I’ve seen some people post that they’ve received Paul, Weiss VS interview invites. I’m sure they were for both Spring and Summer too. They could also be doing batches though like Weil did.
-
TCLA Premium: Now half price (£30/month). Applications, interviews, commercial awareness + 700+ examples.Join →
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26
- Thread starter Ram Sabaratnam
- Start date
I hope it is in batches I’m losing hope in all my apps 😭😭I’ve seen some people post that they’ve received Paul, Weiss VS interview invites. I’m sure they were for both Spring and Summer too. They could also be doing batches though like Weil did.
Hi, can someone please help me out? I was doing the Cooley WG and when registering I accidentally put my personal email ID instead of the one I did the application with. I still did the test ebcause the deadline is tomorrow and I wont be able to do the test before the deadline at 4pm. I'm panicking hard and I don't know, will grad rec look at this negatively? Will my results not be attached to my application profile???
Thank you! That's super helpfulOmg good luck!! make sure to think about recent important commercial news stories as they might help with substantiating your answers in the case study. You don‘t need much, just 3-5 things you can draw on to show your knowledge of wider commercial issues)
I've been thinking about Watson Glaser tests recently.
I find them rather curious (and frustrating, like many of us), especially because I have a particular relationship with the kind of "critical thinking" they are supposed to test.
I have taught critical thinking to students at BA and MA level, and have published several book chapters on the philosophy of interpretation. It is very important that I resist the urge to send long emails to grad recruitment teams saying: "Here is my expert opinion on why WG is a poor way of assessing candidates..." But I don't think that will really help my chances of getting a TC! You've got to pick your battles.
TCLA seems like the place to vent about this kind of thing, though, so, time to get on my soapbox...
WG was famously critiqued by Professor Kevin Possin in the journal Informal Logic, Vol. 34/4 (2014), and I have to agree that the methodology has some serious flaws. The issue is neatly summed up in Possin's subtitle: "The more you know, the lower your score". WG has a very limited conception of what "critical thinking" actually involves, and often encourages poor judgement.
Although WG candidates are encouraged to identify a single correct answer, it is often possible to make a strong case that several answers are entirely logical and intelligent responses. Sometimes, the most rigorous logical analysis will, in fact, identify a supposedly "incorrect" answer. I would often expect the best lawyer/critical thinker in the room to get the WG test "wrong", at least for several questions each time.
The reason this happens is actually quite simple. The parameters of each question establish a line where inference should be limited. Although candidates who cross that line are penalised (rightly) for assuming too much when making a judgement, the test also penalises candidates with a more developed critical sense who draw that line at an earlier point in the process of assuming relationships and causal connections. Possin breaks this down in some detail, and I would agree with much of it.
When teaching critical thinking, my students would find it easy to undermine the methodology used for many of the standard WG questions. I wouldn't got so far as to say that WG rewards "less intelligent" or less critical candidates. But what does seem to happen is that in order to succeed, candidates have to become acclimatised to the "rules of a game" - the Watson Glaser game - which does not necessarily equate to an ability to rigorously assess data.
(Mind you, that is not a million miles away from what lawyers actually do. The law of England and Wales is a big book of "game rules" that have been evolving for centuries, by a combination of case law and legislation. So maybe there is some logic in it!)
Ultimately, I am glad to know that many firms use WG tests within a more holistic application system, taking other factors into account. We have seen that many times here on TCLA. A low score is not the end of the world.
In the meantime, I'm just going to answer everything with "insufficient data"
...
Any thoughts about this?
I find them rather curious (and frustrating, like many of us), especially because I have a particular relationship with the kind of "critical thinking" they are supposed to test.
I have taught critical thinking to students at BA and MA level, and have published several book chapters on the philosophy of interpretation. It is very important that I resist the urge to send long emails to grad recruitment teams saying: "Here is my expert opinion on why WG is a poor way of assessing candidates..." But I don't think that will really help my chances of getting a TC! You've got to pick your battles.
TCLA seems like the place to vent about this kind of thing, though, so, time to get on my soapbox...
