Same boat but for DTC
Edit - I remember last year both of us applied on time and made it to interview😭😭😭idk why I remember your username and having a chat w u
Last edited:
-
Hey Guest, Have an interview coming up? We’ve opened new mock interview slots this week. Book here
-
TCLA Premium: Now half price (£30/month). Applications, interviews, commercial awareness + 700+ examples.Join →
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26
- Thread starter Ram Sabaratnam
- Start date
Edit - I remember last year both of us applied on time and made it to interview😭😭😭idk why I remember your username and having a chat w u
anyone know when HSF start giving out acs for summer vs
Has ANYONE received VI for White & Case summer and AC for HSFK Summer?
Just to add my 2 cents, I think law firms generally not providing individual feedback if you don’t make it to an ac is very insane. If say for example someone has a strong app but their grades are the reason for the pfo or if it’s the opposite, why can’t grad rec just say that? That way the candidate can be more strategic about where they have an actual chance rather than blindly sending out so many time consuming applications. Instead of being honest they encourage people to apply again and miraculously ‘improve’ with zero feedback whatsoever. If they expect candidates to draft so many essay questions and cover letters, the least they can do is highlight where the candidates went wrong. Idk if that makes me sound entitled but it’s just common decency imo
anyone still waiting on links spring?
Hi has anyone heard back from RPC, Freshfields and Reed post VI/wg? I see a few AC and VS offers. PFO guaranteed?
Hello!
Great question - this thread from last cycle might be a useful starting point! It could be slightly outdated, but shows a good idea of where firms tend to recruit from
Bates Wells PFO
I applied on mid-October.
Got a first round invite email in late December.
Did my first round in the 2nd week of January.
I'm still waiting to hear back.
I applied to Gibson Dunn's TC. I think I'm cooked, but hey.. I see Travers Smith on the list too but they're still considering 2027 TC this cycle, hopefully it's not accurate. A&P too 🥲Hello!
Great question - this thread from last cycle might be a useful starting point! It could be slightly outdated, but shows a good idea of where firms tend to recruit from
Anyone else still not heard back from Cleary post WG? I took it on 18th dec...
Completely agree with this. I’ve never sat an exam and not been told how I’ve performed until I started this recruitment cycle. It’s wild we don’t get our scores automatically.
Rejected from Milbank post stage 1 🥀🥀🥀
Agreed 100%. Firms are dishonest because if for example, they declared that they wanted a high 2:1 or First, they might miss out on an otherwise genius candidate that got a 2:2 or low 2:1 for whatever reason. And they don’t want to risk that, so they just state a general 2:1 requirement when they very well know that 90% of their successful applicants will have a high 2:1 or First. (Hypothetical numbers obviously, not saying that any specific firm operates exactly like this)
Basically, they want all the benefits but none of the risks.
It’s actually crazy how firms assess candidates on what they think the biggest challenges facing the legal industry are, when one of those challenges is constantly discussed right here on this forum.
Applicants are clearly yearning for change. There is a wider issue around transparency in recruitment that isn’t being addressed.
Partners shouldn’t be telling us that a huge part of the process is “luck” while, at the same time, firms withhold information that could help applicants understand their chances such as whether grades or application quality were the issue, as you’ve mentioned.
Especially when, in just the last week, there have been multiple posts questioning whether the following impact application outcomes:
• Age
• Neurodiversity
• Grades
• University choice
Weil AC was actually so chill! 0 bad vibes coming out of it!
- Feb 17, 2018
- 4,900
- 9,362
Just to weigh in on the other side, I don't think it's unreasonable for law firms not to provide feedback at the application stage. This is quite normal for companies.
I do appreciate it's very frustrating for applicants, and I can completely see why. You spend so much time working on your applications and going through the tests. Equally, from the side of a business, it's more time (with a small team) on people a firm has decided not to progress. There would need to be some type of reason to provide feedback (e.g. if you feel the person is likely to reapply with a stronger application or just slightly missed the mark.)
I know it can feel like it's just one more thing they need to do. But each of those emails invites a lot more queries, especially given the volume of applications they receive. People who get rejected are also more likely not to take the feedback on graciously (as is the nature of feedback), which is why it is often generalised.
I say that as someone that used to hate the feedback I used to receive. But it is also easier to see the other side now.
I do appreciate it's very frustrating for applicants, and I can completely see why. You spend so much time working on your applications and going through the tests. Equally, from the side of a business, it's more time (with a small team) on people a firm has decided not to progress. There would need to be some type of reason to provide feedback (e.g. if you feel the person is likely to reapply with a stronger application or just slightly missed the mark.)
I know it can feel like it's just one more thing they need to do. But each of those emails invites a lot more queries, especially given the volume of applications they receive. People who get rejected are also more likely not to take the feedback on graciously (as is the nature of feedback), which is why it is often generalised.
I say that as someone that used to hate the feedback I used to receive. But it is also easier to see the other side now.
one possibilty is that firms do not give you too much information PRECISELY because it leads to ambiguity.It’s actually crazy how firms assess candidates on what they think the biggest challenges facing the legal industry are, when one of those challenges is constantly discussed right here on this forum.
Applicants are clearly yearning for change. There is a wider issue around transparency in recruitment that isn’t being addressed.
Partners shouldn’t be telling us that a huge part of the process is “luck” while, at the same time, firms withhold information that could help applicants understand their chances such as whether grades or application quality were the issue, as you’ve mentioned.
Especially when, in just the last week, there have been multiple posts questioning whether the following impact application outcomes:
• Age
• Neurodiversity
• Grades
• University choice
If too much information was shared, it could turn out that they are to some extent arbitrary, or worse - biased, or worse - biased, based on some protected characteristics.
In fairness, some of those conclusions could be unfounded (the process is holistic to an extent so with two people with the same score, one could be admitted because they excelled in other areas, while the other could be rejected because other areas were just fine.)
Similar threads
- Sticky
