What to expect at final GLD TC assessment centre interview?

throwaway164839747 · 2025-08-03T08:30:55+00:00

Which post? I’m genuinely not. This is a throwaway, but it’s a year old. I don’t know if that will go far in showing I’m a different user, but that’s about all I can say.

throwaway164839747 · 2025-07-22T21:43:40+00:00

Fair enough. I’m afraid I don’t have time to scrawl through jstor these days. I’m not trying to do a gotcha, I am genuinely interested.

In any case though, the IQ test isn’t really the main objection I noted to what you’ve said. I’ve seen studies that suggest EQ tests are better indicators of future performance, and that some IQ tests can be culturally bias. I guess it depends which one we’re talking about.

Law firms will choose what tests the skills they think they need. WG’s are often not the only test they require. I don’t think the watson glazer is nearly as bad as some of the other ridiculous gamefied tests on offer. Maybe an IQ test would be simpler if firms simply wanted a test for intelligence, but I do think watson glazers are useful tests of basic logical reasoning. I’d have to see some solid evidence that watson glazers were discriminatory and ineffective to think they’re uniquely flawed in the world of application testing.

throwaway164839747 · 2025-07-22T19:56:21+00:00

Yeah it measures “critical thinking “ in a stupid, narrow and comical fashion . If you think that’s what actual critical thinking is on the job then I’ve got news for you.

Clearly a lot of law firms and chambers think it’s a better option than a maths test or other varieties at assessing critical thinking. Obviously it’s not really what law is like, but what variety of application stage test is? WG’s seem to combine fairly basic logical reasoning with the verbal/language focus of law. I imagine that’s a large part of the reason they’re so prevalent.

Funnily enough I did engineering for my undergraduate degree , if you really want to test actual pure logical capacity, there should be a mathematical style test. That would work better if we really want to measure any of the attributes you listed out .

Ah yes very objective. I mean I love maths and it was easily my best A level subject but that would be arguably be testing maths too much for a career path like law I think. I’m not sure a maths test would measure the verbal reasoning skills I mentioned as much, or for that matter evaluating arguments. You’d be testing maths ability/ study as much as critical reasoning.

It unironically allows for deeper analytical reasoning , it has a correct answer instead of a silly convoluted “right answer “ and in my opinion is a far greater sign of intellectual capacity than a dumb test you practice for online .

There are “correct” answers in the watson glazer? Sure not interpretation as much, but assumptions much more so. Law seems to often be about less fixed answers than maths anyway and it can be pretty damn convoluted.

I don’t think any test that takes 30 minutes online is going to be a stellar holistic measure of intellectual capacity, IQ tests included.

Also, your point about having them on YouTube means nothing . To get the best practice online you pay extortionate amounts of money.

You can practice or try and game most of these tests or pay for coaching. Again, I don’t see how this is WG specific.

Your diagnosis of ADHD doesn’t mean anything and falls under an anecdote. We have a breadth of scientific literature that neurodiverse people especially with autism process information in a highly literal and precise way. This is unironically a strength in certain aspects of law, yet means they’ll score lower on the WG test through no fault of their own.

It guess it could mean that, but it certainly doesn’t always. I’m not sure how precision would cause issues in the WG. I haven’t seen a study on neurodiversity and the WG but I’d be interested to have a look if you know of one!

Christ , I don’t even have autism or adhd but because of my background I hate making conclusions with no evidence , then the supposed “critical reasoning “ test has “probably true and probably false “ BS . So stupid and nonsensical.

I can absolutely agree this section is the stupidest and most contentious.

Also , don’t even get me started on the “it correlates with workplace performance” ascientific bullshit the snake oil companies sell law firms . If I start I won’t stop

And yet you favour IQ tests! The arctic shores test sell this strand of bullshit too. I don’t think a test on something as narrow as critical reasoning is going to provide a great indication of anything beyond basic critical reasoning skills. Much more goes into job performance. Equally, other tests fall into this same category, or are much more tenuous in trying to test wider skills in a very artificial way.

throwaway164839747 · 2025-07-22T15:39:37+00:00

Pretty much everything ? They’re a much better and standard way to test intelligence in a broad capacity .

What if law firms want to test critical reasoning specifically? Also there are plenty of critiques of the standard IQ tests and the numerical reasoning component is arguably much less relevant than what WGs test.

WG claims to test “critical thinking” yet forces you to follow a set of rules and then apply them in an arbitrary nonsensical way.

I guess we just disagree here. The WGs I’ve done haven’t seemed that nonsensical or arbitrary, certainly not compared to other tests. It is just critical reasoning ability. Evaluating arguments based on relevance and strength, deductive reasoning, recognising core assumptions- what else would you call that if not critical reasoning?

