Bad Interview Moments Forum

[El Pollito]

yeah i mean it's a weird question or joke or whatever but welcome to law firms, a lot of your coworkers are going to be complete freaks. i would have been with anon but for the follow up post on how firms should drop to their knees to hire him/her.

[Carlton_Banks]

There's a difference between thinking it's a stupid interview question and getting personally offended.

What about being personally offended by being asked a stupid question? I guess that's the issue here.

[Bach-City]

.

[cavalier1138]

There's a difference between thinking it's a stupid interview question and getting personally offended.

What about being personally offended by being asked a stupid question? I guess that's the issue here.

I dunno. If the stupid question was "What do you think the Colonel's secret recipe is," then I wouldn't understand getting personally offended. If the stupid question involves deciding a hypothetical where you commit genocide, then it seems like it touches a more personal nerve, doesn't it?

[notgreat]

I think all of this misses the point. If you ask that question you are probably a weird freak. And saying that it is a totally normal and acceptable way to weed people out is also weird. Of course it is acceptable. It is big law, whatever the rainmakers want is acceptable. That is irrelevant. But it is not NORMAL at all to use that to weed people out. It means you are a freak.

[Carlton_Banks]

I dunno. If the stupid question was "What do you think the Colonel's secret recipe is," then I wouldn't understand getting personally offended. If the stupid question involves deciding a hypothetical where you commit genocide, then it seems like it touches a more personal nerve, doesn't it?

Ok, well now you and Nony are taking me round the merry-go-round. Nony is arguing that the question wasn't offensive, just stupid - you quoted my response to that, and continue to assert that the question is both stupid and offensive.

I'm not sure how a hypothetical on genocide should be any more personal than a hypothetical like the Trolley Problem? And if I was asked that in an interview, I wouldn't be offended in the least, if only because it's exactly that: a hypothetical. The interviewer is not throwing me the keys to the Enola Gay, nor is he or she placing my hand on an actual railroad switch. Lighten up, and see it as the thinking exercise that all hypotheticals are.

[flashdril]

I dunno. If the stupid question was "What do you think the Colonel's secret recipe is," then I wouldn't understand getting personally offended. If the stupid question involves deciding a hypothetical where you commit genocide, then it seems like it touches a more personal nerve, doesn't it?

Ok, well now you and Nony are taking me round the merry-go-round. Nony is arguing that the question wasn't offensive, just stupid - you quoted my response to that, and continue to assert that the question is both stupid and offensive.

I'm not sure how a hypothetical on genocide should be any more personal than a hypothetical like the Trolley Problem? And if I was asked that in an interview, I wouldn't be offended in the least, if only because it's exactly that: a hypothetical. The interviewer is not throwing me the keys to the Enola Gay, nor is he or she placing my hand on an actual railroad switch. Lighten up, and see it as the thinking exercise that all hypotheticals are.

It's absolutely both.

A few people here apparently feel that anyone who thinks the question is bad is a "snowflake." (The choice to actively use that term is as indicative as hell.) The question can be offensive without someone being "triggered" or needing a "safe space" or suffering psychological damage. It can be just a bad, dumb, offensive question.

Hypotheticals aren't inherently inoffensive. What if your resume stated "I own four dogs," and the associate said "You have to put one of them down, pick one?" Or if you were a parent, and he asked you to pick a child you had to kill. I think everyone would agree that would be sociopathic. There's a point at which these hypotheticals cross the line. For normal people, asking them to justify killing millions of people might cross a line. Because that's what the question is at the end of the day: what minor affront did you suffer while visiting this country which you can use to justify killing everyone who lives in that country?

What is he hoping to glean? What law-firm-useful skill does such an exercise promote? Is it important for lawyers to have in their heads at all time a constant, ever-shifting power-ranking of places they'd like to nuke? What would even be a good answer?

If I was asked this question in an interview my answer would absolutely be "none of them."

[cavalier1138]

I dunno. If the stupid question was "What do you think the Colonel's secret recipe is," then I wouldn't understand getting personally offended. If the stupid question involves deciding a hypothetical where you commit genocide, then it seems like it touches a more personal nerve, doesn't it?

Ok, well now you and Nony are taking me round the merry-go-round. Nony is arguing that the question wasn't offensive, just stupid - you quoted my response to that, and continue to assert that the question is both stupid and offensive.

I'm not sure how a hypothetical on genocide should be any more personal than a hypothetical like the Trolley Problem? And if I was asked that in an interview, I wouldn't be offended in the least, if only because it's exactly that: a hypothetical. The interviewer is not throwing me the keys to the Enola Gay, nor is he or she placing my hand on an actual railroad switch. Lighten up, and see it as the thinking exercise that all hypotheticals are.

Not really going in circles here. You jumped from whether the question was stupid to the question of whether people should be "personally offended" by stupid questions. I simply replied to that point, because I think it's ridiculous to imply that you can't see why someone would be offended by some stupid questions and not by others.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

A significant portion of interviewing is acting like you get along with people who in reality horrify you.

If you decide that's the time to take your moral stance, go ahead and play with that fire. If I didn't have an offer and the interviewer said the Tutsis and the Armenians had it coming, I'd smile and nod.

