Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

(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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273233
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:33 pm

I feel your pain OP.

Also a transfer and I think my bidding strategy was $hit. Had way too many top firms, and even though I interview somewhere between decent-well, I feel I lost out to the top non-transfer students. Also, I felt there were a lot of beasts who bid/interviewed with a lot of the firms I was interested in. So, those students probably received the lions share of callbacks with those firms, even though I met GPA cutoffs and the interviewers informed me that "I killed it" at my previous school and that I would have "plenty of callbacks."

Keep your head up playboi and keep grinding.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273233
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:34 pm

don't go to law school.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18414
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby bk1 » Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Larger class size counterbalances the higher rank. Bidding firms with large class sizes is TCR.

This isn't useful (and neither will my response be but I'm saying it anyways so that this doesn't spread): stop giving terrible advice. While larger class sizes are of course ideal, bidding large class sizes out of your GPA range is a bad idea.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273233
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:37 pm

bk1 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Larger class size counterbalances the higher rank. Bidding firms with large class sizes is TCR.

This isn't useful (and neither will my response be but I'm saying it anyways so that this doesn't spread): stop giving terrible advice. While larger class sizes are of course ideal, bidding large class sizes out of your GPA range is a bad idea.


Are the firms out of his GPA range. He never actually said that they were.

User avatar
bk1
Posts: 18414
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby bk1 » Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:39 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
bk1 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Larger class size counterbalances the higher rank. Bidding firms with large class sizes is TCR.

This isn't useful (and neither will my response be but I'm saying it anyways so that this doesn't spread): stop giving terrible advice. While larger class sizes are of course ideal, bidding large class sizes out of your GPA range is a bad idea.


Are the firms out of his GPA range. He never actually said that they were.

I have no idea. It's a lot harder to tell with transfers. But large class size does not really counterbalance higher selectivity.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273233
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 15, 2013 11:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
bk1 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Larger class size counterbalances the higher rank. Bidding firms with large class sizes is TCR.

This isn't useful (and neither will my response be but I'm saying it anyways so that this doesn't spread): stop giving terrible advice. While larger class sizes are of course ideal, bidding large class sizes out of your GPA range is a bad idea.


Are the firms out of his GPA range. He never actually said that they were.


I was just shy of 4.0.

User avatar
Lasers
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:46 pm

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby Lasers » Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:29 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
bk1 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Larger class size counterbalances the higher rank. Bidding firms with large class sizes is TCR.

This isn't useful (and neither will my response be but I'm saying it anyways so that this doesn't spread): stop giving terrible advice. While larger class sizes are of course ideal, bidding large class sizes out of your GPA range is a bad idea.


Are the firms out of his GPA range. He never actually said that they were.


I was just shy of 4.0.

after skimming this thread, i'm almost certain you didn't bid well and you were in a tough market. with that said, with a GPA that high, i have to once again assume that your interviewing skills could probably use a lot more work. fyi, mock interviews are very rarely helpful; those clowns doing mock interviews are absolutely useless and do nothing to help you.

law321
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:34 am

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby law321 » Fri Aug 16, 2013 6:53 am

Anonymous User wrote:
law321 wrote:Firm demand is so low that they want to pretend that they're really considering twenty. But at the end of the day, of the twenty, 10 interview well, but, whereas before they could hire ten, well--now they can only hire five. Solution? Grades. Lop of half the candidate pool. Just treat them like shit during the interview. Focus on who you want--for arbitrary, grade-related, shortage-induced reasons.



This is not true at every firm. I think people on this site assume that grades are more or less the entire application package.

They may be at some firms, but they assuredly are not at others. In a down economy, prior work experience is massively important (why gamble on a brain in a jar who has never worked before?), as is personality and general fit.


With all due respect, I think that's just bull shit. The process is driven by firm need. And the firms need to call back some very low number of students at a very many schools. Right? Like, just mathematically.

