TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[trainee4u]

King & Spalding training contract AC!!!! Does anyone know what the application process is? im trying to determine if its worth it or not cuz im doing my year abroad and they want me to come to their London office next week

It's sometimes possible to do this remotely, but less likely for smaller cohorts. You can ask though.

 

[Kakaboo]

WBD PFO… my scores were 9.8.8.8 and I got highest and highest. Not really sure what else I could of done there haha

 

[User5678]

WBD PFO… my scores were 9.8.8.8 and I got highest and highest. Not really sure what else I could of done there haha

Yes I’m in a similar boat, I don’t even feel bad at this point😂 nothing more I could genuinely score and I have a lot of legal and non legal work experience :/

 

[BobThebIlly]

Guys does anyone know what the “offer an interview” scheme means? Does it mean that you will be guaranteed an interview and does it apply to vac schemes or is it just for TCs?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Jessica Booker]

The partner interview is discrimination and the best way to get an offer is to have a partner like you.

It becomes a lottery based on who your interviewer is and how they perceive you. There is nothing fair or objective about it.

I don’t think it’s productive to state a whole group of people as being discriminatory, just as it wouldn’t be productive to assume all of them are not. Partners are not a homogenous group.

Good interviewers (no matter what their job title or seniority) will be able to put their conscious or even unconscious biases aside. Many employers ensure there is interviewer training to help support this, but also I have seen people pulled off of interview panels because they have continued to show behaviours that are not fair/consistent.

Any process heavily reliant on humans will never be perfect (unfortunately) but many employers will put significant effort and reviews in place to ensure discrimination does not happen, not just for the integrity of the recruitment process, but put honestly, also out of fear of the financial and PR ramifications if they are found to be so, not only the direct costs of a tribunal but also the indirect costs of potentially losing clients off the back of it.

 

[Chris Brown]

Guys does anyone know what the “offer an interview” scheme means? Does it mean that you will be guaranteed an interview and does it apply to vac schemes or is it just for TCs?

Thanks in advance!

Is this the disability confident scheme? I think SH and TS are signatories. If you meet their minimum entry criteria (grades, application screening, test scores), you are guaranteed an interview. You have to opt in though by ticking the box. I think it’s for both VS and TC. I think there may be higher entry criteria for DTC though. 🙂​

 

[trainee4u]

Guys does anyone know what the “offer an interview” scheme means? Does it mean that you will be guaranteed an interview and does it apply to vac schemes or is it just for TCs?

Thanks in advance!

Typically, no, it doesn't at all.

1. it's not a legally binding obligation
2. it's subject to meeting the "minimum criteria", which they will never disclose.

I have ticked the box, and not been offered an interview.

While it certainly appears to imply that you have an increased chance of an interview, whether this is the case, in the absence of any statutory oversight, FOI, etc. nobody can be sure.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Define ‘people skills’ then?

To name a few:

Verbal communication skills
Self awareness
Emotional intelligence
Being able to read a room and the people in it
Collaboration
A willingness to learn from others
A willingness to impart your knowledge on others
Active listening
Negotiation
Flexibility/adaptability
Patience
Assertiveness/confidence

 

[billyonthespeeddial]

The partner interview is discrimination and the best way to get an offer is to have a partner like you.

It becomes a lottery based on who your interviewer is and how they perceive you. There is nothing fair or objective about it.

I think everyone's already explained why this kind of thinking isn't entirely correct. I just want to add that, even if there may be an element of prejudice to every interview, the Graduate Recruitment Team is just as likely to dislike an individual. So your argument would basically lead to a system where firms don't interview before hiring.

I'd also like to say that I understand your frustration. There has been a few times when I have felt that a member of a firm did not like something about me which was a core part of my identity, which was not a flaw and not something I could change. But most lawyers are not like this.

 

[Ash4202]

White & Case summer VS!!! genuinely in shock rn

 

[trainee4u]

Define ‘people skills’ then?

I asked ChatGPT about your reply:

The reply "Define 'people skills' then?" doesn’t demonstrate great people skills. While it raises a relevant question about clarifying the term, its tone might come across as abrupt or dismissive, depending on the context.
Good people skills involve effective communication, empathy, and the ability to maintain a positive interaction—even in a debate. A more thoughtful reply might look like this:
"That's an interesting point. Could you elaborate on what specific traits or behaviors you mean by 'people skills'? It'd be helpful to have a clearer definition."
This approach fosters collaboration and shows a willingness to engage constructively while asking for clarification. If you're writing on a forum, tone and wording can make all the difference in building rapport and demonstrating people skills. Would you like help crafting a reply?

I don't particularly agree with its analysis in that my perspective would be that the definition of "people skills" is easily accessible via Google, and it would ultimately demonstrate better people skills to go away and read that and then perhaps come back with a more specific reply that demonstrates that you have done research, which is more respectful of other people, who don't then need to answer questions that have textbook answers.

There are different issues that could be at play.

