Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forum Home
Law Firms
Wiki
Events
Deadlines
Members
Leaderboards
Apply to Paul, Weiss
Premium Database
TCLA Premium:
Now half price (£30/month). Applications, interviews, commercial awareness + 700+ examples.
Join →
Forum Home
Aspiring Lawyers - Applications & General Advice
Applications Discussion
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rosie_Kitten" data-source="post: 241644" data-attributes="member: 43597"><p>I congratulate you for that. I'm sure you are very smart (I'm saying that unironically - I appreciate it sounds sarcastic).</p><p>At the same time, there are transferable skills. Of course, in real life for application understanding and following strong meaning is more important than following weak/literal meaning. But identifying specific arguments alone is a skill that the majority of the population lack, even before identifying argument strength. Im sure from a science background, you might be good at it. But the majority of people are not currently good, and it's part of the reason that people get away with bad arguments all the time in the real world. Of course, the WG tests generally don't present arguments in the best way, but it is still testing for something. "Pancakes and waffles" or so the twitter saying goes.</p><p></p><p>Reading a block of text and identifying what it is saying in the text is also a skill. Again, in real life identifying strong meaning is just as important as identifying literal meaning - but the majority of people, when presented with a news article or scientific article often misinterprete it, or extrapolate false information that isn't in it. That's what that skill is testing.</p><p></p><p>Deductive reasoning is again a skill that many people lack. Again, in practice it's not the same as WG - it's much more complicated. But the theory is, if you can't learn it to the extent of doing it on a WG, probably it's not something you'd be good at on a large scale. I see the value in the way it's tested...</p><p></p><p>But feel free to agree to disagree on this. I will always die on the hill that they are much more objective than SJTs.</p><p></p><p>Edit: I admit it's flawed. But it's a much more objective test than SJT. For me though, the more objective test I've taken so far I think is the Osborne Clarke verbal and deductive reasoning tests, even if it was more about handling time pressure than anything.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rosie_Kitten, post: 241644, member: 43597"] I congratulate you for that. I'm sure you are very smart (I'm saying that unironically - I appreciate it sounds sarcastic). At the same time, there are transferable skills. Of course, in real life for application understanding and following strong meaning is more important than following weak/literal meaning. But identifying specific arguments alone is a skill that the majority of the population lack, even before identifying argument strength. Im sure from a science background, you might be good at it. But the majority of people are not currently good, and it's part of the reason that people get away with bad arguments all the time in the real world. Of course, the WG tests generally don't present arguments in the best way, but it is still testing for something. "Pancakes and waffles" or so the twitter saying goes. Reading a block of text and identifying what it is saying in the text is also a skill. Again, in real life identifying strong meaning is just as important as identifying literal meaning - but the majority of people, when presented with a news article or scientific article often misinterprete it, or extrapolate false information that isn't in it. That's what that skill is testing. Deductive reasoning is again a skill that many people lack. Again, in practice it's not the same as WG - it's much more complicated. But the theory is, if you can't learn it to the extent of doing it on a WG, probably it's not something you'd be good at on a large scale. I see the value in the way it's tested... But feel free to agree to disagree on this. I will always die on the hill that they are much more objective than SJTs. Edit: I admit it's flawed. But it's a much more objective test than SJT. For me though, the more objective test I've taken so far I think is the Osborne Clarke verbal and deductive reasoning tests, even if it was more about handling time pressure than anything. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Our company is called, "The Corporate ___ Academy". What is the missing word here?
Post reply
Forum Home
Aspiring Lawyers - Applications & General Advice
Applications Discussion
TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2025-26
Top
Bottom
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…