DOJ Honors Program 2014-15 Forum

[Anonymous User]

Well, I guess the tax goose is cooked for those of us who have not had our references checked. Good luck to the rest of you.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

Well, I guess the tax goose is cooked for those of us who have not had our references checked. Good luck to the rest of you.

Why is that?

[Anonymous User]

Well, I guess the tax goose is cooked for those of us who have not had our references checked. Good luck to the rest of you.

Hold out hope. As much as I like the Google doc, I would refrain from reading too much into it. There's a huge sampling problem and, to the extent that nobody here actually understands the hiring process, we're all just reading tea leaves. Consider the possibility that 1) your references simply did not inform you that they had been called; 2) not all your references were called; 3) different panelists check references different times; 4) reference checks this early are for first round offers and do not encompass alternates; 5) reference checks this early are actually the exception, not the rule; or 6) reference checks are not necessary to get an offer. There are more explanations, and some are more plausible than others, but, unless you hear otherwise from the hiring committee, it's all rank speculation on our parts.

I wish the Google doc had been available prior to interviews--perhaps the response rate would have been better. I suspect those whose references were not checked are less likely to provide their details. And without more complete information from other candidates, there's not enough here to draw any conclusive inferences (see for example 4 and 5). (On that note, I too would encourage people to add themselves to the spreadsheet.) But in any event, I think that applicants that have made it this far are talented enough and interested enough that it would be a shame to give up now.

Good luck with your selection. I know I'll need it.

[Anonymous User]

Well, I guess the tax goose is cooked for those of us who have not had our references checked. Good luck to the rest of you.

Hold out hope. As much as I like the Google doc, I would refrain from reading too much into it. There's a huge sampling problem and, to the extent that nobody here actually understands the hiring process, we're all just reading tea leaves. Consider the possibility that 1) your references simply did not inform you that they had been called; 2) not all your references were called; 3) different panelists check references different times; 4) reference checks this early are for first round offers and do not encompass alternates; 5) reference checks this early are actually the exception, not the rule; or 6) reference checks are not necessary to get an offer. There are more explanations, and some are more plausible than others, but, unless you hear otherwise from the hiring committee, it's all rank speculation on our parts.

I wish the Google doc had been available prior to interviews--perhaps the response rate would have been better. I suspect those whose references were not checked are less likely to provide their details. And without more complete information from other candidates, there's not enough here to draw any conclusive inferences (see for example 4 and 5). (On that note, I too would encourage people to add themselves to the spreadsheet.) But in any event, I think that applicants that have made it this far are talented enough and interested enough that it would be a shame to give up now.

Good luck with your selection. I know I'll need it.

Definitely can't tell much from the spreadsheet. For those that haven't had their references checked, it could also be that the person/interviewer whose responsibility it is hasn't gotten to it. I doubt there's one person checking references in each component. With ATR(DC) it seems to be each interview panel's responsibility. Also because of the sampling issues, I don't think we can determine much from the fact that references have been checked. Again, with ATR(DC) it looks like it's possible they check every interviewees references. The good thing is we'll know soon.

[Anonymous User]

To maybe provide some distraction, does anyone have any thoughts over clerking versus Honors Program out of school?

I've had a few clerkship interviews, two with district court judges and one circuit court judges. With at least one of them, the judge specifically said she didn't choose me because it seemed like I wanted to go straight to the DOJ. A district judge who said he would interview in late November called my school to get my class rank a couple weeks ago. I've been debating whether, if I get an Honors offer, I should call the judge's chambers to see if I am still under consideration and try to interview for it before accepting the HP offer. The clerkship would be with a young judge with an impressive resume, and would no doubt be useful. But my goal would still be to end up at the DOJ, so I'm not sure about the relative value of a district court clerkship versus next year the DOJ.

Any thoughts from those who have clerked and are waiting to hear about DOJ Honors now?

[Anonymous User]

Re: clerking - to be honest, if you want to pursue a clerkship, then pursue it, but I would try to get it locked in before getting an HP offer, and then withdraw from HP, rather than wait till you get an HP offer, interviewing for the clerkship, and turning HP down. I just have the impression that 1) it's assumed that people accept HP on the spot (no, it's not required, but I do think it's what usually happens and what most components expect), and 2) it would be much harder to get back into the program the following year (or a job with that component in future) if you turned down an offer (as opposed to withdrawing before offers are made).

