Keep failing every single interview Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hi all,

I'm in about the top 30% at CCN (grades are quite inconsistent due to things like illness and bereavement). Getting interviews has been okay, with a spread from V5 to V50 (more clustered around the lower end of that range). But I haven't been able to get past the final round and sometimes not even the first round for any one. For some of those interviews, it was completely my fault due to nerves and then for others, even when I think it's gone perfectly, I get rejected. I ended up taking an offer to work in a HK office, where I was able to interview successfully. It makes me wonder if there's some sort of fit issue on top of everything, since there's a contrast to how my interviews turn out depending on jurisdiction/office location.

My interviews seem to fall in two broad categories: ones where I feel like they haven't gone well, e.g. haven't answered the question well, didn't feel any connection with the interviewer - and the feeling is accurate and then ones where I feel confident - and then get rejected. I'm just confused and would really appreciate any insight into what is going wrong across the board. I'm at the point where I'm wondering if I'm sending unconscious signals that say 'don't hire me' or if it's just a case of not standing out. It's frustrating to be seemingly so bad at something crucial and not know how to improve.

[hichvichwoh]

have you done a mock interview with OCS? one obstacle to improving your interviewing skills is that an employer isn't going to offer any sort of critique.

[Anonymous User]

I've had a mock interview and the feedback that Careers gave me was pretty generic and touched upon things that were related to nerves like speak slowly, be more clear. Which then doesn't explain what happens when I feel confident and get rejected. Perhaps has something to do with what I'm saying and how I answer the questions?

I talked to a friend who has the opposite situation (has a harder time getting interviews but generally aces the ones he does get) and he said that he usually tries to play up his personality in interviews. I guess normally I can be a little quiet but I really do enjoy talking to people. I go into the interview just prepared to discuss and answer questions, but should I be approaching it in a more calculated way? I do prepare beforehand but I feel like it's not much use, or maybe I'm preparing the wrong way.

[09042014]

You've probably just got a bad personality. Work on it.

[hichvichwoh]

at my school's OCI, two different hiring partners said that their number-one turn off in an interview is if they feel the student is hiding their personality, so that supports what your friend is saying. If I had to guess I would bet that the problem is not with the content of any of your answers, rather its your inability to put your personality on display. The traditional wisdom about interviews is largely correct: you've gotten the interview because your credentials on paper are good enough, now they want to know about personality and fit. Preparation can only give you talking points or help you avoid the obvious pitfall of getting stumped by a softball question, but it won't help you make a good impression.

[hichvichwoh]

You've probably just got a bad personality. Work on it.

if OP really has been getting a lot of interviews I think it's more likely that he/she hasn't been able to play up personality at all rather than actually being incompatible with everyone,.

[09042014]

You've probably just got a bad personality. Work on it.

if OP really has been getting a lot of interviews I think it's more likely that he/she hasn't been able to play up personality at all rather than actually being incompatible with everyone,.

He's getting interviews because he's top 30% at CCN.

[banjo]

OP, what year are you?

[El Pollito]

You've probably just got a bad personality. Work on it.

if OP really has been getting a lot of interviews I think it's more likely that he/she hasn't been able to play up personality at all rather than actually being incompatible with everyone,.

He's getting interviews because he's top 30% at CCN.

Yup.

[hichvichwoh]

You've probably just got a bad personality. Work on it.

if OP really has been getting a lot of interviews I think it's more likely that he/she hasn't been able to play up personality at all rather than actually being incompatible with everyone,.

He's getting interviews because he's top 30% at CCN.

Yup.

I was being unclear. if he's going through lots of interviews, I think it's more likely that he's being rejected for being completely unable to display any personality rather than for having a personality that is incompatible with every person he has met, because if it were simply a compatibility issue than having lots of interviews means you should eventually click with someone.

[El Pollito]

you misunderstand my point. if he's going through lots of interviews, I think it's more likely that he's being rejected for being completely unable to display any personality rather than for having a personality that is incompatible with every person he has met, because if it were simply a compatibility issue than having lots of interviews means you should eventually click with someone.

It's not hard to get through a screener with decent grades at CCN.

[hichvichwoh]

you misunderstand my point. if he's going through lots of interviews, I think it's more likely that he's being rejected for being completely unable to display any personality rather than for having a personality that is incompatible with every person he has met, because if it were simply a compatibility issue than having lots of interviews means you should eventually click with someone.

