Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Adam Gilchrist" data-source="post: 33858" data-attributes="member: 5820">I'm not going to lie to you - it's always better if you already have a vac scheme, and certainly, some firms unofficially are less keen on taking someone without a VS (understandably enough). That said, having had one (albeit a canceled one) is better than the people applying for a TC without any VS history whatsoever. You may be at a disadvantage to people with vac scheme experience, but, as is frequently pointed out on this forum by Jessica, applications are examined from multiple angles, so weakness in one area can be overcome by strength in another.Bear in mind however that some firms either exclusively recruit from their VS (HSF, Davis Polk, Shearman &amp; Sterling etc) or technically accept direct TC apps, but in reality never offer any TCs this way (Kirkland &amp; Ellis, Skadden etc). Applying to firms like these will be a waste of time for obvious reasons. <a href="https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/12/law-firms-recruiting-exclusively-from-vac-schemes-worrying-trend-or-sensible-step/" target="_blank">https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/12/law-firms-recruiting-exclusively-from-vac-schemes-worrying-trend-or-sensible-step/</a>There is also the numbers game - even firms that genuinely accept direct TC applications will prioritize their vac schemers first in terms of TC offers, so there aren't many TCs left over for direct applicants, making the odds even harder. Linklaters, for example, offers about 85% of its TCs each year to successful vac schemers. The percentage seems likely to rise in the near future for most firms like this, given all of the Covid uncertainty.Direct TC applications are tough, applications without a previous VS on your CV are tougher (even with the fact that you had one which was canceled), but still definitely doable</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Adam Gilchrist, post: 33858, member: 5820"] I'm not going to lie to you - it's always better if you already have a vac scheme, and certainly, some firms unofficially are less keen on taking someone without a VS (understandably enough). That said, having had one (albeit a canceled one) is better than the people applying for a TC without any VS history whatsoever. You [I]may [/I]be at a disadvantage to people with vac scheme experience, but, as is frequently pointed out on this forum by Jessica, applications are examined from multiple angles, so weakness in one area can be overcome by strength in another. Bear in mind however that some firms either exclusively recruit from their VS (HSF, Davis Polk, Shearman & Sterling etc) or technically accept direct TC apps, but in reality never offer any TCs this way (Kirkland & Ellis, Skadden etc). Applying to firms like these will be a waste of time for obvious reasons. [URL]https://www.legalcheek.com/2019/12/law-firms-recruiting-exclusively-from-vac-schemes-worrying-trend-or-sensible-step/[/URL] There is also the numbers game - even firms that genuinely accept direct TC applications will prioritize their vac schemers first in terms of TC offers, so there aren't many TCs left over for direct applicants, making the odds even harder. Linklaters, for example, offers about 85% of its TCs each year to successful vac schemers. The percentage seems likely to rise in the near future for most firms like this, given all of the Covid uncertainty. Direct TC applications are tough, applications without a previous VS on your CV are tougher (even with the fact that you had one which was canceled), but still definitely doable [/QUOTE]

Verification

Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?

Search

Search

Reply to thread