Rejections thread!

[trainee4u]

Thought I'd track these:
Rejected at first stage purely because of the application form (answers, experience, qualifications, who knows!?):

• Dechert
• Bates Wells
• Burges Salmon
• Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (very fast: rolling!)
• Travers Smith
• Slaughter and May
• Dentons
• Eversheds Sutherland
• Weil Gotshal & Manges
• Davis Polk & Wardwell
• Bird & Bird
• Willkie Farr & Gallagher
• DWF
• Kirkland & Ellis
• Jones Day
• Cooley
• Forsters (made a factual error on form!)
• Sullivan & Cromwell
• Fieldfisher
• Vinson & Elkins
• Squire Patton Boggs
• Greenberg Traurig
• Clifford Chance (passed WGT)
• Debevoise & Plimpton
• Katten
• Hill Dickinson
• Fieldfisher
• Ropes & Gray
• Akin
• DLA Piper
• Freshfields
• Orrick
• Boodle Hatfield

Rejected at first stage either because of form or WGT performance:

• Hogan Lovells
• RPC

Rejected at first stage either because of form or SJT performance:

• A&O Shearman
• Pinsent Masons
• Taylor Wessing
• HSF (sjt was poor)
• BCLP (sjt was poor)
• Shoosmiths
• Ashurst
• Latham & Watkins

Rejected at first stage because of Arctic Shores performance

• NRF
• Gowling

Rejected at subsequent stage because of SJT or VI performance:

• Reed Smith

Rejected at subsequent stage because of VI performance:

• Mishcon
• Kennedys
• Baker McKenzie
• CMS
• WFW
• Goodwin
• Fladgate
• Gateley

Rejected following AC:

• Milbank

Currently, therefore, of resolved applications, 45 were rejected at the first stage, and ten were rejected at a subsequent stage.

I have other applications in progress at different stages (AC, VI, first stage), so the ratio above is not necessarily representative overall.

It's clear that my VI performance is substantially below par and I need to improve in this area.

 

[Amma Usman]

Hey!

I really really really admire the accountability tracker! I had one during my cycle as well, and it was incredibly helpful in giving me the self-awareness I needed to identify the areas I needed to improve on. On the point on VIs, I have linked @Andrei Radu ’s amazing guide to help! https://www.thecorporatelawacademy....de-for-competency-interview-preparation.9380/

On the point on SJTs, one thing that personally helped me was trusting my intuition. I found that I always fell into the trap of putting answers I thought firms wanted to hear, and not ones that I genuinely would react to in such circumstances. Overthinking it also made me waste time and not move on to other questions. Another thing is that you’re usually given loads of info or case study banks to use when answering these SJTs. Not all the info will be relevant, and some may be more relevant than others, depending on the question. Lastly, the more practice you do on these, then better. I don’t really believe in the line “practice makes perfect“ as we can never really be perfect as humans, but “practice brings improvement and greater efficiency”. You have already done a few of these SJTs, so you’re on the road to a colorful trophy!

Another I would note is that some firms view a candidate’s application after they have passed the test. So, this means that a candidate may actually be passing these tests, but only need to refine their application questions/strategy, to write more tailored applications, in order to progress.

I hope this helps!

 

[trainee4u]

Thanks. I have updated the OP with my latest rejections.

There's definitely a process of learning and development in that I made some rather hasty/slapdash applications last year, and I can go back to these now and see improvement.

I've also applied to a lot of firms, and I'm quite passionate about statistics: my profile is atypical, and I've found that it might or might not fit with firms' requirements, but evidently some candidates are more desirable than others, and might stand a high chance of making it through the first stage of the top firms, whereas I have a smaller but non-zero chance. I doubt my Milbank application was as compelling as my Slaughters application, say, but Milbank had a new person reviewing applications this year and this random event got me to the AC. OTOH, if I apply to less prestigious firms, my success rate is higher: it's less competitive, fewer applicants with less compelling applications, and statistically if I apply enough then I'm likely to make it through.

On the other hand, the pure "if you apply to 100 firms you'll become a lawyer because it's a 1-in-100 chance" approach is definitely wrong. It's a combination of randomness and application. If I'd spent 40 hours practising recording VI questions a few months ago, then I'd probably have made it through one of my second-round VIs, as opposed to failing all eight.

I've gone through my written applications and can identify where answers are not quite top-class: awkward wording, long sentences, illogical structure, failing to properly tailor my copy-paste answer to a generic question (e.g., "tell us about your hobbies") to the specific question being answered, but for VIs that's more difficult as a VI is a one-off performance rather than something that can be written, checked, edited, and restructured to attain a higher standard.