Anon above. This was at a t-10 law school where firms are dying to hire you if you have a half decent gpa and can speak like a normal person. Again, I wasn't offended. Just thought it was an odd question to start off an interview where you're competing against other elite law firms for candidates. Maybe he only asked it to me because he had a weird vibe coming in or something. Just thought it was strange.

Oh, you don't know how law firm hiring works. Bless your heart, you thoroughly replaceable interviewee.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

At the end of the day you really did that firm a favor. I wouldn't want to work a long week with a snowflake who takes offense so easily. If I ever do interviews I might ask the same question to weed out the wusses.

Yeah! Testosterone fighting guns nukes football manliness!

Do I fit in? Can I work across from you?

This is something like the fourth time in the thread that you've failed to grasp that the important thing is not to be totally okay with your interviewer's question, but rather to manage to continue to be personable even when you hate what people are saying.

Or whatever, blow a gasket every time a partner says something off-color for a few years; let me know where it gets you.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I get your point, but there's a big difference between "blowing a gasket every time a partner says something off-color for a few years," and coming into a thread dedicated to stupid things said at interviews and giving an example of something stupid said at an interview. I don't get where everyone thinks the person who posted about this is blowing a gasket, or wasn't personable at the time of the interview regardless.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I get your point, but there's a big difference between "blowing a gasket every time a partner says something off-color for a few years," and coming into a thread dedicated to stupid things said at interviews and giving an example of something stupid said at an interview. I don't get where everyone thinks the person who posted about this is blowing a gasket, or wasn't personable at the time of the interview regardless.

I could quote back all the answers that suggested the poster probably did not, in fact, roll with the punches, but how about I just call it a hunch?

[A. Nony Mouse]

I get your point, but there's a big difference between "blowing a gasket every time a partner says something off-color for a few years," and coming into a thread dedicated to stupid things said at interviews and giving an example of something stupid said at an interview. I don't get where everyone thinks the person who posted about this is blowing a gasket, or wasn't personable at the time of the interview regardless.

I could quote back all the answers that suggested the poster probably did not, in fact, roll with the punches, but how about I just call it a hunch?

Or assumption works too.

[Anonymous User]

I brought up death.

The interviewer was talking about this mountain I grew up near that is a very grueling and dangerous hike. He mentioned his wife didn't want him to do it anymore and without thinking I agreed that it was dangerous and noted that I had a cousin who died while hiking it (snow shoeing during the winter). Have not received a CB and do not anticipate one lol

[Anonymous User]

Oh, you don't know how law firm hiring works. Bless your heart, you thoroughly replaceable interviewee.

For the OP (based on his/her post) and for many at top schools the law firms are also thoroughly replaceable and interchangeable. No need to grovel before one that asks dumb questions. Move onto the next.

[Anonymous User]

I walk into partner's room and he has a lot of memorabilia from a certain film franchise which I am a huge fan of and which was a big part of my life growing up. Interview goes really well for majority of interview and then he asks "What's the most interesting thing about you not on your resume?"

I totally blank - it's one of those obvious interview questions but I hadn't really been getting many of those (this was my 4th callback after 15 screeners or so and it was the first time I got the question). But all the stuff in the room about this film franchise reminded me of my childhood and my family, and desperate, grabbing for an answer, I apologized for what I was about to say and then said, "My dad died a couple years ago. I just thought about it because of all the [MOVIE] stuff in this room and he and I used to watch those movies together all the time. He told me I was named after [character from movie]. So yeah, that had a big impact on me, really trying to live up to his memory." or something like that.

lmao

[Anonymous User]

Interviewer "Name one non-legal skill that you are really good at and that's not listed on your resume." I mentioned I'm an amateur photographer. He wanted to see some sample of my work. So in the middle of my interview, I had to fish out my phone, open my Instagram page to show him some samples. Luckily, I don't post any personal pictures on Instagram.

[ghostoftraynor]

I dunno. If the stupid question was "What do you think the Colonel's secret recipe is," then I wouldn't understand getting personally offended. If the stupid question involves deciding a hypothetical where you commit genocide, then it seems like it touches a more personal nerve, doesn't it?

Ok, well now you and Nony are taking me round the merry-go-round. Nony is arguing that the question wasn't offensive, just stupid - you quoted my response to that, and continue to assert that the question is both stupid and offensive.

I'm not sure how a hypothetical on genocide should be any more personal than a hypothetical like the Trolley Problem? And if I was asked that in an interview, I wouldn't be offended in the least, if only because it's exactly that: a hypothetical. The interviewer is not throwing me the keys to the Enola Gay, nor is he or she placing my hand on an actual railroad switch. Lighten up, and see it as the thinking exercise that all hypotheticals are.

It's absolutely both.

A few people here apparently feel that anyone who thinks the question is bad is a "snowflake." (The choice to actively use that term is as indicative as hell.) The question can be offensive without someone being "triggered" or needing a "safe space" or suffering psychological damage. It can be just a bad, dumb, offensive question.

