Home PEx Campus The Academe

Perception: No more LAE interview

I'm just curious. What would you think of a UP Law student who was allowed to enrol without going through the very memorable interview portion? This year, it's only for the people on the wait list.

Personally, I agree with the move. Leave out the Santiago incident, but I think there is a subjective element that you cannot really control in the interview. I mean, it's a tad ridiculous to take a summa ***** laude undergraduate student and send him to another law school only because a professor looked at him for a minute and felt he was too arrogant. (And yes, going back to the Santiago incident, some questions simply cross the line.)

Further, I was told a lot of the faculty members proposed such a step a long time ago.

There are a few arguments against the move, but they don't convince me.

1) They won't be bona fide UP Law students -- I don't see the point, and if it's about bragging rights or a rite of passage, the issue will be moot after last year's freshman batch graduates.

2) No test of oral skills -- A good point, but in-house studies show college grades as the best indicator of success in Law school anyway. Morever, I think oral skills and the intellectual skills needed for Law are two different packages. I can't imagine rejecting a potential top Taxation practictioner because he couldn't debate if his life depended on it, for example.

3) No test of personality -- It may well be a test of kaplastikan, if that's your argument. A classmate once opined during a class that if the purpose of the LAE interview is to weed out the more arrogant types, it failed.

Anyway, there's no room for argument since the list of qualified applicants was already released, but I was wondering how people outside the College of Law perceive the move.

Comments

  • just curious. how much weight was assigned to interviews vs the written test vs college grades, etc?
  • mac_bolan00mac_bolan00 PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Originally posted by Oscar01
    There are a few arguments against the move, but they don't convince me.

    1) They won't be bona fide UP Law students -- I don't see the point, and if it's about bragging rights or a rite of passage, the issue will be moot after last year's freshman batch graduates.

    2) No test of oral skills -- A good point, but in-house studies show college grades as the best indicator of success in Law school anyway. Morever, I think oral skills and the intellectual skills needed for Law are two different packages. I can't imagine rejecting a potential top Taxation practictioner because he couldn't debate if his life depended on it, for example.

    3) No test of personality -- It may well be a test of kaplastikan, if that's your argument. A classmate once opined during a class that if the purpose of the LAE interview is to weed out the more arrogant types, it failed.

    Anyway, there's no room for argument since the list of qualified applicants was already released, but I was wondering how people outside the College of Law perceive the move.
    no, i don't agree with #1 but #2 and 3 are valid enough. you should first ask yourself whether or not the result of a written exam is sufficient ground for admission. UP has long recognized the main failing of a single written exam (not just for LAE but for the UPCAT). a one-time written exam is a singularity in an individual. you have factors such as preparation, chance, cheating and processing errors. to smooth these out, you need other data sources. an exam presents cross-sectional information about a person's abilities. what is lacking is time series information. that is why the UP registrar insists on factoring one's high school grades into one's UPCAT. an interview is likewise cross-sectional but it provides a different data set to an examination. of course, you encounter logistics problems in data gathering. an interview component for the UPCAT is not likely, even if you short-list the 70,000 applicants who take the exam every year. in ateneo perhaps but not UP. as to LAE, why i thought an interview would weigh heavily considering the nature of the discipline.
  • tend to agree with mac.

    my question remains unanswered: how heavy was the weighting assigned to interview before it was chucked.

    just a side note, some b-schools here in the US are putting less weight on the GMAT and more on application form (essays), resume and alumni interviews.
  • mac_bolan00mac_bolan00 PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    a far more ridiculous system is being practiced by companies. professional competence is best determined by one's tract record and the validation of that record. so why a personality test? why an IQ test? why an interview?
  • Originally posted by Stampede
    tend to agree with mac.

    my question remains unanswered: how heavy was the weighting assigned to interview before it was chucked.

    I'm not from UP law but I passed the LAE and the interview. I think the system before was, you have to pass the LAE, then everyone starts on the same footing again, so you have to pass the interview to get accepted, and LAE performance will no longer matter.

    Btw, which business school is this which now gives lesser weight to GMAT scores? Harvard or Wharton or Kellogg by any chance? :) I think if I apply to business school, this would be a good thing.
  • Originally posted by Oscar01
    I'm just curious. What would you think of a UP Law student who was allowed to enrol without going through the very memorable interview portion? This year, it's only for the people on the wait list.

