|
yeah i don't want to come across as sergeant smugdog like i may have in that last post but the key to interviews really is to just treat it like a conversation. its like talking to a pretty girl at a party or a new friend at a bar. just be the best and most honest you you can be and make your interviewer feel good about himself
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Feces Starship posted:its like talking to a pretty girl at a party or a new friend at a bar. How does this work? What if you can't hear in loud environments? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:yeah i don't want to come across as sergeant smugdog like i may have in that last post but the key to interviews really is to just treat it like a conversation. its like talking to a pretty girl at a party or a new friend at a bar. just be the best and most honest you you can be and make your interviewer feel good about himself One time I had an interview where the interviewer talked poo poo about Obama and how he never accomplished anything for about 30 minutes. E: He was president at the time
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
Mons Hubris posted:One time I had an interview where the interviewer talked poo poo about Obama and how he never accomplished anything for about 30 minutes. I know you mean that Obama was president at the time, but now I'm imagining you being interviewed by Pres. Obama and him being all self loathing. And you trying to reassure him. Naw it's ok Mr. Prez, you've done lots of things...
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
tau posted:How does this work? What if you can't hear in loud environments?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 06:15
|
|
|
Solid Lizzie posted:You tell the hiring partner he has the biggest boobs you've ever seen. Good call. I'll break the ice with a joke: "They're right in front of you and can open very large doors. What are they?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 06:52
|
|
|
tau posted:Good call. I'll break the ice with a joke: "They're right in front of you and can open very large doors. What are they?" Wait you got an interview?!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
sigmachiev posted:Wait you got an interview?! What? No. Sorry, didn't mean to get any hopes up. No jobs, die alone, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 07:22
|
|
|
Mons Hubris posted:One time I had an interview where the interviewer talked poo poo about Obama and how he never accomplished anything for about 30 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 07:46
|
|
|
Solid Lizzie posted:One of my interviews, I got asked about my opinion on Obama, the Trayvon Martin case, and a myriad of other political topics. No abortion question, though, whew. edit: once I interviewed with a guy whose son was in Vampire Weekend. He asked me about them and what I thought, and I said that I liked them a lot and had heard them play a lot (I went to the same college as the band members), but in fact I had never heard of them until the interview. Ani fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Apr 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 08:12
|
|
|
Ani posted:Did you answer honestly or come up with a bunch of non-committal stuff? I'm not really sure what I'd do if someone asked me political questions in an interview. Wait a second, which firm and which interviewer? Because I got that same question and I also went there (roar lions roar). edit: Though I had seen them b/c they played Bacchanal my junior year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 11:58
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Wait a second, which firm and which interviewer? Because I got that same question and I also went there (roar lions roar).
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 12:11
|
|
|
My rule for "uncomfortable social stuff at work" is as follows: racist stuff - decry or signal disagreement. this can be subtle like "well, i don't agree but..." misogynistic stuff - if you're with all men do nothing, if in mixed company do above political stuff - noncommittal statements. this can be stuff like "i see what you mean" or "i've never thought about it that way" I have trouble with the religious stuff, which comes up frequently because of where I work. That's the hardest. I'm pretty religious (please just leave it alone internet) but I try to keep it secret but if anyone knows about it things can get awkward sometimes
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 14:59
|
|
|
Plan: Wake up at 6 to get a couple hours of studying in before the exam. Reality: I love sleep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
While in the kitchen I heard a partner (R) talking to another partner (D) about how the secret service prostitute scandal was Obama's fault, and how Obama was taking an entourage of 400 people to Colombia, including his personal chef--how dare he!--costing the taxpayers millions of dollars for nothing. All this for just one man! The D partner didn't take the bait and I also bit my tongue. We laughed about it later though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
