When I applied it was 2 questions. "any awards or scholarships" and "Your hobbies" - I felt like it was slightly elitist in that obviously the guy from Oxbridge with 2 scholarships and who participates in 15 societies would beat out the guy who can barely find any time out of school or uni because they have to work all week lol. It didn't feel like you could really tell the firm about who you truly are and your passion/skills clearly enough in my opinion.
I would disagree that it is elitist - I think its about how you position yourself. I am the guy who could barely find time outside of school or uni because they had to work all week but I answer the hobbies questions by being very honest and saying I am limited to time because of the fact I worked 30+ hours a week alongside a full time LLB so I don't partake in sports or societies. However I would show how my part time job aligned to my interest in tech as I worked for a tech company and how it was quite a social job as I was in sales and working in London meant I spent my days talking to people of all different backgrounds and hearing some fantastic stories, I say how I would use the time commuting to read the news and listen to podcasts as I like to know what's going on in the world. IMO when law firms ask for your hobbies they aren't so bothered by what they are they are more thing to find out what motivates you.
I agree to certain extent but that still passes over the scholarships and prizes question. Plus I have attended skadden open days and met with skadden associates and the diversity is pretty appalling. Part of that is the size but it’s definitely a reflection of the firms hiring practices being tailored to those who had a plan of action earlier on in life/had more recourses. You’re story is super impressive and honestly amazing in my eyes. But I really don’t think asking for scholarships or prizes is a great way of judging character or ability in my opinion. Nor is it a great way to diversify a firms hiring. Just my opinion though
Yes I would agree that the entire hiring process is better suited to those that knew what they wanted earlier, I feel incredibly behind in AC's for VS's in particular being in my late 20s when so many of the other candidates are second year law students at 19/20. I didn't even start university until I was older than some people I meet in ACs. I also think although you don't need a RG/Oxbridge degree you do receive much better access to firms and careers advice at those universities so you have to do less work yourself to find the information out.
There is only so much a law firm can do to diversify hiring, a lot of people self-select out of the process as they don't think they are the right fit so it becomes somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy that only oxbridge etc are hired by certain firms. I think perhaps more needs to be done to recognise the achievements of people in context, and contextual recruitment is going some way towards that.
I personally like when a law firm asks for scholarships/prizes, but that is somewhat selfish on my part as I have been awarded two competitive scholarships so have something to put in that box.
@DTS and
@Abii just wanted to shout you out for having a mature, respectful discussion on this topic on the forum. Discussions like this help set the tone for the community and I am thankful to you both for your thoughtfulness in the manner of your posting.
I also wanted to chip in with some of my thoughts and perspective on this. I was always the person both in school and at university who focused a lot of their energy on extracurricular activities, volunteering and part-time jobs. Although my academic performance was a priority, my extracurriculars captured my interests more pointedly and I was more passionate about them as a result.
Whenever I got asked about my extracurriculars on an application form, I felt like it was validating my efforts and interests outside of academics and it felt good to have people care about it more than/as much as my academics. Conversely, I had some friends who didn't have many extracurriculars or any scholarships/prizes at all and they still did pretty well in getting hired by the same kind of firms that I was applying to.
I think what worked for them was a combination of things that
@Abii has already mentioned, including not self-selecting themselves from the application process and, importantly,
presenting the seemingly small ways they engaged themselves in a manner that was relevant to the firm's hiring requirements. So for example, if they knitted or watched some sport as a hobby, they brought out the details of what they put into it
and go out of it to showcase that their thought process matched the competencies that the firm was looking for in their future trainees.
It took a lot of brainstorming, effort and a lot of creativity to craft their answers in this manner but they succeeded in the application process in the end just as well/better than I did, which means that these kind of questions don't necessarily have to leave out people who have a few/no scholarships, prizes or extracurriculars from applying and succeeding in the application process.
I can see your point about maybe some firms designing these questions to simply sift those who don't have many extracurriculars out from those who do, and I genuinely hope that my experience and perspective can help applicants who have few/no extracurriculars figure out their approach to these questions and draft strong, impactful answers nonetheless.
Wishing you both well 😇
