I know this question is for @Romiras so I apologise for jumping in, but I wouldn’t stress about the late response! Most people in my cohort heard back within about 2 weeks, including myself - this is because they usually call your referees after the interview. @Romiras probably performed very well to have heard back so fast, but I would say that is the exception, not the norm. Fingers crossed for you!
I know this question is for @Romiras so I apologise for jumping in, but I wouldn’t stress about the late response! Most people in my cohort heard back within about 2 weeks, including myself - this is because they usually call your referees after the interview. @Romiras probably performed very well to have heard back so fast, but I would say that is the exception, not the norm. Fingers crossed for you!
Thank you Abstruser!!
That's changed by entire perspective - let's just hope your predictions are correct !!
Hi Harvey,
Sorry for the late response. I know a few others that have received positive offers early. I know a lot more that haven't as well. Abstruser has pretty much got it spot on.
The only thing I'd like to add is that you shouldn't worry too much. A lot of my friends had to wait for their referrals to be contacted. I think, in my case, I was already holding other training contracts. Once they were aware of this, as with most firms, the offer process becomes a bit more murky in how things can be done.
Thanks Romiras! That makes a lot more sense now - I did wonder why they were so interested in whether I had other offers pending.
The written exercise tends to be a client / internal memo (not sure if they've changed it since last year). Meaning, you need to utilise headings and a concise writing style. Your headings are whatever appropriately breaks down an issue and explains it well.
Thanks! So no stuff like 'introduction' etc? I'm just trying to prepare a strategy because it's my first interview ever
I don't think you need to have a literal heading like "Introduction". But if it is appropriate to summarise the background, you could have "Background". Although, these articles tend to be rather commercial and doesn't require you to summarise some 'story'. For example, I was given a bundle on Green Bonds, and I was tasked to write up a client memo explaining what they were about and whether they are sustainable. It does sound hard, but you will be given a lot of information. In actuality, I believe the exercise focuses more on how you are able to write in a clear, understandable, accessible and structured manner, rather than on the content.
Also, I know some partners have expressly said that they have never rejected anyone over a bad written exercise. Your interview is extremely important.
I suggest checking portal and junk as that’s where mine ended up! Sorry to add a negative note but better to know than not know .
That's very reassuring! I just wanted to get my head around the basics of that written exercise, all those Swot's etc. and your advice was extremely helpful. Thanks!!
I would also agree with the points made about the exercise. Go with your gut- everyone at interview has the technical ability so go in with confidence and treat it like an exam. Go with the headings and sections that feel right but leave yourself 10 mins or so to proof! Best of luck
ok it's done. The partners asked a lot of hard, technical questions on the article and I struggled a bit in coming up with sound answers... I hope it will be fine! The interview itself was challenging, but they wanted me to perform well. Also, everyone was really nice from the beginning till the end!
For anybody with an upcoming interview with SandM I had mine this week so thought I would give a heads up;
Still waiting for my verdict. Not overly hopeful though as I am not sure I sold them on my “Why Law” response, didn't finish my written assessment and don't believe I was able to show enough personality. Fingers crossed I am wrong though
- My article was from the Independent
- The interview was mostly focused on the academic side of my CV, so "Why those A levels", "Why did you study Law?", "What did you do on your gap year", “How did you get your A-levels so high considering your poor GCSE’s”. I found this interview-style rather restrictive as there is only so much personality you can show whilst discussing academics. However, the interviewers were lovely.
- A LOT of time was spent on why Slaughters versus other magic circle firms. They were really keen to know other firms I had applied to and why.
- Another half of the interview was on the article. I was asked lots of hypothetical questions opposed and asked to respond. They are 100% trying to test your ability to stay calm and have a quick but considered response. Luckily I knew quite a bit on the story prior, I always listen to the "Business Matters" podcast from the BBC and it definitely helped prepare me for that story.
- Written assessment was relatively easy, if you’ve done any consultancy experience you will enjoy it. Brush up on SWOT and you can use it to structure your answer. I ran out of time however as that hour does go by so quickly!
- HR interview- was about 15 minutes with a really bubbly interviewer asking very similar questions that I was asked in the partner interview. “Why law?”, “Why slaughters?” “What are my interests”.
Still waiting for my verdict. Not overly hopeful though as I am not sure I sold them on my “Why Law” response, didn't finish my written assessment and don't believe I was able to show enough personality. Fingers crossed I am wrong though
I can’t speak for Slaughters but that tends to be how firms do it
It's impossible to tell. Mine was from the Independent and was very commercial. It could be, however, something on politics or even on abortion laws (but this is very rare)
