TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[xanderlawyer]

This is something that has been on my mind for some time going through this application cycle. I have a strong interest in US firms, but they rely heavily on VI. I am worried about the impact of the DEI situation in the US and if it will mean US firms change their policies around DEI in their UK offices’ graduate recruitment processes.

While it is possible that a PFO post-VI is down to things like poor structure, waffling, lack of key content, etc. it can also be down to bias and prejudice. While this problem has existed even before the DEI situation in the US, I think it’ll get worse now. No firm can ever guarantee that there is 0% bias in their processes. That’s why even now some US firms’ future trainees all come from quite similar backgrounds.

So far in my own experience with Willkie, I have not been made to feel this way (yet). Credit has to be given to Gemma for ensuring their process is as fair and transparent as possible (two of their recruitment stages are entirely CV blind) which I think more firms should adopt. If I were to do a 2nd cycle and apply to other US firms, I’m not sure if the same could be said. I think in the UK there is more of an issue with elitism and classism, in the context of city law firms’ recruitment. For those who come from ethnic minority backgrounds and lower socio-economic backgrounds, I think it’s a double edged sword.​

Surely you want to be selected for a job based on your ability, rather than because you tick certain boxes? DEI does not remove discrimination / bias from the process. It does the opposite of that. You should aspire to be valued for your character / mind rather than the colour of your skin, your sexual preferences or your background.

 

[Paul Jules Steullet]

Fairly sure, all Weil ACs have concluded now, anyone know when Weil will communicate results?

Next week

 

[Chris Brown]

Surely you want to be selected for a job based on your ability, rather than because you tick certain boxes?

I think the OP’s point (which I agree with) was that someone can possess the ability, but because they tick those boxes (which become visible to recruiters through things like a VI), there is room for bias and prejudice. Of course I would want to be hired based on my ability, but it’s inevitable that someone (e.g., grad rec, associates, partners, etc.) might not believe I possess the ability because of my background (bias and prejudice). With the DEI situation in the US, this could only get worse, especially in relation to US law firms.​

 

[billyonthespeeddial]

Sorry, I had actually deleted my initial posts because I didn't want to start a thing, but I guess it's too late now haha. Just want to clarify that what I meant was NOT about being picked to fill a diversity quota. It was about knowing that people would take a moment to acknowledge whether they were being prejudiced against some traits which may in fact not be indicative of potential or ability. i.e. it was simply about not being discriminated against.

 

[Interested_In_Law]

This is something that has been on my mind for some time going through this application cycle. I have a strong interest in US firms, but they rely heavily on VI. I am worried about the impact of the DEI situation in the US and if it will mean US firms change their policies around DEI in their UK offices’ graduate recruitment processes.

While it is possible that a PFO post-VI is down to things like poor structure, waffling, lack of key content, etc. it can also be down to bias and prejudice. While this problem has existed even before the DEI situation in the US, I think it’ll get worse now. No firm can ever guarantee that there is 0% bias in their processes. That’s why even now some US firms’ future trainees all come from quite similar backgrounds.

So far in my own experience with Willkie, I have not been made to feel this way (yet). Credit has to be given to Gemma for ensuring their process is as fair and transparent as possible (two of their recruitment stages are entirely CV blind) which I think more firms should adopt. If I were to do a 2nd cycle and apply to other US firms, I’m not sure if the same could be said. I think in the UK there is more of an issue with elitism and classism, in the context of city law firms’ recruitment. For those who come from ethnic minority backgrounds and lower socio-economic backgrounds, I think it’s a double edged sword.​

Interestingly, the video interview platform HireVue, which a number of law firms use, has come under fire for using facial recognition data in AI technology to assess candidates in a way which could potentially be discriminatory. I think it is quite worrying, because AI technology does have a tendency to reinforce built-in biases.

Class Action Targeting Video Interview Technology Reminds Employers of Testing Risks | Paul Hastings LLP

www.paulhastings.com

 

[futuretrainee!]

