Skip to main content
qLegal
  1. qLegal
  2. Students: Join us
  3. Apply now to join qLegal
  4. Selection criteria

Selection criteria

If you are thinking of joining qLegal, read through the selection criteria for each stage of the application.

Question 1. Video [50 points]

Showing motivation, time management and clarity of communication.

Low mark (0-25)

  • The candidate shows only minimal evidence of motivation and an understanding of qLegal. 
  • The answer shows little to no research into qLegal.
  • The response feels formulaic or inauthentic, with little evidence of the candidate’s own voice or perspective.
  • The candidate develops a poor answer to the question, without including a clear understanding of qLegal’s work and programmes. 

Mid mark (25-35)

  • The candidate shows reasonable evidence of motivation and an understanding of qLegal.
  • The answer shows limited research into qLegal, with some relevant reference to qLegal’s programme offering.
  • The response feels mostly authentic, with evidence of the candidate’s own voice and perspective, though a few parts may come across as less fully developed.
  • The candidate develops an answer to the question with reasonable evidence of original thinking and some self-reflection.

High mark (35-50)

  • The candidate shows clear evidence of motivation and an understanding of qLegal.
  • The answer shows the research they’ve undertaken and includes a clear understanding of qLegal and its programme offering.
  • The response feels highly authentic, with the candidate’s personal perspective, enthusiasm, and individuality coming through.
  • The delivery demonstrates confidence, clarity, and natural communication rather than a rehearsed or overly polished style.
  • The candidate develops a sophisticated and intelligent answer to the question with evidence of original thinking and self-reflection.

Question 2: Critical reflection task on using genAI [50 points]

Please note: this task is designed to assess your critical thinking skills. We’re more interested in your ability to reflect, analyse, and express your own perspective than in producing a “perfect” or polished answer. Be honest, thoughtful, and focus on what you think.

Low mark (0-25)

  • The evaluation of the original answer to the prompt is vague, overly general, or lacks insight. The student may simply agree or disagree without explanation.
  • Inability to comply with instructions.
  • Comments on the original prompt are minimal, unfocused, or off-topic. There is little to no clear justification given for whether it was effective.
  • Suggestions for improving the prompt or response are absent, unclear, or irrelevant.
  • Reflections lack structure and critical engagement. It may restate the prompt rather than evaluate it.
  • Overall, the response shows limited effort to think deeply or contribute meaningfully to the post’s improvement.

Mid mark (25-35)

  • The student shows a reasonable understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the original answer. Some constructive critique is present.
  • There is a thoughtful engagement with the original prompt, with some justification for whether it was effective or not.
  • Suggestions for improvement are relevant and generally helpful, though they may lack specificity or depth.
  • The response includes some reflection and personal opinion, but the analysis could be more clearly developed.
  • Overall, the work demonstrates engagement with the task and a developing ability to evaluate and suggest improvements.

High mark (35-50)

  • The student provides a well-structured and insightful evaluation of the answer to the prompt, identifying both strengths and areas for development with clarity and reasoning.
  • They critically assess the original prompt, explaining whether it was effective and why. They may compare it to alternative approaches.
  • Suggestions for 1 to 3 new or improved prompts are thoughtful, specific, and designed to deepen reflection or improve the final post.
  • Reflections are original, in the students’ own voice, and demonstrate clear critical thinking, originality, and a strong sense of purpose.
  • Overall, the response contributes meaningfully to the improvement of both the prompts and the final post.
Back to top