TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26

[TortillaTC]

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

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.

 

[Novaa]

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

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

 

[Deleted member 41929]

Weil AC was actually so chill! 0 bad vibes coming out of it!

 

[Jaysen]

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.

 

[Hopeful applicant]

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

one possibilty is that firms do not give you too much information PRECISELY because it leads to ambiguity.

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.)

 

[JS]

Does anyone have insight into Willkie's WE?

I have some of my own (+ tips for last year's interview) and would be happy to give them in exchange. I also have notes on Hogan Lovells, Skadden and Milbank (fin tech) to offer.

 

[badmintonflyinginsect]

Can someone

one possibilty is that firms do not give you too much information PRECISELY because it leads to ambiguity.

If too much information was shared, it would probably 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.)

i think i agree with all of what you said actually! i've realised i'm being progressed less when i explain my MC vs when i just let my low 2.1 be a low 2.1.

 

[Seandc13]

anyone still waiting on links spring?

I am but also know someone who had an AC last week and was offered a place on the VS

 

[tc2026]

out of interest can I ask why you're curious about dates?

if it's to see when they stop hosting ACs - I can confirm grad rec said they run ACs all the way till the end of Feb.

No worries — I was just wondering how many batches of AC's might still be left and how much notice candidates are usually given in advance, mainly for planning purposes. I hope that makes sense x

 

[jojo23]

any updates from:
Simmons & Simmons
Paul, Weiss
Mishcon de Reya
Sidley Austin
Kirkland & Ellis
White & Case
MoFo
From anyone?

Update and Simmons in the same breath?

 

[Harvey Specter - Presiding Partner]

one possibilty is that firms do not give you too much information PRECISELY because it leads to ambiguity.

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.)

My unprovable conspiracy theory is there is a lot of unconscious bias and prejudice in recruitment till this day. An overwhelming majority of people who progress with US/MC/SC firms come from a very particular demographic that makes up such a tiny proportion of the population.

If these firms said they will only hire XYZ type of candidates it would result in discrimination suits cos its breaching protected characteristics. Like having an ethnic name, being from a certain area or going to a ‘low-ranking uni’, if firms explicitly said we don’t want yous don’t apply = bad for PR.

Oddly enough, two of the firms I have been able to progress with didn’t seem to use any contextual recruitment tools (or at least I can’t remember if I entered the data). Other firms which seem to do a lot of parading around social mobility had outright rejected me (same exact credentials on paper).

So my idea is firms avoid offering feedback cos they’d end up digging their own holes admitting they rejected candidates for arbitrary and unfair reasons. Surely being transparent about what it is you’re after from candidates (e.g., Cleary) will rly make this process much more transparent.​

 

[Bread]

My unprovable conspiracy theory is there is a lot of unconscious bias and prejudice in recruitment till this day. An overwhelming majority of people who progress with US/MC/SC firms come from a very particular demographic that makes up such a tiny proportion of the population.

If these firms said they will only hire XYZ type of candidates it would result in discrimination suits cos its breaching protected characteristics. Like having an ethnic name, being from a certain area or going to a ‘low-ranking uni’, if firms explicitly said we we don’t want this = bad for PR.

Oddly enough, two of the firms I have been able to progress with didn’t seem to use any contextual recruitment tools (or at least I can’t remember if I entered the data). Other firms which seem to do a lot of parading around social mobility had outright rejected me (same exact credentials on paper).

So my idea is firms avoid offering feedback cos they’d end up digging their own holes admitting they rejected candidates for arbitrary and unfair reasons. Surely being transparent about what it is you’re after from candidates (e.g., Cleary) will rly make this process much more transparent.​

I do agree, BUT you also need to check who is applying. Of course there will be an overrepresentation of a particular demographic compared to the overall population because the general population isn’t applying to corporate law

On the other hand, if firms only want top marks from top RG etc I think that’s fair enough, they should just be upfront about it

 

[qaz99]

Congrats! Do you mind me asking when you received a response please? And whether this is for the spring or summer as I am still waiting for a response for spring

In the same boat, no response for 90! days lol

 

[nicoledm]

TLT pfo

 

[tjeya26]

For Shoosmiths, can you apply to both the direct TC and the discover placement in the same cycle? Will that negatively affect my chances?

 

[Rosie_Kitten]

My unprovable conspiracy theory is there is a lot of unconscious bias and prejudice in recruitment till this day. An overwhelming majority of people who progress with US/MC/SC firms come from a very particular demographic that makes up such a tiny proportion of the population.

If these firms said they will only hire XYZ type of candidates it would result in discrimination suits cos its breaching protected characteristics. Like having an ethnic name, being from a certain area or going to a ‘low-ranking uni’, if firms explicitly said we we don’t want this = bad for PR.

Oddly enough, two of the firms I have been able to progress with didn’t seem to use any contextual recruitment tools (or at least I can’t remember if I entered the data). Other firms which seem to do a lot of parading around social mobility had outright rejected me (same exact credentials on paper).

So my idea is firms avoid offering feedback cos they’d end up digging their own holes admitting they rejected candidates for arbitrary and unfair reasons. Surely being transparent about what it is you’re after from candidates (e.g., Cleary) will rly make this process much more transparent.​

I think what you're saying has merit, but just to input it's also blind luck to an extent. For example, I don't think there is necessarily rhyme or reason to most SJTs for example (every firm will prioritise values, and the sliding scales really make no practical sense most of the time) other than being a tool to get rid of a % of applicants at random, knowing that even if they get rid of loads of competent candidates they will still statistically have more than enough left in the pool.

When it comes to VIs, I assume they have different people assessing VIs. There may be checks etc, but in reality there comes human error/human discrepancy when reviewing them r.e. standards and what they think is good/bad. That's the same I guess with applications questions, forms etc.

The WG test is probably the more objective test, but I guess they have to combine it with other measures or they'll still have too big a pool of candidates (especially as people practice it a lot).

I don't want to be downer on anybody, or make anybody feel like it's hopeless, if you improve in quality of applications, interviews etc and you have submitted multiple applications then the odds do improve, and possibilities to showcase your abilities do too. But there is still a luck aspect, especially amoungst a field amoungst super strong super competitive candidates.

 

[Chelsea101]

anyone heard from Perkins Coie?

 

[summersun]

For Shoosmiths, can you apply to both the direct TC and the discover placement in the same cycle? Will that negatively affect my chances?

From what I remember when applying to the placement you also apply to the DTC ? would need to be confirmed though

 

[I’m a celebrity get me out of here - VS/TC edn]

Can someone

i think i agree with all of what you said actually! i've realised i'm being progressed less when i explain my MC vs when i just let my low 2.1 be a low 2.1.

I am soo sorry you have noticed that! That is terrible and a firm should not penalise a candidate for having MC.

 

[FutureLawyer_]

Mishcon invite to SJT!