Average LNAT Score: National and University Data

The average LNAT Section A score is roughly 23 out of 42. That figure comes from the last national statistics the LNAT Consortium published, covering 7,849 candidates in 2015/16. The candidate-weighted mean equated score was 22.97, with a pooled standard deviation of 5.24. The Consortium has not published a more recent national average. Later figures come from individual university applicant pools, which generally average about 22 to 25. Their offer-holder averages are usually higher.

The latest public national average

The only national LNAT statistics in the public domain are in the Pearson VUE technical report covering 1 September 2015 to 30 June 2016. Across the 7,849 candidates who sat in that window, mean raw scores on the five test forms ranged from 22.04 to 24.43. The candidate-weighted raw mean was 23.27. After form equating, the candidate-weighted mean reported score was 22.97, with a pooled standard deviation of 5.24. Reliability was moderate (Cronbach’s alpha 0.68 to 0.76), and 56% of questions were answered correctly on average.

Later technical reports exist but are circulated to member universities rather than published, and the Consortium’s public results page gives no averages. The 2015/16 figure is therefore the latest public national benchmark, not a measurement of the current cohort. Applicant averages disclosed by individual universities in the 2020s cluster between 22 and 25, but those selective pools cannot replace a national result.

Average LNAT score by university

Section A scores are directly comparable between universities because every candidate sits the same 42-mark test. What differs is the pool. The figures below are the most recent published or FOI-disclosed averages for each university’s applicants and offer-holders.

*King’s publishes an enrolled-student mean rather than an offer-holder mean, so that row is not exactly comparable with the others. Bristol, Glasgow and SOAS require the LNAT for relevant routes but publish no comparable averages, so they are omitted rather than estimated.

How the averages have moved

Offer-holder averages describe the successful group, but they are not admissions cut-offs. UCL’s is the longest run available: around 26 to 28 from 2013 to 2021, then a step up to roughly 29.5 from 2022. Cambridge has held near 30 across its three disclosed cycles.

The lines move slowly. No university in the chart shifts by more than about three marks across a decade, so last cycle’s figure is a reasonable guide to this one. The distance between universities is wider than the distance between years: Durham and LSE offer-holders average in the mid-20s while Oxford and Cambridge offer-holders average around 30, and that spread has held for as long as the data runs.

The applicant and offer-holder gap

At every university that has published both numbers, offer-holders average more than the applicant pool. That gap does not prove a fixed cut-off. Oxford made offers to candidates scoring in the low 20s in 2025, and LSE has stated that it operates no threshold. It shows that higher scores are more common among successful applicants.

The applicant average tells you where the pool is centred; the offer-holder average is the more useful comparison for a target score. A score of 24 is close to the middle of several applicant pools but five or six marks below recent Oxford and Cambridge offer-holder averages. See the full score distributions for how sharply the offer rate turns as the score climbs.

Average essay scores are not comparable

Section B is not centrally marked, so there is no national essay average and no way to compare essay figures across universities. Oxford converts essays to a 0–100 comparative-judgement scale, where the 2025 offer-holder average was 65.21. Cambridge marks out of 10, with a 2025 offer-holder average of 7.49. UCL scores out of 5. Durham and King’s assign no published numerical essay mark. A 65 at Oxford and a 7.49 at Cambridge come from different marking systems and should be compared only with figures from the same university.

Who scores what

The 2015/16 report also broke scale scores down by candidate group, and the gaps are narrow. The whole spread between the highest and lowest scoring UK school types is 3.7 marks on a 42-mark test, and the male–female gap was 1.4 marks. Candidates aged 16 to 21 averaged 23.11, above older candidates.

These are descriptive group averages, not predictions for an individual candidate. The report did not control for prior attainment or other differences between the groups, so it cannot show that school type caused the score gap.

FAQ