TCLA General Discussion Thread 2021-22 (#1)

[George Maxwell]

I see- thank you for your response, it’s super informative! I just have to work hard now in semester two to maintain that 2.1🥲

Great to hear! You've got this.

Self-doubt is normal, but you can bag that 2.1.

I know it 💪

 

[lawnoob]

This may sound odd, but the interviewer may have actually been trying to push you to think of your extra curricular activities as ways in which you have built up your transferable skills and trying to encourage you to think about pulling out examples from them to show the skills you do have rather than suggesting what you haven’t got.

@lawnoob this is a classic stress interview question!

I got asked, 'Your educational background looks like you have no idea what you want to do - I bet you're going to leave law within five years; am I right?'

One reason for these types of questions is to see how you respond under pressure! Another component of yours in particular is to make you consider what the benefit of extracurriculars really are - basically, they would hope that you did not just do extracurriculars because someone told you that extracurriculars look good when applying for jobs. As @Jessica Booker said, this pushes you to identify the transferrable skills you learnt during those extracurriculars (which I tried to help you identify yesterday on the Hogan Lovells paralegal thread 😊)

Also some interviewers just relish the power they have a little too much...hey maybe I will enjoy asking a nervous candidate an obnoxious question like that one day too

Honestly, don't worry - I am sure you answered fine and I would absolutely not take any of that comment to heart or let it impact your future interviews or applications!! Do have a think about the transferrable skills involved in your extracurriculars though

Thank you both for answering and giving me a better perspective (sorry for the late reply!) That makes me feel a lot better

 

[James Carrabino]

Thank you both for answering and giving me a better perspective (sorry for the late reply!) That makes me feel a lot better

No worries at all @lawnoob, really glad to be able to help

 

[JD]

Guys, in an AC when doing an interview is it fine to talk about the example (e.g. time you showed teamwork) you gave in your application or do you always have to come up with different examples? @James Carrabino @Jessica Booker @George Maxwell

 

[Jessica Booker]

Guys, in an AC when doing an interview is it fine to talk about the example (e.g. time you showed teamwork) you gave in your application or do you always have to come up with different examples? @James Carrabino @Jessica Booker @George Maxwell

Now I might have too high an expectation here, but I would expect a law firm to ask a slightly different question at an interview stage.

It might be that both questions are about teamwork, but for instance, they might just have a slightly different angle - one could ask you to focus on leadership while the other could ask you to focus on persuading others to your way of thinking.

I would be very surprised if the questions were identical (if they were I'd be disappointed as that's not a carefully considered recruitment process). If the questions are slightly different, just make sure your answer reflects that. You might still want to use the same example, but even then how you describe the scenario would be different, and that is fine.

 

[James Carrabino]

Guys, in an AC when doing an interview is it fine to talk about the example (e.g. time you showed teamwork) you gave in your application or do you always have to come up with different examples? @James Carrabino @Jessica Booker @George Maxwell

Now I might have too high an expectation here, but I would expect a law firm to ask a slightly different question at an interview stage.

It might be that both questions are about teamwork, but for instance, they might just have a slightly different angle - one could ask you to focus on leadership while the other could ask you to focus on persuading others to your way of thinking.

I would be very surprised if the questions were identical (if they were I'd be disappointed as that's not a carefully considered recruitment process). If the questions are slightly different, just make sure your answer reflects that. You might still want to use the same example, but even then how you describe the scenario would be different, and that is fine.

I think @Jessica Booker is right that the questions always tend to be phrased slightly differently!

The issue over whether I should use an example that I used in my application did concern me too, however, especially since it may still be relevant to the question even if the question is slightly different. I didn't only want to show that I was able to answer the question with nuance; I also wanted to demonstrate that my experiences were not limited to only a couple of talking points!

This was a major benefit of CV-blind interviews to me - it meant I did not need to worry at all about what I had written on my application form! The flip side was that I could not describe something I had done in a cursory manner, assuming that my interviewers knew what I was talking about from my application form... I had to describe every experience in full, making it as coherent as possible.

