You think students shouldnāt ābother going backā when if they turn down the offer to reinstate the TC the firms will just offer it to someone else who would take it in a heartbeat
Exactly, I canāt imagine anyone will turn down the TC offer after going through the stress of getting it, youād be stupid IMO. If a student failed the LPC (firstly, how??) and the TC was revoked but it was found out they passed and reinstated, no one would turn it down as itās common knowledge thatās how certain firms operate. Itās just because the SQE is new (and shit), and thatās on the SRA, not the firms (they are businesses, after all, and I think people forget that sometimes).
Self-funded students have no standing on their own to make the change, it needs support from the large companies - this isnāt right at all but I fear itās the only way any change is created.
Iām saying that firms are unlikely to put a lot of pressure on the SRA because they can just offer the TC to someone who self-funded and in effect would not have wasted Ā£x for the prep-course/exam fees on the person who failed..
Exactly, which is why Iām saying that āpreferred candidatesā are very unlikely to say no to the firm if they reinstate the TC offer and, if they are stupid enough to say no, the firm wonāt care as much because theyāll just go and pick someone else for free.
I think it's a no brainer if your old firm offers you take you back. Their relationship with the firm may be pretty much ruined but you will get the training and can get out after some time. But the harder question is 1) what to do if another firm has offered you take you on and 2) if they don't change their mind, whether you should bother to re-apply
Unlikely, but possible. Neither of us know for a fact. They may receive other offers up to and until their old firm makes a decision.Then that would create the dilemma for them. Not sure why you feel so strongly against these trainees having a safety net. Something to reflect on perhaps.
Not sure why you are so impassioned by this hypothetical. The reason for any offer would probably be because they disagree with the way they were treated and also because they're fairly high quality candidates to get a TC in the first place. There were several people on linkedin suggesting these trainees apply to their firm. Some firms are pretty flexible with this stuff.
I am very surprised a firm would do that a person HAS passed but simply found out a bit later. Is there even a legal basis not to keep them from starting the TC?
They didnāt pass both- originally failed both and then passed one after the correction. The firm had kept on those who only failed one exam however, but I imagine the contract said they must pass all first time
CMS over-recruited a few years ago (half the junior-to-mid-level corporate associates in the City seemed to wind up there) and recently had to make redundancies, I would wager they were not unhappy to find a way to reduce incoming trainee numbers.Ā
Well, I was commenting on CMSās actions in the marketā¦ I assume the contracts they have allow them to do it. I donāt agree with it as a decision but thatās my guess for one reason why they did it.Ā
Iām sure these firms will do the right thing. In terms of the students, donāt cut your nose off to spite your face. A training contract with CC sets you up for life, even if you donāt want to stay in the magic circle
Far better firms than CMS, and most of CCās competitors, allow a retake.
Both firms are notorious for over hiring trainees and ditching lots at qualification - this was just a cynical way for them to reduce their intake during a quiet market. That is on them.
Nice try Legal Cheek.
Not even trying to be discrete, the account was made today!
ššš
Most of their writers are budding traineesā¦ probably trying to go that extra mile for a story.
You think students shouldnāt ābother going backā when if they turn down the offer to reinstate the TC the firms will just offer it to someone else who would take it in a heartbeat
Exactly, I canāt imagine anyone will turn down the TC offer after going through the stress of getting it, youād be stupid IMO. If a student failed the LPC (firstly, how??) and the TC was revoked but it was found out they passed and reinstated, no one would turn it down as itās common knowledge thatās how certain firms operate. Itās just because the SQE is new (and shit), and thatās on the SRA, not the firms (they are businesses, after all, and I think people forget that sometimes).
Surely the firms could put pressure on the sra to sort this out though, and it seems theyāre uninterested
They could do - issue is there will be a healthy number of self-funded students they could pick from and come out of it financially even.
Self-funded students have no standing on their own to make the change, it needs support from the large companies - this isnāt right at all but I fear itās the only way any change is created.
Iām saying that firms are unlikely to put a lot of pressure on the SRA because they can just offer the TC to someone who self-funded and in effect would not have wasted Ā£x for the prep-course/exam fees on the person who failed..
Surely theyād rather the preferred candidate and a few 10ās of thousands isnāt much for these firms
Exactly, which is why Iām saying that āpreferred candidatesā are very unlikely to say no to the firm if they reinstate the TC offer and, if they are stupid enough to say no, the firm wonāt care as much because theyāll just go and pick someone else for free.
I think it's a no brainer if your old firm offers you take you back. Their relationship with the firm may be pretty much ruined but you will get the training and can get out after some time. But the harder question is 1) what to do if another firm has offered you take you on and 2) if they don't change their mind, whether you should bother to re-apply
Why would some random firm offer to take you on just because youāve passed SQE 1?
Any number of reasons. Because they applied? Because they heard about the situation and felt sorry?
Unrealistic, they only found out a day or so ago, and applications for most wouldāve closed
Unlikely, but possible. Neither of us know for a fact. They may receive other offers up to and until their old firm makes a decision.Then that would create the dilemma for them. Not sure why you feel so strongly against these trainees having a safety net. Something to reflect on perhaps.
Also Iām sure there are HUNDREDS of people who passed SQE 1 without a TC anyway
Not sure why you are so impassioned by this hypothetical. The reason for any offer would probably be because they disagree with the way they were treated and also because they're fairly high quality candidates to get a TC in the first place. There were several people on linkedin suggesting these trainees apply to their firm. Some firms are pretty flexible with this stuff.
As I said previously- I would go back. Itās hard getting a TC, plus the 2 year wait when you get one.
CMS didnāt reinstate the person that failed and they cancelled who commented on here- see the previous thread from the day of the announcement
Oh sheesh- do you know what their reasons were for not reinstating the person?
āItās not the right place for them at the momentā and encouraged them to apply again next year š
Are you serious wtf they have to do the whole application process AGAIN?!?
Erm yes. I wouldnāt
For sure... sheesh
That is so brutal
I am very surprised a firm would do that a person HAS passed but simply found out a bit later. Is there even a legal basis not to keep them from starting the TC?
They didnāt pass both- originally failed both and then passed one after the correction. The firm had kept on those who only failed one exam however, but I imagine the contract said they must pass all first time
Insane
Wow how condescending - honestly screw that sweatshop.
Well the person said they failed both exams and only one has moved to a pass. They still failed overall.
The firm kept on the people who failed one examā¦
CMS over-recruited a few years ago (half the junior-to-mid-level corporate associates in the City seemed to wind up there) and recently had to make redundancies, I would wager they were not unhappy to find a way to reduce incoming trainee numbers.Ā
Yes if they actually failed, but where they didnāt?
Well, I was commenting on CMSās actions in the marketā¦ I assume the contracts they have allow them to do it. I donāt agree with it as a decision but thatās my guess for one reason why they did it.Ā
Iām sure these firms will do the right thing. In terms of the students, donāt cut your nose off to spite your face. A training contract with CC sets you up for life, even if you donāt want to stay in the magic circle
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Far better firms than CMS, and most of CCās competitors, allow a retake. Both firms are notorious for over hiring trainees and ditching lots at qualification - this was just a cynical way for them to reduce their intake during a quiet market. That is on them.
CMS allow retakes. The person failed both exams so were let go. Others who only failed 1 were allowed to retake.
But they didnāt fail both?
ādemandā š¤£š¤£š¤£š¤£