I've had two Virtual Assessment Centres this past month, with decent mid-higher echelon firms and the biggest takeaway I had was where are all the guys were at lol. In my group exercise of 12, I was the only guy and in my case study of 6, I was again the only guy. More so, there was only one other POC in both my Assessment Centres. I was wondering whether these are experiences shared by others, or if I am a lone wolf in that regard. Thanks!!
-
Hey Guest, do you have a question for graduate recruitment? Gemma Baker from Willkie is live to answer your questions!
Whats up with the lack of Guys and POC in AC's?
- Thread starter ZumZum
- Start date
Depends on the firm is my genuine view, as I've had both sides of the spectrum.
I can't remember the last AC I attended which wasn't at least 60% female to be honest, which I frankly expect given my law degree was also majority female.
I have been the only BAME, once out of 20 candidates, a few times both at the ACs and then on subsequent Vacation Schemes (only BAME on one out of 12 and 2 out of 15 on one I am on atm) but given my ethnicity is <1% of the population I also expect it to an extent. I found the lack of BAME disconcerting on the first one, given I was in the middle of central London and was the only BAME in a room of 15ish, but overtime I've become fairly used to it as part of the profession. I've just had the candidate list released for another upcoming vacation scheme and circa 50% are BAME which in itself is something I will consider when interviewing for a training contract, then again I'd also be the first person from my background they've hired in years based on their recent diversity figures.
DM me if you're curious about specific firm names as there are general themes repeated across certain firms which I've heard from BAME friends.
I can't remember the last AC I attended which wasn't at least 60% female to be honest, which I frankly expect given my law degree was also majority female.
I have been the only BAME, once out of 20 candidates, a few times both at the ACs and then on subsequent Vacation Schemes (only BAME on one out of 12 and 2 out of 15 on one I am on atm) but given my ethnicity is <1% of the population I also expect it to an extent. I found the lack of BAME disconcerting on the first one, given I was in the middle of central London and was the only BAME in a room of 15ish, but overtime I've become fairly used to it as part of the profession. I've just had the candidate list released for another upcoming vacation scheme and circa 50% are BAME which in itself is something I will consider when interviewing for a training contract, then again I'd also be the first person from my background they've hired in years based on their recent diversity figures.
DM me if you're curious about specific firm names as there are general themes repeated across certain firms which I've heard from BAME friends.
My latest AC (Ropes and Gray) there was only 1 POC out of 20 odd and only 3 females. And everyone was very Oxbridge (and slightly irrelevant but everyone was also very posh). So not sure how successful their CV blind strategy is working lol.
I have found on average most US ACs are much more white and male not sure why. Sidley Austin, Weil, Davis Polk, Skadden etc. And that went up to the partners/associates interviewing too, not just the attendees. Although I I have a friend at W&C and she says they are very 'modern' with their recruitment so they might be better.
Overall ACs at SC and MC, the diversity was much much better.
Depends on the firm. At an AC I attended, there were like 10 guys out of around 15 people on the day. When it came to ‘POC’ (lol I despise that term and BAME), there was 1 East Asian, 2 South Asians and 2 black people (me included) from what I recall. It’s also worth remembering that firms host different ACs so someone else on another day might have had a different experience.
Definitely hate the term BAME and POC but unfortunately they're terms we'll have to live with while we're minorities (I come from Singapore and the concept of POC doesn't exist there).
Most of my experiences have seen predominantly female AC groups - I'd say around 70% female. Skadden had a good number of BAME candidates, and Ashurst seemed fairly diverse as well. As a guy I'm perfectly fine with this. Law needs better gender representation, 120%. And they still have a long way to go.
But take a look at linkedin, and you'll find that several firms only have a largely white-dominant "Future Trainee Solicitor" profiles after hiring exercises, and it's frustrating to see for sure.
So the main problem is that vac schemes seem to be fairly diverse, but that TC hiring rounds at some firms (not all!) seem to be largely white and male, with an additional caveat for Oxbridge qualifications.
And I think it really boils down to the familiarity complex above all else ... I could talk about this for hours, but the legal industry really needs to set radical goals in order to change fast - having 20% BAME diversity goals at trainee level won't do anything if partnership has historically remained at 5% BAME or 15% women for a decade.
