Career Clinic: Do top law firms pass over applicants with poor A-level results?

How did you get to a good university to study law in the first place with poor A-levels?

Gonzo -10 Mar 2011 | 13:31

Think outside the box

@ Gonzo - I was lucky and got in to a good Redbrick through clearing and got a decent 2.1, so it is possible for people to be in this position.

Twin -10 Mar 2011 | 14:29

Perseverance

It's important to be aware that there will be several narrow-minded individuals out there who won't consider your application as a result and several have so many to look at that poor A-levels serve as a quick culling method. However, my A-level results were poor, I obtained a 2:1 and I am working at an excellent City law firm so I can confirm it is possible. You need to be realistic, not reach too far (i.e. Magic circle firms may be more unlikely to consider you as they have such high calibre candidates applying) and ensure that the work experience you have is stand out, not just the average two weeks experience at a local firm. Tenacity and perseverance are key. I wish you the best of luck.

Chel -10 Mar 2011 | 14:41

What are you meant to do?

I have a 2.1 from a good near top uni and proper work experience at CAB and representing people in court, but because I have no A-levels/highers I don't even get a look in. People who have never worked a day in their life are getting interviews over me because of subjects at school that really shouldn't matter now that I have a law degree! Very frustrating. And making me wonder of there is any point continuing if all they care about is something I obviously cannot change now.

Stuart -10 Mar 2011 | 15:00

What about students with a first?

I didn't attend a very good university but have just been awarded a first-class, though my A-levels were quite miserable. Does the 1st make me any different than somebody with a 2:1?

Ekwur -10 Mar 2011 | 17:34

Not these days

Most top City firms focus their recruitment on a limited number of universities. If you have a 2:1 from one of these universities and an otherwise good CV you have a good shot at an interview. That doesn't mean you won't get asked about the A-levels at interview but you'll need to talk through your entire history, good or bad, in an interview. You should be fine for getting interviews with a 2:1 from a good university.

As for someone who asked about getting a first from a not so good university, the bad news is that most City firms will prefer a 2:1 from what they consider a "proper" university than a first from a university they don't rate (mainly former polys). But bear in mind that some non-traditional universities are less dismissed than others. As an example UWE is a former poly but I have come across UWE graduates at City law firms (though not the Magic Circle). So you might still be in the game depending on where you got your first class degree from. The only way to find out is to give it a shot.

Magic Circle Associate -10 Mar 2011 | 23:46

how?

You didn't answer gonzo's question...

How did you get to study law with poor A-levels? Law firms want ABB. Law courses want AAA.

So you got less than ABB?

Also 'Twin', congrats for getting into a good redbrick through clearing.

Also, you don't really have a choice about whether your application is considered. for most firms the computer will automatically reject applications without the required grades.

agreeing with gonzo -11 Mar 2011 | 09:30

It will not be easy. School exam results are historic by the time you come to apply for TCs etc. Though they are not completely irrelevant. They are used as recruitment criteria because firms need an easy and objective means of filtering out applicants without having to spend years poring over CV's. Even if it doesn’t stop you getting an interview, be prepared to explain how you have improved your performance or even how you got into law school in a way that reflects positively on you.

There are of course exceptions to every rule but if you look around, you will usually find that conspicuously bright people turn out to have achieved good exam results both at school and university and not just one or the other. Equally, someone who comes across as a bit dim will not normally have straight A's and a first. It’s also a myth that people with outstanding academics have no entrepreneurial skills or social intelligence – usually propagated by those over-reliant on such attributes to compensate for a lack of grey matter.

Incidentally, a 2:1 is a par score at university which may look slightly glossier if coming from a prestigious university but wouldn’t really compensate for unimpressive A-level results.

Young Fogey -11 Mar 2011 | 10:20

Not necessarily

I have incredibly poor A-levels and a first from Manchester University. I managed to get a training contract with a City law firm, but only after a lot of rejection from other firms (which could have been because of my A-levels). I do have extenuating circumstances for my A-level grades, though. Some law firms were honest and told me not to even bother applying with my A-level grades which, whilst disappointing, saved me spending days and days on their applications forms.

It is not impossible to get a training contract with poor A-levels, but be prepared for lots of rejection and be prepared to talk honestly on the application forms, and at interview, about why you obtained those grades. You will be up against lots of applicants who have fantastic A-levels plus 2:1's and firsts, so you need to explain to the firms why your A-level results were so out of character and not a reflection of your ability. Good luck!