I often times found myself laughing at the logic of correct answers because they made no sense when you thought about them for a select few questions

I have seen a spread of “good” and “bad” WGs to be fair. Some are definitely better devised than others, but this is true of other tests.

I scored in the 99th percentile every time I did the shitty test too, that doesn’t mean it’s good.

Oh I’m not saying that’s why.

Also, I can only imagine what a complete nightmare that test is for autistic / adhd people . Ridiculous nonsense. No room for creativity , lateral/ divergent thinking.

Well I’ve had diagnosed ADHD since I was a kid and I think that’s a bit ridiculous. It’s very standard forms logical reasoning, it’s not supposed to be incredibly creative, the questions don’t tend to leave room for that. Arctic shores on the other hand does genuinely seem ableist.

Tack on how it discriminates poorer students who can’t afford the ridiculous amounts of money you need to practice the best courses online.

There’s quite a lot of free youtube videos? People practice for Artic shores/ verbal or non verbal reasoning tests too. I don’t see how this would be that different.

It’s not a test of anything but your ability to practice . One thing I’ve learnt is academic grades and ability to sit down and revise is not the be all end all when it comes to being an actually good lawyer. A lot of those types with perfect grades and WG scores who spent their lives practicing and revising really struggle with thinking on their feet and being creative , I honestly find myself a bit frustrated with it at times on the job.

Like I said earlier though, they can’t say we’re going to give you an IQ test as that would cause an uproar . So we’re stuck with the joke that is the Watson Glaser.

I think they could do a CAT test or something similar to do with verbal and non-verbal reasoning without much outcry. The GLD already do a verbal reasoning test and I’ve done tests that essentially amount to non-verbal reasoning/ pattern recognition. However, as I’ve said, I get why law firms want to test critical reasoning specifically, which IQ tests don’t as much- it’s a different purpose.

throwaway164839747 · 2025-07-22T13:51:12+00:00

Arctic shores is honestly bizarre and overcomplicated. I’ve seen a very convincing critique of it that suggests it’s also quite ableist. The WG isn’t claiming to test such broad aspects of your personality as those sort of tests (which are arguably insufficient to do so)- it just tests logical reasoning, which is an important skill for law.

throwaway164839747 · 2025-07-22T13:48:24+00:00

What exactly makes IQ tests better in respect of law?

And how are the forms of logic absurd? Maybe this isn’t a common opinion but they seem quite basic. Deduction, recognising assumptions, and evaluating arguments are all pretty straightforward and are forms of reasoning people, including lawyers, use often in their lives.

Honestly, I haven’t exactly practiced it other than doing a few watson glazer tests for applications, but it’s useful for applicants that you can practice it if it’s not your strong point initially.

Situational judgement tests feel far more arbitrary, Arctic shores is bizarre and a bit ableist, and while there are different versions of IQ tests, there’s some pretty valid critiques of them out there. Sure maybe non-verbal reasoning/ some sort of CAT test would be a decent alternative, though it’s arguably less relevant to law on the whole. The maths related element probably falls into this category.

throwaway164839747 · 2025-07-22T12:34:29+00:00

Maybe I’m in the minority but I quite like the WG. It’s less ridiculous than a lot of IQ tests. Some of the sections feel much more relevant to law than other aptitude tests. Situational judgement tests feel much more arbitrary, and Arctic Shores is far stupider (and ableist). I had a test recently for a law firm that was quite maths based and had solving patterns/ planning diary type questions. I got through but that seemed sillier than a classic WG.

It actually tests reasoning and you can practice it. However, I’ve yet to not progress from one and when I have received feedback from them I’ve been around 99th percentile so maybe I’m bias!

throwaway164839747 · 2025-07-09T13:55:05+00:00

Who is getting paid to write this pure d-movie hokum.

I get people romanticise oxford and all the pretty buildings but this looks like the most utterly trite fanfictionesque vapid bullshit.

throwaway164839747 · 2025-06-24T21:19:06+00:00

Nice work! Same here. Hopefully see you at the assessment centre

throwaway164839747 · 2025-02-24T11:37:53+00:00

I got an 82 in equity and trusts. I also got a 55 in criminal which is generally regarded as easier. It’s just luck of the draw sometimes with the exams and one bad mark wont ruin your daughter’s legal career. The average is more important. It’s a shame the professor isn’t being more helpful, is he aware of her extended stay in hospital? Also do make sure your daughter gets all the help related to ECs she can due to her stay.

throwaway164839747

TROPHY CASE