I used to deliberately provoke my crazy libertarian boss into rants. I would also congratulate new hires the first time they managed to do so. When I accidentally provoked an a crazy libertarian rant during a job interview (I got the job) with a joke about the football strike, I smiled and nodded my way through it, but was laughing the entire drive home.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
Ani posted:Did you answer honestly or come up with a bunch of non-committal stuff? I'm not really sure what I'd do if someone asked me political questions in an interview. Hardest question she asked was "Do you cook?" "I try." Got the job, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:While in the kitchen I heard a partner (R) talking to another partner (D) about how the secret service prostitute scandal was Obama's fault, and how Obama was taking an entourage of 400 people to Colombia, including his personal chef--how dare he!--costing the taxpayers millions of dollars for nothing. All this for just one man! Most of the more senior attorneys (partners/counsel) at my firm are Republicans. Whenever I go to lunch with their group, they all bash the Dems pretty hard. Last week, one of the Counsel guys said, "I don't care if it turns out Romney is a pedophile, he's still better than Obama." Everyone stopped eating and just looked at him, and then one of the partners said, "No...just no." So apparently pedophilia is where most of them draw the line.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:Most of the more senior attorneys (partners/counsel) at my firm are Republicans. Whenever I go to lunch with their group, they all bash the Dems pretty hard. Last week, one of the Counsel guys said, "I don't care if it turns out Romney is a pedophile, he's still better than Obama." Everyone stopped eating and just looked at him, and then one of the partners said, "No...just no." Republican lawyer seems like an oxymoron. Texas had a bunch of them and they helped get Med/Mal reform passed. Now those lawyers don't have jobs or practices anymore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 18:54
|
|
|
Yeah, Republicans in Fl seem to think that you can kill a trial lawyer by throwing holy water on them. I've never heard "personal injury" said with such vitriol. I will white knight PI attorneys until the end of time because nobody believes doctors/employers ever negligently hurt people. Excluding the mass tort dudes because they can cry on their jet all they want and don't need me to protect them. HiddenReplaced posted:Most of the more senior attorneys (partners/counsel) at my firm are Republicans. Whenever I go to lunch with their group, they all bash the Dems pretty hard. Last week, one of the Counsel guys said, "I don't care if it turns out Romney is a pedophile, he's still better than Obama." Everyone stopped eating and just looked at him, and then one of the partners said, "No...just no." Should have said, "what about an ephebophile?" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 19:08
|
|
|
Solid Lizzie posted:Hardest question she asked was "Do you cook?" I had a very interesting conversation about risotto once with an interviewer, but still didn't get hired  I showed them, though. I went and made some char siu the other day using a recipe from the GWS wiki  Also, I didn't want to study so I made this thing
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 19:41
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Republican lawyer seems like an oxymoron. Texas had a bunch of them and they helped get Med/Mal reform passed. Now those lawyers don't have jobs or practices anymore. Oh god I know. It seems like the lawyers I meet are overwhelmingly liberal. But then again I never talk to corporate guys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Republican lawyer seems like an oxymoron. Texas had a bunch of them and they helped get Med/Mal reform passed. Now those lawyers don't have jobs or practices anymore. Insurance defense. "If your grandma had only pulled herself up by her bootstraps once in a while, she wouldn't have got those stage 4 decubs!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:yeah i don't want to come across as sergeant smugdog like i may have in that last post but the key to interviews really is to just treat it like a conversation. its like talking to a pretty girl at a party or a new friend at a bar. just be the best and most honest you you can be and make your interviewer feel good about himself Not only is this a good strategy for impressing interviewers, it is also a good way to figure out where you like to work. If you have to miserably pretend to be the sort of person who would fit into a particular culture, then you might well be miserable working there every day!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Oh god I know. It seems like the lawyers I meet are overwhelmingly liberal. But then again I never talk to corporate guys. Patent boutiques are full of conservatives for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
