'Law school applicants compete for fewer places' (2 Viewers)

[RogueAcademic]

<headline>Law school applicants compete for fewer places</headline>

<!--articleTools Top--> <byline>Bridie Smith</byline>
<date>January 12, 2008</date>

<!--bylineDetails-->
<!--articleDetails-->
<iframe allowtransparency="true" vspace="0" hspace="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" style="width: 300px; height: 250px; display: none;" name="AdPlaceholder-olddoubleisland" id="AdPlaceholder-olddoubleisland" src="http://ffxcam.theage.com.au/html.ng/cat=national&ctype=ffxnewsstory&domain=theage.com.au&site=age&isiframe=yes&adspace=300x250&adtype=doubleisland&" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>

<!--articleExtras-wrap--> <bod> </bod>ALMOST 320 fewer offers for law places will be made to school-leavers this year, as Melbourne University continues its contentious shift to the US-style Melbourne Model.


The change, which dramatically recasts the tertiary sector, will see preferences for rival institutions spike, pushing up ENTER scores as students look for an alternative.
Data from the Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre, to be released on Monday, is expected to show that Monash University secured the highest number of first preferences for the second consecutive year.


Meanwhile, Melbourne University recorded a drop of about 6% in preferences on last year, including a 1.4% fall during the change-of-preference period between October and December.


A Melbourne University spokeswoman said there had been a good demand for Melbourne Model courses and that the university was expecting to make more than 5200 offers, the same number as in 2007. The spokeswoman said the fall in the number of first preferences reflected the university's shrinking number of undergraduate courses — down from 96 last year to 29 this year.


Under the new model, law will become a postgraduate degree, offered alongside six broad undergraduate courses.


Monash recorded an increase of nearly 70% in first preferences for law this year, with about 1106 students nominating Monash law as their first choice.


Monash's acting vice-chancellor, Adam Shoemaker, said it was inevitable that the increased demand would inflate the cut-off marks required to secure a place.


"I couldn't say how high it will go because we have to see how it pans out, but it will be very high indeed," Professor Shoemaker said.


Last year ENTER scores ranged from 99.05 for straight law and 83.55 for business-law, with Monash making 340 round one offers to students on Commonwealth places.


Melbourne University made about 318 round one offers to prospective law students on Commonwealth places, with an ENTER score of 99.45 required for law or combined degrees such as arts-law, commerce-law or science-law.


Professor Shoemaker said Monash had also recorded growth in student preferences for engineering, nursing, arts and health sciences, while IT was down by about 12%, reflecting a national trend.


Deakin University welcomed a 10% rise in the number of first preferences on last year.


Vice-chancellor Sally Walker said nursing (up 21%) and primary teaching (11%) courses at the Burwood campus were in the state's top 10 for first preferences, while the Geelong campus saw growth in health sciences (up by 67%) and biomedical sciences (105%).


At La Trobe's Bundoora campus, first preferences were down slightly on last year, while courses at the Bendigo and Mildura campuses gained in popularity.


Thousands of students will discover on Monday whether they have secured a university or TAFE place when the Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre releases first-round offers.



http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...or-fewer-places/2008/01/11/1199988590024.html

 

[Frigid]

Last year ENTER scores ranged from 99.05 for straight law and 83.55 for business-law, with Monash making 340 round one offers to students on Commonwealth places.

business-law is not a law degree.

 

[Metric]

I think it's only a matter of time before all universities follow Melbourne's lead. Many have already rebranded their graduate LLB courses as JD's, and many more are reported to be planning to do so. I don't think it will be long before the LLB is phased out completely, and the graduate JD will be the only pathway to a legal career.

The American system (graduate law, admission using undergraduate GPA and the LSAT) is a good way to go, in my opinion. The UAI isn't the best way to measure student's ability for specialised study (such as medicine and law). Medicine already requires the UMAT (and interviews in some cases), so it makes sense that law should require something similar. In general, students with a UAI of 100 who topped the state in Chemistry and Physics are not nearly as suited to law as a student who recieved a UAI of 95 with Band 6's in English and Legal Studies. The fact that the current system doesn't take these things into account results in 99+ cut-offs, which discourages or inhibits many potential law students who have a genuine interest in the subject. I wonder if even the top SC's at the bar would have actually been able to get into law school if the requirements were as they are today.

