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.
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.