I think the OP’s point (which I agree with) was that someone can possess the ability, but because they tick those boxes (which become visible to recruiters through things like a VI), there is room for bias and prejudice. Of course I would want to be hired based on my ability, but it’s inevitable that someone (e.g., grad rec, associates, partners, etc.) might not believe I possess the ability because of my background (bias and prejudice).​

If there is a propensity for a firm to be biased based on diversity benchmarks, the problem is, hopefully, you will agree, the people. More importantly, DEI programmes in the US do not actually overcome this because these diversity quotas are counter to a meritocracy - where you have to choose between a racial minority with average scores to a racial majority with higher scores, DEI in the US would prefer the racial minority applicant even though they are less likely to thrive in the role. As mentioned, this doesn't actually solve the problem which is overcoming the bias among the recruiters, but instead leads to a bunch of 'diversity hires' offering little to no value to the firm. DEI in the US was deeply flawed which is why companies have jumped to remove them and as a racial minority myself, I commend that because there needs to be a recognition that businesses are profit-making entities and forcing representation of any particular community, often independent of merit-based talent, is fatal to any business and should be discouraged.

 

[austinfriar]

DEI in the US was extremely toxic as it was affirmative action where diversity was exercised through quotas and preferential hiring for underrepresented groups - this is counter to any business, profit-making mandate as hiring should be based on merits. DEI in the UK is far more digestible where under-represented backgrounds are considered proportionally which helps contextualise an applicant but still very much focuses on the merits of a candidate's application. If there is a "voice at the back of a recruiter's head" to hire a particular candidate of a race to represent a particular community, I think we have gone astray from what DEI was meant to do, which is level the ground instead of offering a leg-up.

Your understanding of this lacks the acknowledgment that certain groups have the exact same potential for greatness as others, but perform worse on standardized tests/grading/etc due to lack of resources, financial stress, and the simple fact that it is way easier to do well in school and in life if you aren't low income, and that's hugely tied to race and immigration status. So quota based hiring gives underrepresented applicants the benefit of the doubt (as well as making sure that different perspectives are represented). DEI is here to offer a leg up to candidate who are historically excluded, whereas white candidates, especially white men, have been offered countless legs up through the ages. Take a look at gender pay gaps.... even in organisations where women equal men in numbers, the majority of the time men make up most of the people who get a bonus. Funny how that happens...

Anyways, in short, I think you're pretty wrong

 

[zoobla20]

Surely you want to be selected for a job based on your ability, rather than because you tick certain boxes? DEI does not remove discrimination / bias from the process. It does the opposite of that. You should aspire to be valued for your character / mind rather than the colour of your skin, your sexual preferences or your background.

Apparently there is a difference based on the way DEI is done in the UK vs the US - in the US, they use (or used to use) diversity quotas which could lead to people just getting hired due to certain characteristics (though I'd assume they would have to meet the job criteria too). In the UK, this would be positive discrimination which is outlawed.

Imo, I haven't seen any law firms give me a special advantage due to being a POC - rather the research suggests there are unconscious biases which work against those who are disabled/LGBTQ+/POC etc which is what UK law firms are trying to mitigate against.

 

[hehostressed]

Apparently there is a difference based on the way DEI is done in the UK vs the US - in the US, they use (or used to use) diversity quotas which could lead to people just getting hired due to certain characteristics (though I'd assume they would have to meet the job criteria too). In the UK, this would be positive discrimination which is outlawed.

Imo, I haven't seen any law firms give me a special advantage due to being a POC - rather the research suggests there are unconscious biases which work against those who are disabled/LGBTQ+/POC etc which is what UK law firms are trying to mitigate against.

I’ve personally seen it at a UK firm so I think it has trickled in

 

[wqueens8]

so we're all just religiously and compulsively checking our emails and this thread right?

 

[zonnonomo]

WBD test score 6969 aha xd rawrr (ima done stayed unemployed)

 

[Chris Brown]

DEI in the US was extremely toxic as it was affirmative action where diversity was exercised through quotas and preferential hiring for underrepresented groups - this is counter to any business, profit-making mandate as hiring should be based on merits. DEI in the UK is far more digestible where under-represented backgrounds are considered proportionally which helps contextualise an applicant but still very much focuses on the merits of a candidate's application. If there is a "voice at the back of a recruiter's head" to hire a particular candidate of a race to represent a particular community, I think we have gone astray from what DEI was meant to do, which is level the ground instead of offering a leg-up.

