Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I have a couple of questions about TC applications, some of which have obvious answers, but I can't work out why it works like that. So I'm confused :confused:

    Why do some firms do rolling and some firms look at applications after their July deadlines? Surely this means that the firms who do rolling get the pick of the candidates (esp non-law) because I imagine that most people would accept a TC offer from march or whenever rather than wait and see what happens in July?

    Following on from that, say you had 2 absolute favourite firms, who only look at applications after July, but a good but not your favourite firm offers you a TC - would anyone turn it down for the possibility of their favourite?

    From those questions, I can't understand why some firms wait until after July, when they know that many candidates will go with the 'a bird in the hand...' approach

    Slightly different track: if you are non-law, and apply to a firm who only looks at apps after July, surely that will mean finding out whether you have a TC and will therefore be doing the GDL only about a month before you are meant to start? How does this work? Do you apply for a GDL place just in case or do they reserve spaces for their TCers? (presume here that you will only do the GDL once you've secured a TC)

    any enlightening information appreciated
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Interesting question about why every firm doesn't do rolling recruitment, which hmaus has answered very well.

    Number of applicants may be a driver, though even US firms with tiny intakes also seem to get hundreds if not thousands of applications (the applicant to places odds are actually better at the firms with large intakes).

    It's perhaps a bit like unis operating "gathered field" or "first come, first served" admission systems.

    Oxbridge have an earlier application deadline (like lots of MC firms for their large proportion of non-law trainees), so can compare the "gathered field", confident that they are likely to be first choice for candidates. I've met quite a few Slaughters trainees who didn't apply anywhere else - not because they were arrogant about their chances, but because of the straightforward application process. Also a lot of non-law applicants have already graduated.

    Other unis, even selecting ones, seem more likely to operate on a "first come" basis because they are in competition for good candidates e.g. a history student might be as likely to choose Durham as York or Kings. And an earlier offer can secure psychological commitment.

    Warwick for say English is a bit of an oddity in that they do not offer interviews until after Oxbridge have made their decisions - probably to reduce the administrative burden, which supports hmaus' view.

    The difference, of course, is that unlike UCAS you'll probably have to make up your mind before all the decisions are in (if you follow the SRA guidelines anyway!).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure if recruitment is ever truly "rolling" when at all firms I'm aware of there are only two intakes each year. Even if you can theoretically apply when you want, I imagine most firms focus on the period when they receive the most applications (i.e. when the deadlines for other firms are).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    I'm not sure if recruitment is ever truly "rolling" when at all firms I'm aware of there are only two intakes each year. Even if you can theoretically apply when you want, I imagine most firms focus on the period when they receive the most applications (i.e. when the deadlines for other firms are).
    More or less this.

    Also I don't know why any firms would want to avoid interviewing people who applied to the MC.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redemption)
    More or less this.

    Also I don't know why any firms would want to avoid interviewing people who applied to the MC.
    Because they might anticipate that they would be time-wasters who are looking for an insurance choice.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by peachmelba)
    Because they might anticipate that they would be time-wasters who are looking for an insurance choice.
    Who have a good chance of being turned down and so taking that insurance choice. Unless the argument is there that those who turn down the MC and go only mid-high tier firms are often better hires than those who go for the MC and some lower firms and who don't get their first choices.

    I guess I don't find that second argument as convincing.

    As to different kinds of work: I guess that those firms should be adept enough at picking those candidates on their applications, as opposed to the date that they apply.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Unless the argument is there that those who turn down the MC and go only mid-high tier firms are often better hires than those who go for the MC and some lower firms and who don't get their first choices.
    i'm sorry, it's late but I don't understand what you mean by this sentence.

    You did say "any firms" in your previous post. I think Herbies say or Cleary would be less worried about being considered an insurance choice. Come down the pecking order a bit and I think my point stands.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by peachmelba)
    i'm sorry, it's late but I don't understand what you mean by this sentence.

    You did say "any firms" in your previous post. I think Herbies say or Cleary would be less worried about being considered an insurance choice. Come down the pecking order a bit and I think my point stands.
    Person 1: Applies to MC/US AND some mid-tier firms. Doesn't get the MC/US.

    Person 2: Only applies to mid-tier firms.

    You seem to be saying that a Mid-tier firm would prefer to have person 2 over person 1, but I don't see why that is true.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redemption)
    Person 1: Applies to MC/US AND some mid-tier firms. Doesn't get the MC/US.

    Person 2: Only applies to mid-tier firms.

    You seem to be saying that a Mid-tier firm would prefer to have person 2 over person 1, but I don't see why that is true.
    There's a sequence element to this.

    By the time Person 1 interviewed at mid-tier firms who recruit later, they would already know the result of their MC/US applications. Chances are if they have been successful, they will either not bother applying to mid-tier firm or cancel before interview.

