UNSW's new law entry?? (1 Viewer)

[heyoverthere]

BTW, instead of making this, the dean should've just made Legal Studies an assumed knowledge...

Idk, that's my opinion, what are your thoughts.

Nah but heaps of schools don't offer legal studies so it would be a disadvantage

 

[heyoverthere]

Does this apply to all uni's?
By the way, apparently it applies to postgraduate Law and transfers as well.
Can anyone confirm this?

Nah its just for unsw undergraduate law, but im pretty sure it means that if you want to transfer from an existing degree into undergrad unsw law you have to sit the test as well !

 

[T-R-O-L-O-L]

Nah its just for unsw undergraduate law, but im pretty sure it means that if you want to transfer from an existing degree into undergrad unsw law you have to sit the test as well !

Thanks, I reckon UNSW will be less popular now, USYD all the way!

 

[nerdasdasd]

I hope they have this law entry stuff for every uni .

 

[Trans4M]

I am not sure why people think so negatively of the LAT. It only boosts your chances of getting in. If you already meet the ATAR cut off, your result in LAT will not matter. So people who know for sure they can get 99.70+ wont have to bother sitting it. If you are already below the ATAR cut off, you are not going to get into the course in the first place. LAT gives you a second shot of getting in if you miss out on the ATAR Cut off. The LAT scores are only considered if you don't meet the ATAR Cut off.

 

[strawberrye]

very well said -repped

 

[wannaspoon]

I am not sure why people think so negatively of the LAT. It only boosts your chances of getting in. If you already meet the ATAR cut off, your result in LAT will not matter. So people who know for sure they can get 99.70+ wont have to bother sitting it. If you are already below the ATAR cut off, you are not going to get into the course in the first place. LAT gives you a second shot of getting in if you miss out on the ATAR Cut off. The LAT scores are only considered if you don't meet the ATAR Cut off.

Actually, this is a very, very valid point... Well said, chief... Did not actually think about that... One small pro (that affects only a small percentage of those who are intending to enroll into law) vs. a shit load of cons though...

 

[mreditor16]

"Year 11 students who wish to sit the LAT prior to their HSC year may do so. Your LAT result will be valid for two years so you can use it to apply for Law in 2018" - Pretty nice of UNSW to offer this! Good on them! (Y)

 

[Trans4M]

"Year 11 students who wish to sit the LAT prior to their HSC year may do so. Your LAT result will be valid for two years so you can use it to apply for Law in 2018" - Pretty nice of UNSW to offer this! Good on them! (Y)

Also means they can sit it twice and the better result will count.

 

[BandSixFix]

Actually, this is a very, very valid point... Well said, chief... Did not actually think about that... One small pro (that affects only a small percentage of those who are intending to enroll into law) vs. a shit load of cons though...

Could you please elaborate?

 

[wannaspoon]

Could you please elaborate?

Well, it is just another hurdle, for somebody who has successfully completed HSC in a manner that expresses competency to study law, it is just more "red tape," so to speak that is designed to filter people who would not necessarily struggle to study law (in other words, it can be very indiscriminate)...

Another thing, I would liken these tests to psychometric tests on steroids... These test do not necessarily prove or disprove that you are capable or incapable of doing well at Law... In fact, ALL the questions have nothing to do with Law... The tests can also be disheartening, they are quite a lot of people competing for a position which can have a negative impact to your test performance, there are about 2000 people at any one time doing these tests in Victoria (this is particularly negative towards those who may have low self esteem, etc)...

Another side note, although these psychometric test can indicate cognitive capability (the results also depend on the performance of others taking the test, your performance is also dependent on how other do, not on how well you actually perform... You could be dynamite, but if everyone was an A Bomb, you would do crap), they are not the be all and end all to decide whether a person is capable... I recently did one for a job I am applying for, and there is a collection of disclaimers which delve into this (in other words, they may be an indicator of competency but they are not necessarily a good indicator)... It seems that the makers of these test do not even have faith in the tests...