If there is a propensity for a firm to be biased based on diversity benchmarks, the problem is, hopefully, you will agree, the people. More importantly, DEI programmes in the US do not actually overcome this because these diversity quotas are counter to a meritocracy - where you have to choose between a racial minority with average scores to a racial majority with higher scores, DEI in the US would prefer the racial minority applicant even though they are less likely to thrive in the role. As mentioned, this doesn't actually solve the problem which is overcoming the bias among the recruiters, but instead leads to a bunch of 'diversity hires' offering little to no value to the firm. DEI in the US was deeply flawed which is why companies have jumped to remove them and as a racial minority myself, I commend that because there needs to be a recognition that businesses are profit-making entities and forcing representation of any particular community, often independent of merit-based talent, is fatal to any business and should be discouraged.

I have some controversial opinions on this topic and I’m aware I will probably get cancelled on the TCLA forum after this, but here goes nothing lmao:

1. I don’t believe it’s possible to hire on merit in the US or the UK because there is still a lot of unconscious bias and prejudice against under-represented groups (ethnic minorities, women, lower socioeconomic groups, LGBTQ+, people with disabilities, etc). There isn’t a system of meritocracy in the UK. There is very much still issues of nepotism, elitism, classism, misogyny and racism. These protected characteristics are very visible to recruiters during things like a VI. It’s hard to deny that there isn't always going to be at least some form of bias or prejudice towards anyone who visibly looks or sounds diverse. It is impossible to avoid it (unless CV blind recruitment is used e.g., Willkie). 🙂🙂

2. Contextual recruitment is by its very definition taking into account someone’s background. I will use myself as an example. I have spoken about my background previously on the forum. In short, I went to a comp state school, was eligible for free school meals, first gen to go to uni, first to go to a RG and study law and I grew up on and still live on a council estate in one of the poorest cities in the UK. To suggest someone like myself has equal access to opportunities, when compared to someone who went private school and has connections in the legal profession, is kind of crazy. Without DEI, I wouldn’t be where I am right now. 🥲🥲

3. To assume that a racial or ethnic minority person must necessarily have weaker credentials (professional or academic) is a dangerous assumption, which is the very thing we are highlighting will be at risk in light of the DEI situation in the US. I highly doubt people are being recruited solely because of their race or ethnicity, but this is the narrative that is being pushed, to convince people that positive discrimination is taking place against white men. It’s the same narrative that is being pushed against immigrants, in that the issues the UK is facing in relation to NHS waitlists, housing shortages, etc. is somehow the fault of people who are fleeing persecution and migrating to the UK, instead of the government who is in charge (deflection tactic in my opinion). 🥲🥲

4. To assume a racial or ethnic minority person would be ‘less likely to thrive in a role’ is also low-key kind of insane. Historically speaking, it has always been the case that there is a lack of diversity in major professions (in this case city commercial law). Someone who comes from an underrepresented background is just as capable of succeeding as a commercial lawyer in the city compared to someone who comes from an overrepresented background. I don’t believe representation is being ‘forced’, it’s simply about being reflective of the population and the clients international law firms are serving. 🙂🙂

These are my controversial opinions. Please do not cancel me on TCLA. 🥲🥲​

 

[e1996]

Anyone heard back from mischon post-AC?

