Mistake to say I'm looking at other cities? Forum

[Vincent Adultman]

I'm a year off from OCI, but how does this work for those going to school in NY who are wanting to target non-NY markets? I feel like the lie would be even more obvious

Apparently you're just supposed to "lie anyway" with blatant disregard for how it comes off.

You can be true to yourself and be unemployed, or you can abide by the rules of a dumb game. The choice is yours.

[Anonymous User]

I conduct on campus interviews at my firm and ask the question in almost every interview. I think it's fine to say that you are looking in a couple cities/states though the max I think is reasonable is three. Only time I've held somebody's answer against them is when it is obvious they are lying or if you list off like 15 cities.

[acr]

I conduct on campus interviews at my firm and ask the question in almost every interview. I think it's fine to say that you are looking in a couple cities/states though the max I think is reasonable is three. Only time I've held somebody's answer against them is when it is obvious they are lying or if you list off like 15 cities.

Why? Do you not understand as an interviewer that the applicant's primary goal is to gain employment? Why would an applicant limit their options by applying in only a few markets? If you had mountains of debt from law school and a family to take care of and were trying to enter a saturated and competitive profession, would you limit your job search to a few markets?

[stego]

I'm a year off from OCI, but how does this work for those going to school in NY who are wanting to target non-NY markets? I feel like the lie would be even more obvious

Apparently you're just supposed to "lie anyway" with blatant disregard for how it comes off.

Yes. How hard is that for you to understand? You just say you are focusing on X market for these reasons. No one is going to push you farther.

Again, then what is the point of the firm asking the question? And saying "you're focusing on X market for these reasons" isn't a direct response to the question.

Scooped by Nony, but maybe they ask because they can weed out people who give them answers they don't want to hear.

Take "I'm applying to city A because reasons XYZ [but I'm applying to NYC as a backup in case I don't get a job in city A]." The interviewer can probably infer the bracketed, if they assume you're not an idiot and want to make sure you get a job, but saying the bracketed part out loud lets them focus on something other than your desire to be in city A.

Giving the most direct literal response to a question isn't the most important thing.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I conduct on campus interviews at my firm and ask the question in almost every interview. I think it's fine to say that you are looking in a couple cities/states though the max I think is reasonable is three. Only time I've held somebody's answer against them is when it is obvious they are lying or if you list off like 15 cities.

Why? Do you not understand as an interviewer that the applicant's primary goal is to gain employment? Why would an applicant limit their options by applying in only a few markets? If you had mountains of debt from law school and a family to take care of and were trying to enter a saturated and competitive profession, would you limit your job search to a few markets?

Interviewers aren't there to look out for the applicants' best interests. They don't care what the applicant wants. Interviewers want to hire someone who's going to stick around and not disappear (before the firm wants them out) and leave the firm short a person just when they get to know what they're doing. Interviewing is about selling yourself as what the employer wants, nothing more. (I tend to think that the more you genuinely match what the employer wants, the better you can sell yourself as that, and the more you'll enjoy the job if you get it, but interviewing is absolutely not about what you honestly want.)

[acr]

I conduct on campus interviews at my firm and ask the question in almost every interview. I think it's fine to say that you are looking in a couple cities/states though the max I think is reasonable is three. Only time I've held somebody's answer against them is when it is obvious they are lying or if you list off like 15 cities.

Why? Do you not understand as an interviewer that the applicant's primary goal is to gain employment? Why would an applicant limit their options by applying in only a few markets? If you had mountains of debt from law school and a family to take care of and were trying to enter a saturated and competitive profession, would you limit your job search to a few markets?

Interviewers aren't there to look out for the applicants' best interests. They don't care what the applicant wants. Interviewers want to hire someone who's going to stick around and not disappear (before the firm wants them out) and leave the firm short a person just when they get to know what they're doing. Interviewing is about selling yourself as what the employer wants, nothing more. (I tend to think that the more you genuinely match what the employer wants, the better you can sell yourself as that, and the more you'll enjoy the job if you get it, but interviewing is absolutely not about what you honestly want.)

I'm not saying interviewers should look out for applicants' best interests. Maybe just have reasonable expectations? Associates are notorious for "ditching firms" and only lasting a few years anyway.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Sure, but firms want to control that timeline, not have it forced on them. And a reasonable expectation is that applicants will figure out how best to sell themselves for a job and say what's appropriate to that goal.

[stego]

I conduct on campus interviews at my firm and ask the question in almost every interview. I think it's fine to say that you are looking in a couple cities/states though the max I think is reasonable is three. Only time I've held somebody's answer against them is when it is obvious they are lying or if you list off like 15 cities.

