No Offered vs. Striking Out Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm kind of curious about how the people think of these two sub optimal situations.

Essentially is the person who was no offered in a better position because they can speak to working in a firm/someone liked them first go around? Or will being no offered be seen as a giant red flag while striking out (assuming grades are fine) can be seen as just an unfortunate outcome in a tough job market?

[paulinaporizkova]

I'd rather just strike out

[09042014]

I'm kind of curious about how the people think of these two sub optimal situations.

Essentially is the person who was no offered in a better position because they can speak to working in a firm/someone liked them first go around? Or will being no offered be seen as a giant red flag while striking out (assuming grades are fine) can be seen as just an unfortunate outcome in a tough job market?

I'd imagine the latter, unless they were at a firm that basically no offered everyone. The former never really had a chance, but the latter had one and people didn't like their work/personality.

[kalvano]

Definititely strike out. That means the job market is tough and you were unlucky. No offer means you had a shot and you weren't good enough (typically).

[EllaLemry]

At the end of the day, if 90% of my SA class got offers and I didn't, I would rather have struck out during OCI.

As a caveat, firms don't generally see a strong upward grade trend the way your UG saw your high school transcript. So, I'd think of it more as a second at bat than a completely different ball game.

So, typically, there's more stigma surrounding a no-offered summer SA than someone who didn't get a SA gig.

Finally, I don't know much about it, but people have mentioned requesting a "cold offer" if you get no-offered. Apparently, some firms will say they gave you an offer even if they didn't (though of course, you can't accept the cold offer). Other people know more about that, I'm sure.

[IAFG]

I'm kind of curious about how the people think of these two sub optimal situations.

Essentially is the person who was no offered in a better position because they can speak to working in a firm/someone liked them first go around? Or will being no offered be seen as a giant red flag while striking out (assuming grades are fine) can be seen as just an unfortunate outcome in a tough job market?

I'd imagine the latter, unless they were at a firm that basically no offered everyone. The former never really had a chance, but the latter had one and people didn't like their work/personality.

I understand why you say that, but more people seem to overcome no offers than striking out. Then again, the subset of people who never found a job may just have less hustle than the subset who did

[EllaLemry]

Definititely strike out. That means the job market is tough and you were unlucky. No offer means you had a shot and you weren't good enough (typically).

I agree with this, but if you had good grades it might reflect poor interview prep, poor interviewing skills, etc.

However, I 100% agree that another firm is going to accept the fact that you might have gone from a bad 20-minute interviewer to a good 20-minute interviewer way faster than they'd ever accept the idea of hiring someone who got no-offered somewhere offers were at or around 90%.

Same is true for mass layoffs vs. stealth layoffs or legit layoffs/firings.

If you're writing this because you're worried about OCI, yes it's stressful but that kid you know who got no offered is likely worse off than you are even if he summered at a V10. If you got no offered, try the cold offer thing and keep your fingers crossed. If neither of these things has happened yet, calm the hell down.

[09042014]

Has any firm actually done the cold offer thing when asked. I see this advice literally all the time on TLS and I've never seen it actually work.

[Gorki]

Has any firm actually done the cold offer thing when asked. I see this advice literally all the time on TLS and I've never seen it actually work.

There was a thread going here where people who were no-offered actually showed up and became employees to the chagrin of the hiring partner or w/e... I think firms that do not want you at all will never take that risk and just no-offer you and forget you exist.

[09042014]

Has any firm actually done the cold offer thing when asked. I see this advice literally all the time on TLS and I've never seen it actually work.

There was a thread going here where people who were no-offered actually showed up and became employees to the chagrin of the hiring partner or w/e... I think firms that do not want you at all will never take that risk and just no-offer you and forget you exist.

Before the TLS echo room took a hold of it, cold offer meant you got an offer but were strongly encouraged to go somewhere else.

What TLS calls a cold offer is a fake offer. This is outright lying on their nalp forms.

[patentlaworbust]

Which option is worse depends more-so on the applicant and the target law firm in subsequent job-searching/interviewing.

