TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[Jessica Booker]

@Jessica Booker, on Skadden's application form it states 'Tell us about your interests and inspirations outside of education/work'. I'm unsure as to whether I can talk about my pro bono volunteering here? It was through my university's Pro Bono Society so technically linked to education and was volunteer work so also technically work, but it wasn't a full-time or even part-time role. Is there any chance you could let me know what you think? Thank you in advance.

It has been mentioned earlier in this thread that this is no longer asked on the Skadden application. Is this definitly something you can see on their current application form?

Pro-bono would count though as it is not a part of your degree and volunteer work will be different to working.

 

[VMS]

It has been mentioned earlier in this thread that this is no longer asked on the Skadden application. Is this definitly something you can see on their current application form?

Pro-bono would count though as it is not a part of your degree and volunteer work will be different to working.

Yes, it's definitely on the application form. Thank you!

 

[lawyersum]

Hmmm... most people applying to them won't have a letter. I would either try and put in N/A if that is allowed or " - " if only one digit is allowed. If it still needs a letter then maybe put X.

Thanks for this advice. I might also check with Grad Rec just to be sure

 

[latome19]

not sure. The creator of the law app review tool (good tool btw). He emailed me asking whether I received an interview from Sidley, saying that people who used the tool had gotten interviews for the winter vac scheme; maybe he's lying to create a buzz I don't know🤷🏽‍♂️

I think I received a message on here from the same person some time ago. I had a look at this application he created and suggested using, and I got a bit alarmed that it might a clever way of collecting as many (successful) applications as possible for potentially commercial purposes. I was actually wondering @Jessica Booker if the TCLA administration is aware of this person messaging people and what your thoughts on their application are? But maybe I’m just being a bit too alarmist …

 

[S87]

I think I received a message on here from the same person some time ago. I had a look at this application he created and suggested using, and I got a bit alarmed that it might a clever way of collecting as many (successful) applications as possible for potentially commercial purposes. I was actually wondering @Jessica Booker if the TCLA administration is aware of this person messaging people and what your thoughts on their application are? But maybe I’m just being a bit too alarmist …

It has commercial purposes and I know who you are referring to.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Found this on the University of Northampton website (I don't go here just found it for reference)- should I go by this criteria? @Jessica Booker

No - just because one university uses this, does not mean other universities do.

 

[Jessica Booker]

I think I received a message on here from the same person some time ago. I had a look at this application he created and suggested using, and I got a bit alarmed that it might a clever way of collecting as many (successful) applications as possible for potentially commercial purposes. I was actually wondering @Jessica Booker if the TCLA administration is aware of this person messaging people and what your thoughts on their application are? But maybe I’m just being a bit too alarmist …

Hi there - please can you private message me with details of who messaged you as we will need to look into this.

 

[Mentally and Physically Exhausted Applicant]

Has anyone heard back form the following: Slaughter and May TC, White and Case TC, Paul Hastings TC?

 

[dollydaydream]

not sure. The creator of the law app review tool (good tool btw). He emailed me asking whether I received an interview from Sidley, saying that people who used the tool had gotten interviews for the winter vac scheme; maybe he's lying to create a buzz I don't know🤷🏽‍♂️

strange! The plot thickens. Thanks anyway

 

[Jessica Booker]

Question for anyone regarding applicaitons. Last year I advanced through the first application stage of a few firms but failed later at the video interview. One of the firms this year that I want to re-apply to is using the exact same questions in their applicaiton as last cycle. I don't want to copy and paste answers to seem lazy, but at the same time I do not want to change a successful answer, hurting my chances of getting into the next round. Any tips on the best approach would be amazing @Jessica Booker

Always try to update and refine your application answers - you'll want to use more modern examples where you can or show more recent evidence of pursuing the career. I also don't think you can assume a successful application last year would be successful this year.

A lot of your application may still have the same themes/content, but I would always try to update it where you can. I suspect if reviewed with a fresh pair of eyes you will find either mistakes or think there are better ways to word the same things you have said in an earlier application.

