TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[BreadandButter]

Hiya @BobThebIlly

First off, well done on those impressive scores for assumptions (88%) and evaluating arguments (100%). Those are fantastic and show you’ve really nailed those sections! Let’s focus on the “drawing conclusions” part and see how you can improve in the short time you have.

The Watson Glaser tests your ability to draw conclusions in two specific sections - the deduction section, as well as the inference section.

Deductions: This section tests your ability to make a deduction. With deductions, you are trying to find what follows absolutely and necessarily from the premises you are given, and just assume that all those premises are true. For example:

• Premise 1: All cats have whiskers
• Premise 2: Ram is a cat (this premise is false, but for the purpose of your deduction just assume it's true)
• Conclusion: Ram has whiskers

Notice that, in the above argument, if you assume the initial premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily and absolutely. This reflects the way you should be 'drawing conclusions' in the deduction section.

The inference section, by contrast, tests your ability to draw conclusions in more probabilistic ways. They are not asking you to identify what follows absolutely or necessarily. Rather, they involve asking what conclusions are probable or strongly suggested by the evidence though not certain (e.g. follow strongly). For the purposes of the inference section, there are two styles of reasoning that you should become familiar with:

1. Inductions: Imagine you’re a scientist studying bird migration. Over the course of several years, you observe that geese in a particular region always migrate south during the winter. Based on these repeated observations, you draw the conclusion "Geese in this region migrate south every winter." This is a good conclusion to draw because it's based on consistent and repeated evidence. However, it’s not certain (there could be a year when some geese don’t migrate for an unexpected reason, like illness or environmental changes). Inductive reasoning makes predictions about the future or generalisations about a group based on observed patterns. To understand whether an inference is a strong one, you'll also want to familiarise yourself with the ways people get inductions wrong. These include, but are not limited to:
   • Overgeneralising: This occurs when someone draws a broad conclusion based on too few examples. For instance, seeing two aggressive dogs and concluding that all dogs are aggressive is an overgeneralisation. The sample size is too small to justify the conclusion.
     
     
   • Sampling Bias: Drawing conclusions from an unrepresentative sample can lead to faulty reasoning. For example, surveying only a small group of people from one region and assuming their preferences reflect an entire population’s preferences is misleading.
     
     
   • Ignoring Counterexamples: Inductive reasoning requires considering exceptions, but people sometimes disregard counterexamples that weaken their conclusions. For instance, concluding that "all swans are white" without accounting for black swans ignores evidence that challenges the generalisation. Pay attention to whether the question stem and information you're being offered provides any potential counter evidence.
     
     
   • Confusing causation and correlation: People often assume that because two things happen together, one causes the other. For example, observing that ice cream sales increase in summer alongside shark attacks might lead someone to wrongly conclude that eating ice cream causes shark attacks. In reality, both are linked to a third factor: hot weather.
2. Abductions: This involves selecting the most likely explanation based on the available evidence. For example, if you find fur on your couch and a chewed slipper, you might reasonably conclude that your dog is responsible. While other explanations are logically possible (e.g. such as a neighbour's cat sneaking into your house unnoticed to chew the slipper and shed fur on the couch) - these are far less plausible, especially if you have a dog at home. Abductive reasoning is particularly useful in situations where the evidence is incomplete or ambiguous. It allows us to make practical, reasonable conclusions by focusing on the explanation that best fits the facts. This approach is commonly used in problem-solving, diagnosing issues, and decision-making, as it prioritises what is most likely rather than what is merely possible.

Appreciating these different ways of 'drawing a conclusion' is important because you want to ensure that you're using the appropriate form of reasoning depending on the section you're working on. Mistaking one for another can lead to choosing the wrong answers in that section.

Hope this helps and my apologies in advance for the length of my reply!

Ram is a cat 😂

 

[Ram Sabaratnam]

Ram is a cat 😂

 

[YS391]

Anyone still waiting for Addleshaw Goddard post-application/test for London? I completed them on the 23rd of December.

 

[theone132213]

They have 3 AC dates for London and thats it.

27th January
03 February
24 February

There are 3 different time slots per a day.

If you haven’t got an invite for the 24th of feb id assume rejection as both 27th and 03rd are booked up. I did my VI 15th Jan and got an AC a week later.

That being said I don’t think they’ve given invitations for the 24th February, if you did your VI after me you’re still being considered.