WG was famously critiqued by Professor Kevin Possin in the journal Informal Logic, Vol. 34/4 (2014), and I have to agree that the methodology has some serious flaws. The issue is neatly summed up in Possin's subtitle: "The more you know, the lower your score". WG has a very limited conception of what "critical thinking" actually involves, and often encourages poor judgement.
Although WG candidates are encouraged to identify a single correct answer, it is often possible to make a strong case that several answers are entirely logical and intelligent responses. Sometimes, the most rigorous logical analysis will, in fact, identify a supposedly "incorrect" answer. I would often expect the best lawyer/critical thinker in the room to get the WG test "wrong", at least for several questions each time.
The reason this happens is actually quite simple. The parameters of each question establish a line where inference should be limited. Although candidates who cross that line are penalised (rightly) for assuming too much when making a judgement, the test also penalises candidates with a more developed critical sense who draw that line at an earlier point in the process of assuming relationships and causal connections. Possin breaks this down in some detail, and I would agree with much of it.
When teaching critical thinking, my students would find it easy to undermine the methodology used for many of the standard WG questions. I wouldn't got so far as to say that WG rewards "less intelligent" or less critical candidates. But what does seem to happen is that in order to succeed, candidates have to become acclimatised to the "rules of a game" - the Watson Glaser game - which does not necessarily equate to an ability to rigorously assess data.
(Mind you, that is not a million miles away from what lawyers actually do. The law of England and Wales is a big book of "game rules" that have been evolving for centuries, by a combination of case law and legislation. So maybe there is some logic in it!)
Ultimately, I am glad to know that many firms use WG tests within a more holistic application system, taking other factors into account. We have seen that many times here on TCLA. A low score is not the end of the world.
In the meantime, I'm just going to answer everything with "insufficient data"
...
Any thoughts about this?
Interview invites for Summer haven't been sent out but for Spring they have.
Every lawyer and partner I've spoken to about the recruitment process thinks the WG is rubbish. It's used as a way to filter people out, not to test actual ability.I've been thinking about Watson Glaser tests recently.
I find them rather curious (and frustrating, like many of us), especially because I have a particular relationship with the kind of "critical thinking" they are supposed to test.
I have taught critical thinking to students at BA and MA level, and have published several book chapters on the philosophy of interpretation. It is very important that I resist the urge to send long emails to grad recruitment teams saying: "Here is my expert opinion on why WG is a poor way of assessing candidates..." But I don't think that will really help my chances of getting a TC! You've got to pick your battles.
TCLA seems like the place to vent about this kind of thing, though, so, time to get on my soapbox...
WG was famously critiqued by Professor Kevin Possin in the journal Informal Logic, Vol. 34/4 (2014), and I have to agree that the methodology has some serious flaws. The issue is neatly summed up in Possin's subtitle: "The more you know, the lower your score". WG has a very limited conception of what "critical thinking" actually involves, and often encourages poor judgement.
Although WG candidates are encouraged to identify a single correct answer, it is often possible to make a strong case that several answers are entirely logical and intelligent responses. Sometimes, the most rigorous logical analysis will, in fact, identify a supposedly "incorrect" answer. I would often expect the best lawyer/critical thinker in the room to get the WG test "wrong", at least for several questions each time.
The reason this happens is actually quite simple. The parameters of each question establish a line where inference should be limited. Although candidates who cross that line are penalised (rightly) for assuming too much when making a judgement, the test also penalises candidates with a more developed critical sense who draw that line at an earlier point in the process of assuming relationships and causal connections. Possin breaks this down in some detail, and I would agree with much of it.
When teaching critical thinking, my students would find it easy to undermine the methodology used for many of the standard WG questions. I wouldn't got so far as to say that WG rewards "less intelligent" or less critical candidates. But what does seem to happen is that in order to succeed, candidates have to become acclimatised to the "rules of a game" - the Watson Glaser game - which does not necessarily equate to an ability to rigorously assess data.
(Mind you, that is not a million miles away from what lawyers actually do. The law of England and Wales is a big book of "game rules" that have been evolving for centuries, by a combination of case law and legislation. So maybe there is some logic in it!)
