So what's this I hear about firms not hiring older graduates Forum

[colonelnerd]

+1 to the can you be too young? I will be 23 at graduation.

Also, to the Anon that works at Ropes and Gray, do you mind if I ask a few questions here or PM you? It's my dream firm and I would be ETERNALLY grateful.

1. Is the life/work balance that everyone talks about legitimate,or just marketing material? Still billing 2400 or more like 1900-2100?

2. I'm deciding between BC (half tuition scholly), BU(half tuition scholly), and Cornell. I'm leaning towards BC; which would you recommend for Ropes Boston office?

thank you thank you thank you thank you

[delusional]

I think one thing that might become a concern for older applicants is what they've been doing in the meantime. If it was something boring, mindless, and unrelated to the work that they'll be doing, it might bear somewhat more explanation.

[84651846190]

I think one thing that might become a concern for older applicants is what they've been doing in the meantime. If it was something boring, mindless, and unrelated to the work that they'll be doing, it might bear somewhat more explanation.

I think doing something boring would prepare them well for a career in most lucrative areas of law.

[delusional]

I think one thing that might become a concern for older applicants is what they've been doing in the meantime. If it was something boring, mindless, and unrelated to the work that they'll be doing, it might bear somewhat more explanation.

I think doing something boring would prepare them well for a career in most lucrative areas of law.

Plausible, but they'd have to get through the interview first without dying of cognitive dissonance.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I think one thing that might become a concern for older applicants is what they've been doing in the meantime. If it was something boring, mindless, and unrelated to the work that they'll be doing, it might bear somewhat more explanation.

No, I don't think that's really that big a deal. You can pretty much spin most work experience into something relevant. You have to be able to explain why you want to *change* fields, and why you want to go to law school. And certainly some pre-LS WE is going to be more desirable/relevant than others. But I really haven't come across anyone having to explain/explain away what they did what they did before law school - it doesn't really hurt you the way you suggest.

[delusional]

I think one thing that might become a concern for older applicants is what they've been doing in the meantime. If it was something boring, mindless, and unrelated to the work that they'll be doing, it might bear somewhat more explanation.

No, I don't think that's really that big a deal. You can pretty much spin most work experience into something relevant. You have to be able to explain why you want to *change* fields, and why you want to go to law school. And certainly some pre-LS WE is going to be more desirable/relevant than others. But I really haven't come across anyone having to explain/explain away what they did what they did before law school - it doesn't really hurt you the way you suggest.

I have never been on the interviewer side of the table, but I have been an older applicant with completely irrelevant work experience, and from my perspective it did ring hollow trying to explain to a partner at, e.g. Gibson Dunn that my years of experience delivering groceries* were just the right preparation for a career in appellate litigation. I can't say how it went over, but from my perspective it was a bit of a hurdle.

*Not my real job

[A. Nony Mouse]

That makes sense. I think I latched onto the "boring and mindless" part of the comment - because I don't think whether work is boring or mindless has anything to do with whether it's hard to explain to interviewers! But I can see that irrelevant would be tougher. (I just always got grilled on why did I want to leave my previous career anyway.)

[keg411]

I think one thing that might become a concern for older applicants is what they've been doing in the meantime. If it was something boring, mindless, and unrelated to the work that they'll be doing, it might bear somewhat more explanation.

No, I don't think that's really that big a deal. You can pretty much spin most work experience into something relevant. You have to be able to explain why you want to *change* fields, and why you want to go to law school. And certainly some pre-LS WE is going to be more desirable/relevant than others. But I really haven't come across anyone having to explain/explain away what they did what they did before law school - it doesn't really hurt you the way you suggest.

I have never been on the interviewer side of the table, but I have been an older applicant with completely irrelevant work experience, and from my perspective it did ring hollow trying to explain to a partner at, e.g. Gibson Dunn that my years of experience delivering groceries* were just the right preparation for a career in appellate litigation. I can't say how it went over, but from my perspective it was a bit of a hurdle.

*Not my real job

For what it's worth, I'd agree with this. I tried to spin my old job the best I could, but sometimes I think there was a bit of a disconnect. But my job was basically the "shitlaw" of my industry, so I got the sense that they were kind of like "LOLk sure you did something that was even halfway relevant".

But in the end it didn't really hurt me.