Ok - cheers for this !

 

[legallawyer]

Anyone still waiting for Addleshaw Goddard post-application/test? I completed them on the 23rd of December.

What office? I'm in the same boat for Manchester.

 

[Rhohia]

Did anybody receive an email from Reed smith today saying thank you for completing your assessment when they completed it ages ago??? (Post VI/sjt)

 

[YS391]

What office? I'm in the same boat for Manchester.

London

 

[lawstudent2]

How long are you supposed to take to answer general questions like why law, why firm etc in an AC interview. I'm trying to prepare but I'm struggling to balance not waffling but also not going into enough detail, anyone have advice?

 

[ish12345]

Has anyone heard back from Dentons post VI? for the summer vac scheme

 

[ish12345]

London

Same! yet to hear back as well

 

[elsx]

Did anybody receive an email from Reed smith today saying thank you for completing your assessment when they completed it ages ago??? (Post VI/sjt)

I had the same a last week

 

[toad92]

anyone stressing about applying close to deadlines etc, while its not the best strategy, if u have a relatively strong app just go for it🙏🏻 i apply most of the time on the day of the deadline/a couple days before (adhd is great) and i usually get through to next stages (except for skadden + weil 💔💔) - don’t get disheartened bc they are expecting a load of apps at the end anyway

some firms will fill it up but not all of them for sure

remember its very tough to do all these apps and assessments etc while studying a law degree too like 😭😭 everyone cut yourselves some slack this is a difficult path

 

[toad92]

Did anybody receive an email from Reed smith today saying thank you for completing your assessment when they completed it ages ago??? (Post VI/sjt)

i got it like 15 hours after i did it, but email was from candid

 

[toad92]

Haven't heard from Latham post AC for 2 weeks... should I assume a rejection?

usually means ur on a waiting list, can’t say for sure though

i know people who got accepted/rejected very quick in last years cohort after their ac

from the email loads of us got today saying we probably won’t hear even about ACs until mid/late feb i’m guessing they are just mad busy right now trying to sort it all out lmao

 

[Rhohia]

I had the same a last week

That’s strange! Did you not receive any comms after? Just wondering if it’s a blip or someone is going through VIs again

 

[Ram Sabaratnam]

How long are you supposed to take to answer general questions like why law, why firm etc in an AC interview. I'm trying to prepare but I'm struggling to balance not waffling but also not going into enough detail, anyone have advice?

Heya @lawstudent2

I think taking 3-4 minutes for the big questions (e.g. why law, why the firm, and why you) is absolutely fine. What’s most important is that the interviewer can follow and recall the main points of your answer, and this is where structure becomes essential. Summarising your key points briefly at the beginning and wrapping up with a conclusion at the end can really help the interviewer remember your answer.

I’d also recommend practising with someone, whether a friend, mentor, or even recording yourself. Ask them to summarise your answer afterward to check whether your main points were clear and memorable. For these longer questions, make sure you're not cramming in too much detail and rushing through your answer to fit the 3-4 minute timeframe. Prioritise depth over breadth where possible.

For other types of questions, aiming for 2-3 minutes with a clear structure should work well. If you feel like answering off the cuff will lead you to waffle, I'd recommend just taking a minute to think about the main points you want to hit. Overall, always focus on answering the question directly, and and keep in mind what you think will allow your interviewer to best recall the main points you've made.

 

[johnnn821]

Greenberg Traurig PFO (applied on the deadline). For anyone waiting best of luck

 

[Amma Usman]

How long are you supposed to take to answer general questions like why law, why firm etc in an AC interview. I'm trying to prepare but I'm struggling to balance not waffling but also not going into enough detail, anyone have advice?

I believe this depends on the length of the interview. For questions like “Why law?” or “Why this firm?”, you should aim to spend two to three minutes answering each in a thirty-minute interview. That’s enough time to make your points clearly without dragging on. If the interview is longer, such as an hour, you can take closer to three to four minutes to add a bit more detail.

The key is to hit your main reasons quickly and confidently. Start with your strongest point first. For example, with “Why law?”, lead with what sparked your interest or what keeps you motivated. Then follow with something more personal or reflective to show depth. For “Why this firm?”, focus on specific things that set them apart, like their work in a particular sector, and link that back to your career goals.