 

[LawJ]

I have some controversial opinions on this topic and I’m aware I will probably get cancelled on the TCLA forum after this, but here goes nothing lmao:

1. I don’t believe it’s possible to hire on merit in the US or the UK because there is still a lot of unconscious bias and prejudice against under-represented groups (ethnic minorities, women, lower socioeconomic groups, LGBTQ+, people with disabilities, etc). There isn’t a system of meritocracy in the UK. There is very much still issues of nepotism, elitism, classism, misogyny and racism. These protected characteristics are very visible to recruiters during things like a VI. It’s hard to deny that there is always going to be some form of bias or prejudice towards anyone who visibly looks or sounds diverse. It is virtually impossible to avoid it (unless CV blind recruitment is used e.g., Willkie). 🙂🙂

2. Contextual recruitment is by its very definition taking into account someone’s background. I will use myself as an example. I have spoken about my background previously on the forum. In short, I went to a comp state school, was eligible for free school meals, first gen to go to uni, first to go to a RG and study law and I grew up on and have lived on a council estate in one of the poorest cities in the UK. To suggest someone like myself has equal access to opportunities to someone who went private school and has connections in the legal profession is kind of crazy. Without DEI, I wouldn’t be where I am right now. 🥲🥲

3. To assume that a racial or ethnic minority person must necessarily have weaker credentials (professional or academic) is a dangerous assumption, which is the very thing we are highlighting is a risk in light of the DEI situation in the US. I highly doubt people are being recruited solely because of their race or ethnicity, but this is the narrative that is being pushed, to convince people that positive discrimination is taking place against white men. It’s the same narrative that is being pushed against immigrants, that the issues the UK is facing in relation to NHS waitlists, housing shortages, etc. is the fault of people who are migrating to the UK, instead of the government who is in charge (deflection tactic in my opinion). 🥲🥲

4. To assume a racial or ethnic minority person would be ‘less likely to thrive in a role’ is also low-key kind of insane. Historically speaking, it has always been the case that there is a lack of diversity in major professions (in this case city commercial law). Someone who comes from an underrepresented background is just as capable of succeeding as a commercial lawyer in the city compared to someone who comes from an overrepresented background. I don’t believe representation is being ‘forced’, it’s simply about being reflective of the population and the clients international law firms are serving. 🙂🙂

These are my controversial opinions. Please do not cancel me on TCLA. 🥲🥲​

Can I firstly just say this was worded so eloquently! It is so important for stories like yours to be shared because there are so many misconceptions about DEI and its purpose. So thank you again Chris

 

[futuretrainee!]

Your understanding of this lacks the acknowledgment that certain groups have the exact same potential for greatness as others, but perform worse on standardized tests/grading/etc due to lack of resources, financial stress, and the simple fact that it is way easier to do well in school and in life if you aren't low income, and that's hugely tied to race and immigration status. So quota based hiring gives underrepresented applicants the benefit of the doubt (as well as making sure that different perspectives are represented). DEI is here to offer a leg up to candidate who are historically excluded, whereas white candidates, especially white men, have been offered countless legs up through the ages. Take a look at gender pay gaps.... even in organisations where women equal men in numbers, the majority of the time men make up most of the people who get a bonus. Funny how that happens...

Anyways, in short, I think you're pretty wrong

This requires so much context and I appreciate where you are coming from and would love to have a debate in good faith. I would like to preface this by saying that I hit every single element you mentioned - I am a POC from a low financial bg, neurodiverse woman. While I can see why US DEI should work great in theory it isn't evident in the fact it is outlawed in the UK, but more so the fact that there are historical contexts and social constructs attached to big law. Let me address some of your points:

So quota based hiring gives underrepresented applicants the benefit of the doubt (as well as making sure that different perspectives are represented)

Did you know that quota-based hiring often operates independently of supplementary factors like socioeconomic background? This means that even if someone from a minority background attended private school and had the same advantages as their peers, they may still receive preferential treatment based solely on race or ethnicity. How is that fair?

This issue is particularly contentious in India, where Scheduled Tribes and Castes often have significantly lower cut-offs for education and employment compared to the 'general class,' even when they share the same upbringing and educational experiences. A similar pattern can be observed in the US, as seen in the case of Biden’s former press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre. While diversity and representation are undeniably important, competence remains crucial. Jean-Pierre was widely criticised for her communication skills, with reports highlighting instances where she misled the public and struggled in White House briefings. It was later debunked that her primary qualification for the role was her identity as an LGBTQ+ Black woman. In contrast, her successor, Karoline Leavitt, has been regarded as far more effective in the role.

