TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2021-22 (#1)

[aspiringlawyer123_]

@George Maxwell I do have one more question about HSF - how do you go about working out competitors of full-service firms like HSF and what makes HSF different as it’s more obvious with firms who specialise in something so i’m a bit lost😭

 

[Rob93]

Hi Rob,

If it helps I know at least one person who was offered a direct TC!

Definitely good to know! I work full-time so focused my vac scheme apps on scheme-only recruiters this year but definitely want to take a crack at them for direct

 

[Donuttime]

minor detail but would Partner be capitalised or is it partner ahhhhh

 

[chocolatebagel]

I think some firms are very disrespectful and rude in the way they go about the VS/TC process, especially when they preach 'mental health!!'. For example, saying you have been progressed to the next stage then taking many weeks to reject you, before an invite to the next step in their brochures. In the meantime you have spent that long time refreshing, keeping up to date on that firm, practicing etc for the next stage listed on their site. Yet they have a hidden next stage of a 'holistic application review' that is mentioned nowhere, by no one. And none of this community or my other VS application network has heard of this, despite it being a hugely popular firm with around 4,000 applications a year... And won't tell me my test score when I politely ask, when they are using the exact same testing software as a 'harder' (read: more exclusive, more apps for less places) firm that provides an instant feedback report with raw and percentile scores...
Additionally one firm progressed me through the first three steps within two weeks. Yet I had to wait over six weeks to hear from that one. And they will not even tell your weakest area in the combination assessment where your 'performance was not sufficient.'
I think it's very shitty of certain firms to preach 'we care about your mental health' 'be open with us about your issues!' 'don't let it discourage you - we are a lovely, supportive firm!' then treat candidates like this, with opaque recruitment processes (in first firm) and agonising delays (second) with not even a mail merge 'sorry for unexpected delays'.
I feel very disrespected being told I would be progressed, then rejected in a stage that isn't even listed anywhere. Yet these firms know they can make people feel like absolute shit and there will always be a steady stream of candidates so they don't have to change. Most large firms only care about candidates after they offer them the VS and then the successful candidates are shining stars, whilst the rest of us are dirty peasants on the bottom of their shoe. I probably could have put this more eloquently, but god I am sick of seeing 'mental health' preached by firms when their GR acts with no regard to a candidate's mental health. You either care about it, or you don't. You aren't a progressive firm if you only half care about an issue.

 

[Jessica Booker]

minor detail but would Partner be capitalised or is it partner ahhhhh

Depends how it is written. If a title, then capitalised, if not a title then it isn’t.

Eg

Joe Bloggs is a partner in a law firm.

I spoke to Joe Bloggs, Partner.

 

[Lian Lian]

Thank you for this! Just got a response inviting me for their AC despite feeling like I messed up the WG

omg that is amazing! CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!! ALL THE BEST OK, YOU CAN DO IT

 

[Rob93]

I think some firms are very disrespectful and rude in the way they go about the VS/TC process, especially when they preach 'mental health!!'. For example, saying you have been progressed to the next stage then taking many weeks to reject you, before an invite to the next step in their brochures. In the meantime you have spent that long time refreshing, keeping up to date on that firm, practicing etc for the next stage listed on their site. Yet they have a hidden next stage of a 'holistic application review' that is mentioned nowhere, by no one. And none of this community or my other VS application network has heard of this, despite it being a hugely popular firm with around 4,000 applications a year... And won't tell me my test score when I politely ask, when they are using the exact same testing software as a 'harder' (read: more exclusive, more apps for less places) firm that provides an instant feedback report with raw and percentile scores...
Additionally one firm progressed me through the first three steps within two weeks. Yet I had to wait over six weeks to hear from that one. And they will not even tell your weakest area in the combination assessment where your 'performance was not sufficient.'
I think it's very shitty of certain firms to preach 'we care about your mental health' 'be open with us about your issues!' 'don't let it discourage you - we are a lovely, supportive firm!' then treat candidates like this, with opaque recruitment processes (in first firm) and agonising delays (second) with not even a mail merge 'sorry for unexpected delays'.
I feel very disrespected being told I would be progressed, then rejected in a stage that isn't even listed anywhere. Yet these firms know they can make people feel like absolute shit and there will always be a steady stream of candidates so they don't have to change. Most large firms only care about candidates after they offer them the VS and then the successful candidates are shining stars, whilst the rest of us are dirty peasants on the bottom of their shoe. I probably could have put this more eloquently, but god I am sick of seeing 'mental health' preached by firms when their GR acts with no regard to a candidate's mental health. You either care about it, or you don't. You aren't a progressive firm if you only half care about an issue.

I'm very sympathetic to this, and I appreciate how gruelling it can be waiting to hear back. I agree that the legal sector needs to grapple with mental health even at the earliest stages, and there's some interesting research suggesting that professional services organisations lean heavily on being able to, for lack of a better word, exploit anxiety and insecurity in junior ranks. This naturally extends to the recruitment process in a number of ways and that isn't ideal.

