Where is the feedback?

This week's blog post comes from a law student who describes some of the disappointment and frustration associated with inadequate post-interview feedback from firms.

With the majority of UK solicitors' firms awarding their training contracts over the coming months, aspiring lawyers will be preparing themselves for an emotional rollercoaster. The regular checking of online message boards and email refreshing is interspersed with excitement, disappointment and, more often than not, silence.

Not only is there widespread lack of acknowledgement or rejection, firms are also failing to provide feedback post-interview. This is particularly disappointing given how tough it can be to get to the interview stage.

Successful candidates will have overcome a series of hurdles including lengthy application forms, online tests, telephone interviews, assessment days, interviews and vacation scheme placements. But after all this, after all the practice interviews, the new suits, the expensive train tickets to London (no, these aren't always covered), the days off work, the angst and the rejection, many firms go very, very quiet.

Although lots of firms do offer feedback - larger firms with an HR infrastructure are generally better at this - a strict 'no feedback' policy is adopted by many others. Some firms prefer to give generic information, or simply to refer to "other higher calibre candidates" and leave it at that. In fact, even requests for test scores - which surely just involves checking on a computer system - are often refused.

When so much time, preparation and dedication is expected from the candidates, why are law firms so unprepared to cooperate with candidates' requests on this issue?

One explanation is that it is a potential minefield of liability. When you only have X number of training contracts on the table and the HR filtering process has churned out a bunch of people the firm would be reasonably happy to offer training contracts to, choices are based on decreasingly relevant criteria. Where a strong and roughly equal pool of last-round candidates needs whittling down, small details may count against candidates just as the candidates who are preferred may simply be the candidates who partners feel would stick around for a drink after a big contract is sealed late on a Friday night.

Another reason is that it is simply too time consuming at such a busy period of the year, especially for firms without dedicated HR teams. This would explain the glib responses that candidates are often met with when they pursue the firm over the phone. Of course, it is understandable that rejected candidates go straight to the bottom of the pile - after all, firms are rushing to select the very best candidates before other firms beat them to it.

However, this is detrimental to the rejected candidates as feedback can be extremely useful. Knowing that you need to work on factors such as eye contact, structured responses, use of examples or working on your attitude - be you over-confident or reticent, bossy or timid - are all things that can be managed and improved. Providing no feedback at all, sending feedback two months too late, or sending a generic email reflects poorly on their brand as well as the profession.