I will speak to my friends and try and get more detail from them re their Inner interviews.
You get a choice of three cases in different areas, so pick the one out of the three that you are most comfortable with. I'd suggest the areas are from the core subjects, but even if they're not, it shouldn't matter as you're going to read the case and given an opinion on it, so you don't need any prior knowledge.
I doubt they use the same three areas each year.
No, I didn't get one either. But I knew that on the day of my interview as I was told, blatantly, 'you can afford to pay for this yourself'...which I thought was a bit rude, but true nonetheless (I suppose I could have neglected to fill in the financial information, but my integrity wouldn't allow me to do that). I'm not discouraged by it at all.
Did you join Inner?
I did join Inner last year. I needed the money, though. Now I am planning to do the BPTC course part time. Where are you going for your BPTC?
All this 'needing the money' business seems to be poorly defined by the inns themselves.
I certainly know a few ex-public school boys who've picked up major awards, despite having significant family support.
they probably has firsts and top unis though. Its when they are trying to differentiate between the 100s of samey 2.1s they seem to take financials into considerations
Well in that case they really are a law unto themselves. It seemed to be made quite clear to me too that i didnt need the money but then why do they give it to so many people who dont need it. And who aren't that great. We will never know.
The thing is FMQ, they have every right to be a law unto themselves, it's their money they are giving away.
I think the simplest answer to why are they giving it away to those who don't need it, is that those people maybe DO need it, but have the appearance to others that they don't. For example, Dalia's ex-public schoolboys...who's to say their parents hadn't used up their money to send them to public school and had none spare at the point of the BVC/BPTC? It's impossible for anyone to know for certain someone else's financial situation. I am not saying this is definitely the case, but it is equally as likely as someone being given money when they actually don't need it - which is the argument being given in this thread.
There are plenty of people who consider themselves to be middle class and who have the outward appearance of wealth, but don't have any more disposable income than someone on benefits!
Oh no. I specifically meant wealthy ex-public school boys. Old Etonians, the type who don't suddenly struggle for cash.
Dalia: I understood what you meant, but I am just pointing out that those who 'appear' wealthy, might not necessarily have disposable cash. There are plenty of kids who go to top public schools on scholarships, for example.
FMQ: As law students we are told, over and over again, how important extra curriculars and volunteer work are, as well as that gaining a scholarship looks good on pupillage applications. But thinking about it logically, why would the fact that someone else paid your fees be the tipping point between two candidates who are exactly the same on paper and face to face? After all, the pupillage panel wouldn't even be aware of whether the non-scholar had actually applied for a scholarship, (there are many who don't), so why would a panel believe that person to be less worthy because they paid their own fees?
That said, I do think that there are never two candidates so similar that panels have difficulty making a choice which would come down simply to who had a scholarship - I think at that stage it almost wholly would come down to who fits in best, and a scholarship would not be an indicator of that.
I think a scholarship is a great thing to have and would have been thrilled if I'd been offered one, even without funds attached to it...but I'm not convinced it shows absolute merit or indication of the likelihood of success at the Bar.
I've done a lot of interviewing over my time, and when push comes to shove, the people I usually gave the jobs to, were the ones that I felt would fit into my team - not necessarily the ones with the best qualifications. Human nature always comes to the fore in situations like that. Sometimes people just don't like the person sitting in front of them - and that dislike can be intangible.
As for the scholarship panels thinking that a person has not much chance of success on the basis of a short interview, on one day, when people may be nervous and not perform to their best, and various other variables will be at play...all I can say is, there's nothing scientific about it.
I think several years of rejections from pupillage panels might be more of an indicator...that, and the fact that there are four people chasing each pupillage place!!
Just to clarify: my final paragraph is not aimed at anyone, it's a general comment based on the fact that rejections are inevitable with the ratio of pupillages to applicants.
I am sure having a scholarship would make a difference in a paper sift of 'samey 2:1s'; but I'm still not altogether convinced that Chambers dispense with people purely on the basis of their academics.
If they did, then anyone with poor A level results or with non-standard qualifications, would never get through to interview. And it's obvious some of those people DO get interviews, even without a scholarship.
Not to mention the fact that some people WITH scholarships never get any further than finishing the BPTC.
It's all swings and roundabouts.
There is another conclusion- the scholarships are more based on merit than financial situation.
I thought they decided whether you should get one, then took the financial information into account when deciding the amount.
I don't want this to sound discouraging to people who didn't get a scholarship. but you have to be realistic.
Incidentally, do people think that someone with excellent academics and public speaking but zero legal experience has a good chance at a gdl scholarship?