I haven’t really felt the need to keep “actual” numbers in my head and don’t have access to the data where I don’t work for the firms.
Okay, thank you. I thought I might as well ask.
LinkedIn isn’t really a great way to judge something. Lots of people don’t like to shout about things on LinkedIn, and that’s assuming they are on it in the first place (many aren’t). I am not sure how I would find out someone is the first in their family to go to uni, or whether I could make assumptions about their demographics though through LinkedIn.
But you mentioned LinkedIn as a way to assess progress first?
I think it's a fairly reliable way of figuring the general profile of a firm's candidates out, particularly given that uptake is so high. I don't have any numbers on this but I'd estimate that it's a good 2/3rds and above. It seems to be a norm to at least have a presence on that site, even if you're not active.
I think that the point is that you relied on Linkedin as a way of contradicting my point about the lack of non-RGers.
But you are relying on all the data on LinkedIn being there and consistently. A lot of people don’t put their uni on their LinkedIn, and even more so the case from lower ranked uni because of these perceptions we are discussing.
Thank you @Jacob Miller you seem like living proof that anyone can DREAM BIG, and achieve it successfullyReally interesting discussion to this point, I feel like I should maybe chuck my hat into the ring here - at the risk, perhaps, of it being somewhat unpopular.
For perspective: I've got not-spectacular A-level equivalents (141 UCAS points, so somewhere between A*AB and AAB) from a decent-ish Glasgow state school. I am included in multiple contextual recruitment/ under-represented groups. I attend a non-RG Uni (Aberdeen, which is in the far north of Scotland) and I'm on track for a 2.1. For those who don't know, I secured a TC with Travers Smith on essentially my first app cycle.
Do I think that some firms err towards RG/ especially Oxbridge candidates? Yes, absolutely. Do I believe this is every firm? No, I don't. Do I believe it's due to recruiters having a silver spoon stuck somewhere unpleasant turning their nose up at candidates from anywhere else? No, don't be ridiculous.
I think that, as prospective applicants, there is a tendency (which I myself was guilty of, by the way) of forgetting that law firms are businesses in and of themselves, who need to make cost-benefit analyses of every decision they take and also want the absolute best talent because they want to make the most competitive offering to their clients, to make more money in turn. To that end, firms are obviously going to target universities which have a statistically higher proportion of candidates who will tick the boxes for that firm. You also have to consider geography here: Aberdeen, for example, is a nightmare to get to and travel costs an absolute fortune. In spite of the fact it's generally considered a top-10 UK law school, it's simply not practical for most firms to attend because they can get a higher proportion of statistically better candidates for a much lower investment cost elsewhere. It's a no-brainer for a business to make that decision. One of the massive strong-points of this forum is that it is a resource to find frank and honest advice, I think @Jessica Booker would be doing everyone here a disservice if she gave some political/ smoke and mirrors excuse for the situation as it currently is... I totally get that it might be a bit unpleasant to hear said plainly, but let's not shoot the messenger.
Whether it's right or wrong (and, hey, I agree that it is wrong), pragmatism is necessary here. I remember someone telling me once that "it's infinitely easier to effect change from the inside of the tent peeing out, than the outside of the tent peeing in". You'll not change the world by shouting about it, but by putting yourself in a position where you can do it.
Myself and countless others from backgrounds such as mine are literally living proof that it's possible and the additional challenges mean little in practice if you really work at it. I think simply 'blaming the system' and resigning oneself to not achieving what you want is a total cop-out. I'm one of the most passionate people you could meet about improving the diversity in the commercial legal industry - hence, for example, I do what I do here, have attended video networking panels etc - and improving the disparity in legal recruitment is something which I fully plan on being a part of through my career. But, at that point, I'll be in the tent peeing out. Work hard, keep pushing and then, when you're in the tent, pee out and actually effect change.
Edit: Just for clarification, I don't at all disagree with people who say that non-RG/ Oxbridge/ XYZ groups are still fighting an uphill battle- I completely agree with this and it's totally wrong- I'm just saying that the best way to change it is to put yourself in a position where you can do so
For me personally, I didn’t have anyone who could guide me, my sixth form had no careers service. I thought about dropping out in my third year but it was no point by then.
Could be for any one of hundreds of reasons. Some people want to stay closer to home, some schools don't have any proper careers/ future guidance to help kids really understand what all the differences are, some for other reasons altogether. I'm at Aberdeen, for example, because I transferred there so I could live with my fiancee rather than having to do distance for 4 years.
Because not everyone has the luxury of choosing which university they go to. Some people have to stay close to home for financial or family commitments. Not everyone has a RG uni in a 30 mile radius of their home.
It doesn’t matter if you went to Cambridge, a 2:2 is still a 2:2 in a graduate recruitment’s perspective. I have a family friend who is a GR employee at a very elite US firm and they will still reject you or consider that as an obstacle
I agree. I said that a 2.2 from Cambridge is ‘different’ to an equivalent grade from a different uni. It isn’t necessarily better or worse but probably requires contextualising like many factors that go into an individual’s application. A 2.1 is still obviously a grade higher than a 2.2It doesn’t matter if you went to Cambridge, a 2:2 is still a 2:2 in a graduate recruitment’s perspective. I have a family friend who is a GR employee at a very elite US firm and they will still reject you or consider that as an obstacle
I’m from LSE and know people in my course who achieved a 2:2 in some modules and I know a good friend of mine from SOAS who got strong 2:1s he was favoured over the LSE student. As @Jessica Booker mentioned I don’t think a uni’s name matters. I’m still facing a lot of rejections and I didn’t get any 2:2s and graduated with a solid 2:1.
It broadens more than just academics and your university’s name. Because you went to Cambridge doesn’t make you elite hahahah
This is a great discussion.
Do you agree @Jessica Booker?
It never is as simple as comparing a candidate with X set of academics to another with Y set of academics.It doesn’t matter if you went to Cambridge, a 2:2 is still a 2:2 in a graduate recruitment’s perspective. I have a family friend who is a GR employee at a very elite US firm and they will still reject you or consider that as an obstacle
I’m from LSE and know people in my course who achieved a 2:2 in some modules and I know a good friend of mine from SOAS who got strong 2:1s he was favoured over the LSE student. As @Jessica Booker mentioned I don’t think a uni’s name matters. I’m still facing a lot of rejections and I didn’t get any 2:2s and graduated with a solid 2:1.
It broadens more than just academics and your university’s name. Because you went to Cambridge doesn’t make you elite hahahah
This is a great discussion.
Do you agree @Jessica Booker?
I think you could mention this in the context of Diversity & Inclusion. So for example with myself, diversity is very important to me so I am naturally quite interested in the representation of BAME and female incumbent partners and promotions within a firm. Other than this, I don't think you would need to nor be expected to have a deep understanding into a firm's partner structure.
I also think, in addition to what Naomi said, that this could be significant in seeing for example, if that particular firm is promoting its own lawyers compared to hiring from other firms. Some firms often do lateral hires of partners from their competitors, while others might prefer to promote its own people.
