- Feb 17, 2018
- 4,717
- 8,627
Anonymous -
My interview was completely different to what I had expected or read about. I studied Politics and Sociology at Uni, and they started off the interview asking why I got higher grades in Sociology than Politics on average. Then they picked up one topic I mentioned in my answer (the use of Twitter during the Arab Spring which I had studied in my first year of university) and spent basically the entire interview discussing my thoughts on this. We moved across topics such as whether social media should be regulated / how free speech comes into this but it was largely just based on this one topic which threw me as I hadn’t studied it in 3 years.
Then with the current affairs article it is largely what you would expect, just quite debatey and they will play devil’s advocate but it’s fine as long as you have a (coherent) argument. I didn’t get the sense that they were trying to catch me out at all and both interviewers were very pleasant and asked very interesting questions.
The main thing that stood out to me is that I didn’t really get any of the typical questions I was told to expect such as ‘why Slaughter and May’ or ‘Why commercial law’. I was asked what other firms I had applied to but I genuinely think that was the only legitimate ‘interview question’ I was asked. Really not like your typical interview at all!
My interview was completely different to what I had expected or read about. I studied Politics and Sociology at Uni, and they started off the interview asking why I got higher grades in Sociology than Politics on average. Then they picked up one topic I mentioned in my answer (the use of Twitter during the Arab Spring which I had studied in my first year of university) and spent basically the entire interview discussing my thoughts on this. We moved across topics such as whether social media should be regulated / how free speech comes into this but it was largely just based on this one topic which threw me as I hadn’t studied it in 3 years.
Then with the current affairs article it is largely what you would expect, just quite debatey and they will play devil’s advocate but it’s fine as long as you have a (coherent) argument. I didn’t get the sense that they were trying to catch me out at all and both interviewers were very pleasant and asked very interesting questions.
The main thing that stood out to me is that I didn’t really get any of the typical questions I was told to expect such as ‘why Slaughter and May’ or ‘Why commercial law’. I was asked what other firms I had applied to but I genuinely think that was the only legitimate ‘interview question’ I was asked. Really not like your typical interview at all!
