion that Law is a subject that should require an interview as part of the application, not for the reason that there is a high drop out rate, but because it gives those with ATARs that miss the mark the opportunity to pursue their passion without having to use another entire year to apply. Drop out rates are dependent on a lot of factors, personal morality even being one, so I don't believe you can judge who will and who will not be a drop out purely on an interview - after all, if their ATAR is high enough to be accepted for Law, doesn't that suggest they have the ability to apply themselves diligently in their studies? Likewise uni is also partly about discovering yourself and naturally you might find that what you once thought was your passion was in fact just a phase.

As for an external exam such as UMAT, I'm not particularly keen on. UMAT tests a lot of emotional, problem solving, and even non-verbal communication skills which are difficult to 'study' for (I know there are practise ones online but whether you are strictly LEARNING from your mistakes in something that you personally failed to understand the first time is very vague), but rather are inherently part of your personality. These skills are something that med students and employees require in the long run so it indeed makes sense to test them. But whether something similar can be done for Law is questionable. Perhaps tests on what is legally correct and morally correct, but I don't see that exam going anywhere else.

 

[Omnipotence]

I remember hearing something from the Dean about the ATAR requirement getting ridiculously high and proposing other measures like interview + umat type of stuff to be considered as well.

 

[aekryan]

I remember hearing something from the Dean about the ATAR requirement getting ridiculously high and proposing other measures like interview + umat type of stuff to be considered as well.

Its actually easier to get into post grad medicine than it is for law.

undergrad med --> 99.5 ATAR + high percentile in UMAT + interview
Post grad med --> Credit-High Credit average in any course and blitz GAMSAT

Undergrad Law --> 99.75 ATAR
Transfer in one year --> 98 + ATAR + High-Credit average
post grad Law--> D average or even high C average (this course has international recognition like overseas 'law schools' which requires an undergrad) and most people who actually become lawyers are post grad. (U Melbourne requires LSAT)

I think Australia should adopt the "Law School" principle and have a LSAT like in the US, UK and most of Canada + you have to get a high GPA in any other course.
Along with the Law School Entry test you submit an essay + some sort of application listing things like interest clubs you are in etc, etc.

People only tend to think its harder to get into med school because people take undergrad courses like pharmacy and med sci under the impression that it will help them for med.
Post grad Law students do subjects from Arts history and Eng Lit through Commerce and eco also have a lot of transfer into law, and they do really well.

In America it is actually encouraged that you do the easiest course possible to get a high GPA and due to the fact that they want 'diversity'. But people, like me, may be a bit worried and do something like commerce/eco instead and not get in as is the case with med.

I think the system is fair for people that could not get in and be the top 0.5 percent in the state.
Plenty of opportunities to get into whatever you like, if you're not ready to put a lot of effort in to get a D average in your subject for Law or a high C average + a great GAMSAT mark for med then it probably is too late as you will be like what, 21.. I don't think transferring into either is too difficult, or too easy... it needn't be increased.

 

[RishBonjour]

Its actually easier to get into post grad medicine than it is for law.

undergrad med --> 99.5 ATAR + high percentile in UMAT + interview
Post grad med --> Credit-High Credit average in any course and blitz GAMSAT

Undergrad Law --> 99.75 ATAR
Transfer in one year --> 98 + ATAR + High-Credit average
post grad Law--> D average or even high C average (this course has international recognition like overseas 'law schools' which requires an undergrad) and most people who actually become lawyers are post grad. (U Melbourne requires LSAT)

I think Australia should adopt the "Law School" principle and have a LSAT like in the US, UK and most of Canada + you have to get a high GPA in any other course.
Along with the Law School Entry test you submit an essay + some sort of application listing things like interest clubs you are in etc, etc.

People only tend to think its harder to get into med school because people take undergrad courses like pharmacy and med sci under the impression that it will help them for med.
Post grad Law students do subjects from Arts history and Eng Lit through Commerce and eco also have a lot of transfer into law, and they do really well.

In America it is actually encouraged that you do the easiest course possible to get a high GPA and due to the fact that they want 'diversity'. But people, like me, may be a bit worried and do something like commerce/eco instead and not get in as is the case with med.

I think the system is fair for people that could not get in and be the top 0.5 percent in the state.
Plenty of opportunities to get into whatever you like, if you're not ready to put a lot of effort in to get a D average in your subject for Law or a high C average + a great GAMSAT mark for med then it probably is too late as you will be like what, 21.. I don't think transferring into either is too difficult, or too easy... it needn't be increased.

Yes to LSAT.

Blitzing GAMSAT is hard. People get 96 percentile and fail to get into U melbourne - so post grad med is still harder than Law by any measure.

 

[Omnipotence]

they already implement lsat at melb uni but yeah australian wide would be nice. also limit the cohort for law because it is way to high atm

 

[aekryan]

they already implement lsat at melb uni but yeah australian wide would be nice. also limit the cohort for law because it is way to high atm

i'm not sure if i agree with you there though at least not until i get in haha.
Take into consideration that most graduates wont practice law especially in undergrad, most lawyers tend to have done the JD.

 

[Omnipotence]

i'm not sure if i agree with you there though at least not until i get in haha.
Take into consideration that most graduates wont practice law especially in undergrad, most lawyers tend to have done the JD.

yeah true haha

 

[Aerath]

I think it is mostly because people don't get any exposure to law in high school and have no idea what is it entails.

Rather than another academic test on top of the high ATAR requirement, it might be better to make Legal Studies in HSC a prequisite, so at least people going into law has some exposure beforehand.

Because legal studies is such an accurate indicator of what law school is like.

 

[Ricktatorship]

I heard somewhere that there were talks to implement something similar to the UMAT for law in the future. It would stop the demographic who get a surprisingly high atar, and think, "Oh I can do law, I'll do that instead of what I wanted".

 

[Omnipotence]

I heard somewhere that there were talks to implement something similar to the UMAT for law in the future. It would stop the demographic who get a surprisingly high atar, and think, "Oh I can do law, I'll do that instead of what I wanted".

the atar will still be 99+ though LOL

 

[OzKo]

Is there any data on dropout rates or is this all based on hearsay?

 

[arimerialc]

Sorry to change the topic slightly but as you all seem familiar with/ knowledgeable about undergrad law, I was wondering what qualities you think are indicative of a potentially successful law student. My ATAR was 96.5 and pretty much all my subjects were humanities based. Legal Studies was actually my best subject, but as most people seem to agree, Legal has very little in common with law at uni. I'm just curious as I can't work out how much of a law degree relies upon verbal reasoning and communication skills, which I am stronger in, and how much requires another skill-set which I don't really posses due to my strong focus on writing and the humanities. Thanks guys

 

[OzKo]

Sorry to change the topic slightly but as you all seem familiar with/ knowledgeable about undergrad law, I was wondering what qualities you think are indicative of a potentially successful law student. My ATAR was 96.5 and pretty much all my subjects were humanities based. Legal Studies was actually my best subject, but as most people seem to agree, Legal has very little in common with law at uni. I'm just curious as I can't work out how much of a law degree relies upon verbal reasoning and communication skills, which I am stronger in, and how much requires another skill-set which I don't really posses due to my strong focus on writing and the humanities. Thanks guys

What do you consider as your weaknesses?