General Discussion Thread 2020-21

[TCLA Community Assistant]

This is from the latest Chambers student guide research on universities attended by trainees. To me there is nothing surprising here, and actually nothing much has changed in the last 7 years.

 

[ab01]

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

Thank you @Jacob Miller you seem like living proof that anyone can DREAM BIG, and achieve it successfully

 

[Parent]

If there is a perception that law firms recruit more from Russel group, why would anyone with good grades go to a non RG Uni? Why make it more difficult to start with?

 

[ab01]

If there is a perception that law firms recruit more from Russel group, why would anyone with good grades go to a non RG Uni? Why make it more difficult to start with?

For me personally, I didn’t have anyone who could guide me, my sixth form had no careers service. I thought about dropping out in my third year but it was no point by then.

Thankful to this forum, thanks @Jaysen

 

[Jacob Miller]

If there is a perception that law firms recruit more from Russel group, why would anyone with good grades go to a non RG Uni? Why make it more difficult to start with?

Could be for any one of hundreds of reasons. Some people want to stay closer to home, some schools don't have any proper careers/ future guidance to help kids really understand what all the differences are, some for other reasons altogether. I'm at Aberdeen, for example, because I transferred there so I could live with my fiancee rather than having to do distance for 4 years.

 

[TCLA Community Assistant]

I

If there is a perception that law firms recruit more from Russel group, why would anyone with good grades go to a non RG Uni? Why make it more difficult to start with?

Because not everyone has the luxury of choosing which university they go to. Some people have to stay close to home for financial or family commitments. Not everyone has a RG uni in a 30 mile radius of their home.

Some people also get scholarships or funding to go to specific universities, meaning the cost for them means it makes sense to go to that specific uni. Not everyone wants to get into £80k+ worth of debt

 

[JayB]

It is how it works in terms of moderation. The ranking is used to assign grade boundaries (more so than at other units) although this does depend on which college you go to. A 2.2 at Cambridge is a bit different to a 2.2 from somewhere else

It doesn’t matter if you went to Cambridge, a 2:2 is still a 2:2 in a graduate recruitment’s perspective. I have a family friend who is a GR employee at a very elite US firm and they will still reject you or consider that as an obstacle

I’m from LSE and know people in my course who achieved a 2:2 in some modules and I know a good friend of mine from SOAS who got strong 2:1s he was favoured over the LSE student. As @Jessica Booker mentioned I don’t think a uni’s name matters. I’m still facing a lot of rejections and I didn’t get any 2:2s and graduated with a solid 2:1.

It broadens more than just academics and your university’s name. Because you went to Cambridge doesn’t make you elite hahahah

This is a great discussion.

Do you agree @Jessica Booker?

 

[Legal_rawn]

It doesn’t matter if you went to Cambridge, a 2:2 is still a 2:2 in a graduate recruitment’s perspective. I have a family friend who is a GR employee at a very elite US firm and they will still reject you or consider that as an obstacle

I’m from LSE and know people in my course who achieved a 2:2 in some modules and I know a good friend of mine from SOAS who got strong 2:1s he was favoured over the LSE student. As @Jessica Booker mentioned I don’t think a uni’s name matters. I’m still facing a lot of rejections and I didn’t get any 2:2s and graduated with a solid 2:1.

It broadens more than just academics and your university’s name. Because you went to Cambridge doesn’t make you elite hahahah

This is a great discussion.

Do you agree @Jessica Booker?

I agree. I said that a 2.2 from Cambridge is ‘different’ to an equivalent grade from a different uni. It isn’t necessarily better or worse but probably requires contextualising like many factors that go into an individual’s application. A 2.1 is still obviously a grade higher than a 2.2

also I don’t go to Cambridge or Oxford lol I am just re-laying what recruiters have told me

 

[jan28]

hi guys, this may be a super broad question and a bit of a dumb one but what is the significance of firms promoting x many partners? is this something we should concern ourselves with?

 

[TCLA Community Assistant]

It doesn’t matter if you went to Cambridge, a 2:2 is still a 2:2 in a graduate recruitment’s perspective. I have a family friend who is a GR employee at a very elite US firm and they will still reject you or consider that as an obstacle

I’m from LSE and know people in my course who achieved a 2:2 in some modules and I know a good friend of mine from SOAS who got strong 2:1s he was favoured over the LSE student. As @Jessica Booker mentioned I don’t think a uni’s name matters. I’m still facing a lot of rejections and I didn’t get any 2:2s and graduated with a solid 2:1.

It broadens more than just academics and your university’s name. Because you went to Cambridge doesn’t make you elite hahahah

This is a great discussion.

Do you agree @Jessica Booker?

It never is as simple as comparing a candidate with X set of academics to another with Y set of academics.

There are literally tens of thousands of variables that will make each application different beyond academics. In your above example, the SOAS candidate probably had other strengths to their application while the Cambridge applicant probably also had areas for development.

Unless you don't meet the firm’s criteria - for instance if you haven't achieved a 2.1 overall - it's highly unlikely a decision is being made on academics alone, so trying to compare candidates purely by that measurement, isn’t really worthwhile in my opinion.

 

[Naomi U]

hi guys, this may be a super broad question and a bit of a dumb one but what is the significance of firms promoting x many partners? is this something we should concern ourselves with?

I think you could mention this in the context of Diversity & Inclusion. So for example with myself, diversity is very important to me so I am naturally quite interested in the representation of BAME and female incumbent partners and promotions within a firm. Other than this, I don't think you would need to nor be expected to have a deep understanding into a firm's partner structure.
( also not a dumb question at all! )

 

[Lily721]

hi guys, this may be a super broad question and a bit of a dumb one but what is the significance of firms promoting x many partners? is this something we should concern ourselves with?

