Hearing Back from Law Firms, Assessment Centres & Interview Tips - 2019 - 2020

[Aurochschiette]

Has anyone got any experience with the Deloitte legal AC? Would appreciate any tips or info

Congrats on getting to the AC!

Is this for summer programme or graduate programme? Afaik there's no AC for summer, right?

 

[Legal_rawn]

Congrats on getting to the AC!

Is this for summer programme or graduate programme? Afaik there's no AC for summer, right?

Yeah it’s a live video interview for the summer programme

 

[tractor12]

They also provide a much more consistent and objective assessment. Rather than having to assess someone's previous experience (which is known to have huge flaws and show little to no correlation to being able to do the job) it will assess the candidate's ability in a core and necessary skill deemed necessary.

People may hate these forms of assessment, but I can tell you now that they are a much fairer system than application forms/CVs/interviews.

If used correctly and appropriately, they also are one of the strongest predictors of performance later in the recruitment process and also on the job...

Although the practice tests are not the same as the actual ones, it is possible to improve your performance on them. In that sense, someone may do better on the assessment because they have spent more time practicing or had more access to paid tests. Spending more time practicing to improve your score doesn't make them a better candidate.

I see what you are saying about the disadvantages of alternatives and can't argue with trends you have seen for yourself but I think the frustration comes from how impersonal they are - tests that tell me I am X, when I am nothing like that, and then a decision is partly based on that conclusion doesn't sit well with me. I would also assume it is much more likely that some outstanding candidates can fall through cracks more so than from a written application?

 

[Legal_rawn]

Although the practice tests are not the same as the actual ones, it is possible to improve your performance on them. In that sense, someone may do better on the assessment because they have spent more time practicing or had more access to paid tests. Spending more time practicing to improve your score doesn't make them a better candidate.

I see what you are saying about the disadvantages of alternatives and can't argue with trends you have seen for yourself but I think the frustration comes from how impersonal they are - tests that tell me I am X, when I am nothing like that, and then a decision is partly based on that conclusion doesn't sit well with me. I would also assume it is much more likely that some outstanding candidates can fall through cracks more so than from a written application?

If you spend more time practicing to get a better score then that probably reflects that you are the kind of individual they are looking for. I would just go for the route that they look for the qualities that their firm is most interested in and to take it that if you don’t pass a test or is why you get rejected then that firm wasn’t the best fit for you!

 

[tractor12]

If you spend more time practicing to get a better score then that probably reflects that you are the kind of individual they are looking for. I would just go for the route that they look for the qualities that their firm is most interested in and to take it that if you don’t pass a test or is why you get rejected then that firm wasn’t the best fit for you!

I have to disagree. Someone may have done more practice because they had more free time, paid to access more tests, or have done the recruitment cycle several times and so are already well practiced. None of that makes them a better candidate

I also don't think not passing a test would mean I'm not suited to the firm - I could reapply the following year and get through the test. I know firms need to find a way to cut down the numbers efficiently but I don't think they are a good indication of telling me whether the firm is right for me

 

[AH9891]

Although the practice tests are not the same as the actual ones, it is possible to improve your performance on them. In that sense, someone may do better on the assessment because they have spent more time practicing or had more access to paid tests. Spending more time practicing to improve your score doesn't make them a better candidate.

I see what you are saying about the disadvantages of alternatives and can't argue with trends you have seen for yourself but I think the frustration comes from how impersonal they are - tests that tell me I am X, when I am nothing like that, and then a decision is partly based on that conclusion doesn't sit well with me. I would also assume it is much more likely that some outstanding candidates can fall through cracks more so than from a written application?

I’m not a fan of the tests either. A because it disadvantages people that may not be able to splash out the money for al the practice tests and b particularly for the firms that immediately send you the test after you apply I have just wasted hours and hours on an application form only to not reach a percentile and so no person will likely even see it. What an insufficient system and waste of an applicants time! As for retesting, I think it’s totally inconsistent. From my experience it’s a hit and miss if I pass the test. Sometimes I pass, sometimes I don’t. I’ve taken all my tests myself, so what if I have to retest at an AC and my score is suddenly different? Great then you get rejected even though you initially passed on your own for a test where there is a chance that you won’t always pass no matter how much you practice and how good you are.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Although the practice tests are not the same as the actual ones, it is possible to improve your performance on them. In that sense, someone may do better on the assessment because they have spent more time practicing or had more access to paid tests. Spending more time practicing to improve your score doesn't make them a better candidate.

I see what you are saying about the disadvantages of alternatives and can't argue with trends you have seen for yourself but I think the frustration comes from how impersonal they are - tests that tell me I am X, when I am nothing like that, and then a decision is partly based on that conclusion doesn't sit well with me. I would also assume it is much more likely that some outstanding candidates can fall through cracks more so than from a written application?

I am confused as to what type of test you are talking about here. Practice tests will only be appropriate for ability tests and they will be very different to any assessment that says you are "X" type of person.

Considering you can get anyone to write your application form for you, the crack is much more likely to be present if you rely on a written application though.

 

[tractor12]

I am confused as to what type of test you are talking about here. Practice tests will only be appropriate for ability tests and they will be very different to any assessment that says you are "X" type of person.

Sorry first point - ability tests
Second point - games/sjt

 

[tractor12]

I am confused as to what type of test you are talking about here. Practice tests will only be appropriate for ability tests and they will be very different to any assessment that says you are "X" type of person.

Considering you can get anyone to write your application form for you, the crack is much more likely to be present if you rely on a written application though.

I would have thought more people get others to do ability tests for them than write their entire application?

 

[Aurochschiette]

I have to disagree. Someone may have done more practice because they have more free time, have paid to access more tests, or have done the recruitment cycle several times and so are already well practiced. None of that makes them a better candidate

I also don't think not passing a test would mean I'm not suited to the firm - I could reapply the following year and get through the test. I know firms need to find a way to cut down the numbers efficiently but I don't think they are a good indication of telling me whether the firm is right for me

How is a written application less discriminatory then?

Someone may write better because of having attended better schools or having access to educated parents/friends to review apps.

Candidates can also write applications over and over, getting better eventually. I know mine have improved over time.

This is not me defending testing. I'm just saying the logic here is selective.

Testing of any kind has issues, but the trainee role is heavily oversubscribed. Cutting numbers, whether through games or typos in written answers, is the name of the game.

Finally, the "fit" question is interesting. Whether firm to me, or me to firm, I would bet all my money on any form of recruitment assessment having a less than perfect success rate in finding fit. I don't know which form of assessment is best, but I'm sure some are statistically better predictors.

 

[Jessica Booker]

I have to disagree. Someone may have done more practice because they had more free time, paid to access more tests, or have done the recruitment cycle several times and so are already well practiced. None of that makes them a better candidate

I also don't think not passing a test would mean I'm not suited to the firm - I could reapply the following year and get through the test. I know firms need to find a way to cut down the numbers efficiently but I don't think they are a good indication of telling me whether the firm is right for me

Like most things in life, with practice you can get a little bit better and more confident. But you won't be able to perfect your ability.

Its like the equivalent of learning to drive if you have 0 spatial awareness. You can practice to drive, and you might get slightly better at driving but you will never pass a driving test if you have 0 spatial awareness.

What you can do is "train you brain" though - but that is the same with anything you learn (e.g. speed reading). If you regularly make your brain read things and have to come to conclusions on that type of information, your ability will get stronger.

Its why I always stress to people that you are much better off "training your brain" rather than doing practice tests. That won't just help you with the online assessment, it will also help you on the day job.

 

[Jessica Booker]

I would have thought more people get others to do ability tests for them than write their entire application?

Considering how many people will get their friend to review their application form for them, or their tutor, parent, professor, or even a contact on a site like this, I think you'd be surprised....

 

[Miki3999]

Damn...should have done Medicine...

 

[Jessica Booker]

How is a written application less discriminatory then?

