Tertiary and Continuing The Law Thread

[checkraiseulite]

I'm not trying to argue with you either, I just find a lot of what you're saying somewhat contradictory.

It is helpful to see some other opinions/experiences though, so thanks for your insight.

I've had minimal experience really with structured recruitment besides a little bit of vacation/seasonal stuff, so I can't really comment on whether I've got what I deserved, though I have been happy with my results to this point.

I'm now writing applications for jobs I don't necessarily want, struggling for motivation and getting frustrated answering repeated questions about areas I perceive myself to be weak in. I apologise if I'm coming of as confrontational.

 

[Caesar]

Its pretty straightforward. No employer cuts anyone with a serious chance of being employed at the application stage. Nobody misses an interview for trivial reasons like number of extracurricular association memberships.

Just because you got an offer at A and missed an interview at B doesn't mean the process is arbitrary. A candidate who is ideal for firm A may be no chance for a job at firm B because of differing critera or number of places.

 

[DTRAIN87]

Perhaps the quality of the applicants was higher at the place you didn't make it to the first round?

First round interviews are my area. Let me tell you, we cast a pretty wide net. We take all the probables and all the the possibles. You only cut the ones who you can already tell don't have a chance of landing the job.

Obviously when you're culling by application there's room for error. Do I think that we cut people who may have been better than some of the guys we granted interviews to? Almost certainly.

Do I think we cut anyone who could have landed the job if they'd got an interview? Possible I guess, but in my view highly unlikely.

The last line is utterly stupid and outright wrong. I am sure you have stuffed this up like nearly every other HR person in the world had. The biggest thing I took from the recruiting course at uni was every organisation will stuff up by not offering an interview to someone who ends up being capable of doing the job and shows it elsewhere. Law is notorious for it.

The HR recruiter and offsider we had present to us a t uni from a Big 4 firm said some very interesting things about the recruitment processes utilised and basically the lecturer told us why we were right in thinking some of the comments she made were outright wrong in that week's tutorial and that was part of the exercise. The best bit was when the other male smart ass student rolled this arrogant woman by saying if you are so good at recruiting the best candidates accurately then why do you have such a high turnover ratio aND one that is above industry average? Isn't this a failure if people leave the organisation regularly after a short time because obviously they aren't suited to the organisation? The arrogant woman was left in a state of shock and embarrassment with even the lecturer trying not to laugh at it. The result, a standard one liner about the size of the firm which is utter crap when it comes to mathematics and ratios.

 

[Caesar]

There is a difference between being capable of doing a job, and having a chance at getting it. Given how many people we interview, I'm pretty confident we don't miss anyone who is better than the people who eventually get selected.

Also, please don't lump me in with HR. My job is useful and I have a soul.

 

[Old Skool]

It's fascinating to watch lawyers speculate about percieved agendas.

 

[checkraiseulite]

There is a difference between being capable of doing a job, and having a chance at getting it. Given how many people we interview, I'm pretty confident we don't miss anyone who is better than the people who eventually get selected.

Also, please don't lump me in with HR. My job is useful and I have a soul.

You sure make it sound like you spend an awful lot of time reading applications and interviewing grads. Isn't it HR's job to vet the actual applications before grads get an interview with someone like you?

Couple more questions:

What % of applications would normally call in for a first-round interview? What is the approximate ratio of people granted first round interviews to graduate positions?

What sort of things (besides the obvious) are red flags to you personally (and then the particular organisation you work for) at the pre-interview stage? At the interview stage?

 

[Caesar]

The process (where I work anyway) is that HR throws out any applications that are manifestly inadequate or don't meet certain specified criteria. The remainder are gone through by HR in conjunction with someone junior from the department doing the recruiting and selects those to be granted an interview. Generally they fall into two classes - probables and possibles. Probables are people who look like clear contenders. Possibles are people who aren't as promising, but we want to have a look at anyway.

