TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[Amma Usman]

Converted it Thank you for PMing me your advice!

Huge congratulations on the conversion

 

[Amma Usman]

Hi all, I’ve got a 2-week vac scheme coming up and was wondering if that’s long enough to consider asking to do any pro bono work/ or see what they do?

Is this a good idea? I know pro bono isn’t core to any firm’s business, but would be interested in any views on this?

Definitely! For may law firms, pro bono is a central part of their business. Usually, when you express your interest to your supervisor/trainee buddy, they are more than happy to get you involved in their caseload, or refer you to someone else that has an ongoing pro bono matter. It’s all about putting yourself out there and finding the information you need. So whether you get assigned a small task that contributes to a bigger project, or get the chance to have a coffee chat with someone in the pro bono practice, you’re on the road to a colourful trophy - knowledge is gained!

 

[Amma Usman]

This year it was 'if you could invite anyone from the past/fictional to dinner' 😂

The thing I like about questions like these is that they don’t have to relate to law or the field at all. By asking these questions, law firms just really want to understand your personality and see whether that fits neatly into their culture. So, “superpower“ could really be anything that brings a vibrant smile to your face. I appreciate that these questions may shock one when asked, because obviously the expected questions are always something like “why commercial law”, “what do you think about the stock market right now?”, and so on. But truly, just treat it like a fun conversation - striking a balance between informality and professionalism, and you’ll do very well.

I have been asked these questions in a number of interviews. First one - I completely bombed. But once I spoke to a mentor and they told me what I’ve shared above, they became easier to handle and deal with over time.

 

[Amma Usman]

Just received a video interview invite for a PARALEGAL role 🤣 🤣 🤣 . For a firm nobody will have heard of as well💀

In my opinion, the name of the firm matters less than your ability to make the most of the experience. I have spoken to a lot of people that started off at different roles, even outside paralegal roles, that referenced how the amount of transferable skills they gained helped them secure TCs at top Magic Circle and US firms. Every experience matters. Through a paralegal role, for example, you have the opportunity to get exposed early on to several practices - practices that may end up being core ones at your dream TC firm. This is a solid point to mention in applications and interviews to show demonstrated interest. Now let‘s even say reverse was the case. Say you paralegalled in corporate but did a task in that seat involving contentious matters/ court actions, or something of that sort. You could easily reference in an application for a bigger firm why you want to make that switch from corporate to disputes, and the Magic Circle/US firms will find this just as attractive as the smaller firms.

Best of luck with the application. I know you will ace it!

 

[Amma Usman]

to prepare for next year's app season, i was thinking of writing responses to this year's and previous year's application questions. does anyone know if A and O, HSF, HFW, Milbank, Clyde and Co, WFW, and DLA keep their q's the same year on year?

I think this is a solid approach. Just be mindful that application questions may change year on year. Though I know of firm‘s that haven’t changed their questions in like 5 years or so, I do believe practicing writing the general questions early on will help improve your speed, and understanding of the process and how to ace that first stage. So, the common “why commercial law, why X firm, any extracurriculars” questions are a good starting point for any application. Even if they aren’t asked explicitly, you could weave them in a cover letter or interview when that stage comes. If the firm’s you are applying to also have any tests, it’s worth practicing from now. This is because some tests like the WG, or SJTs, you usually get only a week/5 days, or less to prepare for. Starting now gives you a head start and avoids you sinking into a rabbit hole last minute, or drowning in preparation stress.

Know your motivations for each firm and the profession at large. Even if you don’t have the exact question at hand or written down, these are two questions that will always be undeniably asked. Those little bullet points you put in a word doc could really be what gives you the confidence to course through those applications quickly. This is especially important for firms which have rolling deadlines.

Lastly, I do not really see a point of preparing for the previous cycle’s questions. If you feel it’ll help you improve your application writing technique then great, but do bear in mind time efficiency and how it was probably scrapped from this cycle’s question bank for a reason (so may not crop up again).

 

[Amma Usman]

Thanks Amma! Honestly think this firm might not be the one for me anyway. Did some damage control today with coffee chats but I don't think I'll be too heartbroken if I don't get an offer. Just frustrating that it's not enough to do good work and get along with your supervisor!