While promoting diversity is valuable, I hope we can agree that merit and capability should remain at the core of any hiring decision.

DEI is here to offer a leg up to candidate who are historically excluded, whereas white candidates, especially white men, have been offered countless legs up through the ages.

Did you know 94% of corporate jobs since 2020 have gone to poc while white people were underrepresented in new hires by 90%?
This raises an important question—when did creating opportunities for underrepresented groups start translating into actively disadvantaging white talent?

While DEI was designed to increase exposure and access for POC in the workforce, it has, in some cases, led to the unintended consequence of restricting opportunities for white candidates—even in countries where they remain the ethnic majority. While I fully acknowledge the historical context that justified DEI’s introduction, it’s worth considering whether, in practice, it has fostered more racial division rather than less.

Of course, this is my interpretation of the statistic, but I’d be interested in hearing other perspectives.

"Take a look at gender pay gaps.... even in organisations where women equal men in numbers, the majority of the time men make up most of the people who get a bonus."

While this is largely a social issue, the following factors contribute to the disparity: statistically, men are more likely to negotiate salary increases, tend to retire later, and spend more years in the workforce. Additionally, maternity leave presents a long-term cost to companies. This is not to say that bias against women doesn’t exist, but from a business perspective, it becomes clearer why men, on average, receive higher compensation—largely due to their greater overall participation in the workforce.

Also, @Chris Brown, I just saw your comment and want to clarify that I never assumed 'a racial or ethnic minority person must necessarily have weaker credentials' nor did I imply that 'a racial or ethnic minority person would be ‘less likely to thrive in a role’'. I simply provided an example of a situation where there are two kinds of candidates and how DEI is implemented in the US—something that is both practised and factual, not just my opinion.

Secondly, you mentioned, 'Without DEI, I wouldn’t be where I am right now'—same here! I’m incredibly grateful for the DEI processes in the UK, which, in my opinion, are far more balanced than those in the US, as I’ve highlighted. There’s certainly more to discuss on this, but I’ll keep it brief here. Happy to continue the debate in private!

I appreciate this is not the intention of this forum to discuss these so I would love to speak to both of you should you wish in private! 😊

 

[Bread]

I have some controversial opinions on this topic and I’m aware I will probably get cancelled on the TCLA forum after this, but here goes nothing lmao:

1. I don’t believe it’s possible to hire on merit in the US or the UK because there is still a lot of unconscious bias and prejudice against under-represented groups (ethnic minorities, women, lower socioeconomic groups, LGBTQ+, people with disabilities, etc). There isn’t a system of meritocracy in the UK. There is very much still issues of nepotism, elitism, classism, misogyny and racism. These protected characteristics are very visible to recruiters during things like a VI. It’s hard to deny that there is always going to be some form of bias or prejudice towards anyone who visibly looks or sounds diverse. It is virtually impossible to avoid it (unless CV blind recruitment is used e.g., Willkie). 🙂🙂

2. Contextual recruitment is by its very definition taking into account someone’s background. I will use myself as an example. I have spoken about my background previously on the forum. In short, I went to a comp state school, was eligible for free school meals, first gen to go to uni, first to go to a RG and study law and I grew up on and have lived on a council estate in one of the poorest cities in the UK. To suggest someone like myself has equal access to opportunities, when compared to someone who went private school and has connections in the legal profession, is kind of crazy. Without DEI, I wouldn’t be where I am right now. 🥲🥲

3. To assume that a racial or ethnic minority person must necessarily have weaker credentials (professional or academic) is a dangerous assumption, which is the very thing we are highlighting is a risk in light of the DEI situation in the US. I highly doubt people are being recruited solely because of their race or ethnicity, but this is the narrative that is being pushed, to convince people that positive discrimination is taking place against white men. It’s the same narrative that is being pushed against immigrants, that the issues the UK is facing in relation to NHS waitlists, housing shortages, etc. is the fault of people who are migrating to the UK, instead of the government who is in charge (deflection tactic in my opinion). 🥲🥲

