TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2022-23

[lawapplicant]

no, this is absolutely nothing new. I am happy to provide you with some data. This data is from 2018 so it is worth looking at the diversity data at the time. This is from diversityuk.org "In 2018 about 13.8% of the UK population was from a minority ethnic background"

In the year 2018 these are some examples of some firms and the percentage of their trainees from Ethnic Minority backgrounds:

Allen & Overy 26%
Clifford Chance 38%
HSF 26%
Latham 33%
White & Case 23%
Linklaters 31%

Overall in 2018 the % of trainees from ethnic minorities in US city firms was 21% and in UK city firms was 20%

This is an "Overrepresentation" in proportion to the population

Again, I do not disagree that there is a problem at partnership level, but the denial of the data is frustrating.

I would also remark that diversity has likely improved from 2018 but more recent data is not so readily available.

Source: https://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where-to-start/newsletter/law-firm-diversity-201819

Yes I was going to say this. Asian representation will be higher at the top firms also.
We all know Asian families are very strict with education which leads to Asians outperforming their non-Asian peers.

 

[NotLord Denning]

Guaranteed interview is exactly that, guaranteed if you meet the benchmark and are disabled, not only because you are disabled!

But that's still prejudice.

Normal candidate: meets x base requirement and not guaranteed an interview
Disabled candidate: meets x base requirement and is guaranteed an interview

 

[AnOptimisticStudent]

Anyway, work on your applications and your grades and you won‘t have to feel threatened by others around you

 

[157gg]

I fear for some of you going into the legal field with opinions such as this. ☹️ Wishing better for the future of diversity😍

My thoughts precisely.

 

[cyberjaz1116]

I fear for some of you going into the legal field with opinions such as this. ☹️ Wishing better for the future of diversity😍

And they wonder why there aren't more minorities at the partner level 🧐

 

[Denver]

you described it originally in the vein of positive discrimination—which is illegal and now you’ve decided you want to get technical with the wording To try and undermine my point. Hiring someone on the basis of an immutable characteristic is illegal. Minorities are doing this by creating several schemes that help create an even playing field like another user described. Such as SEO London, 10k black interns, 10k abled interns etc. You aren’t just handed the role, you go through the same highly merit based processes like everyone else.

If thats how you feel then thats how you feel.

You do know that people today (without quotas) get the job because of immutable characteristics... that's why most partners are white and male...

 

[NotLord Denning]

I haven't heard of a ranking method, but some things that I can remember from the top of my head is
1. quotas (to mitigate bias)
2. child care provided by or at work (to mitigate lack of career progression due to family commitments)
3. flexibility of working hours (for working fathers and mothers)
4. both parents taking parental leave (to reduce the stigma of women taking time off work - mitigate career progression)
5. effective and independent complaint procedures and strong HR department (sexual assault, discrimination experiences)

I know these are mainly gender-focused apart from the Nr. 1 and maybe 5, but maybe it gives you some inspo how inclusive working environments could look like.

Ok I can discuss this with you.

1. Quotas are the byproduct of equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity and only end in disaster because of various competency, preference reasons etc.
Uh I'm not too sure about the rest I may be wrong but I though we were discussing hiring fairness. Am trying to hold a number of conversations at once so I apologise if I'm distracted

 

[aspiringforever]

without commenting on the debate itself, I'm just enjoying the fact that there is now someone named Lord Denning in this forum reasoning exactly like Lord Denning

we should all change our username handles to the names of lords

 

[Abii]

But that's still prejudice.

Normal candidate: meets x base requirement and not guaranteed an interview
Disabled candidate: meets x base requirement and is guaranteed an interview

I would think more about the language you use, able-bodied does not equal normal in the same way disabled does not mean abnormal.

 

[157gg]

"However, the law in the United Kingdom does allow for membership in a protected and disadvantaged group to be considered in hiring and promotion when the group is under-represented in a given area and if the candidates are of equal merit (in which case membership in a disadvantaged group can become a "tie-breaker")."

This is literally being prejudicial based on an immutable characteristic. I also think it's pretty condescending of you to infer things about my character simply because I disagree with you. How exactly are minorities fighting tooth and nail to be given equality of opportunity?

‘How exactly are minorities fighting tooth and nail to be given equality of opportunity?’

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Arch1234]

I would like you name and shame those firms because I’m pretty sure hiring specific individuals to fit the diversity quota is a sham. That in itself is not affirmative action, that’s pure misrepresentation.

