TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2023-24

[Stasis]

Tangentially agree in terms of the question on the application form about demonstrating where you’ve been a “Shaper”. I understand what they’re doing but honestly it puts me off massively when firms ask questions like that, I’m not sure I can word it well but it feels very disingenuous. Don’t know what’s wrong with just a cover letter, all these awful weird questions take so much time and in my opinion invite exaggeration and insincerity from candidates. Most of us are uni students just trying to get by and secure ourselves a future - not all of us have the time or energy to be ‘Shapers’ even if we wanted to. Perhaps I’m just being pessimistic though - would love to hear other opinions!

Quite. Written by recruiters who aren’t lawyers and aren’t subject to billable targets.

 

[I’m_Batman]

Looking for input on how long you usually spend per application?

I usually take at least a week or two, and up to 3 weeks on some applications which have had 4-5 questions. I've had 2 successful vac scheme apps last year but also a tonne of rejections, so now I am reconsidering my strategy of taking a long long time to research the firm and make sure every question is perfectly answered, and whether I need to find strategies to be more efficient - so curious how long you usually spend on each app?

I think it's possible to do them faster. Towards the end, I was doing applications in a few days, as fast as one. A couple were assessment centres. I applied late in the cycle so my strategy is to apply sooner this time round. It's quality over quantity always but if you can get the quality down sooner rather than later, there's no rule as to how long you need to spend on applications, given you're filling them out to a good standard.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Quite. Written by recruiters who aren’t lawyers and aren’t subject to billable targets.

Lawyers would have agreed to them - HR/recruiters don’t do these things without the agreement of their internal clients.

 

[The6FigureSuccessfulSolicitor]

I think from Mischons perspective it is good to have a unique question as it will make selecting candidates for the VI easier - no copy and paste 'why law' question.

About it being disingenuous - whatever the question is that appears in a law firm app - don't we all lie in law firms applications? Whatever the competency is we make up a scenario, why we are interested in the firm and especially why commercial law.

Not you saying the quiet part aloud 🤣🤣🤣
I was speaking to a guy at Davis Polk over the summer for shadowing, he was just finishing his TC and he said to me that he lied about having a law blog and being in a band on his applications when they asked about his extra-curriculars.
Now personally, I would never flat out lie but you'd be surprised how many people make up stories just to sound cool in interviews and if you can waffle a lot and sound smart, you may get away with it too! (But, like I'm totally not encouraging it).

 

[Tintin06]

I think you can speed up the process in a few ways

1) Set Google alerts for certain topics like Private Equity, Banking, Litigation etc.

2) Periodically check sites like Legal Cheek, RollOnFriday, Legal 500 etc.

3) Listen to bite size news updates like the FT daily briefing or the BBC’s Business editor Simon Jack and his markets guests (which is on around 6.30 am on Today and can be accessed later on BBC Sounds.

4) Read ‘what The Lawyer says’ for each of the firms you want to apply to (if possible).

 

[I’m_Batman]

Tangentially agree in terms of the question on the application form about demonstrating where you’ve been a “Shaper”. I understand what they’re doing but honestly it puts me off massively when firms ask questions like that, I’m not sure I can word it well but it feels very disingenuous. Don’t know what’s wrong with just a cover letter, all these awful weird questions take so much time and in my opinion invite exaggeration and insincerity from candidates. Most of us are uni students just trying to get by and secure ourselves a future - not all of us have the time or energy to be ‘Shapers’ even if we wanted to. Perhaps I’m just being pessimistic though - would love to hear other opinions!

From their perspective, I think they're trying to ensure candidates who have taken the time to research the firm (even a little) and are therefore interested in working there, will be the ones who are invited to VI and AC. Successful candidates would look at the competencies MdR thinks are successful for 'Mishcon Shapers' and link their own strengths to this. I see how that invites disingenuous answers, from your perspective: how candidates are, in effect, encouraged to embellish their work experience or extra curricular experience so they apply to a very niche area.

 

[badmintonflyinginsect]

Hi! Just saw the Latham & Watkins first-year scheme will be taking applications from 18 September, 2023. Do they look at applications on a rolling basis?

 

[lawapplicant]

Not you saying the quiet part aloud 🤣🤣🤣
I was speaking to a guy at Davis Polk over the summer for shadowing, he was just finishing his TC and he said to me that he lied about having a law blog and being in a band on his applications when they asked about his extra-curriculars.
Now personally, I would never flat out lie but you'd be surprised how many people make up stories just to sound cool in interviews and if you can waffle a lot and sound smart, you may get away with it too! (But, like I'm totally not encouraging it).

I was only referring to making up scenarios and stuff for the actual written application questions, which everybody does and I am amazed at the apparent back lash. It is only how you would 'waffle' and make up stuff on the spot in an interview to answer a question lmao. What do you want me to do, say sorry I don't have an answer for that?

And about making up extra-curricular activities in your application/interview, I reply with this gif...

But, I know you are not encouraging it

 

[I’m_Batman]

"I was only referring to making up scenarios and stuff for the actual written application questions, which everybody does"

I am really not sure this is true. There's also a difference between a candidate saying:
1) I am really excited in X practice area that X firm specialises in because I enjoyed this module on my LLB (spoiler: the student did not enjoy the subject); and

2) I completed a course on X that has prepared me* for X specialism in your firm (spoiler: no such course exists and the student has not done it).

