Hey I noticed you have ML VS and TC on here - have you already applied direct TC then? Did you reuse the same application?Holding myself accountable again (Orrick rejection)
CC* ✅📝❌
HSF ✅📝❌
NRF ✅📝❌
Weil ✅❌
Akin ✅❌
Sidley ✅❌
Orrick ✅❌
Willkie ✅🎥❌
Cooley ✅❌
Latham ✅❌
Milbank ✅❌
Kirkland ✅❌
Dechert ✅❌
Skadden ✅❌
Goodwin ✅❌
Covington ✅❌
Linklaters* ✅📝❌
Paul, Weiss ✅❌
Slaughters* ✅❌
Freshfields* ✅📝❌
Fried Frank* ✅
Gibson Dunn ✅
Macfarlanes* ✅📝
White & Case ✅❌
Morgan Lewis ✅📞❌
Paul Hastings* ✅
White & Case* ✅
Morgan Lewis* ✅
Hogan Lovells* ✅📝
Cleary Gottlieb ✅❌
A&O Shearman ✅📝❌
Vinson & Elkins ✅❌
Arnold & Porter ✅
Baker McKenzie ✅📝❌
King & Spalding* ✅
Winston & Strawn ✅
Morrison Foerster ✅
Sullivan & Cromwell ✅❌
Key: ✅ = application submitted; 📝 = test received; 📞 = telephone interview; 🎥 = video interview; ❌ = rejection.
*Training Contract applications.
Honestly, from my AC experience (get good feedback on this too) but I always choose a topic (commercial) i.e. trump tariffs and its effects on the construction sector- then ask how it affects the firm. (HAS TO BE A TOPIC VV RELEVANT TO THE FIRM)!!Can any1 suggest good questions to ask at an AC in the interview, ive got some in mind relating to the firm itself but are there any good ones which are bit more general or specific to the interviewers I can ask?
More or less the same application. Lots of grammar issues fixed (hopefully).Hey I noticed you have ML VS and TC on here - have you already applied direct TC then? Did you reuse the same application?
From what I have been hearing, Latham usually send out AC invites on very short notice (like 4 days before the AC), and this is likely on purpose. So it can be a possibility that they are just waiting to send out AC invites all at once, which means that no news is good news.can Latham please just put us out of our misery and tell us what they want? its been so longg!!!
you don’t need to actually submit the cover letters lmao.Hi @Jessica Booker, I am currently applying for a paralegal role. What type of things should be included in the cover letter? Is it the same structure as a vacation scheme or training contract cover letter? Any advice would be highly appreciated. Thank you
They emailed me to tell me they aim to respond within 10 weeks of the application deadline (6th Jan). This should mean we hear back by 17th March, which is the 10-week mark. They also told me that there were to be multiple ACs running from Jan to March, but I highly doubt they haven't already filled up all the spaces by this point lol.Is this Addleshaw? If yes, where did they say 17th March please? I’ve not heard anything since doing the VI early Jan but haven’t followed up as I do remember someone saying on the thread they received an automatic holding response
It sucks because I initially applied to their direct TC last year (around June) and they reached out to me not long after saying that they had already filled up the spaces for direct TCs but really liked my application so wanted to transfer me to the VS process instead. Essentially this has been a year-long wait for me just to get a PFO ffs 😭😭I haven't heard back (applied on the deadline day) but someone told me they've received an offer already (and their AC was in Jan) - at this point I'm assuming they've given out all ACs but I could be wrong. Lots of firms just prolong their mass PFOs for some reason
Hi which firm was this forBit random but if an interview was scheduled for an hour (including questions at the end) and it was 45 minutes including questions is this usually a bad sign?
Two down votes to this. I've list as long of my arm of firms that have offered me interview where I have not submitted cover letter. All firms you will have heard of.you don’t need to actually submit the cover letters lmao.
I understand Baker McKenzie are rolling basis. Does anyone know if rolling basis actually matters for Baker? as I know for most firms it is mostly irrelevant.
on their site and email after sending the application:
-February 1st 2025 - Applications open.
-February 1st - April 1st 2025 - Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis. All applications will be reviewed prior to online tests being sent out.
-April 1st 2025 - Application deadline.
-April 2025 - Successful candidates sent invite to undertake online tests and a video interview.
-May 2025 - Successful candidates will attend an assessment centre.
