DF Thread Forum

[Cicero76]

5 callbacks in my home (tertiary market), and am now 0-4, about to be 0-5. It's where I actually wanted to work, and I made that extremely clear. Am I a terrible interviewer or what.

How'd you do outside that market

I have 1 offer in Miami. Starting to feel really lucky that I put effort into interviewing with them. Wasn't going to originally because I thought I could snag home market.

Bid DC, 0 callbacks. Bid the wrong firms though.

5 callbacks in my home (tertiary market), and am now 0-4, about to be 0-5. It's where I actually wanted to work, and I made that extremely clear. Am I a terrible interviewer or what.

How'd you do outside that market

I'm pretty sure all P's at YLS can still get a NY V20 offer at FIP if you bid the non-selective, larger class size ones and didn't barf during the interview

I didn't even have all P's. My grades were definitely not good, but maybe the people I was interviewing with thought they were real bad.

Damn Cicero, Florida is really fucking tough to crack. Do you have a backup market?

Thanks bro. I managed one Miami offer, but it was reallllllyyy close. I've never liked Miami, but I'm really talking it up to myself now and just about convinced that it's a sweet city.

[Desert Fox]

5 callbacks in my home (tertiary market), and am now 0-4, about to be 0-5. It's where I actually wanted to work, and I made that extremely clear. Am I a terrible interviewer or what.

How'd you do outside that market

I'm pretty sure all P's at YLS can still get a NY V20 offer at FIP if you bid the non-selective, larger class size ones and didn't barf during the interview

The cream doesn't go to white and case.

[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.

Got damn what were you tellng people during interviews.

The only substantive difference from screeners was being asked what classes I'm taking. I tried to retake professors I did well with, but didn't want to admit it so spoke about intellectual curiosity. It might be odd to express an interest in M&A, but taking genetics and law instead. I have an atypical background (journalism), and have a condition that makes it impossible for me to walk most days. I guess either one could be off putting. I'm probably looking for the easy way out, and the problem is my personality. I was never that awkward person in a corner before. I guess I didn't think I was insufferable? Maybe the right personality isn't good social skills alone, but something more specific? Maybe I suck at life. It seemed like making good conversation at the screeners was enough, but that something about me failed the fit test. I don't think it was anything I said, because then I wouldn't have gotten so many callbacks? Or is it stricter at stage two?

With good grades it is definitely more strict at level 2.

I would just tell people you liked the prof.

Is going off on being interested in science, and only having the chance to take journalism classes in college really poor? My real motivation is everyone says law school teaches you nothing about practice, and I know how to do well with the professor. So if you're not going to learn anything useful, why not take the easy way out? I say this to my family, but recognize it doesn't make me seem hardworking to an interviewer.

[Cicero76]

5 callbacks in my home (tertiary market), and am now 0-4, about to be 0-5. It's where I actually wanted to work, and I made that extremely clear. Am I a terrible interviewer or what.

How'd you do outside that market

I'm pretty sure all P's at YLS can still get a NY V20 offer at FIP if you bid the non-selective, larger class size ones and didn't barf during the interview

The cream doesn't go to white and case.

I always knew I was more like skim milk

[WhiskeynCoke]

what's the point of getting bitchy about jobs? if you don't have one, too bad. no amount of whining about luck is going to fix that.

the trouble with letting fools believe they struck out because of bad luck is that they don't do much to improve themselves afterwards. your personality sucks; either DF or someone else can tell you that. this above median/below median stuff means nothing compared to whether or not you come off as "precious" or some other atrocious piece of crap. for those of you who struck out from a t10, either you suck at bidding or you need an attitude adjustment.

anecdotally, my friend at T6 tells me of the 10 people who struck out at her OCI last year, 5 were anywhere from top 20% to law review. three guys bid DC or smaller markets only, and the rest were entitled fucks. apparently one of these people went 0/6or7 callbacks in NY.

Decided to go full retard eh? Bold move.

This is so grossly misinformed and arrogant, there's no way you've actually been through a T10 OCI yourself. Of course luck plays a huge role, you idiot. Let me clarify this for you: bad luck is not the ONLY factor, it is one of MANY factors. Luck plays a smaller role at the extremes but becomes make or break at the margins. Your T6 friend's "anecdote" is stupid and irrelevant.