Hi,
I can provide some insight onto this.
Shoosmiths are a firm that are ‘diversity confident’ employer, for example.
This means they interview anyone who has a disability and meets the minimum requirements.
I believe for their vac scheme, as there is no interview it just means it passes them into the SST.
You still have to meet minimum requirements (ie show commercial awareness, knowledge of the firm, competencies and values that align with the firm). It’s in no way an ‘easy way in’.
However, for me as I was diagnosed in my first year with a long term health condition, my examinations were impacted and I scrapped a 2.1 that year (I haven’t graduated yet so don’t have a final grade). I also missed out on doing a lot of things that would’ve looked good on an application.
the ‘disability confident’ interview scheme meant that I felt I wouldn’t be penalised for where my application fell short, but I still spent a long time researching the firm etc.
Also, when it comes to final decisions they are always going to choose the best suited candidates. It doesn’t automatically mean you will get a vac scheme or TC, and they aren’t trying to ‘fill quotas’; it’s about giving people the opportunity to prove themselves despite mitigating circumstances.
Whilst I don’t think firms should have to do this by any means, I don’t think it’s ‘unfair’ to other candidates. Submit and work hard on your application, and hopefully you will succeed.

 

[NotLord Denning]

you described it originally in the vein of positive discrimination—which is illegal and now you’ve decided you want to get technical with the wording To try and undermine my point. Hiring someone on the basis of an immutable characteristic is illegal. Minorities are doing this by creating several schemes that help create an even playing field like another user described. Such as SEO London, 10k black interns, 10k abled interns etc. You aren’t just handed the role, you go through the same highly merit based processes like everyone else.

If thats how you feel then thats how you feel.

Normal candidate: meets x base requirement and not guaranteed an interview
Disabled candidate: meets x base requirement and is guaranteed an interview

This is still discrimination that is not based on merit because at the end of day, the chances of one progressing to the next stage is dependent on an immutable characteristic. That difference in chances of progression to the next stage is discrimination

 

[NW Law]

Shoosmiths are a firm that are ‘diversity confident’ employer, for example.
This means they interview anyone who has a disability and meets the minimum requirements.

For reference I think DWF do the same. Just to add on to firms that follow this style.

 

[Turnthisstupidfatratyellow]

hey guys!! has anyone heard back from Mayer Brown since taking the tests? If so, when did you take them?

I had above average in four sections and average in the fifth!

I scored average in all of them is that bad ?

 

[unserious candidate]

And they wonder why there aren't more minorities at the partner level 🧐

retention problem. minorities are leaving because they grow tired of working with people who hold some of the views shared on this platform today 😆

 

[Abii]

Normal candidate: meets x base requirement and not guaranteed an interview
Disabled candidate: meets x base requirement and is guaranteed an interview

This is still discrimination that is not based on merit because at the end of day, the chances of one progressing to the next stage is dependent on an immutable characteristic. That difference in chances of progression to the next stage is discrimination

You cannot say it is not based on merit when you have to reach at least a benchmark - the merit element.

 

[NotLord Denning]

Anyway, work on your applications and your grades and you won‘t have to feel threatened by others around you

I think it's pretty condescending of you to try and suggest that without knowing my success during this cycle. I don't understand why people like you have to get up and arms and defensive when we're trying to have a decent conversation. Just in case you didn't know, I'm a minority student so I think I'd know a bit of what I'm talking about

 

[NotLord Denning]

You do know that people today (without quotas) get the job because of immutable characteristics... that's why most partners are white and male...

Respectfully, I don't think that the existence of disparity = discrimination

 

[Denver]

Ok I can discuss this with you.

1. Quotas are the byproduct of equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity and only end in disaster because of various competency, preference reasons etc.
Uh I'm not too sure about the rest I may be wrong but I though we were discussing hiring fairness. Am trying to hold a number of conversations at once so I apologise if I'm distracted

Well, I think quotas should not only be used for hiring but also for promotional purposes. The issue is that law firms have a problem retaining their staff so the rest of the points should still stand.
I used to have the same opinion as you about a year ago before I read up on it, so I get where you are coming from. Also there is also quite a bit on equality vs equity in most sources discussing quotas

 

[NotLord Denning]

‘How exactly are minorities fighting tooth and nail to be given equality of opportunity?’

Wow. Just wow.

Give me an example