TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26

[8law]

Yes, someone emailed and got a response - early Feb.

thanks !

 

[solicitor_2028]

just wondering how you guys keep track of commercial news and more so retain it effectively. for instance, those who have a watsons daily subscription, how do you guys make the most of it? I try to read it on and off but I don't think that's as effective as I do not retain everything I read. any tips would be appreciated!

 

[xMontmorency]

just wondering how you guys keep track of commercial news and more so retain it effectively. for instance, those who have a watsons daily subscription, how do you guys make the most of it? I try to read it on and off but I don't think that's as effective as I do not retain everything I read. any tips would be appreciated!

Read more. Write notes. Then read even more.

 

[trainee4u]

I've done neuroshight twice now.

First time: You are good at adaptability and proactivity, weak at conscientiousness
Second time: You are good at drive and relationship builder, weak at growth mindset

 

[Maria56]

I am actually so done with Amberjack, felt so confident about my MDR test only to get 6,3,3,7 on the pillars. I always get high verbal and numerical intellect in all of these but why is it impossible for me to get these pillars right m

The same exact result, I really tried to think loads this time asw as I really like MDR..I get higher results when I don’t actually try to guess what the test wants, just a shame

 

[Novaa]

Can I just confirm that MDR SJT is 100% cameras off? I’m in my comfiest state rn… and tbh I can’t deal with a “_______ would like to access your camera and microphone” pop-up window

Edit: Whoever you are, thank you! - Lois Griffin

Edit 2: Wait but fr thank you guys cause LOL

 

[ACHat8r]

Of course scenario based interviews are ideal, just unfeasible to conduct on the scale of applications. Even using junior associates, let alone partners, is impossible until the candidates are filtered from thousands to a couple hundred or so. The tests exist to cut a large % of candidates to a manageable candidates. Even to read the application forms is time consuming, and really grades aren't a good differentiator amoungst a field of strong academic candidates. If I could wish for any test, no matter the feasibility of assigning a test, then of course I wouldn't wish for a WG. But feasibility / and ease of testing is important to firms when considering tests.

The SJT imo is the least good test option to do that. I still think the best (that I have taken) are the Osborne Clarke Verbal & deductive tests (and I'll still say that even if I get rejected from the tests).



Will DM you tomorrow! Also have some PDFs that might be helpful

I wouldnt mind some recommendations too. tbh I very much prefer SJTs, mainly because I find them a lot easier than WG. I feel like at times there are right/wrong answers for SJTs in a similar way to WG. Also I believe SJTs relate a lot more to the type of tasks you would be doing in law than knowing whether something is an assumption or not. Then again this is a biased view, but would love to understand your take more.

 

[solicitor_2028]

For those who progressed to Cleary's WG- did you follow a typical cover letter format (including addresses) or just started off with "Dear Graduate Recruitment Team". Also since, I cannot find any other information on the website, is it safe to assume it should ideally be one-page and addressed to the grad rec?

 

[xMontmorency]

I would like to give my take on the SJT / WG debate, if I may. I'm going to try to upset everyone by defending the use of both.

Law firms want two things when screening candidates for interview: (i) a way of finding candidates that show the skills and qualities the firm looks for and (ii) and a way of doing that in a standardised, non-biased and efficient manner (also motivation, but let’s ignore that for sake of argument). I would argue that WGs and SJTs aren’t amazing at (i), but they do (ii) really well.

I kind of understand the WG hate. The questions can feel arbitrary. I personally think the strong/weak argument section is bullshit. And it’s not that directly relatable to the actual work you do on the job (proofreading, filing, drafting, research, client comms). For those who studied law, it’s kind of like the LNAT – few of the skills required in it were applied in my LLB.

But what the WG does do really well is test verbal reasoning and individuals’ ability to think critically, which law firms find very important. The questions may be a bit arbitrary, but, crucially, they’re a standardised and, in the long run, reliable way of testing people. I am willing to bet that there is a correlation between people’s LNAT scores and whether they achieved a first class, and similarly people’s WG scores and whether they have the suitable critical/verbal reasoning skills.

