2020-21 Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion

[gg332dd]

Just my two cents on the CC policy: it is clearly discriminatory and there will probably be no consequences for them -- but as a graduate I appreciate them being transparent about it as it saves me time I would be wasting on their application. Also makes me wonder what other firms prioritise X or Y applicants.

 

[Grace_winter9]

Has anyone heard from Simmons or Taylor Wessing recently for ACs (both summer vs)?

I got a TW AC invite yesterday

 

[CareerChanger]

what are people's thoughts on the new SQE system versus the current route? Weighing up whether to opt in for the LPC or do the new system which seems to be what providers/firms are pushing

From what I’ve seen it’s much more providers pushing it than firms. Firms seem hesitant about SQE because it’s an untested system.

 

[E.A]

How I feel about this journey today... need some good news asap

 

[Cantab_95]

From what I’ve seen it’s much more providers pushing it than firms. Firms seem hesitant about SQE because it’s an untested system.

Gosh it's all rather complicated isn't it

 

[Roomba]

Simmons rejection post VI - not surprised in the slightest after all those tests haha!

Same! Was expected, the VI was a disaster. I had already marked them as PFO.

I was more cringe at the confirmation some poor person had sat and watched my performance 🤣

 

[Jessica Booker]

This is helpful thank you! I just wonder if this does not in any way mean the policy is any less morally (and potentially legally) discriminatory.

First, just because they must have thought through it does not mean they did that well right? Take Freshfields which has paid a huge financial and legal cost for giving what was later deemed illegal advice on taxes in Germany. I am sure they thought through it but it turns out they were wrong. To look at a non-legal example McKinsey is paying a huge financial and PR cost for giving bad advice on opioids in the US. So, just because it is a big firm and it must have thought through it does not mean they came to the right decision.

On the point of whether they found it a useful way of picking candidates, again this is no excuse. Say you run an analysis and find that BAME applicants get along less well with what is still a predominantly white c-suite executive group (Note: this is just a hypothetical example to make the point and a real analysis would probably disprove this given things are, thankfully, changing) and use that as an excuse for hiring fewer BAME candidates, would this be OK even if the impact is better PEP? Actually finding random typos IS a better way because that is some sort of measure of attention for detail but age is not.

Again, I do appreciate where you are coming from but I really think saying ahh they are a big firm and must have thought of it does not mean they might not have got it wrong and it being potentially useful to discriminate does not make it OK.

Morally - Maybe? That’s why a lot of us potentially struggle to understand it. But we only see the outcome not the rationale behind it, so maybe they do have a moral justification for it too?

Legally? The only way that would be tested is if someone raised an employment tribunal against them, but I still suspect this has been throughly considered by lawyers. The last thing any recruitment team wants is a tribunal case - the effort and PR just isn’t worth the risk, so they must be confident there isn’t a case to be had. Yes, that advice could be wrong, but I’d personally put money on backing a law firm and their legal advisors on this than a lot of unqualified people discussing it on a forum (myself included).

The issue with your example is the assumption that they are hiring less people of a certain age demographic. We don’t know whether this is actually the case. Maybe they can justify the policy as it doesn’t negatively impact the proportion of hires they make from a specific age group?

Attention to detail is something that can be taught. Writing and drafting skills are highly influenced by your education, which in turn correlates to your socio economic background. So heavily weighting those things might not be appropriate for a firm if they know that there are systems or training in place to educate people while they are there.

Of course they are not completely immune from making wrong decisions. I am just pretty confident they have put the time and effort in to consider this carefully. In contrast, we are all just sat here hypothesising on something with nowhere near the level of evidence, understanding, data etc that the firm has, all because it doesn’t sit comfortably with us on a very headline level.

 

[Celestie]

I just fundamentally disagree with CC's process but respect that was their choice. What they do does not align with my inclusive and welcoming values, and you will not catch me applying there again.

 

[Cantab_95]

@Jessica Booker I was wondering what your thoughts on the new system versus the old system are? I am wondering which to sign up to but there doesn't seem to be a general consensus on which is the more prudent option

 

[Jessica Booker]

@Jessica Booker I was wondering what your thoughts on the new system versus the old system are? I am wondering which to sign up to but there doesn't seem to be a general consensus on which is the more prudent option

It’s impossible for me to give this advice without understanding someone’s profile.

The generic advice seems to be go through the existing route, because at least the LPC exempts you from SQE stage 1, but completing SQE stage 1 will not make you eligible to complete the traditional TC qualification process.

Things that will change the advice:

- how much legal work experience you have
- what type of firm you hope to train with
- whether you have a non qualifying law degree
- whether you are currently working for a law firm and would have a strong chance of qualifying there outside of a TC

If you are coming to this later (eg with significant paralegal experience) the SQE may be the better route. If you are an undergraduate graduating in 2022 (law) or 2021 (non-law) it’s probably best to stick to the existing model, unless you are being sponsored by a firm who is telling you you will go through the SQE.

 

[Oxdart]

Morally - Maybe? That’s why a lot of us potentially struggle to understand it. But we only see the outcome not the rationale behind it, so maybe they do have a moral justification for it too?

Legally? The only way that would be tested is if someone raised an employment tribunal against them, but I still suspect this has been throughly considered by lawyers. The last thing any recruitment team wants is a tribunal case - the effort and PR just isn’t worth the risk, so they must be confident there isn’t a case to be had. Yes, that advice could be wrong, but I’d personally put money on backing a law firm and their legal advisors on this than a lot of unqualified people discussing it on a forum (myself included).