If it was not a CV-blind interview then I liked to prepare different examples, although there were always some examples I had in mind that were particularly good for certain competencies so I was happy to bring those up again and elaborate significantly upon them in addition to tailoring them to what was likely a slightly different question.

I hope that is useful

 

[JD]

Now I might have too high an expectation here, but I would expect a law firm to ask a slightly different question at an interview stage.

It might be that both questions are about teamwork, but for instance, they might just have a slightly different angle - one could ask you to focus on leadership while the other could ask you to focus on persuading others to your way of thinking.

I would be very surprised if the questions were identical (if they were I'd be disappointed as that's not a carefully considered recruitment process). If the questions are slightly different, just make sure your answer reflects that. You might still want to use the same example, but even then how you describe the scenario would be different, and that is fine.

Thank you!

 

[I.Like.UFOs.Not.PFOs]

Hey everyone! I have two general questions, and would really appreciate if anyone could provide insight:

How are Vac Schemes typically assessed? I know it may differ from firm to firm, but once you’ve made it to the scheme, is it safe to assume that everyone is on an even playing field i.e., the assessment will just be how well you’ve performed on the scheme/fit into the firm?

I just re-downloaded Linkedin (mistake #1) and looked up the people who would be on the same scheme as me (mistake #2). Objectively all of them are much better in terms of education/experience/are the type with multiple scheme offers. I know that this seems silly, but I am worried that these will be factors that are considered when deciding who gets a TC. idk why I do this to myself 🥴

I don’t want to go into the scheme with the mindset that I’m competing with the others, and want to focus on just being the best I can be, but I can’t help but feel lacking in comparison. Does anyone have any tips on how to overcome this?

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hey everyone! I have two general questions, and would really appreciate if anyone could provide insight:

How are Vac Schemes typically assessed? I know it may differ from firm to firm, but once you’ve made it to the scheme, is it safe to assume that everyone is on an even playing field i.e., the assessment will just be how well you’ve performed on the scheme/fit into the firm?

I just re-downloaded Linkedin (mistake #1) and looked up the people who would be on the same scheme as me (mistake #2). Objectively all of them are much better in terms of education/experience/are the type with multiple scheme offers. I know that this seems silly, but I am worried that these will be factors that are considered when deciding who gets a TC. idk why I do this to myself 🥴

I don’t want to go into the scheme with the mindset that I’m competing with the others, and want to focus on just being the best I can be, but I can’t help but feel lacking in comparison. Does anyone have any tips on how to overcome this?

I'll be much more helpful on the first point but will try to give you some reassurances on the second point too.

How vacation schemes are typically assessed: could be a mixture of any/all of the following

• Your work for your supervisor/team
• How you interact with your colleagues
• Your interest (or perceived interest) in the work - how curious/intrigued are you? Are you asking questions?
• Your ability to work on the feedback given to you
• Any formal assessments - e.g. end of scheme conversion interviews
• Any informal assessments - e.g. group exercises - firms often create little group projects for you to work on with other vacation scheme students
• How you interact with people across the firm

Now for the second part and sorry if this sounds a bit blunt....

You are good enough. By getting the offer you are currently as good as any other person joining the vacation scheme this year. You got to the offer despite supposedly having "fewer" achievements than the next person. What does that say about your skill set to me (if we take that perception as being factually correct - which it might not be)? That actually you might have more potential than the next person, because despite having (supposedly) fewer achievements or less prestigious ones, you have met the same standard as the people who have done more/achieved higher levels.

However, LinkedIn is the Instagram of career profiles. People filter out the rubbish to create a more positive picture of themselves and their achievements. The people are a "more prestigious" university than you may actually have worse academics than you. Just because they have multiple vacation schemes, does not mean they will get multiple TC offers. You could easily get more offers than them in the next 6-8 months. They may have applied to three times the amount of firms that you did to get more offers than you.

