Honestly I’m the same- but I applied for winter vac but also ticked that I could do spring or summer. When I emailed they said they would give me an update when they were ready..
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25
- Thread starter Jessica Booker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vacation scheme
Anyone still waiting for AG London AC post VI, or shall I assume pfo ?
- Sep 7, 2024
- 375
- 847
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
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:
- 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). 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Hope this helps and my apologies in advance for the length of my reply!
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
- Sep 7, 2024
- 375
- 847
Anyone still waiting for Addleshaw Goddard post-application/test for London? I completed them on the 23rd of December.
Last edited:
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)
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?
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
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
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
That’s strange! Did you not receive any comms after? Just wondering if it’s a blip or someone is going through VIs again
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
- Sticky
- Sticky
