TCLA Direct Training Contract Applications Discussion Thread 2021-22 (#1)

[futureTS2025hopeful]

btw i emailed Freshfields and they said they are still screening, and not all WG tests have been given out

 

[James Carrabino]

I've had similar thoughts and maybe you're being a bit tongue in cheek, but I'd strongly caution against that kind of thinking.

A certain kind of candidate with sterling academic credentials can get away with lacking sufficiently specific interest, or loosely bluffing through the process - I've seen this happen a few times.

For the rest of us, the 'I'd go anywhere' mentality gets sniffed out at the outset and can crush what might be otherwise decent chances. Do try and really zero in on firms which genuinely excite you, whether it's their work or their culture (ideally both). Far more likely to make it on a handful of serious applications than just throwing as much as you can at the wall and seeing what sticks.

I've cleared the papercut only once, and it was because I had intensely engaged with the firm over a number of years in a variety of contexts. It simply isn't possible to do that with more than a handful of firms.

@Rob93 I have to continue to thank you for your excellent insight across the forum! The eloquence and thoughtfulness of everything you write is truly outstanding and means a lot to all of us at TCLA

I don't disagree with what you are saying here, but I don't completely agree.

When I first thought about applying I received one piece of advice - 'Apply widely; it's a numbers game!' With hindsight, that was not the best advice I could have received as it was not particularly nuanced and led me to taking the approach that you warned against. Many PFOs ensued 🤣

That said, applying widely led me to discover firms that I would not have shortlisted into my top 5 or even 10 if I had taken a more targeted approach. It was sometimes only in researching a firm and writing my response to the application questions that I started to think 'Wait a second; this firm is right up my alley!'

There are two issues to consider here in relation to the possible problems with too targeted of an approach:

1. You may not know exactly what it means to be a good fit! As in, perhaps you think that you want to do private equity, for example, so you set your sights on the best firm in your mind for private equity. First of all, if you do not have any demonstrable background in private equity then it may not matter to the firm whether you claim that they are your dream firm and have spent hours engaging with them, as they will see you to be like any other enthusiastic candidate. Secondly, even if you can adequately demonstrate your interest in private equity, you may actually be better suited to a different firm which does private equity to almost as high of a level, but perhaps has offices in locations more relevant to the kind of work you want to do, or has initiatives that you could express your interest in joining. It is easy to make the wrong assessment of what firm is a good fit by placing too much emphasis on a single metric - usually for a firm to be a good fit you would need to have multiple experiences or interests that, quite possibly unknown to you before taking the time to research your application, make you the ideal candidate for the firm.
2. The other issue with a targeted approach is that you may simply be unaware of some firms which you would love if you took the time to research them more in depth. This is not to say that you would not have heard of some firms at all, but merely that you know little about them other than their names. I know that this was true for me for quite a few firms. When I was applying, I drew up a priority shortlist of firms that I really wanted to spend a longer time on and get my application in earlier etc. and I worked out later on that many of the firms not on my shortlist were actually much better suited to me. I did not find that there was any correlation between a firm being on that list and whether or not I passed the application stage.

I am sure that where you passed the application stage, the firm really liked what they saw in your application and felt that it aligned strongly with their work. That said, I don't think that you should conclude that every firm requires years of engagement by applicants before progressing them - I wonder whether this firm may have invited you to interview even if you first heard of them a week previously and thought 'Wow, this is a firm that really interests me'. I would like to think that your suitability to the firm is inherent and does not require years of work to build up.

So yes, you need to be an excellent fit in order to progress, but once you are an excellent fit, I do not think that the sheer amount of time you put into a single firm is what will make or break your application, assuming you have spent the requisite time to research and write excellent answers (a single day should be enough if you work efficiently). As a result, I might suggest that you are actually more likely to discover the firms where you are an excellent fit if you apply widely, as opposed to pre-determining where you would be a great fit. At least one of the firms which ultimately made me a vac scheme offer was not a firm I would have ever targeted or guessed would like me even after I submitted my application!

So... my conclusion is that if you have the time to really immerse yourself in a select few firms and spend hours engaging with them, then you should instead put that time into sending off more applications, investing less time in each of them but still enough to produce a polished application.

