2020-21 Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion

[OB]

Finally! Some wholesome content!

where's the lamb sauce ???????????????​

 

[MJ]

Taylor Wessing AC invite - Applied in January and completed Arctic Shores Jan 20th

Congratulations! I'm still waiting for a response having completed the games-based assessment back in December 2020.

 

[JayB]

It isn’t as binary as that.

Non RG applicants are much less likely to apply

Non RG applicants tend to have less opportunity for careers guidance or insights into firms.

Yeah that’s true Jess, I’ll pass this on to my friend who’s so afraid to apply haha.
I’ll tell her to check out this thread

 

[LegalNim]

As is shutting down a comment I made with a statement that had nothing to do with it.

Ok, let's shut you down with a comment that does address exactly what you said.
Your argument appears to be that you tutor students from RG universities and non-RG universities and, in your experience, those from non-RG universities get higher grades for the same calibre work - is that correct?
1. I'm currently a teacher, research shows that when teachers are marking a student predicted a high grade they'll give them the benefit of the doubt and a higher mark than students predicted a lower grade. There's a decent chance that you're the same thing. You view RG students as higher calibre so when you're reading their work, you're deciding it's better because of where they study. It's not objectively any better, just better in your biased opinion.
2. You don't know how much is actually taught to these students at university. RG universities do tend to attract higher-calibre academics in older subjects like Law. So, there's a decent chance they're told more about a subject. If you have two identical essays where one student was told all the points and the other was only taught half of them and independently developed/researched the others then the second essay deserves a higher grade.
3. This is entirely your own experience of the world and it's limited and biased. I have a friend who sends me her work from a RG uni and, truthfully, it's AWFUL. It's so bad. I genuinely don't know how she's passing, let alone getting a solid 2:1. But I don't claim that's universal or even general.
4. Maybe you're not that good at assessing what high-calibre work actually looks like.
5. Maybe students from RG universities don't take your good advice on how to improve their grades, maybe there's an arrogance that they're at a good university so they don't trust your correct judgement on how to improve?

There are so many reasons why your limited, biased and subjective experience of this debate does not support the conclusion you're purporting. Being rude to people is not acceptable on this forum (or any other).

Apologies if the conversation has moved on in the excessive time I took to write this on my broken keyboard.

 

[FM302989]

Yeah that’s true Jess, I’ll pass this on to my friend who’s so afraid to apply haha.
I’ll tell her to check out this thread

Tell her to check selective parts of this thread!😉

 

[Jessica Booker]

Yeah that’s true Jess, I’ll pass this on to my friend who’s so afraid to apply haha.
I’ll tell her to check out this thread

Tell her to come join the TCLA community. One of the reasons we exist is to try and level the playing field!

 

[JohanGRK]

This is very rare and usually only in the “admin” modules in first year. The idea there are lots of unis giving out loads of 80%+ grades for law degrees is yet another myth that likes to get perpetuated in opinionated conversations.

It's fairly easy to prove that Oxford only gives out a handful of grades over 70 to a given cohort whereas e.g. Liverpool gives out more 75s+. It's just how marking systems work! For example, Bristol will only give students a 68 (as a high 2.1) or a 72 (as a low First), but, as far as I know, exact 70s are simply not awarded. By contrast, The 'low' First at Oxford, LSE, UCL, etc will be a 70, and the 72 will a 'mid' or 'high' First. It's a small difference (2 marks!) but it should be acknowledged. This is all very much verifiable either way - FOI requests can be done, the results of many of them are public...

Fully agree with your point about Firsts. Some people seem surprised when they discover than the universities that give out >20% Firsts for their straight law courses are arguably the most prestigious ones (Cambridge, Oxford, LSE, UCL, KCL, Durham, Warwick). I still have that Excel file knocking about somewhere... might be worth attaching.

The people who are hard done by seem to be people at reputable unis that award a low % of Firsts (Bristol, Nottingham) and people who claim that they would've gotten a First had they only done an easier course or studied at what they claim is a less rigorous uni. But will the difference between a high 2.1 and low First be a serious enough handicap to be worth discussing? Probably for Slaughters and the likes of Davis Polk and Cleary, probably not for everyone else! (and Davis Polk and Cleary hire >50% of their intakes from Oxbridge)

I've only discussed this with one grad rec person other than you and their opinion was that, even if University A gives out 78s to its best performers and University B gives out 72s, both candidates have comfortably exceeded the threshold for academics and will be assessed on the rest of their app. Most firms simply do not seem to care about this kind of minute 'is my First better than yours' because academics ultimately aren't that big a part of one's application and a high First is overkill for most firms! It should be telling that the top sets at the commercial/chancery bar look equally towards prizes and scholarships because the First is simply not enough to tell top talent apart from each other.

