TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2024-25

[eleven14og]

@Jessica Booker @Andrei Radu (and anyone please chime in if you can help, even if its only relating to a part of my question!!!!)

I apologize in advance for the long message. I just feel very lost and disheartened at the moment.

I just got rejected following my only AC, and I really dont know what to do anymore. It was my only AC and I'm unsure at all how to move forward , especially as I'm an international student, meaning I wont be able to stay in the UK after I graduate next year, if I dont have anything secured, also due to cost issues.

Would you please be able to give me some advice moving forward? I have a great deal of anxiety that I might not even get to an AC next year, and that this year's was only because 1. I had a mentoring scheme relating to the firm and 2. I had mitigating circumstances for my poor first year grades.

I do not have any open days/ mentoring schemes relating to any other firms, so I'm worried that just like this year, I wont get any ACs for those firms next year either, and the only firm for which I had a lot to speak about, is the one that reject me after the AC. It was also one of the few (non US) firms that didn't use a video interview or the SJT, and I'm notoriously bad at those.

I am also worried that if I fall back on my second year grades, it will make it even more challenging for me to acquire one.

Besides these concerns, I have a few specific questions:

Would u please tell me whether I can apply next year to the same firm, which is Freshfields,given I was rejected at AC stage, and if I do, will I be given any sort of exception to the Watson Glaser test?

I also want to ask whether I can continue using my same personal statement given it allowed me to pass the application stage, and if not, how must I show changes? can I still retain some parts of it?

Am I allowed to apply to the winter vacation scheme? every firm I applied to was for the 2025 summer vacation scheme, and I want to know whether the 2025 winter vacation scheme counts as something in the next cycle? I'm particularly worried because some firms only allow second year students for summer vac schemes.

What can I do to improve my applications next year, and show progress?

Would it be recommended for me to apply to direct TCs next year, or should I stick to vac schemes?

Are there any alternative options I should keep open right now, in the event that I dont manage to secure a 2028 one? I'm thinking along the lines of masters or other legal jobs, like teaching, but I'm not sure how feasible this is? is there anything else I could be looking at?

and just one more thing, would it be silly to maybe respond to the rejection email requesting to be reconsidered for this cycle in case of any drop outs or changes?

I know this is a lot of questions, and I apologise again. As an international student who is under a sort of time pressure , ive been feeling really anxious and like I blew my only chance. Any advice would be appreciated, and I hope this is useful for anyone else in a similar situation!!

Don't feel disheartened! It's a really though process and acceptance rate at almost every single firm is at 1-3% so it's extremely competitive... It isn't about you specifically, it's just that at the end of the day, we are say 2000 to apply to one firm and they only have 15 spots, even if you made it to the top 16, you wouldn't get a place, so it all goes down to luck sadly... At the end of the day, you only need one firm...

I don't have the answers to all of your questions, but what I do know is that, at least that's what I would do if I don't manage to secure anything, you could apply to University of Law (or BP university) and study their LLM in SQE 1 & 2, and subsequently pass the SQE in order to at least secure that... Now of course, having a training contract would be a lot more advantageous as they would fund your studies, but if you are financially able to, I think me personally that's what I am going to do... Because technically if you apply for a graduate visa (which is two years), it's going to run from the time you graduate from your LLB technically... So if you graduate in 2026, you'll have until 2028 to secure something... On the other hand, if you do the LLM, you 1) would've passed the SQE and 2) can apply at the end of your LLM for the Graduate Visa, so basically until 2029... (BTW SOMEONE CORRECT ME IF I AM MISTAKEN IN THAT REGARD PLEASE, BECAUSE IDK IF IM 100% CORRECT)And then in the meantime, while passing the SQE and LLM, try to apply and also try to refine your applications further! PM me if you want, as I found a technique that really worked for me later on (which I wish I knew sooner and which helped me secure a VS at HFW this summer)...

Again, don't be disheartened, it's really though and really really competitive, so it isn't specifically you! Also, depending on where you are originally from or where you live, perhaps you may also try to apply for some sort of legal experience (depends on where that is though because getting something in Dubai is a lot easier than getting something if you live in Germany or France for instance...)

PM me if you want!

EDIT: also, me personally I would recommend applying to VS instead of DTC unless you really have a lot of legal experience (advice given to me from a 2nd year trainee); unless the firm specifically says that wouldn't be eligible to apply..

Adding to @jacksollaf 's point on graduate visa, you can only use it once so i would suggest either (1) do graduate visa and try to gain more experience during the two years, and hopefully secure a TC before it expires, if not you can do SQE LLM then; or (2) do SQE LLM after undergrad, then apply for graduate visa. But that won't necessarily happen as you will definitely get better next cycle! It's already a massive achievement getting to AC during your second year so don't feel disheartened!

