Feeling inadequate Forum

[Anonymous User]

I'm not totally done with callbacks yet so I know this is a little premature, but I have a strong gut feeling that I'm only going to end up with one offer from OCI. It's from a V60 in NY, and the people there seem wonderful, but it wasn't one of my top choices. Honestly, I'm a little disappointed with the result: am above median at HYS and mostly bid on NY firms with large class sizes but definitely screwed up a couple of my interviews out of nerves/exhaustion plus have very mediocre social skills in general. I know it's silly to keep dwelling over mistakes, and I know I should be grateful to have an offer at all, but I can't stop comparing myself to people deciding between multiple V10/V20 offers and feeling like I have a really shit personality. A lot of people who have given me advice about this process seem to have assumed I'd be more successful — telling me things like "don't worry about the difference between V10 and V20," "make sure you take second looks before deciding," etc. — and I feel dumb for not having met their expectations. Is anyone else coping with feelings of inadequacy from OCI? How do you keep yourself from making comparisons to your classmates? Also, am I right to be disappointed in myself or are the results I got more normal than I realize?

Of course I know moving forward I should work on improving my interview skills and am definitely actively doing that, but right now am mostly looking for tips on how to overcome disappointment/build confidence/not take rejection so personally

[Platopus]

Think bigger picture. You have an offer and that means some one is willing to pay you $190,000 per year as a starting salary. Most people in this country, let alone the world, would literally kill for that opportunity. I’m not saying it’s wrong to be a little dissappointed and this isn’t a soap-box “be more grateful” pitch either; rather, it’s to remember that by 95% of Americans’ standards you are already wildly successful.

[notinbiglaw]

Way more normal than you realize. Some times people just fall through the cracks.

Your foot is in the biglaw door. Do well at V60 and you can lateral to V10 if you find yourself still caring after 3 or 4 years.

[yost]

Take it from someone who is a great interviewer but has otherwise below average social skills: your interview success is not a reflection of your personality.

[kaiser]

You are mistaken if you think that you are somehow set off on a lower trajectory by virtue of starting at a V60 vs. a V20 or V10 firm. You are going to find that, after a few years, multiple folks at V10s will be lateraling to V60-level firms. And many people at V60-level firms would be entirely competitive for lateral moves to V20/V10 firms. Your resume is going to show a top law school, above-average grades, and a respected biglaw firm on it. You are in no way limited in your options relative to those starting out in V10s. I can see why you may think that from your perspective, but as a senior associate in a biglaw firm, I can tell you its generally not true.

[Wild Card]

Think bigger picture. You have an offer and that means some one is willing to pay you $190,000 per year as a starting salary. Most people in this country, let alone the world, would literally kill for that opportunity. I’m not saying it’s wrong to be a little dissappointed and this isn’t a soap-box “be more grateful” pitch either; rather, it’s to remember that by 95% of Americans’ standards you are already wildly successful.

You should also remember that most people would not borrow $300,000 at 7% capitalizing and compounding interest to avoid work for 3 years, then to take a job that pays low five-figures (after 401(k), taxes, rent, insurance, and loan payments).

[Anonymous User]

Man, I relate to this hard right now. T30, 10%, main journal, 22~ OCI screeners. So far have gotten 4 callbacks, one V20, two V60s (one from mass mail), and one regional biglaw. Just learned that my dream firm (one of the V60s that I pre-OCI'ed at 3 weeks ago) just gave an offer to my best friend while I've heard nothing from them. I guess biglaw isn't *that* important for me since I have a full ride and low debt, but it feels awful knowing 12 months of super hard work might be for nothing. I even have generally strong social skills, I've done practice interviews with a local biglaw partner and with career services and both said I was generally a strong interviewer; and I'm a very social person in real life (was in greek life throughout undergrad and have no problem holding a conversation with someone). It sucks; guess I'll just hope I'm on some hold list in some firm's recruiting bank and try to focus on my small law callbacks until then.