 

[NSinger]

Yeah that’s true Jess, I’ll pass this on to my friend who’s so afraid to apply haha.
I’ll tell her to check out this thread

On that note, if you’re friend needs any advice from a non-RG applicant please let them know im happy to help. I managed to secure a VS this cycle and I know it can be daunting

 

[JohanGRK]

And yet UCL are in the top five universities who award firsts.

This doesn't mean anything because it doesn't control for the input (i.e. average hours studied per week, difficulty of assessments, etc). The fact that input is ultimately bound to be qualitative doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to acknowledge difficulties in rigour etc.

The argument being made is that Oxbridge will make you sweat harder for that First, not that Oxbridge will award fewer Firsts overall. It's an 'hours worked per mark earned' kind of argument.

I'm not entirely sure that your position requires you to deny that Oxbridge degrees are tougher than their counterparts elsewhere. That's an incredibly bold egalitarian claim and most people would disagree with it. The vibe I got from HR when they got asked questions like these at open days is that they either don't give two fucks about any of this because they're too busy and stressed, or that, provided that you get your degree from a 'reputable' uni, the standards are close enough that anything else falls into the margin of error.

 

[LegalNim]

This doesn't mean anything because it doesn't control for the input (i.e. average hours studied per week, difficulty of assessments, etc). The fact that input is ultimately bound to be qualitative doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to acknowledge difficulties in rigour etc.

The argument being made is that Oxbridge will make you sweat harder for that First, not that Oxbridge will award fewer Firsts overall. It's an 'hours worked per mark earned' kind of argument.

"The argument being made is [insert something I have no evidence of]"
If you think that high grades are directly proportionate to hours worked then you'd be shocked by the concepts of intelligence, prior knowledge, better tuition, fewer conflicting priorities, working more efficiently...
I had a 15 year old student ask me how to spell "green" yesterday - and he wrote "jreen" when I spelt it for him. There aren't enough hours in the day to get him a pass in his GCSE English so the idea that candidates who perform better academically simply do so based on hours of input is simplified to the point of being incorrect.

 

[Etudierlaw2022]

When a firm rejects you on the basis of generic tests (I'm looking at you linklaters):
View attachment 2725

Aw I'm sorry to hear, can I ask what it was you applied for?

 

[Jessica Booker]

I'm not entirely sure that your position requires you to deny that Oxbridge degrees are tougher than their counterparts elsewhere.

What position do you mean?

 

[HorsesForCoursesNeighNeighNeigh]

Ultimately, I think graduate recruitment have enough to consider for each candidate without needing to crosscheck multiple graphs and excel documents for each uni, course and module to figure out exactly where each applicant sits in their cohort and in comparison to the rest of the nation. Surely grades, WG and prizes--combined with RARE/extenuating circumstances--are more than enough already?

Although if you want it to be taken into account, go invent a recruitment tool that can do exactly that! I'm sure if it saved them time and made it easier, they would be all ears.

 

[JayB]

@Jessica Booker

I have to get in on this grade/university debate. I am always intrigued to talk about this topic. Anything I say is my opinion and not intended to attack anyone - I just love debating lol.

I agree with @Tarnjeet: Do law firms not look at where you have got a university degree GRADE from?

If no, that does not make sense for one second. It cannot be disputed that a 1st from some universities is (much) more difficult than other universities. I have seen some people (not to name names) at the same university studying law achieving ridiculously high grades in some law modules. I am not talking 70-75%, I am talking 85-90%. This begs the question of the credibility of the degree and the grades they are dishing out. Not to name my university, but academic staff once said they have awarded 1/2 80-85% in the past 10 years, yet some students are given multiple ridiculously high grades. That does not make sense one bit.

Also, lets be honest, a 1st from Oxbridge (let me make it clear that I DONT attend Oxford or Cambridge) is more difficult to attain than in other universities. I know some friends who do law there and I looked at their work load and it is aghhhhhh.

I don't understand and never will how this part of the application process is assessed.