If you simply don't have the time to send out a lot of high-quality applications at all, then you can use the time you do have effectively by drawing up a list of 60 firms, say, and committing ten minutes to researching each of the firms which you do not know a huge amount about. This can be done in a full day and can really make your application process more efficiently in the end! Be brave about cutting out a firm that you see as a top firm you should be applying to, if you think that on balance your background is unlikely to be what they are looking for. Also be open to applying to firms that you had not seriously considered previously.

Ultimately, time is the biggest constraint we all face so it is crucial to find an approach which allows us to use it to the best of our abilities and everyone has something different which works for them

 

[Rob93]

@Rob93 I have to continue to thank you for your excellent insight across the forum! The eloquence and thoughtfulness of everything you write is truly outstanding and means a lot to all of us at TCLA

I don't disagree with what you are saying here, but I don't completely agree.

When I first thought about applying I received one piece of advice - 'Apply widely; it's a numbers game!' With hindsight, that was not the best advice I could have received as it was not particularly nuanced and led me to taking the approach that you warned against. Many PFOs ensued 🤣

That said, applying widely led me to discover firms that I would not have shortlisted into my top 5 or even 10 if I had taken a more targeted approach. It was sometimes only in researching a firm and writing my response to the application questions that I started to think 'Wait a second; this firm is right up my alley!'

There are two issues to consider here in relation to the possible problems with too targeted of an approach:

1. You may not know exactly what it means to be a good fit! As in, perhaps you think that you want to do private equity, for example, so you set your sights on the best firm in your mind for private equity. First of all, if you do not have any demonstrable background in private equity then it may not matter to the firm whether you claim that they are your dream firm and have spent hours engaging with them, as they will see you to be like any other enthusiastic candidate. Secondly, even if you can adequately demonstrate your interest in private equity, you may actually be better suited to a different firm which does private equity to almost as high of a level, but perhaps has offices in locations more relevant to the kind of work you want to do, or has initiatives that you could express your interest in joining. It is easy to make the wrong assessment of what firm is a good fit by placing too much emphasis on a single metric - usually for a firm to be a good fit you would need to have multiple experiences or interests that, quite possibly unknown to you before taking the time to research your application, make you the ideal candidate for the firm.
2. The other issue with a targeted approach is that you may simply be unaware of some firms which you would love if you took the time to research them more in depth. This is not to say that you would not have heard of some firms at all, but merely that you know little about them other than their names. I know that this was true for me for quite a few firms. When I was applying, I drew up a priority shortlist of firms that I really wanted to spend a longer time on and get my application in earlier etc. and I worked out later on that many of the firms not on my shortlist were actually much better suited to me. I did not find that there was any correlation between a firm being on that list and whether or not I passed the application stage.

I am sure that where you passed the application stage, the firm really liked what they saw in your application and felt that it aligned strongly with their work. That said, I don't think that you should conclude that every firm requires years of engagement by applicants before progressing them - I wonder whether this firm may have invited you to interview even if you first heard of them a week previously and thought 'Wow, this is a firm that really interests me'. I would like to think that your suitability to the firm is inherent and does not require years of work to build up.

So yes, you need to be an excellent fit in order to progress, but once you are an excellent fit, I do not think that the sheer amount of time you put into a single firm is what will make or break your application, assuming you have spent the requisite time to research and write excellent answers (a single day should be enough if you work efficiently). As a result, I might suggest that you are actually more likely to discover the firms where you are an excellent fit if you apply widely, as opposed to pre-determining where you would be a great fit. At least one of the firms which ultimately made me a vac scheme offer was not a firm I would have ever targeted or guessed would like me even after I submitted my application!

So... my conclusion is that if you have the time to really immerse yourself in a select few firms and spend hours engaging with them, then you should instead put that time into sending off more applications, investing less time in each of them but still enough to produce a polished application.

If you simply don't have the time to send out a lot of high-quality applications at all, then you can use the time you do have effectively by drawing up a list of 60 firms, say, and committing ten minutes to researching each of the firms which you do not know a huge amount about. This can be done in a full day and can really make your application process more efficiently in the end! Be brave about cutting out a firm that you see as a top firm you should be applying to, if you think that on balance your background is unlikely to be what they are looking for. Also be open to applying to firms that you had not seriously considered previously.

Ultimately, time is the biggest constraint we all face so it is crucial to find an approach which allows us to use it to the best of our abilities and everyone has something different which works for them

I think that's quite fair! I have a handful of specific practices I want to try my hand at during training, and only a handful of firms do all of those things so I suppose the field is already narrowed down for me - it was a bit myopic of me to forget that, for many applicants, their focus might be much less narrow.

