Almost 30 screeners, zero callbacks... Forum

[Anonymous User]

The bottom line is: why are firms interviewing students whose grades knock them out of the running from the get-go? To maintain relationships with the schools so that when the economy rebounds, they can still come back and staff their swelling ranks? Fuck it dude. The firms are dead. After three years of economic recovery, they still can't manage to fill a full schedule with people who have an honest shot at the job? It's embarrassing.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Isn't it the case that at places with a lottery system for OCI, interviewers don't see candidates' grades until the screener? (Or have I misunderstood that? My school was all pre-select.)

[SportsFan]

Isn't it the case that at places with a lottery system for OCI, interviewers don't see candidates' grades until the screener? (Or have I misunderstood that? My school was all pre-select.)

Yeah. At Penn, all they get is our resumes.

[Bronck]

Isn't it the case that at places with a lottery system for OCI, interviewers don't see candidates' grades until the screener? (Or have I misunderstood that? My school was all pre-select.)

Correct. A huge part of the process is smart bidding.

[Anonymous User]

Isn't it the case that at places with a lottery system for OCI, interviewers don't see candidates' grades until the screener? (Or have I misunderstood that? My school was all pre-select.)

Correct. A huge part of the process is smart bidding.

Yea, but the point is: when the firms say "we want five," and the school says "fuck that, take 15 or we're not renting you a room," and the firms say "okay we'll take 15" and then just jerk off 10 of the 15 during the screeners, never having any intention of calling any of the 10 back... That's what I think is going on at a lot of the schools whose name doesn't rhyme with "Starboard."

[A. Nony Mouse]

Isn't it the case that at places with a lottery system for OCI, interviewers don't see candidates' grades until the screener? (Or have I misunderstood that? My school was all pre-select.)

Correct. A huge part of the process is smart bidding.

Yea, but the point is: when the firms say "we want five," and the school says "fuck that, take 15 or we're not renting you a room," and the firms say "okay we'll take 15" and then just jerk off 10 of the 15 during the screeners, never having any intention of calling any of the 10 back... That's what I think is going on at a lot of the schools whose name doesn't rhyme with "Starboard."

Okay, I get that the system is pretty crappy. But you realize that if employers want to call back a certain number, they're going to interview more people than that, right? If they want to callback 5, they're not going to screen only 5. Besides, all interview experience is valuable, and someone who never gets the interview in the first place has no shot - at least once you get in the door you have a chance at making a good impression. In any case, it's wasted energy to hate on the system.

[Anonymous User]

Isn't it the case that at places with a lottery system for OCI, interviewers don't see candidates' grades until the screener? (Or have I misunderstood that? My school was all pre-select.)

Correct. A huge part of the process is smart bidding.

Yea, but the point is: when the firms say "we want five," and the school says "fuck that, take 15 or we're not renting you a room," and the firms say "okay we'll take 15" and then just jerk off 10 of the 15 during the screeners, never having any intention of calling any of the 10 back... That's what I think is going on at a lot of the schools whose name doesn't rhyme with "Starboard."

Okay, I get that the system is pretty crappy. But you realize that if employers want to call back a certain number, they're going to interview more people than that, right? If they want to callback 5, they're not going to screen only 5. Besides, all interview experience is valuable, and someone who never gets the interview in the first place has no shot - at least once you get in the door you have a chance at making a good impression. In any case, it's wasted energy to hate on the system.

No. You want five, so you consider ten. The problem comes in when you consider ten but interview twenty.

Firm demand is so low that they want to pretend that they're really considering twenty. But at the end of the day, of the twenty, 10 interview well, but, whereas before they could hire ten, well--now they can only hire five. Solution? Grades. Lop of half the candidate pool. Just treat them like shit during the interview. Focus on who you want--for arbitrary, grade-related, shortage-induced reasons.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. It's quite likely that I bid very poorly and set myself up for this.

Since there's nothing I can do about the past, I've been mass-mailing and emailing every firm I bid but did not interview with. So far, nothing.

I called my family and told them that I was going to drop out because the idea of six-figure debt and unemployment (or shitlaw) is horrifying. They have offered to pay for my legal education out of my inheritance, but throwing good money after bad is foolish. Anyways, they reacted poorly, calling me childish for even considering quitting and telling me that the Internet (i.e. JD Underground, TLS, etc.) has led me to foolish belief that biglaw is likely forever out of reach. My family is filled with doctors and nurses, no lawyers, so they don't understand the legal industry, the hiring process, or the fact that I'm on a path to shitlaw. My repeated attempts to explain how things work led to phone calls and emails from various family members, all of which derided me for considering dropping out. Long story short, it looks like I'm sticking with law school and I guess I'm going to have to gun for a clerkship.