That said. I think it's very important going in to applications not to over-invest in any process. It's absolutely frustrating to feel like firms want you to show them total dedication and singular interest and then they don't give you the time of day. However, a big part of the job of a lawyer is to be in some degree detached from what you're doing and I find it very helpful to extend this to the application process - in a deal or dispute context, lawyers are useful advisors in part because they don't have a direct stake in the issue and can approach it abstractly. Similarly, in the recruitment process, it's extremely important to separate your personal investment from the ultimate outcome.

This process, if I may be a bit colourful, fucking sucks. But you are not alone, and application outcomes do not reflect you as an individual. Take- or make - whatever learning you can, and use that next time. I'm pushing 30 and the struggle remains real, but all of this will be worth it in the end.

 

[Donuttime]

is there any deadlines today? vantage seems down...

 

[LoveAspireLAW]

anyone heard back from Latham post VI?

 

[Kubed]

Is this a mistake? I did the BCLP interview this afternoon at 2 and just been invited to AC!? But it says “dear %first name%” 😂😅

Congratulations! I don't think this is a mistake - same thing in terms of timing happened to me last year

 

[S87]

You don't necessarily need to relate a firm's deals to your professional experience- the link firms are looking for is between your motivations and the deals you're mentioning. Why do those deals in particular interest you? What experiences (events, conversations, webinars etc.) have informed your interest?

Try also using a crisp structure when you talk about deals. Something like stating the deal ➡️ what was the significance of the deal/what stood out to you about it (the offices/practices that were engaged, the approach used etc.) ➡️ why did this deal stand out to you (involved practice areas you're interested in, the way the deal harmonised different teams and practices, the kind of responsibilities trainees had etc.)

Does this help?

LinkedIn is such a hit or miss (mostly miss) when it comes to forming lasting, meaningful professional connections but you're doing well by trying to reach out by making polite introductions. If you're at university or still in touch with your university professors, I'd highly suggest getting in touch with them for help in making connections, maybe by introducing you to people they know among their network. This was by far the best and most impactful way I've made professional connections.

Thank you for this.

 

[chocolatebagel]

I'm very sympathetic to this, and I appreciate how gruelling it can be waiting to hear back. I agree that the legal sector needs to grapple with mental health even at the earliest stages, and there's some interesting research suggesting that professional services organisations lean heavily on being able to, for lack of a better word, exploit anxiety and insecurity in junior ranks. This naturally extends to the recruitment process in a number of ways and that isn't ideal.

That said. I think it's very important going in to applications not to over-invest in any process. It's absolutely frustrating to feel like firms want you to show them total dedication and singular interest and then they don't give you the time of day. However, a big part of the job of a lawyer is to be in some degree detached from what you're doing and I find it very helpful to extend this to the application process - in a deal or dispute context, lawyers are useful advisors in part because they don't have a direct stake in the issue and can approach it abstractly. Similarly, in the recruitment process, it's extremely important to separate your personal investment from the ultimate outcome.

This process, if I may be a bit colourful, fucking sucks. But you are not alone, and application outcomes do not reflect you as an individual. Take- or make - whatever learning you can, and use that next time. I'm pushing 30 and the struggle remains real, but all of this will be worth it in the end.

Yes thank you so much for adding to this, I agree 100%!!

I think it's so hard to detach yourself from the rejections. When you succeed, everyone celebrates YOU - but when you lose, everyone wants you to separate the process from you as an individual which makes it so much harder.
People try to reassure me showing how many years it has taken them or other successful people and I know it's meant to help, but I'm honestly not feeling helped by it at all right now. I knew it was going to be hard and might take a while, but getting slapped while you're down is not a good feeling!

The first scenario has really got me down because this 'holistic' review is mentioned absolutely nowhere, current trainees know nothing about it, and it wasn't mentioned in my 'yay you passed!' email at all so I just think it's really disrespectful.. it's not very honest at all and arguably law firms should be setting the standard for honesty in this process, as the regulated profession, not the university students just trying to get by. But I know I need the firm more than they need me so I can't really say anything. So I've just expressed my anger at having my feelings played with here anonymously whilst trying to disguise the firm lol

 

[Plato]