NQ -11 Mar 2011 | 10:46

It depends

Some firms (not necessarily "top" ones) will have a minimum A-level requirement which they will use to sift applications automatically. Others won't, but will end up giving the benefit of the doubt to the person with a 2:1 and good A-levels over the person with a 2:1 and poor A-levels.

You may find that you're best off applying to firms who have a reputation for favourably considering mature applicants, as the average A-level score was lower in the past.

A recruitment partner -11 Mar 2011 | 15:57

Absolutely

In my brief experience I would have to say yes they do.

I have completed the LPC and LLB (2:1) with good grades and have significant paralegal experience at a top 20 firm that I gained whilst studying. I now work as a paralegal for another top 20 firm.

This is the first year I have started applying for TC's mainly due to the economic downturn and of the 3 'online' applications I have made, all three have been automatically rejected.

I have put this down to only achieving A, B at A-Level with a few A's at A/S.

I think the problem is that these firms do not get a full picture of the applicant. For example, I achieved these grades at one of the poorest schools in the country that had disruptive classes and a low standard of teaching.

The best advise I could give is apply to small/medium size firms that generally look at the candidates work experience over ancient A-Level grades.

Remember, you have chosen a career in law because you enjoy it and there is plenty of good clients and good work available away from the magic circle / silver circle firms.

All the best. Good Luck.

Mikey Mike -11 Mar 2011 | 17:03

Small is beautiful

I agree with Mikey above. I started off in what by City standards was a small firm but with a few years of good post-qualification experience behind me I had no problem subsequently getting into a silver circle firm to satisfy my curiosity as to what it's like to work for a large firm.

By the time you've qualified and got some experience in a few years time the world will no doubt look very different and with any luck things will have recovered enough that the big firms will be crying out for qualified lawyers with some decent experience. By that stage in your career they're more interested in what you've done at work than what you did at school.

EscapingLaw -11 Mar 2011 | 17:22

depends

Answer: probably
Caveat: I got a shocking 2.2 at university but still landing a great TC so it depends on the individual to some extent too.

2PQE -11 Mar 2011 | 17:54

Wrong end of the stick...

I would just like to add that despite my own firm's rather fussy criteria on A-levels we are getting a number of trainees who simply can't do research, hence why I am still in the office late on a Friday. A great A-level grade in colouring-in or form-filling really doesn't help, so less focus on the grades HR and grill them on their critical faculties before pushing them in my direction.

wiseguy -11 Mar 2011 | 19:02

People should learn spelling and grammar

I would like to point out that the reason some of the posters haven't got training contracts yet might not be because of poor A-level grades, but might be because of basic spelling and/or grammar mistakes...eg. 'Mikey' - the best 'advise' I could give, surely you mean 'advice'? 'There is plenty of good clients'...surely you mean 'there ARE plenty of good clients.' Maybe you guys should check your application forms for basic errors before being so quick to jump on the 'I got rejected because of my poor A-levels' bandwagon.

Chicken -14 Mar 2011 | 13:36

Grammar Tuition

I was amazed when I went back to university to do a masters last year to find that it seems you are no longer awarded marks for style and correct use of grammar and spelling. When I was at school and university the first time round a proportion of the marks in any exam were awarded for style in addition to the content but these days it seems you only get marks for demonstrating knowledge. Took me a while to realise I was one of the few people sitting in each exam who bothered to plan an answer to the question before starting writing rather than just incoherently writing down everything I knew about the subject! Having seen the modern style of tuition first hand it's no surprise that some graduates turn up to work with no idea how to present the results of their research in a coherent format with a clear conclusion.

Escapee -14 Mar 2011 | 15:30

Yup

If you do not fit the standard applicant that law firms are looking for you are always going to be at a disadvantage and this applies to more than just A-levels. Some firms however expressly state that they will disregard A-level requirements in light of other factors, some merely ask for a 2.1 degree and nothing else. I believe it will make things more difficult and preclude you from applying from certain firms but do your research well and avoid the inflexible employers.

However, I am concerned that poor A-levels means entrance into a poor university. These days it is impossible to get onto any law course at a good university without AAB/AAA grades (which would mean they would not be a problem). Law degrees are so oversubscribed there are unlikely to be any places in clearing.

Anon -14 Mar 2011 | 22:59

are you kidding?