Law firms understand that there could be a host of reasons why applicants are no-offered. There is one possibility that the summer associate class was just extremely competitive and 100% offers were never possibly to begin with. Another possibility is that the firm was not a good fit for the applicant (or vice versa) for personal or professional reasons. A third, and less desirable reason, could be that the applicant screwed something up or pissed somebody off. Etc.

If you get no-offered, you can bet that law firms you target in subsequent job interviews will question you about it. They will understandably be curious as to why you were no-offered. Notwithstanding which (if any) of the above possibilities applies, a smart applicant should be able to put a positive spin on the situation, address their question, ease tension surrounding it, and further communicate to the new target firm that you are the best person for this job because of reasons X, Y, and Z.

In sum, the experience working for the law firm can outweigh the non-offer if the applicant plays his/her cards right and depending on the perceptions of the target firm in this subsequent search/interview.

You will rarely if ever be questioned as to why you struck out. The worst part of being in this position is probably the blow it take to the applicant's confidence. Job-searching can be depressing work, and depending on how comprehensive and/or tiring the job search was during the first go-around, the thought that all those efforts were met with no success can be a huge mental obstacle for a second go-around. If the applicant can overcome these feelings and go all out again this year, this won't be too much of an issue.

[Anonymous User]

Has any firm actually done the cold offer thing when asked. I see this advice literally all the time on TLS and I've never seen it actually work.

There was a thread going here where people who were no-offered actually showed up and became employees to the chagrin of the hiring partner or w/e... I think firms that do not want you at all will never take that risk and just no-offer you and forget you exist.

Before the TLS echo room took a hold of it, cold offer meant you got an offer but were strongly encouraged to go somewhere else.

What TLS calls a cold offer is a fake offer. This is outright lying on their nalp forms.

I'm told by my CSO that a "soft offer" is a fake offer that can't be accepted and is just for NALP/3L OCI purposes and a "cold offer" is when you are encouraged to go elsewhere, but could still accept. At my final review, the firm was hesitent on if I would get an actual offer, so I approached a partner I was close to and asked if I could at least have a soft offer. He said he would guarantee they would at least give me a soft offer and then they ended up giving me a real offer.

[rayiner]

Theoretically or practically? Theoretically, there is more stigma attached to a no-offer. In practice, the people who get no-offered have better grades, more hustle, and some extra money in their pocket relative to people who struck out. I think statistically, folks in the latter camp tend to have better outcomes.

[MarkRenton]

I'm kind of curious about how the people think of these two sub optimal situations.

Essentially is the person who was no offered in a better position because they can speak to working in a firm/someone liked them first go around? Or will being no offered be seen as a giant red flag while striking out (assuming grades are fine) can be seen as just an unfortunate outcome in a tough job market?

I'd imagine the latter, unless they were at a firm that basically no offered everyone. The former never really had a chance, but the latter had one and people didn't like their work/personality.

I understand why you say that, but more people seem to overcome no offers than striking out. Then again, the subset of people who never found a job may just have less hustle than the subset who did

I agree with this. From my observations, many of those who struck out were not that "unlucky" as much as they were poor interviewees. With a few people in mind, this will probably hamper their careers for the foreseeable future. No-offered is definitely the bigger handicap, however, many of those who were no-offered at least seem to have the skills to sit in a room and convince potential employers that they should be hired. Some of my friends who struck out have incredible problems with this necessary trait.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Striking out is probably worse, if you're trying to decide which to do, but I'd strive to avoid either outcome, personally. 

[goodolgil]

No way is striking out worse when you consider making $30k for a summer vs. working for free.

[sunynp]

Striking out is worse. If you are no offered you probably still made some contacts who will give good references about your work. If you strike out, you have no big law partners or associates to help you out.

[keg411]

Theoretically or practically? Theoretically, there is more stigma attached to a no-offer. In practice, the people who get no-offered have better grades, more hustle, and some extra money in their pocket relative to people who struck out. I think statistically, folks in the latter camp tend to have better outcomes.

From the limited amount I've seen, I'd generally agree with this. Though there are so many other factors (school, GPA, experiences outside of law school, connections, etc.) that it's hard to say.