I think some firms are very disrespectful and rude in the way they go about the VS/TC process, especially when they preach 'mental health!!'. For example, saying you have been progressed to the next stage then taking many weeks to reject you, before an invite to the next step in their brochures. In the meantime you have spent that long time refreshing, keeping up to date on that firm, practicing etc for the next stage listed on their site. Yet they have a hidden next stage of a 'holistic application review' that is mentioned nowhere, by no one. And none of this community or my other VS application network has heard of this, despite it being a hugely popular firm with around 4,000 applications a year... And won't tell me my test score when I politely ask, when they are using the exact same testing software as a 'harder' (read: more exclusive, more apps for less places) firm that provides an instant feedback report with raw and percentile scores...
Additionally one firm progressed me through the first three steps within two weeks. Yet I had to wait over six weeks to hear from that one. And they will not even tell your weakest area in the combination assessment where your 'performance was not sufficient.'
I think it's very shitty of certain firms to preach 'we care about your mental health' 'be open with us about your issues!' 'don't let it discourage you - we are a lovely, supportive firm!' then treat candidates like this, with opaque recruitment processes (in first firm) and agonising delays (second) with not even a mail merge 'sorry for unexpected delays'.
I feel very disrespected being told I would be progressed, then rejected in a stage that isn't even listed anywhere. Yet these firms know they can make people feel like absolute shit and there will always be a steady stream of candidates so they don't have to change. Most large firms only care about candidates after they offer them the VS and then the successful candidates are shining stars, whilst the rest of us are dirty peasants on the bottom of their shoe. I probably could have put this more eloquently, but god I am sick of seeing 'mental health' preached by firms when their GR acts with no regard to a candidate's mental health. You either care about it, or you don't. You aren't a progressive firm if you only half care about an issue.

wait, aren't firms sort of 'required' by the law to disclose any information they may have about you upon request? Why wouldn't this apply to your psychometric test results too?

 

[A.Diane01]

Would anyone have advice as to how to go about answering this question?:

Please set out the areas of law that interest you and why?

As a non-law student, I feel this is maybe asking for something quite specific...something I may be out of my depth answering?... a personal reason? Any advice would be much appreciated!

 

[Jessica Booker]

I'm very sympathetic to this, and I appreciate how gruelling it can be waiting to hear back. I agree that the legal sector needs to grapple with mental health even at the earliest stages, and there's some interesting research suggesting that professional services organisations lean heavily on being able to, for lack of a better word, exploit anxiety and insecurity in junior ranks. This naturally extends to the recruitment process in a number of ways and that isn't ideal.

That said. I think it's very important going in to applications not to over-invest in any process. It's absolutely frustrating to feel like firms want you to show them total dedication and singular interest and then they don't give you the time of day. However, a big part of the job of a lawyer is to be in some degree detached from what you're doing and I find it very helpful to extend this to the application process - in a deal or dispute context, lawyers are useful advisors in part because they don't have a direct stake in the issue and can approach it abstractly. Similarly, in the recruitment process, it's extremely important to separate your personal investment from the ultimate outcome.

This process, if I may be a bit colourful, fucking sucks. But you are not alone, and application outcomes do not reflect you as an individual. Take- or make - whatever learning you can, and use that next time. I'm pushing 30 and the struggle remains real, but all of this will be worth it in the end.

I just have to say, this is an excellent post with great advice.

We are lucky to have people like you on here @Rob93 !

 

[Jessica Booker]

wait, aren't firms sort of 'required' by the law to disclose any information they may have about you upon request? Why wouldn't this apply to your psychometric test results too?

Only if you submit a subject access request, and even then there are certain reasons why information might not be disclosed. However, something like a psychometric test score wouldn’t fall under those categories.

 

[Plato]

Only if you submit a subject access request, and even then there are certain reasons why information might not be disclosed. However, something like a psychometric test score wouldn’t fall under those categories.

ah I see, loads of thanks

 

[Jessica Booker]

Yes thank you so much for adding to this, I agree 100%!!

I think it's so hard to detach yourself from the rejections. When you succeed, everyone celebrates YOU - but when you lose, everyone wants you to separate the process from you as an individual which makes it so much harder.
People try to reassure me showing how many years it has taken them or other successful people and I know it's meant to help, but I'm honestly not feeling helped by it at all right now. I knew it was going to be hard and might take a while, but getting slapped while you're down is not a good feeling!

The first scenario has really got me down because this 'holistic' review is mentioned absolutely nowhere, current trainees know nothing about it, and it wasn't mentioned in my 'yay you passed!' email at all so I just think it's really disrespectful.. it's not very honest at all and arguably law firms should be setting the standard for honesty in this process, as the regulated profession, not the university students just trying to get by. But I know I need the firm more than they need me so I can't really say anything. So I've just expressed my anger at having my feelings played with here anonymously whilst trying to disguise the firm lol

Every now and then additional review stages are needed. I understand it can be frustrating when it’s not expected or made clear in recruitment materials, but ultimately these things are not constant and as a recruiter you sometimes have to adapt to a situation that has so many variables.

Sometimes it can be down to a higher proportion of applications coming through than expected or the general quality just being higher than expected. Other reasons could be the hiring numbers change late on, and so you have to cut the number of candidates in the pool. The main one I had to do it for was there was severe adverse impact on certain groups of candidates and the firm wasn’t comfortable with that, and so they had to review all the applications that got to the earlier stage in a different way.

These things can happen very last minute and sometimes quite quickly. The situation they could have been in when they last informed you could be very different to the one they are in now.

It’s not necessarily dishonesty, it could just be a shifting landscape they have to adapt to. I have done this numerous times in my career and it was never done purposely to play with people. It was just something that had to be done.

 

[sxw517]

Anyone heard from Dechert?

 

[OreoShake]

Clyde AC. Submitted and did VI in October. Any tips will be appreciated!