Clifford Chance TC

[IntrepidL]

Clifford Chance has released a video explaining why they are only targeting penultimate year students, if this may add some clarity.

 

[NSinger]

Clifford Chance has released a video explaining why they are only targeting penultimate year students, if this may add some clarity.

This is a great video! Explains well why they made the change and your chances of success in the recruitment cycle if you are not from the target groups.

 

[Flk10]

This is a great video! Explains well why they made the change and your chances of success in the recruitment cycle if you are not from the target groups.

The impression I get from that is that they’re basically telling people who don’t fit into the priority groups not to bother applying as they have a tiny chance of progressing, without actually saying those words.

To be frank, I suspect the time and effort would be better spent on other apps.

 

[Romiras]

The impression I get from that is that they’re basically telling people who don’t fit into the priority groups not to bother applying as they have a tiny chance of progressing, without actually saying those words.

To be frank, I suspect the time and effort would be better spent on other apps.

Basically, unless you're a strong / confident candidate, you might be better off applying elsewhere.

 

[NSinger]

The impression I get from that is that they’re basically telling people who don’t fit into the priority groups not to bother applying as they have a tiny chance of progressing, without actually saying those words.

To be frank, I suspect the time and effort would be better spent on other apps.

Yes, I think they’re just trying to be transparent about how they’re recruiting/have been recruiting for a long time. She also explained how they have seen an increase of applications by almost 30% over the past year. I suppose this means that previously they were also mainly recruiting penultimate law students and final year non-law students, the only difference this year is that they have made their recruitment approach transparent to perhaps reduce the number of applications they get that they would typically reject anyway.

It’s to save the applicant the time they will spend on an application that has a low success rate and also to save them time spent reviewing it.

 

[Romiras]

Yes, I think they’re just trying to be transparent about how they’re recruiting/have been recruiting for a long time. She also explained how they have seen an increase of applications by almost 30% over the past year. I suppose this means that previously they were also mainly recruiting penultimate law students and final year non-law students, the only difference this year is that they have made their recruitment approach transparent to perhaps reduce the number of applications they get that they would typically reject anyway.

It’s to save the applicant the time they will spend on an application that has a low success rate and also to save them time spent reviewing it.

Exactly. I imagine it's very hard to look at the number of applications they receive on a non-rolling basis.

 

[T202]

Anyone not in CC's targeted groups thinking of still applying? I'm not too sure whether to give it a go or not :/

Do itt! Worth a shot!!

 

[Jessica Booker]

Exactly. I imagine it's very hard to look at the number of applications they receive on a non-rolling basis.

It’s not that hard to be honest!

 

[TChopeful2021]

So this is basically a way to reduce application numbers?

However, are there not better ways to reduce application numbers rather than prioritising these 2 target groups and excluding so many other candidates? Wouldn't it make more sense to differentiate them through their academic ability or the overall quality of the applicant? E.g: Set A level requirements or even ask for a mid/high 2:1.

I'm not criticising this decision, I'm just genuinely curious why the academic stage an applicant is at is more important than the quality of the applicant.

 

[Jessica Booker]

So this is basically a way to reduce application numbers?

However, are there not better ways to reduce application numbers rather than prioritising these 2 target groups and excluding so many other candidates? Wouldn't it make more sense to differentiate them through their academic ability or the overall quality of the applicant? E.g: Set A level requirements or even ask for a mid/high 2:1.

I'm not criticising this decision, I'm just genuinely curious why the academic stage an applicant is at is more important than the quality of the applicant.

I think it is also to manage candidates’ expectations.

To be honest this is the easiest/cheapest/quickest/most efficient way to reduce applications compared to other methods.

Selecting other methods like academics will have their own issues (mainly diversity related). If the firm knows that getting good talent in isn’t dependent on a high 2.1 or above, then it would be silly to add this criteria in and limit the quality of your talent pool.

I think the issue here is that they probably don’t suffer from bad quality applicants and therefore making this decision doesn’t necessarily reduce the quality hired - it just limits the funnel at the top but the outcome is basically the same. Reducing applications could also help them retain high quality applicants who do apply - recruiters tend to lose good and diverse talent the slower their recruitment process is.

 

[Romiras]

It’s not that hard to be honest!

6000+? I wouldn't know but I figured it would be unless they're slashing many down with filters.

 

[Jessica Booker]

6000+? I wouldn't know but I figured it would be unless they're slashing many down with filters.

