/ Forum

[BruceWayne]

Sorry dude/dudette. I'm in the same boat. Well, I didn't go to a T6. I was supposedly going to have FedGov, but had to wait for budget to get passed and hiring freeze lifted. The shutdown in October delayed that timeframe. Then when budget passed and hiring freeze lifted in February, the office I was supposed to work at decides they want a new director because old one is retiring, and aren't going to hire newbies until new director found. I feel like I'm the donkey chasing the carrot dangled in front of me by whoever's riding on my back. Starting to lose hope that anything will ever happen at all. I've been volunteering at a different place since graduation, and I'm trying to at least come up with a Plan B. Because Plan B right now is move back in with my parents. I can't even get any interviews. There are no jobs in my state for entry-level people...none. Been applying to different states, but they all want people who've passed the local bar, and they all have about 1,000 applicants for 1 position.

At least I got to sign up for Medicaid. It's better than the sorry excuse for a health insurance plan my law school offered.

There's just no funding in PI law right now. And government budgets are still a mess.

Really, if you don't land any non-preselect interviews at OCI, you need to just drop out immediately, before they stick their snout into the bottomless trough of student loan money and nail the non-dischargeable bill to your forehead for a third semester. Law students need to get over the sunk cost fallacy and just flee law school as fast as possible if they haven't been pre-selected at OCI. Because you can actually pay off 1 year of law school tuition with a decent non-law job. And you can actually convince other employers that you're not going to bolt for a law job. But once you have that JD ball and chain around your neck...well, good luck with that.

This is a little overly cynical. Preselects are mostly just grades. Offers are not only just grades.

It's conceivable to have all lottery interviews, and get multiple offers. I've seen it happen a lot. A place with a median cutoff for a t-6 might still preselect the higher ranked students, but don't care as much about grades once they meet the applicants. There are people who come off really well in short stretches. The issue is most people think they come off this way, and they do not. Most social judgments are kept to oneself so people never get feedback in graded form.

It's also conceivable to sick grades, and strike out. If one has a trait that makes them not fit into this club either because of some perceived physical or personality shortcoming or trait that doesn't fit the prototype, you can be screwed. Diversity is craved in certain respects, but not in other respects. If someone is too weird looking, anxious, or has a disability then they will have a tough time seeming like they'll fit in even if they would ultimately fit in. One trend that should happen is the laws should change to allow schools to reject individuals solely because they have a superficially trait that makes it unlikely they'll get a job.

It's not overly cynical at all. And frankly, I assure you that if the way you came across was that big of a deal to biglaw, a lot of people with high grades at top schools would have very poor chances at getting these jobs. But that's not how it works and those people do great.

Cougar is spot on. Looking back on it taking even a sticker gamble for one year but THEN dropping out of you don't get a lot of preselect interviews isn't a bad approach. Even 1 year of sticker debt at the top 14 isn't really that hard to pay off if you land a white collar job above the secretarial level. I wish I hadn't had the "don't be a quitter" mindset when I finished 1L. Sometimes in life you have to look at things from a broader picture. I'll just have to chalk it up to inexperience/immaturity I guess.

[dead head]

I mean can you imagine schools rejecting candidates cause they seem too nerdy or aspie, or weird, or foreign. Can you imagine them rejecting people for being poor?

I can see them doing all of this. Schools have traditionally rejected the poor, otherwise "need-blind admissions" wouldn't be anything to advertise. So far as personality is concerned, the rise of "holisitc" applications looking for well-rounded individuals were designed specifically to allow for discrimination beyond the raw scholastic achievement a student brings to the table. Of course, they were initially concerned with limiting the number of Jews at Ivy League schools, but personality discrimination was also a big factor. (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/1 ... ntPage=all)

Personal statements, interviews, and extracurriculars are all ways for schools to evaluate applicant personality.

Finally, I think this all adds to the wrong idea that there must be something wrong with you not to get a job. Plenty of people do not get it because of plain dumb luck.

Victim blaming is inherently American. This is the land of opportunity where anyone can accomplish anything, no matter how humble their beginnings, so if you fail to do so it's your own fault. Or so goes the narrative.

I think he system sucks, but it's not realistic to think that schools are going to start sticking up for their students. Maybe if they thought this would lead to an appreciable increase in alumni donations, but that's really the only context in which it's conceivable (but even then, not so much given the largely zero-sum game of employment and the prevailing culture of victim blaming).

[Scotusnerd]

I want to emphasis something for any 0Ls that want to go to law school.