Look, conceptually, if you interview ten, two will be great interviews. If you interview twenty, four will be great interviews. Just normal distribution shit there.

If you only want two...fuck that...only can possibly even consider two. I mean, callbacks are expensive. You have a yield rate. Your not interviewing for charity. If you only have, say, one SA spot for a school from the region, your hard cap is 2 CBs. Okay...

But if the school says "you can't just interview ten," you interview twenty. But oh shit, four are great interviews, but you can only call back two. Solution? GRADES! Just take the two with the higher grades.

People think that it's just a magical 1 through 20 ranking of how well these people interview. No. Partners have told me (and it just makes sense) that just like grades are normally distributed, so are great interviews. When you have to exclude great interviews from CBs, you do so based on grades. There is no "whole package." That is a load of horse shit.[/quote]


I actually make the decisions you purport to know about in great detail. So, you can listen, or assume that grades are the only thing that matters. I don't care.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273233
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:37 am

Quite honestly....don't feel bad at all. Yesterday at a CB in the LA area there were 10 other people there. The recruiters said they will also be doing another 2 a day for at least 2 weeks. CBs do not always equal offers.....might just be more of a waste of time. (That's just how I am feeling at this point after doing a series of CBs and hearing nothing yet but hearing from others getting actual offers). Honestly, some firms call back a TON of people even though they only have 1-3 spots open. They put an associate in the screener room and maybe the partners don't always trust their judgement so they want more brought in. UGH. I hate this process.


law321 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
law321 wrote:Firm demand is so low that they want to pretend that they're really considering twenty. But at the end of the day, of the twenty, 10 interview well, but, whereas before they could hire ten, well--now they can only hire five. Solution? Grades. Lop of half the candidate pool. Just treat them like shit during the interview. Focus on who you want--for arbitrary, grade-related, shortage-induced reasons.



This is not true at every firm. I think people on this site assume that grades are more or less the entire application package.

They may be at some firms, but they assuredly are not at others. In a down economy, prior work experience is massively important (why gamble on a brain in a jar who has never worked before?), as is personality and general fit.


With all due respect, I think that's just bull shit. The process is driven by firm need. And the firms need to call back some very low number of students at a very many schools. Right? Like, just mathematically.

Look, conceptually, if you interview ten, two will be great interviews. If you interview twenty, four will be great interviews. Just normal distribution shit there.

If you only want two...fuck that...only can possibly even consider two. I mean, callbacks are expensive. You have a yield rate. Your not interviewing for charity. If you only have, say, one SA spot for a school from the region, your hard cap is 2 CBs. Okay...

But if the school says "you can't just interview ten," you interview twenty. But oh shit, four are great interviews, but you can only call back two. Solution? GRADES! Just take the two with the higher grades.

People think that it's just a magical 1 through 20 ranking of how well these people interview. No. Partners have told me (and it just makes sense) that just like grades are normally distributed, so are great interviews. When you have to exclude great interviews from CBs, you do so based on grades. There is no "whole package." That is a load of horse shit.



I actually make the decisions you purport to know about in great detail. So, you can listen, or assume that grades are the only thing that matters. I don't care.[/quote]

Anonymous User
Posts: 273233
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:38 am

law321, we seem to be having a misscommunication. Do your grade cutoffs go up in a down economy? If yes, do you interview fewer people at the same time? If no, good interviews are getting screwed out of jobs. That relates to how much we want to blame OP for his own problems, calling him a "bad interviewer."

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22835
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:11 am

Anonymous User wrote:law321, we seem to be having a misscommunication. Do your grade cutoffs go up in a down economy? If yes, do you interview fewer people at the same time? If no, good interviews are getting screwed out of jobs. That relates to how much we want to blame OP for his own problems, calling him a "bad interviewer."

Good interviewers aren't entitled to jobs (neither are people with good grades. No one's entitled to anything, which is what "getting screwed out of" implies). It's the economy. There aren't enough jobs compared to applicants. Therefore, the ones that are out there go to people with good grades and good interviewing skills. How is this controversial? What would you change, besides magically increasing the supply of jobs?