I'll quote something that an Asian American writer wrote below which I loved to read. The main point is that anecdotally, I know plenty of highly-qualified Asian lawyers who were unable to break into partnership and sit at that table and thus had to return to their home countries (for those who had originating countries) - much work to be done in the City!
"
By law, a Korean citizen cannot hold dual citizenship. Moments ago, as I listened to her pledge allegiance to the United States of America, I had told myself I would remain a Korean citizen for life. The brainwashing sessions during bootcamp had done their job. But I knew another, perhaps truer, reason for my stubbornness. It was pride: I could not accept being a second-class citizen. Despite all talk, America is the white man's land, and one only has to take a stroll inside The Yale Club on Vanderbilt and 53rd to realise this – if one can get in, of course.
Many of my friends had left America for the same reason.
"How does it feel to be back?" I had asked James last year. We were having breakfast at Bouchon at The Venetian in Las Vegas, where we'd gathered from all over the world for a friend's bachelor party.
"It's nice. I actually had an offer to return to the New York office."
"Are you not going to?"
James had begun his career at a law firm in New York after graduating from Harvard Law. The H-1B visa lottery hadn't worked out for him, and he had been moved to the Singapore office until they could sort out his visa. But after years of working in Asia, he said he no longer felt like returning to New York.
"Sitting at tables where you're the only Asian guy, talking to your white partners at these parties, I always felt out of place. You're the outsider, of course. But in Asia, you can see yourself becoming them some day. You are actually part of the circle."
A few months later, I heard a similar thing from another friend who had begun his investment banking career in Hong Kong. We were at an upscale whiskey bar in Seoul. Somewhere like this in New York would be 90% white, and I'd be nervous inside that the bartender would shaft me to attend to the white jock that just walked in.
"It's nice to be treated well," he spoke with self-assurance, swirling his glass like a man certain of the laws that govern his world. "It matters, more so as you get older."
"How's the Laphroaig?" the bartender stopped to ask, "You're new here – I haven't seen you before," she smiled at me.
Looking back, the heirs of Singapore and Hong Kong, all those real-life Nick Youngs who drove around campus in their convertibles, returned to Asia straight after graduation, and they will only step out from the shadows when their fathers die.""
Most of my experiences have seen predominantly female AC groups - I'd say around 70% female. Skadden had a good number of BAME candidates, and Ashurst seemed fairly diverse as well. As a guy I'm perfectly fine with this. Law needs better gender representation, 120%. And they still have a long way to go.
But take a look at linkedin, and you'll find that several firms only have a largely white-dominant "Future Trainee Solicitor" profiles after hiring exercises, and it's frustrating to see for sure.
So the main problem is that vac schemes seem to be fairly diverse, but that TC hiring rounds at some firms (not all!) seem to be largely white and male, with an additional caveat for Oxbridge qualifications.
And I think it really boils down to the familiarity complex above all else ... I could talk about this for hours, but the legal industry really needs to set radical goals in order to change fast - having 20% BAME diversity goals at trainee level won't do anything if partnership has historically remained at 5% BAME or 15% women for a decade.
I'll quote something that an Asian American writer wrote below which I loved to read. The main point is that anecdotally, I know plenty of highly-qualified Asian lawyers who were unable to break into partnership and sit at that table and thus had to return to their home countries (for those who had originating countries) - much work to be done in the City!
"
By law, a Korean citizen cannot hold dual citizenship. Moments ago, as I listened to her pledge allegiance to the United States of America, I had told myself I would remain a Korean citizen for life. The brainwashing sessions during bootcamp had done their job. But I knew another, perhaps truer, reason for my stubbornness. It was pride: I could not accept being a second-class citizen. Despite all talk, America is the white man's land, and one only has to take a stroll inside The Yale Club on Vanderbilt and 53rd to realise this – if one can get in, of course.
Many of my friends had left America for the same reason.
"How does it feel to be back?" I had asked James last year. We were having breakfast at Bouchon at The Venetian in Las Vegas, where we'd gathered from all over the world for a friend's bachelor party.
"It's nice. I actually had an offer to return to the New York office."
"Are you not going to?"
James had begun his career at a law firm in New York after graduating from Harvard Law. The H-1B visa lottery hadn't worked out for him, and he had been moved to the Singapore office until they could sort out his visa. But after years of working in Asia, he said he no longer felt like returning to New York.
