The Student Room Group

Official Vacation Scheme Thread 2015!!!

Scroll to see replies

Is it true that Norton Rose Fulbright and Baker & Mckenzie reject people if they got a 2:2 module in first year even if they got a 2:1 overall?? I'm wondering whether I'll get rejected from those firms because of my 2:2 in contract law (not an ideal one to get a 2:2 in anyway i'm aware!)

also has anyone heard from simmons & simmons yet? i'm gonna be putting in an app there
Original post by Kidioteque
Yesterday - yours was today, right? How did it go?


Hey yea it was, it seemed ok but still waiting to hear back. Fingers crossed.
Original post by tunafish
Hey yea it was, it seemed ok but still waiting to hear back. Fingers crossed.


I'm sure you'll be getting the good news in no time! I found it pretty tricky tbh, I absolutely hate competency questions :lol:
Original post by Kidioteque
Ouch - that's really quite rude. No need for it.


What was great about this forum when I was applying for TCs was that people who had been through the process had the decency to be honest rather than giving false hope.

I have friends at Cambridge who were rejected from Freshfields - without interview - with high firsts. I'd never think of applying somewhere of Freshfields calibre, if I had a 2.2 from a University outside the top 50.

It's unrealistic and a complete waste of the firm's time as they now have to read that application despite the fact that it's outside the requirements that they specify applicants meet - at very least a consistent 2.1 in every year at university.

There's no point blowing smoke up someones arse. That won't happen when you're a lawyer.
Reply 404
Hi Guys,

Anyone got the Clifford Chance non law winter workshop?

They say you get an assessment day at the end of it so if anyone has previously done a CC assessment day. Please help :colondollar:
Original post by jacktc890
What was great about this forum when I was applying for TCs was that people who had been through the process had the decency to be honest rather than giving false hope.

I have friends at Cambridge who were rejected from Freshfields - without interview - with high firsts. I'd never think of applying somewhere of Freshfields calibre, if I had a 2.2 from a University outside the top 50.

It's unrealistic and a complete waste of the firm's time as they now have to read that application despite the fact that it's outside the requirements that they specify applicants meet - at very least a consistent 2.1 in every year at university.

There's no point blowing smoke up someones arse. That won't happen when you're a lawyer.


I agree with the general principle of your point; that applicants should be realistic with the firms they are applying to.

That said, you don't know the circumstances of the poster in question and neither do I. He/She may well have achieved a 2.2 as a result of mitigating circumstances. Equally, many firms are flexible on the 2.2 requirement if the applicant has some other noteworthy achievements on their CV. To categorically say that she should not have applied is, as others have said, harsh.

While the aim of this forum is to provide an insight into the training contract process, its aim is not to strike down posters and make them feel inferior. Rather they should provide support and constructive criticism as a means of helping them on their route to success.
Original post by jacktc890
What was great about this forum when I was applying for TCs was that people who had been through the process had the decency to be honest rather than giving false hope.

I have friends at Cambridge who were rejected from Freshfields - without interview - with high firsts. I'd never think of applying somewhere of Freshfields calibre, if I had a 2.2 from a University outside the top 50.

It's unrealistic and a complete waste of the firm's time as they now have to read that application despite the fact that it's outside the requirements that they specify applicants meet - at very least a consistent 2.1 in every year at university.

There's no point blowing smoke up someones arse. That won't happen when you're a lawyer.


I completely agree - there's no point blowing smoke up someone's arse. But there's also no point belittling them.

Freshfields do not specify in absolute terms that they require at least a 2:1 in every year at university. They qualify it with the word "normally". In fact, if they did have the absolute, unflinching policy that you're suggesting, they wouldn't have to "waste their time" reading through SophieLK's application at all because it would be automatically filtered out on account of her grades. Like most firms, though, they give room for manoeuvre where students have suffered from extenuating circumstances. SophieLK might have such circumstances; she might not - I'm not entirely sure. But to categorically suggest that somebody should not apply (or to disparage somebody who has already done so) based on what is a very small portion of the overall picture is pretty stupid.

On top of that, even if you were right to hold the view that she shouldn't have applied, there are better ways of getting that point across. Nobody was trying to give "false hope". If you were looking to dampen her expectations, you could have done it in 100 other, less obnoxious ways.

This process is stressful enough as it is, without people being made to feel **** about themselves.

All the best.
Original post by Kidioteque
I completely agree - there's no point blowing smoke up someone's arse. But there's also no point belittling them.

Freshfields do not specify in absolute terms that they require at least a 2:1 in every year at university. They qualify it with the word "normally". In fact, if they did have the absolute, unflinching policy that you're suggesting, they wouldn't have to "waste their time" reading through SophieLK's application at all because it would be automatically filtered out on account of her grades. Like most firms, though, they give room for manoeuvre where students have suffered from extenuating circumstances. SophieLK might have such circumstances; she might not - I'm not entirely sure. But to categorically suggest that somebody should not apply (or to disparage somebody who has already done so) based on what is a very small portion of the overall picture is pretty stupid.