Of course, I may just be overly cautious. Rejecting for a clerkship (as opposed to for another kind of job) and making clear that that was just when you got the clerkship may be no big deal. But the above would be my concern.

(As for the value of clerking - one of the reasons I clerked was to extend my eligibility for the HP, and to make myself a stronger candidate for DOJ/government work. Clerking is a great experience, and valuable in its own right, but it's a short-term thing. I wouldn't clerk over the opportunity to start the job that I knew I wanted long-term.)

[Anonymous User]

Thanks, that advice is quite helpful. I assumed the component would be supportive, since they seemed to really emphasize the value of clerking, but I think you're probably right. It's too late to try to interview before I would hear about an HP offer, so I guess I will just wait and see what happens next week. The more I think about it, if I do have my dream job in front of me, what's the point in clerking? My main concern is just that, even if I can start in the same place, five years down the road not having a clerkship on my resume will hurt me.

It's also just difficult shifting from having my mind set on the Honors Program to the possibility of clerking for a year and then back to the Honors Program again once I interviewed. Oh well, we'll know soon enough.

[Anonymous User]

Re: clerking - to be honest, if you want to pursue a clerkship, then pursue it, but I would try to get it locked in before getting an HP offer, and then withdraw from HP, rather than wait till you get an HP offer, interviewing for the clerkship, and turning HP down. I just have the impression that 1) it's assumed that people accept HP on the spot (no, it's not required, but I do think it's what usually happens and what most components expect), and 2) it would be much harder to get back into the program the following year (or a job with that component in future) if you turned down an offer (as opposed to withdrawing before offers are made).

Of course, I may just be overly cautious. Rejecting for a clerkship (as opposed to for another kind of job) and making clear that that was just when you got the clerkship may be no big deal. But the above would be my concern.

(As for the value of clerking - one of the reasons I clerked was to extend my eligibility for the HP, and to make myself a stronger candidate for DOJ/government work. Clerking is a great experience, and valuable in its own right, but it's a short-term thing. I wouldn't clerk over the opportunity to start the job that I knew I wanted long-term.)

Same here. I withdrew my HP application as soon as I accepted my district court clerkship last year. This year it opened up the USAOs, and I interviewed with two of them.

[Anonymous User]

Who else just freaked out for a second after seeing the "DOJ Attorney General's Honors Program Update..." email? Also, since it seems someone sorted by yes/no and then back to ID, the spreadsheet is now all jumbled. Can we agree to sort by component and leave it? Also, if you apply a filter, it only affects your own view and not the spreadsheet.

[Anonymous User]

Who else just freaked out for a second after seeing the "DOJ Attorney General's Honors Program Update..." email? Also, since it seems someone sorted by yes/no and then back to ID, the spreadsheet is now all jumbled. Can we agree to sort by component and leave it? Also, if you apply a filter, it only affects your own view and not the spreadsheet.

I think my heart skipped a beat.... this wait is particularly painful. I hope some people get some good news this week!!

[Anonymous User]

CD Cal apparently is considering more people, despite having previously said they were done. Interesting.

[Anonymous User]

CD Cal apparently is considering more people, despite having previously said they were done. Interesting.

Anon #9? Any word?

[Anonymous User]

Who else just freaked out for a second after seeing the "DOJ Attorney General's Honors Program Update..." email? Also, since it seems someone sorted by yes/no and then back to ID, the spreadsheet is now all jumbled. Can we agree to sort by component and leave it? Also, if you apply a filter, it only affects your own view and not the spreadsheet.

I think my heart skipped a beat.... this wait is particularly painful. I hope some people get some good news this week!!

very painful. My hear can't take it. Fingers crossed for some good news.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think this has been mentioned. For what it's worth for the ATR(DC) folks, Toni Taravella told me before my interview that they plan to send out first-round offers on 11/17. I'd be surprised if we hear before then.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think this has been mentioned. For what it's worth for the ATR(DC) folks, Toni Taravella told me before my interview that they plan to send out first-round offers on 11/17. I'd be surprised if we hear before then.

