I have applied to numerous firms for a training contract and thought (much like the author of the letter printed in [2007] Gazette, 1 November, 16) that my experience and maturity would stand me in good stead. I, too, have managed to gain a law degree, while looking after three children and supporting a husband in the British Army. I thought this would be a good indication of my organisational abilities and commitment.


Of the handful of firms that have even acknowledged my application, none has volunteered feedback. Indeed, when I submitted a recent application under my husband's email address, the rejection letter was addressed to my husband. The firm obviously had not even read my covering letter and CV.



When I pressed one provincial firm for a specific reason as to why I was not invited for an interview, I was informed that while my application was very strong, its selection criteria required me to have graduated from a Times top-20 university. My upper second is from a 'new' university. I wish the firm had told me this before I invested a substantial amount of time and effort in completing its application form.



I suspect it is not the only firm to have such an arbitrary and unfair admissions criterion. In fact, I would go as far as to suggest that such intellectual snobbery, as displayed by this particular firm, is discriminatory. It directly discriminates against mature students (especially those with families) because we have no chance of accessing undergraduate law courses at a Times top 20 university.



The Law Society regularly trumpets 'diversity' and 'modernity' within the legal profession. As the legal profession seeks to adapt to an ever-changing and challenging world, it is disappointing that some firms remain so rooted in the past.



NJ Ward, Stafford