I’m sorry about this. Please try and be optimistic and still put yourself out there! Feel free to send your supervisors a goodbye email/ anyone that you got along with/ had coffee chats with, to thank them for their time and support during the scheme!

 

[Amma Usman]

hey guys, would greatly appreciate some help for this.

how would you answer the question 'what sets linklaters apart from its competitors' in an interview.

@Amma Usman @Andrei Radu

I’ve made this guide which should help - https://www.thecorporatelawacademy.com/forum/threads/guide-to-identifying-a-law-firm’s-competitors.9422/

It covers all the details you need to address this step by step. If you’ve got any questions, let me know.

As for Linklaters, TCLA has a Law Firms Profile guide incorporated as part of the premium subscription which will give you more insights on the firm specifically.

Best of luck with the application!

 

[Amma Usman]

I would say you should put yourself out there - the scheme isn't only for you to do tasks for 2 weeks. That being said you shouldn't network simply for networking's sake i.e. you should have [good] questions to ask and be interested in people, also bring a notebook everywhere unless it's not appropriate. I have heard of candidates who spent their whole scheme having coffee chats and didn't convert their VS, and those who had them sparingly and did convert. There isn't really a one-size-fits-all method—just avoid pointless conversations (if you're scheduling time for a chat specifically) as lawyers' time is valuable. Obviously this also depends on the firm as they may have different assessment components they're looking for - but generally as long as people have a positive impression of you you should be fine in that regard.

Good luck with the VS and good luck with the results from the previous one as well!

This is really good advice. I agree with the notebook point - you never know who may stop you on your way to somewhere to assign you work. And as opposed to going back regularly and asking for clarification, if you’ve got a notebook, the key details are already contained.

 

[SamiyaJ]

Can someone (who also does well in WG tests) please treat me as a 3 year old child and explain in very plain English about their understanding of each section of WG and what I should look out for?

I’ve read so much on it and been practicing but I feel so stupid as things are still not clicking.

 

[Amma Usman]

Hiya @BobThebIlly

First off, well done on those impressive scores for assumptions (88%) and evaluating arguments (100%). Those are fantastic and show you’ve really nailed those sections! Let’s focus on the “drawing conclusions” part and see how you can improve in the short time you have.

The Watson Glaser tests your ability to draw conclusions in two specific sections - the deduction section, as well as the inference section.

Deductions: This section tests your ability to make a deduction. With deductions, you are trying to find what follows absolutely and necessarily from the premises you are given, and just assume that all those premises are true. For example:

• Premise 1: All cats have whiskers
• Premise 2: Ram is a cat (this premise is false, but for the purpose of your deduction just assume it's true)
• Conclusion: Ram has whiskers

Notice that, in the above argument, if you assume the initial premises are true, then the conclusion follows necessarily and absolutely. This reflects the way you should be 'drawing conclusions' in the deduction section.

The inference section, by contrast, tests your ability to draw conclusions in more probabilistic ways. They are not asking you to identify what follows absolutely or necessarily. Rather, they involve asking what conclusions are probable or strongly suggested by the evidence though not certain (e.g. follow strongly). For the purposes of the inference section, there are two styles of reasoning that you should become familiar with:

1. Inductions: Imagine you’re a scientist studying bird migration. Over the course of several years, you observe that geese in a particular region always migrate south during the winter. Based on these repeated observations, you draw the conclusion "Geese in this region migrate south every winter." This is a good conclusion to draw because it's based on consistent and repeated evidence. However, it’s not certain (there could be a year when some geese don’t migrate for an unexpected reason, like illness or environmental changes). Induction involves drawing conclusions to make predictions about the future or generalisations about a group based on observed patterns. To understand whether an inference is a strong one, you'll also want to familiarise yourself with the ways people get inductions wrong. These include, but are not limited to:
   • Overgeneralising: This occurs when someone draws a broad conclusion based on too few examples. For instance, seeing two aggressive dogs and concluding that all dogs are aggressive is an overgeneralisation. The sample size is too small to justify the conclusion.
     
     
   • Sampling Bias: Drawing conclusions from an unrepresentative sample can lead to faulty reasoning. For example, surveying only a small group of people from one region and assuming their preferences reflect an entire population’s preferences is misleading.
     