    Personally, I agree with the move. Leave out the Santiago incident, but I think there is a subjective element that you cannot really control in the interview. I mean, it's a tad ridiculous to take a summa ***** laude undergraduate student and send him to another law school only because a professor looked at him for a minute and felt he was too arrogant. (And yes, going back to the Santiago incident, some questions simply cross the line.)

    Further, I was told a lot of the faculty members proposed such a step a long time ago.

    There are a few arguments against the move, but they don't convince me.

    1) They won't be bona fide UP Law students -- I don't see the point, and if it's about bragging rights or a rite of passage, the issue will be moot after last year's freshman batch graduates.

    2) No test of oral skills -- A good point, but in-house studies show college grades as the best indicator of success in Law school anyway. Morever, I think oral skills and the intellectual skills needed for Law are two different packages. I can't imagine rejecting a potential top Taxation practictioner because he couldn't debate if his life depended on it, for example.

    3) No test of personality -- It may well be a test of kaplastikan, if that's your argument. A classmate once opined during a class that if the purpose of the LAE interview is to weed out the more arrogant types, it failed.

    Anyway, there's no room for argument since the list of qualified applicants was already released, but I was wondering how people outside the College of Law perceive the move.


    True, the interview portion has not proven effective in weeding out bad applicants in the UP College of Law. However, it has not proven damaging to the admission committee’s selection process as well. In other words, it’s not the best criterion for admitting the best qualified applicants but it is nonetheless helpful. Therefore, I still would think the interview be retained in the selection process. Here are my three additional reasons:

    1. The written exam has not been proven to be a good ‘indicator’ to weed out bad applicants to enter the hall of Malcolm. There are people who can write really well but when they are asked to discuss verbally about what they have written, they looked dimwitted. It would not be acceptably pleasant to the eyes for any UP Law graduate projecting like a stupid lawyer in court.

    2. In actual law practice, verbal abilities weigh more than the written. You defend a client or prove a point through verbal communications, not by writing. The interview portion could, at least, help the UPCOL admission’s committee choose who amongst the already brilliant applicants has the gift of gab.

    3. The interview portion is the only genuine time (during the pre-acceptance of the applicants) for the UP staff to face-to-face the applicants. This is the only time when the admission’s committee can have a physical assessment (including face value and attire) of the applicants. Why is this important? Because lawyers are expected to be dignified looking. They don’t necessarily have to be a ‘model material’ but they should be overall, pleasant looking.


    Do not mind about discrimination. We live in a world where discrimination exists and it has become a part of every society – civil or otherwise. It is also present in all institutions in the world – academic, government or religious. There was discrimination written in the holy books. Discrimination may not be at all gratifying but it has existed even before we first found about it. It may not be at all pleasant. Sad to say, it is here to stay. We should learn to live with it. In fact, discrimination is necessary to any institution that needs to propel its goal to a next level. We need to discriminate when we choose the right people to compose our winning team. The UP College of Law should not be an exemption to this. In order for it to maintain its winning post, it needs to discriminate.

    What the UPCOL needs to do, in my opinion, is to adjust the criteria, including the percentages given to every criterion in the selection process. There is absolutely no need to abolish it.
  • Originally posted by mac_bolan00
    no, i don't agree with #1 but #2 and 3 are valid enough. you should first ask yourself whether or not the result of a written exam is sufficient ground for admission. UP has long recognized the main failing of a single written exam (not just for LAE but for the UPCAT). a one-time written exam is a singularity in an individual. you have factors such as preparation, chance, cheating and processing errors. to smooth these out, you need other data sources. an exam presents cross-sectional information about a person's abilities. what is lacking is time series information. that is why the UP registrar insists on factoring one's high school grades into one's UPCAT. an interview is likewise cross-sectional but it provides a different data set to an examination. of course, you encounter logistics problems in data gathering. an interview component for the UPCAT is not likely, even if you short-list the 70,000 applicants who take the exam every year. in ateneo perhaps but not UP. as to LAE, why i thought an interview would weigh heavily considering the nature of the discipline.