First round interviews are done by a junior supervisor and someone from HR. The shortlist get a second interview with the junior supervisor and their boss.

Percentages - hard to say, depends on the quality of the applicants. Generally first round interviews we don't have a set number because its more about checking out prospective candidates thoroughly. Second round is more about giving the boss X number of people to choose from.

Red flags - just the usual stuff. Personally, written skills make a big impression on me. I will often pick someone with a very well-written application even if their actual credentials are more mediocre. In the interview, I like people who are genuine. Frankness and directness is a big plus, people who know their failings and areas where they lack knowledge and can be upfront about them without beating around in the bush. Most law grads interview well but a lot have just a touch of fakeness, smarminess, whatever you want to call it - just a bit too smooth. Hard to describe. Probably unconscious and a result of honing and polishing interview technique. A couple of times I have given a second interview to people mostly because they gave off a vibe of being a really good bloke.

That's how we do it anyway. Personally I dislike HR and like to have as much control of the selection process myself. My boss is the same. Maybe other places are different.

 

[slashin_velvet]

The application stage is just to weed out the obviously unsuitable candidates. Anyone with a remote chance of getting the job is going to get a first-round interview.

This is tripe.

Talking from my experience with large firms, people get canned purely on not having the highest uni results. The filters are automated as these companies get thousands of applicants and need a filter. They are bound to have some great candidates slip through the cracks. Interviewing thousands of people is a waste of time when you dont have heaps of positions, so they filter based on key metrics prior to first round.

 

[checkraiseulite]

This is tripe.

Talking from my experience with large firms, people get canned purely on not having the highest uni results. The filters are automated as these companies get thousands of applicants and need a filter. They are bound to have some great candidates slip through the cracks. Interviewing thousands of people is a waste of time when you dont have heaps of positions, so they filter based on key metrics prior to first round.

I agree with you, and even after going through mark-related and psychometric filters there'd still be huge numbers of capable candidates that'll never get a first-round interview at a big4 bank or accounting firm.

I think Caesar is wrongly trying to apply the particular recruitment practices of his own company (or team within his company) industry-wide.

 

[Caesar]

This is tripe.

Talking from my experience with large firms, people get canned purely on not having the highest uni results. The filters are automated as these companies get thousands of applicants and need a filter. They are bound to have some great candidates slip through the cracks. Interviewing thousands of people is a waste of time when you dont have heaps of positions, so they filter based on key metrics prior to first round.

If you don't have the uni results to get you an interview it means the quality of the candidates is so high that you wouldn't have a chance of getting a job even if you were interviewed.

I am not saying that good candidates don't miss out. I'm just saying that the people who miss out were never really in the running for the position anyway.

 

[slashin_velvet]

If you don't have the uni results to get you an interview it means the quality of the candidates is so high that you wouldn't have a chance of getting a job even if you were interviewed.

I am not saying that good candidates don't miss out. I'm just saying that the people who miss out were never really in the running for the position anyway.

You're showing a fair disconnect with the real world. I know plenty of smart people who didnt necessarily apply themselves in uni using the line of (P's get degrees). They are now regretting that because its made it harder for them to find work.

The large banks and accounting firms want allrounders. People who show they can manage their time. This includes extra curricular activities (note it doesnt have to be volunteer work, it just needs to show you are more than one dimensional).

 

[jo172]

You're showing a fair disconnect with the real world. I know plenty of smart people who didnt necessarily apply themselves in uni using the line of (P's get degrees). They are now regretting that because its made it harder for them to find work.

The large banks and accounting firms want allrounders. People who show they can manage their time. This includes extra curricular activities (note it doesnt have to be volunteer work, it just needs to show you are more than one dimensional).

Non sequitur much?

 

[Caesar]

You're showing a fair disconnect with the real world. I know plenty of smart people who didnt necessarily apply themselves in uni using the line of (P's get degrees). They are now regretting that because its made it harder for them to find work.