     
   • Ignoring Counterexamples: Inductive reasoning requires considering exceptions, but people sometimes disregard counterexamples that weaken their conclusions. For instance, concluding that "all swans are white" without accounting for black swans ignores evidence that challenges the generalisation. Pay attention to whether the question stem and information you're being offered provides any potential counter evidence.
     
     
   • Confusing causation and correlation: People often assume that because two things happen together, one causes the other. For example, observing that ice cream sales increase in summer alongside shark attacks might lead someone to wrongly conclude that eating ice cream causes shark attacks. In reality, both are linked to a third factor: hot weather.
2. Abductions: This involves selecting the most likely explanation based on the available evidence. For example, if you find fur on your couch and a chewed slipper, you might reasonably conclude that your dog is responsible. While other explanations are logically possible (e.g. such as a neighbour's cat sneaking into your house unnoticed to chew the slipper and shed fur on the couch) - these are far less plausible, especially if you have a dog at home. Abductive reasoning is particularly useful in situations where the evidence is incomplete or ambiguous. It allows us to make practical, reasonable conclusions by focusing on the explanation that best fits the facts. This approach is commonly used in problem-solving, diagnosing issues, and decision-making, as it prioritises what is most likely rather than what is merely possible.

Appreciating these different ways of 'drawing a conclusion' is important because you want to ensure that you're using the appropriate form of reasoning depending on the section you're working on. Mistaking one for another can lead to choosing the wrong answers in that section.

Hope this helps and my apologies in advance for the length of my reply!

Can someone (who also does well in WG tests) please treat me as a 3 year old child and explain in very plain English about their understanding of each section of WG and what I should look out for?

I’ve read so much on it and been practicing but I feel so stupid as things are still not clicking.

@SamiyaJ , I completely understand this. It’s why TCLA has been working so hard to generate a WG tool to help applicants - more info to come on this soon. In the mean time, I’ve quoted a post by Ram to help.

 

[Kakaboo]

Hi guys! I’ve just finished a VS which I think went ok. I had a partner tell me I’m a good fit personality wise and I think my interview went ok ish. My feedback on my work was that there was a lot of mistakes but they think it’s just from lack of experience. 2 members of my team have said to message them about a paralegal role once I find out if I’ve got the TC. I’m a bit mixed about this and can’t tell if there’s any hope? Can someone please enlighten me haha

 

[Kakaboo]

to prepare for next year's app season, i was thinking of writing responses to this year's and previous year's application questions. does anyone know if A and O, HSF, HFW, Milbank, Clyde and Co, WFW, and DLA keep their q's the same year on year?

I can’t answer your question but for DLA go to the open day as they say their video interview questions at that!

 

[Chris Brown]

Hi guys! I’ve just finished a VS which I think went ok. I had a partner tell me I’m a good fit personality wise and I think my interview went ok ish. My feedback on my work was that there was a lot of mistakes but they think it’s just from lack of experience. 2 members of my team have said to message them about a paralegal role once I find out if I’ve got the TC. I’m a bit mixed about this and can’t tell if there’s any hope? Can someone please enlighten me haha

I think making mistakes is inevitable on a VS. It would defeat the purpose of a TC entirely if the firm expected otherwise. If someone was able to complete all their work with zero mistakes, they could be hired as an NQ instead. 🥲

I made some mistakes during my Spring VS and even now during the first week of my Summer VS. It hasn’t affected my chances of conversion (TC offer post Spring VS). I’m sure you will be fine and will convert the VS into a TC! 🐐​

 

[ohnoselim]

bit of a jump but does anyone know a rough estimate of when NRF typically holds their winter vs dates

early dec? mid december?

 

[BillSikes]

Browne Jacobson saying they will get back to applicants next week

 

[BobThebIlly]

Hi guys,

I have reached the interview stage for Perkins Coie’s VS. I would be so appreciative for any tips. From what I have been told, it is a 30-minute competency based interview. I haven’t reached a single interview stage in a VS application cycle (this is my first one) and am honestly looking for guidance.

Also, I would be so appreciative of any resources you guys can recommend (e.g TCLA mock interview???)

P.s: I received the email at 00:02 today

Thanks guys 🙏