Getting employment as a lawyer is much, much more of a crap-shoot then any HR or attorney will ever be comfortable admitting to you. Getting fantastic grades and good connections means your name goes into a lottery game. It does not mean you get a job.

Be warned.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry dude/dudette. I'm in the same boat. Well, I didn't go to a T6. I was supposedly going to have FedGov, but had to wait for budget to get passed and hiring freeze lifted. The shutdown in October delayed that timeframe. Then when budget passed and hiring freeze lifted in February, the office I was supposed to work at decides they want a new director because old one is retiring, and aren't going to hire newbies until new director found. I feel like I'm the donkey chasing the carrot dangled in front of me by whoever's riding on my back. Starting to lose hope that anything will ever happen at all. I've been volunteering at a different place since graduation, and I'm trying to at least come up with a Plan B. Because Plan B right now is move back in with my parents. I can't even get any interviews. There are no jobs in my state for entry-level people...none. Been applying to different states, but they all want people who've passed the local bar, and they all have about 1,000 applicants for 1 position.

At least I got to sign up for Medicaid. It's better than the sorry excuse for a health insurance plan my law school offered.

There's just no funding in PI law right now. And government budgets are still a mess.

Really, if you don't land any non-preselect interviews at OCI, you need to just drop out immediately, before they stick their snout into the bottomless trough of student loan money and nail the non-dischargeable bill to your forehead for a third semester. Law students need to get over the sunk cost fallacy and just flee law school as fast as possible if they haven't been pre-selected at OCI. Because you can actually pay off 1 year of law school tuition with a decent non-law job. And you can actually convince other employers that you're not going to bolt for a law job. But once you have that JD ball and chain around your neck...well, good luck with that.

This is a little overly cynical. Preselects are mostly just grades. Offers are not only just grades.

It's conceivable to have all lottery interviews, and get multiple offers. I've seen it happen a lot. A place with a median cutoff for a t-6 might still preselect the higher ranked students, but don't care as much about grades once they meet the applicants. There are people who come off really well in short stretches. The issue is most people think they come off this way, and they do not. Most social judgments are kept to oneself so people never get feedback in graded form.

It's also conceivable to sick grades, and strike out. If one has a trait that makes them not fit into this club either because of some perceived physical or personality shortcoming or trait that doesn't fit the prototype, you can be screwed. Diversity is craved in certain respects, but not in other respects. If someone is too weird looking, anxious, or has a disability then they will have a tough time seeming like they'll fit in even if they would ultimately fit in. One trend that should happen is the laws should change to allow schools to reject individuals solely because they have a superficially trait that makes it unlikely they'll get a job.

That seems to me like an attempt of two wrongs making a right. I think the push should be towards firm not "discriminating" on such basis, rather than the student being limited all opportunity because of that trait. Also, most schools do not get to see you in person.

Clearly in an ideal world all people have an equal chance, but until that world exists the current system is the worst for these people. At least disclosure would be better than the current system - like a you weigh 400 pounds or there are very few people in wheelchairs in big law. These things aren't supposed to matter so applicants may be surprised when they have the rug plumped from them sort of speak. It's more of a surprise than past racist discrimination, because it was much less surprising in 1940 that Jews or blacks will not be judged based on merit. Maybe there can be a push for firms to advertise fuller definitions of diversity to mean not disabled or aspie, and these people need not apply. If the problem won't be fixed then full disclosure of the problem is the best outcome.

[Holly Golightly]

That seems to me like an attempt of two wrongs making a right. I think the push should be towards firm not "discriminating" on such basis, rather than the student being limited all opportunity because of that trait.

Maybe the schools should be pushing firms not to discriminate, but they won't. We already know that there are both NALP policies and laws prohibiting interviewers from asking certain questions, but if you report it to your school's CSO it's almost certain they won't do anything about it. Some of them will if you explicitly and specifically ask that they report this violation, but for the most part they do whatever they can to keep the law firms happy.

I had an interviewer tell me I looked "cute in [my] suit." I also had a friend who was asked what her parents did during OCI. Career services couldn't possibly care less.

[ymmv]

That seems to me like an attempt of two wrongs making a right. I think the push should be towards firm not "discriminating" on such basis, rather than the student being limited all opportunity because of that trait.

Maybe the schools should be pushing firms not to discriminate, but they won't. We already know that there are both NALP policies and laws prohibiting interviewers from asking certain questions, but if you report it to your school's CSO it's almost certain they won't do anything about it. Some of them will if you explicitly and specifically ask that they report this violation, but for the most part they do whatever they can to keep the law firms happy.