 

[James Carrabino]

I think that's quite fair! I have a handful of specific practices I want to try my hand at during training, and only a handful of firms do all of those things so I suppose the field is already narrowed down for me - it was a bit myopic of me to forget that, for many applicants, their focus might be much less narrow.

This is an excellent point! Also, it sounds like you know a large amount about the legal market already For those who don't (like myself at the time 🤣) I found that the best way of learning was to apply to a broader number of firms and consistently analyse what was working and what was not I know that I would take a much more targeted approach if I were to do it all over again with the knowledge I have now, however!

 

[Vacationschemeapps]

Hey, any clue how much time FF allow before ACs?

 

[hopefullylaw2000]

Hey, any clue how much time FF allow before ACs?

I think normally about 1-2 weeks - have you heard back post WG?

 

[Vacationschemeapps]

I think normally about 1-2 weeks - have you heard back post WG?

Thanks. And Nope! I just received the WG today, so was just checking

 

[ofm]

Does anyone know where I can find a list of firms that don't only give TCs unless they are short on numbers following the VS? Thank you!

 

[futureTS2025hopeful]

Did anyone who applied for mayer brown TC receive an email telling them to 'refrain from contacting them'?

 

[shootingstar]

Is freshfields still reviewing apps/sending WG or do you reckon they're done now?

I can confirm that they are still sending WG invites as I received one this morning, which is due next Wednesday. For those who haven’t heard back yet, sit tight and don’t lose hope

 

[LawfulRust00]

Any heard from BCLP post app?

 

[SCN]

I can confirm that they are still sending WG invites as I received one this morning, which is due next Wednesday. For those who haven’t heard back yet, sit tight and don’t lose hope

Thank you! May I ask when your portal was updated?? Congrats on receiving the WG!

 

[thirdtimelucky]

@Rob93 I have to continue to thank you for your excellent insight across the forum! The eloquence and thoughtfulness of everything you write is truly outstanding and means a lot to all of us at TCLA

I don't disagree with what you are saying here, but I don't completely agree.

When I first thought about applying I received one piece of advice - 'Apply widely; it's a numbers game!' With hindsight, that was not the best advice I could have received as it was not particularly nuanced and led me to taking the approach that you warned against. Many PFOs ensued 🤣

That said, applying widely led me to discover firms that I would not have shortlisted into my top 5 or even 10 if I had taken a more targeted approach. It was sometimes only in researching a firm and writing my response to the application questions that I started to think 'Wait a second; this firm is right up my alley!'

There are two issues to consider here in relation to the possible problems with too targeted of an approach:

1. You may not know exactly what it means to be a good fit! As in, perhaps you think that you want to do private equity, for example, so you set your sights on the best firm in your mind for private equity. First of all, if you do not have any demonstrable background in private equity then it may not matter to the firm whether you claim that they are your dream firm and have spent hours engaging with them, as they will see you to be like any other enthusiastic candidate. Secondly, even if you can adequately demonstrate your interest in private equity, you may actually be better suited to a different firm which does private equity to almost as high of a level, but perhaps has offices in locations more relevant to the kind of work you want to do, or has initiatives that you could express your interest in joining. It is easy to make the wrong assessment of what firm is a good fit by placing too much emphasis on a single metric - usually for a firm to be a good fit you would need to have multiple experiences or interests that, quite possibly unknown to you before taking the time to research your application, make you the ideal candidate for the firm.
2. The other issue with a targeted approach is that you may simply be unaware of some firms which you would love if you took the time to research them more in depth. This is not to say that you would not have heard of some firms at all, but merely that you know little about them other than their names. I know that this was true for me for quite a few firms. When I was applying, I drew up a priority shortlist of firms that I really wanted to spend a longer time on and get my application in earlier etc. and I worked out later on that many of the firms not on my shortlist were actually much better suited to me. I did not find that there was any correlation between a firm being on that list and whether or not I passed the application stage.

I am sure that where you passed the application stage, the firm really liked what they saw in your application and felt that it aligned strongly with their work. That said, I don't think that you should conclude that every firm requires years of engagement by applicants before progressing them - I wonder whether this firm may have invited you to interview even if you first heard of them a week previously and thought 'Wow, this is a firm that really interests me'. I would like to think that your suitability to the firm is inherent and does not require years of work to build up.