 

[Frigid]

I think it's only a matter of time before all universities follow Melbourne's lead. Many have already rebranded their graduate LLB courses as JD's, and many more are reported to be planning to do so. I don't think it will be long before the LLB is phased out completely, and the graduate JD will be the only pathway to a legal career.

don't think so. i think melb is only going their own way with this..

The American system (graduate law, admission using undergraduate GPA and the LSAT) is a good way to go, in my opinion. The UAI isn't the best way to measure student's ability for specialised study (such as medicine and law). Medicine already requires the UMAT (and interviews in some cases), so it makes sense that law should require something similar. In general, students with a UAI of 100 who topped the state in Chemistry and Physics are not nearly as suited to law as a student who recieved a UAI of 95 with Band 6's in English and Legal Studies. The fact that the current system doesn't take these things into account results in 99+ cut-offs, which discourages or inhibits many potential law students who have a genuine interest in the subject. I wonder if even the top SC's at the bar would have actually been able to get into law school if the requirements were as they are today.

BS, for the following reasons:-

1. undergraduate entry is not the only option into LLB. there are also graduate and transfer entry paths into LLB.

2. medicine =/= law. why do you think law should have the same entry paths as med?

3. someone who attains a UAI of 100 (English being compulsory), must have achieved at least a high band 5 to low band 6 result. law isn't just about english or legal studies (ha!), but is multi-disciplinary. law requires some understanding of logic, reasoning, economics, philosophy, social sciences etc.

4. see point 1. also, note that CSP cutoffs range from about UAI 90 - 99.60 whereas the FEE cutoff for USyd/UNSW is about 94 - 95. so our reasonable HSC graduate with a UAI of 95 can study at so-called 'top tier' law school.

 

[thegovernator]

Band 6 in legal studies shouldn't count for much. All of the stuff you do in that subject in High School is covered in about 20 minutes at law school. I don't see how choosing legal studies in preference to science based subjects really means you will be a better applicant.


Also, even if someones topped Chem and Phys, it's likely that these people have also gained a band 6 in 2u Advanced English - and in that sense, would be just as suited to law as the person you mentioned earlier that had band 6's in English and Legal Studies.

 

[Metric]

don't think so. i think melb is only going their own way with this

Time will tell. I was simply saying that is what I think will happen sometime down the track. ANU and UTS have already introduced JD's, and I'm sure others will follow. As to if the undergraduate LLB will go, that is speculation but I think it will happen eventually.

medicine =/= law. why do you think law should have the same entry paths as med?

I didn't say medicine = law, I said that they are both specialised degrees (as opposed to the BA or BSc, which are not particularly vocational as you can major in many different things) and I said that the UAI isn't the best way to measure how suited somebody is to specialised study (in my opinion). I gave medicine and law as examples. Surely if universities agreed that my opinion of the UAI was "BS", then medicine would be available everywhere, as an undergraduate degree, with no UMAT, etc.

someone who attains a UAI of 100 (English being compulsory), must have achieved at least a high band 5 to low band 6 result. law isn't just about english or legal studies (ha!), but is multi-disciplinary. law requires some understanding of logic, reasoning, economics, philosophy, social sciences etc.

I didn't say that law was entirely about English and Legal Studies, that is obvious. I said that somebody who excels in English/Legal Studies would probably be more suited to law compared to someone who excels in Maths/Science. I did say that I was generalising. I know many people who focused on Maths and Science and now study law who are very interested in it, however you cannot deny that the average student aspiring to be a lawyer would be have a greater passion for the humanities.

 

[Frigid]

I didn't say medicine = law, I said that they are both specialised degrees (as opposed to the BA or BSc, which are not particularly vocational as you can major in many different things) and I said that the UAI isn't the best way to measure how suited somebody is to specialised study (in my opinion). I gave medicine and law as examples. Surely if universities agreed that my opinion of the UAI was "BS", then medicine would be available everywhere, as an undergraduate degree, with no UMAT, etc.

you haven't done law yet, how can you say it's 'vocational'? again, the only analogy you can come up with is studying medicine, which, as I have said, is a world apart from studying law.

I said that somebody who excels in English/Legal Studies would probably not be as suited to law as someone who excels in Maths/Science. I did say that I was generalising. I know many people who focused on Maths and Science and now study law who are very interested in it, however you cannot deny that the average student aspiring to be a lawyer would be have a greater passion for the humanities.

