TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[Andrei Radu]

Hi @Jessica Booker @Andrei Radu and actually anyone else who might have opinions on this:

I received a feedback call after being rejected post-AC today. They said I performed well in other areas but not so much in the interview. They pointed out a few areas of improvement which I was grateful for but I am left confused because of its contradictory nature:

1. Building a rapport - they said that I had failed to build a rapport with the interviewers and this left me confused because my interview ended with the partner talking about his life outside of work and his wife's work (this was in no way connected to my question and he had no reason to feel the need to tell me aside from just wanting to). While I was leaving the office, I had a chat with the receptionist and we were just exchanging pleasantries when she offered to look up all the people I had interacted with on the day and tell me what she could - She was surprised that I got the Partner to talk about his personal life because it was way more than what she had gotten out of him.
Additionally, they said building a rapport is very important as they are a people business and it is an essential ingredient in relationship building. This is what confuses me more because they said that I had done very well in the other exercises and my relationship building skills clearly shined through.

2. Detail Orientation - They said I fell below the mark for this and advised me to structure my answers in a manner that has sufficient detail and thoroughly and properly answered the interviewers' questions. I asked them for an example for the same because I believed my answers were sufficiently detailed. The example question they chose for me was not relevant to my situation and I told them that I had done what they expected and more in the interview. Since I was confused, I asked if they could give me more direction but they simply said "oh! well unfortunately we can't go into other questions at this time".
There was also the fact that my interview lasted exactly for the duration scheduled and I have a habit of asking if they would like me to go into more detail for questions where I felt more elaboration could help. I was reassured that wasn't needed and my answer had properly addressed the question.
Additionally, they pointed out my detail-oriented nature as a strength in the other aspect of the day.

3. They mentioned a scenario question in passing because I asked for more areas I could improve and they believed I could have performed better in that question whereas in the interview I was told I answered parts of the question they thought I might miss and gave me an impressed look.

I left at 3am for this AC and did a uni exam on my way back. I honestly would appreciate any input someone might have as to how I could improve (if I have the chance to) in the future. I genuinely just want to see where I went wrong or if I'm missing something.

I'm sorry for the long post but just feeling a little defeated and feeling my RSD kick-in making things worse😞

Just to add a couple of points to @Jessica Booker 's great response:

1. Judging the building of rapport is difficult as partners have very different approaches to interviews. Whilst I think discussing personal life is a positive sign in this regard, it is definitely not conclusive. Besides Jessica's tips, I would also advise you to aim to mirror the attitude of the interviewers and to continuously update your approach depending on the interviewer's reactions (including body language, facial expressions etc). Some interviewers are more formal and like looking 'strict' - when speaking with them, it is good to always be maximally focused and act a bit like you are responding to a judge in court. Some may be very direct, in which case you may want to cut the use of buzzwords and exaggerated claims about yourself or the firm. Others may be a lot more relaxed and interested in learning about you as a person, and if so it would be ideal to also relax a bit as well and drop the unnecessary formalism. Point is, different approaches will work with different people and you cannot know which is the best before you enter the interview room. Start from a point of a formal yet enthusiastic attitude and then adapt based on the cues you receive.

Similarly, this applies to the substantive content of your answers as well. Some partners will appreciate really detailed commercial analysis and knowledge of the legal market - and if so, you may want to integrate that in your answers as much as you can. Others will really like detailed explanations of your non-legal experiences and ask a lot about them, in which case you should aim to bring them up more often than you would have otherwise. The idea is just that you should try to learn as much as you can about what works during the interview itself and not hold to a pre-established rigid approach. My best interview performances happened when I deviated from the "ideal" answers I prepared initially.

2. As Jessica said, I think in most cases it is better to build in the detail into your initial answers rather than inviting follow ups. The partners can appreciate a more complete analysis of your experiences and motivations without wanting to open a whole new discussion on them. Of course you do not want to overdo it and overload them with information, but I think most candidates worry too much about this. If your answer is well structured and your tone is right, I think it can go well into three minutes without being considered "too long".

 

[tosin4774]

Paul, Weiss PFO… ngl defo think there was a high emphasis on Amberjack bcos my grades are good (3 A* + a first from RG), strong written application (imo lol) and attended their in person October open day.

So do u think u got a pfo because u didnt do very well in the amberjack assessment. i am asking this because i am first-year student and plan to apply next year

 

[tosin4774]

Anyone with good news from PW lol? 😅

someone from the forum got an assessment invite

 

[Andrei Radu]

I have an AC coming up, part of which is a commercial exercise and 10-min presentation. I’m a bit confused as to how I should broadly structure it. As in, do I introduce myself in the beginning or go straight to the point. Should I give a short summary of key points in the beginning?

@Andrei Radu @Amma Usman @Ram Sabaratnam, I’d be grateful for any tips.

I think you should introduce yourself first but only very briefly - something like "Hi, my name is X and today I will be presenting on ..." should suffice. As for the short summary, I think in many cases that works better at the end, as you want the interviewers to remember that you covered the key points. In the introduction, I think you could just lay out the structure of the presentation (explaining how many parts it has and in what order will you address them) without going into the substance of each element.

 

[Andrei Radu]

Hi Andrei, still haven't heard back and it's been 2 weeks now. Do you reckon its worth sending an email or would that show a lack of patience?