Of the two options, I did (1) because I don't want to self fund SQE and gain some paralegal experience. But it is slightly riskier because a lot of paralegal roles require SQE 1(LPC back when I graduated). So it may take longer than expected to get a job. But I think for VS/TC apps work experiences are more valuable in comparison to passing the SQE. It can also give you more edge for DTC apps.

Feel free to PM me as well re graduate visa or securing paralegal roles!

 

[vr36]

Does White & Case still have AC's scheduled for next week? Trying to ascertain when we can expect a decision for Summer.

 

[Tintin06]

I also felt I did well at the TI so feel you - would’ve been interesting to get feedback on it but they don’t offer it which I think is so poor.

I agree with this quite strongly. They did not run many interviews. Other firms like that provide feedback. E.g. Wilkie and White & Case. It's really not great at all.

 

[futuretrainee!]

Well yes, but also companies and firms around the world are changing their mentality on hiring candidates from diverse backgrounds. Essentially the VI format becomes more dangerous with no voice at the back of a recruiter's head underlining these considerations

DEI in the US was extremely toxic as it was affirmative action where diversity was exercised through quotas and preferential hiring for underrepresented groups - this is counter to any business, profit-making mandate as hiring should be based on merits. DEI in the UK is far more digestible where under-represented backgrounds are considered proportionally which helps contextualise an applicant but still very much focuses on the merits of a candidate's application. If there is a "voice at the back of a recruiter's head" to hire a particular candidate of a race to represent a particular community, I think we have gone astray from what DEI was meant to do, which is level the ground instead of offering a leg-up.

 

[baj5]

WBD test feedback is brutal. Grit 6, applied intellect 4, creative force 4, digital mindset 6

 

[Chris Brown]

Is anyone else quite worried about what the US DEI situation means for firms which rely heavily on the pre-recorded video interview assessments/short video interviews? It basically has you recording 6-8 minutes of yourself, answering very general questions with no follow-ups. Obviously, structure and content is key, but clearly 6-8 minutes isn't enough to fully assess a candidate, get to know them as a person, understand their thinking etc. It can show some things conclusively though, and that's the candidate's race, their accent, their gender, their sexual orientation or trans identity if they clearly display this through their communication or appearance... Basically, while ACs also clearly also reveal these attributes, candidates also have hours and hours to show other attributes and show their personalities, and how their background has shaped their thinking in a unique and valuable way. I'm worried that video interviews will provide very limited opportunity for firms to evaluate a candidate's potential to succeed as a trainee, and everything needed to box them into stereotypes. Open for discussion

This is something that has been on my mind for some time going through this application cycle. I have a strong interest in US firms, but they rely heavily on VI. I am worried about the impact of the DEI situation in the US and if it will mean US firms change their policies around DEI in their UK offices’ graduate recruitment processes.

While it is possible that a PFO post-VI is down to things like poor structure, waffling, lack of key content, etc. it can also be down to bias and prejudice. While this problem has existed even before the DEI situation in the US, I think it’ll get worse now. No firm can ever guarantee that there is 0% bias in their processes. That’s why even now some US firms’ future trainees all come from quite similar backgrounds.

So far in my own experience with Willkie, I have not been made to feel this way (yet). Credit has to be given to Gemma for ensuring their process is as fair and transparent as possible (two of their recruitment stages are entirely CV blind) which I think more firms should adopt. If I were to do a 2nd cycle and apply to other US firms, I’m not sure if the same could be said. I think in the UK there is more of an issue with elitism and classism, in the context of city law firms’ recruitment. For those who come from ethnic minority backgrounds and lower socio-economic backgrounds, I think it’s a double edged sword.​

 

[Someoneinlaw]

HSF AC invite🙂 (applied 27th of November ) . I honestly thought Macfarlanes will be my only AC this cycle but look at God 🥹🥹
Also , if you’re still waiting to hear back from them , don’t loose hope. I read that someone received SVS offer on this platform and was sort of expecting a PFO but it looks like they are very much still sending out invites so hang on!
Ps: I will very much appreciate any insights from anyone who has done HSF AC! ❤️

 

[Ricky]

has anybody done the V&E interview this week? Heard from a friend they are ongoing.

Three weeks of interviews - outcomes mid-March.

 

[Legal Wizard]

Fairly sure, all Weil ACs have concluded now, anyone know when Weil will communicate results?

Next week

 

[Chris Brown]

Surely you want to be selected for a job based on your ability, rather than because you tick certain boxes?