[Anonymous User]

NYC biglaw 3rd year chiming in. OP, I was in a very similar situation when I was going through OCI. I interviewed poorly and under-performed my grades and school in OCI. I did end up starting my legal career at a firm which didn't fit my ambitions. However, now I am happy because I can lateral to a better firm based on my stellar experience at my current firm.

Biglaw firms make assumptions about candidates based on their interviewing skills. Even if you are an intelligent and hard-working person (more so than most others as evidenced by your grades or school), if you don't interview well, they assume there's a high chance that you will not do well in a law firm setting. For instance, they assume your communication skills may be poor. In doing so, they miss out on many bright young students that didn't interview well largely because they lacked interview experiences prior to law school and/or were simply not mentally mature enough. Many of these people gradually improve their communication skills and do well in whatever law firm they start their careers at. So essentially you can always prove these assumptions wrong by doing well at whatever firm you end up in. Keep your head up.

[cavalier1138]

Think bigger picture. You have an offer and that means some one is willing to pay you $190,000 per year as a starting salary. Most people in this country, let alone the world, would literally kill for that opportunity. I’m not saying it’s wrong to be a little dissappointed and this isn’t a soap-box “be more grateful” pitch either; rather, it’s to remember that by 95% of Americans’ standards you are already wildly successful.

You should also remember that most people would not borrow $300,000 at 7% capitalizing and compounding interest to avoid work for 3 years, then to take a job that pays low five-figures (after 401(k), taxes, rent, insurance, and loan payments).

Get into therapy.

[objctnyrhnr]

So you’re saying that in spite of lacking perhaps the most important attribute for success in the workforce generally speaking (ability to interact with people), you’re still going to end up with a 190k/year job in your chosen field with potential for upward mobility if you desire it?

I think you’re looking at your situation all wrong.

I’m not sure who started the rumor that a 98th percentile Lsat score and a high level of success at (for example) writing sociology papers or whatever in undergrad, alone, constitutes a sufficient condition for getting inundated with an abundance of elite job offers a couple year later. Either way, the rumor is inaccurate and should be disregarded.

At my v30 where I am a midlevel, we are in the midst of callbacks. Every candidate is either at the tippy top of their t25(ish) class or top quarter or third of their t14 or maybe middle of hys. As I understand it, these candidates all walk into the callback on an equal playing field, with respect to credentials.

Therefore, literally the only thing that separates one from another is personality. That is the one factor from which my firm decides who will receive offers. And honestly, I don’t think It would make sense to do it any other way.

[MSUN5]

Think bigger picture. You have an offer and that means some one is willing to pay you $190,000 per year as a starting salary. Most people in this country, let alone the world, would literally kill for that opportunity. I’m not saying it’s wrong to be a little dissappointed and this isn’t a soap-box “be more grateful” pitch either; rather, it’s to remember that by 95% of Americans’ standards you are already wildly successful.

You should also remember that most people would not borrow $300,000 at 7% capitalizing and compounding interest to avoid work for 3 years, then to take a job that pays low five-figures (after 401(k), taxes, rent, insurance, and loan payments).

Get into therapy.

El. Oh. El. +1 on this.

[Anonymous User]

So you’re saying that in spite of lacking perhaps the most important attribute for success in the workforce generally speaking (ability to interact with people), you’re still going to end up with a 190k/year job in your chosen field with potential for upward mobility if you desire it?

I think you’re looking at your situation all wrong.

I’m not sure who started the rumor that a 98th percentile Lsat score and a high level of success at (for example) writing sociology papers or whatever in undergrad, alone, constitutes a sufficient condition for getting inundated with an abundance of elite job offers a couple year later. Either way, the rumor is inaccurate and should be disregarded.

At my v30 where I am a midlevel, we are in the midst of callbacks. Every candidate is either at the tippy top of their t25(ish) class or top quarter or third of their t14 or maybe middle of hys. As I understand it, these candidates all walk into the callback on an equal playing field, with respect to credentials.

Therefore, literally the only thing that separates one from another is personality. That is the one factor from which my firm decides who will receive offers. And honestly, I don’t think It would make sense to do it any other way.