'passion' or 'enthusiasm', at the high school level, shouldn't be determinative. how can they judge passion? just because you do well in english/legal std? isn't that judging on the merits, then? if so, we do we not look for all-rounders - those who are good at everything?

believe me, those who excelled in english/legal std do not have an academic advantage in law school.

grasshopper, you have much to learn.

 

[Metric]

'passion' or 'enthusiasm', at the high school level, shouldn't be determinative

I agree completely, hence my preference for the American system, where law students are mature (well, more mature than the 18 year old school leaver!) and have already completed university study.

Look, I don't do Legal Studies but I am pretty set on studying law in the future, I know that studying law in high school is meaningless when it comes to university. I don't think I won't get the UAI required, but I know that many others who want to do law won't. All I am saying is that the UAI system is not perfect, and it is not the be-all and end-all. It is no secret that many students with high UAI's go into law because they can (which was what I was trying to illustrate with my previous example), whereas nobody would go into graduate law for the same reason. In the USA, the only reason you would want to do a JD is because you really wanted to study law (for whatever reason, you want to become an attorney, an academic, go into business, whatever the case may be).

My argument was about the inadequacies of the UAI. Now that we seem to be going down the ad hominem road, I think it's best that we agree to disagree

 

[thegovernator]

imho, you should be allowed to study law straight out of high school. start studying earlier, finish earlier, get out into a good paying job earlier!

 

[melsc]

I think it's only a matter of time before all universities follow Melbourne's lead. Many have already rebranded their graduate LLB courses as JD's, and many more are reported to be planning to do so. I don't think it will be long before the LLB is phased out completely, and the graduate JD will be the only pathway to a legal career.

The current dean at Mac seems against it and this sort of thing will lead to some uni's losing the pull they have mainly down to prestige. I think its a stupid system designed to make more money, it already takes us 5years + PLT why make it 6? our double degree program is much better

 

[Metric]

I'm not advocating that we go down the American path of presitge-driven private universities. I just think if law was more like medicine in its admission system, then people who do it for the sake of it wouldn't bother. I would rather everyone do a liberal undergraduate degree, then go on the medical school, law school, what have you. Others like the ability to go straight into whatever you want to do straight from high school, that's fine. I'm not against that, I just prefer the former. Whatever the case, the government should definately ensure that nobody misses out on a spot in a graduate program because they can't afford it.

I thought the Melbourne Model was stupid when I first heard about it, but now I think its quite a good idea. Watch this video (with an open mind!) to see the basic idea behind it.

 

[ari89]

It really sounds like you have no idea:uhhuh:

 

[Graney]

In general, students with a UAI of 100 who topped the state in Chemistry and Physics are not nearly as suited to law as a student who recieved a UAI of 95 with Band 6's in English and Legal Studies.

Both examples are absurd inflation of marks.

I think a uai in the mid to high 80's at the most would be more than intellectually capable of studying law. The rest is dedication.

Whatever undergraduate entry scheme is in place is always going to exclude a vast number of perfectly capable students.

 

[Metric]

Both examples are absurd inflation of marks. I think a uai in the mid to high 80's at the most would be more than intellectually capable of studying law. The rest is dedication.

Yes, I was trying to provide an extreme example. I can't make any first-hand observations, but I wouldn't think it requires a 95+ UAI to pass a law course (according to the Law FAQ, the Dean of USyd Law said a UAI of 80 is enough, in terms of intelligence).

Whatever undergraduate entry scheme is in place is always going to exclude a vast number of perfectly capable students.

That's what I think, which leads me to believe that a graduate scheme would, at the least, exclude less students.

You could get a UAI of <30 and be absolutely brilliant. UAI just measures what you did during less than a year of your life.

Exactly, whilst a university GPA measures consistent results at university level, which I think is a better way of ranking students for entrance into a competitive course such as law.

It really sounds like you have no idea

Could you be more specific? I would be happy to clarify my opinions for you.

 

[Season]

Having applied for medicine this year I would not wish that freaking asskicking bitch of an admissions scheme on anyone.

