On-campus interviews: the topic of this week’s Qui Tam observational “poem.” I can’t imagine a more dehumanizing job-related experience, unless of course you were one of those students who didn’t get any….
- Biglaw, Career Center, Career Files, Cozen O'Connor, Interview Stories, Job Survey, Law Students, Patton Boggs, Schiff Hardin, Sheppard Mullin
The Biglaw on-campus recruiting season is a subject of decreasing relevance for most aspiring lawyers, as illustrated by this grim infographic. We are all familiar with the parade of horribles that is the law firm recruitment market, at least from the student point of view. Since the halcyon days of 2007, summer associate class sizes are down at the overwhelming majority of large law firms, often by fifty percent or more. And of course nobody is seriously arguing that class sizes will ever rebound to their pre-recession levels. But 50 percent is not 100 percent; there are still 2Ls who have just made their way through the OCI cattle call.
About a month back, we asked our readers to share their experiences of the OCI process. We wanted to learn where student priorities fall during this era of “New Normal.” For those of you fortunate enough to be in a position to choose among employers, what are the factors driving your decisions? What, if anything, is likely to make you reject an offer? And what, in this unbalanced buyers’ market for legal talent, is the actual interview experience like?
Three of your Above the Law editors — David Lat, Elie Mystal, and Joe Patrice — recently sat down in the ATL offices to discuss the law firm recruiting process. After on-campus interviews and callbacks are done and a student is weighing multiple offers, how should he or she pick the right firm?
The gang weighs in with this short podcast after the jump. Good luck to all those who are still interviewing or choosing between offers….
The law firm on-campus interview process is a peculiar institution. No other industry entrusts its entire entry-level hiring process to a series of superficial 20-minute “cattle call” interviews two years ahead of when the candidate will actually become a full-time employee. There is something contrived about the whole thing. (This old-ish video clip gives a good sense of the inherent absurdity.)
OCI is still underway at law schools across the country. Firms are currently hustling to interview students nationwide, make callbacks, and extend offers within an arbitrary 28-day window (per the NALP guidelines).
As we recently noted, opportunities to participate in OCI — which continues to be the primary entry point for law students into the largest and best-paying firms — are increasingly harder to come by in the current job market. The reality is, most students are on the outside looking in. Most will never be afforded the opportunity to land one of the few gigs that will actually give them a plausible chance of being able to pay off their student loans.
If you are one of the fortunate ones who just went through or is continuing to take part in OCI, we want to hear about your experiences….
The sky is not falling. Or if it is, it’s falling very, very slowly.
Yes, the legal industry is going through some major changes. The profession is becoming more business-focused than ever before, meaning that it’s harder out here for a partner. It’s also a tough time to graduate from a low-ranked law school if you’re not at the top of the class, as Elie Mystal has discussed at great length.
But for many law students and young lawyers, especially those with strong credentials from strong law schools, times are still good. For proof of this, consider on-campus interviewing (OCI), currently taking place at law schools around the country….
First off, a bit of housekeeping:
1) I never claimed to be a Deadhead, though I love their music. I will leave that to Mr. Wallerstein. I am a committed Phishhead, and could easily have used Trey Anastasio’s bust and subsequent rehab as an example for last week’s column. However, the Furthur incident had just occurred near here and I thought it was more topical.
2) I did not intend to depress anyone with a column on alcohol, so I guess I should have been sober when writing, but that goes against my practice.
3) I am rarely shocked any more by the comments on this site, but I have to say that in my opinion, they have devolved so far into a cesspool of misogyny and lack of humor or wit, that I have decided to continue to write columns without the ability to comment. I have been doing this long enough, and been called enough names and insulted sufficiently that I have become inured to being “hurt.” If you have a genuine criticism, suggestion or correction, write me at the Gmail address.
(Segue to column)
The divide between “being a nice guy” and “being an asshat” is often found in the willingness to share. The compulsion to bombard everyone’s inbox with advice just to be
smug friendly can turn even the most well-meaning effort into an inspiration for eye rolls.
Like a 1600-word screed directed at one’s schoolmates, offering unsolicited interview advice.
That would cross that line…
A long-distance friend of mine recently emailed me this question:
“I’m interviewing with a small boutique firm that just opened. They actually have a lot in common with your firm in that they have two partners who were at a big firm and left so they could do their own thing. I was wondering if there’s anything that jumps out at you as something you look for in job candidates for your firm that might not have been as important if you were interviewing them for a position in Biglaw?”
I thought that was a great question, and insightful, because there are indeed some very important differences between interviewing with a small firm or boutique and interviewing for an associate position in Biglaw.
This is what I told her.
This is a humdinger of an article. Harrison Barnes, the Malibu-based CEO of BCG Attorney Search (and its various affiliated companies like LawCrossing and EmploymentCrossing), has penned what can only be described as a diatribe in which he viciously mocks various employees he’s hired for their rank incompetence and embarrassing foibles.
He also elects to exhibit a panoply of racist, sexist, ageist, and ethnophobic attitudes along the way. It’s a stunning degree of openness for someone involved in the human resources business.
But the unintentional comedy throughout the piece is the realization that a recruiter is functionally admitting that he has no idea how hiring works.