The large banks and accounting firms want allrounders. People who show they can manage their time. This includes extra curricular activities (note it doesnt have to be volunteer work, it just needs to show you are more than one dimensional).

I don't disagree with any of that. The point is that when you have such a big field of graduates to choose from, you are going to be able to find those allrounders who also have the marks to back it up.

In such a competitive environment, someone who doesn't have the marks isn't going to get the job - and it's not just because they get cut before the interview stage.

That's all I'm saying.

 

[jo172]

The other point is that in such a competitive environment there's a fine line between the "best person for the job" and a "very good person for the job".

In light of this, and considering the amount of professional development that occurs in the job as opposed to in tertiary education it's pointless to piss away resources in a possibly never-ending, all encompassing search for "the best person" when there are multiple "very good persons" to choose from.

 

[DTRAIN87]

If you don't have the uni results to get you an interview it means the quality of the candidates is so high that you wouldn't have a chance of getting a job even if you were interviewed.

I am not saying that good candidates don't miss out. I'm just saying that the people who miss out were never really in the running for the position anyway.

Here are you showing the recruitment practices and policies of your company. This highlights the exact reason you will make mistakes recruiting despite claiming the contrary. The gist vI get from this post is that you only care about marks when choosing candidates and put them at the top of the priority list when recruiting. You seem to ignore all relevant other factors that can be equally important when hunting like skills in law practice and similar. It is almost certain your firm has made mistakes in their recruiting by ignoring the other categories so strongly with this narrow band recruiting strategy.

This is a big reason firms realise they make errors in their retention of staff and other indicators because they don't put effort in at the start when it is most needed. Sounds like I would never want to work where you are.

 

[slashin_velvet]

Non sequitur much?

By addressing two seperate topics?

One being the statement that anyone who had a chance will be guaranteed a first round interview. (Which is a complete falsehood)

The other being that volunteer work and extra curricular activities are not essential to landing a job.

Clearly seperated into two distinct paragraphs.

 

[jo172]

By addressing two seperate topics?

One being the statement that anyone who had a chance will be guaranteed a first round interview. (Which is a complete falsehood)

The other being that volunteer work and extra curricular activities are not essential to landing a job.

Clearly seperated into two distinct paragraphs.

I was referring to your quotation of Caesar.

You accuse him of showing a disconnect with the real world for stating that Grades are essential to getting an interview and illustrate your point with examples of average grades translating to difficulty in finding employment.

It feels that you're each saying similar to the same thing and thus have an equivalent disconnect with the real world or your initial assertion was mistaken. I assume the latter as your assertion was supported by what one can only presume to be the real world.

 

[slashin_velvet]

In such a competitive environment, someone who doesn't have the marks isn't going to get the job - and it's not just because they get cut before the interview stage.

That's all I'm saying.

A one dimensional recruitment policy such as this will yield a one dimensional work force. Many companies arent going for this, and want people who think outside the box and are willing to challenge the norms.

In direct contrast with this, in my most recent job interview for my current role (somewhat experienced hire), I wasnt asked to provide a transcript of any of my scores. It wasnt as relevant as my personality and my ability was tested via other means (some pop quiz style questions in the interview and a specific outsourced test of numerical, written and personal ability/characteristics.)

 

[slashin_velvet]

I was referring to your quotation of Caesar.

You accuse him of showing a disconnect with the real world for stating that Grades are essential to getting an interview and illustrate your point with examples of average grades translating to difficulty in finding employment.

It feels that you're each saying similar to the same thing and thus have an equivalent disconnect with the real world or your initial assertion was mistaken. I assume the latter as your assertion was supported by what one can only presume to be the real world.

Your interpretation is incorrect. Caesar has stated that poor results will not yeild an interview and this is acceptable because results are the main indicator of performance and that no-one who actually had a chance at the job would slip through the cracks as evidence by "I'm just saying that the people who miss out were never really in the running for the position anyway."
(This second part is the disconnect from the real world where many people who cruise through uni are very intelligent and possibly more skilled than the high scorers).