On top of that, even if you were right to hold the view that she shouldn't have applied, there are better ways of getting that point across. Nobody was trying to give "false hope". If you were looking to dampen her expectations, you could have done it in 100 other, less obnoxious ways.

This process is stressful enough as it is, without people being made to feel **** about themselves.

All the best.



That kind of false moralism is just utter tosh and the fact that you are resorting to calling me stupid illustrates the weakness of your point.
The reality is that firms like that do not accept people with 2.2s if you know of a Freshfields trainee, or even a MC trainee, with a 2.2 then please do let me know. I don't.

I'm a trainee with another MC firm and I have a lot more experience of this process than someone like yourself applying for vac schemes with bugger all experience of anything.

Freshfields expect a minimum good 2.1 every year not just overall and many trainees I met at BPP well exceeded that. It's utterly unrealistic. That's the truth.

Good luck in getting a TC, with that kind of analysis you'll need it.
Reply 408
Original post by J-SP
Trainees with 2.2s aren't exactly going to shout from the roof tops that they have that class of degree. You might not know anyone with a 2.2 but that might be due to them not sharing that information with you.

But they do exist in very small numbers in MC (and other firms). They usually have extenuating circumstances or an exceptional story behind it.






Posted from TSR Mobile


Don't entirely agree with any of these responses really.

All the magic firms firms say you need a 2.1 at least and Freshies do say, in addition, that they expect at least a 2.1 in every year. Given their position in the market it's not really surprising that they do this.

Don't agree at all with Jack's mannerism or his tone which is bloody condescending at best and at worst douchey - he sounds like a CC prat to me :tongue: - but I have to agree (a little) with some of the content.

I don't know of anybody even anecdotally who applied with a 2.2 and then got a Magic Circle training contract. Not saying it has never happened, but I think I'd say it's a pretty minute chance since the recruitment market now is absolutely fierce and magic circle firms are consistently cutting their intakes as well. At my college alone Freshies rejected all of my law class without interview - 2 with distinctions in Law Mods and the rest with great 2.1s. While I did have a Distinction in Mods myself I have to admit being a bit intimidated when I 'LinkedIn stalked' my future fellow Freshfields trainees!

Anyway that's really just my two cents.
All the best with the app though and I hope you get onto the workshop.
Hi, I'm about to submit a vac scheme app to Olswang. Does anyone know how long they usually take to get back to you? Thanks :smile:
Reply 410
Original post by J-SP
Your second paragraph isn't accurate - they will take into account mitigating circumstance and there is at least one firm out of the five where you don't need a 2.1 even without them (where the training contract offer is not subject to gaining a 2.1 for those who haven't completed their degree).

I know it isn't normal, and as I said when it does happen it is in extraordinary circumstances.


Posted from TSR Mobile


That's not particularly accurate and I don't agree with your reasoning.

I know a few firms don't actually have a 2.1 as an explicit condition in the TC offer letter itself - a few White Shoe firms and one MC firm.

This is because they screen your grades at the training contract application stage before you even progress to interview . That does not mean that they have any trainees with 2.2s or that you don't need to be on track to get a 2.1 or better or that you're getting that TC offer without looking set to get at least a darn good 2.1 .

Just because a firm doesn't make an offer subject to conditions like that doesn't mean they have a multitude or even any trainees with a 2.2. If it's a firm that specifies a 2.1 minimum pre-application then the firm likely thinks that it's just not simply necessary given the quality of 'trainees to be'. That's not at all the same as saying that you don't need a 2.1 get that offer.

I interned with Sullican and Cromwell in New York last year and that is what a lot of WS firms do with their summer associates. That doesn't mean you get anywhere near their doors or the MCS with some stonking good grades.
Okay guys this has been an interesting debate and everyone is entitled to their opinion (whilst I tend to agree with the guy saying 2:2s from a lower uni won't compete with the 2:1s/1sts from higher unis, I also agree that there can be rare times when those people get through for a good reason, plus yes he could have said it more gently, that's all down to the communication skills that are oh so important for this career)

However I think we should get back on track now: what this thread is really about is questions about where to apply, how everyone else is finding the process, and finding out what firms have said to applicants who have already received feedback - it's invaluable for the rest of us :smile:

So on that note: has anyone heard from either Simmons or Macfarlanes, and how did people find the situational judgement test for HSF? I've got the link to it but I'm nervous to commit to starting it (i did do the really long practice one on shl that they infuriatingly then did not give any feedback for)
Original post by jacktc890
The trainees that I have met at Freshfields have very impressive academics. A*, IB 42+ galore, with great degrees - lots of top masters or 1sts - or at least undergrad from top universities. They're quite possibly the best corporate m&a firm in the country judging by the value of deals that they do. Given the epic competition for work experience/tcs, why the hell did you apply to a firm like that if you have a 2.2 undergrad degree from Essex Uni?


