Top Law Schools

I've had quite a few callbacks and no offer.

It's doesn't make sense to me because people are either good interviewers or they are not.

If I were a good interviewer, I would have offers.

If I were a bad interviewer, I would not have callbacks.

Therefore, it doesn't make sense that I have lots of callbacks and no offers.

Note: I have had ~10 callbacks.

Not true; you can get a callback based primarily on your grades and having a pulse. Callbacks themselves are much more about enthusiasm, knowledge of the firm, and fit.

Anonymous User wrote:Not true; you can get a callback based primarily on your grades and having a pulse. Callbacks themselves are much more about enthusiasm, knowledge of the firm, and fit.

OP Here.

What's the point of the screening interview then?

Sigh, I know what you mean. 6 CBs done so far, one left to go, and nothing to show for it (well, nothing but a single rejection letter, but given that others from my school have offers from some of my pending firms, I think it's safe to assume that many more dings will be coming).

Just seems like so much wasted time and energy...

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Not true; you can get a callback based primarily on your grades and having a pulse. Callbacks themselves are much more about enthusiasm, knowledge of the firm, and fit.

OP Here.

What's the point of the screening interview then?

Quite a few people think that the screening interview is little more than a transcript dump.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Not true; you can get a callback based primarily on your grades and having a pulse. Callbacks themselves are much more about enthusiasm, knowledge of the firm, and fit.

OP Here.

What's the point of the screening interview then?

For the most part, screening interviews are for publicity and formality. They already know 90% of the ppl they'll offer callbacks to before the interview begins. It's also used to gather updated resumes, and to see if you have extraordinary situation that can't easily be explained on a resume.

Screening interviews don't matter unless there's something extraordinary. So if you are an extraordinarily bad interviewer, you might not get past the screening stage. If you're only a bad interviewer (as you said), then you'd still get past the screener.

Maybe it's because I'm at UVA (PRESCREENING) but I felt like my screening interviewers were definitely assessing fit/personality because at least 50% of their interviewees were satisfactory on paper. And I only recall one or two firms that seemingly just called back the people with the best GPAs.

I don't buy the rationale that screening interviews mean nothing. A firm would not spend hundreds of dollars and, more importantly, many hours of time that could be spend billing to callback someone that the screener does not view as at least potentially a good fit. Also, if the screener sends someone out to headquarters that is an ass, socially inept, etc, it makes them look bad.

Could just be my wishful thinking though. 9 CBs, 5 dings, 4 outstanding.

to callback someone that the screener does not view as at least potentially a good fit.

Why would they trust a screener who spends only 20 minutes talking to you to be a precise judge on your fit? Giving the screener too much weight would result in a large margin of error simply because the candidates can't be evaluated thoroughly enough. That's why I don't think screeners have an influence unless there's something unusual (and this doesn't mean that they mean "nothing").