Do you have any idea how many people only get ONE offer from OCI? No you don't, because you don't know shit. Hint: it's a huge number. 2 offers and 4 CBs was the median at my T10's OCI. That means half the people at my school got 2 offers or less, Simple Jack. If you can't understand how luck obviously plays a role in the very common situation where someone who had 20 screeners and 5 CBs got 1 offer, versus someone who had 20 screeners and 5 CBs got NO offers, you're beyond help.

I'd also like to point out that none of this information changes the fact that people who are struggling need to figure out how to improve their weaknesses. Like I said, luck is just one factor among many.

You really think it's T14 + not aspie = offer, eh? What are all these letters on my transcript for then? Why do all these firms want to see my resume? Why is 20 minutes not long enough to determine whether "I need an attitude adjustment?" Just lol.

(disclaimer: I didn't strike out, but know several very non-aspie, smart bidders at my T10 who did. So... fuck this guy)

[Anonymous User]

The people I knew who had the most success at OCI were very often the most arrogant, entitled assholes in school. That shit can fly in 20 min interviews. People that struggle at OCI don't necessarily have shitty personalities. They might. Or they might actually have personalities that don't jive with the dozens of type-a assholes that populate big law firms.

This has been my observation too. What I read as arrogance must come off as confidence to a lot of big law interviewers. The only thing that kept me from striking out was my grades.

[First Offense]

My anecdotal impression is that luck doesn't play a huge role in OCI - grades and having a not-shit personality should be enough. The firms probably think a good deal about who to send down, so they're likely going to be pretty outgoing with ties to the school/region, so if all else fails, you can talk about that. At the CB stage? I think luck is a HUGE factor. They're likely less selective about who they give for interviews, because of when they happen (pretty much if you're in the office you're probably going to do an interview with vactions and stuff), so if you fail to hit it off with 1/6 people, that can be enough to ding you.

[Anonymous User]

The only substantive difference from screeners was being asked what classes I'm taking. I tried to retake professors I did well with, but didn't want to admit it so spoke about intellectual curiosity. It might be odd to express an interest in M&A, but taking genetics and law instead. I have an atypical background (journalism), and have a condition that makes it impossible for me to walk most days. I guess either one could be off putting. I'm probably looking for the easy way out, and the problem is my personality. If conventional wisdom is in my situation you need to say ridiculous things to strikeout then I probably said ridiculous things, and am too weird to have realized they were ridiculous. My confusion is I said almost all the same things at the interviews, and I never failed because of my social skills before.

Sounds like a lawsuit.

[MyNameIsFlynn!]

My anecdotal impression is that luck doesn't play a huge role in OCI - grades and having a not-shit personality should be enough. The firms probably think a good deal about who to send down, so they're likely going to be pretty outgoing with ties to the school/region, so if all else fails, you can talk about that. At the CB stage? I think luck is a HUGE factor. They're likely less selective about who they give for interviews, because of when they happen (pretty much if you're in the office you're probably going to do an interview with vactions and stuff), so if you fail to hit it off with 1/6 people, that can be enough to ding you.

I am skeptical about bolded, specifically the assumption that firms will try to send outgoing people. All the firms I interviewed with sent alumni, and because people at my school are apparently far more likely to be aspie than the general lawyer population, there were some painful screeners. I think some markets also tend to be more aspie than others (e.g. found DC people to be more aspie than NYC). Still, with 30-40 interviews, numerically if you don't hit it off with at least a couple then you're probably doing something wrong.

[First Offense]

My anecdotal impression is that luck doesn't play a huge role in OCI - grades and having a not-shit personality should be enough. The firms probably think a good deal about who to send down, so they're likely going to be pretty outgoing with ties to the school/region, so if all else fails, you can talk about that. At the CB stage? I think luck is a HUGE factor. They're likely less selective about who they give for interviews, because of when they happen (pretty much if you're in the office you're probably going to do an interview with vactions and stuff), so if you fail to hit it off with 1/6 people, that can be enough to ding you.