I have probably recruited around 500 vacation scheme students in my time. There have been plenty who have very impressive applications/CVs and can interview well, but clearly are not very capable of doing the job and/or seem very interested in the work. I have rejected plenty of people who will be like those I suspect you have stumbled across on LinkedIn. To use a famous Brian Clough saying "We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass.” - just because your LinkedIn profile looks amazing, it does not mean you are capable of doing the job.

 

[I.Like.UFOs.Not.PFOs]

I'll be much more helpful on the first point but will try to give you some reassurances on the second point too.

How vacation schemes are typically assessed: could be a mixture of any/all of the following

• Your work for your supervisor/team
• How you interact with your colleagues
• Your interest (or perceived interest) in the work - how curious/intrigued are you? Are you asking questions?
• Your ability to work on the feedback given to you
• Any formal assessments - e.g. end of scheme conversion interviews
• Any informal assessments - e.g. group exercises - firms often create little group projects for you to work on with other vacation scheme students
• How you interact with people across the firm

Now for the second part and sorry if this sounds a bit blunt....

You are good enough. By getting the offer you are currently as good as any other person joining the vacation scheme this year. You got to the offer despite supposedly having "fewer" achievements than the next person. What does that say about your skill set to me (if we take that perception as being factually correct - which it might not be)? That actually you might have more potential than the next person, because despite having (supposedly) fewer achievements or less prestigious ones, you have met the same standard as the people who have done more/achieved higher levels.

However, LinkedIn is the Instagram of career profiles. People filter out the rubbish to create a more positive picture of themselves and their achievements. The people are a "more prestigious" university than you may actually have worse academics than you. Just because they have multiple vacation schemes, does not mean they will get multiple TC offers. You could easily get more offers than them in the next 6-8 months. They may have applied to three times the amount of firms that you did to get more offers than you.

I have probably recruited around 500 vacation scheme students in my time. There have been plenty who have very impressive applications/CVs and can interview well, but clearly are not very capable of doing the job and/or seem very interested in the work. I have rejected plenty of people who will be like those I suspect you have stumbled across on LinkedIn. To use a famous Brian Clough saying "We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass.” - just because your LinkedIn profile looks amazing, it does not mean you are capable of doing the job.

The advice you’ve given for both aspects is extremely helpful and kind.

This definitely gives me a lot more to think about and brings a perspective I’ve never considered. I tended to avoid LinkedIn in general (something about it feels a bit invasive honestly) and I think it might help if I just delete it again

As always, thank you so much for your insightful response. Also hoping that you (and everyone else) had a great Valentine’s! I’m loving the hearts so much😂

 

[Law1099]

Hey everyone! I have two general questions, and would really appreciate if anyone could provide insight:

How are Vac Schemes typically assessed? I know it may differ from firm to firm, but once you’ve made it to the scheme, is it safe to assume that everyone is on an even playing field i.e., the assessment will just be how well you’ve performed on the scheme/fit into the firm?

I just re-downloaded Linkedin (mistake #1) and looked up the people who would be on the same scheme as me (mistake #2). Objectively all of them are much better in terms of education/experience/are the type with multiple scheme offers. I know that this seems silly, but I am worried that these will be factors that are considered when deciding who gets a TC. idk why I do this to myself 🥴

I don’t want to go into the scheme with the mindset that I’m competing with the others, and want to focus on just being the best I can be, but I can’t help but feel lacking in comparison. Does anyone have any tips on how to overcome this?

Working in law, your education is actually not that important and it’s definitely not the case that the highest grades make the best lawyers. Tbh I don’t know why firms prioritise certain universities over everytging, I think that’s a very lazy and prestigious way of recruiting because there isn’t really a correlation. Working in law is not like an academic degree.

 

[Beluga]

Hey everyone,

Please let me know if this is not the right place to ask this!