I think the OP’s point (which I agree with) was that someone can possess the ability, but because they tick those boxes (which become visible to recruiters through things like a VI), there is room for bias and prejudice. Of course I would want to be hired based on my ability, but it’s inevitable that someone (e.g., grad rec, associates, partners, etc.) might not believe I possess the ability because of my background (bias and prejudice). With the DEI situation in the US, this could only get worse, especially in relation to US law firms.​

 

[billyonthespeeddial]

Sorry, I had actually deleted my initial posts because I didn't want to start a thing, but I guess it's too late now haha. Just want to clarify that what I meant was NOT about being picked to fill a diversity quota. It was about knowing that people would take a moment to acknowledge whether they were being prejudiced against some traits which may in fact not be indicative of potential or ability. i.e. it was simply about not being discriminated against.

 

[Interested_In_Law]

This is something that has been on my mind for some time going through this application cycle. I have a strong interest in US firms, but they rely heavily on VI. I am worried about the impact of the DEI situation in the US and if it will mean US firms change their policies around DEI in their UK offices’ graduate recruitment processes.

While it is possible that a PFO post-VI is down to things like poor structure, waffling, lack of key content, etc. it can also be down to bias and prejudice. While this problem has existed even before the DEI situation in the US, I think it’ll get worse now. No firm can ever guarantee that there is 0% bias in their processes. That’s why even now some US firms’ future trainees all come from quite similar backgrounds.

So far in my own experience with Willkie, I have not been made to feel this way (yet). Credit has to be given to Gemma for ensuring their process is as fair and transparent as possible (two of their recruitment stages are entirely CV blind) which I think more firms should adopt. If I were to do a 2nd cycle and apply to other US firms, I’m not sure if the same could be said. I think in the UK there is more of an issue with elitism and classism, in the context of city law firms’ recruitment. For those who come from ethnic minority backgrounds and lower socio-economic backgrounds, I think it’s a double edged sword.​

Interestingly, the video interview platform HireVue, which a number of law firms use, has come under fire for using facial recognition data in AI technology to assess candidates in a way which could potentially be discriminatory. I think it is quite worrying, because AI technology does have a tendency to reinforce built-in biases.

Class Action Targeting Video Interview Technology Reminds Employers of Testing Risks | Paul Hastings LLP

www.paulhastings.com

 

[futuretrainee!]

I think the OP’s point (which I agree with) was that someone can possess the ability, but because they tick those boxes (which become visible to recruiters through things like a VI), there is room for bias and prejudice. Of course I would want to be hired based on my ability, but it’s inevitable that someone (e.g., grad rec, associates, partners, etc.) might not believe I possess the ability because of my background (bias and prejudice).​

If there is a propensity for a firm to be biased based on diversity benchmarks, the problem is, hopefully, you will agree, the people. More importantly, DEI programmes in the US do not actually overcome this because these diversity quotas are counter to a meritocracy - where you have to choose between a racial minority with average scores to a racial majority with higher scores, DEI in the US would prefer the racial minority applicant even though they are less likely to thrive in the role. As mentioned, this doesn't actually solve the problem which is overcoming the bias among the recruiters, but instead leads to a bunch of 'diversity hires' offering little to no value to the firm. DEI in the US was deeply flawed which is why companies have jumped to remove them and as a racial minority myself, I commend that because there needs to be a recognition that businesses are profit-making entities and forcing representation of any particular community, often independent of merit-based talent, is fatal to any business and should be discouraged.

 

[austinfriar]

DEI in the US was extremely toxic as it was affirmative action where diversity was exercised through quotas and preferential hiring for underrepresented groups - this is counter to any business, profit-making mandate as hiring should be based on merits. DEI in the UK is far more digestible where under-represented backgrounds are considered proportionally which helps contextualise an applicant but still very much focuses on the merits of a candidate's application. If there is a "voice at the back of a recruiter's head" to hire a particular candidate of a race to represent a particular community, I think we have gone astray from what DEI was meant to do, which is level the ground instead of offering a leg-up.

Your understanding of this lacks the acknowledgment that certain groups have the exact same potential for greatness as others, but perform worse on standardized tests/grading/etc due to lack of resources, financial stress, and the simple fact that it is way easier to do well in school and in life if you aren't low income, and that's hugely tied to race and immigration status. So quota based hiring gives underrepresented applicants the benefit of the doubt (as well as making sure that different perspectives are represented). DEI is here to offer a leg up to candidate who are historically excluded, whereas white candidates, especially white men, have been offered countless legs up through the ages. Take a look at gender pay gaps.... even in organisations where women equal men in numbers, the majority of the time men make up most of the people who get a bonus. Funny how that happens...

Anyways, in short, I think you're pretty wrong

 

[zoobla20]

Surely you want to be selected for a job based on your ability, rather than because you tick certain boxes? DEI does not remove discrimination / bias from the process. It does the opposite of that. You should aspire to be valued for your character / mind rather than the colour of your skin, your sexual preferences or your background.

Apparently there is a difference based on the way DEI is done in the UK vs the US - in the US, they use (or used to use) diversity quotas which could lead to people just getting hired due to certain characteristics (though I'd assume they would have to meet the job criteria too). In the UK, this would be positive discrimination which is outlawed.