It's not hard to get through a screener with decent grades at CCN.

OP mentioned final rounds as well as screeners, so I don't think that's what we're dealing with, but honestly it's just speculation without doing a mock interview of OP ourselves

[Anonymous User]

OP here. Thanks guys for all the replies.

I'm a 3L now. I applied to the one firm that said it was taking on 3Ls at OCI but I haven't heard back yet. If not, it looks I'll be packing my bags and uprooting my whole life for HK...

For personality (I'm a girl btw), I know that I'm naturally a bit shy. I come from quite a liberal arts background and always tried to distance myself from the gunners at law school. On the other hand, I truly do enjoy commercial law and am prepared for BigLaw. In one of the rare instances of feedback that I've gotten (where I failed at the final round because of flubbing a section of the interview but passed quite cleanly through the second round), I was told that I came across as very intelligent, well spoken, with a clear understanding of what working in law involved.

I mean, one thing may be that I'm coming across as too academic? Is that a negative? I really like to talk about legal issues and legal theory...but thought that was a good thing, to show interest in the work. Also, I've heard stories where people say they end up talking to their interviewer about random things like football or a particular news item - and generally, after that, they get the offer. I've never really had that happen to me, and often my interviews feel like question-answer-question-answer, with additional comments and observations from both me and the interviewers. But I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to draw it into more of a conversation....

The only other thing that strikes me, which I mentioned: I guess HK really likes my type of credentials because I couldn't seem to do a thing wrong for the interviews. I got callbacks within hours and an offer even when I was only turning up for the interview because I'd already decided to accept elsewhere......and then contrast that to stateside where it's a complete desert.

I guess this is one of the harder things to diagnose. Is there anyone that would be good to ask for their opinion? Have tried Careers, have asked friends.

[Anonymous User]

Do you have any mentors you could ask? I kept getting very close to getting an offer, but in the end, being the firm's second choice. One of my mentors told me to be more purposeful about answering questions. He said that I should leave interviewers feeling slightly surprised, in a good way, after I left the room. By that he meant that naturally I was personable, confident, and competent, but that interviewers were coming away thinking: That's exactly what I expected from her, which is not what will make me stand out when competition is tough. I tried being more purposeful about my interviewing after he gave me that advice and within two interviews, I had an offer.

I say all of this to say that perhaps your issue is the same as mine and you need to direct the flow of the conversation a bit more, as much as you can. Or, perhaps, your issue is something else and someone who knows his/her shit and who knows you well can be the person to diagnose the problem.

[loanthrowaway]

Can original OP PM me regarding HK callbacks? much appreciated.

[Tuxedo]

OP,

FWIW, I feel like Susan Cain's book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can't Stop Talking may be helpful. Cain was a Harvard Law grad but also pretty profoundly introverted. I have appreciated a number of her insights even though I'm not close to the kinds of challenges you're facing (0L, considering a retake break).

She also has a TED talk that you might want to watch while you wait for the book to arrive.

[hichvichwoh]

OP here. Thanks guys for all the replies.

I'm a 3L now. I applied to the one firm that said it was taking on 3Ls at OCI but I haven't heard back yet. If not, it looks I'll be packing my bags and uprooting my whole life for HK...

For personality (I'm a girl btw), I know that I'm naturally a bit shy. I come from quite a liberal arts background and always tried to distance myself from the gunners at law school. On the other hand, I truly do enjoy commercial law and am prepared for BigLaw. In one of the rare instances of feedback that I've gotten (where I failed at the final round because of flubbing a section of the interview but passed quite cleanly through the second round), I was told that I came across as very intelligent, well spoken, with a clear understanding of what working in law involved.

I mean, one thing may be that I'm coming across as too academic? Is that a negative? I really like to talk about legal issues and legal theory...but thought that was a good thing, to show interest in the work. Also, I've heard stories where people say they end up talking to their interviewer about random things like football or a particular news item - and generally, after that, they get the offer. I've never really had that happen to me, and often my interviews feel like question-answer-question-answer, with additional comments and observations from both me and the interviewers. But I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to draw it into more of a conversation....

The only other thing that strikes me, which I mentioned: I guess HK really likes my type of credentials because I couldn't seem to do a thing wrong for the interviews. I got callbacks within hours and an offer even when I was only turning up for the interview because I'd already decided to accept elsewhere......and then contrast that to stateside where it's a complete desert.

