Quick anecdote for small town folks who want NYC/large city Forum

[A. Nony Mouse]

smaug, I think you're overreacting. First, even if the attitude/response to answers is dumb, it's an example of what a non-NYCer can face in an interview, so useful for posters here. Maybe it's parochialism, but guess what, shitloads of New Yorkers feel that way. Saying "But they shouldn't!" doesn't help someone interviewing in NY. Second, it doesn't matter if the answers are bullshit. They show that the applicant knew how to bullshit helpful answers.

I get your "I want to work in NYC because that's where the job is" answer, and I've used variations of that all the time. But it's not a good answer for every candidate in the world. It works for me because my resume clearly shows that I've moved all over the country for jobs so I don't mind doing that again. If you're a K-JD and you grew up and went to college in one part of the world and now you're median at your awesome law school and you're heavily bidding NYC because it's the safest path and you're sweating bullets over maybe striking out, you better have more to say than "I want your job."

Obviously plenty of people from tiny rural areas have no problem with NYC or other major metros. But to lots of people it's not obvious why someone would leave the area they're from and go somewhere completely different for a job. Even if you think that's dumb, there are a lot of dumb things about hiring that applicants just have to live with.

[ymmv]

My point was that it is a dumb question (though it gets asked) and you're dumb for thinking that's a good answer. The only honest answer to why NY is "you are hiring for a job there. I want that job." You can talk about family, your love of the arts or great food, but if someone didn't want to be in that city and knew it, they wouldn't want the job.

Your concerns are entirely parochial and deserve to be made fun of. I hope, as a result of this conversation, you'll think of better questions when they (mistakenly) put you in front of a candidate again.

Lol. Thanks for the advice. I'm sure you are the star interviewer at your firm. Too bad you can't interview everyone who needs a job. Some people might need to consider an answer to this question in advance.

How difficult is it to understand that people who want jobs will move where the jobs are. I could understand interviewer obsession with ties/compelling reasons to want to be in a city if we lived in a booming legal economy, but it takes some incredibly willful blindness not to recognize that law students are desperate and will gladly transplant wherever the money is.
And there's no indication that the Bumblefuck, Indiana biglaw market is going to be booming any time soon, so I can't imagine why any interviewer would think Johnny Country Boy is going to jump ship for home 6 months after starting as an associate.

[A. Nony Mouse]

A lot of people I know do not have this mentality. They don't get moving for a job, especially if they live somewhere that has always had jobs.

Edit: Besides, it's one thing to say "I want to do X kind of work because [good reasons and experience], and your firm is great at X kind of work because [more good reasons]." It's another to say, "I'm applying to firms in NY because I want a job." The latter just doesn't help you. And I don't think anything NYS was suggesting was intended to supplant having work reasons to want to be in NYC, but on top of those.

[Nebby]

I grew up in rural America.

"Why do you want to work in NYC?"

Because there's no jobs in rural America.

"But why NYC?"

Because there's jobs. What could be a stronger reason than I want a livelihood that is not available where I'm from?

"Good point. But do you like cooking? I've heard that people who can't cook can't hack living in the big city. Also, do brown cows produce chocolate milk? My prep school mates always told me that, but none of us have been able to confirm."

[ymmv]

A lot of people I know do not have this mentality. They don't get moving for a job, especially if they live somewhere that has always had jobs.

This is especially ironic for firms with a "free market" assignment system since you would presume they have at least a rudimentary understanding of supply and demand.

[smaug_]

No nony I get your point I have came up with my own 'palatable' why NYC response (which was easier because I go to school here). I'm just pointing out that (1) it's a dumb question (2) the answer championed by sunynp was god awful.

If anything this thread is another example if the best advice being "lie. Lie through your teeth. The test isn't in whether you believe the lies but whether you're smart/aware enough to know you need to say them."

[TooOld4This]

Firms don't want to train people who will decide they hate the job and leave before the firm wants them too. With too many applicants, firms get to be picky. If they choose to, they can try to hire people who are most likely to stick it out. One measure of that is ties to a location. The first batch of departures for a firm is very often people leaving the area to go to less metropolitan areas.