Yep - compared to some other sectors, that application number is actually pretty manageable. Law firms are known to be more thorough with their screening, but that’s still manageable from my perspective.

The thing about screening applications is it is the most tedious thing to do after the first hour. No one wants to do it

 

[J123]

I don't understand why CC is prioritising programmes likes Spark? Surely some of the people coming through the programme will change their minds during university as they are exposed to other career options?

 

[Flk10]

I don't understand why CC is prioritising programmes likes Spark? Surely some of the people coming through the programme will change their minds during university as they are exposed to other career options?

From their perspective, I guess it effectively ‘locks in’ the best students at an early stage as they can get ahead of other law firms.

I suppose it also gives them more time to mould a student into the type of trainee they want, as they have three years to run training and events etc.

 

[D]

I don't understand why CC is prioritising programmes likes Spark? Surely some of the people coming through the programme will change their minds during university as they are exposed to other career options?

Maybe, but if you are applying to a first-year scheme you are also very likely to be committed to that path.

Also, they build in protections like this, just like with offers, if a firm takes on 90 trainees a year, they don't simply make 90 offers, as they know candidates will have applied elsewhere and have other offers.

I'm personally not a fan of their recruitment style, but I can't lie - Watching those at my uni who had already secured a TC in their first year made me very envious! I was longing for a TC at that point!

 

[Jessica Booker]

I don't understand why CC is prioritising programmes likes Spark? Surely some of the people coming through the programme will change their minds during university as they are exposed to other career options?

Maybe it just works for them - if they can see the strongest trainees (and those who stick around) are more likely to come from programmes like Spark, I can see why they would focus their energy/resource on them.

People who are later in their academics can still apply and can still secure TCs with CC - it sounds like enough people have achieved this in the last couple of cycles (when this approach also existed, just wasn't publicised) so you could come to it later. I suspect if anything this might be there to try and reduce the serial appliers (e.g. applied for Spark, would have applied for vac scheme, then apply for 1 or more TC cycles).

 

[Jessica Booker]

Maybe, but if you are applying to a first-year scheme you are also very likely to be committed to that path.

Also, they build in protections like this, just like with offers, if a firm takes on 90 trainees a year, they don't simply make 90 offers, as they know candidates will have applied elsewhere and have other offers.

I'm personally not a fan of their recruitment style, but I can't lie - Watching those at my uni who had already secured a TC in their first year made me very envious! I was longing for a TC at that point!

I don't agree with offering 1st year's TC at all - its a bonkers idea. No other sector does it either. I get that they lock people in early, but many people will just also look to upgrade their offer if they can anyway - so I doubt many are that truly locked in.

 

[D]

I don't agree with offering 1st year's TC at all - its a bonkers idea. No other sector does it either. I get that they lock people in early, but many people will just also look to upgrade their offer if they can anyway - so I doubt many are that truly locked in.

I know our academics at Uni campaigned against it when the "change" came in (You'll be familiar with whatever happened as it was a little before my time) as they thought offering jobs to first-years would place too much strain on students. I can see that argument, however, the strain in the first year is already there, because when you apply you are doing so with your first-year grades. That first year isn't a time to completely relax if you intend to make applications in the second year.

That being said, yes, it was an additional thing to worry about when focusing on my academics would have been ideal, without that additional concern.

 

[Lawgirl123]

Nothing to lose!

Except for valuable time that could be used applying elsewhere...

 

[M777]

Except for valuable time that could be used applying elsewhere...

This statement could apply to any firm, though. Many firms recruit predominantly from vacation schemes and yet people still apply, especially if they're set on the firm and they're confident in their abilities to succeed on a Training Contract. People still get hired, even if they haven't gone through the vac scheme route (how else would firms fill vacancies if the vac scheme candidates weren't all up to scratch?). Absolutely nothing is lost here other than a bit of time and energy spent researching the firm and writing an application, but that applies with every firm.

That's particularly true here. As other people have said on this thread, they're not expressly excluding post-penultimate year students from applying. They're just making their ordinary application process more transparent. Many post-penultimates have secured TCs at CC by convincingly showcasing their skills, abilities and interest in the firm. That will equally apply this year, and it wouldn't surprised if a decent number of non-penultimates still get taken on for a TC.

If OP is absolutely set on Clifford Chance then they are absolutely not wasting their time by applying to the firm, and their application will probably be looked at. People should definitely be aware that non-penultimates don't get priority but it shouldn't completely put them off, and it definitely isn't a waste of time to do so.