Just curious, what metrics or aspects should I look at when evaluating a firm's quality of training? I understand that there are differences such as US firms' emphasis on on-the-job learning, but how would I go about establishing an objective ranking?
I do not think there is any way to establish an objective ranking regarding quality of training. When you compare individual firms you can look at reports like those done by Legal Cheek, but I do not think they are very reliable, in that a disproportionately high number of firms has an A or A* ranking for training quality. You could also try to ask people at the firm about it, but once again, unless you have a close relationship with a given practitioner, you will likely only hear words of praise across the board. As such, it seems to me difficult to decide between firms based on this criterion.
The one exception I would say is in choosing between a US and UK firm.
The US and UK model each has its set of advantages and disadvantages; and the extent to which one ends up deemed 'better' will greatly depend on each person's skillset and individual preferences. On the side of the UK training model, as mentioned by
@User5678 we must note the benefits of comprehensiveness, rational organization of content and progress, and availability of many resources. Arguably, this means a UK firm-trained NQ is less likely to have missed out on understanding important aspects of work in their practice area.
On the US side, many argue that it involves more opportunities for more interesting high-responsibility work, enables you to develop valuable skills (when you have to simply find a way to deal with a new task by yourself), and to generally progress faster in your career. This is something even many practitioners at MC firms admit to - junior associates would tell me they sometimes come across trainees at US firms doing the same work as them on the other side. That does come with a significantly higher level of stress and pressure; it is definitely the case that with US firms there will be a lot less handholding. As such, perhaps the average person would have a more "enjoyable" training experience at a UK firm. Nonetheless, at a UK firm the jump to an NQ position feels a lot harder, as trainees will rarely get to work on the the type of matters associates do - one partner described the transition year as "the most difficult in my career, besides the first year I became a partner". In a US firm, the transition to NQ is said to feel a lot smoother, at the cost of a more demanding TC experience. Whether this is worth it is just a judgement call each applicant has to make.
