Is your AC for direct tc or vac scheme?If anyone has done the DWF AC and has any advice, please message me
-
How confident are you in your knowledge of the core LLB/PGDL subjects, including Contract, Tort, Trusts, Land, Criminal, and Public Law?
TCLA is teaming up with BPP for a free interactive event designed to refresh your fundamentals, especially for those interested in or planning to take the SQE. We'll practise multiple choice SQE questions, with prizes for the highest scoring participants!
Register Here
TCLA Direct Training Contract Applications Discussion Thread 2024-5
- Thread starter Jessica Booker
- Start date
anyone heard back from HL following WG? for DTC
Plenty of other industries offer jobs with intense and expensive training without having do to 2-3 week internships for them.
And plenty of the people doing these vac schemes have a terrible attitude and teamworking skills which only come to light once they get the TC and actually start working - at least thats been my experience working in a law firm for 3 years (and directly meeting a few such).
That is to say, a vac scheme does not guarantee the quality of the candidate. Which is why making it a 2-3 week (10-15 calendar days) mandatory step in the application process is ridiculous and alienating for a very large part of the candidate pool, among which some are likely very good candidates for the role, or even better than some vac schemers in the long run.
ETA: In my firm a very healthy chunk of the TC holders are from the Direct route. The most obvious difference between them and the vac schemers is that they tend to be older with more work experience (and better workload management and communication). Not exactly negatives.
Last edited:
Withers SJT: tried to choose answers showing that I like explaining things to people to make info more accessible (and I genuinely do...), and got the Explainer strength as my weakness.... But they show your lowest score compared to other strengths, so maybe it's not that bad. Would like to hear other people's experience with the test
A vac scheme obviously doesn’t guarantee quality but it gives the firm many more data points from which to judge a candidate than just an assessment centre.
Besides, if the firm is missing out on talent, then that’s their problem isn’t it? There are lots of great law firms out there that run direct TC processes that career changers/graduates can apply for if attending a vac scheme is difficult
iirc investment banks recruit from ~10 week summer internships that they only offer to undergrads which makes law seem very open-minded in comparison!
imo such firms do not care that much about losing out on talent, as long as x amount of candidates tick x amount of boxes from this limited candidate pool.
It’s a problem for older applicants because it limits the amount of firms they have access to apply to, and it especially is a problem for international students/grads who have visa restrictions. Not all firms sponsor visas, and some of the ones that do only recruit from vac schemes, which students and grads may not be able to do due to visa restrictions.
ETA: not always the case re investment banks and internships, but most also offer greater remuneration than law and intense training with accompanying certification for what is essentially a one year crash course.
Last edited:
It’s quite a big talent pool though! Being a graduate in full time work doesn’t preclude you from doing a vac scheme in all cases (as I can personally attest to), nor does being an international student.
It obviously sucks when your opportunities are reduced by virtue of the fact that you can’t do a vac scheme but it’s a perfectly rational position for a firm to take when all methods of recruitment have various pros and cons to be balanced
Its a fine route if its one* way of being recruited. If it is the only* way then I really wouldn’t agree.
Being in full-time employment precludes many many people from doing a vac scheme. Taking 2-3 weeks off to do a paid internship with another employer may not fly over well with most* bosses. All after you've taken day(s) off to interview and attend assessment centers as well. Not to mention you are literally not guaranteed a job, so you risk using all you annual leave and/or getting fired without a guarantee for employment.
It’s unacceptable for a firm to preach social mobility and DEI while this is their only* recruitment method.
The automatic SJT and Critical Thinking test does not.
But the next round does!
has anyone gotten an invite to the trainee simulation for Mayer brown yet? Only got the feedback report but nothing after
Jessica Booker
Legendary Member
TCLA Moderator
Gold Member
Graduate Recruitment
Premium Member
Forum Team
- Aug 1, 2019
- 15,309
- 21,389
Just to add into the conversation about vacation schemes and the investment into training, law is a complete anomaly compared to any other office based job that the training is upfront and before someone starts a job. The training costs can easily be £70k before the individual even starts on their first day. You just don't see this upfront cost in other professional services or regulated industries.
Most other industries are providing training on the job and the costs are nowhere near as high where they don't need to provide maintenance grants. However, these graduate programmes are also ruthless in getting rid of graduates within the first 6-12 months if they don't pass professional qualifications or are not performing on the job. Historically law firms haven't had that luxury and had to make a two year commitment (although the SQE has changed that), making them very risk adverse.
From my experience, I am very aware that vacation schemes generally limit diversity on a number of levels and that is why I encourage firms to have more short insight programmes (e.g. 1-3 day programmes) as an alternative for those who cannot do vacation schemes. But I also see why firms use vacation schemes so heavily to reduce the risk of hiring the wrong person - they aren't fool-proof, but they are far less fool-proof that relying on a 2-3 hours of assessments.
Most other industries are providing training on the job and the costs are nowhere near as high where they don't need to provide maintenance grants. However, these graduate programmes are also ruthless in getting rid of graduates within the first 6-12 months if they don't pass professional qualifications or are not performing on the job. Historically law firms haven't had that luxury and had to make a two year commitment (although the SQE has changed that), making them very risk adverse.
From my experience, I am very aware that vacation schemes generally limit diversity on a number of levels and that is why I encourage firms to have more short insight programmes (e.g. 1-3 day programmes) as an alternative for those who cannot do vacation schemes. But I also see why firms use vacation schemes so heavily to reduce the risk of hiring the wrong person - they aren't fool-proof, but they are far less fool-proof that relying on a 2-3 hours of assessments.
I appreciate your opinion but I personally don’t believe it’s an all-or-nothing thing. I think firms can still have solid records on DEI and social mobility notwithstanding their de facto exclusion of some graduates and career changers
I’m gonna end it here and respectfully agree to disagree. I guess my overall point would be that graduate recruitment is one big balancing act for firms of rigour, accessibility, resources etc. and it’s nigh-on impossible to find a perfect balance
I got incisive as my weakness which I can imagine is probably the worst thing you can get a weakness in. I am wondering if the weaknesses are based off of the SJ type question or if it was the assessment as whole including critical thinking. Anyways I am not too optimistic about those results.
I was told by a partner that you essentially can’t get rid of a bad trainee which is why they do Vac Schemes. They said that there are many candidates who are very impressive on paper but lack certain soft skills that are necessary, or do not fit in well with the firm for whatever reason. Firms invest a lot into trainees and a 2/3 week vacation scheme is a good way of weeding out applicants who aren’t a good fit before committing to hiring them for the full 2 year traineeship.
I do fully agree it is difficult to complete with full-time employment though! I have completed two VS and the first one had only one graduate / career changer and the rest were current students. The second VS I completed (and now have an offer for) had about a 50/50 mix of students and graduates. Not sure if it was intentional or not
From previous cycles, does anyone know whether there is any truth to Baker’s portal changing their Anonimity status from details locked to not anonymous being a signal that your app has been viewed/decided on?
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
- Sticky
- Locked
