« on: November 07, 2008, 06:14:38 PM »
If he didn't interview well, he wouldn't have had 10-13 callbacks, assuming he only did OCI.
That's not true at all. You get OCI interviews because of grades, you generally get through OCI to call backs because of grades again. They see you for 20 minutes. It's easy to keep the subject off of you for 20 minutes.
At a call back, your douchebaggery is much more likely to surface.
look dude, the point at which you are driving is true in theory, completely sexist (as business in general is) but true. this means that it doesn't really exist in practice. no business, and i mean not a one, wants women having kids. there was an interesting and provocative discussion a couple of years ago within the AMA about how disastrous training female physicians was, and particularly in the highly specialized fields. The reason was clear. Just as they gain proficiency at their skillset, they drop out for years at a time to have kids. What this means is that a. they never fully "catch up" to their male counterparts who keep working (or female counterparts who decide not to have children) and that b. the remaining physicians have to pick up their patients. This is a huge drag on resources (medicine is heavily subsidized) and a drag on morale. The obvious conclusion however is that you simply cannot choose to hire or fire people based on whether or not they have kids, want kids, may have kid, etc. Law is no different. So what happens is that people just accept that it blows for business but you might as well accept that the inevitable will happen. Mind you I am looking at this purely from the point of view of highest return on an investment. Clearly society benefits greatly from mothers having children. It is something all employers know that they have to deal with. Not mentioning the fact that you want or have kids if you are a young woman as if a hiring partner won't somehow assume that you might decide to do that some day or that in fact you might already have kids is asinine.i sense a touch of sarcasm here archival. google "university of wisconsin mom gets SCOTUS clerkship". being a parent when partners making hiring decisions are parents can absolutely translate into a huge advantage. at the very least you have a significant point in common.
Are you seriously arguing that partners in large law firms generally view it as an advantage when a woman has young children? That people making hiring decisions would generally be impressed by a woman who mentioned her young children in an interview? I'm not talking about corner cases like your Wisconsin grad, but generalities.
i sense a touch of sarcasm here archival. google "university of wisconsin mom gets SCOTUS clerkship". being a parent when partners making hiring decisions are parents can absolutely translate into a huge advantage. at the very least you have a significant point in common.You are often dealing with similar things (spouse, young kids, purchasing a home, etc.)
Yeah bringing that up as a thirty-something woman would go over great.
you are right, I was making a very broad statement. in my experience, it is an accurate observation. there are unquestionably immature older students. but when you match a mature, older student (noting my age range exceptions) to a mature younger student, the older student wins every time. they related better to those interviewing them because they have done more (not due to superior aptitude or ability but by virtue of having been on earth longer). in other words, everything else being equal (to reiterate, within the age range described above), the older student gets the job every time.You are often dealing with similar things (spouse, young kids, purchasing a home, etc.) and you have more experience to draw from than "once in my frat..." or "in class one time...". This is not to say that there aren't insanely bright and talented younger people who do well in these situations, I just found that even the best of them came off as immature.
For the record, I'm under 30, married, own my own home, was never in a sorority, and never once talked about class in interviews unless I was asked what class was my favorite or something along those lines.
I'm not disagreeing that age can be a benefit OR a hurdle, depending on where you're at and what else you have going on for you, but to make a relatively broad statement that all young people talk about is frats and class is pretty insulting to someone under 30. And even where you acknowledged that there are bright and talented younger people, you immediately asserted that they're all still immature. These types of judgments and assumptions hurt everyone, because they go both ways. (and I do see that you tried to "soften" your stance later on, but I don't think you were quite successful enough to undo the insulting nature of what's quoted above).
Bottom line, a person's age can be a benefit or a burden. Younger people may face the immature stigma in some places and jobs, and older can be assumed to not want to start at the bottom of the associate pack. But it's all about how you spin it. Several people I summered with and will be 1st year associates with me at a BigLaw firm were older and came from another career or with several degrees under their belt. They spun their experience and their age as positives on their resume and their interview, and it obviously worked for them. Also, several older students at my school got great jobs in both big firms and government.