PSA: You're not just interviewing for a summer job Forum

[Anonymous User]

First, my bona fides, FWIW: fairly junior associate at top NYC firm who has had a number of interviews and informal conversations with SA candidates over the last couple of weeks.

I've noticed a trend. People I interview want to know about the summer program. They ask questions about what it's like. Questions like, "What's the summer program like?" That's fine. It makes sense. We're hiring you for a summer associate position.

But what I want to see is that you are thinking about your career beyond ten weeks in the summer of 2015. I don't actually care about the summer program. It's a weird prelude to your real life as an associate at the firm. It doesn't matter, at all. As far as I'm concerned, the summer program is just the cost of getting you in the door on a permanent basis, when you can really start to pull your weight.

It's a tough line to walk. We know that we're going to hire you back permanently, unless you drive the office lawnmower over your secretary's foot. And you know it, too, or at least you're certainly hoping it's the case. On the other hand, it's hard to talk about your future as a first year associate without seeming arrogant, since technically, we're not interviewing you for that job, and in any event it's really far off. So we don't explicitly talk about that very much, because it's still TBD, and we're hiring for the summer. OK.

But your interview is your chance to sell yourself, and to do that effectively, you need to remember what job you're ACTUALLY interviewing for. It's not the summer camp job where we lavish money and booze upon you.

Don't waste your interview by asking generic questions about the summer. If you want to ask about the summer program, ask targeted questions about it. How do we help you determine what practice area you want to work in. What are typical matters and assignments that a summer might work on. What skills will you be developing, how much feedback will you receive, what training is there. Show me that you're thinking about your career development and envisioning a long term future here. Otherwise I will very likely not recommend you because you don't seem to get what this is all about.

Shortly, because this is TLS, someone will chime in with a pedantic objection to some line in this post, and people will disagree. That's fine, this advice might be worth what you paid for it. Was just motivated to share my perspective after a couple of interviews with perfectly nice, qualified people who I voted to ding in part because they don't seem to get what job they're interviewing for.

[arnoldpalmer36]

Just out of curiosity, what questions are people asking about the summer program that aren't related to things like exposure to practice areas? Are they asking about, say, social events that occur during the summer?

[Anonymous User]

Just out of curiosity, what questions are people asking about the summer program that aren't related to things like exposure to practice areas? Are they asking about, say, social events that occur during the summer?

The questions tend to be very broad and vague. Literally, "Can you tell me about the summer program?" Stuff like that.

I guess I would expand on my initial post by adding that I don't think a summer-related question should be your first question, either. I'm happy to talk about the summer, but I'd rather talk about almost anything else about the firm. If you go straight to "tell me about the summer," I'll probably conclude that you don't know anything or want to know anything about the firm.

Maybe this is a problem the relatively well-prepared denizens of TLS are not falling victim to, but I've seen enough of it lately that I suspected it might be people acting on some OCS "wisdom" or something that needed to be counteracted.

On second thought, it could be that because I'm junior enough, when people meet with me, they unleash these questions. There's a good chance everyone else they'll meet with has some years on me. But I think the point stands.

[Anonymous User]

For a different perspective, I mostly ask about themselves and their backgrounds/interests/hobbies because I feel like I get to know a person better from that than canned responses/questions they've prepared months in advance.

[Old Gregg]

This PSA sucks.

[guyonabuffalo]

I get that you're the interviewer and everything you say is gold, but this all seems a bit odd. First off, is there really that big of a difference between "So what's the summer program like" (apparently an OK question) and "Tell me about your summer program" (apparently NOT an OK question)?

I could see how focusing on the summer program for the majority/entirety of the interview could be bad news bears, but why is asking a question to get a general sense of the summer a bad one (as long as there isn't info on the website)? Then again I guess this is law school hiring where everything is made up and the points are bipolar.

[Anonymous User]

I usually ask whether summer associates get a sense of what it's like to be a junior associate at the firm. TBH, I don't actually care what your answer is. If I have questions about your firm, I'll ask after I get an offer.