Firstly, I noticed the advise/advice mistake earlier, which I think it is fair to say, is a preeetty fundamental error. Good luck getting a TC.

Secondly, awarded marks for style, structure etc - yes. Awarded marks for grammar? Are you kidding? Since when did a university marker ever give marks for grammar? (Did you study Basket Weaving at University of New and Unknown in the Middle of Nowhere, where 99% of the mark is based on attendence or something?) If the grammar is poor then the work does not make sense, which in turn means the 'knowledge' is poor. Believe me, people never gave marks for grammar (well, maybe for SATS back in primary school).

Thirdly, grammar is a pre-requisite to any job requiring knowledge of language. Unfortunately, I come across far too many people making simple errors there/they're - I mean - come on!

astounded -15 Mar 2011 | 07:42

Grammar Vindication

In response to those who have critiqued my grammar, I must confess that I am yet to master the predictive text function on my new iPhone. A thousand apologies to all those that I have offended.

My advise / advice still stands.

Mikey Mike -15 Mar 2011 | 10:02

Attention to detail

Mikey Mike - attention to detail is key in this profession, ESPECIALLY as a trainee. If you are truly blaming your mistakes on your 'iPhone', then what is your excuse for not checking your comment before you pressed submit? Maybe you should re-thing the 'automatic rejection' argument and take a second look at your submitted applications.

Chicken -15 Mar 2011 | 10:29

Re: Are you kidding?

I went to a good private school where we taught that being able to express your opinions clearly and concisely was just as important as knowing the background knowledge which was required to formulate your opinions. A small percentage of the total marks for any essay were awarded for style and grammar to encourage coherent grammatical writing and the same applied at the red brick university I studied law at.

These days marks are only awarded for demonstrating knowledge which means that my masters has bred a group of 20-somethings who are just starting work who think that it is acceptable to express an opinion on a subject through a series of bullet points with no structure and no conclusion. Consequently when you ask them to write up the results of any research you'll get a note that you'll have to edit into a coherent structure before it can be presented to a client. By encouraging them to write well structured grammatically correct essays at school and university we won't have to be teaching them these skills after they start work.

Escapee -15 Mar 2011 | 10:35

Made it

I got 2 B's and a C at A level. 2:2 from a former Poly and am now a qualified solicitor in a top 30 firm, having trained here too. Grades don't matter if you're good at what you do.

New City lawyer -15 Mar 2011 | 12:07

Re: Attention to detail

@ Chicken - please have a second look at your last post entitled 'Attention to Detail' and correct the error.

Why did you press submit before checking?

Nevertheless, 10 out of 10 for effort.

Mikey Mike -15 Mar 2011 | 12:29

Is it Just Laziness and Narrow Mindedness??

I am currently half way through my LPC and on target for a distinction. I got 'poor' A-Level results and these are holding me back. Not only is this unfair because they don't reflect my actual ability today, decent law firms don't even give people a chance to explain how you are not the person you were when you were 17!! If law firms are so narrow minded as to judge you for the grades you got when you were a 'child', quite frankly, I'm not so sure I could handle working for a firm that doesn't accept 'growth'! Legal justice? Yeah right.

Give A Girl A Break! -15 Mar 2011 | 12:51

Possible

I got BBC at A level and have just qualified last year in a large regional. It's definitely possible. The biggest hurdle is getting to interview - a lot of firms use an automated system that auto skims the top x% candidates which the firms then consider. Therefore trying to obtain experience and contacts is the best route to overcoming this hurdle. If you can impress a 'real person' then you've got a much better chance. Equally, A-levels mainly serve to firms as a differentiator - if you have some other good or unusual stuff on your CV it may be possible to tip the balance in your favour. Instead of stressing over A-levels, which you can't change, focus on beefing up the rest of your CV, attending law fairs, making contacts in firms where possible, and try to get around that way. Oh, and don't harp on about your results in your applications. Schoolboy error. Focus your energies on getting across the good bits. Good luck!

I sneaked in -15 Mar 2011 | 14:06

Another question would be, what do people regard as "poor" A-levels? BBC, CCC, BCD, BDD, CEE?

Tom -15 Mar 2011 | 16:16

Re: Escapee

Didn't we all go to 'good' private schools that encouraged writing essays with flair and style? My point is that, that is half the marks - especially at university and especially in law.

