DOJ SLIP 2010

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
tingles
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:41 pm

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby tingles » Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:12 pm

vanwinkle wrote:
tingles wrote:I don't see how saying you have an offer to work at a V5 = success in Biglaw

It's success at getting a BigLaw offer, since he got a V5 offer. The point is, you can be good enough to get an offer from a V5 (which is incredibly difficult, as evidenced by the fact that people keep treating it as bragging when someone mentions they did it) and still not be able to get a DOJ SLIP offer. That could be useful info to know for some people, especially to correct those who might have the wrong idea that whatever makes you good enough to get V-whatever offers ITE will also make you good enough to get SLIP.

People should encourage and not discourage sharing of legal hiring information on here. It's what this forum is for.


I thought it was evident (it was to me) that an offer in Biglaw certainly does not mean an offer for DOJ SLIP, and vice versa. Qualifications that make you outstanding to Biglaw (finance background, lots of private industry experience) won't necessarily translate to a job in the government. At the end of the day, the DOJ is going to want to see some commitment to public interest and someone that has a resume that screams firm, firm, firm obviously won't be able to do that.

My point is - saying where you've been offered doesn't mean anything. It would be more helpful for people to discuss their background, WE and then the firm offers they've received plus if they've gotten a SLIP interview or offer. Now THAT would be a productive discussion.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby vamedic03 » Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:44 pm

tingles wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
tingles wrote:I don't see how saying you have an offer to work at a V5 = success in Biglaw

It's success at getting a BigLaw offer, since he got a V5 offer. The point is, you can be good enough to get an offer from a V5 (which is incredibly difficult, as evidenced by the fact that people keep treating it as bragging when someone mentions they did it) and still not be able to get a DOJ SLIP offer. That could be useful info to know for some people, especially to correct those who might have the wrong idea that whatever makes you good enough to get V-whatever offers ITE will also make you good enough to get SLIP.

People should encourage and not discourage sharing of legal hiring information on here. It's what this forum is for.


I thought it was evident (it was to me) that an offer in Biglaw certainly does not mean an offer for DOJ SLIP, and vice versa. Qualifications that make you outstanding to Biglaw (finance background, lots of private industry experience) won't necessarily translate to a job in the government. At the end of the day, the DOJ is going to want to see some commitment to public interest and someone that has a resume that screams firm, firm, firm obviously won't be able to do that.

My point is - saying where you've been offered doesn't mean anything. It would be more helpful for people to discuss their background, WE and then the firm offers they've received plus if they've gotten a SLIP interview or offer. Now THAT would be a productive discussion.


I think you're missing the point with regards to the type of BigLaw offer the poster had received. A V5 offer suggests that the poster has excellent academic qualifications (top 5-10% of class at a T14, and probably LR) and helps people gauge the degree of competitiveness for SLIP.

I also think that its worth mentioning that a lot of the experiences that are valuable for the private sector are valuable for the DOJ as well. While a background in finance or private industry probably isn't very helpful for Civil Rights, it'd probably be quite useful for Antitrust, Tax, etc.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby vanwinkle » Mon Oct 11, 2010 5:59 pm

tingles wrote:My point is - saying where you've been offered doesn't mean anything. It would be more helpful for people to discuss their background, WE and then the firm offers they've received plus if they've gotten a SLIP interview or offer. Now THAT would be a productive discussion.

I agree more information would be more helpful, but knowing someone has the qualifications to get a V5 offer and turn can't get SLIP is helpful enough to some people. Just because something doesn't mean anything to you doesn't mean it doesn't mean anything to anyone. Keep that in mind.

People should feel free to anonymously post their actual legal employment info, whether it's good or bad, without being told to GTFO. That's the whole point of having the anon feature, to encourage the sharing of more information, regardless of whether you or any other individual poster finds it personally meaningful.

This thread is getting derailed; anyone who wants to keep complaining can PM me or discuss it elsewhere.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:30 pm

Anyone hear anything from civil rights yet?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:44 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Anyone hear anything from civil rights yet?

