2 callbacks and 2 rejections, why?

[OldCraig]

Look, here's what I think:

I'm super competitive on paper (T14/resume/grades/writing sample), personality-wise, and in life in general.

Now, naively, I thought this meant I could interview at any firm in the v100 and be competitive and get offers, because merit should get you results, right? Wrong. In fact, annoyingly, I have had top firms give me offers, while firms in more desirable areas for my tastes, though lower in the v100, have expressed no interest.

I boil this down to three main factors:

1) Cronyism - other applicants in the running have inside connections/recommendations that you do NOT
2) Conspiratorial Recruiting - firm recruiters make deals/trades like professional sports teams (i.e. - "I'll give Johnny an offer and reject Jimmy if you reject Johnny and give an offer to Jimmy" - thereby taking your ability to "choose" your career right out of your hands)
3) Pedigree - background checks result in certain types of pedigrees that some firms find desirable, while other firms find your background undesirable - therefore, only firms with desirable opinions of your pedigree (i.e. - family socio-economic status, how many other lawyers in your family, how much debt are you in for school, where you went to school, etc.) - further, this plays a role in how well hiring partners think you'll "fit in" with the other associates at the firm - also, if you have lawyers in your family, odds are you'll be able to converse more fluidly about what lawyers do from day to day -while if you're a pioneer lawyer in your family, you probably have no clue what lawyers do in big firms from day to day, even though you are smarter than everyone in your class.

I am almost 100% sure these factors are what decide who gets offers and who does not that I would bet half my student loans on it - Annoying as it is to be discriminated against b/c you don't know anyone in the profession, have firms decide your future for you, and be judged based on your background - YOU CAN'T STOP IT

I just hope that the posters realize that they are smart people who will undoubtedly make fantastic lawyers - it's just that hiring attorneys employ some ridiculous tactics in choosing future associates.

[h2xblive]

Look, here's what I think:

I'm super competitive on paper (T14/resume/grades/writing sample), personality-wise, and in life in general.

Now, naively, I thought this meant I could interview at any firm in the v100 and be competitive and get offers, because merit should get you results, right? Wrong. In fact, annoyingly, I have had top firms give me offers, while firms in more desirable areas for my tastes, though lower in the v100, have expressed no interest.

I boil this down to three main factors:

1) Cronyism - other applicants in the running have inside connections/recommendations that you do NOT
2) Conspiratorial Recruiting - firm recruiters make deals/trades like professional sports teams (i.e. - "I'll give Johnny an offer and reject Jimmy if you reject Johnny and give an offer to Jimmy" - thereby taking your ability to "choose" your career right out of your hands)
3) Pedigree - background checks result in certain types of pedigrees that some firms find desirable, while other firms find your background undesirable - therefore, only firms with desirable opinions of your pedigree (i.e. - family socio-economic status, how many other lawyers in your family, how much debt are you in for school, where you went to school, etc.) - further, this plays a role in how well hiring partners think you'll "fit in" with the other associates at the firm - also, if you have lawyers in your family, odds are you'll be able to converse more fluidly about what lawyers do from day to day -while if you're a pioneer lawyer in your family, you probably have no clue what lawyers do in big firms from day to day, even though you are smarter than everyone in your class.

I am almost 100% sure these factors are what decide who gets offers and who does not that I would bet half my student loans on it - Annoying as it is to be discriminated against b/c you don't know anyone in the profession, have firms decide your future for you, and be judged based on your background - YOU CAN'T STOP IT

I just hope that the posters realize that they are smart people who will undoubtedly make fantastic lawyers - it's just that hiring attorneys employ some ridiculous tactics in choosing future associates.

How do these firms run these background checks and what basis do you have for the "conspiratorial recruiting?"

[JbooklynD]

Look, here's what I think:

I'm super competitive on paper (T14/resume/grades/writing sample), personality-wise, and in life in general.

Now, naively, I thought this meant I could interview at any firm in the v100 and be competitive and get offers, because merit should get you results, right? Wrong. In fact, annoyingly, I have had top firms give me offers, while firms in more desirable areas for my tastes, though lower in the v100, have expressed no interest.

I boil this down to three main factors:

1) Cronyism - other applicants in the running have inside connections/recommendations that you do NOT
2) Conspiratorial Recruiting - firm recruiters make deals/trades like professional sports teams (i.e. - "I'll give Johnny an offer and reject Jimmy if you reject Johnny and give an offer to Jimmy" - thereby taking your ability to "choose" your career right out of your hands)
3) Pedigree - background checks result in certain types of pedigrees that some firms find desirable, while other firms find your background undesirable - therefore, only firms with desirable opinions of your pedigree (i.e. - family socio-economic status, how many other lawyers in your family, how much debt are you in for school, where you went to school, etc.) - further, this plays a role in how well hiring partners think you'll "fit in" with the other associates at the firm - also, if you have lawyers in your family, odds are you'll be able to converse more fluidly about what lawyers do from day to day -while if you're a pioneer lawyer in your family, you probably have no clue what lawyers do in big firms from day to day, even though you are smarter than everyone in your class.

