Really interesting discussion to this point, I feel like I should maybe chuck my hat into the ring here - at the risk, perhaps, of it being somewhat unpopular.
For perspective: I've got not-spectacular A-level equivalents (141 UCAS points, so somewhere between A*AB and AAB) from a decent-ish Glasgow state school. I am included in
multiple contextual recruitment/ under-represented groups. I attend a non-RG Uni (Aberdeen, which is in the far north of Scotland) and I'm on track for a 2.1. For those who don't know, I secured a TC with
Travers Smith on essentially my first app cycle.
Do I think that some firms err towards RG/ especially Oxbridge candidates? Yes, absolutely. Do I believe this is every firm? No, I don't. Do I believe it's due to recruiters having a silver spoon stuck somewhere unpleasant turning their nose up at candidates from anywhere else? No, don't be ridiculous.
I think that, as prospective applicants, there is a tendency (which I myself was guilty of, by the way) of forgetting that law firms are businesses in and of themselves, who need to make cost-benefit analyses of every decision they take and also want the absolute best talent because they want to make the most competitive offering to their clients, to make more money in turn. To that end, firms are obviously going to target universities which have a
statistically higher proportion of candidates who will tick the boxes for that firm. You also have to consider geography here: Aberdeen, for example, is a nightmare to get to and travel costs an absolute fortune. In spite of the fact it's generally considered a top-10 UK law school, it's simply not practical for most firms to attend because they can get a higher proportion of statistically better candidates for a much lower investment cost elsewhere. It's a no-brainer for a business to make that decision. One of the massive strong-points of this forum is that it is a resource to find frank and honest advice, I think
@Jessica Booker would be doing everyone here a disservice if she gave some political/ smoke and mirrors excuse for the situation as it currently is... I totally get that it might be a bit unpleasant to hear said plainly, but let's not shoot the messenger.
Whether it's right or wrong (and, hey, I agree that it
is wrong), pragmatism is necessary here. I remember someone telling me once that "it's infinitely easier to effect change from the inside of the tent peeing out, than the outside of the tent peeing in". You'll not change the world by shouting about it, but by putting yourself in a position where you can do it.
Myself and countless others from backgrounds such as mine are literally living proof that it's possible and the additional challenges mean little in practice if you really work at it. I think simply 'blaming the system' and resigning oneself to not achieving what you want is a total cop-out. I'm one of the most passionate people you could meet about improving the diversity in the commercial legal industry - hence, for example, I do what I do here, have attended video networking panels etc - and improving the disparity in legal recruitment is something which I fully plan on being a part of through my career. But, at that point, I'll be in the tent peeing out. Work hard, keep pushing and then, when you're in the tent, pee out and actually effect change.
Edit: Just for clarification, I don't at all disagree with people who say that non-RG/ Oxbridge/ XYZ groups are still fighting an uphill battle- I completely agree with this and it's totally wrong- I'm just saying that the best way to change it is to put yourself in a position where you can do so
(NULS, NUS, Sydney & Melbourne, etc.)
