Norton Rose is considering scrapping binding academic restrictions for graduate recruits as the firm aims to increase diversity and boost applications from non-traditional backgrounds.
The move comes as a number of leading City law firms move away from relying solely on formal academic requirements in preference of aptitude and psychometric testing.
Norton Rose is considering axing the minimum requirement of a 2:1 degree from training contract applicants. Instead it may use a screening process based on aptitude and verbal reasoning tests similar to the National Admissions Test for Law run by a number of UK universities.
The firm is hoping that the new selection criteria will allow it to objectively judge applicants who may have taken less common routes into law, including moving into the profession as a second career.
Norton Rose litigation partner and director of graduate recruitment Sam Eastwood said: “We are very interested in recruiting international students and we have always had a good intake of non-law students. So how do you test their aptitude for practising law, particularly when English may not be their first language?”
Herbert Smith is also in the early stages of reviewing its application process, while a number of other City firms have already introduced broader tests for applicants. Lovells, CMS Cameron McKenna, Linklaters and Clifford Chance all already use some aspects of psychometric testing and verbal reasoning as part of their pre-selection or interview processes. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has also considered changing its application scheme to widen the pool of new recruits.
Freshfields head of UK graduate recruitment Deborah Dalgleish said: “There is a perception that big City firms are only interested in certain people. Yes, we need candidates to be intelligent and have certain skills such as teamwork and multi-tasking. But if you have those skills you have as good a chance as anyone else.”
Other measures being taken to increase diversity by firms include a scheme by Simmons & Simmons and BPP to bring in the law school’s highest-performing students for an assessment day — irrespective of their past academic standards — and last week’s inaugural City Solicitors’ Educational Trust summer school, which aims to introduce high-performing students at non-Russell Group universities to law.
Simmons graduate recruitment partner Nick Benwell said: “There are a lot of very appealing candidates out there who come from disadvantaged backgrounds or ethnic minorities but just do not think they fit in the law firm culture. We need to change that.”
Have traditional academic requirements had their day? Click here to have your say.
More news, deals and comment on Norton Rose
Norton Rose on the Legal Week Wiki
Isn't all this a massive PR stunt to attract clients? Firms will still go for white, middle-class 2:1/1st candidates regardless whether they have common sense or not... right?
I think that firms are now getting to the stage of looking at the underlying issue - to tackle diversity they will have to reassess entrance requirements that are designed for white, well-educated middle class people. Seeking out talented individuals from 'non-traditional' backgrounds or institutions does require different processes more geared to looking for underlying intelligence rather than pure academic polish. If they are genuinely trying to achieve that, good on them and it's about time.
I'm sorry, but acheiving a 2:1 to work in a top 20 City firm should be the absolute minimum requirement, otherwise why bother going to university in the first place. If you don't have the discipline and work ethic to get a 2:1, then a legal career really won't suit you. If Norton Rose want to stop being so snobbish and consider 2:1s from 'lesser' universities, then more power to them, but recruiting those who just don't cut-it academically is a flawed plan doomed to failure.
I have little involvement in graduate recruitment, but is it really the case that it is only white, middle-class people who get 2:1 degrees from decent universities? I thought the universities had themselves made an effort to diversify their intake, so presumably their output is more diverse as well. Is the problem not a lack of appropriately qualified non-white, middle-class people but a lack of interest in a legal career from those people with 2:1s from decent universities who are not white and middle-class?
Perhaps we could start by having law firms keep statistics on the ethnicity and gender of all applicants as well as those eventually hired. In this way we would have a simple indicator of how hard firms were trying to capture diverse candidates and also how hard they were trying to hire such people. These statistics should of course be published for all to see so that we can compare across law firms.
This is a good step forward. There are too many graduates with 2:2s who possess a greater ability to do the job over graduates with excellent academics, but little else.
John - the Data Protection Act is designed to stop the publication which you suggest.
Isn't this a touch of positive discrimination?! you get a 2:1 from a top 10 but uni but oh sorry, you're not 'diverse' enough for us? Get real........
What's wrong with positive discrimination? Those from privileged backgrounds have already benefited from a kind of sociological positive discrimination, but when someone tries to correct the balance at the other end, the privileged cry foul.
What do you have to do to not get a 2:1? I am not from your white, middle-class background but I was able to easily achieve that while holding down two part-time jobs and graduate in just two-thirds of the 'usual' time.
Are they saying international students are not as competitive academically? From personal experience, I find the opposite to be true.
Shouldn't the requirement be a 2:1 background PLUS other interesting bits?
I think most of you seem to be missing the point. They are not considering lowering their standards, but rather are considering an alternative to 'binning' any application automatically if the applicant doesn't have a 2:1. All this means is that in cases where someone failed to get a 2:1 but does well on another type of aptitude test they may actually get their application read. For some of those people there will be circumstances which mean that the 2:2 isn't accurately indicative of their ability. It's kind of the same with first-class degrees - no firm gives someone a TC for getting a first without interviewing them, as they may be useless. This measure will work in a similar fashion but reversed: no candidate will be automatically labelled sub-par purely by virtue of their 2:2 - they might be very competent.
I don't know what Norton Rose is harping on about. I met their requirement of a 2:1, I graduated from a renowned London University, got AAB for my A-levels and I am a well-rounded individual. I think it is an insult to assume that those from 'diverse' backgrounds need the standard lowered. I am black and am therefore from what is deemed a diverse background, have met all the requirements and was not even offered an interview. They just need to give more interviews. There is a problem with diversity in City law firms and although it has been noted by the Law Society and the law firms, I don't believe there is a genuine commitment to do something about this matter. Also, what is the point of the equal opportunities form when people who generally get the jobs still all look the same. Hmm....it is all a facade!
I would like to hear Sam Eastwood's reponse to the above post.
I trained and qualified with Norton Rose, although I am no longer with them. I got a 2:1 in Law from a good London university and three As for my A-levels. You could say that Norton Rose ticked two boxes in the diversity box by hiring me (ethnic minority and female) but the other trainees in my intake were from all walks of life too (mature students, non-law, foreign nationals etc) so I think that Norton Rose's recruitment policy is quite diverse. I feel it's easier now for ethnic minorities to enter the profession. Ten years ago when I was applying for training contracts, I was hardly offered any interviews (I think partly also because I needed a work permit). I'm still grateful to Norton Rose for giving me a chance. It's a shame to turn away good applicants who don't meet the 2:1 requirement when they are perfectly capable of doing the job and, for example, in the case of paralegals, have demonstrated on the job that they are better than some trainees with 1st class honours (but no common sense). I agree it's hard to monitor how this works in practice, but don't knock Norton Rose for trying.
This is a good step forward if you look at it not from an LLB view but a GCSE and A-level view. I come from an underprivileged background and was never given much encouragement at school so I left with average results and never went to college. So no A-levels but now I study law because I want to. I am heading for a good degree and I have many years' work experience teaching me more than academic subjects did.
With no full academic track record I know I have to prove and promote myself very hard; hopefully this step forward in requirements will only help others like me, that whilst we didn't do great when we were young, we have learned and are making the changes now - we want this and are doing everything we can to defeat the odds.
Its a great evolvement of the profession and I only hope the Bar follows suit!
Two words... All talk!
I have worked for Altlaw document outsourcing ltd who provided a great service to Norton Rose for many years; we a very diverse small company who employ many disadvantaged young people in Hackney on a part-time basis. Since my arival 18 months ago l have placed many calls to Norton Rose print-room and l have gained the feeling being ostracized because of my name. We work for five of the top 20 law firms in London and their attitude is not as yours.
Related Articles
Latest Jobs
