Test taken: LNAT

Number of interviews: 3

Skype interview: No

Interview spread: 1 in morning, 1 in afternoon (same day), 1 (language) next day

Length of law interviews: less than 30 minutes (+ 20 minutes reading time) each; Length of language interview: 5 minutes

I was surprised to discover that my interviewers had no interest whatsoever in my personal statement or extracurricular activities. I later found out it was the same for everyone at my college. The interviews were focused solely on the materials provided to me before the interview. For each interview I was asked to come a half hour before the actual interview. I was taken to a room with other students and handed about one page of law-related material to read through (and take notes on, if I wished to). I had about 20-25 minutes to do that, and them some friendly then-freshers brought me to the interview room.

My first interview was more about principles in the law. The reading materials were two different judgements (edited for length) in cases with similar facts. Then in the interview we talked about why judges would arrive at different decisions faced with similar facts, what it was that distinguished the cases, and if the judges were right deciding the way they decided. Spoiler alert: I said they weren’t and I still got in, so don’t be afraid to say what you really think. Just be sure you have good reason for thinking that. I left that interview quite happy with myself (apart from recurring moments of complete panic every now and then).

The second interview was more about the practical application of legal rules. For reading, I was given a summary of facts and a set of legal rules. I was supposed to advise one of the characters from the summary of facts what their options were on the basis of the set of rules. (It was an excerpt from some code about company law, I think?)That interview left me miserable. There were two people interviewing me in each case, but this time the guy sat quiet throughout the whole thing, with this look of disinterest on his face. I had him as a tutor last year for one of the modules, he’s actually great but boy did he contribute greatly to my misery. I answered a few of their questions in a way that seemed to satisfy them. The questions were about the effects that particular points in the set of rules had on the scenario. Then they asked me a question which seemed to be about just identifying a particular section which said a particular thing. Example: “And where does it say that a simple majority is not enough to vote a board member out?” Obviously, I thought, this must be a trick question. And so I proceeded to point out several different sections which implied or in consequence also said that a different majority is necessary. They kept asking and asking. Finally I gave up and gave them the obvious answer. They asked me why I opted for the complicated answers and less convincing answers when the right was was right there, just waiting to be read. I explained, the lady laughed, the bored guy looked up at me, still looking mostly bored. I guess the lesson is to answer the question you’re asked, not what you think someone’s asking.

In the language interview they just asked about my holidays and why I wanted to study law. It was just meant to check my level of the foreign language, and lasted a whole five minutes.

I did a few practice tests to familiarise myself with the test format, but there is nothing anyone can do to prepare substantively — the test is aimed at finding out how you think, not what you know.

I didn’t really prepare much for the interviews. They're not something that you can study for. The biggest advantage that preparation gives you is that it makes you a little less stressed, which is arguably a lot.

I would suggest you learn a few relaxation exercises — for me breathing exercises do the trick, combined with Pentatonix’s Hallelujah on repeat for the entire day.

I think the best piece of advice I got was to not be afraid of the silence. If the question you are asked is complex, it’s okay that you don’t have an answer ready instantly. Take a moment, take even thirty seconds. There is no hurry, and taking that time can make your answer so much better. Also, if you don’t understand the question, ask them to rephrase it – they won’t mind, they want you to do as well as you can, and that means giving you the chance to actually answer to the best of your abilities.

In one of my interviews, the questions were really theoretical, and you could answer them pretty much any way you wanted. Every time I answered, the interviewer picked at my answer, asking supplementary questions: 'But why do you think so?', 'And what if (slight change of hypothetical)?', 'So you think that (rephrasing, sometimes inaccurate, of my answer)?' That doesn’t mean that your answer was wrong. It just means that they’re giving you an opportunity to show them how you think, and adapt to slight changes of circumstances, to give more detail to your theory. Use it and don’t stress about it. If you let yourself get drawn into it, you might even enjoy your interview. I know, crazy.