Ultimately, I am glad to know that many firms use WG tests within a more holistic application system, taking other factors into account. We have seen that many times here on TCLA. A low score is not the end of the world.
In the meantime, I'm just going to answer everything with "insufficient data"
...
Any thoughts about this?
In an interview, if they ask the question- "What type of tasks do trainees usually complete and how will you use your skills during the role" do they expect you to use STAR? i.e you list out typical trainee tasks then STAR how you have completed those in the past?
So true, I remember at an Open Day a partner was going on about how he felt sorry for us because all he had to do was send his CV and go down to London for an interview.
I got the email on the 19th, but I don't know if I'll even be able to make it cos the whole week the dates are available, I have work and I won't be able to switch shifts
Thanks for replying, capfinity is hit and miss for me tbh let’s hope for good news, and congrats again I hope to hear you got the Vs
Yeah, other partners and associates have said the same to me. They've said the process has become so much more competitive. I guarantee if they were to apply now with the same credentials, most of them wouldn't make the cut. That's how you know the process is cooked.
Grad rec after adding the WG to the recruitment process and setting the benchmark at 90% cos it’s gna filter 28384959500400 candidates out of the process without them having to lift a finger:
I had a similar issue with another firm. Just email them to let them know, I doubt they’ll look at it negatively but will know to pair it with your application if you tell them.
Completely agree. I have taught verbal and non-verbal reasoning which is often (generally) more straight forward but the WG, like many things in this application process, seems to be based around seeking out the specific formula that is needed rather than 'coming to it on your own' as many of the firms say. If fact, I hate when firms say that you do not need to do anything to prepare for a test as it seems that they are misleading people into thinking they will be straightforward when they never are.I've been thinking about Watson Glaser tests recently.
I find them rather curious (and frustrating, like many of us), especially because I have a particular relationship with the kind of "critical thinking" they are supposed to test.
I have taught critical thinking to students at BA and MA level, and have published several book chapters on the philosophy of interpretation. It is very important that I resist the urge to send long emails to grad recruitment teams saying: "Here is my expert opinion on why WG is a poor way of assessing candidates..." But I don't think that will really help my chances of getting a TC! You've got to pick your battles.
TCLA seems like the place to vent about this kind of thing, though, so, time to get on my soapbox...
WG was famously critiqued by Professor Kevin Possin in the journal Informal Logic, Vol. 34/4 (2014), and I have to agree that the methodology has some serious flaws. The issue is neatly summed up in Possin's subtitle: "The more you know, the lower your score". WG has a very limited conception of what "critical thinking" actually involves, and often encourages poor judgement.
Although WG candidates are encouraged to identify a single correct answer, it is often possible to make a strong case that several answers are entirely logical and intelligent responses. Sometimes, the most rigorous logical analysis will, in fact, identify a supposedly "incorrect" answer. I would often expect the best lawyer/critical thinker in the room to get the WG test "wrong", at least for several questions each time.
The reason this happens is actually quite simple. The parameters of each question establish a line where inference should be limited. Although candidates who cross that line are penalised (rightly) for assuming too much when making a judgement, the test also penalises candidates with a more developed critical sense who draw that line at an earlier point in the process of assuming relationships and causal connections. Possin breaks this down in some detail, and I would agree with much of it.
When teaching critical thinking, my students would find it easy to undermine the methodology used for many of the standard WG questions. I wouldn't got so far as to say that WG rewards "less intelligent" or less critical candidates. But what does seem to happen is that in order to succeed, candidates have to become acclimatised to the "rules of a game" - the Watson Glaser game - which does not necessarily equate to an ability to rigorously assess data.
(Mind you, that is not a million miles away from what lawyers actually do. The law of England and Wales is a big book of "game rules" that have been evolving for centuries, by a combination of case law and legislation. So maybe there is some logic in it!)
Ultimately, I am glad to know that many firms use WG tests within a more holistic application system, taking other factors into account. We have seen that many times here on TCLA. A low score is not the end of the world.
In the meantime, I'm just going to answer everything with "insufficient data"
...
Any thoughts about this?
Similar threads
- Sticky