I was also told that my component (OIL Appellate) had to make their decisions by 11/17.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think this has been mentioned. For what it's worth for the ATR(DC) folks, Toni Taravella told me before my interview that they plan to send out first-round offers on 11/17. I'd be surprised if we hear before then.

I was also told that my component (OIL Appellate) had to make their decisions by 11/17.

And the post on Avue says 11/19, so 11/17 is probably the internal deadline and then they posted 11/19 for some wiggle room.

[Anonymous User]

Who else just freaked out for a second after seeing the "DOJ Attorney General's Honors Program Update..." email? Also, since it seems someone sorted by yes/no and then back to ID, the spreadsheet is now all jumbled. Can we agree to sort by component and leave it? Also, if you apply a filter, it only affects your own view and not the spreadsheet.

I think my heart skipped a beat.... this wait is particularly painful. I hope some people get some good news this week!!

very painful. My hear can't take it. Fingers crossed for some good news.

Toughest day of the wait yet for me. After spending a good part of the morning rotating between checking avue, this thread and the spreadsheet and rereading responses to thank you emails, I just looked up how to read actual tea leaves. I think I might switch to that.

[Anonymous User]

Looks like CD Cal and ND Ohio are full-up.

Trying not to be overly disappointed, but I really did like the folks in Ohio.

[Anonymous User]

Looks like CD Cal and ND Ohio are full-up.

Trying not to be overly disappointed, but I really did like the folks in Ohio.

Same here. It seemed like an awesome office. Sigh.

[Anonymous User]

Looks like CD Cal and ND Ohio are full-up.

Trying not to be overly disappointed, but I really did like the folks in Ohio.

Same here. It seemed like an awesome office. Sigh.

With you there. That's my second rejection. I'm also waiting on the california bar results. Blurgh.

[Anonymous User]

Looks like CD Cal and ND Ohio are full-up.

Trying not to be overly disappointed, but I really did like the folks in Ohio.

Same here. It seemed like an awesome office. Sigh.

With you there. That's my second rejection. I'm also waiting on the California Bar results. Blurgh.

Oh man, good luck. If you're smart enough to get multiple HP interviews, you're definitely going to pass. I'm only admitted in California and they definitely seemed concerned about whether I wanted to be in Cleveland. Maybe our ties to California counted heavily against us.

[Anonymous User]

Looks like CD Cal and ND Ohio are full-up.

Trying not to be overly disappointed, but I really did like the folks in Ohio.

Same here. It seemed like an awesome office. Sigh.

With you there. That's my second rejection. I'm also waiting on the California Bar results. Blurgh.

Oh man, good luck. If you're smart enough to get multiple HP interviews, you're definitely going to pass. I'm only admitted in California and they definitely seemed concerned about whether I wanted to be in Cleveland. Maybe our ties to California counted heavily against us.

Eh, I actually don't have ties to any location. I took Cali because it's a major legal market. I have a clerkship in a flyover state, I went to law school in a different flyover state, and I lived all over, serving in the military on active duty in the years between college and law school. At each interview, I told my interviewers that I was excited to finally live somewhere long enough to hang something on the walls.

[Anonymous User]

I'm curious, for those of you who have had your references contacted, do you happen to know if your entire reference list was contacted or only part of it? I had an interview a few weeks ago with ENRD and one of my references told me a few days ago that they had been contacted but I haven't heard anything from anyone else on my reference list.

[Anonymous User]

I'm curious, for those of you who have had your references contacted, do you happen to know if your entire reference list was contacted or only part of it? I had an interview a few weeks ago with ENRD and one of my references told me a few days ago that they had been contacted but I haven't heard anything from anyone else on my reference list.

My interview/reference check was for ATR(DC). I know they called two of my three references, the third was someone at the DOJ who I don't know about. I understand that they talk to everyone you worked with at the DOJ, so I assume my third reference was asked or will be at some point.

I wouldn't make much out of only hearing from one. Do you know for sure the others weren't contact or have they just not contacted you to let you know? I would think knowing that one reference was contacted would tell you as much as knowing that all were. Unless of course that one reference told them you were worthless, but I'm guessing that wasn't the case since you've made it this far and are plugged into the TLS brain trust.