"Sitting at tables where you're the only Asian guy, talking to your white partners at these parties, I always felt out of place. You're the outsider, of course. But in Asia, you can see yourself becoming them some day. You are actually part of the circle."
A few months later, I heard a similar thing from another friend who had begun his investment banking career in Hong Kong. We were at an upscale whiskey bar in Seoul. Somewhere like this in New York would be 90% white, and I'd be nervous inside that the bartender would shaft me to attend to the white jock that just walked in.
"It's nice to be treated well," he spoke with self-assurance, swirling his glass like a man certain of the laws that govern his world. "It matters, more so as you get older."
"How's the Laphroaig?" the bartender stopped to ask, "You're new here – I haven't seen you before," she smiled at me.
Looking back, the heirs of Singapore and Hong Kong, all those real-life Nick Youngs who drove around campus in their convertibles, returned to Asia straight after graduation, and they will only step out from the shadows when their fathers die.""
On the BAME point, I agree it’s been so entrenched that it’s almost impossible to get rid of but my issue is when it is used. If you’re holding an event for ethnic minorities and it’s “BAME with [insert firm] event”, okay then. But when someone is speaking to me, “so as a BAME candidate...” I don’t get it. I’m evidently black because you’re only referring to me. I’m not BAME. Or when I ask you specifically about black people at senior levels and you’re reading me a statistic that it’s 50 BAME associates and after doing my research, one of them is black?
If a company was addressing the issue of hate against Asian communities, I want to get responses targeting that specific group. I don’t want answers mentioning BAME because it is a very broad term. People need to address specific issues without grouping everyone non-white into one category out of laziness.
I also like the quote you included. It’s quite interesting because the perspective can change depending on the country. I feel like a second class citizen here and in my home country for a number of reasons which if I went into, would take up pages😂 but my home country is very anti-women with lots of violence against women and anti-women laws still in place. They actually treat foreigners better lol. Of course, white people are not the majority in the country but there’s still lots of barriers stemming from colourism, tribalism, etc.
Yeah, basically I agree with all you’ve said and wanted to offer another perspective.
As part of a minority group (I don't mind the term applied to myself as there aren't even enough individuals globally who share my ethnicity to fill Emirates Stadium!), I'll add my two cents.
First, remember that one assessment centre group will not be representative of the firm's recruitment process. Unless you have further information, I don't think it best practice to assume that your experience is representative of the other ACs that the firm might run over an application cycle - chance plays a large role in this; also, the smaller the AC group and the more ACs run per cycle, the greater the chance that the group might be more homogenous than one might intuitively expect or hope for.
Second, regarding the 'lack of guys'. Well, if we skip past my explanation in the proceeding paragraph, another explanation is simply that there just so happened to be more female candidates who passed the prior stage of the application process. I think candidates are quick to jump the gun (on either side of the debate) and claim that law firms are racially or positively discriminating based on the gender/ethnicity split of one AC group. I do not wish to comment on whether such discrimination does or does not occur; however, I think it is worth highlighting the intuitive, but often glossed over point, that a central reason, admittedly amongst others, for a candidate getting to the AC stage, is their exceptional ability.
Third, regarding the lack of BAME candidates in ACs. Again, I think my first and second points give some explanation; however, I will say that, in the past, I have had experiences related to commercial law that made me feel, as a person from a minority ethnic background, like I stuck out. Nevertheless, this was not in the context of ACs/VSs - every time I have interviewed at a firm, there has always been a good mix of female, male, BAME and white candidates. What I have noticed, however, is a lack of candidates who are both female and BAME. I am not such an individual, so I cannot make any more of a comment on that, other than that has been my historical observation. I think a greater awareness and sensitivity towards intersectionality would be a most welcome addition to any workplace.
Perhaps a more worrying point, which I am glad Allen & Overy has led the way in addressing, is the 'stay gap' between BAME and white lawyers. This is the statistic that lawyers who identify as BAME often leave their firms earlier than their white counterparts. Such statistics should act as an impetus for change and a more inclusive workplace, and inform better recruitment and training practices. A lot of the dialectic is often constrained to the recruitment level; whilst this is most certainly warranted, I think more emphasis should be placed on the entire ladder, from vacation schemer to partner, if you will.
Anyway, that is a disgustingly verbose 'two cents' - I do apologise!