You want your first job and first jobs are in NYC or other major markets. Once you have your first job, though, you start to figure out BigLaw isn't so glamorous and there are actually legal jobs all over the country. If you are a legit Big City person, you are less likely to run as quickly, since you'll be jumping to more of the same.

Some firms and interviewers don't care, but experience teaches many that people with lack of ties is an indicator of early departure.

[beachbum]

No nony I get your point I have came up with my own 'palatable' why NYC response (which was easier because I go to school here). I'm just pointing out that (1) it's a dumb question (2) the answer championed by sunynp was god awful.

If anything this thread is another example if the best advice being "lie. Lie through your teeth. The test isn't in whether you believe the lies but whether you're smart/aware enough to know you need to say them."

Yeah dude, you hit it on the head. Certain questions are basically a choreographed dance: the interviewer asks you the question, expecting a certain type of response; you give them the type of response they want, and you both check that off the list and move on. The answer to "Why x city?" is not "jobs lol," even if that's the truth. (Same for "why x firm?," "why x practice area?," "why x law school?," etc.) You might think that's stupid - and maybe it is - but that's how the game is played. And that's how it's going to be played regardless of whether you decide to play or not, and regardless of how much you complain.

[ymmv]

No nony I get your point I have came up with my own 'palatable' why NYC response (which was easier because I go to school here). I'm just pointing out that (1) it's a dumb question (2) the answer championed by sunynp was god awful.

If anything this thread is another example if the best advice being "lie. Lie through your teeth. The test isn't in whether you believe the lies but whether you're smart/aware enough to know you need to say them."

Yeah dude, you hit it on the head. Certain questions are basically a choreographed dance: the interviewer asks you the question, expecting a certain type of response; you give them the type of response they want, and you both check that off the list and move on. The answer to "Why x city?" is not "jobs lol," even if that's the truth. (Same for "why x firm?," "why x practice area?," "why x law school?," etc.) You might think that's stupid - and maybe it is - but that's how the game is played. And that's how it's going to be played regardless of whether you decide to play or not, and regardless of how much you complain.

This has been TCR in every other job interview context I've known, so I'm not surprised if it holds true for firms.

[NYSprague]

Maybe I should clarify that this wasn't the first or only question I asked in a 25-30 minute interview. He had explained his interest in the work, practice area already.
This exchange only took a few minutes.

Everyone who walks through the door is looking for a job or at least an offer. Just saying you want a job adds nothing to why a firm should hire you. You are trying to convince people to hire you.

If this doesn't help you, feel free to ignore it. I actually ask very few people this question. But if you are asked, have an answer that shows good qualities about yourself, not just that you need a job.

I didn't mean to suggest that people use the same answer. Rather, they should find something to use and have an answer in mind.

Edit to add: what made the biggest impression was that he wasn't defensive about where he was from but showed how he developed self- reliance, etc. I have had people bitch about the small town, how they hated every minute of living there and went to law school to get out of it. While this may be true, it doesn't add anything positive about them. Maybe people feel they have to put down where they are from, but it doesn't add anything.

[AllTheLawz]

No nony I get your point I have came up with my own 'palatable' why NYC response (which was easier because I go to school here). I'm just pointing out that (1) it's a dumb question (2) the answer championed by sunynp was god awful.

If anything this thread is another example if the best advice being "lie. Lie through your teeth. The test isn't in whether you believe the lies but whether you're smart/aware enough to know you need to say them."

Yeah dude, you hit it on the head. Certain questions are basically a choreographed dance: the interviewer asks you the question, expecting a certain type of response; you give them the type of response they want, and you both check that off the list and move on. The answer to "Why x city?" is not "jobs lol," even if that's the truth. (Same for "why x firm?," "why x practice area?," "why x law school?," etc.) You might think that's stupid - and maybe it is - but that's how the game is played. And that's how it's going to be played regardless of whether you decide to play or not, and regardless of how much you complain.