I also get the SJT hate. I don’t think sliding a scale towards the “I prefer working in teams” box and away from the “I prefer working alone” box reliably predicts whether an individual is actually good at teamwork. You can give any answer, and, even if you believe it, it might not be true.

But, again, it’s a standardised way for firms to look for particular decision-making traits and soft skills. Studies have shown that, on average, SJTs are pretty decent predictors of behavioural decision-making skills and personality types (in particular, the ones with multiple options to choose from - source). The benefit is that firms can filter out people who score low, and ensure a variety of personality types make it to the TC, giving firms a strong and diverse candidate pool on average.

Complain all you like about SJTs and WGs, there really aren’t much better ways of doing it. Firms have 1000s of applications to whittle down. Some good candidates may get lost through the WG/SJT, but overall the candidate pool is shrunk down pretty efficiently and accurately.

For most people, this is actually more accessible. Trust me, you don’t want every firm to recruit like Slaughters where it’s just the grades and uni you went to that matters. If recruitment were heavily geared towards work experience, it would just be the nepo babies that get TCs. Cover letters and application questions suffer from the vice of ghostwriters and ChatGPT. At least, with WGs, you get a real chance to prove yourself with every application you make.

To those struggling with either, think of it as a challenge to overcome. WGs and SJTs can be taught, learned and practised.

 

[Lovelaw77]

Can anyone please provide any insights at all on Baker McKenzie VI? I'd really appreciate ittt (please message me) - I am more than happy to do the same for CMS VI, FF VI, NRF AC, HSF AC, LL AC

 

[Careergal]

Any insights AT ALL into Goodwin AC for vacation scheme? Please message me asap, I would be happy to offer insights into other firms!

 

[AspiringSolicitor_22]

Personal request here, I wasn't sure whether to ask this on this or another forum but anyway I'd be grateful if somebody with some insight could provide some advice or point me in the right direction.

This application cycle, like my last 2, has been frustrating. Zero assessment centres so far. I'm starting to feel that I might be locked out of this profession, even though I feel my CV is alright. I did law at a good/midway russel group university (think Bristol/Warwick)/etc). I graduated recently. I gained 1:1 marks in the majority of my modules and ended up with a high 2:1 overall. At my university that puts me around the top 10% of my year. I’ve got sustained extracurricular involvement (pro bono, law soc, etc) and I’ve been to plenty of events/fairs and stuff. I’ve got a little work experience too.

Unfortunately my transcript is spotty: I have 4 2:2s including a 0 in my second year. Now, I can explain these results based on solid, verifiable extenuating circumstances, but I'm wondering a little how much firms really take this into account?

I don't think my app answers are the problem because I'm getting progressed to the online test and/or video interview on pretty well nearly all of the firms I've applied to. Moreover, I know I've done well on at least some of these tests. On the Mills & Reeve test my scores were all in the very high bracket, right at the end of the sliders, apart from one aspect which was moderate. Still rejected. I've only been invited to 2 ACs before, both of which I didn't quite make, but now it seems with ACs having already been given out I'm out of luck for this cycle.

I know its a numbers game, so I guess my question is: should I cut my losses and forget about law in the UK or keep at it? Worth saving up for a masters degree or not? I’d rather somebody with actual experience and insight answers this please, or can suggest where/who I might be able to get an opinion or discuss with. Many thanks.

 

[StressedByAMountainOfBooks]

30s prep, 90s answer
3 questions

Very commercial focus (less so "give us a random story", moreso "what do businesses care about and why")

Mojo interview for sure helped me prep so well for VI

 

[AryanAgg]

Did Mishcon SJT, got perfect on applied verbal and numerical but 18/36 on the behavioral aspects (mostly just thought about what an actual trainee would do in real life), I am cooked I guess. Is there any hope if the bright apply is good?

 

[DoNotRedeem]

I would like to give my take on the SJT / WG debate, if I may. I'm going to try to upset everyone by defending the use of both.

Law firms want two things when screening candidates for interview: (i) a way of finding candidates that show the skills and qualities the firm looks for and (ii) and a way of doing that in a standardised, non-biased and efficient manner (also motivation, but let’s ignore that for sake of argument). I would argue that WGs and SJTs aren’t amazing at (i), but they do (ii) really well.