First, remember that one assessment centre group will not be representative of the firm's recruitment process. Unless you have further information, I don't think it best practice to assume that your experience is representative of the other ACs that the firm might run over an application cycle - chance plays a large role in this; also, the smaller the AC group and the more ACs run per cycle, the greater the chance that the group might be more homogenous than one might intuitively expect or hope for.
Second, regarding the 'lack of guys'. Well, if we skip past my explanation in the proceeding paragraph, another explanation is simply that there just so happened to be more female candidates who passed the prior stage of the application process. I think candidates are quick to jump the gun (on either side of the debate) and claim that law firms are racially or positively discriminating based on the gender/ethnicity split of one AC group. I do not wish to comment on whether such discrimination does or does not occur; however, I think it is worth highlighting the intuitive, but often glossed over point, that a central reason, admittedly amongst others, for a candidate getting to the AC stage, is their exceptional ability.
Third, regarding the lack of BAME candidates in ACs. Again, I think my first and second points give some explanation; however, I will say that, in the past, I have had experiences related to commercial law that made me feel, as a person from a minority ethnic background, like I stuck out. Nevertheless, this was not in the context of ACs/VSs - every time I have interviewed at a firm, there has always been a good mix of female, male, BAME and white candidates. What I have noticed, however, is a lack of candidates who are both female and BAME. I am not such an individual, so I cannot make any more of a comment on that, other than that has been my historical observation. I think a greater awareness and sensitivity towards intersectionality would be a most welcome addition to any workplace.
Perhaps a more worrying point, which I am glad Allen & Overy has led the way in addressing, is the 'stay gap' between BAME and white lawyers. This is the statistic that lawyers who identify as BAME often leave their firms earlier than their white counterparts. Such statistics should act as an impetus for change and a more inclusive workplace, and inform better recruitment and training practices. A lot of the dialectic is often constrained to the recruitment level; whilst this is most certainly warranted, I think more emphasis should be placed on the entire ladder, from vacation schemer to partner, if you will.
Anyway, that is a disgustingly verbose 'two cents' - I do apologise!
100% agree with your point about the 'stay gap'. I feel like lots of firms focus too much on recruitment rather than retention as well.
Of course, I am just a second year law student so have never worked as a lawyer but I've had conversations with various black female associates who have left a firm for another. There have been different reasons - someone I spoke to left simply because the banking practice was way larger than she would have liked so she went to a US firm with a smaller team.
But from a standpoint related to D&I, a lawyer told me about a firm she left because she felt she could not be herself. This was related to hair and how some people at the firm would make it uncomfortably obvious when she had a new hairdo. Obviously, that's just one of many reasons but just thought I'd mention it. I was glad to see Linklaters implement the Halo Code and mention things like cornrows, twists, etc in it (which people tend to see as more unprofessional than black braids, wigs, etc). Type 4 hair is a lot to deal with and as long as someone is performing their work well, it is important that they are not in an environment where they are made to feel hyperaware because they've decided to come in with an afro.
Thanks for sharing your experience, @Dheepa - I second your experiences that diversity at some firms is still a slick PR brochure and that the glaring reality is that there's still so far to go in terms of having people from all backgrounds represented on the leadership panels at these firms. We all have our stories of noticing how glaringly white, Oxbridge and male partnerships can be!
Your post reminded me of this: https://www.rollonfriday.com/news-c...bond-dickinson-roasted-ethnic-diversity-boast
Check it out. It's funny.
Thanks for sharing, @summer207! Definitely a great perspective you've added - that BAME candidates come from all backgrounds, and the spectrum of privilege (whether gender, socio-economic or cultural) still exists. As an international student, talking to folks here about their experiences as British-Asians has always given me insight into how one can feel 'in' but never really 'in'.
Apropos to the idea that BAME candidates shouldn't be grouped together, I've talked to trainees where they felt that "BAME Diversity Groups" were just groups where they lumped together everyone that wasn't white ... it often felt like, in their words, an exercise in otherization, but padded with networking and etc. etc.
A better way do this, as you suggested, would be to have specific groups for specific heritages. I've found that some US firms have this, contrary to MC/SC (someone can correct me if I'm wrong). For instance, Dechert has different groups for AAPI, Black, Latino, South Asian etc. It just makes more sense.
That doesn't mean that BAME diversity groups are bad - don't get me wrong! But what I struggle with is when the feedback from these groups are generally negative, when Grad Rec pushes these groups as the be-all-and-end-all of diversity, when the reality is that diversity committees are often headed up by white men (not that they can't be good allies, but couldn't they put in a female BAME candidate instead?) and that trainee intakes still number 5-9% for BAME candidates!
