OCI Recruitment Ques. Forum

[Dafaq]

Just curious, did your firm decide whether or not to interview 3Ls? Any reason given?

[Anonymous User]

OP

When I was in school 3Ls were generally considered persōna nōn grāta. I thought this was harshly unfair. I still do, but at least I have a better understanding of the reasoning. It's not a secret that firms are simply more comfortable offering someone who successfully endured a three month evaluation. So to answer your question, no.

And yes, I’ve read where SAs don’t actually do much, that’s not my experience.
As an SA we were involved, staffed on cases, etc. This turned out to be a great learning experience.

My assignment for this satellite office is to tag at least 10 2L candidates for callbacks. Not surprising that good grades and the interview will be essential. 2 or 3 will be offered a 10 week SA.

[lonerider]

Help a brother out

Working on it. This week the home office sent me a stack of résumés they received from what I gather are mass mailings. A couple schools in particular must have instructed their candidates to embed a thumbnail headshot in their bio. Looks fine… a new approach I suppose.

That sounds like an awful idea.

Absoutely. Ugh.

My first guess is they are LLMs or foreign-born JDs who are unfamiliar with American anti-discrimination hiring practices. In many other countries it is customary to include a professional headshot with your resumé. Either Career Services is letting them down, or they're a bit clueless.

[dead head]

A couple schools in particular must have instructed their candidates to embed a thumbnail headshot in their bio. Looks fine… a new approach I suppose.

That sounds like an awful idea.

Absoutely. Ugh.

My first guess is they are LLMs or foreign-born JDs who are unfamiliar with American anti-discrimination hiring practices. In many other countries it is customary to include a professional headshot with your resumé. Either Career Services is letting them down, or they're a bit clueless.

Yeah, but this Associate who is doing the recruiting is also unaware of discrimination implications and think it "looks fine," so it's obviously not a safe assumption that they are foreign students.

[Anonymous User]

OP

A little surprised to see a bio with a thumbnail picture of the applicant, surprised because the applicant is from a T10 (the shot itself was professional and yes, the candidate is photogenic). The bio was articulate and included a compelling reason for wanting to practice in this particular state. Personally, I don’t have a problem with it. I know when I choose my real estate agent I didn’t mind seeing photos. I suppose it’s expected in that profession and unexpected in our world.

[guano]

OP

A little surprised to see a bio with a thumbnail picture of the applicant, surprised because the applicant is from a T10 (the shot itself was professional and yes, the candidate is photogenic). The bio was articulate and included a compelling reason for wanting to practice in this particular state. Personally, I don’t have a problem with it. I know when I choose my real estate agent I didn’t mind seeing photos. I suppose it’s expected in that profession and unexpected in our world.

(nearly) Every firm has headshots of (almost) all their attorneys. It's just weird on a resume

[NYSprague]

OP

A little surprised to see a bio with a thumbnail picture of the applicant, surprised because the applicant is from a T10 (the shot itself was professional and yes, the candidate is photogenic). The bio was articulate and included a compelling reason for wanting to practice in this particular state. Personally, I don’t have a problem with it. I know when I choose my real estate agent I didn’t mind seeing photos. I suppose it’s expected in that profession and unexpected in our world.

How are you in charge of anything?
You realize that people can put photos in their ads, and there are ethical rules about attorneys using photos in ads.
Photos on resumes are problematic because of potential discrimination. People used to require photos but it is not allowed anymore.

[TooOld4This]

OP

A little surprised to see a bio with a thumbnail picture of the applicant, surprised because the applicant is from a T10 (the shot itself was professional and yes, the candidate is photogenic). The bio was articulate and included a compelling reason for wanting to practice in this particular state. Personally, I don’t have a problem with it. I know when I choose my real estate agent I didn’t mind seeing photos. I suppose it’s expected in that profession and unexpected in our world.

How are you in charge of anything?
You realize that people can put photos in their ads, and there are ethical rules about attorneys using photos in ads.
Photos on resumes are problematic because of potential discrimination. People used to require photos but it is not allowed anymore.

OP doesn't actually seem to be in charge of anything but shuffling the paper. Though that doesn't seem to be stemming his plans to take over the world. (aka practice doing 180s when the partners decisions are the exact opposite of his brainstorming)

[Dafaq]

People used to require photos but it is not allowed anymore.

If I am understanding the above post, an applicant can send a picture but an employer cannot request a picture. I’ve never seen where it’s not allowed for an employer to request a picture. I suppose it is possible that it could be somehow viewed as discrimination (although presumably a real stretch). That policy doesn’t make any sense to me since people aren’t hired until they meet with the employer.

[Danger Zone]

People used to require photos but it is not allowed anymore.

If I am understanding the above post, an applicant can send a picture but an employer cannot request a picture. I’ve never seen where it’s not allowed for an employer to request a picture. I suppose it is possible that it could be somehow viewed as discrimination (although presumably a real stretch). That policy doesn’t make any sense to me since people aren’t hired until they meet with the employer.

And employers definitely couldn't discriminate by, oh I don't know, categorically refusing to even meet with all members of a certain race.

[A. Nony Mouse]

People used to require photos but it is not allowed anymore.

If I am understanding the above post, an applicant can send a picture but an employer cannot request a picture. I’ve never seen where it’s not allowed for an employer to request a picture. I suppose it is possible that it could be somehow viewed as discrimination (although presumably a real stretch). That policy doesn’t make any sense to me since people aren’t hired until they meet with the employer.

You choose people to interview before you meet candidates. So if candidates include pictures, employers could choose who not to interview based on impermissible factors (race, age, sex if not clear from the application materials). Employers don't want applicants to send pictures because they don't want to be subject to any accusations that they rejected someone pre-interview for an actionable reason.

