Get ABB minimum! or no TC?

filters.

(edited 9 years ago)

Yes. Most set a filter managed by an HR administrator with a brain the size of a weasel's wedding tackle.

However, some firms will disregard the filter for some applicants and mitigating circumstances can be taken into account. Some years ago a friend got into a AAA law school with ABB - he was lucky as he had applied during a gap year when it was AAB, and they let him in anyway. He got a good 2:1 in his first year, and ended up at a magic circle firm. He was good in other ways though. I can't say that this would be very common.

Most Law schools in England require AAA. Of which only a select 8 or so have the privilege of being able to expect this from their applicants

bump

Original post by adamsmithqm

bump

The above user answered your question perfectly well.

At some firms anyone who does not meet the minimum will be filtered. Some commercial firms do not use filters, however. Some firms my waiver the fact that you do not reach the minimum if you have mitigating circumstances.

That's all there is to it

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 4

Le Nombre

No chance of a City TC is not the same thing as no chance of a TC. Most firms will waive it if you ring up and show some clear evidence of ability since.

And plenty of HR are useless but it is a nice springboard to marrying well for the dimmer daughters of partners, don't forget as we ridicule them that they'll probably be mortgage free, volunteering doing something worthy by 35 whilst we'll be trying to remember what the kids look like and lamenting the fact we have a billable hours target which is only achievable by distorting the space-time continuum. Then again, we could be the competent HR staff who actually need the job and must be driven mad by the above.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 5

happyinthehaze

Whoever made the comment about the HR administrator setting the A level filter is naive and unfair. You must realise it is the firm that sets the A level filter. Do you think the HR department has autonomy?

Reply 6

happyinthehaze

Original post by TheOneTrueEvian

I said they managed it. However, even though what I wrote was materially different, you are still incorrect. Do you think equity partners sit around discussing A-level filter and questions for potential trainees in application forms? No, the decision is usually taken by the HR Manager and/or Recruitment Partner based on the number and quality of applications they receive. Whether or not they choose to use the filter will completely depend on their discretion. Most HR Administrators will sift through hundreds of applications looking to tick competency boxes; they are super thick.

mmm - rejected much? :wink:

Reply 7

Lady Comstock

Original post by happyinthehaze

Yes. Do you really think the partners are going to delegate the job of filtering initial applications to HR and say "you cannot allow any applicant in under any circumstances who does not have AAB".

Law firm HR departments are far too robotic with such requirements. I get that they need a way of filtering vast numbers of applications, but even the Bar doesn't filter so robotically on the basis of things such as GCSEs and A-levels. And no, I am not "rejected much" before you make that ad hominem again.

Reply 8

Firure

Original post by Lady Comstock

I'm a non-law finalist intending to take the GDL once I have a TC. Oddly enough, whilst most of the firms to which I applied for VSs stipulate a 2:1, none of them asked for AAB. I guess it depends on which type of firms you choose. Mind you, the A level requirement might still be there, though merely unvoiced on their application pages.

Reply 9

Lady Comstock

Original post by Iridescenzo

I have seen several firms asking for AAB - usually the top end of commercial law, mind. Regardless, replace "AAB" with "ABB" in my statement and the argument still applies.

Reply 10

Firure

Original post by Lady Comstock

I have seen several firms asking for AAB - usually the top end of commercial law, mind. Regardless, replace "AAB" with "ABB" in my statement and the argument still applies.

Having good A levels will put you in better stead than someone with BBB, I suppose. I just want a VS. :frown:

Reply 11

Lady Comstock

Original post by Iridescenzo

Having good A levels will put you in better stead than someone with BBB, I suppose. I just want a VS. :frown:

But it's ridiculous if you have achieved all firsts in your modules and/or good volunteering experience at uni and have BBB, but someone who has ABB and 2.2s and 2.1s in their modules gets the VS place.

It boils down to money, unfortunately. Most law firms do not have time to broadly judge hundreds of applications in careful and considered way. Thus, to save on hiring more staff, it's easier just to filter out on the basis of something arbitrary, such as A-levels. Short-term, sure this saves costs; yet, long term it means that very able candidates are moving into other sectors (such as banking/finance) because they are rejected on the basis of exams they took when they were around 17.

Reply 12

Firure

Original post by Lady Comstock

I know, and I agree. The smaller firms will be more willing to spend more time looking over the entirety of VS applications, as opposed to utilising the dreaded A level filter. I have to admit that even I'm considering finance as an alternative to law, assuming I get bugger all in my VS/ TC applications. I have the luxury of decent A levels, though, for which I'm very grateful.

Reply 13

Lady Comstock

Original post by Iridescenzo

I know of a large proportion of extremely able law graduates who have abandoned the hunt for a training contract for better paying graduate careers which are not so ridiculously robotic and (frankly) lazy in their selection procedure.

Reply 14

Firure

Original post by Lady Comstock

I know; it's a shame. If they're going to stipulate the A level requirement, schools need to make sure to drill into their pupils after GCSE, just so they know.

That being said, I hope I have a chance.

Reply 15

Le Nombre

Original post by Lady Comstock

The Bar generally has far fewer applicants though in terms of volume, though the ratios are savage, so it's more plausible to get through them all by hand. And it's just because they know they can can loads and still get decent trainees, there's a possibly apocryphal City story of MC training partner who used to advocate drawing a line half way down the list of names and declare those either above or below it 'unlucky, and I don't want unlucky candidates', least it's more equitable than that!

Ultimately law firms are businesses and trainees are not profit making, it doesn't make financial sense to spend loads of money on the recruiting of loss makers when you're overwhelmed by quality applicants, when HR could spend that time wooing some billy big *******s rain maker who'll come straight in with their hefty FTSE client following in tow.