I guess this is one of the harder things to diagnose. Is there anyone that would be good to ask for their opinion? Have tried Careers, have asked friends.

do you have any professors who came over from private practice? the most helpful interviewing session I ever had was with a professor who left private practice a few years prior and basically told me how to get hired at his old firm.

[m079]

There's a popular thread in this forum consisting of Q&As with a V15 interviewer. One thing he said that made an impression on me and helped me succeed in my interviews was that once you get a screener based on resume/grades, they've already decided you've met the standards there. Now, it's about whether you're someone they want to work with at the firm. The V15 interviewer basically said you need to be CHARMING.

To do this, I really played up my personality. I'm generally introverted and not very funny, except around certain of my best friends. For the few days up to and through the interview, I imagined going through the interview with that version of myself. For me, I can be very expressive with facial expressions and hand motions, which have the effect of being more engaging and dynamic (as long as its not excessive to the point that its noticeable.) That is to say, I don't just sit in the chair with my hands folded across my lap and talk quietly and answer questions politely.

When someone asks you a question (why do you want to practice X/ why do you want to be in this city/etc.), bring a personal touch to everything. (Something that would typically be preceded by "actually it's funny that you ask because [memorable anecdote that speaks to your humor/work ethic/interesting hobbies]."

I've also been advised by my career counselor that for the above reasons, you should NOT try to talk about the law in an academic sense. First, the interview is about your personality. Many interviewers say they know WITHIN THE FIRST FEW MINUTES whether they're going to call back a candidate or not. Second, because no matter how much you think you know, you're only a law school student, so you may get something wrong and/or will usually fall short of being truly impressive.

These strategies proved very successful for me. Hope they will for you, too

[North]

There's a popular thread in this forum consisting of Q&As with a V15 interviewer. One thing he said that made an impression on me and helped me succeed in my interviews was that once you get a screener based on resume/grades, they've already decided you've met the standards there. Now, it's about whether you're someone they want to work with at the firm. The V15 interviewer basically said you need to be CHARMING.

To do this, I really played up my personality. I'm generally introverted and not very funny, except around certain of my best friends. For the few days up to and through the interview, I imagined going through the interview with that version of myself. For me, I can be very expressive with facial expressions and hand motions, which have the effect of being more engaging and dynamic (as long as its not excessive to the point that its noticeable.) That is to say, I don't just sit in the chair with my hands folded across my lap and talk quietly and answer questions politely.

When someone asks you a question (why do you want to practice X/ why do you want to be in this city/etc.), bring a personal touch to everything. (Something that would typically be preceded by "actually it's funny that you ask because [memorable anecdote that speaks to your humor/work ethic/interesting hobbies]."

I've also been advised by my career counselor that for the above reasons, you should NOT try to talk about the law in an academic sense. First, the interview is about your personality. Many interviewers say they know WITHIN THE FIRST FEW MINUTES whether they're going to call back a candidate or not. Second, because no matter how much you think you know, you're only a law school student, so you may get something wrong and/or will usually fall short of being truly impressive.

These strategies proved very successful for me. Hope they will for you, too

TY for this post bro, helpful for me.

[kykiske]

There's a popular thread in this forum consisting of Q&As with a V15 interviewer. One thing he said that made an impression on me and helped me succeed in my interviews was that once you get a screener based on resume/grades, they've already decided you've met the standards there. Now, it's about whether you're someone they want to work with at the firm. The V15 interviewer basically said you need to be CHARMING.

To do this, I really played up my personality. I'm generally introverted and not very funny, except around certain of my best friends. For the few days up to and through the interview, I imagined going through the interview with that version of myself. For me, I can be very expressive with facial expressions and hand motions, which have the effect of being more engaging and dynamic (as long as its not excessive to the point that its noticeable.) That is to say, I don't just sit in the chair with my hands folded across my lap and talk quietly and answer questions politely.

When someone asks you a question (why do you want to practice X/ why do you want to be in this city/etc.), bring a personal touch to everything. (Something that would typically be preceded by "actually it's funny that you ask because [memorable anecdote that speaks to your humor/work ethic/interesting hobbies]."

I've also been advised by my career counselor that for the above reasons, you should NOT try to talk about the law in an academic sense. First, the interview is about your personality. Many interviewers say they know WITHIN THE FIRST FEW MINUTES whether they're going to call back a candidate or not. Second, because no matter how much you think you know, you're only a law school student, so you may get something wrong and/or will usually fall short of being truly impressive.