Edit: Or what DZ said.

[Dafaq]

If the employer doesn’t want to hire a _________, what good does it do to obscure that you are _____ other than waste time?

I believe some gov’t rules are conceived with good intentions but in the end they don’t achieve anything meaningful. It's like the law where some employers have to post their openings (even when the slot is already filled), all it does is create false hope for the people applying for the (non-existent) job. Please, less gov't.

[Danger Zone]

If the employer doesn’t want to hire a _________, what good does it do to obscure that you are _____ other than waste time?

Couldn't agree more. I'd go a step further and say that employers should just make their standards more explicit right in the job announcement.

"No coloreds, please"

That would save time.

[Hipster but Athletic]

All companies could handle resumes with pictures on them by shredding the application, retaining the address, and promptly notifying the candidate of their no-photo policy informing them that their application has been discarded, and that they may choose to reapply.

But this isn't as big of a concern as yall are suggesting. Race is an outward characteristic observable without asking and there's not going to be a negative presumption. You'd think firms would need to bar names from applications (sex, origin, etc) if this was actually a big concern. Or ban including activities since 99% of black law students are in the black law society.

Obviously don't request the picture but don't freak out about it.

[Dafaq]

If the employer doesn’t want to hire a _________, what good does it do to obscure that you are _____ other than waste time?

Couldn't agree more. I'd go a step further and say that employers should just make their standards more explicit right in the job announcement.

"No coloreds, please"

That would save time.

Exactly. Just like the way V-10 law firms do when it comes to schools outside the T14. Thanks, but no thanks.

[Danger Zone]

If the employer doesn’t want to hire a _________, what good does it do to obscure that you are _____ other than waste time?

Couldn't agree more. I'd go a step further and say that employers should just make their standards more explicit right in the job announcement.

"No coloreds, please"

That would save time.

Exactly. Just like the way V-10 law firms do when it comes to schools outside the T14. Thanks, but no thanks.

You realize there's a fucking huge difference between discrimination based on race and that which is based on where you choose to go to law school, right? Please tell me you aren't actually this stupid.

Nony feel free to tell us that this is not the place to discuss so that I don't have to further engage this poster.

[A. Nony Mouse]

If the employer doesn’t want to hire a _________, what good does it do to obscure that you are _____ other than waste time?

I believe some gov’t rules are conceived with good intentions but in the end they don’t achieve anything meaningful. It's like the law where some employers have to post their openings (even when the slot is already filled), all it does is create false hope for the people applying for the (non-existent) job. Please, less gov't.

So if a company wants to break the law by discriminating on an impermissible basis, that's fine as long as they don't waste anyone's time?

And you miss my bigger point. Companies prefer not to receive resumes with pictures because (realistically or not) there's a concern it will subject them to more lawsuits. Employers are pretty risk averse about accusations of violating the law.

I don't think resumes with photos are any kind of significant problem, mind you, these are just the reasons why they're best avoided. As well as the fact that what you look like doesn't have anything to do with your qualifications for a legal job. (Whereas where you went to school might actually be related to your job qualifications.)

[Dafaq]

I state this in the nicest way I know, not a fan of wasting time. If the company is looking for a cute perky receptionist the last thing they want is someone who looks like a sourpuss. Who wants to waste their time and energy to attend a cattle call when they have no chance whatsoever? As you might suspect it can take a lot of time and effort to make it to the interview stage, so why go through that ordeal if there is something about your picture that would have saved you the aggravation?

One of my offered firm’s selling points is that we aim to prevent trouble. So yes, if a client (not associated with the entertainment business) asked, I would advise that a photo request is potentially problematic.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Funny, I thought we were talking about lawyer jobs, not cute perky receptionist jobs.

[Dafaq]

So if a company wants to break the law by discriminating ....Companies prefer not to receive....

And here I thought we were talking about companies.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Did you look at the thread title, which states it's about OCI Recruitment?

[Hipster but Athletic]

Did you look at the thread title, which states it's about OCI Recruitment?

Are you being willfully obtuse? The subject now is the proper boundaries of a job application and potential title vii implications. It appears pretty clear that noone here actually understands employee selection laws and guidelines, and is therefore trying some weird jiu jitsu form of arguing, but if anyone's interested, here is a start:
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/letters/2 ... video.html

[Danger Zone]

Did you look at the thread title, which states it's about OCI Recruitment?

Are you being willfully obtuse? The subject now is the proper boundaries of a job application and potential title vii implications. It appears pretty clear that noone here actually understands employee selection laws and guidelines, and is therefore trying some weird jiu jitsu form of arguing, but if anyone's interested, here is a start:
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/letters/2 ... video.html

I know I should never take you seriously, but this link says exactly what Nony and I have been saying:

Under Title VII, it is not illegal for an employer to learn the race, gender or ethnicity of an individual prior to an interview. Of course, Title VII requires that all individuals be provided equal, nondiscriminatory treatment throughout the hiring process. If an employer representative observes a job seeker in a video clip, and either learns or surmises the person's gender, race, or ethnicity, such knowledge could increase the risk of discrimination or the appearance of discrimination. Employers need to take care in training hiring officials and human resources staff about the appropriate responses when gender, race, or ethnicity are disclosed during recruitment. Video clips might be analogized to information on a resume that clearly tells an individual's race, such as, "President, Black Law Students Association." In this situation, as with the video clip, the employer needs to focus on the person's qualifications for the job.

[Hipster but Athletic]

You've been saying it in a weird tone. And I skimmed nony's last post --missed her final disclaimer, focusing on the breaking the law shit. My point is that yall need to chill. The weirdest part was nony playing "i'm talking about lawyers not receptionists"

[Danger Zone]

I'm curious about what POTUS2044 just posted and then deleted ITT.