The reason why they have such a tight admissions scheme for med is because
a) costs a lot to fund a med place, not in the uni, but the teaching hospitals that have to take time from their patients to teach the new admissions when they need to be seeing patients. Not to mention post-graduate training positions need funding too.

b)unlike lawyers, people seem to trust doctors, in fact there is this idea that if you do what the doctor says exactly then everything will be okay. Now while this usually is a fine approach to take, sometimes its not. In light of this there is an attempt to get the best people who care about the job.

c)you do medicine YOU BECOME A DOCTOR, you do law... you have a 40% of being a lawyer

d) medicine is not just a 5 year degree, you're looking more like 11 years of training before you can get out, and that's just for a GP.

In comparison, law really, while it has the prestige of a degree its no where near as specialised as a medical degree. So many people now treat a law degree as a "quasi-arts" degree. Family friends all say that if i go to uni, if I have a law degree it proves that I'm smart, while the other degree proves I'm qualified.

I don't know about the other universities but ANU is against it, while it may go down that path someday in the future... that won't be anytime soon.

 

[Graney]

Family friends all say that if i go to uni, if I have a law degree it proves that I'm smart, while the other degree proves I'm qualified.

Your family friends are pretty pretentious, hey.

 

[Season]

Your family friends are pretty pretentious, hey.

Yeah... see my father used to be involved in the jewish community in Sydney... they are the equivalent to the modern day "asian" reference

 

[RogueAcademic]

Im my opinion, broadly speaking, medicine as a profession is served much better as a graduate degree. The crux of the profession centres around gaining enough medical knowledge to correctly diagnose and appropriately treat the patient but an often neglected aspect for many is the doctor-patient relationship, something which medical educators are trying to fix by introducing it early in 'new and improved' medical courses. A little bit of life experience goes a long way in this area, as well as the maturity that (you'd expect) comes with life experience. Medicine is a very demanding career choice. It requires constant lifelong learning and focus, something which I think an older applicant has a better chance of making an informed decision about, as opposed to a school leaver. Broadly speaking of course.

The function of a graduate JD degree in law on the other hand is to distinguish law graduates with a very different experience and background than the average school leaver. The JD application process takes into account more than just high school marks so I would think that the JD has a more equitable entry point. Most (if not all) law degree applicants will have a great academic record anyway, JD graduates will come out with something extra to offer which school leavers don't have. Law is also a very demanding career where an older applicant has had more time to make a well-informed decision about the career choice.

 

[Metric]

I don't know about the other universities but ANU is against it, while it may go down that path someday in the future... that won't be anytime soon.

ANU is a case in point of how I think things should work: they have a graduate medicine program, to which you are admitted based upon your GPA and GAMSAT results. I think they also have a program where students with 98+ UAI's are given a provisional offer to graduate medicine? (provided they maintain a certain GPA)

So many people now treat a law degree as a "quasi-arts" degree

True, this is one of the arguments people put forwards for graduate law- most school leavers have no idea what they really want to do, and law seems an attractive option due to percieved prestige, potential renumeration, etc.

The JD application process takes into account more than just high school marks so I would think that the JD has a more equitable entry point. Most (if not all) law degree applicants will have a great academic record anyway, JD graduates will come out with something extra to offer which school leavers don't have. Law is also a very demanding career where an older applicant has had more time to make a well-informed decision about the career choice.

This is the gist of why I'm trying to say

 

[RogueAcademic]

b)unlike lawyers, people seem to trust doctors, in fact there is this idea that if you do what the doctor says exactly then everything will be okay.

That's true up to a certain point, just look at all the lawyer jokes out there. But people make fun of lawyers until they need one. From that point, your comment about doctors above applies to the lawyer as well.

c)you do medicine YOU BECOME A DOCTOR, you do law... you have a 40% of being a lawyer

That's also true for the most part. But keep in mind that there are more law courses out there than medical courses. The opportunities for law graduates is much much more competitive than for medical graduates. I don't know about your quoted '40%' chance of being a lawyer but it's also as much to do with an overloaded system.

d) medicine is not just a 5 year degree, you're looking more like 11 years of training before you can get out, and that's just for a GP.

It doesn't take that long to be a GP. Even so, after gaining qualifications from a specialist medical college, the medical practitioner is still expected to keep their medical knowledge up to date through personal study. Medical graduates also start making a decent amount of money right after graduation too.