Is it wrong for law firms to look at A-levels and GCSEs and have cut-offs?

or the law of railway level crossings.

I assume you've hired people that really haven't worked out before. How much would you say they cost you as oppose to someone that was absolutely right? Do you think you'd be more likely to get the right candidate through interviewing more widely?

X

I know a person who worked at the Law Commission this year. They were assigned to the level crossings project.

Back on topic: I think that it seems unfair purely because of the point made by the OP: at the age of 16, one may not really have an idea of where they want to be in years to come. I know that at my old school, I was told that it was important for me to get at least 5 A-Cs and thereafter the world was my oyster. There was no talk about going to Oxbridge or becoming a lawyer - they were things which exceptional people went on to do. There was absolutely no encouragement to exceed the bare minimum in terms of academic success.

The attitude outlined above continued into college - where a select few students were assigned a tutor who would mentor them and prepare them for applications to Oxbridge. The rest of us were left to our own devices.

With this in mind, I think it bloody unfair that I (or anyone for that matter) be judged on exams they took when they were 16. I know many lawyers who did not know what they wanted to do when they were 16. What is different about them? Why were they allowed to enjoy their childhood and leave the serious stuff (like deciding what to do for a living) until they had grown up a bit? Well, the answer, I think, is that the game has changed.

Years ago, gaining access to the legal professional was largely about whether or not you could go to Uni. There was also a more favourable vacancy to applicant ratio. Nowadays, with the shear number of largely similar candidates, firms and chambers have to look at anything which distinguishes them. I suppose I am partly blaming the very policy which allowed me to receive a university education - what a double edged sword that turned out to be.

Despite this, I do think that some firms and chambers take a more holistic approach. This may apply to some practice areas more than others, but in law I think there are certainly other important elements to a person other than academic brilliance.

Thank you, that's very interesting and helpful.

How do you think prospective trainees would best develop the skill to synthesise multiple precedents and the other talents and abilities you would see as important? You say the degree isn't a guarantor of this so are there extra curricular activities that would build these skills?

Being a provincial firm, we do have a weapon in our armoury that the London firms don't. Why here? Failure to give a convincing answer supported by objective evidence to why you want to practise in one of the places we have offices, will see your application binned.

I don't think ECs help. I think doing law from cases, monographs and journals rather than the textbook written by your lecturer does help.That isn't to decry textbooks but the material on most undergraduate courses comprises two elements, a basic overview of a topic and then an in depth study of the current controversies in the field. A lot of students no longer experience how those controversies have developed through the cases and academic writing but rather learn the controversy in the same way they learned the causes of WWI. As a result they don't have the need to synthesize sources to create their own narrative. They just have to learn someone else's narrative.

Most law firms never look beyond the classification of your degree and what university you got it from.

For most firms recruiting there is little or no premium for having a first and where there is a premium that tends to be benefiting firsts from "lesser" universities.

What sort of answers do you look for in that and are any particularly favoured?

For example would someone who is moving back to the area having grown up there and moved away for university be seen as having stronger roots or vicea versa as they have lived there more recently?

Would you say that a first from a "lesser" uni would allow you to compete against 2:1's from Oxbridge at a top city firm or top commercial/chancery chamber? From reading TSR, blogs and NQ's profiles at firms, it's getting really disheartening being at Surrey University, because they all say that without a degree from a RG, I stand very little chance of success.

I think the age of the applicant will also affect how HR view their A-levels - i.e. exactly how long ago they took their exams.

If you have an applicant who is, say, 35 and looking to undertake a career change, I imagine you would not be so concerned about them getting ABB. This is in part because of well-documented grade inflation. I'm not inclined to go on about how exams have gotten easier, but I imagine it is the case that if you were taking A-levels 17 years ago, ABB would have probably put you in some top percentile or another. Also, a 35 year old applicant is likely to have lots of other experiences that "cancel out" the A-level performance and it is also likely that they are a very different person to when they were 18.

Now compare this to a 20 year old 2nd year undergrad who got ABB. There will be lots of applicants of the same age who got higher grades and chances are they haven't changed that much in two years. Everyone likes to believe that university dramatically changes you as a person but in my experience, looking at people I went to school with, most people are still very similar in terms of their attitude to work as they were at school - and this is seven years since we left school, let alone after two years.

As has been pointed out, there are a small minority people for whom the first year of university is a revelation and they are completely different people. But as far as recruiters are concerned, ABB for a 20 year old means that either a) the candidate didn't try hard enough or b) they are intelligent but not quite as intelligent as other applicants, and they won't risk that either of these traits are still a feature of a candidate's character.

Of course, I'm using ABB as an example because it's what has been suggested as being unfair to cut off, but as someone mentioned above, ABB is fine for a lot of law firms, so hardly represents an insurmountable hurdle if your university grades are good. I also don't think that firms pay much attention to GCSEs unless they were absolutely diabolical and incongruous with all your other results.

I have never seen an application specifically asking for age/D.O.B - but I guess they could try and suss out your age from dates of school qualifications, etc.