2020-21 Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion

[JKs]

Thank you, I will read into this. Just to clarify, if I have done the LPC and I start a TC this year or in 2022 do I still need to take Stage 2 SQE tests? As in, everyone who will start a TC after the introduction of the SQE (1 Sept 2021) will have to take it regardless of having completed the LPC or not?!

Hi! Thought I would jump in as this was something that was also on my mind. I found this decision tree quite helpful - SRA | LPC or SQE decision tree | Solicitors Regulation Authority. If you're the same as me (done the LPC and got a TC lined up) then we can qualify under the current route until 2032 and won't need to do the SQE. Hope this helps!

 

[whisperingrock]

What is the average age actually? Is there an industry data source for stuff like this?

Entry trends

Demographic information about entrants to the solicitors' profession.

www.lawsociety.org.uk

 

[E.A]

Hi! Thought I would jump in as this was something that was also on my mind. I found this decision tree quite helpful - SRA | LPC or SQE decision tree | Solicitors Regulation Authority. If you're the same as me (done the LPC and got a TC lined up) then we can qualify under the current route until 2032 and won't need to do the SQE. Hope this helps!

Thank you for this. I have done the LPC and work as a paralegal but I am applying for TCs. Just thought the ones who have done the LPC don't need to take any part of the SQE as essentially you have passed this already!

 

[Jessica Booker]

To weigh in on this debate again....

Age is a protected characteristic like race or gender.

CC will have gone through a process of getting legal advice on whether the policy is deemed discriminatory or not (from a legal perspective). Firms don’t just rush into policies that could them at a massive risk of many employment tribunals. They will have also weighed up the PR risk too.

Firms all have their ways of cutting down application numbers to get to a manageable number of candidates. I suspect that CC have done their data analysis and found this is the best way for them, instead of chucking people out for one spelling mistake or because they haven’t got more than three As at A-level (all of which can heavily impact other forms of diversity). People might not like it, but it might be the most robust way for them to recruit 🤷🏻‍♀️.

And before anyone jumps on me for this, I personally don’t agree with the policy either, I just know what goes into making a decision like this and that’s usually a lot of considered thought and evidence.

 

[S87]

In the UK, that would be illegal. Your friends should not be working unpaid for two years. It should be reported to the law society and the SRA.

They do not work in the UK but in Italy...which is a s##t market for lawyers

 

[castrooo]

I received a PFO post-WG too, and my percentile was 92% (no kidding). The level of competition is just mind-blogging.

Do you mind me asking when you completed your WG for Freshfields? I completed mine on the 7th of February, and my percentile was 93% and have not heard back yet, but have heard of people being invited to an AC who have scored lower than that!

 

[Andrew M]

I'm sorry but this is not a good excuse for what essentially seems like age discrimination on the part of CC. Perhaps not legally, but absolutely so morally.

The fact that they accept some people who are older is no excuse for having a policy that systematically disadvantages older applicants. Their own wording on the website strongly suggests non-priority, or older, applicants have to be much better than the priority candidates to be considered. So, older applicants have a higher bar. That is discriminatory.

Now, some people say oh but there could be older undergrads so technically it is not discrimination. I am not a lawyer (but I suspect even the law would look at the discriminatory impact of the policy and not just the 'intent') but morally speaking that is a baseless defence. 95%+ of their priority group are younger than their non-priority group so there is clearly a discriminatory impact on older applicants. An older applicant applying to CC has every reason to believe they will be at a disadvantage. Many will be turned off from applying right there.

I have no dog in this fight. I did not apply to CC and would not have wanted to even if they did not have this policy (they are an amazing firm in many ways but just not my cup of tea) But as future lawyers we, even more than others, should care about equality and age should surely be treated as a protected characteristic just like race, gender or faith. If there was a policy that clearly disadvantaged people who had one of those latter characteristics, even if the policy was targeting something else, we would rightly be worried. We should be worried here too.

Why? Age discrimination is an increasing problem as a whole host of industries are transformed by tech and stereotypes about age and technical capabilities bleed into hiring/promotion decisions. One would have thought a law firm like CC would have paid some attention to this.

Putting aside what is right (and legal) for a bit, and acknowledging that every private company gets to decide what is smart and the market will reward/punish it accordingly, this decision to prioritize younger applicants will probably hurt CC in the long run. People who are more mature and have had a chance to think through their options will likely stick to law longer than someone who was tied into a TC at 18. What of the transferrable skills that career changers can bring? By basically signalling to these groups that their applications will be deprioritized, CC is ruling itself out of the running for these candidates (yes I know every firm had their choice of amazing candidates but they are systematically ruling out big groups with quite different skills and temperaments).

So just on the business case alone this seems like a very strange decision but the more important point is a law firm of all places should not have such a discriminatory policy even if they can 'technically' get away with it by finding the right loophole etc. The morality of their move is frankly quite damning. The legality of it I am looking forward to exploring as I start my law studies but I will be very disappointed if I find the law would allow for this kind of behaviour.

As a mature student myself, I do get the sense that some firms value life and work experience more than others. Some firms seem to want a blank canvas on which they can control what their trainees look like. It definitely sounds like Clifford Chance is one of those firms. Thankfully, the firms I have applied to embrace what I can bring to the table.

 

[S87]

To weigh in on this debate again....

Age is a protected characteristic like race or gender.

CC will have gone through a process of getting legal advice on whether the policy is deemed discriminatory or not (from a legal perspective). Firms don’t just rush into policies that could them at a massive risk of many employment tribunals.

