13 Callbacks, 0 Offers

[Bigbie]

If you are law review at top 25 with zero offers, then you have to be socially awkward in some way (no offense).

That statement was true in 2007. It is not true today.

It is still true if you are LAW REVIEW at a top school.  I'm sorry, but nobody I know at GW that is law review is hurting.  The biggest firms are still having large summer classes and there are still plenty of openings for top students at top schools. 

Sure, it is definitely a much tougher economy, however, law review at a top school without an offer is definitely evidence of the candidate's persona or how they interview.

If someone only applied to NY firms that have huge summer classes, then perhaps it says something about how they interview. But mostly it's the economy. Most firms are on hold right now seeing how things shake out.

[nealric]

It is still true if you are LAW REVIEW at a top school.  I'm sorry, but nobody I know at GW that is law review is hurting.  The biggest firms are still having large summer classes and there are still plenty of openings for top students at top schools.

Sure, it is definitely a much tougher economy, however, law review at a top school without an offer is definitely evidence of the candidate's persona or how they interview.
 

Said person could be aiming for a tough secondary market and/or was just unlucky in bidding. It happens. Plus "T25" could mean schools like Iowa, WUSTL, or Minnesota, which have far inferior biglaw placement to GW.

[pd112aux]

If you are law review at top 25 with zero offers, then you have to be socially awkward in some way (no offense).

That statement was true in 2007. It is not true today.

It is still true if you are LAW REVIEW at a top school.  I'm sorry, but nobody I know at GW that is law review is hurting.

You fail to account for the LR selection method.  GW LR members are likely to also have high grades.  For schools with pure write-on, that correlation is no longer built into the system.

[TheDudeMan]

If you are law review at top 25 with zero offers, then you have to be socially awkward in some way (no offense).

That statement was true in 2007. It is not true today.

It is still true if you are LAW REVIEW at a top school.  I'm sorry, but nobody I know at GW that is law review is hurting.

You fail to account for the LR selection method.  GW LR members are likely to also have high grades.  For schools with pure write-on, that correlation is no longer built into the system.

Ahh yes, I totally forgot that many schools have pure write-on to journals.  Unlike GW where only the top can get journal experience, which is really stupid, but oh well.

[DaubertsDaughter]

My school uses a combination write-on/grade-on process.  Some spots reserved for the top writing scores, the rest are a combination of writing score and grades. No spots purely grade-on.  They don't tell us which camp we fall in to, but it's possible I was a pure write-on (I do have one of the lower GPAs on law review--top 1/3 as opposed to top 20%)

My pre-law school resume was also geared strongly toward public interest and government.  I hated it, and only did it to pay my way through college, but trying telling that to BigLaw.  Maybe in a different year.  But this year, I might as well be on a street corner in NYC spinning poi.

[TheDudeMan]

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.

[vercingetorix]

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.

a little harsh perhaps, but as they say, the sting in any rebuke is the truth.  the OP probably has problems connecting with the target audience in a more "real world" setting than the 20 minute interview revealed.  first off, congrats are in order for the 13 initials, especially in this economy. this is a sign that on paper you are in good shape.  the obvious problem was in closing the deal.  a very candid assessment of your ability to carry on conversations that put your interviewers at ease, or, even better, make them forget that they are interviewing you (most of my callbacks were all day affairs that included lunch and dinner) should help.  also, look at what we consider shallow attributes.  are you overweight? how did you dress? do you have severe acne? do you look like an idiot when you eat? (i'm quite serious).  all of these things play a pretty large role.  remember people get 80% of their information visually.  do you have annoying mannerisms? do you spend large swaths of conversations talking about yourself without breaking it up and asking others about their families/hobbies/homes/whatever? remember a large part of this is proving that you are potty trained and that you won't embarrass the firm in front of clients.
do you have work experience? as a non-trad i found this made it much easier to connect with my interviewers.  for the most part i was the same age as, or older than the people with whom i spoke.  a couple of different firms stated explicitly that this was a big advantage. it goes without saying that this can go too far. clearly if you are 50 this will be a handicap.  but all other things being equal, if you are a little older (late 20's, early 30's) and you have a solid professional background, this is a big advantage.  an example.  i am 34, top 30% of my class at a T1 school (not even top 25), no journals and i got 9 out of 12 offers. i would not have gotten this kind of attention without 1. my work experience and 2. my ability (developed over years of interacting in professional settings) to find something i have in common with people and use it to my advantage in conversations without sounding cheesy.

[,.,.,.;.,.,.]

I couldn't agree more with vercing, and I worked as a recruiter, so I have first-hand experience with this topic:

Unfortunately, good looking people always do better at interviewing.  It's unfair, but it's how the world works.  I would bet you any amount of money that I could send an attractive woman and an ugly woman with the same credentials to ten interviews, and the attractive woman will seal the deal at more of them.  That's what I often did when I worked as a recruiter.  I could tell, in the first twenty seconds, whether the person would be likely to find work or not.  The chronically unemployed types were always unattractive: short, poor dressers, awkward socially, and, sometimes, overweight.  One Russian woman couldn't find a job for three years.  Guess what?  She was single, too.  Coincidence?  I doubt it.

If you can adjust your image, make sure you do so.  Height is obviously out of your range, but losing weight, cleaning up, and dressing well will give you the confidence you need to excel.

I know it sounds harsh, but anonymous internet tipsters will tell you things that people on the street don't.  Also, if you have a recruiter in your family, USE THEM.  Do mock interviews with them.  Have them look at your resume, especially if they're in the right field (I worked in IT.)  Talk to them about their work.  It's illuminating stuff.

[Hey Now]

Ever consider that the interviewers are social Trig Palins, not him?  I'll admit I botched a few interviews, but I think I got more rejections because I couldn't connect with partners who were exponentially less interesting than a brick wall.  Law firms are filled with really really boring, socially awkward people, and firms let these people recruit.  I know, 0/13 suggests it's you not them, but you never know.  It only takes 1 bad interviewer out of the 4 to sink an interviewee's callback.