Of the five assessment centres I attended virtually this year, I found that all bar one had a healthy gender mix (in one I was the only "guy" in a group of ten). That one AC had the best ethnic diversity - the others have been disproportionately white applicants.
Hey all, non-native UK person here. I've always been a bit confused by what BAME actually entails - black, Asian, and minority ethnic is such a wider stroke (which I think is why many people here are criticising the categorisation as well). What are your thoughts on which groups this includes?
For instance, would a (white) person from Eastern Europe count as BAME - they're the ME (minority ethnic) part, no? And by that same logic, would a (white) Western European non-British person count then as well? Because it seems to me that the only real requirement to qualify for being BAME (hence why it might not be the most helpful category) is to not be a white, ethnic English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish person.
Would be great to hear people's views on this!
For instance, would a (white) person from Eastern Europe count as BAME - they're the ME (minority ethnic) part, no? And by that same logic, would a (white) Western European non-British person count then as well? Because it seems to me that the only real requirement to qualify for being BAME (hence why it might not be the most helpful category) is to not be a white, ethnic English / Welsh / Scottish / Northern Irish person.
Would be great to hear people's views on this!
Your logic makes sense to me tbh. In my mind, an individual with a minority ethnic background would be someone who is a part of a group of people who differs in race or colour from the majority of the population in which they live. So, this, in my opinion, would change depending on the country/part of the world you're in hence why the use of the categorisation can be problematic.
So using your example, I think someone from eastern Europe who lives/works/studies in the UK would be a part of the ME part of the acronym for the above reasons and I'm sure we can all think of examples (especially post-Brexit in the UK) of how people with those backgrounds have been discriminated against and been mistreated because of where they are from and not necessarily because of the colour of their skin.
Interestingly, I was speaking to a friend in Chicago in the US about the use of the word BAME and he explained that it isn't really used over there (they much prefer to use the phrase "people/person of colour") so maybe it's just a UK-specific phrase? I'm not 100% sure but would equally be very curious to hear people's thoughts on what I think is a really interesting and important topic
Dheepa
Legendary Member
Staff member
Future Trainee
TCLA Moderator
Premium Member
Forum Team
M&A Bootcamp
Junior Lawyer 43
- Jan 20, 2019
- 852
- 2,158
Your logic makes sense to me tbh. In my mind, an individual with a minority ethnic background would be someone who is a part of a group of people who differs in race or colour from the majority of the population in which they live. So, this, in my opinion, would change depending on the country/part of the world you're in hence why the use of the categorisation can be problematic.
So using your example, I think someone from eastern Europe who lives/works/studies in the UK would be a part of the ME part of the acronym for the above reasons and I'm sure we can all think of examples (especially post-Brexit in the UK) of how people with those backgrounds have been discriminated against and been mistreated because of where they are from and not necessarily because of the colour of their skin.
Interestingly, I was speaking to a friend in Chicago in the US about the use of the word BAME and he explained that it isn't really used over there (they much prefer to use the phrase "people/person of colour") so maybe it's just a UK-specific phrase? I'm not 100% sure but would equally be very curious to hear people's thoughts on what I think is a really interesting and important topic
I agree with Dan here. If the point of BAME groups and general affirmative action initiative is to increase representation than naturally what falls under the ME category depends heavily on who is underrepresented. However, I don't think the criticism being made here is against a broad categorisation of the ME group though. Instead I view it as an issue with the white vs non-white narrative that lumping any and all BAME people into one group creates. The fact of the matter is the issues I face as South Asian is very different from the issues a Black person would face, and likewise is very different from the issues that a person of East Asian descent would face. It's simply not productive to deal with such a broad range of issues purely under one category. Any BAME person can tell you that even within one of those communities there exists a multitude of prejudices/harmful stereotypes against other drastically different ethnic communities, so if the creation of real diversity is the goal then you need to be able to openly address these nuances.
I also have a friend in the US who recently pointed out the same, that POC or increasingly BIPOC (black, indigenous, people of colour) is the term that's used. I think in the US, a lot of it is centred on skin colour because well, the US population in general is heavily made up of white immigrants (from Europe for example) from all over the world. But the fact that someone is say of German descent wouldn't necessarily change the structural privilege they benefit from due to being of a certain skin colour.