So you studied on a masters that accepted answers that are unstructured, inconclusive and in bullet point format. It does not immediately follow that these people get jobs.

Further to the main point in question, A-levels are very important because your attitude as a child is a good indicator as to how you might be as an adult - especially in terms of working hard. Remember people: being a lawyer is just pen-pushing. It is not difficult, it is just time-consuming.

astounded -15 Mar 2011 | 17:00

Feel for you

I think some law firms HRs are notoriously laxed and that's just not limited to trainee recruitment. I once did a gap year in the HR of a silver circle firm. The guy responsible for the partner recruitment was the surf instructor of the HR director! Honest! With a third rate degree from some third rate institution and not in law. He had no experience in law, certainly had no clue what lawyers did but was tasked with screening partners cv from those submitted by recruiters. I totally sympathise with all HR related issues but until partners running firms are read to take charge the selection of any type of employees would be riddled with problems.

Mike -15 Mar 2011 | 22:40

Winning

Hello again Mikey Mike

Who cares if I made a mistake?

I have a training contract and you don't.

Maybe you should spend more time checking your applications and less time writing comments on boards like these.

Chicken -16 Mar 2011 | 11:54

Now now children, play nicely.

Comment Police -16 Mar 2011 | 12:19

@chicken

Well done Chicken. Aren't you just the best thing since sliced bread. Milk, no sugar in my coffee and the photocopier is in the corner.

Pedant -16 Mar 2011 | 14:19

Targeted Approach

Because you have special circumstances you should do a targeted approach - go to open days where you can explain your situation to the HR department of the firms you are interested in and explain your situation. Ask if their filtering systems would automatically reject you. Also when you send your CV either electronically or by post, call HR and if you are brave, a partner in a department you are interested, be brave and explain your situation. Aim to be succinct. Their time is valuable but the fact that you had the courage to pick up the phone and ask/explain will earn you some credit. It worked for me in a different context.

Try to get vacation placements, even at smaller firms so that you can prove your potential in person.

I know people with 2.2 and even a third (one of whom went to LSE and got a contract at a silver circle firm). These are exceptions but show you that with perseverance, anything is possible.

If you can't get through the door, try legal and compliance at banks. i have a friend with a 2.2 who recently got a job there. If you have a 2.1 I would imagine your task should be easier. If your A levels were below par (3Bs would count as that in this market), try to get a masters degree from a top uni and aim for a first.

Above all, don't despair, have a back-up plan - there is always the Government Legal Service and NGOs who could use a talented lawyer and the jobs there are more interesting than being a document monkey and paper pusher - this is what my magic circle training contract amounted to!

R -17 Mar 2011 | 10:44

Make yourself standout

My brother left school with poor GCSEs (not even sure if he passed English and Maths with grades over C). He went to college to study for a GNVQ (which he did not finish). However, becoming a teenage father, he took various jobs and actually did very well for himself before deciding that he wanted to be a lawyer. He was accepted as a mature student, initially part-time, then full time at a former poly in London. During his time at uni, he took part in various competitions for law students, including mooting and through a national mooting comp sponsored by A&O he "won" a vacation scheme placement. By the end of the vacation scheme placement he was awarded a training contract - he's still with A&O having had his LPC paid for, trained and now is 1PQE.

So, there is more than one way to skin a cat! Good luck.

Anonymous -17 Mar 2011 | 11:55

Chicken's coming home to roost

Chicken - I wouldn't be so pleased with yourself for having a training contract if I was you.

Getting a training contract is the easy bit, getting kept on at the end of the training contract when people have worked with you everyday is a different story. You won't be able to hide behind your CV then.

Getting good A-levels and a good degree are more indicative of your social background than your ability to make a career for yourself in the law.

Your attitude on this forum suggests to me that you would be deeply unpleasant to work with and a result of that your firm may very well decide to take a pass on you despite your excellent spelling.

3 years PQE -17 Mar 2011 | 17:01

Hello to the previous poster. Chicken did in fact get kept on and is now 6 months PQE at a city law firm.

The only reason I stepped into this debate was because people like Mikey Mike were complaining about how difficult it was to get a training contract when their spelling and/or grammar clearly wasn't up to scratch. Making such basic mistakes makes it very easy for law firms to reject you.

And saying that I sound deeply unpleasant says more about you than it does me, I'm afraid. I speak the truth.