The issue with your example is the assumption that they are hiring less people of a certain age demographic. We don’t know whether this is actually the case. Maybe they can justify the policy as it doesn’t negatively impact the proportion of hires they make from a specific age group?

Attention to detail is something that can be taught. Writing and drafting skills are highly influenced by your education, which in turn correlates to your socio economic background. So heavily weighting those things might not be appropriate for a firm if they know that there are systems or training in place to educate people while they are there.

Of course they are not completely immune from making wrong decisions. I am just pretty confident they have put the time and effort in to consider this carefully. In contrast, we are all just sat here hypothesising on something with nowhere near the level of evidence, understanding, data etc that the firm has, all because it doesn’t sit comfortably with us on a very headline level.

I agree on the legal questions it is more likely CC is right than I am but again it does not mean they might not have got this wrong and will pay a price down the line if someone tests it.

On whether they are hiring younger people given their policy, I am willing to bet they are. I would not be as confident saying they hire less than other firms (maybe the other firms also discriminate but just aren’t as open about it; though being open doesn’t make it right) but on whether they hire less older applicants because of this policy, I am willing to bet they are.

On the moral question actually a headline level analysis is all you need. The policy prioritizes groups that are on average much younger. The articulation of the policy on the website will clearly discourage non priority groups (who on average are older) from applying. So, the policy hurts older applicants. If you believe hurting applicants on the basis of age is wrong, this policy is morally wrong.

Very open to being corrected but the morality of it is actually that simple.

 

[law230]

Has anyone heard anything from Cleary recently? I'm wondering if they've already done there ACs because I've seen a lot of offers on LinkedIn

 

[Jessica Booker]

I agree on the legal questions it is more likely CC is right than I am but again it does not mean they might not have got this wrong and will pay a price down the line if someone tests it.

On whether they are hiring younger people given their policy, I am willing to bet they are. I would not be as confident saying they hire less than other firms (maybe the other firms also discriminate but just aren’t as open about it; not though being open doesn’t make it right) but on whether they hire less older applicants because of this policy, I am willing to bet they are.

On the moral question actually a headline level analysis is all you need. The policy prioritizes groups that are on average much younger. The articulation of the policy on the website will clearly discourage non priority groups (who on average are older) from applying. So, the policy hurts older applicants. If you believe hurting applicants on the basis of age is wrong, this policy is morally wrong.

very open to being corrected but the morality of it is actually that simple.

It’s your opinion on its morality. It isn’t a factual statement, so it isn’t really simple at all. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion - doesn’t mean they are right nor that it can simply be determined whether the policy is right or not. Hence why we are having this discussion.

 

[lawgal101]

Anyone heard back from Irwin Mitchell's Manchester office, post-app?

 

[Staples]

It’s impossible for me to give this advice without understanding someone’s profile.

The generic advice seems to be go through the existing route, because at least the LPC exempts you from SQE stage 1, but completing SQE stage 1 will not make you eligible to complete the traditional TC qualification process.

Things that will change the advice:

- how much legal work experience you have
- what type of firm you hope to train with
- whether you have a non qualifying law degree
- whether you are currently working for a law firm and would have a strong chance of qualifying there outside of a TC

If you are coming to this later (eg with significant paralegal experience) the SQE may be the better route. If you are an undergraduate graduating in 2022 (law) or 2021 (non-law) it’s probably best to stick to the existing model, unless you are being sponsored by a firm who is telling you you will go through the SQE.

I’m curious, how does the type of firm one hopes to train with have an impact on the choice between old route and SQE? Do you mean regional vs high street vs City etc?

 

[Oxdart]

It’s your opinion on its morality. It isn’t a factual statement, so it isn’t really simple at all. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion - doesn’t mean they are right nor that it can simply be determined whether the policy is right or not. Hence why we are having this discussion.

I promise I will stop after this one because again I don't mean to get into a brawl. I am just passionate about age discrimination as something we seem to care less about than other issues.

A. If you think discrimination is wrong,
B. If you think age is a protected characteristic,
C. A policy like CC's that disadvantages older applicants (as I have shown before) is wrong.

I am claiming the morality is simple because I am sure most people would agree with A and B. So if C is true (as I've argued before) the morality is clear. And on that, we can quibble about the legality of C but the morality...I don't think so...

But again, this is getting a bit off track. I just wanted to point out discrimination not get into a fight here so apologies if I offended anyone and I hope some of you will have a think about this issue.

 

[TR17]

Is [email protected] the email address that everyone has used to contact linklaters for their WG results?

 

[Veep9]

Nope - and we were both exempt from GBA yeah?

Yup. I feel like I’m back here every two weeks asking the same questions but the wait is soul destroying!

I didn’t apply to Simmons but for TW, someone who attended an AC last week said that grad rec is still sending out invites and will be running ACs till mid-March, I’m also waiting to hear post-GBA so hopefully we hear good news soon😊

thank you so much! This is super encouraging.

Simmons is odder still because they’ve confirmed I’ve got through to AC stage but haven’t scheduled me for one, although I do know that they held ACs for summer a few weeks ago

 

[Celestie]

Yup. I feel like I’m back here every two weeks asking the same questions but the wait is soul destroying!



thank you so much! This is super encouraging.

Simmons is odder still because they’ve confirmed I’ve got through to AC stage but haven’t scheduled me for one, although I do know that they held ACs for summer a few weeks ago

I wonder if there is a reason those who were exempt arent hearing back? GR said to me I would hear late Jan/mid Feb etc.

 

[Sam55]

anyone else waiting to hear back post vi with Simmons and Simmons? I did mine beginning of December so wondering if I should email them or something