Why? Do you not understand as an interviewer that the applicant's primary goal is to gain employment? Why would an applicant limit their options by applying in only a few markets? If you had mountains of debt from law school and a family to take care of and were trying to enter a saturated and competitive profession, would you limit your job search to a few markets?

Interviewers aren't there to look out for the applicants' best interests. They don't care what the applicant wants. Interviewers want to hire someone who's going to stick around and not disappear (before the firm wants them out) and leave the firm short a person just when they get to know what they're doing. Interviewing is about selling yourself as what the employer wants, nothing more. (I tend to think that the more you genuinely match what the employer wants, the better you can sell yourself as that, and the more you'll enjoy the job if you get it, but interviewing is absolutely not about what you honestly want.)

I'm not saying interviewers should look out for applicants' best interests. Maybe just have reasonable expectations? Associates are notorious for "ditching firms" and only lasting a few years anyway.

The point is when you're interviewing with a firm you want to make them feel like applying to firms in other cities is so low on your priority list that it isn't even worth mentioning. The bolded is exactly why firms care about this stuff.

[IExistedOnceBefore]

It's really easy to make a choice when it comes down to those who are playing by the rules and those who aren't. The unspoken and sometimes spoken rule is "lie." If you can't figure out the game and play it, why would the firm bother when they have candidates who do.

It's a ridiculous song and dance but the name of the game is getting employed.

[acr]

Sure, but firms want to control that timeline, not have it forced on them. And a reasonable expectation is that applicants will figure out how best to sell themselves for a job and say what's appropriate to that goal.

Okay, so if an interviewer asks an applicant about ties to the area, the applicant should tell a bold lie and say they have immediate family living in the market?

[IExistedOnceBefore]

Sure, but firms want to control that timeline, not have it forced on them. And a reasonable expectation is that applicants will figure out how best to sell themselves for a job and say what's appropriate to that goal.

Okay, so if an interviewer asks an applicant about ties to the area, the applicant should tell a bold lie and say they have immediate family living in the market?

During OCI a lot of your classmates will develop significant others they've been dating for years in random places that you've never heard of. They will have this advantage. It is up to you to take this knowledge and decide if you want to play the game.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Sure, but firms want to control that timeline, not have it forced on them. And a reasonable expectation is that applicants will figure out how best to sell themselves for a job and say what's appropriate to that goal.

Okay, so if an interviewer asks an applicant about ties to the area, the applicant should tell a bold lie and say they have immediate family living in the market?

Personally I'm not comfortable directly lying, although I know lots of people are. But I also don't think that's necessary to sell your interest in an area. You're not likely to get asked "what ties do you have to the area?," you're going to get asked, "why are you interested in [location]?" I don't think it's necessary to say "I have family who live here" to answer that question convincingly - presumably you have reasons why you're interested in that location, and they can be about the job if that's appropriate (e.g. regulatory work for DC, top-notch best experience in NYC, that kind of thing). If you get asked "where else are you applying?" I think it's fair to say something like "I'm really concentrating my search on [city you're interviewing for] because [whatever reason]." "Concentrating" can be understood quite broadly and doesn't actually claim not to be applying anywhere else. If they push you harder about specific answers, mention maybe one city and emphasize it's a backup. You never need to give full disclosure.

[chargers21]

.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I don't remember where you're going to school, chargers (if ever I knew), but assuming it's one of the top NY schools, I don't think employers will assume that you must be applying for jobs in NY as well - it's not like people think anyone goes to Yale to work in Connecticut. If it's one of the other schools, I think you still just say that you're applying to market X because that's where you want to be because you have family there. If there's any confusion about why you went to school in NY, I would emphasize what the school offered you (money, employment stats, etc.), but still not go into applying in NYC unless you can't get around it.

[QuentonCassidy]

They have to understand that there are literally zero applicants only applying in one city, especially if it's a smaller one.

Is there any job fair, hiring market, etc. where a potential associate can realistically claim they aren't interviewing in other markets (outside NYC possibly)?

Not sure where these sentiments are coming from. If it is willful hyperbole then that's fine, but I am applying exclusively to a single, non-NYC market and won't be taking interviews anywhere else, and I know others who are as well. Not saying it's common (and I realize this isn't particularly relevant to the main discussion), but multiple posters asserting this was something that didn't even exist surprised me.

[chargers21]

.

[UVA2B]

They have to understand that there are literally zero applicants only applying in one city, especially if it's a smaller one.

Is there any job fair, hiring market, etc. where a potential associate can realistically claim they aren't interviewing in other markets (outside NYC possibly)?