These strategies proved very successful for me. Hope they will for you, too

This post is very accurate, in my book.

I find that you have to be very cognizant of what you say in response to a question, and how you respond to that question.

Here's what I mean--

Question: Why are you interested in our firm, above the other firms in this market?

Candidate A: Sits with his/her shoulders shrugged. Does not make eye contact with the interviewer. Does not project; his/her voice comes off as soft, meek, and dull. Sits like a statute while responding.

Candidate B: Sits straight. Flashes confident and genuine smiles, while maintaining excellent eye contact with the interviewer. Before answering any question, relates the question to an anecdote in his/her life. Projects while answering. Uses his/her hands while talking as a way to show contrast and depth about what he/she is saying.

As an interviewer, it's easy to pick your favorite between A & B. Just take it out of the job-interviewing process for a moment. When you're watching politicians speak it's almost natural to gravitate towards the ones who have the same traits as Candidate B.

Hell, just think about when you're at a bar. The confident and charming guy/girl is more likely to get a phone number over the meek and dull person.

It's a cliche, but your body language is key to success in an interview. It may be tiring to constantly watch your every bodily movement during an interview, but if it makes a difference between an offer and no offer, then it's well worth it.

Hope this helps!

[worldtraveler]

Perhaps I missed it, but is heading to HK really a bad outcome?

[A. Nony Mouse]

OP, one thing I thought about, reading your post, is that it's actually hard to take "feeling good" about an interview as a sign that you've done well. A lot of times how good someone feels coming out of interviews is about what the interviewer was like, what kind of person they are and how they've treated the interviewee. Some interviewers are just outgoing, friendly people who want to make an interviewee feel good even if they're not really interested in hiring you; others want to rake you over the coals even if they think you're a superb candidate. But just because an interviewer is nice and has a good conversation with you and makes you feel like the interview went well doesn't mean that they're actually evaluating you highly - it may just be that they're the kind of person who likes talking to people and making other people comfortable and can find something to talk about with anyone.

I bring this up just because you expressed confusion about how interviews where you felt confident and interviews where you didn't had the same results, and I'm of the school of thought that while you can sort of tell how well you did (you were prepared for the questions, you had answers you were pleased with for the various questions, you made the points about your candidacy that you wanted to make, etc.), you can't ever tell what the interviewer thought. Because from the outside, you never know what the interviewer really wants or how other applicants did, or what. You could give the best interview you've ever given in your life, but if everyone else applying interviews well, and some of them go to the right school/have better grades/have WE in the right field/are related to the right people in ways that you don't, they'll likely get the job over you. (It's also possible to have what feels like a not-very-good interview, and get the job, for similar reasons.)

This is a little tangential from thinking about how to interview better (and I think the advice so far has been good), but I just wanted to mention it, because of the confusion you expressed.

[BigRob]

Marry a man. Bring it up on interviews, and ask if their firm has a problem with it. Enjoy 100% offer rate.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Marry a man. Bring it up on interviews, and ask if their firm has a problem with it. Enjoy 100% offer rate.

Dude, not remotely helpful in the on topics. Also (since OP is a woman) just pretty much wrong.

[Anonymous User]

Original OP here.

Thanks for all the replies (especially m079, great advice and kykiske), it's great to just to feel the support. Looking back at everything, I can see that I was probably too naive about the whole process and having a personality that leans towards the thoughtful and reserved side of the spectrum didn't help. I came straight out of undergrad where my WE was mainly research or teaching based so wasn't experienced at all. Although I did try to be engaging and expressive during the interviews, I didn't try to consciously sell myself. If I do get another chance, I'll definitely be reworking the way I approach interviews from the ground up.

I tried being more purposeful about my interviewing after he gave me that advice and within two interviews, I had an offer

Anon, this sounds really useful. Could you expand a bit on what it means to be 'purposeful'? I tried to direct the conversation more in one of my interviews, e.g. ask questions in response, draw out the conversation but it apparently didn't make too much difference. Is there a risk of 'sidetracking' the interview if you keep going back and forth with the interviewer on one point?

Perhaps I missed it, but is heading to HK really a bad outcome?

HK isn't bad per se. But the feeling that I got was that there was an expectation that you would spend the rest of your career in HK and it didn't seem that common for people to transfer or lateral out of HK. But I'm not sure if I ultimately want to settle in HK, especially as I don't have any family and few friends in HK.