    Thus, mid-tier firm would still get to choose Person 1 over Person 2

    Now some very good candidates will choose for whatever reason (smaller intake, particular specialism, lack of confidence, VS experience) not to apply to MC/US firms and they will be included in your Person 2 bracket.

    In my couple of years on here and through people I know, I have seen very few people turn down an MC offer for a mid-tier. Quite a few have opted for top tier US instead. Part of the reason for that is the earlier recruitment cycle of MC firms - it effectively gives them first pick of who to make an offer to and makes it harder for candidates to turn down what everyone is telling them are the most prestigious firms that will open doors in the future etc etc.

    I'm not saying that a TC at an MC firm will necessarily be a better experience, just reflecting on how the mechanics of the system work. Probably in far more excruciating detail than the OP ever wished for.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by peachmelba)
    There's a sequence element to this.

    By the time Person 1 interviewed at mid-tier firms who recruit later, they would already know the result of their MC/US applications. Chances are if they have been successful, they will either not bother applying to mid-tier firm or cancel before interview.
    I'm not sure that this is true. When I applied fairly recently, most firms closed applications at around the time and myself/friends with offers from MC firms got them shortly before the SRA deadline. I think the vast majority of applicants are likely to do all their applications at the same time.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Agree with jacketpotato to some extent. I think many of the large international firms recruit at the same time as the MC firms. Hogan Lovells, Herbert Smith, for example.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure that this is true. When I applied fairly recently, most firms closed applications at around the time and myself/friends with offers from MC firms got them shortly before the SRA deadline. I think the vast majority of applicants are likely to do all their applications at the same time.
    Is this due to different experiences if you're law/non-law perhaps?

    And in any case the OP was about rolling recruitment - I think most firms that do this have a final deadline.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by peachmelba)
    There's a sequence element to this.

    By the time Person 1 interviewed at mid-tier firms who recruit later, they would already know the result of their MC/US applications. Chances are if they have been successful, they will either not bother applying to mid-tier firm or cancel before interview.
    But that wasn't my Person 1. My person 1 didn't get their first choice MC.

    Because they might anticipate that they would be time-wasters who are looking for an insurance choice.
    But since not everyone who applies to the MC gets the MC, there must be some people who take the insurance choice (or, I guess, they all decide to go to a different industry).

    What I was trying to say is that I don't know why you are suggesting that a mid-tier firm would want to avoid such a candidate: why are they going to be worse hires than people who didn't apply for the MC in the first place?

    Does that make sense at all? I'm getting confused by it all being so circular now.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    When you look at the breakdown of where firms recruit from, and meet the trainees in person and get a feel for the kind of people they are, I wouldn't say magic circle firm trainees are necessarily of a higher standard than those at firms in the immediate step down, such as Herbert Smith, Hogan Lovells, and Ashurst. Obviously the further down the list you go the more differences you get, though.

    But then some comparatively smaller firms like Holman Fenwick Willan and Withers are both known have very high calibre intakes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PALLO)
    Of course, all firms have a final deadline. However firms may not have any spaces left by the time the deadlines arrives, this includes MC firms. SNR Denton springs to mind here. They have filled all their non-law TC places for 2013 in February and the deadline hasn't passed yet (I think it is 31/03/2011).
    Sorry I added to the confusion I meant earlier final deadline for non-law applications.

    I think I'll stick with my earlier uni application analogy, however imperfect.

    I really don't want to fight a "my tier of firm is better than your tier of firm" kind of war.

    Have a nice weekend.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hmaus)
    It does make sense. I am an example of Person 1 who applied for MC and didn't get it, so I hope that Person 2 who only applied for mid tier is not automatically a better hire than me or else I will get nothing
    You'll get something and I hope soon.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redemption)
    Does that make sense at all? I'm getting confused by it all being so circular now.
    Ha. I was thinking exactly the same thing!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PALLO)
    Of course, all firms have a final deadline. However firms may not have any spaces left by the time the deadlines arrives, this includes MC firms. SNR Denton springs to mind here. They have filled all their non-law TC places for 2013 in February and the deadline hasn't passed yet (I think it is 31/03/2011).
    Hey, sorry, just wondering when / how you heard Dentons had filled their non-law TC places? (I haven't heard back from them yet, wondeirng what other people have heard?)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Re: SNR Denton's filling the non-law slots.

    Depending on the firm, some take 30% non-law and others are 50%. I had always assumed it fluctuated by year, for some years most of the best candidates at interview were law students, and other years it wasn't quite the case and that it wasn't a deliberate quota imposed by the firm.

    It is interesting that the firm have a set number of non-law places. Are there any other firms that have quotas? Might it be financial - the firm doesn't want to commit to GDL fees and sponsorship for an unspecified number of people.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.