 

[Interested_In_Law]

Bit confused about one Watson Glaser question and wondering if someone could help. The question was an interpretation question on the lawyer portal, stating:

"Everyone who suffers with depression also experiences some type of personal battle. For example, Chloe’s dog passed away while Jamie lost his job."

"Jamie lost his job because of his depression." Correct answer is 'conclusion follows'. The logic given in the explanation "conclusion follows because it states that depression leads to personal problems, which for Jamie was losing his job.

But surely, it is not possible to believe beyond reasonable doubt that the depression is because of the lost job, when it could also be true that the lost job caused the depression. In fact, if we were to strictly follow according the answer's logic of depression causing these personal problems, then surely the death of Chloe's dog was because Chloe was depressed? Which makes no sense at all...

 

[adrk1234]

Always try to update and refine your application answers - you'll want to use more modern examples where you can or show more recent evidence of pursuing the career. I also don't think you can assume a successful application last year would be successful this year.

A lot of your application may still have the same themes/content, but I would always try to update it where you can. I suspect if reviewed with a fresh pair of eyes you will find either mistakes or think there are better ways to word the same things you have said in an earlier application.

Amazing thank you so much

 

[Jessica Booker]

Bit confused about one Watson Glaser question and wondering if someone could help. The question was an interpretation question on the lawyer portal, stating:

"Everyone who suffers with depression also experiences some type of personal battle. For example, Chloe’s dog passed away while Jamie lost his job."

"Jamie lost his job because of his depression." Correct answer is 'conclusion follows'. The logic given in the explanation "conclusion follows because it states that depression leads to personal problems, which for Jamie was losing his job.

But surely, it is not possible to believe beyond reasonable doubt that the depression is because of the lost job, when it could also be true that the lost job caused the depression. In fact, if we were to strictly follow according the answer's logic of depression causing these personal problems, then surely the death of Chloe's dog was because Chloe was depressed? Which makes no sense at all...

I agree with you - I think this is a mistake.

I am rubbish at these assessments, but even I think this is clearly wrong. It does not state that depression leads to personal problems, to me it just says in conjuction with the depression there is a personal battle. And as you have highlighed, the depression would not have necessarily caused Chloe's dog to die.

 

[evianmineral]

Bit confused about one Watson Glaser question and wondering if someone could help. The question was an interpretation question on the lawyer portal, stating:

"Everyone who suffers with depression also experiences some type of personal battle. For example, Chloe’s dog passed away while Jamie lost his job."

"Jamie lost his job because of his depression." Correct answer is 'conclusion follows'. The logic given in the explanation "conclusion follows because it states that depression leads to personal problems, which for Jamie was losing his job.

But surely, it is not possible to believe beyond reasonable doubt that the depression is because of the lost job, when it could also be true that the lost job caused the depression. In fact, if we were to strictly follow according the answer's logic of depression causing these personal problems, then surely the death of Chloe's dog was because Chloe was depressed? Which makes no sense at all...

Agree w/ Jessica above - could easily be a mistake - these tests are so rubbish imo.

However using the twisted logic of WGss, it could follow.

So obviously, you're supposed to only take what the WG as fact - no outside knowledge.

Everyone who suffers with depression also experiences some type of personal battle.

So depression also = personal battle

If someone has depression, they will also subsequently experience a personal battle.

This means that Jamie losing his job, (just based on the text provided), WAS caused by his depression. Because everybody who has depression also experiences a personal battle.

Based on the text, you need to be depressed to experience a personal battle, so that's why it follows that the depression caused the battle.

And yes Chloe's dog would die because of her depression - the logic follows it doesn't have to actually make sense.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Agree w/ Jessica above - could easily be a mistake - these tests are so rubbish imo.

However using the twisted logic of WGss, it could follow.

So obviously, you're supposed to only take what the WG as fact - no outside knowledge.