* It's definitely understandable that if you have been a member of this forum for three years that you might be getting frustrated at the recruitment process, and it's understandable that you would express that
* We know that some people might be very good at law but perhaps struggle with people skills, and there might be specific roles where those people would thrive.
* However it appears to me that your responses lack the necessary self-reflection that will help you to achieve your goals.

This is not intended as a personal attack on you or anything: I understand that I, personally, have not got a TC, and likewise do not *deserve* a TC, because I have failed personally to achieve and put in the work at all the necessary stages to achieve that goal.

I can also see perhaps that my skills might work better in different areas than others, giving me a better chance following certain routes to get a TC than others, and ultimately my perspective is that this a *me* problem, in that I am selling something (myself) and just need to find a buyer. If I'm not marketable, my question is why. And so far I've found answers about where I can improve. And that's motivating for me because I can see the necessary steps to do that, including for example attempting to mask a tendency to apply in ways abruptly or defensively.

The problem from my perspective (and I assume other forum readers) is that your posts appear not to demonstrate the process of analysis and reflection that I would personally want to follow before making conclusions such as those that you have made.

OTOH this is only a forum on the internet and it's valid to make lighthearted posts or those not intended entirely seriously, so to the extent that I or you are letting off steam then it might be best to withdraw from subsequent discussions rather than attempt to defend a perhaps ill-considered or lighthearted first post.

 

[charleyemmett]

has anyone just gotten an email from Howard Kennedy to do the rare recruitment form?

I also received this. I have just now completed this information. Have you received an email to complete the test yet?

 

[YW113380]

Has anyone had an interview end very quickly? The interview was scheduled for an hour but only lasted for about 30 minutes which was a bit disheartening

 

[User5678]

I also received this. I have just now completed this information. Have you received an email to complete the test yet?

Hi, nope not received the test yet. I think it is the second stage so not automatic and they will review applications first. Hopefully we get it soon 🤞🏻

 

[James Wakefield]

Has anyone had an interview end very quickly? The interview was scheduled for an hour but only lasted for about 30 minutes which was a bit disheartening

I got a VS last year and my AC interview was scheduled for 50 minutes, and didn’t last more than 30.

 

[BobThebIlly]

Typically, no, it doesn't at all.

1. it's not a legally binding obligation
2. it's subject to meeting the "minimum criteria", which they will never disclose.

I have ticked the box, and not been offered an interview.

While it certainly appears to imply that you have an increased chance of an interview, whether this is the case, in the absence of any statutory oversight, FOI, etc. nobody can be sure.

Thanks for letting me know!

I also ticked the box for SH's VS and haven't heard anything back. It's a shame they don't offer more information on how the scheme works within their recruitment process

Good luck though! I hope we both hear some good news

 

[weupin2025]

Has anyone had an interview end very quickly? The interview was scheduled for an hour but only lasted for about 30 minutes which was a bit disheartening

happened to me and i got a place

 

[User5678]

Has anyone had an interview end very quickly? The interview was scheduled for an hour but only lasted for about 30 minutes which was a bit disheartening

Don’t think too much into it. They mostly have a set number of questions they need to ask. Most of my interviews have lasted less than the scheduled time they mention and I’ve gotten through many of them.

 

[aphelion]

Has anyone had an interview end very quickly? The interview was scheduled for an hour but only lasted for about 30 minutes which was a bit disheartening

At one of my ACs there were four of us and I was the first one out of the interview by a mile - I'd say by 15 mins or so - and I got a VS offer. Don't overthink it - especially if you talk fast like I do!!!

 

[broalabear]

Hiya @broalabear


Just wanted to add to what @Amma Usman has already said. Hoping this makes sense as an explanation for what you should try to do during the assumption section of the WG. Good news is that you're right that this proposed assumption is assumed by the main claim.

An assumption is a statement that the writer/speaker takes for granted in order for another claim to make sense. It’s not stated directly, but it’s essential for the logic of the main claim to hold up. If the proposed assumption turned out to be false, then the main claim/argument would either collapse or at least become much weaker.

One useful way to test whether a statement is an assumption is to imagine what would happen if that proposed assumption were false. I call this the 'negation test'. Ask yourself: if this proposed assumption were false, would the main claim/argument still work? If the answer is no (e.g. if the main claim/argument falls apart), then the proposed assumption IS assumed. If the main statement/argument still works fine, then it’s probably not an assumption.

Let’s take the example you've provided here:

1. Main claim: "For humankind to survive, it must colonise other planets."
   
   
2. Proposed assumption: "There will be a time when the Earth can no longer sustain human life."

Now try negating the proposed assumption. Imagine that the Earth will always be able to sustain humankind. If that were true, then would we need to colonise other planets to survive (remember, this is what's being claimed in (1))? Doesn't look like it. Thus, the main claim is significantly weakened/no longer makes sense if we don't accept the proposed assumption.

This method works well in general: take the proposed assumption you're testing, imagine it's false, and see what happens to the main argument/claim. If the whole thing unravels, you've found an assumption. If the argument/claim still stands, then the proposed assumption is very likely not an assumed.

Let me know if you’d like to more examples or if this doesn't make sense.

This makes perfect sense and is very helpful - Thank you so very much!