Someone may write better because of having attended better schools or having access to educated parents/friends to review apps.

Candidates can also write applications over and over, getting better eventually. I know mine have improved over time.

This is not me defending testing. I'm just saying the logic here is selective.

Testing of any kind has issues, but the trainee role is heavily oversubscribed. Cutting numbers, whether through games or typos in written answers, is the name of the game.

Finally, the "fit" question is interesting. Whether firm to me, or me to firm, I would bet all my money on any form of recruitment assessment having a less than perfect success rate in finding fit. I don't know which form of assessment is best, but I'm sure some are statistically better predictors.

Better assessments for fit: games based assessments, SJTs, values based assessments

As with anything though, none of these tests are identical. Even if you do the Artic Shores game for two companies and the game is identical, one "design" of the assessment behind that game could be fundamentally flawed, while the other is perfect.

Any assessment is only as good as the design process behind it

 

[D95]

Like most things in life, with practice you can get a little bit better and more confident. But you won't be able to perfect your ability.

Its like the equivalent of learning to drive if you have 0 spatial awareness. You can practice to drive, and you might get slightly better at driving but you will never pass a driving test if you have 0 spatial awareness.

What you can do is "train you brain" though - but that is the same with anything you learn (e.g. speed reading). If you regularly make your brain read things and have to come to conclusions on that type of information, your ability will get stronger.

Its why I always stress to people that you are much better off "training your brain" rather than doing practice tests. That won't just help you with the online assessment, it will also help you on the day job.

Can I ask what do you mean by "train your brain" in the context of psychometric testing exactly, if not with practice tests?

 

[tractor12]

Like most things in life, with practice you can get a little bit better and more confident. But you won't be able to perfect your ability.

Its like the equivalent of learning to drive if you have 0 spatial awareness. You can practice to drive, and you might get slightly better at driving but you will never pass a driving test if you have 0 spatial awareness.

What you can do is "train you brain" though - but that is the same with anything you learn (e.g. speed reading). If you regularly make your brain read things and have to come to conclusions on that type of information, your ability will get stronger.

Its why I always stress to people that you are much better off "training your brain" rather than doing practice tests. That won't just help you with the online assessment, it will also help you on the day job.

Yeah that's definitely true. There are clearly flaws with all systems and it's interesting to hear the success rate of them.

I am wondering why some firms make you do an application first and only read it if you pass the test? Why don't they make you do the test first and then give you time to write the application? (Reed Smith do this) or allow for the test to be a second stage in the process like many other firms do.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Can I ask what do you mean by "train your brain" in the context of psychometric testing exactly, if not with practice tests?

When you do your degree, do you only learn the subject my taking mock examinations?

What I am suggesting is that you get your brain used to the type of analytical skills needed to make correct decisions, rather than focusing on how you get correct decisions. The irony is a practice test rarely even tells you whether you are making correct decisions or not though...

 

[Jessica Booker]

Yeah that's definitely true. There are clearly flaws with all systems and it's interesting to hear the success rate of them.

I am wondering why some firms make you do an application first and only read it if you pass the test? Why don't they make you do the test first and then give you time to write the application? (Reed Smith do this) or allow for the test to be a second stage in the process like many other firms do.

Because there is a massive risk that you'd never complete the application form if you were successful, and even if there wasn't that risk, it would then create further delays to the recruitment process while you are 100s of other candidates then complete the application form AFTER you have taken the test.

 

[Olivia99]

Anyone heard from DAC Beachcroft (post VI)?

 

[Jessica Booker]

I know firms need to find a way to cut down the numbers efficiently but I don't think they are a good indication of telling me whether the firm is right for me

Unless its a SJT or a values based assessments, its highly unlikely that the test is put into the process to help the candidate work out if the firm is right for them. Firms invest in the marketing and events aspects in the attraction piece to ensure that happens more rather than in an early recruitment stage.

The risk of losing a good candidate is minor to the risk of hiring a bad one. And so systems are built to minimise the latter risk rather than the former.