There's a lot of jumps made in the above. Personality != interview skills != interview performance on any given day or for any given interview. Besides, people who are "gems" at my firm (actual word a partner used for someone who got an immediate offer) aren't "gems" at yours. Cultures differ wildly.

It's been frequently argued that interviews don't tell employers anything useful. e.g., https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/jo ... re-useless. It's also no secret that interview results often demonstrate deep biases (e.g., the halo effect and obviously, racism/misogyny/homophobia).

I'm not arguing that OP shouldn't work on their interviewing skills: they absolutely should. The more people OP can get in front of to practice, the better. Record yourself, OP, and watch how you react when answering and asking questions.

But OP shouldn't feel bad in the sense that their job offers through OCI are in any way indicative of their worth as a person or some measure of anything real or that they're somehow "entitled" because of their disappointment with their results. It's a frustrating process, and we shouldn't pretend like interview results aren't anything but a crapshoot of many hard-to-decipher factors.

[Anonymous User]

Oh that was me, accidental anon.

[Anonymous User]

So you’re saying that in spite of lacking perhaps the most important attribute for success in the workforce generally speaking (ability to interact with people), you’re still going to end up with a 190k/year job in your chosen field with potential for upward mobility if you desire it?

I think you’re looking at your situation all wrong.

I’m not sure who started the rumor that a 98th percentile Lsat score and a high level of success at (for example) writing sociology papers or whatever in undergrad, alone, constitutes a sufficient condition for getting inundated with an abundance of elite job offers a couple year later. Either way, the rumor is inaccurate and should be disregarded.

At my v30 where I am a midlevel, we are in the midst of callbacks. Every candidate is either at the tippy top of their t25(ish) class or top quarter or third of their t14 or maybe middle of hys. As I understand it, these candidates all walk into the callback on an equal playing field, with respect to credentials.

Therefore, literally the only thing that separates one from another is personality. That is the one factor from which my firm decides who will receive offers. And honestly, I don’t think It would make sense to do it any other way.

I'm the anon that talked about interview skills and assumptions. You understand that just as grades and school are only a signal (through which employers make assumptions), interview skills are also only a signal and not an indicator of personality or willingness to work hard, right? Many K-JDs for instance struggle during OCI due to their interview skills just because they relatively lack experiences. Interview skills shouldn't be taken as conclusive evidence of one's personality or work ethic, just as grades or school shouldn't be taken as conclusive evidence of one's intelligence or work ethic. It's one of the imperfect factors or signals employers use to distinguish among candidates. Imagine thinking just because a student didn't interview well he/she must have an inadequate personality lol. That's akin to thinking just because a student went to a low tier school he/she must be stupid.

[nixy]

So you’re saying that in spite of lacking perhaps the most important attribute for success in the workforce generally speaking (ability to interact with people), you’re still going to end up with a 190k/year job in your chosen field with potential for upward mobility if you desire it?

I think you’re looking at your situation all wrong.

I’m not sure who started the rumor that a 98th percentile Lsat score and a high level of success at (for example) writing sociology papers or whatever in undergrad, alone, constitutes a sufficient condition for getting inundated with an abundance of elite job offers a couple year later. Either way, the rumor is inaccurate and should be disregarded.

At my v30 where I am a midlevel, we are in the midst of callbacks. Every candidate is either at the tippy top of their t25(ish) class or top quarter or third of their t14 or maybe middle of hys. As I understand it, these candidates all walk into the callback on an equal playing field, with respect to credentials.

Therefore, literally the only thing that separates one from another is personality. That is the one factor from which my firm decides who will receive offers. And honestly, I don’t think It would make sense to do it any other way.

There's a lot of jumps made in the above. Personality != interview skills != interview performance on any given day or for any given interview. Besides, people who are "gems" at my firm (actual word a partner used for someone who got an immediate offer) aren't "gems" at yours. Cultures differ wildly.

It's been frequently argued that interviews don't tell employers anything useful. e.g., https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/jo ... re-useless. It's also no secret that interview results often demonstrate deep biases (e.g., the halo effect and obviously, racism/misogyny/homophobia).

I'm not arguing that OP shouldn't work on their interviewing skills: they absolutely should. The more people OP can get in front of to practice, the better. Record yourself, OP, and watch how you react when answering and asking questions.

