TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2021-22 (#1)

[Future Six Figure Fee Earner]

Does anyone know how I would go about providing evidence that a relative died during my exam period if a law firm was to ask for evidence?

 

[Jessica Booker]

Does anyone know how I would go about providing evidence that a relative died during my exam period if a law firm was to ask for evidence?

You'd need your university to verify it as evidence more than anything.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi there, bit of a long shot do you by any chance know when we are scheduled to hear back with an outcome of the assessment centres for the Flex Legal TC scheme? Cannot recall if they mentioned a date or anything in particular- or if anyones heard anything back at all 😃

Hey - we had to delay one of the assessment centres due to the heatwave and so people will hear back sometime after the 2nd August, when the last assessment centre will now take place.

 

[Future Six Figure Fee Earner]

But I didn't bring it up to the university, and I can't bring things up retrospectively, so I haven't bothered doing so since or in an appeal. Is there any evidence outside of my uni verifying that I can give them?

 

[Jessica Booker]

But I didn't bring it up to the university, and I can't bring things up retrospectively, so I haven't bothered doing so since or in an appeal. Is there any evidence outside of my uni verifying that I can give them?

The firm would only ask for evidence from the university or for information that is directly related to you (e.g. doctor's note). As the death is not directly related to you (there is no evidence attached to you directly), the firm cannot seek it out.

 

[Future Six Figure Fee Earner]

So there is no evidence I can give for a death? Will a law firm still take this into consideration or not without any evidence?
I can't imagine it is rare for people not to tell the university of any mitigating circumstances?

 

[Jessica Booker]

So there is no evidence I can give for a death? Will a law firm still take this into consideration or not without any evidence?
I can't imagine it is rare for people not to tell the university of any mitigating circumstances?

There isn't any evidence the firm will want to see. The only evidence you could really send is a death certificate.

But that doesn't explain how it impacted the situation impacted your studies, which is really the issue the recruiter is trying to understand. Mitigating circumstances are not uniform and don't impact people in exactly the same way, and so a death certificate doesn't really give the detail the recruiter needs. They understand the circumstances happened, but they can't verify how it impacted you. And that's really the information they are trying to get to (not the circumstances themselves).

And this is going to sound really blunt, but when people don't speak to their universities about such circumstances, then there is the question as to how severe they must have been. Not seeking support at the time suggests it can't have been that impactful. When it is impactful, people seek support from the university or at least let them know it happened.

Feel free to PM me if it is easier to discuss the details behind this and I can explain how to explain your circumstances on applications.

 

[LegalEagle999]

Hey - we had to delay one of the assessment centres due to the heatwave and so people will hear back sometime after the 2nd August, when the last assessment centre will now take place.

Thanks so much Jessica!

 

[Future Six Figure Fee Earner]

Thanks Jessica, I've DMed you

 

[lekimdinger]

Hello all! Does anybody know the main differences between a Training Contract (TC) and a Qualifying Work Experience Training Contract (QWETC)? I have competing offers but one firm is offering the TC and the other the QWETC. What are the main differences and advantages/disadvantages associated with each? Thanks in advance.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hello all! Does anybody know the main differences between a Training Contract (TC) and a Qualifying Work Experience Training Contract (QWETC)? I have competing offers but one firm is offering the TC and the other the QWETC. What are the main differences and advantages/disadvantages associated with each? Thanks in advance.

Is the TC doing the LPC and the QWETC doing the SQE?

 

[lekimdinger]

Is the TC doing the LPC and the QWETC doing the SQE?

Yes, that is correct.

 

[Jessica Booker]

Yes, that is correct.

Ok, this is complicated because the below is a generalisation. You need to look carefully at your offer documents though, as it could easily be that this isn’t the case in your situation.

SQE TCs can have probation periods while LPC TCs do not - you can effectively be a rubbish trainee and it’s pretty difficult to get rid of you on a LPC TC, so you are basically guaranteed employment for two years (unless the firm goes bust or you do anything that constitutes misconduct). This isn’t the case on the SQE TC because you get get qualifying work experience elsewhere. So check the terms of your employment - notice periods/probation periods etc. Redundancy is also possible on a SQE TC, while highly unlikely/difficult on a LPC TC.

The SQE is likely going to be “harder” to pass compared to the LPC. SQE1 currently has similar pass rates to the LPC but that is just one of two stages. You then have to go through the SQE2 which is expected to have similar pass rates (45-60%), but 50% of 50% is only 25%, while pass rates for the LPC are just over double that. However, if you firm is providing sponsorship with a recognised training provider, I would take this with a pinch of salt, as pass rates on those courses tend to be exceptionally high either way.

One advantage of the SQE is you don’t have to see three distinct areas of law. For anyone who wants to specialise rather than rotate around departments, the SQE could work in your favour as ultimately you could work in one team for the entire 2 years. It’s difficult to do this on the LPC TC unless you are in a multi disciplinary team.

If you really don’t like your firm, then it is much easier to move with the SQE TC. The qualifying work experience process is with you, not with the firm, and so you can move around much more easily. That might be useful if you want to jump close to qualification, as now you could jump before you are qualified (you used to have to wait until you were qualified).