What my point is that very skilled people can miss out on employment when such an automated and careless approach is taken to recruitment.

 

[jo172]

Your interpretation is incorrect. Caesar has stated that poor results will not yeild an interview and this is acceptable because results are the main indicator of performance and that no-one who actually had a chance at the job would slip through the cracks. (This second part is the disconnect from the real world where many people who cruise through uni are very intelligent and possibly more skilled than the high scorers).

I don't think Caesar was necessarily saying that results are an indicator of performance as much as that they're an indicator of success in getting the job. I didn't interpret Caesar's post as an endorsement of the situation but rather an explanation of the status quo.

This is probably a point best settled by Caesar though

What my point is that very skilled people can miss out on employment when such an automated and careless approach is taken to recruitment.

Agree, but is the opportunity cost of extensive assessment of job applications worth it when in any distinct law firm there are such few graduate positions (and substantially fewer which the firm intends to keep on over a 5 year period) and as a general rule many many applicants will be of high quality.

I would agree that it is not a flawless system, I just tend to think that in terms of efficiency it is the best system in that you get someone on the high end of capable for a lot less effort rather than someone perfect after a massive output of effort.

 

[slashin_velvet]

I would agree that it is not a flawless system, I just tend to think that in terms of efficiency it is the best system in that you get someone on the high end of capable for a lot less effort rather than someone perfect after a massive output of effort.

Im not disagreeing with this. The point i was disagreeing with was the countless times where caesar stated that good candidates do not slip through the cracks in a system like this (which you obviously disagree with based on your comment about the system being flawed).

 

[DTRAIN87]

Im not disagreeing with this. The point i was disagreeing with was the countless times where caesar stated that good candidates do not slip through the cracks in a system like this (which you obviously disagree with based on your comment about the system being flawed).

All recruiting processes like everything else in the world are flawed in some way. II do agree with the rest of your sentiments however.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Agree, but is the opportunity cost of extensive assessment of job applications worth it when in any distinct law firm there are such few graduate positions (and substantially fewer which the firm intends to keep on over a 5 year period) and as a general rule many many applicants will be of high quality.

I would agree that it is not a flawless system, I just tend to think that in terms of efficiency it is the best system in that you get someone on the high end of capable for a lot less effort rather than someone perfect after a massive output of effort.

Again, this whole efficiency argument is hard to reconcile with Caesar's statement that anyone with a remote chance of getting the job will get an opportunity to sell themselves in a first round interview.

Doing this is manifestly inefficient. That is why capable people who, but for luck, would have had a chance at getting the job, miss out.

Edit: I don't think people should complain about marks and psychometric testing being used as filters. My point is that there is still such a huge amount of candidates getting through the filters, and as such a large component of luck is involved in who HR (making decisions on a very small amount of information) choose to bring in for interviews.

 

[DTRAIN87]

Again, this whole efficiency argument is hard to reconcile with Caesar's statement that anyone with a remote chance of getting the job will get an opportunity to sell themselves in a first round interview.

Doing this is manifestly inefficient. That is why capable people who, but for luck, would have had a chance at getting the job, miss out.

Caesar contradicts himself though when he states remote people miss out on the job interview due to a criteria, in this case being marks.

Some may argue that is an inefficient way of eliminating candidates to start with.

 

[checkraiseulite]

You're failing to differentiate between remote chance of being capable to do the job, and remote chance of getting the job. We are talking about the latter, not the former given efficiency considerations as noted above by jo.

It's efficient and entirely reasonable to cut people based on their marks and testing scores, because these filters are quantitative and can be uniformly applied.

Cutting people based on personal value-judgements based off of limited info is where Caesar's statement breaks down imo.

Obviously the very best of the applicants are going through regardless, but the next layer may well include people that will have a remote chance of getting a job provided they get an opportunity to present.

Determining which of these candidates gets a shot at presenting in a first-round interview is where the luck comes into it.

\nittery.