This has been TCR in every other job interview context I've known, so I'm not surprised if it holds true for firms.

Its even more so for firms. Typically law firm people are horrific interviews, which stems from the fact that they are usually horrific managers. They have no clue how to get to what they actually want to know so you just basically work through a script.

[NYSprague]

No nony I get your point I have came up with my own 'palatable' why NYC response (which was easier because I go to school here). I'm just pointing out that (1) it's a dumb question (2) the answer championed by sunynp was god awful.

If anything this thread is another example if the best advice being "lie. Lie through your teeth. The test isn't in whether you believe the lies but whether you're smart/aware enough to know you need to say them."

Yeah dude, you hit it on the head. Certain questions are basically a choreographed dance: the interviewer asks you the question, expecting a certain type of response; you give them the type of response they want, and you both check that off the list and move on. The answer to "Why x city?" is not "jobs lol," even if that's the truth. (Same for "why x firm?," "why x practice area?," "why x law school?," etc.) You might think that's stupid - and maybe it is - but that's how the game is played. And that's how it's going to be played regardless of whether you decide to play or not, and regardless of how much you complain.

This has been TCR in every other job interview context I've known, so I'm not surprised if it holds true for firms.

Its even more so for firms. Typically law firm people are horrific interviews, which stems from the fact that they are usually horrific managers. They have no clue how to get to what they actually want to know so you just basically work through a script.

No one has a script. I'm confused why you think that, but even if it were true, just have a decent answer. You want a job.

[ymmv]

Some scripts I can deal with, but if someone asks me my "bigger weakness" at a screener I may just walk out of the room.

[smaug_]

I agree wrt always be positive and think about answers to these questions.

OP still tells the tale of a dumb person asking a dumb question and getting a dumb answer and loving it.

[Cogburn87]

I agree wrt always be positive and think about answers to these questions.

OP still tells the tale of a dumb person asking a dumb question and getting a dumb answer and loving it.

But he also has to worry about losing credibility with the recruiting staff!

(ignoring the fact that if our East Bumblefuckian interviewee does bail, it will be at least 2.5 years from the date of the callback interview, and OP very likely won't be working at that firm anymore anyway)

[Anonymous User]

No need to call anyone dumb for asking a question in an interview. But I agree that the question is stupid. I feel also that the question reflects an attitude of privilege. For some people, like me, having a job and not being worried that someone is going to shoot you is more than enough reason to work and live in NYC (although I really like the city). I haven't reached a level of comfort in my life where a decision of moving to a city or not turns on whether the city has good restaurants, good schools, etc. For me, relative political and economic stability is enough. Of course, I cannot use that simple reason... rather I have to invent some BS idiosyncratic reason for why I want to live in X city.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Interviews are full of dumb questions. I don't think that one is any dumber than anything else that gets asked.

And actually, yeah, I do believe that the key to success in an interview is figuring out what you need to say and saying it convincingly. Lying through your teeth is what gets you in the door.

[NYSprague]

Yep. I'm an idiot. I have no reason for trying to see if a person would like to work here. Sorry to waste your time. Please listen to all the advice that you don't need to explain why you want to live in New York because it is obvious that you just need a job and that you will hate it so much you will be gone in a year or two anyway.

[09042014]

My point was that it is a dumb question (though it gets asked) and you're dumb for thinking that's a good answer. The only honest answer to why NY is "you are hiring for a job there. I want that job." You can talk about family, your love of the arts or great food, but if someone didn't want to be in that city and knew it, they wouldn't want the job.

Your concerns are entirely parochial and deserve to be made fun of. I hope, as a result of this conversation, you'll think of better questions when they (mistakenly) put you in front of a candidate again.

Lol. Thanks for the advice. I'm sure you are the star interviewer at your firm. Too bad you can't interview everyone who needs a job. Some people might need to consider an answer to this question in advance.