I kind of understand the WG hate. The questions can feel arbitrary. I personally think the strong/weak argument section is bullshit. And it’s not that directly relatable to the actual work you do on the job (proofreading, filing, drafting, research, client comms). For those who studied law, it’s kind of like the LNAT – few of the skills required in it were applied in my LLB.

But what the WG does do really well is test verbal reasoning and individuals’ ability to think critically, which law firms find very important. The questions may be a bit arbitrary, but, crucially, they’re a standardised and, in the long run, reliable way of testing people. I am willing to bet that there is a correlation between people’s LNAT scores and whether they achieved a first class, and similarly people’s WG scores and whether they have the suitable critical/verbal reasoning skills.

I also get the SJT hate. I don’t think sliding a scale towards the “I prefer working in teams” box and away from the “I prefer working alone” box reliably predicts whether an individual is actually good at teamwork. You can give any answer, and, even if you believe it, it might not be true.

But, again, it’s a standardised way for firms to look for particular decision-making traits and soft skills. Studies have shown that, on average, SJTs are pretty decent predictors of behavioural decision-making skills and personality types (in particular, the ones with multiple options to choose from - source). The benefit is that firms can filter out people who score low, and ensure a variety of personality types make it to the TC, giving firms a strong and diverse candidate pool on average.

Complain all you like about SJTs and WGs, there really aren’t much better ways of doing it. Firms have 1000s of applications to whittle down. Some good candidates may get lost through the WG/SJT, but overall the candidate pool is shrunk down pretty efficiently and accurately.

For most people, this is actually more accessible. Trust me, you don’t want every firm to recruit like Slaughters where it’s just the grades and uni you went to that matters. If recruitment were heavily geared towards work experience, it would just be the nepo babies that get TCs. Cover letters and application questions suffer from the vice of ghostwriters and ChatGPT. At least, with WGs, you get a real chance to prove yourself with every application you make.

To those struggling with either, think of it as a challenge to overcome. WGs and SJTs can be taught, learned and practised.

You can say that it measures critical thinking all you like, there is no evidence to back your claim.

I would encourage people to read this: https://www.researchgate.net/public...l_Test_The_More_You_Know_the_Lower_Your_Score


Let's just call it for what it is, a filter for lazy firms to cut down their application numbers rather than finding a real way to filter capable candidates. If we talk about it as a filter stage you just need to prep for I can get behind that, but what I simply cannot accept is the WG actually being associated with real life critical thinking capability. It is inherently antithetical to the defintion of critical thinking.

 

[law_mania]

Pls guys, give me your best AC dance (inbox still silent)

 

[Shiv Lawy]

I would like to give my take on the SJT / WG debate, if I may. I'm going to try to upset everyone by defending the use of both.

Law firms want two things when screening candidates for interview: (i) a way of finding candidates that show the skills and qualities the firm looks for and (ii) and a way of doing that in a standardised, non-biased and efficient manner (also motivation, but let’s ignore that for sake of argument). I would argue that WGs and SJTs aren’t amazing at (i), but they do (ii) really well.

I kind of understand the WG hate. The questions can feel arbitrary. I personally think the strong/weak argument section is bullshit. And it’s not that directly relatable to the actual work you do on the job (proofreading, filing, drafting, research, client comms). For those who studied law, it’s kind of like the LNAT – few of the skills required in it were applied in my LLB.

But what the WG does do really well is test verbal reasoning and individuals’ ability to think critically, which law firms find very important. The questions may be a bit arbitrary, but, crucially, they’re a standardised and, in the long run, reliable way of testing people. I am willing to bet that there is a correlation between people’s LNAT scores and whether they achieved a first class, and similarly people’s WG scores and whether they have the suitable critical/verbal reasoning skills.

I also get the SJT hate. I don’t think sliding a scale towards the “I prefer working in teams” box and away from the “I prefer working alone” box reliably predicts whether an individual is actually good at teamwork. You can give any answer, and, even if you believe it, it might not be true.

But, again, it’s a standardised way for firms to look for particular decision-making traits and soft skills. Studies have shown that, on average, SJTs are pretty decent predictors of behavioural decision-making skills and personality types (in particular, the ones with multiple options to choose from - source). The benefit is that firms can filter out people who score low, and ensure a variety of personality types make it to the TC, giving firms a strong and diverse candidate pool on average.

