TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[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!

 

[addy2004]

Morning everyone - if anyone has completed the A&O Shearman test, please can you PM me? I struggled with it last year, and want to understand how I can improve. Thank you

 

[VMS]

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

There was one of these done for 2022/23, likely the divide is still similar: https://www.thecorporatelawacademy....eme-vs-direct-tc-applications-2022-2023.6136/

 

[VMS]

Morning everyone - if anyone has completed the A&O Shearman test, please can you PM me? I struggled with it last year, and want to understand how I can improve. Thank you

I think it's hard for people to advise as firms all seem to be looking for something different. Last year, I passed A&O's but failed Simmons & Simmons' and Withers'. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any kind of correct formulae. I wish you all the best with your application!!

 

[Apple]

Morning everyone - if anyone has completed the A&O Shearman test, please can you PM me? I struggled with it last year, and want to understand how I can improve. Thank you

Just do research on the skills the firm values and keep that in mind while doing it. Beyond the obvious things, like never considering to help a colleague over your own objectives, it really does vary. I passed A&O's but failed others, its tricky.

 

[SoonToBeTrainee]

Does anyone else go to some of these virtual events and get spooked by their 3,000 attendees?

Makes me feel like a grain of sand…
Especially when the standard is so high!

 

[0livia.pope]

Do Slaughter & May not have a winter workshop this year?

 

[l789]

Does anyone else go to some of these virtual events and get spooked by their 3,000 attendees?

Makes me feel like a grain of sand…
Especially when the standard is so high!

Are you referring to the legal cheek fair?

I shortlisted two law firms to sit through, the trainee who was on the panel for the first firm was close to useless - people would be asking him questions and he would literally give the most generic answer of “yes…. There’s also loads of info on our website” to every question, he sounded like he knew nothing about the firm and it was hard to extrapolate any information from that specific law firm.

The second firm I sat through, was slightly better. Grad rec lady was blunt and very straightforward- nonetheless I still managed to get a lot of info from the trainees about their experiences which was great.

I don’t feel intimidated by 3000 people, you’re just as unique and have something to offer as all the other candidates

 

[tinypear]

Sent off my application for BCLP!

 

[addy2004]

Just do research on the skills the firm values and keep that in mind while doing it. Beyond the obvious things, like never considering to help a colleague over your own objectives, it really does vary. I passed A&O's but failed others, its tricky.

Thank you!

 

[Tintin06]

Holding myself accountable (again)

Applications 2024/25

Sidley Austin ✅
Willkie Farr ✅
Skadden ✅

 

[MR218]

Hey guy, I have a query…

I have finally finished my Sidley app for the Winter VS, but am thinking because it’s rolling and quite close to the deadline, it might make more sense to wait for the Spring/Summer VS to open next week.

Is it likely they will change the questions?

Thanks

 

[TrainingContract2024]

has anyone taken the A&O Sherman VI? is it safe to assume that the questions will be one motivational and one competency-based?