I am skeptical about bolded, specifically the assumption that firms will try to send outgoing people. All the firms I interviewed with sent alumni, and because people at my school are apparently far more likely to be aspie than the general lawyer population, there were some painful screeners. I think some markets also tend to be more aspie than others (e.g. found DC people to be more aspie than NYC). Still, with 30-40 interviews, numerically if you don't hit it off with at least a couple then you're probably doing something wrong.

Fair point - but still with alumni you shouldn't have a 20 minute awkward interview. Basically - there are fewer ways to fuck up with one person in 20 minutes than with 6 people, back to back, in ~3 hours, which is why I think luck is less of a factor.

[Anonymous User]

Actual question:

Lets say my background is in Econ/Finance & Art/Music. Having a hard time not coming off as a floofy idiot when employers see the second category of stuff. My best individual accomplishments are the second category. How do I avoid this?

[Anonymous User]

Actual question:

Lets say my background is in Econ/Finance & Art/Music. Having a hard time not coming off as a floofy idiot when employers see the second category of stuff. My best individual accomplishments are the second category. How do I avoid this?

Honestly, the best I did was interviewed with a firm that was into that type of shit and had a reputation for wanting people with interesting backgrounds. Not that helpful, but maybe try to spin it favorably.

[Anonymous User]

The only substantive difference from screeners was being asked what classes I'm taking. I tried to retake professors I did well with, but didn't want to admit it so spoke about intellectual curiosity. It might be odd to express an interest in M&A, but taking genetics and law instead. I have an atypical background (journalism), and have a condition that makes it impossible for me to walk most days. I guess either one could be off putting. I'm probably looking for the easy way out, and the problem is my personality. If conventional wisdom is in my situation you need to say ridiculous things to strikeout then I probably said ridiculous things, and am too weird to have realized they were ridiculous. My confusion is I said almost all the same things at the interviews, and I never failed because of my social skills before.

Sounds like a lawsuit.

No, that would be good for nobody. Please be less of a jerk.

[Anonymous User]

Actual question:

Lets say my background is in Econ/Finance & Art/Music. Having a hard time not coming off as a floofy idiot when employers see the second category of stuff. My best individual accomplishments are the second category. How do I avoid this?

Honestly, the best I did was interviewed with a firm that was into that type of shit and had a reputation for wanting people with interesting backgrounds. Not that helpful, but maybe try to spin it favorably.

Depending on grades, you might be able to demonstrate why your artistic and law school success are correlated to the same underlying skill. If you could add value to something in a way a straight finance to law cannot then it should only be a benefit. I also did badly so I don't know how much this is worth, but that would be your best bet.

[Anonymous User]

Actual question:

Lets say my background is in Econ/Finance & Art/Music. Having a hard time not coming off as a floofy idiot when employers see the second category of stuff. My best individual accomplishments are the second category. How do I avoid this?

Honestly, the best I did was interviewed with a firm that was into that type of shit and had a reputation for wanting people with interesting backgrounds. Not that helpful, but maybe try to spin it favorably.

Depending on grades, you might be able to demonstrate why your artistic and law school success are correlated to the same underlying skill. If you could add value to something in a way a straight finance to law cannot then it should only be a benefit. I also did badly so I don't know how much this is worth, but that would be your best bet.

This has been my strategy. Not working well.

[Anonymous User]

Actual question:

Lets say my background is in Econ/Finance & Art/Music. Having a hard time not coming off as a floofy idiot when employers see the second category of stuff. My best individual accomplishments are the second category. How do I avoid this?

Honestly, the best I did was interviewed with a firm that was into that type of shit and had a reputation for wanting people with interesting backgrounds. Not that helpful, but maybe try to spin it favorably.

Depending on grades, you might be able to demonstrate why your artistic and law school success are correlated to the same underlying skill. If you could add value to something in a way a straight finance to law cannot then it should only be a benefit. I also did badly so I don't know how much this is worth, but that would be your best bet.

This has been my strategy. Not working well.

Maybe they are afraid of you jumping ship? It seems they may really be asking why law, and requiring very good reasons. I don't know why some fields are more obviously pre-law than others, but such is life.

