Hey -
Not to get ahead of myself, but my understanding is that most honors program slots don't actually open until the next fiscal year (i.e., October 2016 for hiring in this cycle). All the eligibility guidelines seem to be framed in terms of eligibility to apply rather than eligibility to start work. In order to apply, my current eligible gig must last into December of this year, which it does, and I need to be available for work sometime in 2016, which I am.
Can I do anything I want between December 2015 and the time I would start work? That's the way I read it - does anyone have reliable information confirming or denying?
Preserving Honors Program Eligibility After Hiring Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
-
Absconder
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 11:51 am
-
A. Nony Mouse
- Posts: 29293
- Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am
Re: Preserving Honors Program Eligibility After Hiring
I don't have any reliable info otherwise. The language about not being able to take breaks longer than 120 days between eligibility-preserving activities gives me some pause, but it's obviously not a clear bar. My impression was just that the intent was for people not to work as attorneys before entering the honors program. So your reading is perfectly reasonable, but I would confirm that with DOJ before relying on it.