Imo, I haven't seen any law firms give me a special advantage due to being a POC - rather the research suggests there are unconscious biases which work against those who are disabled/LGBTQ+/POC etc which is what UK law firms are trying to mitigate against.

 

[hehostressed]

Apparently there is a difference based on the way DEI is done in the UK vs the US - in the US, they use (or used to use) diversity quotas which could lead to people just getting hired due to certain characteristics (though I'd assume they would have to meet the job criteria too). In the UK, this would be positive discrimination which is outlawed.

Imo, I haven't seen any law firms give me a special advantage due to being a POC - rather the research suggests there are unconscious biases which work against those who are disabled/LGBTQ+/POC etc which is what UK law firms are trying to mitigate against.

I’ve personally seen it at a UK firm so I think it has trickled in

 

[wqueens8]

so we're all just religiously and compulsively checking our emails and this thread right?

 

[zonnonomo]

WBD test score 6969 aha xd rawrr (ima done stayed unemployed)

 

[Chris Brown]

DEI in the US was extremely toxic as it was affirmative action where diversity was exercised through quotas and preferential hiring for underrepresented groups - this is counter to any business, profit-making mandate as hiring should be based on merits. DEI in the UK is far more digestible where under-represented backgrounds are considered proportionally which helps contextualise an applicant but still very much focuses on the merits of a candidate's application. If there is a "voice at the back of a recruiter's head" to hire a particular candidate of a race to represent a particular community, I think we have gone astray from what DEI was meant to do, which is level the ground instead of offering a leg-up.

If there is a propensity for a firm to be biased based on diversity benchmarks, the problem is, hopefully, you will agree, the people. More importantly, DEI programmes in the US do not actually overcome this because these diversity quotas are counter to a meritocracy - where you have to choose between a racial minority with average scores to a racial majority with higher scores, DEI in the US would prefer the racial minority applicant even though they are less likely to thrive in the role. As mentioned, this doesn't actually solve the problem which is overcoming the bias among the recruiters, but instead leads to a bunch of 'diversity hires' offering little to no value to the firm. DEI in the US was deeply flawed which is why companies have jumped to remove them and as a racial minority myself, I commend that because there needs to be a recognition that businesses are profit-making entities and forcing representation of any particular community, often independent of merit-based talent, is fatal to any business and should be discouraged.

I have some controversial opinions on this topic and I’m aware I will probably get cancelled on the TCLA forum after this, but here goes nothing lmao:

1. I don’t believe it’s possible to hire on merit in the US or the UK because there is still a lot of unconscious bias and prejudice against under-represented groups (ethnic minorities, women, lower socioeconomic groups, LGBTQ+, people with disabilities, etc). There isn’t a system of meritocracy in the UK. There is very much still issues of nepotism, elitism, classism, misogyny and racism. These protected characteristics are very visible to recruiters during things like a VI. It’s hard to deny that there isn't always going to be at least some form of bias or prejudice towards anyone who visibly looks or sounds diverse. It is impossible to avoid it (unless CV blind recruitment is used e.g., Willkie). 🙂🙂

2. Contextual recruitment is by its very definition taking into account someone’s background. I will use myself as an example. I have spoken about my background previously on the forum. In short, I went to a comp state school, was eligible for free school meals, first gen to go to uni, first to go to a RG and study law and I grew up on and still live on a council estate in one of the poorest cities in the UK. To suggest someone like myself has equal access to opportunities, when compared to someone who went private school and has connections in the legal profession, is kind of crazy. Without DEI, I wouldn’t be where I am right now. 🥲🥲

3. To assume that a racial or ethnic minority person must necessarily have weaker credentials (professional or academic) is a dangerous assumption, which is the very thing we are highlighting will be at risk in light of the DEI situation in the US. I highly doubt people are being recruited solely because of their race or ethnicity, but this is the narrative that is being pushed, to convince people that positive discrimination is taking place against white men. It’s the same narrative that is being pushed against immigrants, in that the issues the UK is facing in relation to NHS waitlists, housing shortages, etc. is somehow the fault of people who are fleeing persecution and migrating to the UK, instead of the government who is in charge (deflection tactic in my opinion). 🥲🥲

4. To assume a racial or ethnic minority person would be ‘less likely to thrive in a role’ is also low-key kind of insane. Historically speaking, it has always been the case that there is a lack of diversity in major professions (in this case city commercial law). Someone who comes from an underrepresented background is just as capable of succeeding as a commercial lawyer in the city compared to someone who comes from an overrepresented background. I don’t believe representation is being ‘forced’, it’s simply about being reflective of the population and the clients international law firms are serving. 🙂🙂

These are my controversial opinions. Please do not cancel me on TCLA. 🥲🥲​

 

[e1996]

Anyone heard back from mischon post-AC?