User avatar
Birdnals
Posts: 4576
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:26 am

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby Birdnals » Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:56 am

For mock interviews, have you done one in which you are recorded and you can go back and look at it again? I found that extremely helpful for improving things like weird ticks, phrases you use too often, posture, speaking volume, and a ton of other little things that can add up.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273233
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:35 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:law321, we seem to be having a misscommunication. Do your grade cutoffs go up in a down economy? If yes, do you interview fewer people at the same time? If no, good interviews are getting screwed out of jobs. That relates to how much we want to blame OP for his own problems, calling him a "bad interviewer."

Good interviewers aren't entitled to jobs (neither are people with good grades. No one's entitled to anything, which is what "getting screwed out of" implies). It's the economy. There aren't enough jobs compared to applicants. Therefore, the ones that are out there go to people with good grades and good interviewing skills. How is this controversial? What would you change, besides magically increasing the supply of jobs?


We are still having the miscommunication. The suggestion is to interview only those people you plan on giving a fair shake to. Have you not heard of people getting dinged after a preselect screener for grades? Or dinged after a callback for grades? That's like interviewing someone for...oh, I don't know...a position as a plumber, inviting them for a callback, and then saying...oh, but you don't have the minimum qualifications to be considered for this position--you don't have enough experience as a plumber. But...that...was...on...my...resume.

edit: this will save people like OP tremendous mental anguish. Obviously OP is suffering from a significant anti-transfer bias in BigLaw. BigLaw is largely owned by people who went to schools you don't transfer out of and they, like most successful human beings, are full of themselves and tend to look down on others who didn't or couldn't do the things they did in the way they did them.
Last edited by Anonymous User on Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22835
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:law321, we seem to be having a misscommunication. Do your grade cutoffs go up in a down economy? If yes, do you interview fewer people at the same time? If no, good interviews are getting screwed out of jobs. That relates to how much we want to blame OP for his own problems, calling him a "bad interviewer."

Good interviewers aren't entitled to jobs (neither are people with good grades. No one's entitled to anything, which is what "getting screwed out of" implies). It's the economy. There aren't enough jobs compared to applicants. Therefore, the ones that are out there go to people with good grades and good interviewing skills. How is this controversial? What would you change, besides magically increasing the supply of jobs?


We are still having the miscommunication. The suggestion is to interview only those people you plan on giving a fair shake to. Have you not heard of people getting dinged after a preselect screener for grades? Or dinged after a callback for grades? That's like interviewing someone for...oh, I don't know...a position as a plumber, inviting them for a callback, and then saying...oh, but you don't have the minimum qualifications to be considered for this position--you don't have enough experience as a plumber. But...that...was...on...my...resume.

I understand your point. We're going to have to agree to disagree because I don't think getting dinged for grades at those points necessarily means you didn't get a fair shake - it means that, ultimately, that was the reason for that ding in the context of the full pool of applicants in a given year, but not always that the ding was foreordained. (It seems to me the problem with hard grade cutoffs lies more with schools that send candidates to firms they know won't take them, than with the firms, who don't generally know the candidates' GPAs until they show up for the screener, correct?)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273233
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:42 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:law321, we seem to be having a misscommunication. Do your grade cutoffs go up in a down economy? If yes, do you interview fewer people at the same time? If no, good interviews are getting screwed out of jobs. That relates to how much we want to blame OP for his own problems, calling him a "bad interviewer."

Good interviewers aren't entitled to jobs (neither are people with good grades. No one's entitled to anything, which is what "getting screwed out of" implies). It's the economy. There aren't enough jobs compared to applicants. Therefore, the ones that are out there go to people with good grades and good interviewing skills. How is this controversial? What would you change, besides magically increasing the supply of jobs?