I haven't, but I'm still at "Application received".

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:35 pm

vamedic03 wrote:
tingles wrote:
vanwinkle wrote:
tingles wrote:I don't see how saying you have an offer to work at a V5 = success in Biglaw

It's success at getting a BigLaw offer, since he got a V5 offer. The point is, you can be good enough to get an offer from a V5 (which is incredibly difficult, as evidenced by the fact that people keep treating it as bragging when someone mentions they did it) and still not be able to get a DOJ SLIP offer. That could be useful info to know for some people, especially to correct those who might have the wrong idea that whatever makes you good enough to get V-whatever offers ITE will also make you good enough to get SLIP.

People should encourage and not discourage sharing of legal hiring information on here. It's what this forum is for.


I thought it was evident (it was to me) that an offer in Biglaw certainly does not mean an offer for DOJ SLIP, and vice versa. Qualifications that make you outstanding to Biglaw (finance background, lots of private industry experience) won't necessarily translate to a job in the government. At the end of the day, the DOJ is going to want to see some commitment to public interest and someone that has a resume that screams firm, firm, firm obviously won't be able to do that.

My point is - saying where you've been offered doesn't mean anything. It would be more helpful for people to discuss their background, WE and then the firm offers they've received plus if they've gotten a SLIP interview or offer. Now THAT would be a productive discussion.


I think you're missing the point with regards to the type of BigLaw offer the poster had received. A V5 offer suggests that the poster has excellent academic qualifications (top 5-10% of class at a T14, and probably LR) and helps people gauge the degree of competitiveness for SLIP.

I also think that its worth mentioning that a lot of the experiences that are valuable for the private sector are valuable for the DOJ as well. While a background in finance or private industry probably isn't very helpful for Civil Rights, it'd probably be quite useful for Antitrust, Tax, etc.


Valuable to doing the job, perhaps, but that's not necessarily what the DOJ is looking for when they look at experiences. It's been my sense that the DOJ, along with other gov and public interest positions want to hire "true believers" if they can. They want to hire people who not only have good academic specs but also suggest that they want a DOJ job not just because the DOJ is prestigious, but because they truly want to work in government / public interest.

Now, is it the case that someone with a heavy background in the private sector or a 1L firm job might feel that exact same way about the DOJ? Might there be really dedicated people out there with those backgrounds? Sure. But in the cursory review that selects initial candidates, before you've even spoken with a person, the DOJ and other such orgs are going to gravitate to the people whose resumes suggest a certain type of individual.

I might be completely wrong on this, but that's just the feeling I get.

Danteshek
Posts: 2172
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Danteshek » Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:01 am

Anonymous User wrote: I might be completely wrong on this, but that's just the feeling I get.



^ no need for the caveat.

Mr. V5 is probably not well equipped to work hard at a job that pays only 60k a year

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:10 am

Danteshek wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: I might be completely wrong on this, but that's just the feeling I get.

^ no need for the caveat.

Mr. V5 is probably not well equipped to work hard at a job that pays only 60k a year

Comments like this don't need to be anonymous.

At what point do people stop being dicks to the guy with the V5 offer? Is it the point where I start banning people? I'd hate for that to have to happen.

User avatar
War Cardinal
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun May 23, 2010 11:24 pm

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby War Cardinal » Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:47 am

vanwinkle wrote:
Danteshek wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: I might be completely wrong on this, but that's just the feeling I get.

^ no need for the caveat.

Mr. V5 is probably not well equipped to work hard at a job that pays only 60k a year

Comments like this don't need to be anonymous.

At what point do people stop being dicks to the guy with the V5 offer? Is it the point where I start banning people? I'd hate for that to have to happen.


