[Wassana]

Hello all,

I need some advice on which law firms I should be aiming for with my applications. I realise it is very competitive and need some realistic ambitions.

I have ABB at A-level, 2.1 (65%) from a russell group uni. Problem is I got 58% in my first year which doesn't look too great.

Should I be aiming at say those firms ranked between 10 and 50? As an aside, if law doesn't work out what level of consulting firms could I aim for? Deloitte, Capgemini?

I would really appreciate any advice, kinda demotivated.

[ForKicks]

Not even all of the MC care about 1st year results that much (58 would be fine). However, ABB would put you in the lowest range of top firms as AAB appears to be the standard as far as I know. Some silver circle and beyond will accept you with those A Levels though, so places like CMS, DLA, etc..

Explanation on the neg would be nice That is based on what I found from my own research, if other experiences differ then tell!

[jacketpotato]

Assuming a London commercial firm is the kind of place you want to work, then probably firms in the top 10-100 range would be a good bet. There is nothing wrong with being ambitious as long as you aren't afraid of failure, you do need to be realistic but there is no reason why you can't get a great job.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Not even all of the MC care about 1st year results that much (58 would be fine). However, ABB would put you in the lowest range of top firms as AAB appears to be the standard as far as I know. Some silver circle and beyond will accept you with those A Levels though, so places like CMS, DLA, etc..

Explanation on the neg would be nice That is based on what I found from my own research, if other experiences differ then tell!

Eh? How did you reach that conclusion?

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Eh? How did you reach that conclusion?

Asking them.

As long as marks go upwards from there it is fine.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by ForKicks)
Asking them.

As long as marks go upwards from there it is fine.

Which firms said that?

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
Which firms said that?

I spoke to A&O, CMS, and BLP. They look at the overall candidate, not just focus on 1st year results. Have you had a different experience?

May I also add, that information provided in public is not always the same as private. It is important to learn in any business that information on face-value is not always the be all and end all.

[covent50]

I would suggest that rather than just looking at 'top firm' rankings, you should have a hunt about and see which firms do work that really interests you. Do you definitely want to work for a big City firm? Do you have any particular areas of interest? Your enthusiasm will come across at interview and make it more likely that they'll make you an offer.

I think your grades are fine for lots of good firms btw - you didn't mention your work experience but the better and more commercially-focused that is the better your chances, even if it's not (all) in law

(this is all going off advice given to me by others btw!)

[Clip]

(Original post by ForKicks)
I spoke to A&O, CMS, and BLP. They look at the overall candidate, not just focus on 1st year results. Have you had a different experience?

May I also add, that information provided in public is not always the same as private. It is important to learn in any business that information on face-value is not always the be all and end all.

Oh good. I haven't applied to A&O yet. I had no idea they might actually be looking for a middle-aged village idiot with delusions of grandeur.

[Norton1]

(Original post by Clip)
Oh good. I haven't applied to A&O yet. I had no idea they might actually be looking for a middle-aged village idiot with delusions of grandeur.

In ten years if I want to cross qualify think I've got my firm!

[ForKicks]

(Original post by Clip)
Oh good. I haven't applied to A&O yet. I had no idea they might actually be looking for a middle-aged village idiot with delusions of grandeur.

How does them looking at the whole candidate instead of just 1st year results make the candidate a middle-aged village idiot with delusions of grandeur?

Not sure why people are getting caught up on being against the idea that a good firm might actually care about something other than first year results. It really is very childish and extremely retarded.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by ForKicks)
How does them looking at the whole candidate instead of just 1st year results make the candidate a middle-aged village idiot with delusions of grandeur?

Not sure why people are getting caught up on being against the idea that a good firm might actually care about something other than first year results. It really is very childish and extremely retarded.

Not sure why everyone's jumping all over you. As long as you are on track for a decent 2.1, first year results count for little.

[Old Reliable]

(Original post by ForKicks)
How does them looking at the whole candidate instead of just 1st year results make the candidate a middle-aged village idiot with delusions of grandeur?

Not sure why people are getting caught up on being against the idea that a good firm might actually care about something other than first year results. It really is very childish and extremely retarded.

I also can't work out what you've said that's so controversial:
- Some firms will overlook a 2.2 in 1st year as long as you have a 2.1 overall and other strengths.
- ABB at A-level rules out some of the top firms but not others.

Surely this is similar advice to what always gets peddled across these forums in response to the many, many "Am I good enough for MC/SC"-esque threads?