Firms all have their ways of cutting down application numbers to get to a manageable number of candidates. I suspect that CC have done their data analysis and found this is the best way for them, instead of chucking people out for one spelling mistake or because they haven’t got more than three As at A-level (all of which can heavily impact other forms of diversity). People might not like it, but it might be the most robust way for them to recruit 🤷🏻‍♀️.

And before anyone jumps on me for this, I personally don’t agree with the policy either, I just know what goes into making a decision like this and that’s usually a lot of considered thought and evidence.

Guys, I know Laura CC's grad manager and believe me she is a Lion when it comes to legality about discrimination. Laura is not stupid and has done her homework.

Do I agree with their policy? I do not, but it is their business and therefore they are entitled to their policies!

 

[Celestie]

Do you mind me asking when you completed your WG for Freshfields? I completed mine on the 7th of February and my percentile was 93% and have not heard back yet, but have heard of people being invited to an AC who have scored lowered than that!

I think FF makes it vvv clear on their website that the WG is looked at holistically so I don't think it matters if you get 89 or someone gets 90, they care about the WG AND application. Best of luck x

 

[Helpme12345]

As a mature student myself, you do get the sense that some firms value life and work experience more than others. Some firms seem to want a blank canvas on which they can control what their trainees look like. It definitely sounds like Clifford Chance is one of those firms. Thankfully, the firms I have applied to embrace what I can bring to the table.

I agree with this 100%. As a graduate I have found that I have a lot more interest from US firms!

 

[Jessica Booker]

Thank you, I will read into this. Just to clarify, if I have done the LPC and I start a TC this year or in 2022 do I still need to take Stage 2 SQE tests? As in, everyone who will start a TC after the introduction of the SQE (1 Sept 2021) will have to take it regardless of having completed the LPC or not?!

Depends what the firm offers you. They could offer you a traditional TC with no need to do the SQE or they could ask you to complete the SQE - it’s very much with the firm.

Firms can choose to continue to offer traditional TCs to people until 2032. But the reality is by 2024/5 very few people coming out of university will still be able to do the traditional LPC route.

2021 will be the last year starting a qualifying law degree accounts for anything in the qualification process. Same for the GDL.

 

[JT2023hopeful]

I thought I would just add more flames to the CC priority debate:

firstly, a disclaimer that I understand I may be biased because I am in one of their priority groups and so I don't know if I would have received an AC invite if I had applied last year or next year.

But in my brief experience with applications, I don't think CC will be alone in targeting final year non-law and penultimate law students. The only difference imo is that CC are being very open in admitting that that is likely to be their target market. And to be honest, I would have preferred if some of the firms that rejected me provided more concrete criteria, because now I have a bunch of PFO emails with absolutely no indication if it's because of x y or z

not trying to start a fight about age discrimination again but it's just my two pennies

 

[Veep9]

Has anyone heard from Simmons or Taylor Wessing recently for ACs (both summer vs)?

 

[Jessica Booker]

Guys, I know Laura CC's grad manager and believe me she is a Lion when it comes to legality about discrimination. Laura is not stupid and has done her homework.

Do I agree with their policy? I do not, but it is their business and therefore they are entitled to their policies!

I have known Laura for at least the last 12-13 years. She is also completely passionate about all strands of diversity and has been a real trailblazer in transforming the graduate recruitment industry, both within law but also the recruitment sector more widely. She is literally one of the best and most dynamic people in the graduate recruitment sector. It’s why I am confident they have their reasons for this policy because it works for some reason, even if none of us can really understand why.

 

[Celestie]

Has anyone heard from Simmons or Taylor Wessing recently for ACs (both summer vs)?

Nope - and we were both exempt from GBA yeah?

 

[Law2022]

All the support on this thread is so fantastic, I have been reading through the forum and its so nice to see people do well! I had never felt so depressed yesterday after my rejection from NRF after my WG assessment, but seeing everybody keep on going has pushed me to wake up early today and smash out a new application!! So nice to be part of a supportive community!! Lol just had to get this off my chest

 

[Legal_rawn]

From my personal experiences (so not indicative of the whole market) I have found that this year I am doing way better with the US firms as a final year non-law student than with the MC firms. My guess is that it is the first year I can apply for VS with the US firms whereas the MC firms I had mostly applied the year before and been unsuccessful. The other theory I have is that I have improved on writing apps after re-reading some I sent off last year they were shocking.
Overall I think every firm has their own way of assessing applicants. This process is so emotionally trying in the best years so be kind to yourselves for preserving through this mess of a year!

 

[Celestie]

From my personal experiences (so not indicative of the whole market) I have found that this year I am doing way better with the US firms as a final year non-law student than with the MC firms. My guess is that it is the first year I can apply for VS with the US firms whereas the MC firms I had mostly applied the year before and been unsuccessful. The other theory I have is that I have improved on writing apps after re-reading some I sent off last year they were shocking.
Overall I think every firm has their own way of assessing applicants. This process is so emotionally trying in the best years so be kind to yourselves for preserving through this mess of a year!

I am in the exact same boat as you!

 

[Matt_96]

Nope - and we were both exempt from GBA yeah?

Admittedly I applied very late in the cycle but I haven't even been sent any of the online tests yet! I'm not even really bothered at this point.

 

[castrooo]

I think FF makes it vvv clear on their website that the WG is looked at holistically so I don't think it matters if you get 89 or someone gets 90, they care about the WG AND application. Best of luck x

Yes, I agree, I am just surprised as based on my knowledge FF reviews your application before inviting you to the WG test, which makes me think why would they not invite someone to an AC if an applicant has already passed the written application stage and scored high on the WG test? Or is there a higher benchmark for passing the written application stage once it is looked at jointly with the WG score? Same goes to you xx