Maybe I'm just overthinking the entire application process because I've been looking at forms for months, but:
I do find some of these application stages a bit strange.
Like, how is a firm choosing who to interview based on a few 200-word application questions lol.
Especially when some of those questions are rather generic and ask about what skills a good solicitor has. Surely we're all saying similar things within reason anyway.
I can get behind pre-recorded interviews, and somewhat understand WG and SJ tests (as much as I despise them).
But, a few questions with a limited word count, and then straight to an interview?!? I can't get my head around it.
I think I just wish some firms were a bit more transparent with their shortlisting + what type of person / criteria they actually want.
These things are always horses for courses.
For every person who hates a short application, another hates writing longer answers/statements. For everyone who likes a video interview, there is someone who despises them.
With applications, it’s rarely about the just the application questions though, they are looking at your academics, extra curriculars and work experience too.
I’d say it’s generally easy to make decisions on 80% of applications, and the remaining 20% are much more subtle reasons for why they have been unsuccessful over the next candidate. There are things they look for, but what that is can vary significantly from firm to firm. Although I would say many firms are actually providing this information in their marketing materials.