I am ahead of making some key decisions and I was wondering if I could get some insight from the community. I'm just curious whether other people have any strong opinions on this.

How important is NQ and post-qualification salary to you when deciding where to apply or deciding where to accept a vacation scheme or training contract offer? I am not sure of the difference it makes for people in the long run, or whether it is actually a significant factor for most.

Would you consider choosing a second-choice firm on certain aspects over a first-choice firm if there was a significant difference in NQ salary (more than £40k)? I know that there is a pay war so I would assume this is a significant consideration for at least some.

Would love to hear everyone's thoughts!

 

[Law1099]

Hey everyone,

Please let me know if this is not the right place to ask this!

I am ahead of making some key decisions and I was wondering if I could get some insight from the community. I'm just curious whether other people have any strong opinions on this.

How important is NQ and post-qualification salary to you when deciding where to apply or deciding where to accept a vacation scheme or training contract offer? I am not sure of the difference it makes for people in the long run, or whether it is actually a significant factor for most.

Would you consider choosing a second-choice firm on certain aspects over a first-choice firm if there was a significant difference in NQ salary (more than £40k)? I know that there is a pay war so I would assume this is a significant consideration for at least some.

Would love to hear everyone's thoughts!

This may make some people annoyed but I really think it’s a big mistake to accept a 2nd choice for the simple reasoning of the extra money for NQ. For starters; work life balance is way more important for me and my mental health that an extra few hundred a month cannot buy. I mean wheat is the point of more money if you can never spend it?
It just doesn’t make sense to me to prioritise money over going after the firm you really really want and the work you actually enjoy. Especially during a training contract because you do not know where you even want to qualify yet, so making decisions based on the NQ position is very odd to me.

however this is my personal opinion - I’m sure a lot of people will have different

 

[Beluga]

This may make some people annoyed but I really think it’s a big mistake to accept a 2nd choice for the simple reasoning of the extra money for NQ. For starters; work life balance is way more important for me and my mental health that an extra few hundred a month cannot buy. I mean wheat is the point of more money if you can never spend it?
It just doesn’t make sense to me to prioritise money over going after the firm you really really want and the work you actually enjoy. Especially during a training contract because you do not know where you even want to qualify yet, so making decisions based on the NQ position is very odd to me.

however this is my personal opinion - I’m sure a lot of people will have different

Thanks a lot for your insight!

I agree with the work-life balance element, but work-life balance doesn't always seem like it corresponds with salary (if Legal Cheek is in any way reliable at all). Does anyone have any insight on the accuracy of these stats?

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hey everyone,

Please let me know if this is not the right place to ask this!

I am ahead of making some key decisions and I was wondering if I could get some insight from the community. I'm just curious whether other people have any strong opinions on this.

How important is NQ and post-qualification salary to you when deciding where to apply or deciding where to accept a vacation scheme or training contract offer? I am not sure of the difference it makes for people in the long run, or whether it is actually a significant factor for most.

Would you consider choosing a second-choice firm on certain aspects over a first-choice firm if there was a significant difference in NQ salary (more than £40k)? I know that there is a pay war so I would assume this is a significant consideration for at least some.

Would love to hear everyone's thoughts!

I think everyone considers salaries. But for many, if the difference is £40k, they are most likely to be in the top 1% of earners anyway at that stage and on a considerable wage. For some people, the importance of money probably tapers off a little once it hits a mark that they know they could live very comfortably off of. They are then likely to prioritise other factors that are more important to them and that £40k can't buy/replace, and therefore may not think the money is worth what they would have to compromise on.

To others, the other factors might be less important and £40k difference (which is probably actually closer to £18k in your pocket after tax), will be something they aren't willing to give up knowing that extra money will buy them things that might make them more content/comfortable.

 

[m2001]

Hi,

I was just wondering if you could offer any advice on a question such as 'Can tax avoidance ever be justified?'. What sort of arguments would the interviewers be looking for? How could you approach it?

