Caveat emptor

(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.
User avatar
2014
Posts: 5831
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby 2014 » Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:35 pm

This issue with requiring payment for every thing is it would result in the huge majority of these PI/Govt gigs just not hiring anyone since they lack the budget to do so and don't actually NEED the labor. Since as VW pointed out there is arguably more benefit for the interns than the organizations even at no cost, this just results in students who are less competitive for jobs coming out of school since their resumes and competence are marginally worse.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby dingbat » Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:36 pm

2014 wrote:This issue with requiring payment for every thing is it would result in the huge majority of these PI/Govt gigs just not hiring anyone since they lack the budget to do so and don't actually NEED the labor. Since as VW pointed out there is arguably more benefit for the interns than the organizations even at no cost, this just results in students who are less competitive for jobs coming out of school since their resumes and competence are marginally worse.

But if everyone's in the same boat, how is it any different?

Edit: because some assholes couldn't get the job they wanted and could afford to take on unpaid internships to build experience, now everyone' expected to do the same. Well, I could never afford it, so I guess I'm at a disadvantage.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22806
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:45 pm

dingbat wrote:But that's a supervisor's job - A) to make sure that the work is of the quality required, and B) to train the new staff to be able to do the job
(note how my answer is specifically not geared toward a summer-only internship. I can understand the need of students, but I don't understand the rationale for employers where someone whose only there for the summer results in a net loss of productivity)

Well, it's not an economic rationale - or at least, not a short-term one. The employer probably believes it's best for the profession in the long run to provide such an educational experience, to ensure there are lawyers who understand what that particular employer does. And in a more self-interested vein, having interns gives an employer a first look at the people they might want to hire in the long run.

Also, when an intern is also a student, presumably they already have some kind of economic support. In practice that's probably loans, and probably all students would benefit from being paid, but they're not expecting to support themselves on their work during the school year (summer is a little different, though). Once you've graduated, you're expected to support yourself. So that makes a student internship different from a post-grad internship.

(Edit: I'm thinking about full time students - part-time is probably different, in terms of working to support oneself during the school year.)
Last edited by A. Nony Mouse on Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5831
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby 2014 » Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:46 pm

dingbat wrote:
2014 wrote:This issue with requiring payment for every thing is it would result in the huge majority of these PI/Govt gigs just not hiring anyone since they lack the budget to do so and don't actually NEED the labor. Since as VW pointed out there is arguably more benefit for the interns than the organizations even at no cost, this just results in students who are less competitive for jobs coming out of school since their resumes and competence are marginally worse.

But if everyone's in the same boat, how is it any different?

Edit: because some assholes couldn't get the job they wanted and could afford to take on unpaid internships to build experience, now everyone' expected to do the same. Well, I could never afford it, so I guess I'm at a disadvantage.


Well everyone is marginally worse at their eventual entry FT jobs if you agree that unpaid internships convey at least some benefit. Plus all of these students who would have taken unpaid gigs now flood the manual labor/barista market which doesn't seem to be in any dire need of more or more educated labor. Seems like the practical result is a bunch of people not doing anything with their summers or taking classes contributing to the student loan crisis.

Plus in the short term it just makes it even tougher for new grads to get jobs as you have years of people with the unpaid gigs on their resumes from before the change. So whereas a fresh grad who is otherwise a better candidate might now be able to compete for a job because their resumes are adequate, they might not even get an interview until equilibrium is hit where everyone is in the same boat again.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby dingbat » Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:48 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
dingbat wrote:But that's a supervisor's job - A) to make sure that the work is of the quality required, and B) to train the new staff to be able to do the job
(note how my answer is specifically not geared toward a summer-only internship. I can understand the need of students, but I don't understand the rationale for employers where someone whose only there for the summer results in a net loss of productivity)

Well, it's not an economic rationale - or at least, not a short-term one. The employer probably believes it's best for the profession in the long run to provide such an educational experience, to ensure there are lawyers who understand what that particular employer does. And in a more self-interested vein, having interns gives an employer a first look at the people they might want to hire in the long run.
I love the game-theory application of having gov/pi that can't afford to pay interns providing experience that helps get a biglaw job.
A. Nony Mouse wrote:Also, when an intern is also a student, presumably they already have some kind of economic support. In practice that's probably loans, and probably all students would benefit from being paid, but they're not expecting to support themselves on their work during the school year (summer is a little different, though). Once you've graduated, you're expected to support yourself. So that makes a student internship different from a post-grad internship.
Fucking hate this rationale. I did notice that this country has a tendency to treat people like children for way too long and intead disincentivise adulthood.