OR
1) During my tenure as [amazing role at uni] my* comrades were having X problem and I did X amazing things to correct them that show I work with people well and will at X firm (spoiler: this never happened in that role, it was some wine drinking at some random talk); and

2) During my tenure as X... [spoiler: student has never had this role]

I think the two lies are not the same. One is 'playing the game' and getting through the application farce (which, yes, it is). And the other is misrep/fraud which will not get you very far in law and will get you struck off the register if you act without integrity. I think it's pretty fair, with that context, to say the career is probably one you should rethink (I am not saying you should but that is the backlash I believe you are referring to?).

About it being disingenuous - whatever the question is that appears in a law firm app - don't we all lie in law firms applications? Whatever the competency is we make up a scenario, why we are interested in the firm and especially why commercial law.

I agree in the sense that it is farcical to pretend these top 100 firms are truly different to one another in some marked way*; I have worked in 3 top 20 firms at this stage and can barely see the honest differences between them from a trainee's perspective. Prospective trainees are just trying to get their life in order, get their foot through the door, the idea that they all sat there and genuinely believe, "I want to work on commercial work in a legal context that is multi-jurisdictional and involves large transactions with smack dead insane clients" is a way of thinking no one in the history of time has started with but that is the application cycle and I would be careful of phrasing that as a lie on par with misrep.

 

[lllaaawww098]

Has anyone already sent out applications for this cycle considering the questions are almost all similar or the same as last year?

 

[The6FigureSuccessfulSolicitor]

Has anyone already sent out applications for this cycle considering the questions are almost all similar or the same as last

I was only referring to making up scenarios and stuff for the actual written application questions, which everybody does and I am amazed at the apparent back lash. It is only how you would 'waffle' and make up stuff on the spot in an interview to answer a question lmao. What do you want me to do, say sorry I don't have an answer for that?

And about making up extra-curricular activities in your application/interview, I reply with this gif...

But, I know you are not encouraging it

Lmao I would never encourage such a thing!

Tbf you'd have to very convincing to waffle on the spot and not do too many "erms" and "ers" but we all know that one person who can chat their way into or out of any situation for hours. Idk why you got backlash cause you're totally right, you can't just sit there in the interview like "I refuse to that question".
Especially since these application processes are so long, like how can you expect me to be a fun person who does tons of sports and plays instruments all the time when my social life is being drained by applications, interviews and vacation schemes? So unless they want to hear about clubbing and bars, I don't blame anyone who adds a little pizazz to their extra-curriculars!

 

[The6FigureSuccessfulSolicitor]

I am really not sure this is true. There's also a difference between a candidate saying:
1) I am really excited in X practice area that X firm specialises in because I enjoyed this module on my LLB (spoiler: the student did not enjoy the subject); and

2) I completed a course on X that has prepared me* for X specialism in your firm (spoiler: no such course exists and the student has not done it).

OR
1) During my tenure as [amazing role at uni] my* comrades were having X problem and I did X amazing things to correct them that show I work with people well and will at X firm (spoiler: this never happened in that role, it was some wine drinking at some random talk); and

2) During my tenure as X... [spoiler: student has never had this role]

I think the two lies are not the same. One is 'playing the game' and getting through the application farce (which, yes, it is). And the other is misrep/fraud which will not get you very far in law and will get you struck off the register if you act without integrity. I think it's pretty fair, with that context, to say the career is probably one you should rethink (I am not saying you should but that is the backlash I believe you are referring to?).

I agree in the sense that it is farcical to pretend these top 100 firms are truly different to one another in some marked way*; I have worked in 3 top 20 firms at this stage and can barely see the honest differences between them from a trainee's perspective. Prospective trainees are just trying to get their life in order, get their foot through the door, the idea that they all sat there and genuinely believe, "I want to work on commercial work in a legal context that is multi-jurisdictional and involves large transactions with smack dead insane clients" is a way of thinking no one in the history of time has started with but that is the application cycle and I would be careful of phrasing that as a lie on par with misrep.

This! I'm not the biggest fan of tort law but best believe I can sound like I am if I'm required to talk about why I care about negligence. But to completely make up an internship is crazy, especially because you would likely have to prove that. The first options are smart cause how would they know for sure that I dislike a subject or the ins and out of what I did in a meeting.

 

[webberwerter]

Quite. Written by recruiters who aren’t lawyers and aren’t subject to billable targets.

For me - it struck me as strange to watch the videos and hear each of the lawyers provide entirely different reasons for why they considered themselves shapers. What I got out of the material was that it's impossible to define what being a shaper actually is, and that your own individual qualities make you a shaper in your own way. I just find it hard to believe that their intention was to create a label with no clear meaning at all.

 

[lawapplicant]

For me - it struck me as strange to watch the videos and hear each of the lawyers provide entirely different reasons for why they considered themselves shapers. What I got out of the material was that it's impossible to define what being a shaper actually is, and that your own individual qualities make you a shaper in your own way. I just find it hard to believe that their intention was to create a label with no clear meaning at all.

Nope - that is their intention. They make it unclear so it is easier for applicants to trip up which makes them easier to reject

 

[lawapplicant]

Anyone got the test for BCLP? I thought the test was automatic

 

[johnnn821]

Does anyone know how many people get invited to attend Linklaters' Open Day?

 

[Stasis]

.

 

[TJames12]

Hi, does anybody know where I can find a full list of firms detailing their opening and closing dates for VS's- looking at national/regional firms😃

 

[hannah04]

Anyone got the test for BCLP? I thought the test was automatic

for which opportunity?

 

[lawapplicant]

for which opportunity?

Spring VS