I disagree with you here, and agree with what @Jessica Booker has mentioned. I study law at a very reputable RG university in London (3rd highest in the country) and my friend also studies law at a non-RG London university, and honestly the workload is exactly the same most law modules are the same for each year no matter what uni you are at. I wouldn’t admit it to her but my degree seems so much easier compared to hers as I have more tutorial classes than her and more lecturer office hours she doesn’t even have tutorials for her modules, and her course consists of 5-6 modules whereas my law degree is 4 modules each year so I would say studying at a Russell group uni you are more privileged well this is what I’ve seen. This is my subjective opinion anyway!

 

[NSinger]

I'd rather have a 2.2 from Oxbridge than a non-RG first lol

I mean you wouldn’t meet the academic requirements for the majority of firms but okay

 

[Tarnjeet]

Everyone’s raised interesting arguments. Still think that law firms should be looking average degree classifications at your university (course) so they can determine how well you’ve done compared to your cohort.

 

[Legalmel_99]

I'd rather have a 2.2 from Oxbridge than a non-RG first lol

I went to a non RG and got a first, in comparison to someone with a 2:2 at oxbridge(still okay) I’d like to see who an employer would hire if it was purely based on grades and NOT reputation of a university. I’ve had 2 legal jobs my own case load of files I think I’ve done pretty well for someone who went to a Non RG and I hope that everyone who is still at uni who does go to a Non RG sees this and knows that there is still a good chance of success

 

[whisperingrock]

Ok, let's shut you down with a comment that does address exactly what you said.
Your argument appears to be that you tutor students from RG universities and non-RG universities and, in your experience, those from non-RG universities get higher grades for the same calibre work - is that correct?
1. I'm currently a teacher, research shows that when teachers are marking a student predicted a high grade they'll give them the benefit of the doubt and a higher mark than students predicted a lower grade. There's a decent chance that you're the same thing. You view RG students as higher calibre so when you're reading their work, you're deciding it's better because of where they study. It's not objectively any better, just better in your biased opinion.
2. You don't know how much is actually taught to these students at university. RG universities do tend to attract higher-calibre academics in older subjects like Law. So, there's a decent chance they're told more about a subject. If you have two identical essays where one student was told all the points and the other was only taught half of them and independently developed/researched the others then the second essay deserves a higher grade.
3. This is entirely your own experience of the world and it's limited and biased. I have a friend who sends me her work from a RG uni and, truthfully, it's AWFUL. It's so bad. I genuinely don't know how she's passing, let alone getting a solid 2:1. But I don't claim that's universal or even general.
4. Maybe you're not that good at assessing what high-calibre work actually looks like.
5. Maybe students from RG universities don't take your good advice on how to improve their grades, maybe there's an arrogance that they're at a good university so they don't trust your correct judgement on how to improve?

There are so many reasons why your limited, biased and subjective experience of this debate does not support the conclusion you're purporting. Being rude to people is not acceptable on this forum (or any other).

Apologies if the conversation has moved on in the excessive time I took to write this on my broken keyboard.

All I said was that something was my experience. I did not argue that russel group students are better and I did not argue that non-RG students are worse, and I don't view them that way either. In response, I got a comment that had nothing to do with what I said. Pointing it out was treated as a cardinal offence even though nothing of what I said was actually rude. Only factual. In response, I was heaped with several comments deriding me for my tone. Those people don't seem to get a talking to about their tone though, despite it being far more actively insulting, including you who started this comment with the goal of "shutting me down". Everyone else in this thread bar one person has shared personal experiences rather than data as part of the discussion but for some reason those are treated as wholly accurate and correct while mine is "limited, biased and subjective".

I am aware that I am speaking from a very small pool of selective experiences. I even prefaced my first statement with an acknowledgement of it. I am also aware that various factors can impact on how results are assessed. I work to be as unbiased as possible. I came from a particularly shitty public school system back in my home country so I am well aware of how different teaching can be at "good" schools and "bad" schools and I tutor in order to help people who may be getting a worse education. So I don't think I'm deserving of a lecture by you, teacher or no.

 

[JayB]

On that note, if you’re friend needs any advice from a non-RG applicant please let them know im happy to help. I managed to secure a VS this cycle and I know it can be daunting

Ah that’s so kind of you, I’m going to get her to make an account now and message you

 

[jan28]

I had a 15 year old student ask me how to spell "green" yesterday - and he wrote "jreen" when I spelt it for him.

if the student has learning disabilities, i fully withdraw my little chuckle but otherwise, that is quite worrying.