4. To assume a racial or ethnic minority person would be ‘less likely to thrive in a role’ is also low-key kind of insane. Historically speaking, it has always been the case that there is a lack of diversity in major professions (in this case city commercial law). Someone who comes from an underrepresented background is just as capable of succeeding as a commercial lawyer in the city compared to someone who comes from an overrepresented background. I don’t believe representation is being ‘forced’, it’s simply about being reflective of the population and the clients international law firms are serving. 🙂🙂

These are my controversial opinions. Please do not cancel me on TCLA. 🥲🥲​

Love you Chris but “the UK is classist and this is not good” isn’t a controversial take at all lmao

 

[Andrei Radu]

@Jessica Booker @Andrei Radu (and anyone please chime in if you can help, even if its only relating to a part of my question!!!!)

I apologize in advance for the long message. I just feel very lost and disheartened at the moment.

I just got rejected following my only AC, and I really dont know what to do anymore. It was my only AC and I'm unsure at all how to move forward , especially as I'm an international student, meaning I wont be able to stay in the UK after I graduate next year, if I dont have anything secured, also due to cost issues.

Would you please be able to give me some advice moving forward? I have a great deal of anxiety that I might not even get to an AC next year, and that this year's was only because 1. I had a mentoring scheme relating to the firm and 2. I had mitigating circumstances for my poor first year grades.

I do not have any open days/ mentoring schemes relating to any other firms, so I'm worried that just like this year, I wont get any ACs for those firms next year either, and the only firm for which I had a lot to speak about, is the one that reject me after the AC. It was also one of the few (non US) firms that didn't use a video interview or the SJT, and I'm notoriously bad at those.

I am also worried that if I fall back on my second year grades, it will make it even more challenging for me to acquire one.

Besides these concerns, I have a few specific questions:

Would u please tell me whether I can apply next year to the same firm, which is Freshfields,given I was rejected at AC stage, and if I do, will I be given any sort of exception to the Watson Glaser test?

I also want to ask whether I can continue using my same personal statement given it allowed me to pass the application stage, and if not, how must I show changes? can I still retain some parts of it?

Am I allowed to apply to the winter vacation scheme? every firm I applied to was for the 2025 summer vacation scheme, and I want to know whether the 2025 winter vacation scheme counts as something in the next cycle? I'm particularly worried because some firms only allow second year students for summer vac schemes.

What can I do to improve my applications next year, and show progress?

Would it be recommended for me to apply to direct TCs next year, or should I stick to vac schemes?

Are there any alternative options I should keep open right now, in the event that I dont manage to secure a 2028 one? I'm thinking along the lines of masters or other legal jobs, like teaching, but I'm not sure how feasible this is? is there anything else I could be looking at?

and just one more thing, would it be silly to maybe respond to the rejection email requesting to be reconsidered for this cycle in case of any drop outs or changes?

I know this is a lot of questions, and I apologise again. As an international student who is under a sort of time pressure , ive been feeling really anxious and like I blew my only chance. Any advice would be appreciated, and I hope this is useful for anyone else in a similar situation!!

Hi @F2020202 I completely understand how disappointed you are feeling right now, but try not to get too disheartened by it. The fact that you have gotten so close to a VS must make it all the more frustrating, but believe me that getting to this stage shows you are an exceptional candidate. While the mentorship scheme may have helped, the simple truth is that Freshfields would not have selected you to progress instead of 95% of other candidates if they were not convinced you were one of the best applicants they had seen. As such, you should see in this undoubtable proof that you have everything it takes to succeed, and that if you give it your best shot in the future you will definitely end up doing it.

