Phil Brooks wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:
Second, your attitude you displayed here might have come off in the interview. You have to understand that the vast majority of people in law school come from well off backgrounds. They didn't have to worry about making ends meet, or working shitty jobs, or anything like that. Their "hard work" was the prep class for the ACT and LSAT, or some unpaid internship at a nonprofit they got to enjoy because, "like, I totes already got money so why not help those poor people. Totes looks great on the resume." I once overheard a girl at my law school complaining how she forgot to bring the right shoes on her recent trip to Belize and almost died from trying to figure out logistically how she would meet up with her parents back in the U.S. because they were coming in from the virgin islands a day later. She. Totes. Almost. Died. Man! So people from this type of background, probably the same ones you're complaining about on your law review, are the norm in the legal profession. And, as I've realized, no matter how much better you are than them at legal research and writing, grades, law review, hard work, etc., you won't succeed unless you pretend to like them and be like them. That means learning stupid follow up questions or phrases like, "Oh wow! Tell me more about your ski trip to aspen." Or, " I'm sorry to hear that. I also can't stand it when I reserve a Tee time on the golf course but my assistant has to take a sick day so I can't go." You already likely don't have these experiences to start with so you can't share any of your own, so if you don't get used to being "interested" in their experiences, then you'll be the silent weirdo in convos who has nothing to contribute and is awkward working with. So put on that fake ass overly professional, oh-this-old-thing-I-got-while-backpacking-through-europe? facade and go get yourself a firm job!
Yeah, I wondered how much that fact played in, I do not have a lot of experience in the well-heeled set, and the fit issue probably killed me, not being in the same age/life experience group as the other interviewees. I think sometimes I let the class issue get in my head too much, like I was striving too hard to make myself into something I am not.
Maybe the stars of prestige and big salary got in my eyes and that showed up in my interviews, I was too eager to show that, given the opportunity, I could play in the land of BMW's and Vineyard Vines.
I am going to keep digging and hustling. Hopefully, I can find my "thing" out there where I can do good work, do it reasonably well, and not desire to claw my eyeballs out every other day.
It's not everyday I feel crappy about stuff, usually just when more law review drudgery pops up. For some reason, law review "triggers" all my class insecurities. I am sure everyone can see my (metaphorical) red neck no matter how nice my suit is.
There are a lot of spoiled people in law
school, but this idea that law
firms harbor and act on an insurmountable bias against poor students is called into question by the facts that 1) someone who has a full scholarship listed on their resume is more likely to get hired, 2) so many young associates in biglaw (including the ones who conduct screener interviews) are there only in order to pay off loans, and 3) the entire interview process, which includes the firm paying for the interviewee's travel, accommodations, and meals, is designed to cater to students who do not have money.
I went through around 20 biglaw interviews and none of them consisted of swapping obnoxious anecdotes about luxurious life experiences. Did any of yours?
OP, I think it is more likely that the bolded was the problem. When you were asked why you wanted to work for a big firm or for biglaw firm X, did you mention just the salary? What reason did you give?
This is the poster who posted the original quote in this chain.
Now I agree that it is likely due to OP overcompensating and trying to show he can play in "the land of BMWs and Vinyard Vines." You can't be a Wolf of Wallstreet dick. Period.
What I meant in my original post is that a lot of law students and therefore a lot of lawyers in big firms come from well off backgrounds and have thereby been largely conditioned to see the world in a particular way, including through explicit and implicit class biases, and have been accustomed to a particular lifestyle that, through their upbringing and biases, they usually assume everyone else also had. So when they're talkin about their fancy stuff, they do it casually because it's the norm for them. They don't intentionally throw it out there like a Wolf of Wallstreet type. So, essentially, don't try too hard. Show interest and act like the norm is being well off, but don't brag about it, or care too much. Just have regular convos about their experiences even though you might not have much interest. Remember, well off people who can't tell they're privileged like to enjoy their privilege and not have it made into a caricature or something negative.
This also doesn't mean you shouldn't talk about your own background or interests. You should, and coming from a disadvantaged background can be seen as a plus. Of course, make sure you watch when and how you talk about it. During interviews, keep it general and short. It should be enough to let them generally know you overcame challenges, and not so specific that it makes them uncomfortable. Something like, "I grew up in X neighborhood, which is a working-class neighborhood in Y state. My family worked with very little money and I worked to help them make ends meet. So I've learned to work hard and" tie it into how you're a work horse and can put in the hours or some benefit you can give the firm. BUT something like the following is definitely a no: "I grew up poor. My family was on food stamps and we were dealing with evictions. I worked construction to make sure everything was ok." This will almost instantly disqualify you.
The same goes for when you're at the office. Keep it general and quick. Once you start getting to know someone more closely, you can start peeling back the layers and reveal a bit more and more while the friendship gets stronger.
I say this because of the same reason why one of the earlier poster's comments that you won't be discriminated against cause of your background is false. You will be discriminated against for growing up poor or working-class. The idea that lawyers have debt so class doesn't matter logic is stupid, even stupider than saying they don't discriminate because they pay for your travels and the lawyers interviewing have debt. Just cause you got debt now doesn't mean you didn't grow up well off. Just cause you might have money now doesn't mean you didn't grow up poor or working class. Your past isn't erased easily like writing on a whiteboard. Your whole existence and view of your surroundings and everything has been conditioned by your environments growing up. So again, having a little debt won't make the hiring lawyer think being on welfare or working construction or any specific thing you did that separates you from their experiences growing up is normal or ok. It just triggers negative stereotypical associations or disassociations, like, as just examples, construction doesn't work well with being a lawyer, or being on welfare/struggling with finances associates with not being good with money or responsibility. They make these quick assumptions whether they want to, explicitly, or not, implicitly.
But people generally like an underdog and overcoming challenges so keeping it general to trigger that is good, but not specific enough to trigger the classism.
