DF Thread Forum

[Anonymous User]

Sigh...entering thread.

Pros: LR, moot court, 1L summer fedgov internship and WE (albeit nonlegal) in area of law I want to practice.

Cons: T2. Top 15% (which seems to have put me just outside the range of folks that got all the screeners at a T2 no-lottery school).

???: URM (and could count on one hand the number of URMs that I had as interviewers, FWIW. Not trying to start anything, just saying). Also, second career, so I have some years on most of my classmates.

I have been told I interview well. I have been a TLS devotee since pre-LSAT. (Did not retake, took T2 at very generous low-stip scholly instead of T1 at sticker.) And yet...8 screeners through career services, 0 callbacks. One straight-to-CB through personal connections, from which I had a second interview, but then silence for over a week. Lots of mass mailing, some (but obviously not enough) networking.

What say you?

sounds like mostly a function of your school's placement power. assuming you focused on your regional market... if not that would probably be it, but assuming that it sounds like they just simply had a higher cutoff than your gpa.

[Anonymous User]

Median @ t7

It's probably because of this. t5 or bust.

obvi it's T3 or retake; source: one post be4 u

[Desert Fox]

Sigh...entering thread.

Pros: LR, moot court, 1L summer fedgov internship and WE (albeit nonlegal) in area of law I want to practice.

Cons: T2. Top 15% (which seems to have put me just outside the range of folks that got all the screeners at a T2 no-lottery school).

???: URM (and could count on one hand the number of URMs that I had as interviewers, FWIW. Not trying to start anything, just saying). Also, second career, so I have some years on most of my classmates.

I have been told I interview well. I have been a TLS devotee since pre-LSAT. (Did not retake, took T2 at very generous low-stip scholly instead of T1 at sticker.) And yet...8 screeners through career services, 0 callbacks. One straight-to-CB through personal connections, from which I had a second interview, but then silence for over a week. Lots of mass mailing, some (but obviously not enough) networking.

What say you?

T2 top 15 just isn't enough. Sorry bro.

[Anonymous User]

i noticed there's a trend in what firms consider desirable candidates: which one of you looks good on the firm's website

pros: graduating with honors, editor of some journal, awards they can list under your name on your page, connections with judges/ high government officials, lucrative work experience (ibanking, big 4 account/cpas, government agency workers, project managers, engineers, court reporters, paralegals)

cons: being too young (k-jd), too old (30+ with none of the above work experience), a spazz (i heard one person told allen & ovary that circles are her favorite shape, and that's why she wants to work for them), boring (your social science or humanities senior thesis is boring to everyone but you), looking for a practice area that has 2 people in it, being too precise with practice area requirements, telling a firm "i want to do litigation, but i'm also considering M&A" - pick one.

[Anonymous User]

Is saying you want to do litigation, but want to try out corporate work since you've never tried it before really that bad?

[Anonymous User]

Is saying you want to do litigation, but want to try out corporate work since you've never tried it before really that bad?

Depends on the firm/market, but I said basically this exact same thing and no one seemed too surprised/put off by it. People largely go to law school for litigation-type reasons, but law school doesn't prepare you well for corporate stuff. I would think that telling a firm that you're really focused on corporate work without anything on your resume or in your background to signify this would be a bigger red flag.

[Anonymous User]

Gotcha. So it's my awful interview skills, not that, that has put me in my awful predicament.

[El Pollito]

i noticed there's a trend in what firms consider desirable candidates: which one of you looks good on the firm's website

pros: graduating with honors, editor of some journal, awards they can list under your name on your page, connections with judges/ high government officials, lucrative work experience (ibanking, big 4 account/cpas, government agency workers, project managers, engineers, court reporters, paralegals)

cons: being too young (k-jd), too old (30+ with none of the above work experience), a spazz (i heard one person told allen & ovary that circles are her favorite shape, and that's why she wants to work for them), boring (your social science or humanities senior thesis is boring to everyone but you), looking for a practice area that has 2 people in it, being too precise with practice area requirements, telling a firm "i want to do litigation, but i'm also considering M&A" - pick one.

So you're saying firms like candidates with desirable or impressive credentials? Groundbreaking stuff.

[phillywc]

You may suck at interviewing, but being so down on yourself isn't gonna help you at all. Acknowledge the mistakes, fix them as well as you can, move on, and kill the next CB.

[Single-Malt-Liquor]

i noticed there's a trend in what firms consider desirable candidates: which one of you looks good on the firm's website

pros: graduating with honors, editor of some journal, awards they can list under your name on your page, connections with judges/ high government officials, lucrative work experience (ibanking, big 4 account/cpas, government agency workers, project managers, engineers, court reporters, paralegals)

cons: being too young (k-jd), too old (30+ with none of the above work experience), a spazz (i heard one person told allen & ovary that circles are her favorite shape, and that's why she wants to work for them), boring (your social science or humanities senior thesis is boring to everyone but you), looking for a practice area that has 2 people in it, being too precise with practice area requirements, telling a firm "i want to do litigation, but i'm also considering M&A" - pick one.