On that point, I will try to give you my best advice for the future. I was in a similar situation to you in my first application cycle, but I did not even get past the application stage once. However, I was able to turn it around because I could channel all the negative emotions resulting from rejections to motivate myself to be more committed with my efforts than ever before. To explain what that came down to concretely: first, I started preparing during summer break and ended up making an in depth application writing plan, allocating all of my time for the next few months. Next, I acknowledged the fact that I would need to invest a lot more of my time into this endeavor than I did before, and was now looking at around 20-30 hours per week on average. This enabled me to write a lot more applications and to simultaneously invest a lot more time in each to ensure I had a achieved a high quality end product. Together with an increased amount of time spent going to law firm events, completing Forage experiences, and listening to commercial awareness podcasts, this improved my skills and odds immensely, leading to me ending the cycle with 3 TC offers. This is what I advise you to work on from the beginning of this summer - before that, focus on doing the best that you can in your exams to boost your academic credentials.

Now, to address some of the more pointed questions/issues you raised:

• As an international student you can still legally stay in the UK without sponsorship by getting a graduate visa, so I do not think that you should worry about it too much now.
• You can retain the basic ideas behind your fundamental motivations for commercial law and the firm in the personal statement. However, you should try to write a new one, adding insights and points based on new experiences and research. You should also just aim to improve the quality of your writing even if you do not have many substantive points to add.
• The 2025 winter vacations schemes would be considered next cycle, so you can apply. Just take care to check there is no overlap with term dates.
• Unless you have substantial legal work experience and also the specific firm is know to recruit a substantial percentage of its trainee cohort from this route, I would advise you to stick to the VS applications.
• I would consider the option of applying for paralegal positions, as those can often boost your candidate profile and lead for an easier passage into a TC.
• I think you can respond to the email by indicating your continuing interest in the firm and that you should also ask for feedback. However, I would not explicitly ask to still be considered, as firms normally will just waitlist you themselves if they are willing to do that.

 

[Chris Brown]

Love you Chris but “the UK is classist and this is not good” isn’t a controversial take at all lmao

Love you too Bread, but I figured I have to tread carefully on this forum because I have seen a few instances where certain people have attacked and villainised other forum users over sharing their thoughts. 😂😂​

 

[Chris Brown]

This requires so much context and I appreciate where you are coming from and would love to have a debate in good faith. I would like to preface this by saying that I hit every single element you mentioned - I am a POC from a low financial bg, neurodiverse woman. While I can see why US DEI should work great in theory it isn't evident in the fact it is outlawed in the UK, but more so the fact that there are historical contexts and social constructs attached to big law. Let me address some of your points:


Did you know that quota-based hiring often operates independently of supplementary factors like socioeconomic background? This means that even if someone from a minority background attended private school and had the same advantages as their peers, they may still receive preferential treatment based solely on race or ethnicity. How is that fair?

This issue is particularly contentious in India, where Scheduled Tribes and Castes often have significantly lower cut-offs for education and employment compared to the 'general class,' even when they share the same upbringing and educational experiences. A similar pattern can be observed in the US, as seen in the case of Biden’s former press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre. While diversity and representation are undeniably important, competence remains crucial. Jean-Pierre was widely criticised for her communication skills, with reports highlighting instances where she misled the public and struggled in White House briefings. It was later debunked that her primary qualification for the role was her identity as an LGBTQ+ Black woman. In contrast, her successor, Karoline Leavitt, has been regarded as far more effective in the role.

While promoting diversity is valuable, I hope we can agree that merit and capability should remain at the core of any hiring decision.



Did you know 94% of corporate jobs since 2020 have gone to poc while white people were underrepresented in new hires by 90%?
This raises an important question—when did creating opportunities for underrepresented groups start translating into actively disadvantaging white talent?

While DEI was designed to increase exposure and access for POC in the workforce, it has, in some cases, led to the unintended consequence of restricting opportunities for white candidates—even in countries where they remain the ethnic majority. While I fully acknowledge the historical context that justified DEI’s introduction, it’s worth considering whether, in practice, it has fostered more racial division rather than less.

Of course, this is my interpretation of the statistic, but I’d be interested in hearing other perspectives.

"Take a look at gender pay gaps.... even in organisations where women equal men in numbers, the majority of the time men make up most of the people who get a bonus."

