-
💬 Ask Graduate Recruitment Your Questions!
Hey Guest, do you have a question for graduate recruitment? Gemma Baker from Willkie is live to answer your questions!
-
Get line-by-line feedback on your applications, access to our weekly application workshops, and our law firm profiles. Use the coupon code 'SIXWEEKS' at checkout for 10% off.
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25
- Thread starter Jessica Booker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vacation scheme
The thing is I must leave the morning of the open day. I have work the day before and training the day after so I can’t stay an extra night. Very annoying. More at the fact that tickets are so expensive.
If you go on university of nottingham economics and finance society instagram page, they have a great CV template that can be used
When did you hear? When did you do the VI?DLA AC for London! Any insights would be really appreciated
- Sep 9, 2024
- 438
- 658
Hi @LLB0711 that is a great question, and I actually have not seen any detailed discussion the topic. I think firms are looking for three main things in a candidate when asking the "what other firms have you applied to question":
1. Knowledge of the legal market: the firm wants to see that you have properly researched the legal market in the City and you know of the different positions and profiles of different firms. Whatever the criteria behind your application strategy (be it practice area or sector strengths, client base, mandates, international offices, size etc), your knowledge of the world of big law will be tested based on your ability to identify the other firms a relevant criterion applies to. This matters to the firm you are interviewing with for two reasons: (a) it evidences a real and constant interest in the world of commercial law, as learning about the different market positions of firms takes time; and (b) it evidences a more genuine interest in their firm, as it shows your application decisions were made from a well-informed perspective.
2. Genuineness of the stated motivations: this brings me to the second point, which is that the firm wants to see whether the reasons you stated for why the firm are genuine. By asking you what other firms you applied to (and potentially the follow-up as to why you chose them) the firm can ascertain the extent to which the underlying motivations behind the 'why the firm' reasons you presented to them also apply to the other choices. For instance, if you were interviewing with Kirkland and mentioned a PE interest as a motivation but then you did not apply to any of the other big names in PE (Latham, Weil, Willkie, Ropes & Gray, Clifford Chance), this might be problematic. Essentially, if the fundamental motivations for the firm cannot be tracked into your wider applications strategy, this could raise doubts as to your sincerity when formulating them. As such, I think most of the examples you list for other firms you applies to should be chosen with a view to being as compatible as possible with your stated motivations for why the firm.
That said, of course you can also be attracted to some different aspects in different firms at the same time while still being genuine. My only two points here are that: (a) there should not be a huge discrepancy in what is attractive to you - at least for most of the firm you list - and (b) that if there is a big motivational discrepancy, in that reasons A B C made you apply for the firm you are now interviewing with and completely different X Y Z reasons made you apply for another firm, you should be prepared to explain why from your point of view reasons A B C are more important and trump reasons X Y Z. Long story short, the outcome you want from this section is to have convinced the interviewer that no other firm scores overall better on a more important relevant set of criteria, which is to say that their firm scores best on your most important set of criteria.
3. Sensible career planning: finally, from my experience firms are also truly interested in whether you are a reflective and sensible person in your career pursuits. As such, you want to demonstrate a nuanced understanding of the pros/cons of different firms, you want the criteria you explain were relevant for you to actually be the type of considerations one can base such an important choice, you want to show you understood the competitive landscape of applications, and that you have pursued the goal of obtaining a TC at a top firm in a consistent and well-planned manner. These are all aspects that evidence you just being a thoughtful and careful person, qualities that are immensely important for a trainee solicitor.
An example of a bad answer that candidates sometimes gave here was to say they only applied for the firm they were interviewing with at the moment. This either showed (i) lack of sufficient awareness of how competitive getting a TC is; (ii) overconfidence; (iii) lack of a sufficiently strong desire to obtain a TC; or (iv) dishonesty in answering an interview question to show oneself as enthusiastic about the firm. As you can appreciate, neither of these disjuncts puts the candidate in a good light.
An example of a better answer here was what I discuessed in a successful VS interview with an elite US firm, which was that I was mainly looking for firms who had (i) strong corporate departments; (ii) gave lots of early responsibility; and (iii) had a smaller trainee intake and office size. I then listed a number of firms in this category (which included the firm I was interviewing at) and explained how I prioritized applying for these firms early in the cycle and how firms in these categories made up for around 60-70% of my applications. Then, I told them how the rest of the 30-40% were split between some larger firms with very good corporate practices (MC or top US) and also a number of more mid-market M&A focused firms (like DLA Piper). I explained how this was due to (a) that while I formed my best possibly informed view on the issue, I was not capable on having a very high degree of certitude as to the which training model and work environment that best suited me - and that as such, I would ideally want to experience a VS in both a larger and in a smaller office and decide on a TC subsequent to that; and (b) in that since my priority goal was to just get a TC from a good firm, taking into account the extreme competitiveness of the process, while I knew my value well enough to mostly apply for what I was most interest in, it made sense to hedge my bets and to not only apply for the most elite of elite firms. When I ended expressing these points, the partner I was speaking to was very impressed and said I had a very sensile approach.