-May - June 2025 - Successful candidates will be offered a Training Contract to commence in March or September 2027.
Yeah I'm looking to apply direct. Are the test and VI sent at the same time then - and not separate stages? I know the test sed to be WG - is this still case?Is this for VS or DTC? If you are asking about DTC, I saw this post a while ago on the other TCLA DTC thread:
Yeah I'm looking to apply direct. Are the test and VI sent at the same time then - and not separate stages? I know the test sed to be WG - is this still case?
Hiya @BobThebIlly
First off, well done on those impressive scores for assumptions (88%) and evaluating arguments (100%). Those are fantastic and show you’ve really nailed those sections! Let’s focus on the “drawing conclusions” part and see how you can improve in the short time you have.
The Watson Glaser tests your ability to draw conclusions in two specific sections - the deduction section, as well as the inference section.
Deductions: This section tests your ability to make a deduction. With deductions, you are trying to find what follows absolutely and necessarily from the premises you are given, and just assume that all those premises are true. For example:
Notice that, in the above argument, if you assume the initial premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily and absolutely. This reflects the way you should be 'drawing conclusions' in the deduction section.
- Premise 1: All cats have whiskers
- Premise 2: Ram is a cat (this premise is false, but for the purpose of your deduction just assume it's true)
- Conclusion: Ram has whiskers
The inference section, by contrast, tests your ability to draw conclusions in more probabilistic ways. They are not asking you to identify what follows absolutely or necessarily. Rather, they involve asking what conclusions are probable or strongly suggested by the evidence though not certain (e.g. follow strongly). For the purposes of the inference section, there are two styles of reasoning that you should become familiar with:
Appreciating these different ways of 'drawing a conclusion' is important because you want to ensure that you're using the appropriate form of reasoning depending on the section you're working on. Mistaking one for another can lead to choosing the wrong answers in that section.
- Inductions: Imagine you’re a scientist studying bird migration. Over the course of several years, you observe that geese in a particular region always migrate south during the winter. Based on these repeated observations, you draw the conclusion "Geese in this region migrate south every winter." This is a good conclusion to draw because it's based on consistent and repeated evidence. However, it’s not certain (there could be a year when some geese don’t migrate for an unexpected reason, like illness or environmental changes). Induction involves drawing conclusions to make predictions about the future or generalisations about a group based on observed patterns. To understand whether an inference is a strong one, you'll also want to familiarise yourself with the ways people get inductions wrong. These include, but are not limited to:
- Overgeneralising: This occurs when someone draws a broad conclusion based on too few examples. For instance, seeing two aggressive dogs and concluding that all dogs are aggressive is an overgeneralisation. The sample size is too small to justify the conclusion.
- Sampling Bias: Drawing conclusions from an unrepresentative sample can lead to faulty reasoning. For example, surveying only a small group of people from one region and assuming their preferences reflect an entire population’s preferences is misleading.
- Ignoring Counterexamples: Inductive reasoning requires considering exceptions, but people sometimes disregard counterexamples that weaken their conclusions. For instance, concluding that "all swans are white" without accounting for black swans ignores evidence that challenges the generalisation. Pay attention to whether the question stem and information you're being offered provides any potential counter evidence.
- Confusing causation and correlation: People often assume that because two things happen together, one causes the other. For example, observing that ice cream sales increase in summer alongside shark attacks might lead someone to wrongly conclude that eating ice cream causes shark attacks. In reality, both are linked to a third factor: hot weather.
- Abductions: This involves selecting the most likely explanation based on the available evidence. For example, if you find fur on your couch and a chewed slipper, you might reasonably conclude that your dog is responsible. While other explanations are logically possible (e.g. such as a neighbour's cat sneaking into your house unnoticed to chew the slipper and shed fur on the couch) - these are far less plausible, especially if you have a dog at home. Abductive reasoning is particularly useful in situations where the evidence is incomplete or ambiguous. It allows us to make practical, reasonable conclusions by focusing on the explanation that best fits the facts. This approach is commonly used in problem-solving, diagnosing issues, and decision-making, as it prioritises what is most likely rather than what is merely possible.
Hope this helps and my apologies in advance for the length of my reply!
hello,
could somebody please give any tips/advice on how to approach links capp and wgt?
thank youuu
I understand Baker McKenzie are rolling basis. Does anyone know if rolling basis actually matters for Baker? as I know for most firms it is mostly irrelevant.