I think you should still wait another week, as 2-3 weeks is still not far off from the average response time. If you hear nothing by then, you can send an email to check when to expect a response by.

 

[Kakaboo]

Applied to AG beginning of the month,VI mid Jan and nothing since… slowest firm ever?

 

[applebunny]

Has anyone done K&L Gates verbal analysis test? Can't find anything on it at all

 

[kelisi88]

NRF PFO post arctic shores and PW PFO post amberjack

 

[James Wakefield]

Applied to AG beginning of the month,VI mid Jan and nothing since… slowest firm ever?

In a similar situation. I fear they don’t sent out rolling rejection to those post-VI, so this is likely to be a PFO.

People have already had vac scheme offers so it’s not looking great.

 

[confusedbird]

It’s very difficult to give further context on your feedback without being an assessor from the day.

What I would generally say on the points you raise are:

1) Rapport needs to be something built from the start of the interview. Although your interviewer may have spoken about themselves at the end, I wouldn’t necessarily say this signals rapport. I can’t say this is what happened in your interview but rapport generally comes down to:

- eye contact
- smiling
- if you have two interviewers, making sure you engage with both of them, not just the one asking you the questions or the one who is most senior.
- active listening - ensuring you really listen to what the interviewers are asking if you and adapting your answers accordingly.

2) Detail - interviewers can often be looking for the detail in your initial response/answer rather than it having to be drawn out from further follow up questions. From what you have said, there is likely to have been a mismatch in expectations as to what they thought was sufficient and how detailed you perceived your answers to be. It’s hard for me to give further guidance on this based on what you have said. Feel free to PM me with further detail of the question you felt wasn’t relevant to you and we can potentially explore this further.

3) Scenario based question - this is likely to have assessed different elements. Although it maybe that you impressed in certain aspects and that was reflected on what was said in the interview, it may have been that other elements were missing. I wouldn’t necessarily expect interviewers to always give you feedback in the interview itself to give you clarity on what you had and hadn’t presented well, so it maybe that they just focused on the positive elements to keep the interview energy levels up and in a positive way.

Thank you so much for this! I appreciate the pointers.

I do feel like I did the things you listed for building a rapport but I'll focus more on it in the future and reflect on the other pointers to adjust my approach accordingly.

 

[confusedbird]

Just to add a couple of points to @Jessica Booker 's great response:

1. Judging the building of rapport is difficult as partners have very different approaches to interviews. Whilst I think discussing personal life is a positive sign in this regard, it is definitely not conclusive. Besides Jessica's tips, I would also advise you to aim to mirror the attitude of the interviewers and to continuously update your approach depending on the interviewer's reactions (including body language, facial expressions etc). Some interviewers are more formal and like looking 'strict' - when speaking with them, it is good to always be maximally focused and act a bit like you are responding to a judge in court. Some may be very direct, in which case you may want to cut the use of buzzwords and exaggerated claims about yourself or the firm. Others may be a lot more relaxed and interested in learning about you as a person, and if so it would be ideal to also relax a bit as well and drop the unnecessary formalism. Point is, different approaches will work with different people and you cannot know which is the best before you enter the interview room. Start from a point of a formal yet enthusiastic attitude and then adapt based on the cues you receive.

Similarly, this applies to the substantive content of your answers as well. Some partners will appreciate really detailed commercial analysis and knowledge of the legal market - and if so, you may want to integrate that in your answers as much as you can. Others will really like detailed explanations of your non-legal experiences and ask a lot about them, in which case you should aim to bring them up more often than you would have otherwise. The idea is just that you should try to learn as much as you can about what works during the interview itself and not hold to a pre-established rigid approach. My best interview performances happened when I deviated from the "ideal" answers I prepared initially.

2. As Jessica said, I think in most cases it is better to build in the detail into your initial answers rather than inviting follow ups. The partners can appreciate a more complete analysis of your experiences and motivations without wanting to open a whole new discussion on them. Of course you do not want to overdo it and overload them with information, but I think most candidates worry too much about this. If your answer is well structured and your tone is right, I think it can go well into three minutes without being considered "too long".

That makes sense! Thank you so much!!

 

[emma.d]

Hi, hope everyone is doing well ❤️ I have been asked the question

'Please provide three examples (with relevant detail) of how we as a law firm differs from our competitors?' (200 words)

Would I be able to mention how at an Open Day a partner mentioned that they moved from another A&O Shearman as this firm was more collaborative. Or does it need to have more of a legal/client focus rather than cultural/internal?

 

[camrxc]

Hi, just wondering how the best way to structure an answer in an interview to the question about a deal of the firm that had interested me?

 

[kuuks_]

someone from the forum got an assessment invite

someone passed the amberjack stage?

 

[jp123]

Has anyone not heard anything from NRF following Arctic Shores? I'm assuming PFO, but haven't heard a peep

 

[bsh]

someone passed the amberjack stage?

not seen this anywhere but apparently somewhere on the forum

 

[tosin4774]

someone passed the amberjack stage?

someone passed the amberjack stage?

 

[Paul Jules Steullet]

Anyone heard from V&E post VI?

 

[bsh]

View attachment 6853

This is for the amberjack i think

 

[Chris Brown]

View attachment 6853

I think this is the amberjack online test. A lot of us received the test on the 30th and 31st of January. Paul, Weiss have only began updating people today on VS application outcomes post test. 🙂​