But OP shouldn't feel bad in the sense that their job offers through OCI are in any way indicative of their worth as a person or some measure of anything real or that they're somehow "entitled" because of their disappointment with their results. It's a frustrating process, and we shouldn't pretend like interview results aren't anything but a crapshoot of many hard-to-decipher factors.

Absolutely agree with accidental anon here.

[objctnyrhnr]

So you’re saying that in spite of lacking perhaps the most important attribute for success in the workforce generally speaking (ability to interact with people), you’re still going to end up with a 190k/year job in your chosen field with potential for upward mobility if you desire it?

I think you’re looking at your situation all wrong.

I’m not sure who started the rumor that a 98th percentile Lsat score and a high level of success at (for example) writing sociology papers or whatever in undergrad, alone, constitutes a sufficient condition for getting inundated with an abundance of elite job offers a couple year later. Either way, the rumor is inaccurate and should be disregarded.

At my v30 where I am a midlevel, we are in the midst of callbacks. Every candidate is either at the tippy top of their t25(ish) class or top quarter or third of their t14 or maybe middle of hys. As I understand it, these candidates all walk into the callback on an equal playing field, with respect to credentials.

Therefore, literally the only thing that separates one from another is personality. That is the one factor from which my firm decides who will receive offers. And honestly, I don’t think It would make sense to do it any other way.

There's a lot of jumps made in the above. Personality != interview skills != interview performance on any given day or for any given interview. Besides, people who are "gems" at my firm (actual word a partner used for someone who got an immediate offer) aren't "gems" at yours. Cultures differ wildly.

It's been frequently argued that interviews don't tell employers anything useful. e.g., https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/jo ... re-useless. It's also no secret that interview results often demonstrate deep biases (e.g., the halo effect and obviously, racism/misogyny/homophobia).

I'm not arguing that OP shouldn't work on their interviewing skills: they absolutely should. The more people OP can get in front of to practice, the better. Record yourself, OP, and watch how you react when answering and asking questions.

But OP shouldn't feel bad in the sense that their job offers through OCI are in any way indicative of their worth as a person or some measure of anything real or that they're somehow "entitled" because of their disappointment with their results. It's a frustrating process, and we shouldn't pretend like interview results aren't anything but a crapshoot of many hard-to-decipher factors.

Look I didn’t make a jump. Read OP’s post again, carefully. OP says that he has bad social skills and that his interviewing skills aren’t ideal; doesn’t seem like he was suggesting those two things are unrelated. I wasnt making the type of inference you suggested that I was; OP at least heavily insinuated that the two are connected.

And I also wasn’t saying OP should feel bad about themselves. That said, I disagree a bit with your interpretation of the original post. I think the post does reek of a bit of entitlement from OP. To me, the sentiment was that “I went to hys therefore I should do better than v60 in spite of my admittedly bad social skills.” I think my read is fair, but let me know if you disagree.

The high-level point from my reply was that social skills are extremely important in the context of both job performance and interviewing (although admittedly there might not be a completely direct correlation between those things in the aggregate). Accordingly, where OP was basically saying he has bad social skills so his interviews aren’t going well, I was saying that OP should be pumped he got a v60. I stand by that—for a bad interviewer, that seems to me to be a good result even from Hys

[objctnyrhnr]

So you’re saying that in spite of lacking perhaps the most important attribute for success in the workforce generally speaking (ability to interact with people), you’re still going to end up with a 190k/year job in your chosen field with potential for upward mobility if you desire it?

I think you’re looking at your situation all wrong.

I’m not sure who started the rumor that a 98th percentile Lsat score and a high level of success at (for example) writing sociology papers or whatever in undergrad, alone, constitutes a sufficient condition for getting inundated with an abundance of elite job offers a couple year later. Either way, the rumor is inaccurate and should be disregarded.

At my v30 where I am a midlevel, we are in the midst of callbacks. Every candidate is either at the tippy top of their t25(ish) class or top quarter or third of their t14 or maybe middle of hys. As I understand it, these candidates all walk into the callback on an equal playing field, with respect to credentials.