    Excellent. In addition to that, there should also be a preference to the colleges where the applicants came from, if college grades (GPA) are to be included as one of the factors. Prestigious universities all over the world practice this. Oxford practices this. The UP College of Medicine practices this. Why? Because it is a known fact that colleges of lesser academic standards (i.e. NCBA, PSBA) are generous in grades but such is not a practice in high standard colleges (i.e. DLSU, UP). In other words, if after all the factors are put in and there remained two applicants, (say) one from UP and the other from Ateneo, registered an identical mark, the College of Law has to drop the applicant from Ateneo because it is a known fact that Ateneo’s academic standard is inferior to UP’s.
  • Originally posted by Stampede
    just a side note, some b-schools here in the US are putting less weight on the GMAT and more on application form (essays), resume and alumni interviews.

    This is interesting. Like which b-schools are you talking about?

    Some b-schools in the UK are demanding higher GMAT scores for Indian applicants because they generally present very impressive GMAT scores.

    There must be something with what they eat there in India. :D
  • Mac, I agree with you on #2 and #3, but I do feel that a lot of subjectivity has crept in in practice.

    I think Durham has a very myopic view of the legal profession, though. It sounds a little too much like The Practice. :D
  • ok so maybe i was exagerating a bit...here are a few 'soft' proof points

    there was some talk a while back that Harvard would drop the GMAT requirement. don't think that ever pushed through.

    my co-worker here at a VC claims he did poorly in his GMAT (low 600s) but got accepted at Virginia and Texas (easily first tier schools). the guy has a liberal arts degree at USF (hardly top-tier), is extremely sharp and has had a stellar career in finance. you do the math.

    my alma mater -- michigan -- has been recruiting more of its alums (here and abroad) to do candidate interviews. i recently interviewed two here at the bay area
  • Originally posted by ustig!
    in little miss philippines, talent, personality and interview portion are given equal in the criteria.

    it should be the same.

    heed the thomasian.

    please.
  • Originally posted by Oscar01


    I think Durham has a very myopic view of the legal profession, though.
    excuse me. what made you say that?
  • Originally posted by Stampede
    ok so maybe i was exagerating a bit...here are a few 'soft' proof points

    there was some talk a while back that Harvard would drop the GMAT requirement. don't think that ever pushed through.

    my co-worker here at a VC claims he did poorly in his GMAT (low 600s) but got accepted at Virginia and Texas (easily first tier schools). the guy has a liberal arts degree at USF (hardly top-tier), is extremely sharp and has had a stellar career in finance. you do the math.

    my alma mater -- michigan -- has been recruiting more of its alums (here and abroad) to do candidate interviews. i recently interviewed two here at the bay area

    It is not widely known but Harvard only reinstated the GMAT requirement for MBA applicants for the Fall 1997 term, after an 11 year hiatus.

    Being privy to MBA admissions committees from most of the top-tier schools, I know for a fact that there's no grand "weighting formula" for making these decisions. Generally, the longer one has been out of college the less undergrad GPAs will count -- and the more sterling work experience and rave reviews from recommenders and interviewers will weigh.

    That being said, it will still be difficult for people to get into the top-tier schools if they get low GMAT scores (low 600s -- good luck if you score below 600, for example) and have low undergrad GPAs. You just won't make it past "the first cut." What with hundreds of first rate applicants coming in with fabulous work experience, sterling recommendation letters and ultra-high GPAs, the top-tier schools can afford to be very selective. It is best to try and put together the strongest package you can as an applicant, given stuff that's more or less in your control. Your undergrad GPA is more or less a given. But you can still try and get as high a GMAT score as possible.

    I do not think the GMAT or undergrad GPA was ever a major deciding factor for admission into the top-tier schools. It is a good "first cut" requirement, to see if applicants can hack the academic demands of an MBA program, but it is admittedly an imperfect gauge of "professional or personal leadership qualities." When I read and make decisions on applications, I always check the GMAT/GPA scores first -- can this person conceivably handle the academics in the MBA program? Yes? Then I read the essays, reco letters, interview results, and put together a coherent picture of how this individual rates as a standalone applicant, given our school's standards, as well as relative to the general pool of candidates. So yes, I've rejected lots of people with Summa ***** Laude's and perfect GMATs because the other parts of their application were dicey. But on the average, GPAs and GMATs are on the rise, so assuming quality work experience is a given, I do not think getting high GPAs & GMATs is something any applicant can afford to pooh-pooh.
Sign In or Register to comment.