I also think, in addition to what Naomi said, that this could be significant in seeing for example, if that particular firm is promoting its own lawyers compared to hiring from other firms. Some firms often do lateral hires of partners from their competitors, while others might prefer to promote its own people.

 

[TCLA Community Assistant]

hi guys, this may be a super broad question and a bit of a dumb one but what is the significance of firms promoting x many partners? is this something we should concern ourselves with?

Agree with the comments already said. I think you also need to look at the detail - where are people being promoted in terms of either geographical location or also practice area/department? If that's all in one area, it could suggest that the firm is growing more rapidly in that area. However, it could equally mean that just a load of people retired/jumped ship for another firm, so sometimes it isn't always as clear cut what it means in reality. To me the bigger question is how many partners that are being promoted trained and qualified at the firm. Many people who are being promoted could have easily been lured over as a senior associate with the temptation of partnership, rather than being hired laterally as a partner.

 

[jan28]

I think you could mention this in the context of Diversity & Inclusion. So for example with myself, diversity is very important to me so I am naturally quite interested in the representation of BAME and female incumbent partners and promotions within a firm. Other than this, I don't think you would need to nor be expected to have a deep understanding into a firm's partner structure.
( also not a dumb question at all! )

I also think, in addition to what Naomi said, that this could be significant in seeing for example, if that particular firm is promoting its own lawyers compared to hiring from other firms. Some firms often do lateral hires of partners from their competitors, while others might prefer to promote its own people.

Agree with the comments already said. I think you also need to look at the detail - where are people being promoted in terms of either geographical location or also practice area/department? If that's all in one area, it could suggest that the firm is growing more rapidly in that area. However, it could equally mean that just a load of people retired/jumped ship for another firm, so sometimes it isn't always as clear cut what it means in reality. To me the bigger question is how many partners that are being promoted trained and qualified at the firm. Many people who are being promoted could have easily been lured over as a senior associate with the temptation of partnership, rather than being hired laterally as a partner.

thank you so much

 

[Kareena]

Currently writing my Gibson Dunn Cover letter! Any tips?

 

[TCLA Community Assistant]

Currently writing my Gibson Dunn Cover letter! Any tips?

It’s not clear until you log in, but it’s only 650 words. Don’t worry about formal cover letter formatting as it is just a standard text box, so just Dear XXX and a sign off is really the only formalities needed.

Also look at their FAQ document on their website as this gives some very clear indications of what they are looking for in a candidate/application.

 

[Jxmxs00]

Does anyone have any functional advice for live virtual interviews? I think it would be easier to show enthusiasm in person, so how have people gone about this behind a screen? Equally, it's obviously important to look at the webcam when you're speaking to give the impression of eye contact, but it's not the same as actual eye contact - if I were to look at them, I'd be looking downwards.

Any thoughts would be much appreciated!

 

[Jacob Miller]

Does anyone have any functional advice for live virtual interviews? I think it would be easier to show enthusiasm in person, so how have people gone about this behind a screen? Equally, it's obviously important to look at the webcam when you're speaking to give the impression of eye contact, but it's not the same as actual eye contact - if I were to look at them, I'd be looking downwards.

Any thoughts would be much appreciated!

Just in regards your point of looking at the right angle, I would invest in a laptop stand. They can be bought very inexpensively off amazon etc and allow your laptop to sit higher so you're looking straight ahead rather than downwards (especially not a good look if your shirts are a little tighter than they were pre-quarantine like mine were...)

There's no doubt that making a genuine connection with the interviewer and having it feel like more of a relaxed conversation is much harder on a digital interview. That said, I wouldn't say it's impossible and we are all so used to the Zoom world now that its much easier to do than it was at the start of the pandemic.

I would emphasise the importance of speaking at the correct pace and in a clear, understandable way over the Internet as speech can become garbled very quickly. Other than that, I tried to approach these things in much the same way as normal! I often found that overthinking the 'virtual' thing caused me more stress than was necessary. Very best of luck!

 

[Ricky]

Just in regards your point of looking at the right angle, I would invest in a laptop stand. They can be bought very inexpensively off amazon etc and allow your laptop to sit higher so you're looking straight ahead rather than downwards (especially not a good look if your shirts are a little tighter than they were pre-quarantine like mine were...)

There's no doubt that making a genuine connection with the interviewer and having it feel like more of a relaxed conversation is much harder on a digital interview. That said, I wouldn't say it's impossible and we are all so used to the Zoom world now that its much easier to do than it was at the start of the pandemic.

I would emphasise the importance of speaking at the correct pace and in a clear, understandable way over the Internet as speech can become garbled very quickly. Other than that, I tried to approach these things in much the same way as normal! I often found that overthinking the 'virtual' thing caused me more stress than was necessary. Very best of luck!

My shirts have also shrunk...must be something in the water!

 

[AH97]

Does anyone have any functional advice for live virtual interviews? I think it would be easier to show enthusiasm in person, so how have people gone about this behind a screen? Equally, it's obviously important to look at the webcam when you're speaking to give the impression of eye contact, but it's not the same as actual eye contact - if I were to look at them, I'd be looking downwards.

Any thoughts would be much appreciated!

Kind of not answering your question but I actually found that looking directly into the camera and not being able to properly see the interviewers calmed me down and allowed me to focus more on the structure, pace and clarity of my answers! Good luck with your interview