Therefore, literally the only thing that separates one from another is personality. That is the one factor from which my firm decides who will receive offers. And honestly, I don’t think It would make sense to do it any other way.

I'm the anon that talked about interview skills and assumptions. You understand that just as grades and school are only a signal (through which employers make assumptions), interview skills are also only a signal and not an indicator of personality or willingness to work hard, right? Many K-JDs for instance struggle during OCI due to their interview skills just because they relatively lack experiences. Interview skills shouldn't be taken as conclusive evidence of one's personality or work ethic, just as grades or school shouldn't be taken as conclusive evidence of one's intelligence or work ethic. It's one of the imperfect factors or signals employers use to distinguish among candidates. Imagine thinking just because a student didn't interview well he/she must have an inadequate personality lol. That's akin to thinking just because a student went to a low tier school he/she must be stupid.

Ah so you’re saying that people with more work experience interview better and get better results than people without work experience? Sick observation. Maybe that’s part of the reason that being a k-jd isn’t always the ideal move.

To another thing you said, If 7 people from a firm talking to a candidate for 30 minutes each doesn’t constitute the best reasonably possible way to get a read on that candidate’s personality then, please, what alternative would you suggest? Of course somebody could have an off day or present well but be a bad employee or whatever...but what’s the alternative?

Look the hard truth of it is that interviewing literally doesn’t get easier than the oci setup. If law firms are buyers and students are sellers, it is an absolute seller’s market. Of course, it’s not easy by any means and I’m not trivializing the stress that it causes; I’m just saying it’s not going to get any easier.

Just compare the situation when one laterals to the oci situation. When you lateral, you need to wait for an opening in your target firm, practice group, level, and geographic area, and once you find it, you’re up against who knows how many people and the firm takes one. You go through rounds upon rounds of interviews and literally need to be the absolute best candidate. This is pretty much how every normal job interview works...except for entry level biglaw law student hiring, that is.

[nixy]

No one claimed there was a magically better alternative, just that because the process is flawed, the OP shouldn't take lack of success in these interviews as some kind of accurate assessment of their actual abilities as a lawyer (or a person). I also don't think that getting 7 people to like you in 1/2 hour increments actually provides much information about someone's social skills/ability as a lawyer.

[objctnyrhnr]

No one claimed there was a magically better alternative, just that because the process is flawed, the OP shouldn't take lack of success in these interviews as some kind of accurate assessment of their actual abilities as a lawyer (or a person). I also don't think that getting 7 people to like you in 1/2 hour increments actually provides much information about someone's social skills/ability as a lawyer.

I agree with most of these points, and of course one’s ability to get 7 randos to enjoy your company has nothing to do with success as a lawyer. However, I do not agree with I interpret from your post as your belief that landing a v60 as a self-admittedly bad interviewer with weak social skills constitutes a “lack of success.”

The main purpose of my initial reply was to say that I think that this actually is a big win because, flawed or not, interviewing is a bridge that must be crossed in order to get a job. I’m saying OP should focus on that success because 1 offer is a billion times better than no offers, and OP should not presume that he’s entitled to a v5 offer based on his school (or that he will have somehow failed if he doesn’t procure one) when he’s an admittedly poor interviewer. Flawed or not, it’s a part of the process that’s here to stay.

[Anonymous User]

I can imagine that going to HYS, many of your peers get stellar results and so if you're in the less-socially-skilled camp, it's particularly disappointing. I'm coming to the realization that the biglaw world puts a premium on social skills, and so some of us are going to have a tougher time getting into the profession (if at all). Be glad for your V60, which is an exceptional institution and five years from now you probably won't care. I'm a GULC student myself, top 10%, 11 years WE, secondary journal, 15 screeners, 0 CBs. Granted I may be on some B-lists still, but you can see how this situation plays out at GULC rather than HYS. And I would bet that my classmates would not have predicted this result.