We are still having the miscommunication. The suggestion is to interview only those people you plan on giving a fair shake to. Have you not heard of people getting dinged after a preselect screener for grades? Or dinged after a callback for grades? That's like interviewing someone for...oh, I don't know...a position as a plumber, inviting them for a callback, and then saying...oh, but you don't have the minimum qualifications to be considered for this position--you don't have enough experience as a plumber. But...that...was...on...my...resume.

I understand your point. We're going to have to agree to disagree because I don't think getting dinged for grades at those points necessarily means you didn't get a fair shake - it means that, ultimately, that was the reason for that ding in the context of the full pool of applicants in a given year, but not always that the ding was foreordained. (It seems to me the problem with hard grade cutoffs lies more with schools that send candidates to firms they know won't take them, than with the firms, who don't generally know the candidates' GPAs until they show up for the screener, correct?)


When it's lottery, correct. I've heard the same thing at preselect schools as well. So I would think shared blame is TCR.

edit: all I am trying to say is that...while you're right...in a sense, everyone gets a "fair shake," some shakes are "fairer" than others. I don't think BigLaw interviewers understand their own biases. Like I said, all a top student has to do to get an offer is just be a nice person. A transfer has to do "something," but frankly, on these boards, the BigLaw interviewers have never been able to articulate what that "something" is and probably have never actually recognized a low grade/low school candidate for having that "something." Confirmation bias plays a role. You look for every reason to say "boy that top student did great in that interview" but if a T2 transfer walks in with a shoe untied, ding.

User avatar
hichvichwoh
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:21 am

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby hichvichwoh » Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:51 pm

TBF, untied shoe = no attention to detail

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse
Posts: 22835
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:57 pm

Anonymous User wrote:edit: all I am trying to say is that...while you're right...in a sense, everyone gets a "fair shake," some shakes are "fairer" than others. I don't think BigLaw interviewers understand their own biases. Like I said, all a top student has to do to get an offer is just be a nice person. A transfer has to do "something," but frankly, on these boards, the BigLaw interviewers have never been able to articulate what that "something" is and probably have never actually recognized a low grade/low school candidate for having that "something." Confirmation bias plays a role. You look for every reason to say "boy that top student did great in that interview" but if a T2 transfer walks in with a shoe untied, ding.

Yeah, I get what you mean. I do think it boils down to the fact that the excess of candidates results in parsing finer and finer distinctions among a pretty distinguished group of people - and it sucks, and it does waste a lot of people's time, but as with so many other practices, firms (and schools) don't have any real incentive to change.

enibs
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:28 am

Re: Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks...

Postby enibs » Sat Aug 17, 2013 3:19 am

It's pretty simple here. Firms treat transfers as if they are still at their old school. (After all, the transfer hasn't yet had a single class at the new school.) If the firm doesn't interview at the old school, then they haven't allocated any spots for students from the old school, and they won't give a callback to a transfer from the old school even though they're forced to interview the transfer due to the lottery system at the new school.

OCS should have warned OP about this, but apparently didn't. The 0 for 30 might or might not say anything about OP's interviewing skills - it could all be attributable to messing up massively on the bidding.

It's way too early to give up though. Most firms right now are totally swamped with OCI and OCI-generated callbacks. Many won't even think about write-ins until later when they see where they are with results from those callbacks. You could still hear well into the fall. Keep plugging, mailing, networking wherever you can.

Also, be aggressive in asking for help from OCS - they are at least partly responsible for failing to give you good advice, so they should be working to help you dig out of the mess. There may also be a second wave later in the fall from firms that had lower than expected yields and still have spots to fill. Less common ITE than it used to be but it still happens. If any firm is coming back to OCS asking for more candidates later in the year, you want OCS to have you at the top of their list.

Finally, get good grades at your new school. If you're at/near the top of your class at the new school in your second year, that's a validation you don't currently have. It will help immensely in any future job hunting, clerkship hunting, etc.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.