Complain all you like about SJTs and WGs, there really aren’t much better ways of doing it. Firms have 1000s of applications to whittle down. Some good candidates may get lost through the WG/SJT, but overall the candidate pool is shrunk down pretty efficiently and accurately.

For most people, this is actually more accessible. Trust me, you don’t want every firm to recruit like Slaughters where it’s just the grades and uni you went to that matters. If recruitment were heavily geared towards work experience, it would just be the nepo babies that get TCs. Cover letters and application questions suffer from the vice of ghostwriters and ChatGPT. At least, with WGs, you get a real chance to prove yourself with every application you make.

To those struggling with either, think of it as a challenge to overcome. WGs and SJTs can be taught, learned and practised.

My only problem with it, as someone who did a whole HR module and essay on this and the test calibration....is that the people setting these tests and benchmarks got into law with a bachelor's degree and a firm handshake (!) The research done on tests being good predictors of work performance modelled on the current workforce is flawed because the current workforce wasn't tested in the same way back when they were entry level.

I understand volume has increased etc. but for all the touting law does about exceptional people, client service and intellect, they sure do like flattening people down to average results, how well they can talk to a camera and mindless sliding scales.

 

[Rosie_Kitten]

You can say that it measures critical thinking all you like, there is no evidence to back your claim.

I would encourage people to read this: https://www.researchgate.net/public...l_Test_The_More_You_Know_the_Lower_Your_Score


Let's just call it for what it is, a filter for lazy firms to cut down their application numbers rather than finding a real way to filter capable candidates. If we talk about it as a filter stage you just need to prep for I can get behind that, but what I simply cannot accept is the WG actually being associated with real life critical thinking capability. It is inherently antithetical to the defintion of critical thinking.

And I would encourage you to read this (as it happens, there is some evidence - at least from my skim read)

http://www.jstor.org/stable/29735117

And also:

APA PsycNet

psycnet.apa.org

These use data and statistical methodology as part of its validation process. I don't deny WG is flawed, and the article you post shoes some of the flaws but as a test most studies show some validity and have some level of prediction in terms of outcome. My personal experience, is formal logic learning did improve my average score, however this is obviously unsubstantiated.
Of course, I'll be fair to SJTs - they are considered a data-backed predictor of job performance:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11825397_Use_of_Situational_Judgment_Tests_to_Predict_Job_Performance

Now, my bigger issue with SJTs is this:
1) you end up ranking a situation with responses that you wouldn't do - which would you least do. At this point, you are just picking what the firm wants based on the firm profile. In a sense that is a thinking skill, but not reflective of personality (in the way the test is designed).
2) on slided scales, there are never polar opposites. For example, you could rank "I prefer to plan my work where possible" and "I have the ability to respond to change and work under pressure."
Now, how would somebody who has great ability to respond to change, but personality wise prefers to plan where possible mark themselves? Do they mark themselves in the middle, which could indicate the same as if they are not strong at either, when they are strong at both?
3) the same person answering will get vastly different strengths and weaknesses every time. For me, I disagree with its validity as a predictor of specific personality traits. Overall scores, which firms use, I guess I can agree carries validity.

Anyways, I believe both studies (or at least the first) show inductive and deductice reasoning aspects carry the most weight. And not to sound like a broken record, but Osborne Clarke had a better, more evolved way to measure deductive reasoning than WG (and is the type of deductive reasoning I'd say is more reliable).

The bad and good news, is that what either of us think doesn't matter, as we don't design the tests. However, what I can say is if it's helpful to anybody, is that the critical thinking book (and occasional podcast) did improve my WG scores. And you can disagree with the correlation, but it's simply what I experienced firsthand .

 

[n_99_99]

Has anyone heard from Birketts? They said interviews would commence last week of Jan/ first week of Feb but I haven't heard of anyone of progressing

Assuming PFO but would like to know

I got rejected a few days ago but someone I know got final interview on the same day

 

[Legallylaw]

Has anyone heard back from TLT for beyond?