So yes, you need to be an excellent fit in order to progress, but once you are an excellent fit, I do not think that the sheer amount of time you put into a single firm is what will make or break your application, assuming you have spent the requisite time to research and write excellent answers (a single day should be enough if you work efficiently). As a result, I might suggest that you are actually more likely to discover the firms where you are an excellent fit if you apply widely, as opposed to pre-determining where you would be a great fit. At least one of the firms which ultimately made me a vac scheme offer was not a firm I would have ever targeted or guessed would like me even after I submitted my application!

So... my conclusion is that if you have the time to really immerse yourself in a select few firms and spend hours engaging with them, then you should instead put that time into sending off more applications, investing less time in each of them but still enough to produce a polished application.

If you simply don't have the time to send out a lot of high-quality applications at all, then you can use the time you do have effectively by drawing up a list of 60 firms, say, and committing ten minutes to researching each of the firms which you do not know a huge amount about. This can be done in a full day and can really make your application process more efficiently in the end! Be brave about cutting out a firm that you see as a top firm you should be applying to, if you think that on balance your background is unlikely to be what they are looking for. Also be open to applying to firms that you had not seriously considered previously.

Ultimately, time is the biggest constraint we all face so it is crucial to find an approach which allows us to use it to the best of our abilities and everyone has something different which works for them

I could not agree more with this! Every time I do a long-list of firms, its only when I begin researching them and thinking about what I want to get out of my career that I find those firms that I am genuinely excited about. I guess I am lucky that I am very openminded about what I end up practicing and want a firm that offers the opportunity to do lots of things (contentious/transactional) but in my third year of applying, it has been really interesting to see firms I would usually neglect, be on the top of my list. Also every firm I have passed the paper sift for I have never met in person so it really is not that important as long as your reasons are valid

 

[LawfulRed]

Any heard from BCLP post app?

I haven't heard anything yet.

 

[adamBS]

@Jessica Booker I was wondering what weighting Freshfields place on the original application form and the Watson Glaser result when it comes to selecting AC candidates for the training contract?

I emailed in and was told I was in the 99th percentile for WG results (still kind of half expecting a follow up saying this was a clerical error haha) and obviously made it past the first stage so should I expect to be invited to the AC? I feel like I want to start preparing ASAP but don't want to then be let down with a rejection.

 

[Legalmel_99]

Anyone heard from Browne Jacobson?

 

[Jessica Booker]

@Jessica Booker I was wondering what weighting Freshfields place on the original application form and the Watson Glaser result when it comes to selecting AC candidates for the training contract?

I emailed in and was told I was in the 99th percentile for WG results (still kind of half expecting a follow up saying this was a clerical error haha) and obviously made it past the first stage so should I expect to be invited to the AC? I feel like I want to start preparing ASAP but don't want to then be let down with a rejection.

I won't know for sure - things have changed since I was there.

However, I wouldn't expect an invite to the AC as it is most likely that your application is reviewed after you have completed the WG, and invites are made based on the combination of your application form and WG result. This is how it used to work when I was there anyway, and how I would expect it to work for most firms.

 

[adamBS]

I won't know for sure - things have changed since I was there.

However, I wouldn't expect an invite to the AC as it is most likely that your application is reviewed after you have completed the WG, and invites are made based on the combination of your application form and WG result. This is how it used to work when I was there anyway, and how I would expect it to work for most firms.

OK, that makes sense and is essentially what I was expecting to be the case. Thank you!

 

[James Carrabino]

I could not agree more with this! Every time I do a long-list of firms, its only when I begin researching them and thinking about what I want to get out of my career that I find those firms that I am genuinely excited about. I guess I am lucky that I am very openminded about what I end up practicing and want a firm that offers the opportunity to do lots of things (contentious/transactional) but in my third year of applying, it has been really interesting to see firms I would usually neglect, be on the top of my list. Also every firm I have passed the paper sift for I have never met in person so it really is not that important as long as your reasons are valid

I am really glad to hear that you have had a similar experience! I think that @Rob93's experience is extremely valid - with some of the firms where I felt like I really deserved to get past the app stage because of the amount of time I had invested in the application, I did end up progressing! Nevertheless, the fact that with even a couple firms I progressed despite not ever imagining I would do so, I am glad that I cast the net a bit wider

 

[James Carrabino]

Does anyone know where I can find a list of firms that don't only give TCs unless they are short on numbers following the VS? Thank you!

I would say that many of the 'Mostly from Vacation Scheme' firms listed here fall within this category!