So depression also = personal battle

If someone has depression, they will also subsequently experience a personal battle.

This means that Jamie losing his job, (just based on the text provided), WAS caused by his depression. Because everybody who has depression also experiences a personal battle.

Based on the text, you need to be depressed to experience a personal battle, so that's why it follows that the depression caused the battle.

And yes Chloe's dog would die because of her depression - the logic follows it doesn't have to actually make sense.

This is why I am rubbish at these tests.... I go with practical logic rather than verbal logic

 

[SamiyaJ]

Can anyone please PM me the video questions asked for AO Shearman WVS? Thanks!

 

[latome19]

Bit confused about one Watson Glaser question and wondering if someone could help. The question was an interpretation question on the lawyer portal, stating:

"Everyone who suffers with depression also experiences some type of personal battle. For example, Chloe’s dog passed away while Jamie lost his job."

"Jamie lost his job because of his depression." Correct answer is 'conclusion follows'. The logic given in the explanation "conclusion follows because it states that depression leads to personal problems, which for Jamie was losing his job.

But surely, it is not possible to believe beyond reasonable doubt that the depression is because of the lost job, when it could also be true that the lost job caused the depression. In fact, if we were to strictly follow according the answer's logic of depression causing these personal problems, then surely the death of Chloe's dog was because Chloe was depressed? Which makes no sense at all...

If I recall correctly, WG has two different sections that employ the same question stem (‘conclusion follows’) - interpretation and deduction. In deduction, you are constrained by a stricter version of WG’s rules of formal logic and, there is a presumption that it doesn’t matter whether a statement given actually makes sense in real life. The example given here - about Chloe - draws no causal relationship, so it could not be used as a counter-example against the conclusion itself. Therefore, the causal statement in the conclusion is just a rephrasing of the premise, which basically collides two groups of people. You can also think of WG’s deduction as a very simplified version of LSAT’s inferences, but in WG the logic patterns are so simplified that, as this question reveals, intersection and cause/effect are basically the same thing. I hope this helps.

 

[Interested_In_Law]

Agree w/ Jessica above - could easily be a mistake - these tests are so rubbish imo.

However using the twisted logic of WGss, it could follow.

So obviously, you're supposed to only take what the WG as fact - no outside knowledge.


So depression also = personal battle

If someone has depression, they will also subsequently experience a personal battle.

This means that Jamie losing his job, (just based on the text provided), WAS caused by his depression. Because everybody who has depression also experiences a personal battle.

Based on the text, you need to be depressed to experience a personal battle, so that's why it follows that the depression caused the battle.

And yes Chloe's dog would die because of her depression - the logic follows it doesn't have to actually make sense.

If I recall correctly, WG has two different sections that employ the same question stem (‘conclusion follows’) - interpretation and deduction. In deduction, you are constrained by a stricter version of WG’s rules of formal logic and, there is a presumption that it doesn’t matter whether a statement given actually makes sense in real life. The example given here - about Chloe - draws no causal relationship, so it could not be used as a counter-example against the conclusion itself. Therefore, the causal statement in the conclusion is just a rephrasing of the premise, which basically collides two groups of people. You can also think of WG’s deduction as a very simplified version of LSAT’s inferences, but in WG the logic patterns are so simplified that, as this question reveals, intersection and cause/effect are basically the same thing. I hope this helps.

Yeah I suppose that makes sense. I guess if you simply consider depression as equal to personal battles then you could say the conclusion of the statement does follow beyond reasonable doubt, even if we can't confirm whether it's true (because one could be cause or result of the other), and even if the other example given doesn't make practical sense. I think I got being true and practically reasonable and the conclusion logically following confused.

 

[s9111]

Very specific issue but is anyone else's AllHires portals only letting them enter a maximum number of 1 week in the work experience section? Have tried on a different browser, restarted my laptop, done everything that I can think of.

 

[gazdgazd11]

Hi, do we have data on what firms mostly recruit from VS/what firms recruit equally direct TC and VS? Thanks!