TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25
- Thread starter Jessica Booker
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vacation scheme
Hi! I got 20/36 on an SJT for Paul, Weiss and I got invited to interview. I guess it depends on how much importance the firm places on the test, but I don’t think it is an automatic PFO.
I also felt I did well at the TI so feel you - would’ve been interesting to get feedback on it but they don’t offer it which I think is so poor.
Not sure how the US D.E.I. situation affects that, the issues you’re mentioning about VIs exist regardless of that
Adding to @jacksollaf 's point on graduate visa, you can only use it once so i would suggest either (1) do graduate visa and try to gain more experience during the two years, and hopefully secure a TC before it expires, if not you can do SQE LLM then; or (2) do SQE LLM after undergrad, then apply for graduate visa. But that won't necessarily happen as you will definitely get better next cycle! It's already a massive achievement getting to AC during your second year so don't feel disheartened!
Of the two options, I did (1) because I don't want to self fund SQE and gain some paralegal experience. But it is slightly riskier because a lot of paralegal roles require SQE 1(LPC back when I graduated). So it may take longer than expected to get a job. But I think for VS/TC apps work experiences are more valuable in comparison to passing the SQE. It can also give you more edge for DTC apps.
Feel free to PM me as well re graduate visa or securing paralegal roles!
Does White & Case still have AC's scheduled for next week? Trying to ascertain when we can expect a decision for Summer.
I agree with this quite strongly. They did not run many interviews. Other firms like that provide feedback. E.g. Wilkie and White & Case. It's really not great at all.
DEI in the US was extremely toxic as it was affirmative action where diversity was exercised through quotas and preferential hiring for underrepresented groups - this is counter to any business, profit-making mandate as hiring should be based on merits. DEI in the UK is far more digestible where under-represented backgrounds are considered proportionally which helps contextualise an applicant but still very much focuses on the merits of a candidate's application. If there is a "voice at the back of a recruiter's head" to hire a particular candidate of a race to represent a particular community, I think we have gone astray from what DEI was meant to do, which is level the ground instead of offering a leg-up.
WBD test feedback is brutal. Grit 6, applied intellect 4, creative force 4, digital mindset 6
This is something that has been on my mind for some time going through this application cycle. I have a strong interest in US firms, but they rely heavily on VI. I am worried about the impact of the DEI situation in the US and if it will mean US firms change their policies around DEI in their UK offices’ graduate recruitment processes.
While it is possible that a PFO post-VI is down to things like poor structure, waffling, lack of key content, etc. it can also be down to bias and prejudice. While this problem has existed even before the DEI situation in the US, I think it’ll get worse now. No firm can ever guarantee that there is 0% bias in their processes. That’s why even now some US firms’ future trainees all come from quite similar backgrounds.
So far in my own experience with Willkie, I have not been made to feel this way (yet). Credit has to be given to Gemma for ensuring their process is as fair and transparent as possible (two of their recruitment stages are entirely CV blind) which I think more firms should adopt. If I were to do a 2nd cycle and apply to other US firms, I’m not sure if the same could be said. I think in the UK there is more of an issue with elitism and classism, in the context of city law firms’ recruitment. For those who come from ethnic minority backgrounds and lower socio-economic backgrounds, I think it’s a double edged sword.
While it is possible that a PFO post-VI is down to things like poor structure, waffling, lack of key content, etc. it can also be down to bias and prejudice. While this problem has existed even before the DEI situation in the US, I think it’ll get worse now. No firm can ever guarantee that there is 0% bias in their processes. That’s why even now some US firms’ future trainees all come from quite similar backgrounds.
So far in my own experience with Willkie, I have not been made to feel this way (yet). Credit has to be given to Gemma for ensuring their process is as fair and transparent as possible (two of their recruitment stages are entirely CV blind) which I think more firms should adopt. If I were to do a 2nd cycle and apply to other US firms, I’m not sure if the same could be said. I think in the UK there is more of an issue with elitism and classism, in the context of city law firms’ recruitment. For those who come from ethnic minority backgrounds and lower socio-economic backgrounds, I think it’s a double edged sword.
HSF AC invite🙂 (applied 27th of November ) . I honestly thought Macfarlanes will be my only AC this cycle but look at God 🥹🥹
Also , if you’re still waiting to hear back from them , don’t loose hope. I read that someone received SVS offer on this platform and was sort of expecting a PFO but it looks like they are very much still sending out invites so hang on!
Ps: I will very much appreciate any insights from anyone who has done HSF AC! ❤️
Also , if you’re still waiting to hear back from them , don’t loose hope. I read that someone received SVS offer on this platform and was sort of expecting a PFO but it looks like they are very much still sending out invites so hang on!
Ps: I will very much appreciate any insights from anyone who has done HSF AC! ❤️
I think the OP’s point (which I agree with) was that someone can possess the ability, but because they tick those boxes (which become visible to recruiters through things like a VI), there is room for bias and prejudice. Of course I would want to be hired based on my ability, but it’s inevitable that someone (e.g., grad rec, associates, partners, etc.) might not believe I possess the ability because of my background (bias and prejudice). With the DEI situation in the US, this could only get worse, especially in relation to US law firms.
Sorry, I had actually deleted my initial posts because I didn't want to start a thing, but I guess it's too late now haha. Just want to clarify that what I meant was NOT about being picked to fill a diversity quota. It was about knowing that people would take a moment to acknowledge whether they were being prejudiced against some traits which may in fact not be indicative of potential or ability. i.e. it was simply about not being discriminated against.
Interestingly, the video interview platform HireVue, which a number of law firms use, has come under fire for using facial recognition data in AI technology to assess candidates in a way which could potentially be discriminatory. I think it is quite worrying, because AI technology does have a tendency to reinforce built-in biases.
If there is a propensity for a firm to be biased based on diversity benchmarks, the problem is, hopefully, you will agree, the people. More importantly, DEI programmes in the US do not actually overcome this because these diversity quotas are counter to a meritocracy - where you have to choose between a racial minority with average scores to a racial majority with higher scores, DEI in the US would prefer the racial minority applicant even though they are less likely to thrive in the role. As mentioned, this doesn't actually solve the problem which is overcoming the bias among the recruiters, but instead leads to a bunch of 'diversity hires' offering little to no value to the firm. DEI in the US was deeply flawed which is why companies have jumped to remove them and as a racial minority myself, I commend that because there needs to be a recognition that businesses are profit-making entities and forcing representation of any particular community, often independent of merit-based talent, is fatal to any business and should be discouraged.
Your understanding of this lacks the acknowledgment that certain groups have the exact same potential for greatness as others, but perform worse on standardized tests/grading/etc due to lack of resources, financial stress, and the simple fact that it is way easier to do well in school and in life if you aren't low income, and that's hugely tied to race and immigration status. So quota based hiring gives underrepresented applicants the benefit of the doubt (as well as making sure that different perspectives are represented). DEI is here to offer a leg up to candidate who are historically excluded, whereas white candidates, especially white men, have been offered countless legs up through the ages. Take a look at gender pay gaps.... even in organisations where women equal men in numbers, the majority of the time men make up most of the people who get a bonus. Funny how that happens...
Anyways, in short, I think you're pretty wrong
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
- Sticky
- Sticky