Finally, in choosing how you want to approach constructing your answer you should remember that you likely will not be asked to list every single firm you have applied to. As such, you can pick and choose what examples to mention in a way that best fits your narrative.
Quick question for @Andrei Radu if it's alright - I think you mentioned in a post that you made a Watson Glaser guide for yourself when taking the test. Would you by any chance be able to share that with us? Thank you
- I think you mentioned in a post that you made a Watson Glaser guide for yourself when taking the test. Would you by any chance be able to share that with us? Thank you 
for freshfields' open day, ive written the personal statement but I don't know how to format this in the document for them - should I put the title as Freshfields Open Day, should I format it like a cover letter? also my cv is 4mb and I don't know how to make it smaller as they only accept ones that are 1mb or smaller
I havent heard back from DLA since passing Watson Glaser. The email said to be patient. Anyone else in this position?
Jessica Booker
Legendary Member
TCLA Moderator
Gold Member
Graduate Recruitment
Premium Member
Forum Team
- Aug 1, 2019
- 14,658
- 20,351
No - don't decline it outright.
You should ask the firm whether there is any flexibility with the costs of travel in the first instance rather than straight declining the offer. Most firms will reimburse more than the originally stated amount, especially if people are travelling further distances like Durham/Newcastle/Edinburgh or Exeter.
The other thing to do before speaking to the firm is look at whether a train the night before and with a cheap hotel in zones 3-4 in London might be cheaper than the £200. If it is, also present this as an option to the firm, but explain you would need the overnight stay also reimbursed. Travelodges near easily commutable stations like Clapham Junction, Walthamstow, Brent Cross, Finchley, Croydon, and City Airport tend to be cheaper (e.g. £40-80 per night) depending on dates and I have seen plenty of people do this instead because a train the night before is a fraction of the price of travelling first thing in the morning.
Jessica Booker
Legendary Member
TCLA Moderator
Gold Member
Graduate Recruitment
Premium Member
Forum Team
- Aug 1, 2019
- 14,658
- 20,351
Definitely wouldn't have offered this to everyone. I would take this as a good sign as they clearly want to engage you on some level but just couldn't with the in-person open day.
- Sep 9, 2024
- 438
- 658
Hi, I have copied my WG Short Guide bellowQuick question for @Andrei Radu if it's alright
. Just wanted to add before that (i) this was partly based on the excellent course on WG tests by the TCLA here which I highly recommend watching for a more complete understanding; and (ii) that this is meant to be a quick tool to use for revision/during the test, not a comprehensive guide in itself - it simply includes what I think are the most important rules to keep in mind when making a more difficult judgement. 1)Arguments section
- Always treat the statement as true.
- Cast out individual opinions and biases.
- Ensure the argument is directly relevant to all the most important aspects of the question. è to do so, see whether the argument directly addresses the aim of the question and the means of obtaining it (see some/all distinction).
- Correlation does not mean causation.
- Ensure that the argument backs up its position with benefits or disadvantages.
- Do not apply your own general knowledge or moral standards that are not included in the statement.
- Do not generalise.
- This section tests whether the statement in question assumes something, not whether you can assume something from the statement.
- Take words used in the statement at face value.
- Don’t conflate ‘assumable’ with ‘probable’.
- The test:
- Identify the premises and the conclusion.
- Does the conclusion logically follow from the premises?
- If not, does the assumption offered validate the conclusion? Is it a necessity for the assumption to be true in order that the conclusion of the statement logically follows from the premise?
- Apply the ‘Inverse Test’: negate the assumption and if the conclusion is damaged, the assumption is correct.
- Pay attention to what is included in the statement specifically.
- Do not conflate generalised and existence statements.
- Select your answer solely from the information presented, do not use general knowledge or be affected by your own biases and prejudices.
- If you don’t know the meaning of a word, try and figure out from its context.
- Notice the difference between qualifiers (e.g. some, most) and extreme qualifiers (always/none).
- Test:
- True: The inference is explicit in the passage; if the inference is inferable from the passage (solely from the passage and without broader reference to general knowledge).
- Probably True: If the statement does not directly suggest the inference is true, but suggests it is likely (>50%) to be the case; or if the inference is based on common knowledge + information in the passage.
- More information required: Information you are asked is simply not given in the passage, with no grounds for correctly inferring the likelihood of the truth or falsity of the statement; also, generally if the inference is opinionated.
- Probably false: if the statement does not directly suggest the inference is false, but suggests it is likely (>50%) to be the false; or if the inference is false based on common knowledge + information in the passage.
- False: The inference directly contradicts something mentioned in the statement, or if the inference misinterprets the statement.
- Don’t interpret generalisation from an existent statistic.
- Judge each conclusion independently from each other.
- Differs from deducing in that a conclusion will follow if it’s beyond reasonable doubt (as opposed to logically necessary).
- Don’t confuse correlation with causation.
- Test: does the conclusion follow logically? If not, does it follow beyond a reasonable doubt?
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
- Sticky
- Sticky