/endrant (sorry, it has been a very long week)

[Anonymous User]

OP, they're all fucking idiots. They think law school is a "school." It's a life commitment.

Are you done with the process? The number one thing is that if you're not 100% done with it, ya GOTTA keep the energy up. Play the role. There will be plenty of time for the waves of depression and I am sure they will be satisfying. But NOT RIGHT NOW. Just KEEP IT UP.

[Anonymous User]

OP, you aren't alone. I am top 25 percent at a peer school and I have just begun to realize that I will never be employed as a lawyer.

[Anonymous User]

There is a substantial amount of luck between he who is top 10 and he who is top 15. Or he who is top 1/3 and he who is top 1/2. But when the shortage of actual summer associate positions is so pressing that the hard-cut grade-ax comes down with such precision at some precise point above median....some people get lucky (and think, wrongly, that they're hot shit) and others get unlucky (and think, wrongly, that they suck.)

This is really the firms' fault. The need to stop pretending that 2007 is just around the corner. Tell the schools you don't have the spots, shrink the OCI, and force the schools' administration to shrink incoming classes. Stop keeping up appearances.

[Anonymous User]

OP, they're all fucking idiots. They think law school is a "school." It's a life commitment.

Are you done with the process? The number one thing is that if you're not 100% done with it, ya GOTTA keep the energy up. Play the role. There will be plenty of time for the waves of depression and I am sure they will be satisfying. But NOT RIGHT NOW. Just KEEP IT UP.

Well, I'm pretty sure I can call OCI a 100% strike-out. There are a few firms that have dinged others but kept me in the dark, but I think it's a fool's errand to believe that those will pan out. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but I need to be proactive and make something happen rather than sit back and hope that things turn out for the best.

Anyways, I'm certainly planning on continuing to mass-mail, but I'm running out of firms pretty damn quickly. Thus far, I've received nothing but dings from that process.

I have zero interest in a public interest career and zero idea of how to obtain a public interest job, but I'm starting to think that it might be my best bet at this point. I'm going to start reading up on that path, but my background doesn't lend favor to any argument that I'm passionate about that type of work (white, upper-middle class background, prior experience at a firm, etc.).

I don't think there's ever a point in time I'll be able to say that I'm 100% done with it. None of us can... The "vale of tears" thread shows that we're in this for the long haul.

[bk1]

Anyways, I'm certainly planning on continuing to mass-mail, but I'm running out of firms pretty damn quickly. Thus far, I've received nothing but dings from that process.

Have you applied to every firm in every market that you would consider living in and that you could have a conceivable reason of wanting to work in?

[Anonymous User]

Anyways, I'm certainly planning on continuing to mass-mail, but I'm running out of firms pretty damn quickly. Thus far, I've received nothing but dings from that process.

Have you applied to every firm in every market that you would consider living in and that you could have a conceivable reason of wanting to work in?

Not yet, but I will have by the time this weekend is over.

Question for all of those with experience... Which is more important, a cover letter I spend 30 minutes tailoring to explain why that firm/locale/etc. is ideal for me, or getting my resume into the hands of every recruiter as quickly as possible? Do they really read the cover letter, or is this more of a matter of checking the resume to see my GPA?

[Anonymous User]

Any more screeners?

[Anonymous User]

Any more screeners?

Nope.

[Anonymous User]

Any more screeners?

Nope.

I'm sorry man. That's all I can say.

I know some people will think "oh well he must be an aspie" or some bull shit. But I believe you when you say you had a great resume and a fine interview but went 0 for 30 on screeners. I think you should out your schools CSO for setting you up with these 30 screeners in the first place.

[law321]

Firm demand is so low that they want to pretend that they're really considering twenty. But at the end of the day, of the twenty, 10 interview well, but, whereas before they could hire ten, well--now they can only hire five. Solution? Grades. Lop of half the candidate pool. Just treat them like shit during the interview. Focus on who you want--for arbitrary, grade-related, shortage-induced reasons.[/quote]


This is not true at every firm. I think people on this site assume that grades are more or less the entire application package.

They may be at some firms, but they assuredly are not at others. In a down economy, prior work experience is massively important (why gamble on a brain in a jar who has never worked before?), as is personality and general fit.

[Anonymous User]

Firm demand is so low that they want to pretend that they're really considering twenty. But at the end of the day, of the twenty, 10 interview well, but, whereas before they could hire ten, well--now they can only hire five. Solution? Grades. Lop of half the candidate pool. Just treat them like shit during the interview. Focus on who you want--for arbitrary, grade-related, shortage-induced reasons.

This is not true at every firm. I think people on this site assume that grades are more or less the entire application package.