While this is largely a social issue, the following factors contribute to the disparity: statistically, men are more likely to negotiate salary increases, tend to retire later, and spend more years in the workforce. Additionally, maternity leave presents a long-term cost to companies. This is not to say that bias against women doesn’t exist, but from a business perspective, it becomes clearer why men, on average, receive higher compensation—largely due to their greater overall participation in the workforce.

Also, @Chris Brown, I just saw your comment and want to clarify that I never assumed 'a racial or ethnic minority person must necessarily have weaker credentials' nor did I imply that 'a racial or ethnic minority person would be ‘less likely to thrive in a role’'. I simply provided an example of a situation where there are two kinds of candidates and how DEI is implemented in the US—something that is both practised and factual, not just my opinion.

Secondly, you mentioned, 'Without DEI, I wouldn’t be where I am right now'—same here! I’m incredibly grateful for the DEI processes in the UK, which, in my opinion, are far more balanced than those in the US, as I’ve highlighted. There’s certainly more to discuss on this, but I’ll keep it brief here. Happy to continue the debate in private!

I appreciate this is not the intention of this forum to discuss these so I would love to speak to both of you should you wish in private! 😊

I don’t want this to turn into a civil war on the TCLA forum. However, based on what you’ve written, I am under the impression that you acknowledge that without DEI you wouldn’t be where you are now (as a person of colour from a lower socioeconomic background + being neurodiverse), but then simultaneously, you are advocating against DEI practices? The very thing you benefited from, you are now saying it is not fit for purpose? Whilst you might not hold those views yourself, the things you are saying echos the views of people who are anti DEI and anti true meritocracy (which may not even be your intention at all). Please correct me if I have misunderstood because I am very confused right now ngl. 🥲🥲

I agree with your point here: ‘while promoting diversity is valuable, I hope we can agree that merit and capability should remain at the core of any hiring decision’. However, I don’t think anybody here is advocating for the opposite. In contrast, we are highlighting how effectively, we don’t live in a society which promotes meritocracy and hiring purely on the basis of capability and potential. There is, and always has been, bias, prejudice and discrimination against diverse students and candidates for professional job roles. It’s a reality for a lot of us and it’s a shame that there are such widespread misconceptions about DEI. I am also an ethnic minority person of colour and I am neurodiverse, but I am conscious that these issues still exist and would worsen without DEI.

I think this discussion is better to be had on a separate thread though tbh. I’m happy to continue with this conversation but I think this thread is mainly to discuss applications and VS/TC progress. 🙂🙂​

 

[futuretrainee!]

I don’t want this to turn into a civil war on the TCLA forum. However, based on what you’ve written, I am under the impression that you acknowledge that without DEI you wouldn’t be where you are now (as a person of colour from a lower socioeconomic background + being neurodiverse), but then simultaneously, you are advocating against DEI practices? The very thing you benefited from, you are now saying it is not fit for purpose? Whilst you might not hold those views yourself, the things you are saying echos the views of people who are anti DEI and anti true meritocracy (which may not even be your intention at all). Please correct me if I have misunderstood because I am very confused right now ngl. 🥲🥲

I agree with your point here: ‘while promoting diversity is valuable, I hope we can agree that merit and capability should remain at the core of any hiring decision’. However, I don’t think anybody here is advocating for the opposite. In contrary, we are highlighting how effectively, we don’t live in a society which promotes meritocracy and hiring purely on the basis of capability and potential. There is, and always has been, bias, prejudice and discrimination against diverse students and candidates for professional job roles. It’s a reality for a lot of us and it’s a shame that there is such widespread misconception about DEI.​

As I have highlighted in my previous comment, I have grievances with the DEI process in the US which works on affirmative action instead of UK's positive action. Unsure where I advocated for anti-meritocracy as my opinion is merit should always supersede in every hiring decision - while diversity checkboxes are important contextualising details, hiring decisions which prioritise diversity, like the US is flawed and implementing a structure similar to the UK seem more appropriate. Since we 'don't live in a society which promotes meritocracy and hiring purely on the basis of capability and potential' DEI is crucial to the extent it is applied in a supplementary manner, like in the UK.

Hope this is clarifying!