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.)