Hypotheticals aren't inherently inoffensive. What if your resume stated "I own four dogs," and the associate said "You have to put one of them down, pick one?" Or if you were a parent, and he asked you to pick a child you had to kill. I think everyone would agree that would be sociopathic. There's a point at which these hypotheticals cross the line. For normal people, asking them to justify killing millions of people might cross a line. Because that's what the question is at the end of the day: what minor affront did you suffer while visiting this country which you can use to justify killing everyone who lives in that country?

What is he hoping to glean? What law-firm-useful skill does such an exercise promote? Is it important for lawyers to have in their heads at all time a constant, ever-shifting power-ranking of places they'd like to nuke? What would even be a good answer?

If I was asked this question in an interview my answer would absolutely be "none of them."

I actually may use this question for an interview tomorrow. At first I thought it was dumb, but it seems like it would be a great way to sort out the people I have no desire to work with.

Also, lol "T-10." That doesn't exist.

[Anonymous User]

How bad a faux pas to say "dude" in an interview with an associate? Just kind of slipped out while I was bemoaning a hobby.

[lawdawg4]

How bad a faux pas to say "dude" in an interview with an associate? Just kind of slipped out while I was bemoaning a hobby.

arguably not as bad as saying "sheeeeeee-it" when asked if you enjoy hiking

[Anonymous User]

How bad a faux pas to say "dude" in an interview with an associate? Just kind of slipped out while I was bemoaning a hobby.

arguably not as bad as saying "sheeeeeee-it" when asked if you enjoy hiking

Just kind of felt unprofessional at the time.

[Anonymous User]

I dunno. If the stupid question was "What do you think the Colonel's secret recipe is," then I wouldn't understand getting personally offended. If the stupid question involves deciding a hypothetical where you commit genocide, then it seems like it touches a more personal nerve, doesn't it?

Ok, well now you and Nony are taking me round the merry-go-round. Nony is arguing that the question wasn't offensive, just stupid - you quoted my response to that, and continue to assert that the question is both stupid and offensive.

I'm not sure how a hypothetical on genocide should be any more personal than a hypothetical like the Trolley Problem? And if I was asked that in an interview, I wouldn't be offended in the least, if only because it's exactly that: a hypothetical. The interviewer is not throwing me the keys to the Enola Gay, nor is he or she placing my hand on an actual railroad switch. Lighten up, and see it as the thinking exercise that all hypotheticals are.

It's absolutely both.

A few people here apparently feel that anyone who thinks the question is bad is a "snowflake." (The choice to actively use that term is as indicative as hell.) The question can be offensive without someone being "triggered" or needing a "safe space" or suffering psychological damage. It can be just a bad, dumb, offensive question.

Hypotheticals aren't inherently inoffensive. What if your resume stated "I own four dogs," and the associate said "You have to put one of them down, pick one?" Or if you were a parent, and he asked you to pick a child you had to kill. I think everyone would agree that would be sociopathic. There's a point at which these hypotheticals cross the line. For normal people, asking them to justify killing millions of people might cross a line. Because that's what the question is at the end of the day: what minor affront did you suffer while visiting this country which you can use to justify killing everyone who lives in that country?

What is he hoping to glean? What law-firm-useful skill does such an exercise promote? Is it important for lawyers to have in their heads at all time a constant, ever-shifting power-ranking of places they'd like to nuke? What would even be a good answer?

If I was asked this question in an interview my answer would absolutely be "none of them."

I actually may use this question for an interview tomorrow. At first I thought it was dumb, but it seems like it would be a great way to sort out the people I have no desire to work with.

Also, lol "T-10." That doesn't exist.

Not the OP anon so I don't care if you make fun of them about the "T-10" thing, but congratulations on being in a position to interview people and still somehow having the emotional sophistication of a 14 year old 4chan poster being edgy for the sake of being edgy.

edit: accidentally clicked anon

[Anonymous User]

Due to a miscommunication with a firm, I was accidentally sent to the wrong office to interview. I did a screener for one office, but was instead sent to their main office for a CB. I just assumed their hiring decisions were all made out of the HQ, since it was a boutique where the hiring partner is in that office and the other offices are relatively small. So when I sit down with the recruiting coordinator, they started off telling me in-depth about their summer program and all of the opportunities available to summers. At the end, she asked if I had any questions. I responded, "I'm not sure if this matters, but I was originally screened for [insert other office], so will this impact anything?" They looked at me with a bit of panic, tried to translate what my experience would be like in that office, shuffled some things, and told me they were going to send off a quick email to my interviewers letting them know I was actually screened for the other office, but she still thought it best for me to go through with the interviews. I had pleasant conversations with all of the interviewers about the firm, etc., and they treated like it was an actual interview, but it was pretty clear they were confused why I was sitting across from them.

[El Pollito]

How bad a faux pas to say "dude" in an interview with an associate? Just kind of slipped out while I was bemoaning a hobby.

should be nbd if it was an otherwise fine interview

[Anonymous User]

How bad a faux pas to say "dude" in an interview with an associate? Just kind of slipped out while I was bemoaning a hobby.

should be nbd if it was an otherwise fine interview

Yeah I caught it and apologized. Still feels like a blemish on an otherwise very good series of 4 interviews.