I don't think the hate ITT is due to him/her having a V5 offer, but to the fact that he/she feels the need to (subtly) brag about it in a thread about govt. employment. It comes across as douchey and reeks of insecurity--bragging about a V5 offer to make yourself feel better about not having received a DOJ SLIP offer? Also, mentioning that you have a V5 but no DOJ offer sounds as if you feel you're entitled to have a DOJ offer . . . as if it were some sort of "safety" or something inferior to the V5. It's just douche move.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby vamedic03 » Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:48 am

vanwinkle wrote:
Danteshek wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: I might be completely wrong on this, but that's just the feeling I get.

^ no need for the caveat.

Mr. V5 is probably not well equipped to work hard at a job that pays only 60k a year

Comments like this don't need to be anonymous.

At what point do people stop being dicks to the guy with the V5 offer? Is it the point where I start banning people? I'd hate for that to have to happen.


The anti-BigLaw theme in this thread is kind of funny, considering that the DOJ is full of former biglaw associates.

User avatar
vanwinkle
Posts: 9740
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:02 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby vanwinkle » Tue Oct 12, 2010 12:51 am

War Cardinal wrote:I don't think the hate ITT is due to him/her having a V5 offer, but to the fact that he/she feels the need to (subtly) brag about it in a thread about govt. employment. It comes across as douchey and reeks of insecurity--bragging about a V5 offer to make yourself feel better about not having received a DOJ SLIP offer? Also, mentioning that you have a V5 but no DOJ offer sounds as if you feel you're entitled to have a DOJ offer . . . as if it were some sort of "safety" or something inferior to the V5. It's just douche move.

As I already stated, it's potentially relevant information to posters, and the next person who refers to it as a "douche move" or makes any other similar comments will be banned.

Seriously, drop it. You're only hurting the people who would actually benefit from folks disclosing what they have.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:04 am

So anyone else have an antitrust interview yet?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 12, 2010 11:24 am

i spoke to someone who got antitrust last year in a secondary city.... and he told me they never interviewed him.

Also has anyone had their status change to finalist? I think that is the next step....
Last edited by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 12, 2010 1:54 pm

Anonymous User wrote:i spoke to someone who got the antitrust in a secondary city.... and he told me they never interviewed him.

Also has anyone had their status change to finalist? I think that is the next step....

I'm still at "application received".

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 12, 2010 2:20 pm

anyone get more than 1 division email them?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 12, 2010 4:27 pm

Anyone else hear from immigration?! Yes, I'm the same annoying person who keeps asking, but I'm confused about the office's finalist process, and I can't seem to find anyone else who has heard anything from them.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:00 pm

Although some people have noted status changes and one or two people mentioned hearing from Antitrust, it seems to me that the SLIP process is slower and the notifications/status changes are occurring later this year than in previous years. It's unfortunate that there isn't a clear timeline like the one on the Honors Program page.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:00 pm

Although some people have noted status changes and one or two people mentioned hearing from Antitrust, it seems to me that the SLIP process is slower and the notifications/status changes are occurring later this year than in previous years. It's unfortunate that there isn't a clear timeline like the one on the Honors Program page.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 12, 2010 9:23 pm

i was "selected for further consideration" from the civil division but have yet to receive a phone call. bad sign?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:i was "selected for further consideration" from the civil division but have yet to receive a phone call. bad sign?


Not sure if they make phone calls. FYI, make sure you submit your writing sample within 4 business days of receiving the e-mail. They don't make this nearly as obvious as they should.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:03 am

Received Civil Div. e-mail last week as others have. Submitted as per instructions and have yet to hear anything. I will share if I hear anything from Civil, good or bad.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 13, 2010 8:38 am

Add one more to the "Application Received..." list.

T2, 5%, LR

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:16 pm

I was selected as a finalist for the Civil Division today (my status online just changed)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 13, 2010 12:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I was selected as a finalist for the Civil Division today (my status online just changed)


Are you willing to say which Branches you prioritized? Do you have any sense of which one might have picked you?

(I know it's all speculative at this point.)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273214
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: DOJ SLIP 2010

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Oct 13, 2010 1:01 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I was selected as a finalist for the Civil Division today (my status online just changed)


What did your status change to?




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.