I am almost 100% sure these factors are what decide who gets offers and who does not that I would bet half my student loans on it - Annoying as it is to be discriminated against b/c you don't know anyone in the profession, have firms decide your future for you, and be judged based on your background - YOU CAN'T STOP IT

I just hope that the posters realize that they are smart people who will undoubtedly make fantastic lawyers - it's just that hiring attorneys employ some ridiculous tactics in choosing future associates.

I hope this is a joke.  Everyone understands that connections only get you so far, especially at the big firms.  Without a doubt, knowing a partner will get you a first round, and maybe even a second round, interview.  But it will not get you an offer.  That rests on your shoulders.  Clearly you aren't as competitive as you think personality wise.

[OldCraig]

Attn: JBrooklynD

Read the whole post please.

You'll see that personality is not the only element in the decision - thanks for coming out.

[deedeeleigh]

Any idea on whether firms (that are still hiring) have changed hiring standards or expectations over the course of the season (i.e., from before the week of Lehman/Merrill/AIG to after)?  More specifically, any credible danger of an old offer to a somewhat marginal candidate being rescinded because firms can now be even pickier?

Huh, this is a really scary thought. If a firm is more litigation centric, I'd hope they'd be a safer bet, but it seems like any NYC firm would be a in cost-saving mode. Hopefully they are just recruiting smaller sized classes.

[intel]

Look, here's what I think:

I'm super competitive on paper (T14/resume/grades/writing sample), personality-wise, and in life in general.

Now, naively, I thought this meant I could interview at any firm in the v100 and be competitive and get offers, because merit should get you results, right? Wrong. In fact, annoyingly, I have had top firms give me offers, while firms in more desirable areas for my tastes, though lower in the v100, have expressed no interest.

I boil this down to three main factors:

1) Cronyism - other applicants in the running have inside connections/recommendations that you do NOT
2) Conspiratorial Recruiting - firm recruiters make deals/trades like professional sports teams (i.e. - "I'll give Johnny an offer and reject Jimmy if you reject Johnny and give an offer to Jimmy" - thereby taking your ability to "choose" your career right out of your hands)
3) Pedigree - background checks result in certain types of pedigrees that some firms find desirable, while other firms find your background undesirable - therefore, only firms with desirable opinions of your pedigree (i.e. - family socio-economic status, how many other lawyers in your family, how much debt are you in for school, where you went to school, etc.) - further, this plays a role in how well hiring partners think you'll "fit in" with the other associates at the firm - also, if you have lawyers in your family, odds are you'll be able to converse more fluidly about what lawyers do from day to day -while if you're a pioneer lawyer in your family, you probably have no clue what lawyers do in big firms from day to day, even though you are smarter than everyone in your class.

I am almost 100% sure these factors are what decide who gets offers and who does not that I would bet half my student loans on it - Annoying as it is to be discriminated against b/c you don't know anyone in the profession, have firms decide your future for you, and be judged based on your background - YOU CAN'T STOP IT

I just hope that the posters realize that they are smart people who will undoubtedly make fantastic lawyers - it's just that hiring attorneys employ some ridiculous tactics in choosing future associates.

don't you think a pretty important factor you're omitting from the equation is that you transferred into GULC, and so employers are evaluating you based on the grades you earned at your old school? (sorry if i am mistaking you for someone else).

[nealric]

I agree with yellow brick.

I think another part of it is that with fewer offers going around firms can be a lot more picky than they would ordinarily be come callback time. Lower ranked firms (especially non-vault) seem to be hurting more from the downturn. I have yet to get a callback from any of the non-vault firms I interviewed with, but have several v-50 callbacks.

[OldCraig]

Intel: You've done your homework, but I was fortunate enough to jump up a little higher on the commercial prestige scale -

Yellow: You're probably right, but it's fun pretending it's a conspiracy isn't it?

I suppose it is a bit vain to have 10 callbacks and get 10 offers - we just all want to know we didn't give up these three years of our lives for slim pickings.

[Hey Now]

If you're not getting callbacks, the problem must be that you go to Harvard.

http://abovethelaw.com/2008/09/open_thread_how_is_the_fall_re.php#comments

[OldCraig]

If this "crisis" is true, I feel a little poorly about complaining. I definitely am not near as bad off as those who have not gotten offers yet.

P.S. - heh @ Harvard.