They may be at some firms, but they assuredly are not at others. In a down economy, prior work experience is massively important (why gamble on a brain in a jar who has never worked before?), as is personality and general fit.

[/quote]

With all due respect, I think that's just bull shit. The process is driven by firm need. And the firms need to call back some very low number of students at a very many schools. Right? Like, just mathematically.

Look, conceptually, if you interview ten, two will be great interviews. If you interview twenty, four will be great interviews. Just normal distribution shit there.

If you only want two...fuck that...only can possibly even consider two. I mean, callbacks are expensive. You have a yield rate. Your not interviewing for charity. If you only have, say, one SA spot for a school from the region, your hard cap is 2 CBs. Okay...

But if the school says "you can't just interview ten," you interview twenty. But oh shit, four are great interviews, but you can only call back two. Solution? GRADES! Just take the two with the higher grades.

People think that it's just a magical 1 through 20 ranking of how well these people interview. No. Partners have told me (and it just makes sense) that just like grades are normally distributed, so are great interviews. When you have to exclude great interviews from CBs, you do so based on grades. There is no "whole package." That is a load of horse shit.

[Anonymous User]

Any more screeners?

Nope.

I'm sorry man. That's all I can say.

I know some people will think "oh well he must be an aspie" or some bull shit. But I believe you when you say you had a great resume and a fine interview but went 0 for 30 on callbacks. I think you should out your schools OCI for setting you up with these 30 screeners in the first place.

Thanks. I'm fine with anyone suggesting I'm a total aspie, the thought has definitely been crossing my mind for a while now. I've never had an issue making friends or holding a conversation and all of my mock interviewers told me I was good to go, but the results speak for themselves... I had great conversations during many of my screeners where the interviewer and I talked about our hometowns, sports, booze, yada yada yada, but something was wrong. If I knew I came across as socially retarded, at least I'd be able to fix the problem. Right now, I'm just wondering what killed me. Poor bidding strategy, weak ties to any region whatsoever (I'm from a small city), and being a transfer, are likely some of the big ones. Maybe I'm just so aspie I don't know it, but I'd be more inclined to believe this if my mock interviewers told me or there were awkward moments during my screeners.

[IAFG]

Almost anyone can strike out in a tough market.

[echooo23]

If I'm not mistaken, law321 is the OCI/CB Interviewer taking questions in another thread, and assuming s/he is legit, then for at least one firm grades are not the end-all-and-be-all.

[A. Nony Mouse]

With all due respect, I think that's just bull shit. The process is driven by firm need. And the firms need to call back some very low number of students at a very many schools. Right? Like, just mathematically.

Look, conceptually, if you interview ten, two will be great interviews. If you interview twenty, four will be great interviews. Just normal distribution shit there.

If you only want two...fuck that...only can possibly even consider two. I mean, callbacks are expensive. You have a yield rate. Your not interviewing for charity. If you only have, say, one SA spot for a school from the region, your hard cap is 2 CBs. Okay...

But if the school says "you can't just interview ten," you interview twenty. But oh shit, four are great interviews, but you can only call back two. Solution? GRADES! Just take the two with the higher grades.

People think that it's just a magical 1 through 20 ranking of how well these people interview. No. Partners have told me (and it just makes sense) that just like grades are normally distributed, so are great interviews. When you have to exclude great interviews from CBs, you do so based on grades. There is no "whole package." That is a load of horse shit.

Well, it is the whole package, in that the firm still ends up hiring someone with a great interview AND great grades (and probably a great resume). Someone with amazing grades can walk in and eliminate themselves through the interview (OP, not saying you did that). Just because someone with lower grades doesn't get the CB doesn't mean that the people who did don't have the "whole package."

[Anonymous User]

Jesus Christ....(sigh...)

We are not talking about grades being the end-all-be-all. We are talking about there being grade cutoffs. Above that cutoff, grades don't matter. We got it. "Whole package." Yadda yadda yadda. The issue is when the cutoff is IN THE MIDDLE of the people you interview for screeners.

Do you really think BigLaw is above interviewing a bunch of people with no intention of considering them no matter how good they interview, just to serve some purpose, like maintaining relations with schools?

Look, this is a thread about 30 screeners, zero callbacks, at a T30? I think? If we take OP at his word (no aspie, great resume), and we take this annon at his word (heard it happening to other people), let's play Sherlock and put 2 and 2 together.

I mean, it's not even a function of school. Is OP's bidding strategy all V50s? Do they even interview at a T30? Like, if OP bid at all rationally, this is bull shit.

[Anonymous User]

All you have to do is stand outside the hotel room door and hear the love fest for applicant a) and hear the "so tell me about a time when" for applicant b)...and note that a) had higher grades than b). This isn't even up for contention.