A better way of doing things would be to probably interview candidates to personalise the process and assess competency... The test is just a cop out because it is easier to organise, cheaper and quicker (everything in a Law School seems to be money motivated in this day and age though)...

Moral of the story, if you want to do well at these tests, give everyone gastro prior to the exam, thin down the talent pool a bit...

 

[strawberrye]

BTW, instead of making this, the dean should've just made Legal Studies an assumed knowledge...

Idk, that's my opinion, what are your thoughts.

I disagree with this, because that would demand that people know what they want to do before year 11-and that would be severely unfair for people who have only decided what they wanted to do in Year 12, also, doing well in legal studies does not translate to doing well in law, the knowledge one gains in legal studies don't correlate to law because the critical thinking skills are quite different, I am pretty sure students don't deconstruct problem questions in HSC legal studies, making it as assumed knowledge is an extremely bad idea, because it no way will help people excel in law much. Law is rarely about rote learn knowledge, but rather critical thinking skills, because it is open book exams (mostly) and usually people are tested on their application of their knowledge.

 

[Trans4M]

Hey there.

Does anybody have a source confirming that the LAT only would be considered if the ATAR cut-off was not met?

YO ME!

A better way of doing things would be to probably interview candidates to personalise the process and assess competency... The test is just a cop out because it is easier to organise, cheaper and quicker (everything in a Law School seems to be money motivated in this day and age though)...

Actually all the money from LAT goes to ACER and not the Law School. The Law School receives no monetary benefit for introducing LAT.

 

[wannaspoon]

Actually all the money from LAT goes to ACER and not the Law School. The Law School receives no monetary benefit for introducing LAT.

Perhaps, but it is certainly cheaper than conducting interviews with around 300-400 potential candidates... If that is not monetary benefit, I do not know what is...

 

[BandSixFix]

Well, it is just another hurdle, for somebody who has successfully completed HSC in a manner that expresses competency to study law, it is just more "red tape," so to speak that is designed to filter people who would not necessarily struggle to study law (in other words, it can be very indiscriminate)...

Another thing, I would liken these tests to psychometric tests on steroids... These test do not necessarily prove or disprove that you are capable or incapable of doing well at Law... In fact, ALL the questions have nothing to do with Law... The tests can also be disheartening, they are quite a lot of people competing for a position which can have a negative impact to your test performance, there are about 2000 people at any one time doing these tests in Victoria (this is particularly negative towards those who may have low self esteem, etc)...

Another side note, although these psychometric test can indicate cognitive capability (the results also depend on the performance of others taking the test, your performance is also dependent on how other do, not on how well you actually perform... You could be dynamite, but if everyone was an A Bomb, you would do crap), they are not the be all and end all to decide whether a person is capable... I recently did one for a job I am applying for, and there is a collection of disclaimers which delve into this (in other words, they may be an indicator of competency but they are not necessarily a good indicator)... It seems that the makers of these test do not even have faith in the tests...

A better way of doing things would be to probably interview candidates to personalise the process and assess competency... The test is just a cop out because it is easier to organise, cheaper and quicker (everything in a Law School seems to be money motivated in this day and age though)...

Moral of the story, if you want to do well at these tests, give everyone gastro prior to the exam, thin down the talent pool a bit...

This test is just literally two essay questions with the sole purpose to indicate to the examiners how well a student can organize ideas.

I don't know how to like quote on this site but, "for somebody who has successfully completed HSC in a manner that expresses competency to study law" - Whats your opinion on 'competency to study law'? because passing the HSC sure isn't. This was enacted to COUNTER individuals who support getting great marks in 4u maths or physics to stop thinking themselves as 'competent' to study law and gives those students who pick humanities and maybe not so high scaling subjects and those people who did what they enjoyed in year 12 a chance.

