Law entry should be made harder (1 Viewer)

[arimerialc]

What do you consider as your weaknesses?

Welll, I dislike maths and am not particularly interested in any of the sciences. I mean I don't think either of those areas are directly relevant to law, but at the same time I feel like law is a lot more rigid and obviously less creative than Arts subjects, for example. So I guess I'm trying to work out what types of tasks and subjects I've experienced (or may not have experienced) in my education thus far that are most similar to the type of work undertaken by a law student.

 

[Trans4M]

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

It's not accurate but gives some indication

Based on core course enrolment numbers first year subjects fit around 350-400 but by 4th year, core courses only have 200-300 spots.

 

[enoilgam]

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

I'd say observation mainly. I dont think the requirements should be changed at all - most degrees have high drop out rates and many times people have to try something before they realise that it isnt for them.

 

[Spiritual Being]

Please resume this thread after I get accepted into law with my 80 ATAR at UWS.

Then yes, law shouldn't be as accessible as it is.

 

[wannaspoon]

Please resume this thread after I get accepted into law with my 80 ATAR at UWS.

Then yes, law shouldn't be as accessible as it is.

I got an ATAR of 51.05 and I'm doing law (half way through)... whats your point???

I busted my balls doing a diploma and a degree in social science... I think the current arrangement regarding admissions is fine...

Think most law students need to get off their high horse and understand that a law degree is not like fighting Goliath... drop out rate is probably due to dealing with the overwhelming amount of elitist knobs that just piss you off...

I honestly think a person with an ATAR of 70 can easily complete a law degree... and honestly, there is a shit load of drop outs in any degree...

 

[wannaspoon]

@ LSAT style testing talk: These tests are an absolute crock of bull that have no relevance on how well or how competent you are to do law... I sat the DULSAT (Deakin University Law School Admissions Test) It was the most utterly pointless thing I have ever done in my life... I did poorly at it which probably explains why I'm critical of it (Probably because I had a hangover and slept in for it). However, this test did not test: competency in English (eg: essay writing, spelling, grammar, punctuation), competency with law or any sort of intellect... It was just a collection of stupid readings with multiple choice questions that were purely retarded to be quite frank... Heck a lucky individual can probably guess the whole thing and get a high score in my opinion... In no way do these tests pick out those who are incapable of doing law... In fact I think they do the opposite and discourage those who can genuinely succeed in a law degree...

I am of the opinion, however, that there should be more interviews and maybe, but only maybe, testing that actually tests a prospective students knowledge of the law and English... I applied for RMIT's criminal justice administration degree and I actually had to do an interview with the faculty head and write two short essays regarding issues of crime and justice...

Think the dropout rate in law is also high because people go to study law and treat it as a novelty (eg: something they can brag to friends, family, randoms and maybe to women the meet at a bar... these people are naive and stupid, they honestly don't belong in the legal profession and probably have the ego of a six year old with a black belt in taekwondo or something...)... It is no novelty, most of the people who think this quickly realise that it is a hard degree to finish and drop out...

and if you didn't get accepted, big deal do a different course and try and transfer, or, apply for mid year intake... and take a bit of a break in the interim...

 

[RishBonjour]

@ LSAT style testing talk: These tests are an absolute crock of bull that have no relevance on how well or how competent you are to do law... I sat the DULSAT (Deakin University Law School Admissions Test) It was the most utterly pointless thing I have ever done in my life... I did poorly at it which probably explains why I'm critical of it (Probably because I had a hangover and slept in for it). However, this test did not test: competency in English (eg: essay writing, spelling, grammar, punctuation), competency with law or any sort of intellect... It was just a collection of stupid readings with multiple choice questions that were purely retarded to be quite frank... Heck a lucky individual can probably guess the whole thing and get a high score in my opinion... In no way do these tests pick out those who are incapable of doing law... In fact I think they do the opposite and discourage those who can genuinely succeed in a law degree...

I am of the opinion, however, that there should be more interviews and maybe, but only maybe, testing that actually tests a prospective students knowledge of the law and English... I applied for RMIT's criminal justice administration degree and I actually had to do an interview with the faculty head and write two short essays regarding issues of crime and justice...

Think the dropout rate in law is also high because people go to study law and treat it as a novelty (eg: something they can brag to friends, family, randoms and maybe to women the meet at a bar... these people are naive and stupid, they honestly don't belong in the legal profession and probably have the ego of a six year old with a black belt in taekwondo or something...)... It is no novelty, most of the people who think this quickly realise that it is a hard degree to finish and drop out...

and if you didn't get accepted, big deal do a different course and try and transfer, or, apply for mid year intake... and take a bit of a break in the interim...

Like the UMAT?

 

[enoilgam]

Like the UMAT?

From what I understand, the UMAT and LSAT are forms of psychometric testing. We have looked at them quite a bit in HR and they seem to be very highly regarded by recruiters in this day and age. Personally, I dont think they say much about a candidate at all - it just says whether they have a very specific type of intelligence (to be quite frank, I think they are one step up from voodoo).

 

[theism]

let them get into law,
then drop out.

makes the rest of us feel better.

 

[RishBonjour]

let them get into law,
then drop out.

makes the rest of us feel better.

This.

From what I understand, the UMAT and LSAT are forms of psychometric testing. We have looked at them quite a bit in HR and they seem to be very highly regarded by recruiters in this day and age. Personally, I dont think they say much about a candidate at all - it just says whether they have a very specific type of intelligence (to be quite frank, I think they are one step up from voodoo).

I think UMAT is luck, discipline and basically stress management on THAT day. (along with IQ -s3 and 'emotional intelligence' in S2)

 

[lawstu]

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.

Well, the interview does screen out 1/3(?) of those to whom an interview offer is made.

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

Honestly, I think Melbourne is not only the best law school in Australia but its selection process is the best, with its academic achievement, its statement/essay, and its LSAT components. It's a little American and distinguishes it from the other unis, though.

I'd complain that there are far too many law students and far too many people with LL.B.s or J.D.s but I don't care any more; it's not as though caring can make me more competent or competitive as a prospective employee, after all!

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?

I don't think the attrition or dealing with attrition is that simple.

Attrition is a 'problem' in anything.

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.

That's probably true of most everything, and most kids leave school not knowing what to do with their lives or how to go about it.

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.

Oh, hell no.

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.

An interview would be good. However, this may be discriminatory, for want of a more apposite term, as some kids don't have a passion because they haven't been exposed by parents, parents' friends, extended family, etc.

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.

Yeah.

Legally correct and morally correct is problematic, though.


How is this attrition data even obtained and then analysed?