[nixy]

No one claimed there was a magically better alternative, just that because the process is flawed, the OP shouldn't take lack of success in these interviews as some kind of accurate assessment of their actual abilities as a lawyer (or a person). I also don't think that getting 7 people to like you in 1/2 hour increments actually provides much information about someone's social skills/ability as a lawyer.

I agree with most of these points, and of course one’s ability to get 7 randos to enjoy your company has nothing to do with success as a lawyer. However, I do not agree with I interpret from your post as your belief that landing a v60 as a self-admittedly bad interviewer with weak social skills constitutes a “lack of success.”

The main purpose of my initial reply was to say that I think that this actually is a big win because, flawed or not, interviewing is a bridge that must be crossed in order to get a job. I’m saying OP should focus on that success because 1 offer is a billion times better than no offers, and OP should not presume that he’s entitled to a v5 offer based on his school (or that he will have somehow failed if he doesn’t procure one) when he’s an admittedly poor interviewer. Flawed or not, it’s a part of the process that’s here to stay.

That’s all fair. And I should have said “perceived” lack of success or something, because I didn’t mean to suggest the OP has actually failed, either.

[Anonymous User]

OP, just want to let you know that I was in your position eight years ago - I had well above median grades at HLS and got ding after ding. I ended up at a V60 on the West Coast that was a total afterthought on my bid list, and I am thriving there. These things have a way of working themselves out and I would not worry one bit about being at a slightly less shiny/prestigious firm.

[Anonymous User]

So you’re saying that in spite of lacking perhaps the most important attribute for success in the workforce generally speaking (ability to interact with people), you’re still going to end up with a 190k/year job in your chosen field with potential for upward mobility if you desire it?

I think you’re looking at your situation all wrong.

I’m not sure who started the rumor that a 98th percentile Lsat score and a high level of success at (for example) writing sociology papers or whatever in undergrad, alone, constitutes a sufficient condition for getting inundated with an abundance of elite job offers a couple year later. Either way, the rumor is inaccurate and should be disregarded.

At my v30 where I am a midlevel, we are in the midst of callbacks. Every candidate is either at the tippy top of their t25(ish) class or top quarter or third of their t14 or maybe middle of hys. As I understand it, these candidates all walk into the callback on an equal playing field, with respect to credentials.

Therefore, literally the only thing that separates one from another is personality. That is the one factor from which my firm decides who will receive offers. And honestly, I don’t think It would make sense to do it any other way.

I'm the anon that talked about interview skills and assumptions. You understand that just as grades and school are only a signal (through which employers make assumptions), interview skills are also only a signal and not an indicator of personality or willingness to work hard, right? Many K-JDs for instance struggle during OCI due to their interview skills just because they relatively lack experiences. Interview skills shouldn't be taken as conclusive evidence of one's personality or work ethic, just as grades or school shouldn't be taken as conclusive evidence of one's intelligence or work ethic. It's one of the imperfect factors or signals employers use to distinguish among candidates. Imagine thinking just because a student didn't interview well he/she must have an inadequate personality lol. That's akin to thinking just because a student went to a low tier school he/she must be stupid.

Ah so you’re saying that people with more work experience interview better and get better results than people without work experience? Sick observation. Maybe that’s part of the reason that being a k-jd isn’t always the ideal move.

To another thing you said, If 7 people from a firm talking to a candidate for 30 minutes each doesn’t constitute the best reasonably possible way to get a read on that candidate’s personality then, please, what alternative would you suggest? Of course somebody could have an off day or present well but be a bad employee or whatever...but what’s the alternative?

Look the hard truth of it is that interviewing literally doesn’t get easier than the oci setup. If law firms are buyers and students are sellers, it is an absolute seller’s market. Of course, it’s not easy by any means and I’m not trivializing the stress that it causes; I’m just saying it’s not going to get any easier.

Just compare the situation when one laterals to the oci situation. When you lateral, you need to wait for an opening in your target firm, practice group, level, and geographic area, and once you find it, you’re up against who knows how many people and the firm takes one. You go through rounds upon rounds of interviews and literally need to be the absolute best candidate. This is pretty much how every normal job interview works...except for entry level biglaw law student hiring, that is.