Thank you!

 

[TC fiend]

Thanks a lot for your insight!

I agree with the work-life balance element, but work-life balance doesn't always seem like it corresponds with salary (if Legal Cheek is in any way reliable at all). Does anyone have any insight on the accuracy of these stats?

To offer a counter-perspective, I actually do find it important. Where your priorities lie is entirely personal and there is no right or wrong answer. As Jessica rightfully said, either way you are earning in the top 1% once you hit a certain threshold so for some it may not really matter. However on the flip side, a gripe I hear often (especially from associates) is that they feel like clowns if they are working hard to surpass target and cash in on a decent bonus, while an NQ at a higher paying firm is out earning them. In particular, if you are in the mindset where you are happy to put a lot of hours in, it feels unfair that your friends at a better-paying firm who are working the same hours are getting paid more for the same work. £18k after tax is relatively not a huge jump, but I think if you asked anyone if they’d like an £18k pay increase for doing the same work they’d gladly take it.

That said, there is of course a middle ground and each situation will be unique, with each team and each firm doing different kinds of hours and each person having a different set of priorities.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi,

I was just wondering if you could offer any advice on a question such as 'Can tax avoidance ever be justified?'. What sort of arguments would the interviewers be looking for? How could you approach it?

Thank you!

I think you have to look at the question carefully - it is tax avoidance rather than tax evasion, and ultimately the "ever" means can you find any reasons that mean tax avoidance is a reasonable thing to do.

I suspect you could find a whole host of reasons why tax avoidance is ultimately reasonable, as both individuals and companies do it all the time. How you present your argument will depend on what you think is reasonable. I would also recommend trying to use specific examples to back up your meaning/rationale for whatever argument you do take.

 

[AvniD]

Hi,

I was just wondering if you could offer any advice on a question such as 'Can tax avoidance ever be justified?'. What sort of arguments would the interviewers be looking for? How could you approach it?

Thank you!

You could take a few different perspectives here. Making full use of provisions made available by the government (allowances, write-offs etc.) to avoid paying tax unnecessarily could be considered good corporate governance. It may also be beneficial to the economy as a whole if businesses are able to employ funds towards their growth rather than towards taxes that could be avoided. Do also consider the flip side of these arguments, namely the impact of aggressive tax avoidance and whether this is ethical, in your arguments in favour of justifying tax avoidance. This article may prove useful in doing so.

 

[Beluga]

I think everyone considers salaries. But for many, if the difference is £40k, they are most likely to be in the top 1% of earners anyway at that stage and on a considerable wage. For some people, the importance of money probably tapers off a little once it hits a mark that they know they could live very comfortably off of. They are then likely to prioritise other factors that are more important to them and that £40k can't buy/replace, and therefore may not think the money is worth what they would have to compromise on.

To others, the other factors might be less important and £40k difference (which is probably actually closer to £18k in your pocket after tax), will be something they aren't willing to give up knowing that extra money will buy them things that might make them more content/comfortable.

To offer a counter-perspective, I actually do find it important. Where your priorities lie is entirely personal and there is no right or wrong answer. As Jessica rightfully said, either way you are earning in the top 1% once you hit a certain threshold so for some it may not really matter. However on the flip side, a gripe I hear often (especially from associates) is that they feel like clowns if they are working hard to surpass target and cash in on a decent bonus, while an NQ at a higher paying firm is out earning them. In particular, if you are in the mindset where you are happy to put a lot of hours in, it feels unfair that your friends at a better-paying firm who are working the same hours are getting paid more for the same work. £18k after tax is relatively not a huge jump, but I think if you asked anyone if they’d like an £18k pay increase for doing the same work they’d gladly take it.

That said, there is of course a middle ground and each situation will be unique, with each team and each firm doing different kinds of hours and each person having a different set of priorities.

Really appreciate both your comments!! This helps puts things into perspective. Hopefully helps others make their decisions thoughtfully as well. 😊