The SQE can also allow you to qualify earlier if you have previous legal work experience. If you have a year’s experience elsewhere, you technically could qualify a whole year earlier should you want to. This is particularly useful for those who are just qualifying for the sake of it and seeking alternative careers upon qualification.

If you do want to leave early, then also check and terms of paying back training courses/maintenance grants (although that is the same with the LPC too). You could find you need to pay it all back fairly immediately depending on your contract’s T&Cs

 

[lekimdinger]

Ok, this is complicated because the below is a generalisation. You need to look carefully at your offer documents though, as it could easily be that this isn’t the case in your situation.

SQE TCs can have probation periods while LPC TCs do not - you can effectively be a rubbish trainee and it’s pretty difficult to get rid of you on a LPC TC, so you are basically guaranteed employment for two years (unless the firm goes bust or you do anything that constitutes misconduct). This isn’t the case on the SQE TC because you get get qualifying work experience elsewhere. So check the terms of your employment - notice periods/probation periods etc. Redundancy is also possible on a SQE TC, while highly unlikely/difficult on a LPC TC.

The SQE is likely going to be “harder” to pass compared to the LPC. SQE1 currently has similar pass rates to the LPC but that is just one of two stages. You then have to go through the SQE2 which is expected to have similar pass rates (45-60%), but 50% of 50% is only 25%, while pass rates for the LPC are just over double that. However, if you firm is providing sponsorship with a recognised training provider, I would take this with a pinch of salt, as pass rates on those courses tend to be exceptionally high either way.

One advantage of the SQE is you don’t have to see three distinct areas of law. For anyone who wants to specialise rather than rotate around departments, the SQE could work in your favour as ultimately you could work in one team for the entire 2 years. It’s difficult to do this on the LPC TC unless you are in a multi disciplinary team.

If you really don’t like your firm, then it is much easier to move with the SQE TC. The qualifying work experience process is with you, not with the firm, and so you can move around much more easily. That might be useful if you want to jump close to qualification, as now you could jump before you are qualified (you used to have to wait until you were qualified).

The SQE can also allow you to qualify earlier if you have previous legal work experience. If you have a year’s experience elsewhere, you technically could qualify a whole year earlier should you want to. This is particularly useful for those who are just qualifying for the sake of it and seeking alternative careers upon qualification.

If you do want to leave early, then also check and terms of paying back training courses/maintenance grants (although that is the same with the LPC too). You could find you need to pay it all back fairly immediately depending on your contract’s T&Cs

Wow, thank you for such a comprehensive answer. I was definitely leaning more towards the traditional TC and this has solidified that choice, however, regarding your point about the pass rates of the LPC vs SQE, does this change significantly for the accelerated LPC?; the firm has informed me that I will be required to take the 7-month course).

 

[Jessica Booker]

Wow, thank you for such a comprehensive answer. I was definitely leaning more towards the traditional TC and this has solidified that choice, however, regarding your point about the pass rates of the LPC vs SQE, does this change significantly for the accelerated LPC?; the firm has informed me that I will be required to take the 7-month course).

Unfortunately, the stats for the LPC are never separated out in terms of the accelerated course vs standard year course, so it is hard to determine. However, the failure rates on courses where the firm has a bespoke course (which the accelerated course generally is) are typically minimal - less than 5% from my experience. The reason for that is the academic providers monitor your performance much more closely and ensure necessary support is put in place where they are getting the money and brand recognition from saying the law firm put their future trainees through their courses. They risk losing much more money and reputation if they screw up and don't support law firm's trainee intakes compared to individuals who are self-funding or where firms just reimburse their trainees to study at any provider.

 

[ashleigh22]

Does hearing back later compared to other candidates post-VS suggest that I’m further down the ‘maybe/reject’ list? There are already 3 people across the two schemes that the firm organised getting offers since Friday.. I know I should be patient but I’m just wondering whether it is better to expect a rejection at this stage 😅

 

[Jessica Booker]

Does hearing back later compared to other candidates post-VS suggest that I’m further down the ‘maybe/reject’ list? There are already 3 people across the two schemes that the firm organised getting offers since Friday.. I know I should be patient but I’m just wondering whether it is better to expect a rejection at this stage 😅

Not necessarily - there are a whole load of reasons why some people hear back earlier/later than others.

 

[lekimdinger]

Unfortunately, the stats for the LPC are never separated out in terms of the accelerated course vs standard year course, so it is hard to determine. However, the failure rates on courses where the firm has a bespoke course (which the accelerated course generally is) are typically minimal - less than 5% from my experience. The reason for that is the academic providers monitor your performance much more closely and ensure necessary support is put in place where they are getting the money and brand recognition from saying the law firm put their future trainees through their courses. They risk losing much more money and reputation if they screw up and don't support law firm's trainee intakes compared to individuals who are self-funding or where firms just reimburse their trainees to study at any provider.

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you so much for your comprehensive answers.

 

[mailer]

Not necessarily - there are a whole load of reasons why some people hear back earlier/later than others.

Hi Jessica - what sort of reasons would these be? Thanks!

 

[Jessica Booker]

Hi Jessica - what sort of reasons would these be? Thanks!

There are literally hundreds of reasons why.

Each decision requires getting feedback from multiple people. And those people vary between candidates. How quickly one set of people get back with feedback can be very different to the next. It’s a human process that is not standardised. And therefore it can take different amounts of time for different people.