Not-A-Teabagger wrote:FunkyJD wrote:But seriously, though ... and I'm trying to not be an ass about this ... but how can we assume this? How does this work? If you're not competitive for biglaw in DC, and you're not competitive for midlaw, how are you competitive for an attorney position with the feds?
Is it that Catholic kids end up working for the feds in "lesser" federal attorney gigs? What are examples of these? And by comparison, what are the most coveted federal attorney gigs? DOJ? Treasury? Defense/national security agencies? A-list congressional committees? White House Counsel's office?
I think his point is simply that a higher percentage of AU grads choose to take higher paying jobs in the private sector, and that these jobs are less available for Catholic grads. Thus, Catholic grads end up working for the federal government in higher numbers. Just stating my thoughts on his point, i.e. not my opinion.
No, I understand that. Let me put my question a different way:
1. You're an AU grad. You're offered a job at Alston & Bird, and you're offered a job with the House Commerce Committee. You take the Alston job because it pays more. I get that. But ...
2. You're a Catholic grad (or a grad of a non-T14, non-GW school). You're not offered a job at Alston. You're not offered a job at a smaller DC firm. Is someone with this profile likely to be competitive for a federal government job?
Reason I ask is, I've been conditioned to believe that federal jobs were just as competitive as private sector jobs ... which, if true, would suggest that someone who wasn't competitive enough to secure a private firm job probably wouldn't be competitive for a fed job in DC. Thus, I'm wondering if there's a hierarchy for federal government hiring in DC, as in, "these jobs are much more competitive than these" ... and if so, I'm trying to get a rough ideal of what that hierarchy is. Make sense?