 

[wannaspoon]

This test is just literally two essay questions with the sole purpose to indicate to the examiners how well a student can organize ideas.

I don't know how to like quote on this site but, "for somebody who has successfully completed HSC in a manner that expresses competency to study law" - Whats your opinion on 'competency to study law'? because passing the HSC sure isn't. This was enacted to COUNTER individuals who support getting great marks in 4u maths or physics to stop thinking themselves as 'competent' to study law and gives those students who pick humanities and maybe not so high scaling subjects and those people who did what they enjoyed in year 12 a chance.

Competency in studying Law would be to gain an ATAR that is at, or above the prerequisites of the actual course provided... Who is to say the people who do 4u maths, physics, etc will not do well at studying law... The problem is not so much with who is gaining eligibility to enrol into Law, the problem is more related to HSC itself... Personally, I am more of a fan of the JD model (or, the Melbourne Model, as some would like to call it), it is way too expensive though... Personally, I think that many HSC/VCE leavers should not be studying law (with the exception of a select few)... Furthermore, Law Schools have been also shying away from enrolling HSC/VCE leavers in favour of mature aged students...

I'm sorry to say this, but, completing Law does not require some form of genius intellect... It simply requires patience, which, most 18 year olds fresh out of HSC do not have (and most people for that matter)... Sorry to generalise, but that is how it is...

As for the testing and it's structure, I am only commenting on the tests which are conducted in Victoria and not the one proposed for UNSW... Be mindful that no test has actually been conducted yet and that the test is obviously subject to change as well (and that future tests are also subject to change)...

If it is any help, or relevant, here's information on the one that is conducted in Victoria... Also has practice questions and all...

https://www.acer.edu.au/files/alset-2015-candidate-information-booklet.pdf

 

[BandSixFix]

Competency in studying Law would be to gain an ATAR that is at, or above the prerequisites of the actual course provided... Who is to say the people who do 4u maths, physics, etc will not do well at studying law... The problem is not so much with who is gaining eligibility to enrol into Law, the problem is more related to HSC itself... Personally, I am more of a fan of the JD model (or, the Melbourne Model, as some would like to call it), it is way too expensive though... Personally, I think that many HSC/VCE leavers should not be studying law (with the exception of a select few)... Furthermore, Law Schools have been also shying away from enrolling HSC/VCE leavers in favour of mature aged students...

I'm sorry to say this, but, completing Law does not require some form of genius intellect... It simply requires patience, which, most 18 year olds fresh out of HSC do not have (and most people for that matter)... Sorry to generalise, but that is how it is...

As for the testing and it's structure, I am only commenting on the tests which are conducted in Victoria and not the one proposed for UNSW... Be mindful that no test has actually been conducted yet and that the test is obviously subject to change as well (and that future tests are also subject to change)...

If it is any help, or relevant, here's information on the one that is conducted in Victoria... Also has practice questions and all...

https://www.acer.edu.au/files/alset-2015-candidate-information-booklet.pdf

It is just another way, or lets say, another attempt to filter out those individuals who may not be capable of doing law. I mean the inherent reason for the implementation of this test was that the dean 'noticed' (I'm guessing through statistics of course droppers) that those who were not compatible with studying law and only picked it due to their high atar was as a majority those students who picked STEM based subjects.

It is not a end all solution, and of course that test is not as intellectually sophisticated as yours, it's just another barrier in attempts to throw out more capable candidates.

 

[Nailgun]

I just want to put out that imo a subject like physics can be just as or more useful in developing the critical thinking and problem solving skills than a specialized subject like legal studies. Even if legal studies is directly related to Law. (not to say Legal studies doesn't develop those skills. essay writing can be tremendous in that area)

I think the point of the LAT is not to test what you know, or gauge your (real) interest in Law. Rather I think the point is to test if you can think - deconstruct and solve problems.
Which is a skill that is developed in HSC STEM subjects (albeit in small amounts drowning in rote memorization and societal impacts lol)