How difficult is it to understand that people who want jobs will move where the jobs are. I could understand interviewer obsession with ties/compelling reasons to want to be in a city if we lived in a booming legal economy, but it takes some incredibly willful blindness not to recognize that law students are desperate and will gladly transplant wherever the money is.
And there's no indication that the Bumblefuck, Indiana biglaw market is going to be booming any time soon, so I can't imagine why any interviewer would think Johnny Country Boy is going to jump ship for home 6 months after starting as an associate.

The reason they care is two fold.

1) They don't want to waste their time winning and dinning you only to take the Bakers Daniel offer in Indy.

2) A lot of them do jump ship from home 8-18 months later because NYC is a piss and garbage smelling hellhole, and NYC biglaw resembles the warsaw ghetto.

[Pokemon]

This is a great post by NYSprague... but at TLS it looks like we cannot have good things cause a hissyfiter with throw a random hissy fit about it.
And this coming from someone who does not agree with people who think NYC would be harder for small town people.

[smaug_]

Yep. I'm an idiot. I have no reason for trying to see if a person would like to work here. Sorry to waste your time. Please listen to all the advice that you don't need to explain why you want to live in New York because it is obvious that you just need a job and that you will hate it so much you will be gone in a year or two anyway.

Listen: if I interviewed with you and got an offer from your firm and got an offer from another firm where I didn't feel like I was judged for coming from a rural background, I'd take the other offer. It's easy to be smug in the interviewer's chair, especially because most students go through interviews concurrently so they never feel secure in the process.

But, just as you're telling people (rightly!) hat they may be asked this question and will be judged for it, I am telling you that when I interviewed and got asked this question it always left a negative impression.

Also anecdotally, I think if you'd look you'd notice pools if people from rural areas in certain firms. Some places don't care where you're from. Some places seem like they're full of parochial idiots. This thread is explaining why that happens.

[smaug_]

Put more succinctly: yes people do this and it's right to be aware of it, but I will laugh at you for alienating candidates because you can't conceptualize life in other parts of the US (or abroad)

[rad lulz]

.

[ymmv]

My point was that it is a dumb question (though it gets asked) and you're dumb for thinking that's a good answer. The only honest answer to why NY is "you are hiring for a job there. I want that job." You can talk about family, your love of the arts or great food, but if someone didn't want to be in that city and knew it, they wouldn't want the job.

Your concerns are entirely parochial and deserve to be made fun of. I hope, as a result of this conversation, you'll think of better questions when they (mistakenly) put you in front of a candidate again.

Lol. Thanks for the advice. I'm sure you are the star interviewer at your firm. Too bad you can't interview everyone who needs a job. Some people might need to consider an answer to this question in advance.

How difficult is it to understand that people who want jobs will move where the jobs are. I could understand interviewer obsession with ties/compelling reasons to want to be in a city if we lived in a booming legal economy, but it takes some incredibly willful blindness not to recognize that law students are desperate and will gladly transplant wherever the money is.
And there's no indication that the Bumblefuck, Indiana biglaw market is going to be booming any time soon, so I can't imagine why any interviewer would think Johnny Country Boy is going to jump ship for home 6 months after starting as an associate.

The reason they care is two fold.

1) They don't want to waste their time winning and dinning you only to take the Bakers Daniel offer in Indy.

2) A lot of them do jump ship from home 8-18 months later because NYC is a piss and garbage smelling hellhole, and NYC biglaw resembles the warsaw ghetto.

People leaving a NYC biglaw firm because they hate NYC feels infinitely less plausible to me than people leaving a NYC biglaw firm because they hate biglaw. I know you have this personal thing out for NYC b/c of Chicago inferiority complex (and don't get me wrong, I like Chicago) but most law students do not feel the same way about NY that you do.

And 8-18 months is obviously too early for ROI, but given that the entire partner model is predicated on 90% of associates leaving eventually it makes little sense to place so much emphasis on long-term regional ties...especially to NY of all places. How many people leave a firm in their first year anyway? And I ask that honestly, not having seen stats on this.

[jess]

.