QOTW: should I be applying for training contracts? May 9, 2012
Posted by travisthetrout in Job hunting, Law LLB, QOTW, Training Contracts, Vacation Schemes.add a comment
This week I’ve taken my question of the week from a law student that I met while celebrating one of my best friends birthday, rather than an email request.
The law student in question was a penultimate year law student applying for vacation schemes/training contracts at large international firms in London. He is expected to get a first, attends a top 10 law school but has no work experience or positions of responsibility. He asks simply for advice.
Despite being recommended that you apply for training contracts during penultimate year of your LLB I think it is time that the university careers service took a realistic approach and also said that the recruitment process can take time, and that it is rare these days for someone to get their training contract while doing their LLB. Yes, larger firms recruit 2 years in advance, but having worked with trainees and vac scheme students at a large international law firm I can say – the majority were second degree or second career and all had work experience. So today the question is whether as a penultimate year LLB student you should be applying for training contracts? Or whether it is a waste of time?
vacation schemes and /or training contracts?
Personally I would say apply for vacation schemes (and vac schemes that combine TC application) but if you have no work experience, the stand-alone TC application is most likely a waste of your time. Now if the alternative is watching tv I would say drop in a few TC applications, but the time you use for applications (and TV watching) could be used to make your CV stronger for your upcoming applications – voluntary work, part time job, law clinic, CAB or even simply writing letters to local firms for ad hoc days.
I am not saying it it not hard to get the work experience – time and effort is required. But there are only so many hours in the day, you want to maximise your potential. A few half baked applications to the say top 5 law firms in the country when all you have done is ticked the law degree box is a waste of time, as the time can be put to a much better use.
But maybe i’m just cynical. Feel free to add your thoughts to the matter in the comments.
As always if you have a question for my question of the week series email me at travisthetrout[at]hotmail[.]co[.]uk
Mentoring Schemes – another viable route to a job? December 15, 2010
Posted by travisthetrout in Job hunting, Law LLB.6 comments
I was chatting with another paralegal in my firm last week from a more profitable department. It is a busier and more vibrant department with more paralegals on the team, but not a “sweatshop” of paralegals. To my surprise she got her job through a mentoring programme. While she was doing her degree (LLB) she had been mentored by one of the solicitors on the team through a mentoring scheme run by her university.
I have mentioned before that my university didn’t offer anything in the way of mentoring schemes and only offered pro-bono work in my final year so I had very little access to local firms compared to some universities. A big disappointment.
I know a few fellow students from my LPC Course (and some of my readers) have participated in some mentoring schemes and got some work experience out of it, but I’ve not heard of anyone else getting a direct permanent job out of it and certainly not at a large law firm. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
With much discussion online about the future of legal education and the question of which way to turn – mentoring schemes at university level seem like a possibility for both small and large firm to meet potential future employees and give students a taster of the job and a potential foot in the door.
Should mentoring schemes (or work experience) be a compulsory part of a legal education? And where should the responsibility for this requirement lie – the firms, the university or the individual?
Art, Law and A-Levels: a look at the university ‘blacklists’ August 21, 2010
Posted by travisthetrout in Law LLB.14 comments
Image via Wikipedia
The A-level results were out this week – and we’ve had the usual wave of stories: best results ever, not enough places, competitive and ruthless clearing, a-levels are getting easier, more students choosing academic subjects, students with soft subjects losing out etc.
Law
A competitive subject by nature, and terribly oversubscribed. Most universities offer law degrees (with many of the universities lower in the league table not offering straight law but instead have combos such as Law and Government). The current league table is surprisingly different from when I applied. Only 1 university that I applied to that was in the top 10 is still in the top 10.
Law as a degree generally has no “required” subjects – not like dentistry, medicine or architecture. I think career advisors at schools make the mistake of letting students know this without advising them that they still need to be sensible about their choices. When I picked my AS-levels (which was in February of the year I did my GCSEs) my subject choices were: Physics, Classical Civilisations, English and Biology. When we got to “review” our choices after results day I then chose (and ended up studying) Art, Chemistry, Biology and English.
Soft-Subjects and Black Listing
There has been “news” on the use of blacklists by universities.
Nothing new there.
I got rejections based on the fact that I did Art. At the time I found this offensive, I worked hard in all my subjects, art was no exception. Certainly there were those who took art as an easy subject (and sat around listening to much and painting simple terrible still life) and coupled it with 2 other subjects like Art history and Drama or Psychology and Home Ec but I felt I was doing more academic subjects. Art class was my relaxing “me time” to do some work I cared about and not just go through the ‘motions’. After all a lot of what I learned in Chemistry was “for exams only” retention, and I only remember the basics, but my home is full with paintings and furniture I made in Art Class which I hope will last a long time.
The key point however was that I was never told by our career advisor (until after my applications were rejected) that some top universities blacklisted art – it didn’t matter that I had Grade As in academic subjects as well. Not that it held me back, I went to another Russell Group University that didn’t have a problem with my A in Art.
Law at A-Level
I never had the opportunity to study Law at A-level and I probably wouldn’t have considered it as an option. Although I can see why people might be curious to take it. After all unlike most of the academic subjects, the majority of students have no experience of the subject when they start their degree straight out of school. Even with a lot of vocational degrees, they have a basis in subjects that you would have studied at A-Level. Besides at the most basic of levels it doesn’t sound like a soft subject – “law… hmm well lawyers are smart, that much be a good choice”.
A-Level Law is a blacklisted subject at many top universities – you are going to learn all this content with them – what they want to know you have what it takes, that you can put in the hard work and dedication that success in such a subject requires.
I will say that my university didn’t blacklist the subject when I applied. How do I know? Because on our first day they said – “if any of you studied law at A-level… forget it all. Now”. So although the Law at A-level didn’t decrease you chances of an offer (then) they did believe it to be worthless.
And I think that pretty much sums up the collective attitude towards having an A-Level in Law at University (not to mention when it comes to job hunting, if you want to be taken seriously as a candidate for a training contract – its best to have those serious subjects). In every interview I’ve had I’ve been asked to explain my A-Level Choices: half arts, half science with no central purpose. Luckily I have a very legitimate reasoning behind it.
Is it right to “Blacklist”?
I seriously doubt there is an actual list – but yes, all things considered I can see why they do it (despite being blacklisted myself). So many people have great A-Levels, universities need to find a way to separate them, otherwise it borders on impossible and they only have so many places.
But what they do need to do is not keep it behind closed doors. Students have a right to know which subjects “are not accepted” for their degree choice at particular universities and their career advisors (or the internet) should be able to let them know so. Sure, we may end up with the problem of more students shying away from the “blacklisted” subjects, but at the same time we save students, who still choose to study a “blacklisted subject” wasting a university choice through UCAS on a choice where they realistically are not going to be offered a place, and using it on a University that doesn’t blacklist it.
But at the end of the day it is common-sense which subjects will increase your chances / help progress you career.