@3 years PQE - 'if I WAS you' - what sort of language is that? And 'every day' is two words, not one. I hope you're enjoying building up your PQE at the high street firm you're very clearly at. I hear there's a much better chance of getting a training contract with a 2:2 if you look outside the City.

Chicken -23 Mar 2011 | 10:45

Congratulations

Congratulations Chicken - you are clearly a great proof reader.

Your logical reasoning skills however may need some refinement. You seem to have inferred that a few spelling mistakes or grammatical errors in a post on a blog is evidence that a person's training contract application deserved to be rejected or that such person has received a poor education.

Seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur if you ask me.

Some of the brightest and most creative people are dyslexic.

A person's spelling and grammar skills are generally an indication of the importance said person places on such skills rather than indicating his/her general intelligence or level of education.

When I send emails or draft documents I proof them to avoid mistakes, I (like most people) tend not to do this when writing texts or posting on blogs because I have better things to do with my time and think the substance of what I am saying is more important.

A word of career advice from someone more senior to you: attention to detail is good, obsessing over it is counterproductive. It's the substance of the work that counts. A few typo or grammatical errors are generally neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things.

3 years PQE -24 Mar 2011 | 12:19

You have completely missed the point

You have completely missed the point I am making about spelling and grammatical errors. Making such errors on application forms is an incredibly easy way to get rejected by law firms. That is all. Of course people make mistakes in normal everyday life, that is not the point here.
Maybe you should go back and READ the posts before firing off ill-judged replies to my posts.

Chicken -25 Mar 2011 | 12:10

Early question was, does a 1st matter anymore than a 2:1?

Answer is it depends on the firm. I was rubbish at A-Level, 2 Bs and a C. Got into Reading to study politics and transferred over to law; didn't get a sniff of a TC first time round.

Then I got a first, a masters; then taught law for three years at undergraduate level; then took up research positions with the LSE and the Law Society. After giving it much thought, and thinking about where my life was headed, I decided to have another go at applying for TCs.

Got one eventually at a big regional firm, but I was amazed at the amount of places still saying that because of my A-levels they wouldn't consider my application. I understand it's about filtering down the numbers to a manageable level, but it still seems insane.

Anonymous -31 Mar 2011 | 14:54

Brevity and honesty, people.

Aim lower.

Although there are stories (as above) of poor A levels and a 2:1 getting you "in", but they're pretty rare in practice.

The reality is that for every one of those stories the majority of people who get the jobs you want have excellent A levels, at least a 2:1 from a "good" university and as good, or better, experience.

Sorry. To be honest, if you're missing the cut now, you'll struggle later on.

Good luck elsewhere though.

Glory -31 Mar 2011 | 16:03

Even when qualified they matter....

Although this is not a generalisation, I recently came across some US law firms in London that still specify minimum A-level results (min AAB and in 'academic' subjects) to recruiters when looking for associate level. This may be narrow-minded but shows that there are still some firms out there that will look at your A-levels well into your career and not just at training contract time.

Bumblebee -01 Apr 2011 | 16:32

Yes, but stick with it

Just by way of encouragement, I had absolutely dreadful A-levels (with no excuse other than that I was a lazy tyke at the age of 16). I proceeded to get a decent degree in an academic subject at a good university, a distinction on both my PgDL conversion and my LPC and a fair assortment of work experience, and I still found myself being rejected by firm after firm. The real annoyance was when web-based application systems would automatically reject me on the basis of my A-levels before I'd even had a chance to list my later qualifications! Of course, it's understandable that firms need to filter out the vast quantities of applications they receive, but it is frustrating when you have several years of track-record in something at least a little more relevant to the final job, but are barred because of exams you sat the best part of a decade ago...

In the end, I followed the path others have mentioned. Apply to smaller firms that can afford to be a little more flexible, and try to sidestep the standard application approach if at all possible. The standard system is entirely geared towards university students with nothing to show beyond their A-levels and you just can’t compete.

I finally managed to get a training contract with an excellent firm, showed them in the following 2 years that I'd been worth the risk and got a place on qualification. Now 2 1/2 years' qualified and very happy! So, there’s no doubt that A-levels matter, but with a bit of a slog it’s entirely possible to get through.