[Anonymous User]

I didn't really care about the summer program at all when I was interviewing, but underperformed my numbers. A hiccup I ran into was that I was serious, which got me dinged from many firms. Ironically, my general calmness under stress was why I did well in law school, and during the summer. I think the flaw in what you're saying is that people who see it as merely a summer job to have fun at are likelier to come off as cool and relaxed. If you are asking about 1-2 years then most people will assume you will be a good associate, but you will get dinged a lot for being serious and seeming like someone the interviewer would've bullied in third grade. I think your assumption is that all interviewers choose candidates who they think will do the best job, or even fit the best into the firm. I think that this is idealistic, and that many people choose people because they look like them, sound like them, or reflect their ideal self. People posting on here seem to be taking what the interviewees say, and really thinking about it to gauge the interviewee's judgment, personality, and character. You are giving many people way too much credit. You are doing your job. I'm sure many, if not most, untrained inexperienced interviewers are going entirely off of gut level feeling. Namely, do I feel like it's a yes or a no? What this leads to is you need to match their stereotypes of what a yes is so you need to seem responsible, but not too serious, go with the flow, from their socioeconomic background with their values, etc.

[Anonymous User]

Wait, OP, so were not supposed to ask questions about being junior associates? I have been asking nothing but those in callbacks and I have a couple offers. Now that I think about it, such questiona do seem presumptive but I never ask questions about the summer program because I don't really care about it.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I didn't really care about the summer program at all when I was interviewing, but underperformed my numbers. A hiccup I ran into was that I was serious, which got me dinged from many firms. Ironically, my general calmness under stress was why I did well in law school, and during the summer. I think the flaw in what you're saying is that people who see it as merely a summer job to have fun at are likelier to come off as cool and relaxed. If you are asking about 1-2 years then most people will assume you will be a good associate, but you will get dinged a lot for being serious and seeming like someone the interviewer would've bullied in third grade. I think your assumption is that all interviewers choose candidates who they think will do the best job, or even fit the best into the firm. I think that this is idealistic, and that many people choose people because they look like them, sound like them, or reflect their ideal self. People posting on here seem to be taking what the interviewees say, and really thinking about it to gauge the interviewee's judgment, personality, and character. You are giving many people way too much credit. You are doing your job. I'm sure many, if not most, untrained inexperienced interviewers are going entirely off of gut level feeling. Namely, do I feel like it's a yes or a no? What this leads to is you need to match their stereotypes of what a yes is so you need to seem responsible, but not too serious, go with the flow, from their socioeconomic background with their values, etc.

I'm not sure serious is the word you're looking for here. There's nothing wrong with looking serious and looking serious =/= looking like someone who the interviewer would have bullied in third grade.

[Anonymous User]

I didn't really care about the summer program at all when I was interviewing, but underperformed my numbers. A hiccup I ran into was that I was serious, which got me dinged from many firms. Ironically, my general calmness under stress was why I did well in law school, and during the summer. I think the flaw in what you're saying is that people who see it as merely a summer job to have fun at are likelier to come off as cool and relaxed. If you are asking about 1-2 years then most people will assume you will be a good associate, but you will get dinged a lot for being serious and seeming like someone the interviewer would've bullied in third grade. I think your assumption is that all interviewers choose candidates who they think will do the best job, or even fit the best into the firm. I think that this is idealistic, and that many people choose people because they look like them, sound like them, or reflect their ideal self. People posting on here seem to be taking what the interviewees say, and really thinking about it to gauge the interviewee's judgment, personality, and character. You are giving many people way too much credit. You are doing your job. I'm sure many, if not most, untrained inexperienced interviewers are going entirely off of gut level feeling. Namely, do I feel like it's a yes or a no? What this leads to is you need to match their stereotypes of what a yes is so you need to seem responsible, but not too serious, go with the flow, from their socioeconomic background with their values, etc.

I'm not sure serious is the word you're looking for here. There's nothing wrong with looking serious and looking serious =/= looking like someone who the interviewer would have bullied in third grade.

I think that this is the case for most people, but you're much likelier to fall into a place where someone is likelier to be different than you. There are many people who were summers when they were 21 and immature kids, but were smart and personable enough so they did fine. People in this profession are likelier to view themselves as the ideal so if your perspective seems different than theirs, many people (not all) will assume yours is worse than theirs. I'm just saying you run the risk. As a general matter, people who approach the process as ok if I'm in big law for x years, I can pay off x loans and put away x much, in the 98.2% case I don't make partner I could go from this practice group A to practice group B ---- sure, they're rational, but doesn't this sound like how a Woody Allen character would be thinking? It's neurotic, unsexy, and while they might be plenty likable to work with, they're not going to charm you in 20 minutes. I think that day to day people are people, and that the work and opportunities come from merit. At the interviewing stage, my experience was that having family in the profession, being from their socioeconomic class, or part of the boys' club is worth much more than .2 or .3 on the GPA scale.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm not sure serious is the word you're looking for here. There's nothing wrong with looking serious and looking serious =/= looking like someone who the interviewer would have bullied in third grade.

I think that this is the case for most people, but you're much likelier to fall into a place where someone is likelier to be different than you. There are many people who were summers when they were 21 and immature kids, but were smart and personable enough so they did fine. People in this profession are likelier to view themselves as the ideal so if your perspective seems different than theirs, many people (not all) will assume yours is worse than theirs. I'm just saying you run the risk. As a general matter, people who approach the process as ok if I'm in big law for x years, I can pay off x loans and put away x much, in the 98.2% case I don't make partner I could go from this practice group A to practice group B ---- sure, they're rational, but doesn't this sound like how a Woody Allen character would be thinking? It's neurotic, unsexy, and while they might be plenty likable to work with, they're not going to charm you in 20 minutes.

Well, no, that doesn't sound like how a Woody Allen character would be thinking, it sounds pretty much like the calculus most people here are making about their career prospects, and it certainly doesn't sound neurotic. I mean, we're talking lawyers, not game show hosts or something - being rational and calculating is a huge part of the culture. I get your general point about how interviewers tend to favor people who are like them, but I'm not convinced interviewers are as homogenous as you're suggesting (or in the way you're suggesting).

[Anonymous User]

I'm not sure serious is the word you're looking for here. There's nothing wrong with looking serious and looking serious =/= looking like someone who the interviewer would have bullied in third grade.

I think that this is the case for most people, but you're much likelier to fall into a place where someone is likelier to be different than you. There are many people who were summers when they were 21 and immature kids, but were smart and personable enough so they did fine. People in this profession are likelier to view themselves as the ideal so if your perspective seems different than theirs, many people (not all) will assume yours is worse than theirs. I'm just saying you run the risk. As a general matter, people who approach the process as ok if I'm in big law for x years, I can pay off x loans and put away x much, in the 98.2% case I don't make partner I could go from this practice group A to practice group B ---- sure, they're rational, but doesn't this sound like how a Woody Allen character would be thinking? It's neurotic, unsexy, and while they might be plenty likable to work with, they're not going to charm you in 20 minutes.

Well, no, that doesn't sound like how a Woody Allen character would be thinking, it sounds pretty much like the calculus most people here are making about their career prospects, and it certainly doesn't sound neurotic. I mean, we're talking lawyers, not game show hosts or something - being rational and calculating is a huge part of the culture.

I agree, but I think you are confusing the merit to get the job with getting the job. In an ideal world the team that scores more points wins the game, and the person meriting the job gets the job. This is a subjective process on planet earth. The person that Tim likes gets the job. If Tim is a 30 year old man with an amphetamine addiction who listens to the Howard Stern show every morning, and is cool with minorities but thinks obese people are gross, then the person who gets the job will have decent grades, a guarded but bold sense of humor, not be obese, and have the capacity to want to get really fucked up after a day's work.

This is an extreme example to explain what I'm saying with some dark humor. But I think you people are either taking the approach of (a) perceiving the interview like a test, and going off of the interviewers performance, and/or (b) taking the applicant's responses to make predictions on their behavior on a day to day basis. I think that this is what HR probably wants you to do, but that most people use the like test. The like test is about meeting the person's ideals, priorities, values, and any and all stereotypes about how a Firm X associate should look, sound, smell, come from, etc.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm not sure serious is the word you're looking for here. There's nothing wrong with looking serious and looking serious =/= looking like someone who the interviewer would have bullied in third grade.

I think that this is the case for most people, but you're much likelier to fall into a place where someone is likelier to be different than you. There are many people who were summers when they were 21 and immature kids, but were smart and personable enough so they did fine. People in this profession are likelier to view themselves as the ideal so if your perspective seems different than theirs, many people (not all) will assume yours is worse than theirs. I'm just saying you run the risk. As a general matter, people who approach the process as ok if I'm in big law for x years, I can pay off x loans and put away x much, in the 98.2% case I don't make partner I could go from this practice group A to practice group B ---- sure, they're rational, but doesn't this sound like how a Woody Allen character would be thinking? It's neurotic, unsexy, and while they might be plenty likable to work with, they're not going to charm you in 20 minutes.

Well, no, that doesn't sound like how a Woody Allen character would be thinking, it sounds pretty much like the calculus most people here are making about their career prospects, and it certainly doesn't sound neurotic. I mean, we're talking lawyers, not game show hosts or something - being rational and calculating is a huge part of the culture.

I agree, but I think you are confusing the merit to get the job with getting the job. In an ideal world the team that scores more points wins the game, and the person meriting the job gets the job. This is a subjective process on planet earth. The person that Tim likes gets the job. If Tim is a 30 year old man with an amphetamine addiction who listens to the Howard Stern show every morning, and is cool with minorities but thinks obese people are gross, then the person who gets the job will have decent grades, a guarded but bold sense of humor, not be obese, and have the capacity to want to get really fucked up after a day's work.

Sure, but my point is that this is very different from saying "people can't come across as serious because they'll look like someone the interviewer would have bullied in 3rd grade." By your own description here, there isn't one "Tim" doing all the interviews in the world. There are going to be some interviewers who will appreciate the future career calculations, or the more serious type, and some who won't. Basically, I agree with your overall point, but not your specific examples.

[Cogburn87]

I can assure you that Biglaw associates were the ones being bullied in third grade, not the other way around.

[downbeat14]

.

[Anonymous User]

Right. My only point is that the more mature candidate is likelier to come across as more nervous. There is the higher level of the very smart and rational person who isn't there to have fun and knows the summer is shtick, but that could still chill. My fundamental point is that being naive and unrealistic but chill is better than being mature and reasonable but nervous. I agree that the most successful person will normally be mature and reasonable but chill. I think this last type is the rarest, and the hardest to embody in 20 minutes. At first glance, realism comes off as pessimistic, and unconfident.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Right. My only point is that the more mature candidate is likelier to come across as more nervous. There is the higher level of the very smart and rational person who isn't there to have fun and knows the summer is shtick, but that could still chill. My fundamental point is that being naive and unrealistic but chill is better than being mature and reasonable but nervous. I agree that the most successful person will normally be mature and reasonable but chill. I think this last type is the rarest, and the hardest to embody in 20 minutes. At first glance, realism comes off as pessimistic, and unconfident.

Yeah, I simply don't agree with you about this - I think it's way too much of a generalization.

[sublime]

..

[Charger]

Right. My only point is that the more mature candidate is likelier to come across as more nervous. There is the higher level of the very smart and rational person who isn't there to have fun and knows the summer is shtick, but that could still chill. My fundamental point is that being naive and unrealistic but chill is better than being mature and reasonable but nervous. I agree that the most successful person will normally be mature and reasonable but chill. I think this last type is the rarest, and the hardest to embody in 20 minutes. At first glance, realism comes off as pessimistic, and unconfident.

Yeah, I simply don't agree with you about this - I think it's way too much of a generalization.

What?! This is ridiculous. Mature = nervous?! That's just laughable, and I have no idea how you came up with this idea. Yes, there are mature people who are nervous, just as much as there are immature people who are nervous. This sounds so much like someone who struck out at OCI, honed in on one character trait in oneself, made assumptions about that trait to rationalize the strike out, then imposed it upon the general population.

[Anonymous User]

I get that you're the interviewer and everything you say is gold, but this all seems a bit odd. First off, is there really that big of a difference between "So what's the summer program like" (apparently an OK question) and "Tell me about your summer program" (apparently NOT an OK question)?

I think you might have missed the point the OP was trying to make in discussing those two questions (he/she could correct me if I'm wrong). It's not about either question being inherently bad in either form. It's a matter of ONLY asking that TYPE of question. OP seems concerned with ppl asking a lot of general questions like that up front without following up with more targeted/future oriented questions.

OP, thanks for your perspective. It makes sense... tread the line between looking like a mature and aware candidate without coming off as too overly-presumptuous or not focused on the bigger picture. That being said, I would appreciate more examples of the specific wordings or lines of questioning you do like to hear from candidates to put it in better context.

The link between the summer program and the actual firm is that you work with many of the same people, and there's generally a link between how somebody wants you to perceive them and how they are. You do learn about the non-legal stuff that the people in power there value. As a summer coming in and observing it becomes self-selecting in terms of which attorneys attend the social events, and how the hiring partners seem to respond to those attorneys. You kinda get a full picture of the personality traits that they value, which I think is somewhat firm specific. The summer really is a good proxy to gage fit even though the social events themselves are arbitrary like how getting coffee or a beer on a first date is arbitrary. My general point is I don't think the nature of the recruiting process itself is a good proxy for potential summers or firms to find out any useful information. Everyone's answers are the same to everything. Every lawyer chose their firm because of its collegial culture, and the strength of their practice group. Maybe I'm jaded, but I think that everyone is full of shit in an interview room, and you only get to know anything about anyone when you actually spend time with them.