0LNewbie wrote:So, how are firms supposed to assess from your experience/personality/interviewing whether you're intelligent? Do you want them to administer their own assessment tests? Srs question.
It depends on what kind of business model Biglaw wants to use. They profit mightily from the disposable associate model. Every associate hour billed is profit, so they just need warm bodies that they can keep busy...they don't care if you can stick around.
The problem is that this is incredibly inefficient economically, and clients are sick of paying the high cost.
If you actually want to hire people that are going to last and become experts in the field, I think they should use some form of assessment and/or testing, in addition to more structured interviews. The key is balance: not relying too heavily on just one metric. Law schools themselves could make their grades more valuable by focusing more on writing and research...especially of the sort that requires researching novel legal issues not readily explained in E&Es and commercial outlines. If the grades were based on doing things lawyers actually do as a lawyer, they wouldn't be as worthless from a hiring standpoint.
I also think they should change the third year of school into a sort of residency or internship. You can kind of do this via clinics already, but there's not a lot of options if you want to be on the defense side.
To sum it up, though, I think its important that they consider more factors than they currently do. I don't know if I'd do any better or worse with a different system, but I think it would be easier to live with the result if the process facially made more sense.
And it would surely benefit law firms, where clients are demanding experienced attorneys do the work. In this new environment, it will be the firms that retain the most associates that get the most business. And in that case, assessment-based hiring would certainly be advantageous.