Wow! What was the point in even writing that? It was a simple question.

Considering that I graduated first in my class with a Distinction from Exeter in LLM International Commercial Law and just did a vacation scheme with Clifford Chance, and knowing the graduate team very well I thought that an extenuating circumstance would be not so much of a big deal, considering I have A's in everything else.

Apparently you know best! I apologise!
Original post by MzRay
Hi Guys,

Anyone got the Clifford Chance non law winter workshop?

They say you get an assessment day at the end of it so if anyone has previously done a CC assessment day. Please help :colondollar:



I've done the CC assessment day. It is hard!

But I can go through the whole process with you so you know exactly what to expect. I wish someone had helped me like that!

I didn't stay calm and f*cked up - always stay calm!
Original post by jacktc890
That kind of false moralism is just utter tosh and the fact that you are resorting to calling me stupid illustrates the weakness of your point.
The reality is that firms like that do not accept people with 2.2s if you know of a Freshfields trainee, or even a MC trainee, with a 2.2 then please do let me know. I don't.

I'm a trainee with another MC firm and I have a lot more experience of this process than someone like yourself applying for vac schemes with bugger all experience of anything.

Freshfields expect a minimum good 2.1 every year not just overall and many trainees I met at BPP well exceeded that. It's utterly unrealistic. That's the truth.

Good luck in getting a TC, with that kind of analysis you'll need it.



Oh also I just finished the Intelligent Aid at CC and almost all of the trainees who got offers had 2.2's - one Oxford undergrad got rejected.

There you go! Rude.
Original post by TykeDragon

So on that note: has anyone heard from either Simmons or Macfarlanes, and how did people find the situational judgement test for HSF? I've got the link to it but I'm nervous to commit to starting it (i did do the really long practice one on shl that they infuriatingly then did not give any feedback for)


HSF situational judgment is NOTHING like the SHL test - it is must easier! Only one line long. I really wouldn't worry. You'll breeze through!
Original post by SophieLK
Oh also I just finished the Intelligent Aid at CC and almost all of the trainees who got offers had 2.2's - one Oxford undergrad got rejected.

There you go! Rude.


Yeah of-course they did Sophie CC are full of trainees with 2.2s..... and I'd bet my hat that the Oxford undergrad you made fun of has a damn sight better chance of getting a TC than a 2.2 Essex grad.

And if that's the case and you've completed your undergrad and a postgrad degree, and a vac scheme at CC, then why don't you have a TC yet? Oh let me guess.....
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by SophieLK
HSF situational judgment is NOTHING like the SHL test - it is must easier! Only one line long. I really wouldn't worry. You'll breeze through!



Ahhh thanks that's a great relief!! I must admit I was sitting through that test thinking holy jesus each question is like 6 lines long :P do they really not time you at all? like could I do half the questions, leave and come back later once I've had time etc etc to think? It hardly seems strict!

I also wished the SHL test had provided feedback - yes it gave me an expectation of the HSF test, but for all I know I chose all the wrong answers :s-smilie: For what its worth if anyone can suggest whether I went wrong, where the questions and responses were generally as so: (I'll try and put a spoiler feature on to make it less long for those who don't want to see it, apologies if I fail at making a spoiler :P)

Spoiler

Original post by TykeDragon
So on that note: has anyone heard from either Simmons or Macfarlanes, and how did people find the situational judgement test for HSF? I've got the link to it but I'm nervous to commit to starting it (i did do the really long practice one on shl that they infuriatingly then did not give any feedback for)


Don't worry about the HSF tests. I passed them last year for the first year workshop, and they're really not that difficult, just a tiny bit dodgy. Besides, they simply have a % that you must attain to be moved onto the next stage rather than you being assessed all the other candidates taking the test.

Also, would be great if people could actually provide constructive help on this thread rather than trying to absolutely crush other people's aspirations in the most rude and blunt manner.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by jacktc890
Yeah of-course they did Sophie CC are full of trainees with 2.2s..... and I'd bet my hat that the Oxford undergrad you made fun of has a damn sight better chance of getting a TC than a 2.2 Essex grad.

And if that's the case and you've completed your undergrad and a postgrad degree, and a vac scheme at CC, then why don't you have a TC yet? Oh let me guess.....


You obviously don't know my CC Intelligent Aid scheme is CV blind in its entirety,...they have no idea about any of your grades. On the CC website all three of the trainees in their recruitment video for the year 2013/14 had 2.2's. I got nervous on my case study interview. I got three offer's and one reject. It was annoying, but I encouraged to apply again due to gaining the highest mark in the WG and my great feedback - something I am doing.

And actually I never made fun of that Oxford undergrad...he's now one of my best friends and the guy who put me in contact with Freshfields as he's their representative.

You really do have some anger issues!

Quick Reply