I had an interviewer tell me I looked "cute in [my] suit." I also had a friend who was asked what her parents did during OCI. Career services couldn't possibly care less.

I don't think I have ever not been asked what my parents do. It's annoying but I didn't realize it was supposed to be an interview taboo.

[rad lulz]

.

[Holly Golightly]

I find that super inappropriate.

[JCougar]

Sorry dude/dudette. I'm in the same boat. Well, I didn't go to a T6. I was supposedly going to have FedGov, but had to wait for budget to get passed and hiring freeze lifted. The shutdown in October delayed that timeframe. Then when budget passed and hiring freeze lifted in February, the office I was supposed to work at decides they want a new director because old one is retiring, and aren't going to hire newbies until new director found. I feel like I'm the donkey chasing the carrot dangled in front of me by whoever's riding on my back. Starting to lose hope that anything will ever happen at all. I've been volunteering at a different place since graduation, and I'm trying to at least come up with a Plan B. Because Plan B right now is move back in with my parents. I can't even get any interviews. There are no jobs in my state for entry-level people...none. Been applying to different states, but they all want people who've passed the local bar, and they all have about 1,000 applicants for 1 position.

At least I got to sign up for Medicaid. It's better than the sorry excuse for a health insurance plan my law school offered.

There's just no funding in PI law right now. And government budgets are still a mess.

Really, if you don't land any non-preselect interviews at OCI, you need to just drop out immediately, before they stick their snout into the bottomless trough of student loan money and nail the non-dischargeable bill to your forehead for a third semester. Law students need to get over the sunk cost fallacy and just flee law school as fast as possible if they haven't been pre-selected at OCI. Because you can actually pay off 1 year of law school tuition with a decent non-law job. And you can actually convince other employers that you're not going to bolt for a law job. But once you have that JD ball and chain around your neck...well, good luck with that.

This is a little overly cynical. Preselects are mostly just grades. Offers are not only just grades.

It's conceivable to have all lottery interviews, and get multiple offers. I've seen it happen a lot. A place with a median cutoff for a t-6 might still preselect the higher ranked students, but don't care as much about grades once they meet the applicants. There are people who come off really well in short stretches. The issue is most people think they come off this way, and they do not. Most social judgments are kept to oneself so people never get feedback in graded form.

It's also conceivable to sick grades, and strike out. If one has a trait that makes them not fit into this club either because of some perceived physical or personality shortcoming or trait that doesn't fit the prototype, you can be screwed. Diversity is craved in certain respects, but not in other respects. If someone is too weird looking, anxious, or has a disability then they will have a tough time seeming like they'll fit in even if they would ultimately fit in. One trend that should happen is the laws should change to allow schools to reject individuals solely because they have a superficially trait that makes it unlikely they'll get a job.

You're missing the point. The point is that if no one pre-selected you, your resume/grades are just not attractive to Biglaw in the first place. Even if personality/fit is a factor later, if no firm is willing to even interview you (on their own terms, as evidenced by a pre-select), you should take the hint after OCI and just flee the profession.

[JCougar]

That seems to me like an attempt of two wrongs making a right. I think the push should be towards firm not "discriminating" on such basis, rather than the student being limited all opportunity because of that trait.

Maybe the schools should be pushing firms not to discriminate, but they won't. We already know that there are both NALP policies and laws prohibiting interviewers from asking certain questions, but if you report it to your school's CSO it's almost certain they won't do anything about it. Some of them will if you explicitly and specifically ask that they report this violation, but for the most part they do whatever they can to keep the law firms happy.

I had an interviewer tell me I looked "cute in [my] suit." I also had a friend who was asked what her parents did during OCI. Career services couldn't possibly care less.

I had a lottery interview where the interviewer looked at my transcript after I sat down, snorted, and then said, "Ok, I guess this will at least be good practice." Shen then saw that I had an HR background and started asking me what some good interview questions might be.

And I didn't have bad grades. But they were significantly below that firm's cutoff.

[Pokemon]

won't. We already know that there are both NALP policies and laws prohibiting interviewers from asking certain questions, but if you report it to your school's CSO it's almost certain they won't do anything about it. Some of them will if you explicitly and specifically ask that they report this violation, but for the most part they do whatever they can to keep the law firms happy.

I had an interviewer tell me I looked "cute in [my] suit." I also had a friend who was asked what her parents did during OCI. Career services couldn't possibly care less.

I don't think I have ever not been asked what my parents do. It's annoying but I didn't realize it was supposed to be an interview taboo.

yeah i get asked in most interviews

Now I wonder why I do not get asked that.