Hi everyone.
I just wanted to ask for some advice with one of the more 'firm knowledge' orientated questions on the vac scheme application. The questions is 'How does Kennedy's differ from other firms you have applied to?'
On the face of it this might look like it's just a glorified 'why do you want to work for us?' question, but the problem is that they also ask that in a seperate question 'why do you want a TC at Kennedy's?'. So the question really does seem to be asking me what makes Kennedy's unique within the legal industry, rather than just being about why I want to work there.
That's the problem and I have no idea where to start. Because, let's be frank, pretty much everything that Kennedy's does is also being done by someone else in some fashion. Kennedy's is better than other firms in certain areas, and weaker in others, but none of that answers the questions of how they're "different." I feel like to answer this question I need to get hyper specific about some niche aspect of the firm, and show that it really isn't done anywhere else and why that's good, but I don't know where to start on that. It's not like the firm website openly declares "here is this thing we do that no one else does!" I feel like I've hit a mental brick wall.
Am I overthinking this question? This is my third time going through the whole application cycle, and one thing I've learned is that they really will just latch onto any tiny detail in order to bin your application and thin the herd. I've been thinking about how to answer this for literally weeks and I still have no idea what to talk about, without just being intentionally vague and talking about "culture" or a specific pro bono program that's like all the others but with a different name. Or about their legal tech subsidiary. If I do that they'll look at it and go "this isn't how we're 'different', he's not answered the question. Rejected."
Hey William,
It's a good question and you are right. The question 'How does Kennedy's differ from other firms you have applied to?" isn't the same thing as "why us?". There may be some overlap, but I'd view the former question as more of a descriptive explanation of what makes Kennedy's different.
I Now, the question isn't asking you to only select reasons that no other firm is doing - as you said, there will inevitably be some overlap. You just want to pick areas that are more different to some of the firms than others. This might include factors like a smaller trainee intake, a particular international strategy, a particular way they are investing in innovation etc.
I think you may imagine recruiters to be stricter than they are. It's not really the case that you'll mention one point which isn't completely unique and a recruiter will decide to 'bin' your application. Here, you just want to demonstrate that you've thought deeply about Kennedy's USPs. If you do this and it still leads to a rejection, I doubt it will be a result of your answer to this question.
I just wanted to ask for some advice with one of the more 'firm knowledge' orientated questions on the vac scheme application. The questions is 'How does Kennedy's differ from other firms you have applied to?'
On the face of it this might look like it's just a glorified 'why do you want to work for us?' question, but the problem is that they also ask that in a seperate question 'why do you want a TC at Kennedy's?'. So the question really does seem to be asking me what makes Kennedy's unique within the legal industry, rather than just being about why I want to work there.
That's the problem and I have no idea where to start. Because, let's be frank, pretty much everything that Kennedy's does is also being done by someone else in some fashion. Kennedy's is better than other firms in certain areas, and weaker in others, but none of that answers the questions of how they're "different." I feel like to answer this question I need to get hyper specific about some niche aspect of the firm, and show that it really isn't done anywhere else and why that's good, but I don't know where to start on that. It's not like the firm website openly declares "here is this thing we do that no one else does!" I feel like I've hit a mental brick wall.
Am I overthinking this question? This is my third time going through the whole application cycle, and one thing I've learned is that they really will just latch onto any tiny detail in order to bin your application and thin the herd. I've been thinking about how to answer this for literally weeks and I still have no idea what to talk about, without just being intentionally vague and talking about "culture" or a specific pro bono program that's like all the others but with a different name. Or about their legal tech subsidiary. If I do that they'll look at it and go "this isn't how we're 'different', he's not answered the question. Rejected."
Hey William,
It's a good question and you are right. The question 'How does Kennedy's differ from other firms you have applied to?" isn't the same thing as "why us?". There may be some overlap, but I'd view the former question as more of a descriptive explanation of what makes Kennedy's different.
I Now, the question isn't asking you to only select reasons that no other firm is doing - as you said, there will inevitably be some overlap. You just want to pick areas that are more different to some of the firms than others. This might include factors like a smaller trainee intake, a particular international strategy, a particular way they are investing in innovation etc.
I think you may imagine recruiters to be stricter than they are. It's not really the case that you'll mention one point which isn't completely unique and a recruiter will decide to 'bin' your application. Here, you just want to demonstrate that you've thought deeply about Kennedy's USPs. If you do this and it still leads to a rejection, I doubt it will be a result of your answer to this question.
Last edited by a moderator:
