3L interviewing for a firm; advice needed

(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.
YibanRen
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:25 am

Re: 3L interviewing for a firm; advice needed

Postby YibanRen » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:43 pm

k5220 wrote:
YibanRen wrote:
k5220 wrote:I think it's like any time you talk about a weakness in an interview. Being honest about what happened could be really good, but I'd close with something quick about how it made you learn how to juggle multiple things at once or something like that, just to make it clear that it's a problem that's behind you now.


You and the potato bro need to forget this advice ASAP.

These interviews are nothing like law school personal statements. Seriously, don't talk about grades ever. Don't provide excuses ever. The second you look weak to them at all you are done. It is like dating--it is all about appearances for a long time until you have kids and a dog and you can carry on a boring conversation while they pee in front of you without batting an eye.

Interviewers want to bring someone back to the hiring partners that looks good on paper, they want to bring someone back that their coworkers won't think is an aspie loser, and also want to bring back someone that makes work a little less crappy. Any of these can be the overriding driver, depending upon the interviewer and firm/company. However, the onlything that destroys all three of these criteria is being weird. Unless this is like Susman Godfrey or Keker or Kirkland or Cravath or Wachtell or X appellate group of V100, or some firm that actually has a hard cut off for entry levels, the most your grades can be limiting is a member of the hiring committee scanning your transcript for like five seconds on a callback.

There are plenty of ways you can destroy yourself--you give them a look that makes you seem like a perv, or you say something really awkward, or maybe you are too plain, or not plain enough, or are too proud of something they don't like ideologically, or maybe you remind them of someone else at the firm they hate. Usually, it isn't that they hate you, it is just that they don't like you like you--in that way it is a lot like speed dating--10 people may be good enough, but maybe only one clicked. In conclusion, there are any number of reasons that you can autodinged before you even open your little mouth. However, PLEASE, I IMPLORE YOU, DON'T GIVE THEM ANOTHER REASON BY DISCUSSING GRADES UNLESS SPECIFICALLY, AND UNEQUIVOCALLY ASKED, THIS WILL TIP THEM OFF THAT YOU ARE EITHER PRIDEFUL OR CLUELESS.

I didn't mean OP should discuss their personal issues unless it was prompted / relevant to the discussion. I just meant that if it did come up, they should be sure to follow it with "and this is why it's no longer a problem."


I guess, but if that comes up then you probably aren't getting the job.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273241
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 3L interviewing for a firm; advice needed

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Feb 27, 2015 7:57 pm

YibanRen wrote:
k5220 wrote:I think it's like any time you talk about a weakness in an interview. Being honest about what happened could be really good, but I'd close with something quick about how it made you learn how to juggle multiple things at once or something like that, just to make it clear that it's a problem that's behind you now.


You and the potato bro need to forget this advice ASAP.

These interviews are nothing like law school personal statements. Seriously, don't talk about grades ever. Don't provide excuses ever. The second you look weak to them at all you are done. It is like dating--it is all about appearances for a long time until you have kids and a dog and you can carry on a boring conversation while they pee in front of you without batting an eye.

Interviewers want to bring someone back to the hiring partners that looks good on paper, they want to bring someone back that their coworkers won't think is an aspie loser, and also want to bring back someone that makes work a little less crappy. Any of these can be the overriding driver, depending upon the interviewer and firm/company. However, the onlything that destroys all three of these criteria is being weird. Unless this is like Susman Godfrey or Keker or Kirkland or Cravath or Wachtell or X appellate group of V100, or some firm that actually has a hard cut off for entry levels, the most your grades can be limiting is a member of the hiring committee scanning your transcript for like five seconds on a callback.

There are plenty of ways you can destroy yourself--you give them a look that makes you seem like a perv, or you say something really awkward, or maybe you are too plain, or not plain enough, or are too proud of something they don't like ideologically, or maybe you remind them of someone else at the firm they hate. Usually, it isn't that they hate you, it is just that they don't like you like you--in that way it is a lot like speed dating--10 people may be good enough, but maybe only one clicked. In conclusion, there are any number of reasons that you can autodinged before you even open your little mouth. However, PLEASE, I IMPLORE YOU, DON'T GIVE THEM ANOTHER REASON BY DISCUSSING GRADES UNLESS SPECIFICALLY, AND UNEQUIVOCALLY ASKED, THIS WILL TIP THEM OFF THAT YOU ARE EITHER PRIDEFUL OR CLUELESS.

I think any kind of excuse automatically comes off as bad. Even if it's a good excuse, any good excuse except like your computer broke mid-test is probably sad and will kill the positive vibe you're going for.

They're testing your response as much as they're testing the excuse. As an SA, I once turned in a memo that was comedically bad (not even sure if it was on the right topic). On my behalf, I didn't have specific instructions. Obviously, I got roasted in the review, and it came up. I knew I could partly defend myself if this were a court of law, but it's a subjective environment where I was lowest on the totem poll. So I just said, "yeah, I was an idiot but learned x, y and z" and it became a non-issue. I think you really wanna explain everything that's bad as being "I sucked but learned x, y and z that I used on yada yada." The fact is if I was perfect I would have turned in perfect work product regardless, and if you were perfect you'd have straight A's regardless. Also, you could normally tell by the facial expressions how your response is going. If you feel it's a bad expression just somehow link it to something that evokes a good expression.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273241
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: 3L interviewing for a firm; advice needed

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Feb 28, 2015 8:39 pm

Any tips to getting the interviewers to like you? How do you shoot the shit with them?




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.