I realise I'm saying things many people may not agree with here so please feel free to throw in your two cents as well.
Complete agree with you here Dheepa! So would you say, moving forwards, you would prefer that law firms/professional services firms, in general, should 'categorise' people by their actual ethnicities e.g. East Asian/South Asian//black African/black Caribbean etc. rather than putting people under the BAME umbrella term? Would be that be a more effective way of addressing these nuanced differences in experience that you mention?
Dheepa
Legendary Member
Staff member
Future Trainee
TCLA Moderator
Premium Member
Forum Team
M&A Bootcamp
Junior Lawyer 43
- Jan 20, 2019
- 852
- 2,158
Yup that's what I think would potentially be a better way of doing it. But I'm also not completely blind to how unrealistic it would be to create over 10/15+ different groups for different minority communities. I suppose there is scope to say that if and only if there's enough of a demand in numbers then law firms should allow a more diversified range of groups (with the lawyers taking the lead on creating them). I don't think many firms would go for that approach though because it would make it all the more obvious what gaps in representation exists at their firms (so you'd maybe go from a 45% BAME associates to a 8% Black Associates, 20% East Asian associates etc. - figures here purely made up to illustrate the point) and why draw attention to that when you'd get more good press from the current system. Its a difficult one with no clear solution but if I ever make it high enough at a firm, I'm definitely going to be campaigning for it haha. 😅
I also want to add that the flip side to the point I'm making here is that its also unproductive to have conversations purely with people of your own background. Real change only happens if people outside your community see your perspective and choose to speak out so I think ensuring allies feel more than welcome to join these networks is extremely important.
Completely agree with this.
I remember in the summer, in the midst of Black Lives Matter, a Sky news reporter asked Matt Hancock how many black people worked in Parliament. His response was that we have many “BAME” workers, which many can agree does not answer the question. Similarly, some firms may not want to highlight and break down their stats of BAME because it will reinforce a clear lack of representation.
I’m hoping one firm can take lead and others will follow. For example, as someone already mentioned, Linklaters Halo Code is a great step in the right direction for creating a more inclusive workspace for black women. Perhaps other firms will follow, adopt a similar approach and recognise it makes business sense to go further in their diversity initiatives.
Totally agree, which is why it's so great we can have conversations so openly! Equally, I think it's hugely important that someone like me (i.e. white British male) calls out any of these unconscious biases/micro-aggressions etc when we see them in person to prevent them from happening. There's clear incontrovertible evidence (I remember reading a really interesting article in the Harvard Business Review that finally proved this beyond all doubt) that a diverse workforce leads to greater business performance which will hopefully lead to things changing (sadly that's the most important thing to companies but now that's been recently proved I'm more optimistic) so hopefully, our generation will be the ones to drive this forwards and improve things longterm
Yeah just to add to other initiatives, my firm Gibson Dunn is really prioritising this it seems and the London office has recently introduced a number of sub-committees to focus more exclusively on the needs of the various cultures and therefore experiences at the firm so hopefully other firms also take similar measures!Completely agree with this.
I remember in the summer, in the midst of Black Lives Matter, a Sky news reporter asked Matt Hancock how many black people worked in Parliament. His response was that we have many “BAME” workers, which many can agree does not answer the question. Similarly, some firms may not want to highlight and break down their stats of BAME because it will reinforce a clear lack of representation.
I’m hoping one firm can take lead and others will follow. For example, as someone already mentioned, Linklaters Halo Code is a great step in the right direction for creating a more inclusive workspace for black women. Perhaps other firms will follow, adopt a similar approach and recognise it makes business sense to go further in their diversity initiatives.
Jessica Booker
Legendary Member
TCLA Moderator
Gold Member
Graduate Recruitment
Premium Member
Forum Team
- Aug 1, 2019
- 14,394
- 20,072
On average, about 70% of applications are from women. And I hate to say this, but women are known to be better in recruitment processes than men (lots of evidence out there to show that).
As for the POC, point, your sample size is a bit small to make any clear conclusions from it. Generally POC are over represented in application numbers and hires compared to national and graduate averages. Maybe that particular firm is just not as great as attracting (or recruiting) POC? Certain firms will be far less likely to do this, especially if the role was outside of a major city like London, Birmingham or Manchester.
