anyone heard back from akin or millbank
-
Build your commercial awareness from scratch in 1 month! Use the coupon code 'FORUM' at checkout for £30 off.
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25
- Thread starter Jessica Booker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vacation scheme
Thank you! In the same boat. If anyone could share whether or not they have heard back / what their experience has been, would be much appreciated!
I’m also still waiting for a W&C response lmao.🤣💀
It’s been 3 weeks since I applied and I still haven’t heard anything back at all. 😬🫣
Idk whether to assume PFO atp. 🥲🥲
Damn that’s even worse. I thought 3 weeks was bad. 😭
Did you apply for spring or summer? I applied for both because I’m indecisive asf. 😬
I applied on 23 Sep and have heard nothing lol. Defo a PFO but they shouldn't make me wait 4 months lol. Do you think I should email?
I have seen people on the forum that applied for WVS and were instead considered for SVS and got invited to VI/AC recently. 🙂
It’s probably best to email them about it imo. 🙂
Hiya, I just emailed them so will let the forum know what they reply! White & Case are known for ignoring applicants so not looking the best!
Tbf they do get up to 5,000 applications a year for VS + DTC but I don’t think it’s right to ignore applicants. 🥲
People spend ages on their applications and it’s unfair to leave them in the dark for months. 😬
Hopefully we get responses soon. Best of luck for W&C VS. 🙂
Last edited:
- Sep 7, 2024
- 278
- 541
Hiya @desperateTCseeker1998 and @chrisbrown
@Jessica Booker has already given a great answer, but I just wanted to add a bit more context to my previous comments.
Ropes & Gray hasn’t required applicants to submit a work experience section for several years now. This seems to be a deliberate choice by their graduate recruitment team, likely to make the process fairer in some way. In previous years, their application process has often included a question about commercial trends impacting the legal industry and how Ropes & Gray is positioned to meet those challenges. It would have been quite awkward to have used the space allocated to include references/discussions of my work experience or skills merely because they lacked a work experience section.
Again, my advice would be to focus on answering the question directly. If you really want to, you could briefly highlight any relevant skills or experiences that support your point. For example:
"Having worked as a paralegal on X team, I came to appreciate the importance of adaptability in the work done by commercial lawyers. This quality is essential in helping firms navigate challenges and drive growth, as seen in [specific example/reason]."
This way, you can still make your answer personalised without discussing how you developed the trait or used the trait in question.
Hope that helps 😊
- Sep 9, 2024
- 494
- 763
I do not have much to add to @Amma Usman's excellent post on this besides just mentioning what I think is the core aspect of law firm's profitability. Amma explained the different revenue streams that a firm can seek to maximize and the many different costs that it can seek to minimize, but in my view the core driver of large firms' profitability is simple: the revenues generated by its associates.
While rates do differ based on context and market sentiment, the going billing rate for an associate at a top US firm (and it seems the MC firms are not far behind) is around the 500-1000 pounds per hour mark, depending on seniority. Now, with an average partner to associate ratio of around 1:4 to 1:5, and assuming a billable target of around 2000 hours per year, we get to a figure of just under 6 million pounds of revenue generated per partner (also, assuming a 2-3 PQE average billable rate of 650 pounds for the sake of the calculation). Even when discounting for the costs of associates' salaries (also assuming for the sake of the calculation at an average 3 PQE level) of 250,000 pounds per year, we get a total of just under 5 million pounds per year. If leverage can be reduced while keeping the total of billable hours the same (say, by increasing the billable target and decreasing the associate headcount) this will be even more profitable, as firms will have to expense less on salaries - which is where the perverse incentive to overwork associates comes from.
Obviously, there are many other costs and expenses that a firm needs to account for - office space, taxes, support staff, etc; and there are other significant revenue generators - most importantly, partners' own billables. Moreover, of course not all firms can bill at the aforementioned rates and have those high target hours, but then not all firms have the associated high salary costs. The bottom line however is that for all large firms, and for elite firms in particular, having as many busy associates as possible is extremely profitable. As such, firms do all they can to get their hands on many matters and target clients able to afford high billables, which is why they compete so fiercely for the "high-end mandates". It is also why the lateral partner market is so hot, as firms aim to hire practitioners that will bring their client books with them.
Finally, an element of profitability (at least in the sense of PEP) that should not be understated is the distribution of equity shares. The more a firm guards its equity partnership ranks, the bigger piece of the pie will each of the existing equity partners get, which will translate to higher PEP figures. For instance, at Kirkland, a firm famed for its profitability, there is one equity partner per every two non-equity partners, a model which allows the firm to charge higher rates (as it can charge 'partner level' rates for more lawyers) without having to dilute the profit pool.
I would love to know this too, getting hopeless.. I did the WG in early dec
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..
Anyone still waiting for AG London AC post VI, or shall I assume pfo ?
- Sep 7, 2024
- 278
- 541
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:
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
- Sticky
- Sticky
