How to explain lack of law review/journal during OCI Forum

[NYAssociate]

.

[bedbathandbeheadings]

Just be blunt--tell them you didn't make law review and having to settle with a secondary journal would be beneath you.

[CanadianWolf]

@NYAssociate:
But this issue concerns one who specifically applied for a journal or journals and was rejected. Did you apply for law review or a secondary journal ?

Of course, much depends upon the specific question asked, if asked at all.

If you interview associate applicants, how do you feel about evasive answers ?

Sunday morning political talk shows are full of politicians acknowledging the question asked & then addressing a matter contained in their talking points. Some do it better than others, but it is still obvious that their redirection of the interviewer's question is an avoidance tactic.

[270910]

You have to honestly address your weaknesses, but it is not dishonest to put a positive spin on things. When the interviewer asks "why didn't you make a journal?" they don't actually want to know why you didn't make a journal. They KNOW why. They're asking: "what else are you going to do?" So just say that: I wasn't selected for a journal but plan to work on my writing skills during the year by XYZ.

180. /thread.

[CanadianWolf]

If an interviewer asks a question that specific, they want an answer to that question. Ignore or evade an interviewer's specific question(s) and it is 180 / interview.

[rayiner]

If an interviewer asks a question that specific, they want an answer to that question. Ignore or evade an interviewer's specific question(s) and it is 180 / interview.

I'm not suggesting evading the question. I'm saying there is more to the question than just what is being plainly asked. Interviewers will assume that the reason you didn't list a journal is that you didn't make one, either bc of grades or writing competiton. They know how journals work, they were law students too. They ask the question to give you an opportunity to either rebut the presumption (I want to be a litigator so I did moot court instead) or to redeem yourself a bit (I didn't make a journal but I'll work on my writing in other ways).

You cannot just affirm the assumption and leave it at that! It shows you are not proactive in addressing weaknesses. Which is also one thing the employer wants to know when he asks this question: are you just lazy?

Don't think that interviewers want to know exactly what they ask. That's not how interviews work. Every question is really and indirect way of asking:

1) Are you smart and diligent?
2) Do you want to work for us?
3) Do you know what you're getting into?
4) Are you socially tolerable?

Your analogy about politicians evading questions is misleading. There, the interviewer is interested in facts. In a job interview, the interviewer is entirely uninterested in facts. The facts are plainly on your resume. The interviewer is interested in your personality and your reactions. I used to interview engineers, and whenever I would ask a question like: "tell me about your work on X" I was never interested in X. Rather, what I really meant was "how much are you puffing your resume when you say you worked on X and how much do you really know about the technology involved in X?"

[CanadianWolf]

I never wrote that the answer should be handled as a closed ended question. I assume that law school students are wise enough to know that they can expound upon their answers. But a specific direct question deserves an honest & direct response.
What you seek in an interview is not necessarily what others are thinking. If you believe that an interviewer's specifically tailored direct question to you should be treated as an open ended question where the applicant is free to respond in a non-direct , evasive or topic switching fashion, then we disagree.
Politicians training to avoid questions is right on target. Political interviews are largely concerned with opinions, although factual issues are also addressed and often avoided.
This situation arises often when arguing before appellate courts. Ignore a judge's direct question & see how successful your appeal is. And yes, appellate litigators know how to "get back on track" if permitted by the judges, although many appellate arguments do not go as planned & end up addressing judges' direct questions for the full amount of alloted time.
Reread your final paragraph in your post above mine, do you really believe what you wrote ?

[rayiner]

I never wrote that the answer should be handled as a closed ended question. I assume that law school students are wise enough to know that they can expound upon their answers. But a specific direct question deserves an honest & direct response.
What you seek in an interview is not necessarily what others are thinking. If you believe that an interviewer's specifically tailored direct question to you should be treated as an open ended question where the applicant is free to respond in a non-direct , evasive or topic switching fashion, then we disagree.

When an interviewer asks why you aren't on a journal, none are interested in your guess as to why you weren't selected. What possible useful answer could they get? "My writing competition entry sucked?" "My grades aren't good enough?" "My top choice was very popular?" The answer they EXPECT is for you to acknowledge you weren't selected and then talk about the ACTUAL TOPIC OF THE QUESTION: what are you going to do about it?

[CanadianWolf]

This is getting to a point where we just need to agree to disagree. If a potential employer asks a specific "why" question, then it is safe, reasonable & respectful to address that specific question before redirecting the answer.
After you handle a few oral arguments before appellate courts your opinion may change. Or you may change departments in your law firm.
P.S. Capitalizing & bolding phrases does not help your argument.

[seespotrun]

This is getting to a point where we just need to agree to disagree. If a potential employer asks a specific "why" question, then it is safe, reasonable & respectful to address that specific question before redirecting the answer.
After you handle a few oral arguments before appellate courts your opinion may change. Or you may change departments in your law firm.
P.S. Capitalizing & bolding phrases does not help your argument.

ITT: CanadianWolf continues to lose arguments and continues to remind us that he is a practicing attorney.

[bigben]

Grades too low; sucked at writing comp; didn't feel like doing it

[thuggishruggishbone]

ask a secondary to accept you as a member-you're above median, so this should not be an issue

[bwv812]

.