(Oh, and I really do have to disagree with the suggestion that your performance in you A-levels is often indicative of your dedication for the rest of your life…)

Tim -01 Apr 2011 | 18:28

N/A

I got BCDDE at A-level - pretty rubbish. in fact, pitiful!! No mitigating reasons. Still managed to get into Uni, leaving with a 2:1. TC applications rejected. Obtained a Masters. TC applications still rejected. So I decided to be a little more strategic.

Find out who the clients are of the firms you're interested in. Work in-house for the client with direct access to the external lawyers that advise the business. In time, arrange with your in-house employer to sort our secondment in the firm (6 months or so), make contacts and then apply to the firm for training. This worked for me.

This is by no means fool proof and if doing it you should go to a client that you know you will like as there is a possibility that you will not get the secondment nor the TC in the end. Also, whilst the firm will have a clear understanding of how you work, how well you know the industry and how good you are in general, these are only helpful and, in the end, firms must be seen to be all-inclusive and fair. I do think though that if you're coming from a client, you're pretty much interviewed on your personality and the qualifications tend to be discussed only briefly at interview. I say this having taken this course of action myself and ended up at the Top 10 (non-magic) law firm I wanted, still representing my old in-house company as a client and having been part of interview processes since.

Alternatively, network like crazy as many positions are advertised on firm intranets with referral bonuses on offer to associates if they hire someone on the associate's recommendation (i.e. if the associate forwarded the CV or is named as a contact in the application).

But, in general, some of the comments here are correct in relation to the BIG BOYS of the legal world. It might not work in the Top 5 but it worked for me in the Top 10.

Finally, be sure you know why you want the firms you want. In all honesty, and some here will agree, when you finally get that TC you've always dreamed of, you can find that you hate the job, the hours, the culture, the mentality... especially, as my friends tell me (when i actually get to see them!!), in the BIG BOYS club. I'm happy where I am because I really enjoy my field and was lucky to qualify into the field i always wanted. But i got the position over 13 others who also wanted it... so take from that what you will.

Anon -05 May 2011 | 11:46

I would have to strongly disagree with R's post that the Government Legal Service and NGO position are easier to get than a commercial TC. I believe the competition for the GLS is as strong as it is for the top firms, with 2000+ applications for 20 odd positions. It is definitely not an easy option, and they still require a 2:1 at university although they don't look primarily at A level grades.

Anon -07 May 2011 | 17:47

Missing the point?

Congratulations everyone with your petty arguments about grammar and spelling.

This thread has stemmed from someone keen to get into the industry and looking to seasoned professionals with experience, apparently you lot, for advice and guidance.

Yet you have filled the comments with child like one-upmanship and bickering probably putting the poor soul off wanting to ever step into a law firm.

Good work.

Missing the point? -09 May 2011 | 08:39

Lawyers are tw*ts

I am a lawyer. I am embarrassed to read some of the petty comments written on here about spelling/grammar. Unfortunately, in my experience as a City solicitor at a big firm, I have met many, many people who are equally pedantic.

Go and get a life and stop getting aroused about punctuation etc.

Poster - sounds like you should have a good shot in getting into a big city law firm. Don't let these cretins put you off-there are genuinely some normal, decent solicitors out there.

Lawyers are tw*ts -05 Jul 2011 | 17:11

What's the point?

I'm a first year student at Bournemouth University, which as we all know is an ex-poly; yet it ranks 38th on the league table, ahead of Sheffield which is a russell group university. BU also offer a placement year in some respectable law firms including Bates Wells and Braithwaite. I have AAB in my A Levels (history, english and psych), yet upon reading this forum, I am literally thinking to myself what is the point in even pursuing this career... It's all full of snobbery and people seem to disregard all graduates from universities which aren't redbrick or russell, even though their abilities are poor (above post LSE graduate with a 3RD!!!!)...

Emily -14 Nov 2011 | 13:47

It's possible

I have BBB at A-level, a 2.1 in law from Leicester University and work at a silver circle City firm.

Every application was initially rejected but I slowly enhanced my CV with paralegal experience/lots of other law related extra-curricular activities.

I did not meet the minimum A-level requirements for my law firm (AAB). I therefore called their graduate recruitment department directly and sold myself to them on the phone. They said my experience sounded impressive, told me to apply, and the rest is history. It's possible if you really want it.

Bodgkins -15 Nov 2011 | 17:26

I will be pursuing a Social Policy degree at LSE starting in September, considering I receive a 2.1 or higher how likely is it that I get a training contract at a city firm?

anon -06 May 2012 | 16:51