Same anon as the anon that wrote the post you are quoting. If you seriously believe we can accurately assess someone's "personality" during an interview, you are seriously wrong there. Interviews are one way to assess a candidate's willingness to work hard, interest in the firm and social skills, among other things. It's one of the imperfect tools we use together with other things to distinguish among candidates. If you believe it's anything more than that, that's just wrong.

And as somebody said above, every firm has a different culture and prefer different candidates. Firm A may prefer an introverted kid that did well in school over an outgoing kid that did less well in school. Firm B may have the opposite preference.

Interview skills and other social skills can be improved with effort, and to many people like myself, these traits just get better as we grow older, work more and interact with people more (as opposed to just studying). Now that I'm in the lateral process I have so many more options than when I was a student going through OCI. I became a lot better interviewer. I just became a more sociable person overall and that helped me do a lot better in interviews.

Thinking that a person's interview skills during 2L OCI is determinative of his/her personality or suitability to any job is absurd. All it shows is that at that particular point in time, he didn't possess the relevant social skills to succeed in biglaw relative to his peers and so were deemed by biglaw employers to have a lower chance of success in biglaw. Because interviews are an imperfect measure, of course there will always be people that end up doing brilliantly in their law firms despite having had few options in OCI due to their poor interview skills. Does that mean we shouldn't interview? Should we get rid of this? No fucking way. Nobody argued that. I was telling OP to not get discouraged because he may be one of those folks that actually will do absolutely fine in biglaw in spite of whatever their 2L interviews may have suggested.

[shock259]

I haven't read most of the replies but just wanted to reiterate that a V50 or V100 or whatever is nothing to scoff at. In a few years, most people are going to transfer to other firms, some up and some down. Some will quit law altogether. You can still have your V10 dream if you really want it at that point, but it's very unlikely you will.

Unfortunately this profession has a sort of tunnel vision that is really easy to fall into. There are always going to be people "above" you in the hierarchy. Associates at "better" firms, partners making more money, folks with more "prestige". Your sanity depends in part on your ability to avoid looking "up" the chain and instead reorienting yourself to where you are in the bigger picture. You'll be making a ton of money, learning valuable skills, and setting yourself up for a career with a lot of good exit options. And you'll need to figure out a way to rationalize that as being "enough" if you want to stay mentally healthy.

[Anonymous User]

2nd year at a NY firm here; can related to OP. OP, I know no matter what we all say, there's always that sense of regret and defeat you cannot shake off. It was like that to me. But looking back from my personal experience, I think it all worked out in my favor.

I got 10 callbacks but only got one offer from a firm I never thought of going. I was disappointed but felt I had no choice but accepting. Then I got lucky; nobody in my summer class wanted to join my practice, so I got no competition to get into my ideal practice. That would not be easy had I gone to my dream firm.

After getting a summer offer, I tried 3L OCI. OP, if after you receive your full-time offer, you still want to move to a "better" firm, 3L OCI is an option. I ended up having screening interviews but did not proceed because well, I decided to spend my 3L having fun. It was a great decision!

After I started at my firm, I quickly realized that the quality of life still differs a lot among V10 v. V50 firms. At my firm, people in general are reasonable and understanding; expectations are realistic. My classmates who went to the top firms mostly told me different things. I've heard calling someone doing a poor job in a mass group email, very high hours, yelling, etc. That's when I realized I would never go to these firms. One thing I did not realize as a law student is that all of these matter. One or two hours of extra work a day does make a difference to your well being when you are already working until 12 am. Being subject to face time requirement does make you feel exhausted even though the commute is only 15 minutes. Being treated poorly may not make you feel awful immediately, but after one year, it definitely does something to you. Obviously, not every lower ranked firm is better than a higher ranked firm, but people lateral from v10 to v50 for a reason. My firm constantly hires laterals, and they all tell me my firm is better than their previous firm.

With that being said, I do think you get more volume, more variety and more complexity in your work at the V10 firms. However, for someone like me who literally just want to be enough to stay in biglaw, my firm is more than enough. Based on my experience, the v10-v70ish firms are not that different in terms of the quality of the work available to associates.

I hope it helps.