Practising how you deliver these answers is crucial. Your vocal tone and confidence in what you are saying will make all the difference. A strong start will help prevent interruptions and keep the conversation flowing naturally. Another thing is to not practice too heavily for such questions - and I appreciate this may sound contradictory to all I’ve said. Pre-prepped answers can always be caught, and you want these passions to sound natural. You should still know your main drivers from within though, and fall back on these during the interview.

The idea is to balance being concise with showing that you’ve put thought into your answers.

 

[Olivialee15]

Clyde & Co PFO

 

[Amma Usman]

Hiya @BobThebIlly

First off, well done on those impressive scores for assumptions (88%) and evaluating arguments (100%). Those are fantastic and show you’ve really nailed those sections! Let’s focus on the “drawing conclusions” part and see how you can improve in the short time you have.

The Watson Glaser tests your ability to draw conclusions in two specific sections - the deduction section, as well as the inference section.

Deductions: This section tests your ability to make a deduction. With deductions, you are trying to find what follows absolutely and necessarily from the premises you are given, and just assume that all those premises are true. For example:

• Premise 1: All cats have whiskers
• Premise 2: Ram is a cat (this premise is false, but for the purpose of your deduction just assume it's true)
• Conclusion: Ram has whiskers

Notice that, in the above argument, if you assume the initial premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily and absolutely. This reflects the way you should be 'drawing conclusions' in the deduction section.

The inference section, by contrast, tests your ability to draw conclusions in more probabilistic ways. They are not asking you to identify what follows absolutely or necessarily. Rather, they involve asking what conclusions are probable or strongly suggested by the evidence though not certain (i.e. follow strongly). For the purposes of the inference section, there are two styles of reasoning that you should become familiar with:

1. Inductions: Imagine you’re a scientist studying bird migration. Over the course of several years, you observe that geese in a particular region always migrate south during the winter. Based on these repeated observations, you draw the conclusion "Geese in this region migrate south every winter." This is a good conclusion to drawbecause it's based on consistent and repeated evidence. However, it’s not certain (there could be a year when some geese don’t migrate for an unexpected reason, like illness or environmental changes). Induction involves drawing conclusions to make predictions about the future or generalisations about a group based on observed patterns. To understand whether an inference is a strong one, you'll also want to familiarise yourself with the ways people get inductions wrong. These include, but are not limited to:
   • Overgeneralising: This occurs when someone draws a broad conclusion based on too few examples. For instance, seeing two aggressive dogs and concluding that all dogs are aggressive is an overgeneralisation. The sample size is too small to justify the conclusion.
     
     
   • Sampling Bias: Drawing conclusions from an unrepresentative sample can lead to faulty reasoning. For example, surveying only a small group of people from one region and assuming their preferences reflect an entire population’s preferences is misleading.
     
     
   • Ignoring Counterexamples: Inductive reasoning requires considering exceptions, but people sometimes disregard counterexamples that weaken their conclusions. For instance, concluding that "all swans are white" without accounting for black swans ignores evidence that challenges the generalisation. Pay attention to whether the question stem and information you're being offered provides any potential counter evidence.
     
     
   • Confusing causation and correlation: People often assume that because two things happen together, one causes the other. For example, observing that ice cream sales increase in summer alongside shark attacks might lead someone to wrongly conclude that eating ice cream causes shark attacks. In reality, both are linked to a third factor: hot weather.
2. Abductions: This involves selecting the most likely explanation based on the available evidence. For example, if you find fur on your couch and a chewed slipper, you might reasonably conclude that your dog is responsible. While other explanations are logically possible (e.g. such as a neighbour's cat sneaking into your house unnoticed to chew the slipper and shed fur on the couch) - these are far less plausible, especially if you have a dog at home. Abductive reasoning is particularly useful in situations where the evidence is incomplete or ambiguous. It allows us to make practical, reasonable conclusions by focusing on the explanation that best fits the facts. This approach is commonly used in problem-solving, diagnosing issues, and decision-making, as it prioritises what is most likely rather than what is merely possible.

Appreciating these different ways of 'drawing a conclusion' is important because you want to ensure that you're using the appropriate form of reasoning depending on the section you're working on. Mistaking one for another can lead to choosing the wrong answers in that section.

Hope this helps and my apologies in advance for the length of my reply!

The premises really made my day @Ram Sabaratnam hahaha!