Fbi Question Forum

[Anonymous User]

My goal is FBI as well. After law school I will be doing 4 years of military service to cover the work experience requirement as well as to gain valuable skills for the job. Assuming you want to be a special agent then you're going to have to get a job. I have no idea about other positions but I can't imagine they keep it a secret.
I've spoken with multiple current FBI special agents and they all say that it is the rare exception for anyone to be hired before the age of 28. They REQUIRE work experience. In writing straight from the horse's mouth.
http://www.fbijobs.gov/Employment/Criti ... Charts.pdf

[fundamentallybroken]

Asha Rangappa, Yale's dean of admissions, joined the FBI as a special agent without prior WE (she clerked for a year between law school and the FBI, and did a Fulbright in her year between undergrad and law school). She was also awesome enough to get into and later score a dean position with Yale Law, and so probably isn't a typical case.

Clerking is WE. If you stretch the definition a bit, so is Fulbright work. So, Ahsa Rangappa, Yale's dean of admissions, joined the FBI as a special agent with prior WE.

[Anonymous User]

Clerking is WE. If you stretch the definition a bit, so is Fulbright work. So, Ahsa Rangappa, Yale's dean of admissions, joined the FBI as a special agent with prior WE.

Fact. From pdf above...

(Note: In lieu of experience as an attorney, an
applicant may have worked in an investigative
capacity or other highly selective position, such
as a clerkship for a judge.)

Fulbright = highly selective position

[Patriot1208]

Asha Rangappa, Yale's dean of admissions, joined the FBI as a special agent without prior WE (she clerked for a year between law school and the FBI, and did a Fulbright in her year between undergrad and law school). She was also awesome enough to get into and later score a dean position with Yale Law, and so probably isn't a typical case.

It's substantially easier to get hired as a woman because diversity is stressed and they receive far fewer applications from women. I actually saw a women who was previously employed as a taxi driver get an interview.

Also, i'd like to point out, if you are going to law school with the goal of becoming a FBI agent you are wasting your time and money.

[3ThrowAway99]

I think there is a lot of misinformation in this thread.

You're right, what do I know... I've only been through the process.

There has been a softening on marijuana recently, but they still want to know everything about it. If you're going to go in and lie about drug use, then they don't want you. If you think they aren't going to judge you for illegal activity even if it doesn't 100% exclude you from employment, you're crazy. At what I thought was an advanced part of the recruiting process, my HR contact said they have to bring three or four candidates to that point to get one out the other side.

Regarding summer positions, the internship program has been moved from HQ to field offices, so there may now be zero "SA"-type positions. You really need to look at shooting for FBI counsel the same as shooting for GE or Disney or P&G counsel straight out of school. There are currently 165 openings posted on the FBI website; there are more openings for plumbers (1) than there are for lawyers (0). Says it all.

Edit: sorry, just saw this:

But your use of acid 5 years ago will exclude you for another 5 years, unless you can get an exception (which can be made, but I imagine they would need to really want to hire you in the first place).

If you go in and ask an agent for an exception (the people interviewing you are agents), they'll tell you to leave. Going back again to the mold each agency hires.... that's an instant fail for showing you fit the mold.

Dude, some of the info you posted about hiring criteria was just plain wrong, regardless of whether you made it through the process. I wasn't trying to give you grief, but providing wrong info to the OP isn't helpful (specifically re: your saying if he ever used an illegal drug other than marijuana he would be disqualified-- this info was directly relevant to the types of questions he/she was asking). My saying that there is "a lot" of misinformation was probably overstated though.

On the exception bit, you highlighted the first part of my sentence, while ignoring the second half. I wasn't at all recommending that OP ask for an exception or that they are in any sense of the word easy to get. My understanding is that they are available, but they are basically used if they FBI really wants to hire you in the first place and needs to get around their own policy (i.e. you have a special skill or knowledge that is distinct).

[3ThrowAway99]

I think there is a lot of misinformation in this thread. As far as I know law students do get hired by FBI (at least for summer SAs, but I suspect for regular employment after school as well) without having related work experience. But I'm sure law enforcement or military background helps. I just doubt that it is necessarily a bizarre long-shot without it, especially if you go to a strong school and have done well. I could be wrong though. I do know at least one 1L friend who got a summer offer from FBI, but he ended up taking another offer (and he did seem to have some probs with the polygraph).

Edit: see next post re: drug auto-ding exclusions. Some of the info posted above is not correct.

i dont know if anyone really said you needed military or law enforcement WE/background. lol and nice catch on the 10 yrs vs whole life clause on the any illegal drug bit, but at some points, you almost sound as if you just want to refute anon's posts more than supplement it (when the info in both seem to be more supportive than conflicting)

The intial anon poster said WE was necessary; I think military or LE is what they would be looking for insofar as they are requiring WE, but agreed that no one specifically said those were the types of WE that would be required (nor do I think my points were contingent upon that).

I find your 'lol' a little puzzling in the context of challenging something I said, then crediting somthing I said, and then apparently challenging me again. Normally I would interpret it as a put-down of my post or sarcasm about the relevance or importance of the time-limitation re: drug use, but not sure quite what to make of it here.

But yeah, I did mention in a later post that my saying there was "a lot" of misinformation was probably (or definitely) an overstatement. I do think that, especially with the auto-ding requirements, it is important not to give incorrect info, especially if purporting to have authoritative knowledge about the process.

[DoubleChecks]

I think there is a lot of misinformation in this thread. As far as I know law students do get hired by FBI (at least for summer SAs, but I suspect for regular employment after school as well) without having related work experience. But I'm sure law enforcement or military background helps. I just doubt that it is necessarily a bizarre long-shot without it, especially if you go to a strong school and have done well. I could be wrong though. I do know at least one 1L friend who got a summer offer from FBI, but he ended up taking another offer (and he did seem to have some probs with the polygraph).

Edit: see next post re: drug auto-ding exclusions. Some of the info posted above is not correct.

i dont know if anyone really said you needed military or law enforcement WE/background. lol and nice catch on the 10 yrs vs whole life clause on the any illegal drug bit, but at some points, you almost sound as if you just want to refute anon's posts more than supplement it (when the info in both seem to be more supportive than conflicting)

The intial anon poster said WE was necessary; I think military or LE is what they would be looking for insofar as they are requiring WE, but agreed that no one specifically said those were the types of WE that would be required (nor do I think my points were contingent upon that).

I find your 'lol' a little puzzling in the context of challenging something I said, then crediting somthing I said, and then apparently challenging me again. Normally I would interpret it as a put-down of my post or sarcasm about the relevance or importance of the time-limitation re: drug use, but not sure quite what to make of it here.

But yeah, I did mention in a later post that my saying there was "a lot" of misinformation was probably (or definitely) an overstatement. I do think that, especially with the auto-ding requirements, it is important not to give incorrect info, especially if purporting to have authoritative knowledge about the process.

people sometimes tell me my lols are off-putting. sorry, i always add them randomly into my sentences because, over the internet, intonations just dont quite get through. ppl tend to read comments more cynically or negatively than i intend, so my lols are always there to sort of (hopefully) make my comments seem nicer. though i do sometimes use them in a sarcastic fashion, it is quite rare that i do so (and i did not here).

tbh, i did start off challenging something you said, then crediting something you said, and then sort of challenging something you said again. lol i try to be fair and target comments, not the people, so if you said 9 things i disagreed with and 1 thing i agreed with, i will challenge 9 and applaud 1