Not sure where these sentiments are coming from. If it is willful hyperbole then that's fine, but I am applying exclusively to a single, non-NYC market and won't be taking interviews anywhere else, and I know others who are as well. Not saying it's common (and I realize this isn't particularly relevant to the main discussion), but multiple posters asserting this was something that didn't even exist surprised me.

You're right, it was probably a bit sensationalist and hyperbolic. There are instances where someone could exclusively bid one non-NYC market (like Harvard wanting TX, for instance). But it's just rare when the right school, market, and grades lines up where all of a person's OCI bids goes into a single market unless that market is NYC. There will be people who can bid DC, TX, CA, etc. exclusively, but the vast majority of people going into a hiring event will be/should be bidding and interviewing in multiple cities.

Sorry for overstating things a bit, but the overall point is that interviewers are mostly aware that the interviewee very well could be interviewing in multiple markets, so as long as the person redirects any question of if they're interviewing in other markets by talking about why they're most interested in the current firm's market, it should be fine. You don't have to openly admit you're interviewing in other markets, but you don't have to lie about it exactly either.

[Anonymous User]

Oh gosh, I totally didn't realize how important it is for me to commit to one city during my cb interviews. So due to my spouse's job restraints, I have targeted three different cities, and I am planning to go to several callbacks in California and then directly fly into a secondary market on the east coast for some callbacks. But I go to law school in Chicago. So if I fly directly from California to the secondary market, my interviewers at that market would know that I am also interviewing with California offices. So do I have to first fly back to Chicago and then fly into the secondary market city? That would be a waste of my time, and exhausting given that I am going to bounce back and forth between California and the east coast city. I have pretty good ties to both locations though.

[lavarman84]

I'm a year off from OCI, but how does this work for those going to school in NY who are wanting to target non-NY markets? I feel like the lie would be even more obvious

Apparently you're just supposed to "lie anyway" with blatant disregard for how it comes off.

You can be true to yourself and be unemployed, or you can abide by the rules of a dumb game. The choice is yours.

I've found the opposite to be true.

[sublime]

When interviewing, I don't hold this against ppl, but it wouldn't surprise me if others did.

[stego]

Oh gosh, I totally didn't realize how important it is for me to commit to one city during my cb interviews. So due to my spouse's job restraints, I have targeted three different cities, and I am planning to go to several callbacks in California and then directly fly into a secondary market on the east coast for some callbacks. But I go to law school in Chicago. So if I fly directly from California to the secondary market, my interviewers at that market would know that I am also interviewing with California offices. So do I have to first fly back to Chicago and then fly into the secondary market city? That would be a waste of my time, and exhausting given that I am going to bounce back and forth between California and the east coast city. I have pretty good ties to both locations though.

Why are the firms in the secondary market city going to know you flew from California instead of from Chicago? And even if they do know, you should probably just stay focused on why City X in the interview unless your interviewer specifically asks you about California.

[Anonymous User]

Oh gosh, I totally didn't realize how important it is for me to commit to one city during my cb interviews. So due to my spouse's job restraints, I have targeted three different cities, and I am planning to go to several callbacks in California and then directly fly into a secondary market on the east coast for some callbacks. But I go to law school in Chicago. So if I fly directly from California to the secondary market, my interviewers at that market would know that I am also interviewing with California offices. So do I have to first fly back to Chicago and then fly into the secondary market city? That would be a waste of my time, and exhausting given that I am going to bounce back and forth between California and the east coast city. I have pretty good ties to both locations though.

This is a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why you are interviewing in multiple cities. I wouldn't hold this against anybody. The thing I hold against people is straight up lying. This past week a person told me they were interviewing in just one city. I later overheard this person mention to another firm they were just interviewing in a different city. That person did not get a callback. If you are going to lie then make sure you do not get caught and pay attention to who else is around when talking.

[dixiecupdrinking]

When I interview people at my NYC firm and ask this question, and I'm mainly looking for a genuine answer. So it's fine if the answer is, "NYC and also Chicago because my family is there," or whatever. But if the genuine answer is only, "I'm interviewing in NYC because the jobs are here" (which I have actually heard, more than once) that is not good. So, if that's your real reason, I guess you should lie, although my preference is that you have thought about this for 5 minutes and have a halfway compelling affirmative reason to be interviewing for a position that'll determine how you spend the next few years of your life.

FWIW I gather this can be touchier in small markets, though I've never understood that, since it seems to me people seeking to interview in like, Minnesota or Cleveland wouldn't bother unless they wanted to be there.