TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2022-23

[Denver]

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

Why don't you consult studies and research articles on that first? There is quite a bit of information out there.

 

[Tintin06]

Could be simple curiosity. I once had a partner check my Linkedin 7 times post-interview after rejecting me 🤣

Lawyers at Slaughter and May view my LinkedIn profile four years after rejecting me for a TC.

 

[NotLord Denning]

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

Ok, but that's just shifting the base level. So ok you can get past the first stage based on merit, but the next steps like guaranteed interviews for disabled candidates is a form of discrimination. What we're really arguing here is whether discrimination at ANY stage of the process is acceptable. It isn't.

 

[sa.17n]

Can someone who’s done the CMS AC for the London office or any other office please private message me. It’s my first AC and would really appreciate any help!

 

[cyberjaz1116]

Give me an example

I come from a country where 30 million baby girls are aborted solely based on sex (after the parents found out). But I guess I did not fight for it. I just got lucky.

 

[sa.17n]

Can anyone who’s done the CMS AC for the London office or any other office please PM me. It’s my first AC and would heavily appreciate it if someone could!

 

[NotLord Denning]

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

I don't really understand equality vs equity quotas. At the end of the day, you're still handicapping high merit candidates based on immutable characteristics

 

[NotLord Denning]

Why don't you consult studies and research articles on that first? There is quite a bit of information out there.

I don't really need to consult any studies to know that there can be a multitude of reasons for why a hiring outcome can be 10 white: 1 black: 1 asian. And that racism should not be the first instance response

 

[lawapplicant]

I come from a country where 300 million baby girls are aborted solely based on sex (after the parents found out). But I guess I did not fight for it. I just got lucky.

we are on about in the UK. In the year 2023. How in 2023 do minorities (women aren’t a minority but claim to be discriminated against so we will include) have to fight ‘tooth and nail’ to get the same opportunities as everyone else?

 

[NotLord Denning]

I come from a country where 300 million baby girls are aborted solely based on sex (after the parents found out). But I guess I did not fight for it. I just got lucky.

We're talking in the context of the hiring process.

 

[Abii]

Ok, but that's just shifting the base level. So ok you can get past the first stage based on merit, but the next steps like guaranteed interviews for disabled candidates is a form of discrimination. What we're really arguing here is whether discrimination at ANY stage of the process is acceptable. It isn't.

I'm going to disagree - the base level is the same a minimum standard that all applicants have to reach. A disabled and non-disabled candidate have to meet that same standard. All the guaranteed interview means is the employer can't not interview them because of their disability and recognising that they may not reach the highest level because of the disability. For example should I not have been interviewed because my WG percentile was 95 when others get 99 but don't have their fingers dislocate part way through the test when the benchmark was way below 95?

 

[NotLord Denning]

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

I never said it did. I am literally using the language of the hiring firms - "candidates with disabilities"/ "disabled candidates". If you guys want to go out of your way to be offended despite clearly understanding the spirit of what I'm trying to suggest that's on you

 

[Denver]

I don't really understand equality vs equity quotas. At the end of the day, you're still handicapping high merit candidates based on immutable characteristics

well, that's only if you believe that people who get the job now are the most qualified...
Quite frankly, it seems, in your opinion, there is no problem at all as the best (people with the most merit) already get the job or are promoted, and they just 'happen' to all have the same characteristics.

 

[cyberjaz1116]

We're talking in the context of the hiring process.

Yes, it's hard to talk in the context of the hiring process. But please keep in mind the hurdles that minorities have to jump to be able to get to the stage where they are considered to be hired like you. Isn't it the whole point of diversity and contextual information? To take into account of applicants' struggle outside the hiring/legal/academic context?

 

[NotLord Denning]

I'm going to disagree - the base level is the same a minimum standard that all applicants have to reach. A disabled and non-disabled candidate have to meet that same standard. All the guaranteed interview means is the employer can't not interview them because of their disability and recognising that they may not reach the highest level because of the disability. For example should I not have been interviewed because my WG percentile was 95 when others get 99 but don't have their fingers dislocate part way through the test when the benchmark was way below 95?

I think the right comparison, in this case, is keeping the hypothetical disability constant and you still have a 95, but instead of other people having a 99, they also have a 95, and you get the interview solely based on your disability while not all of the other non disabled 95 score candidates get it. In any case, there are usually time extensions given on these tests for people without fingers etc.

 

[NotLord Denning]

well, that's only if you believe that people who get the job now are the most qualified...
Quite frankly, it seems, in your opinion, there is no problem at all as the best (people with the most merit) already get the job or are promoted, and they just 'happen' to all with the same characteristics.

Well, do you have anything to suggest otherwise? I mean you guys are making the claim that discrimination is rampant and pervasive so the burden of proof is on you to show that the current candidates in the positions are not as qualified

 

[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.

I never said it did. I am literally using the language of the hiring firms - "candidates with disabilities"/ "disabled candidates". If you guys want to go out of your way to be offended despite clearly understanding the spirit of what I'm trying to suggest that's on you

You literally said 'normal candidate' and 'disabled candidate'. I am yet to see a law firm application have a box asking if you are a normal candidate, what you meant was someone without a disability. Language and its use matters.

 

[NotLord Denning]

Yes, it's hard to talk in the context of the hiring process. But please keep in mind the hurdles that minorities have to jump to be able to get to the stage where they are considered to be hired like you. Isn't it the whole point of diversity and contextual information? To take into account of applicants' struggle outside the hiring/legal/academic context?

"Like me". You realize I'm a minority Asian too right? Again, what hurdles.

 

[NotLord Denning]

You literally said 'normal candidate' and 'disabled candidate'. I am yet to see a law firm application have a box asking if you are a normal candidate, what you meant was someone without a disability. Language and its use matters.

No, intention matters. Any layperson out there will tell you that the general perception of disabled candidates and candidates with disabilities is the same. There is no need to be offended when nobody is trying to cause offence

 

[LordDenning]

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.

I, Alfred Thompson Denning, approve of your inspo.