[Anonymous User]

The only substantive difference from screeners was being asked what classes I'm taking. I tried to retake professors I did well with, but didn't want to admit it so spoke about intellectual curiosity. It might be odd to express an interest in M&A, but taking genetics and law instead. I have an atypical background (journalism), and have a condition that makes it impossible for me to walk most days. I guess either one could be off putting. I'm probably looking for the easy way out, and the problem is my personality. If conventional wisdom is in my situation you need to say ridiculous things to strikeout then I probably said ridiculous things, and am too weird to have realized they were ridiculous. My confusion is I said almost all the same things at the interviews, and I never failed because of my social skills before.

Sounds like a lawsuit.

No, that would be good for nobody. Please be less of a jerk.

That's the kind of attitude that allows discrimination to proliferate in the industry.

[sparty99]

Actual question:

Lets say my background is in Econ/Finance & Art/Music. Having a hard time not coming off as a floofy idiot when employers see the second category of stuff. My best individual accomplishments are the second category. How do I avoid this?

How exactly are your best individal accomplishments in art/music? Explain. Also, your background in econ/finance will be needed more if you are going into big law (if you do transactional work), so it is more important to highlight that. But really, if you don't have previous WE, then who really cares what you studied in undergrad? You should be talking about what you did 1L, why you chose x law school, what you do in your spare time, blah, blah.

[Anonymous User]

Actual question:

Lets say my background is in Econ/Finance & Art/Music. Having a hard time not coming off as a floofy idiot when employers see the second category of stuff. My best individual accomplishments are the second category. How do I avoid this?

How exactly are your best individal accomplishments in art/music? Explain. Also, your background in econ/finance will be needed more if you are going into big law (if you do transactional work), so it is more important to highlight that. But really, if you don't have previous WE, then who really cares what you studied in undergrad? You should be talking about what you did 1L, why you chose x law school, what you do in your spare time, blah, blah.

Don't quote, potentially outing: significantly accomplished performer/composer.

[Anonymous User]

Sia?

[patogordo]

Weird/interesting shit is definitely a plus for interviews, as long as you're good at talking about it. My resume is weird as shit, to the point where most interviews would start with the interviewer looking at my resume, looking confused, and then asking "so...what exactly is going on here?" So I would view it as a strength, especially if you're the blind melon guy

[Anonymous User]

Actual question:

Lets say my background is in Econ/Finance & Art/Music. Having a hard time not coming off as a floofy idiot when employers see the second category of stuff. My best individual accomplishments are the second category. How do I avoid this?

Honestly, the best I did was interviewed with a firm that was into that type of shit and had a reputation for wanting people with interesting backgrounds. Not that helpful, but maybe try to spin it favorably.

Depending on grades, you might be able to demonstrate why your artistic and law school success are correlated to the same underlying skill. If you could add value to something in a way a straight finance to law cannot then it should only be a benefit. I also did badly so I don't know how much this is worth, but that would be your best bet.

This has been my strategy. Not working well.

I have a similar background, and my answer was always something like: I liked X part of the arts, but realized after a while that I also wanted Y aspect. I did this thing that was very Y aspect and enjoyed it, but I think I want something with both X and Y. I talked to attorneys and it sounded like law is a great combo of X/Y. It's worked out really well so far in classes and I'm hoping that... Etc etc

It seemed like it worked well.

I also had a weird resume and it worked out well but I probably would've been more risk averse without good grades.

[patogordo]

I wouldn't worry a whole lot about tying whatever weird shit is on your resume to law unless there's a natural connection or you look like a flight risk. You're way better off just using it to make you seem like a likeable and interesting human being, which will immediately distinguish you from most other interviewees.

[WokeUpInACar]

I wouldn't worry a whole lot about tying whatever weird shit is on your resume to law unless there's a natural connection or you look like a flight risk. You're way better off just using it to make you seem like a likeable and interesting human being, which will immediately distinguish you from most other interviewees.

I have something very weird on my resume and in hindsight I think I spent too much time trying to tie skills/lessons to law, and I'm only just now realizing that was probably a mistake.

[Mal Reynolds]

I bluffed this guy on the river and be folded the aces! I feel like it's a real skill to be able to read the other party and whether they're lying. I'm also willing to make huge bets with my clients money.