User avatar
dingbat
Posts: 4976
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 9:12 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby dingbat » Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:50 pm

2014 wrote:Plus in the short term it just makes it even tougher for new grads to get jobs as you have years of people with the unpaid gigs on their resumes from before the change. So whereas a fresh grad who is otherwise a better candidate might now be able to compete for a job because their resumes are adequate, they might not even get an interview until equilibrium is hit where everyone is in the same boat again.

That's my point. If more and more people take on unpaid jobs after graduation, it'll get to the point where an entry-level paying job for a JD will require 2 or more years full-time work experience (I've seen this in another industry)

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22806
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:53 pm

dingbat wrote:
2014 wrote:Plus in the short term it just makes it even tougher for new grads to get jobs as you have years of people with the unpaid gigs on their resumes from before the change. So whereas a fresh grad who is otherwise a better candidate might now be able to compete for a job because their resumes are adequate, they might not even get an interview until equilibrium is hit where everyone is in the same boat again.

That's my point. If more and more people take on unpaid jobs after graduation, it'll get to the point where an entry-level paying job for a JD will require 2 or more years full-time work experience (I've seen this in another industry)

I actually agree with you here (have seen something very similar to this in another industry as well).

User avatar
2014
Posts: 5831
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 3:53 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby 2014 » Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:55 pm

dingbat wrote:
2014 wrote:Plus in the short term it just makes it even tougher for new grads to get jobs as you have years of people with the unpaid gigs on their resumes from before the change. So whereas a fresh grad who is otherwise a better candidate might now be able to compete for a job because their resumes are adequate, they might not even get an interview until equilibrium is hit where everyone is in the same boat again.

That's my point. If more and more people take on unpaid jobs after graduation, it'll get to the point where an entry-level paying job for a JD will require 2 or more years full-time work experience (I've seen this in another industry)

Right now though for whatever reason hiring occurs in school for JDs which is to a direct benefit to most of us on this site. If you pull the unpaid internships I think you run the risk of giving firms incentive to hire recent grads who struck out but passed the bar and worked shit law instead of rising 2Ls who would now presumably have bigstarbucks experience instead of anything legal. I certainly have a vested interest in that not happening.

Gorki
Posts: 772
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:41 pm

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby Gorki » Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:27 pm

Personal conjecture: I am willing to bet the hire is, as many have hinted at here, the child of some wealthy friend of Judge Martinez. The job was posted with terms that made it sound exceptionally shit-tastic so the judge could just hand the well-to-do offspring the job without having to endure the boring process of having him and his staffers write mass mail rejections to the large swath of applicants.

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

Re: Caveat emptor

Postby vanwinkle » Sat Nov 24, 2012 7:21 pm

dingbat wrote:But that's a supervisor's job - A) to make sure that the work is of the quality required, and B) to train the new staff to be able to do the job
(note how my answer is specifically not geared toward a summer-only internship. I can understand the need of students, but I don't understand the rationale for employers where someone whose only there for the summer results in a net loss of productivity)

The problem is that my post was about a summer-only or semester-only internship. The whole "it's a supervisor's job to train the new staff" thing only makes sense from an employment perspective if you expect the "new staff" to stick around long enough to make the education worth it. This distinguishes a lot of temporary internships from actual employment.

dingbat wrote:That's my point. If more and more people take on unpaid jobs after graduation, it'll get to the point where an entry-level paying job for a JD will require 2 or more years full-time work experience (I've seen this in another industry)

I agree with you on this--I just think (as I've said earlier) that you can easily draw a line between temporary unpaid internships while still in school and full-time long-term work once you're out, and there are a lot of benefits to students if you draw that line there instead of at "no unpaid internships at all".




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.