Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Training contract after non-Russell Group university

Hi everyone,

Since it is this time of the year when wannabe lawyers send thousands of vac scheme and training contract applications, and since I am obviously on the verge of depression once again, I feel like I need to ask this question and hopefully get an honest answer - what are, in your opinion, my chances of getting a training contract?

I am an EU student, my A-levels equivalent grades are AAA and I have recently obtained a First Class degree from Brunel University London.
Now, if you are wondering how I ended up at this university, the answer is that I simply chose it because I liked it, it was performing quite well in the league tables a few years ago and I had no idea about Russell Group back then (luckily since then my research skills have improved).

I worked part-time alongside my degree, got a couple of awards for academic performance, completed a one year long internship before my final year, volunteered for one of the legal charities and at the moment I am working as paralegal in the City.

While last year my main focus was on obtaining a first, I managed to send four of TC applications, ultimately however ending up rejected on psychometric tests or video interviews.

This year I have prepared a serious plan for the battle however I cannot shake the feeling that what is holding me back is the fact that I graduated from non-RG university. I went to a few open days and while recruiters were reassuring me that it does not matter so much as long as my application is strong, it cannot be denied that the vast majority of trainees come from Oxbridge and RG universities.

Since I am not planning on staying a paralegal forever and chasing my dream in vain, maybe there is someone who could from their experience etc objectively assess whether it could be a better idea for me to start looking for a career in different industry?

(for the record - I do not really want to do TC in any of the high street firms; one of the reasons being that I have an experience from such a firm and it just wasn't it - I am much more interested in a work on international scale that I am doing right now).

In which case I shouldn't worry about its current place, right? :smile:

I mean, the Guardian league table is quite known for having universities to jump 40 or 50 places up in one year

BTW I did not use Graun's league table when I applied.

Original post by J-SP

It’s not your university, for the vast majority of law firms, that is the issue. There will be a number of firms at the very top end of the market that recruit very small numbers who may get sniffy about it. But if they do, why would you want to try and work for them anyway?

It’s (your uni) just the easy thing to identify as a potential reason.

You’ve already got through to video interviews and online tests which show your uni is not the problem here. If it really was, you wouldn’t have got through to those stages.

I used to get 100s of applications from Oxbridge applicants alone (typically about 500), I’d probably only get 2-3 from Brunel.

Thank you for your response, I do know that I have to focus on improving my success rate in psychometric tests.

As for certain law firms that recruit only from top universities - I have ruled them out already, I think I would be wasting my time applying there and you are right in saying that perhaps I would not like to work in this sort of environment anyways. Hence I try to target the firms which seem to have at least a few trainees from outside Russell Group.

My only worry is that if at some point there would be a tie between me and someone from better university, it would be them who would get chosen.

However, I am very thankful for your response, I think I needed this kind of reassurance that I should not let my non-RG background to stop me from applying.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 3

Notoriety

I agree; and defer to you and the J-SPista.

But I have actually seen RG distinction used IRL, in two separate interviews I had. "You went to X; X is a good uni because it is RG." But that's on a local scene where they rarely see RG grads/grads from non-shite regionals. And they were not places you'd like to spend the rest of your career.

Reply 4

Jenneyah

Thanks for your response.

My other choices at that time were Brunel, Queen Mary and City.
City had the lowest entry requirements and communication with them was horrendous.
I almost went to Queen Mary but they wanted to defer my application for one year because of my personal circumstances, i.e. they could not accommodate to my needs at that time.
Brunel was the only one that stayed in contact with me throughout application, offered help that I required and I was also happy about the fact that they are one of the few universities that offer placement year. By the way, when I applied the entry requirements were AAB/ABB and I know that a fair proportion of students in my year got even better grades, hence my perception was that it was/is in fact a good university, otherwise the entry requirements would be lower.

With regard to the "indirect advantages" of going to a top university, I assume you mean the fact that they are targeted by the law firms and there is a focus to place students in top jobs. And this is perhaps the only thing that I missed at Brunel - that law fairs were poorly attended by City law firms (but there were always a few regionals).

Also - "going to a solid/top university"
Whilst I know that Brunel is by no means a top university, I have been under an impression that it is quite solid among the ones outside of RG, I even heard one recruiter putting it on the same fence as Kent or Reading. But then I guess opinions will vary.