So you're saying firms like candidates with desirable or impressive credentials? Groundbreaking stuff.

And assuming one meets the grade cutoff for the firm at their particular school, all of the non aspie things in that post can be overcome by being a decent, likable interviewer.

[Anonymous User]

You may suck at interviewing, but being so down on yourself isn't gonna help you at all. Acknowledge the mistakes, fix them as well as you can, move on, and kill the next CB.

Thanks for the pep talk. You're right. Gotta keep my spirits up and kill my remaining callbacks. I'm not the first person in this predicament, or the last.

[Anonymous User]

School: MVPD

Rank: Top 10-15%

Bid: All NYC

CB: 9 from 20 screeners. Didn't change anything. Either many firms overlook poor interviewing at screeenrs if grades are there, or my personality was love/hate. Never questioned social skills before this.

[Anonymous User]

i noticed there's a trend in what firms consider desirable candidates: which one of you looks good on the firm's website

pros: graduating with honors, editor of some journal, awards they can list under your name on your page, connections with judges/ high government officials, lucrative work experience (ibanking, big 4 account/cpas, government agency workers, project managers, engineers, court reporters, paralegals)

cons: being too young (k-jd), too old (30+ with none of the above work experience), a spazz (i heard one person told allen & ovary that circles are her favorite shape, and that's why she wants to work for them), boring (your social science or humanities senior thesis is boring to everyone but you), looking for a practice area that has 2 people in it, being too precise with practice area requirements, telling a firm "i want to do litigation, but i'm also considering M&A" - pick one.

So you're saying firms like candidates with desirable or impressive credentials? Groundbreaking stuff.

it's amazing how some people who have aspergers don't realize they have aspergers until the symptoms are described to them. trying to explain to a t-14 student why they struck out despite their classmates' success runs into the same problem. telling them they need impressive credentials only results in them telling you they have impressive credentials. (i got to a t-14, i've had straight A's all my life, i have work experience because my INTERNSHIPS were more prestigious than... you get the picture) pointing out traits firms like that these candidates don't have works better than arguing with them/smacking them upside the head

edit: for the record, very few people strike out due to bad luck. most strikeouts are a result of low ranked school, bad grades, bidding on the wrong market, not having work experience, being unlikable.

[Desert Fox]

School: MVPD

Rank: Top 10-15%

Bid: All NYC

CB: 9 from 20 screeners. Didn't change anything. Either many firms overlook poor interviewing at screeenrs if grades are there, or my personality was love/hate. Never questioned social skills before this.

Got damn what were you tellng people during interviews.

[Anonymous User]

edit: for the record, very few people strike out due to bad luck.

lolol hokay

[pancakes3]

School: MVPD

Rank: Top 10-15%

Bid: All NYC

CB: 9 from 20 screeners. Didn't change anything. Either many firms overlook poor interviewing at screeenrs if grades are there, or my personality was love/hate. Never questioned social skills before this.

JFC, teach me your ways anyway so I can follow it up until the point of where you step into the interview.

[Anonymous User]

Got 11/13 offer ratio in NY, 7/8 in my home regional market, but only 6 CBs and 3 offers in DC, WHAT AM I DOING WRONG I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

[Mal Reynolds]

Got 11/13 offer ratio in NY, 7/8 in my home regional market, but only 6 CBs and 3 offers in DC, WHAT AM I DOING WRONG I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

Come on bro you gotta try harder than that. Maybe this is BB.

[FKASunny]

Got 11/13 offer ratio in NY, 7/8 in my home regional market, but only 6 CBs and 3 offers in DC, WHAT AM I DOING WRONG I DON'T UNDERSTAND.

Come on bro you gotta try harder than that. Maybe this is BB.

BB is the worst at stupid jokes

[hoos89]

edit: for the record, very few people strike out due to bad luck.

lolol hokay

The number of people who get exactly one offer (in spite of continuing to interview for the full 28 days) leads me to believe that there is a substantial amount of luck involved.

[Anonymous User]

edit: for the record, very few people strike out due to bad luck.

lolol hokay

The number of people who get exactly one offer (in spite of continuing to interview for the full 28 days) leads me to believe that there is a substantial amount of luck involved.

I had like 30 screeners and am going to a V15. Likely my only offer, as I only got one other callback out of those, and it is at a midsize firm at a city I have never been to. Dumb luck.

[bk1]

I'm having bad flashbacks about the last time TLS discussed whether luck substantially affected whether many people got biglaw.

[Mal Reynolds]

I'm having bad flashbacks about the last time TLS discussed whether luck substantially affected whether many people got biglaw.

Which way do you come down.

[patogordo]

100% cuck

[FKASunny]

I'm 100% sure that my offer was pure dumb luck