gret posted:Patent boutiques are full of conservatives for some reason. Being a science major, an autist, and a libertarian are all highly correlated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Oh god I know. It seems like the lawyers I meet are overwhelmingly liberal. But then again I never talk to corporate guys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Oh god I know. It seems like the lawyers I meet are overwhelmingly liberal. But then again I never talk to corporate guys.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
Complex regulations like Dodd-Frank make stupid amounts of money for firms; they can bitch all they want in public, but I bet they say a special prayer to the sausage factory right before bedtime.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Complex regulations like Dodd-Frank make stupid amounts of money for firms; they can bitch all they want in public, but I bet they say a special prayer to the sausage factory right before bedtime. Also, even if a new regulation is a net positive for the firm, I think spending a lot of time with clients, and arguing on behalf of clients against the SEC, tends to make you more anti-regulation. I don't know what the partners at my firm really think of the Volcker rule, say, but I do know that the partners I've talked to who work with the SEC have a very low opinion of the agency itself, which I'm sure colors their thoughts on the rules it produces.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
Hello law thread. I don't know if there are any Australian law goons here, or what I'm really asking, but I'd like some lawyers' impressions on an opportunity I've been offered. I'm currently a PhD student in philosophy at the University of Queensland. I pay no tuition and am on a living stipend scholarship. I have been a PhD student for a little under a year now. I have been offered a free ride through the graduate LLB program at the same university, with a stipend more-or-less equivalent to what I get now. My current supervisor thinks I'd be a fool not to take that opportunity to get a law degree, but then, he is not a lawyer. He is an academic, though, and an applied ethicist at that who works quite closely with a lot of legal academics. He says that opportunities for talented people with no personality defects in legal academia are a hell of a lot better than they are in philosophy, and that Australian law schools will be quite accommodating if I wanted to do a cross-discipline PhD later on. In this, I have no reason to believe he doesn't know what he's talking about. Ethics gels reasonably well with law in academia. Not that I necessarily have my heart set on a cushy chair in some Commonwealth university, mind you. I'm open to destinations to which a change of direction might eventually carry me. He thinks I should take my current research, narrow the scope, and aim for an masters by research rather than a PhD in what I'm currently doing (which is extremely interesting to me and what I assumed I would be doing for some years to come), which is probably achievable by the time I would start in the law program in February 2013 (as a graduate, I cannot start mid-year). I went through an adolescent phase of wanting to be a barrister, but throughout university my interest in the law has been purely theoretical and relational to my areas of philosophical interest, and I had never planned to get a law degree. It's not as if the law holds no interest for me, but it's not a passion I'm champing at the bit to pursue either. My supervisor thinks I'm an idiot even to consider not taking the law scholarship, as do my family and friends. For myself, I'm leaning quite strongly towards taking their advice, but I've been aware of this thread (and its antecedents) and the horrifying experiences related herein for several years now. The OP says not to consider a law degree at a non-top-tier university (which UQ isn't - it's probably the best in Queensland for me, but the universities of Melbourne, Sydney, New South Wales, and Australian National University are all widely regarded as superior law schools. UQ's by no means towards the bottom of the list, but it's not at the very top either) unless you're going to be paid to study, which is what I'm being offered. I have until October to decide what I want to do. Keep on truckin' and finish a PhD, which would take me another two to three years, or turn in something hopefully worthy of an M.Phil late this year or early the next and spend the following three years getting a law degree? Scholarship opportunities to do research will still be there when I'm done, but this free ride through law won't be there after a PhD if that's what I wanted to keep doing. Is there maybe some factor I'm missing, or am I foolish even to think about declining a paid journey through law? Thanks for any advice. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 12:01 on Apr 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 11:14
|
|
|
Cwapface posted:Hello law thread. I think you should definitely take it. If you want to stay in academia then it sounds fantastic. If you want to go into practice, I am guessing that would be as a barrister since you mentioned thinking about that previously. I'm in the UK so I don't have any first hand knowledge of the state of the legal profession in Australia but I spent a weekend with James Allsop recently who's the president of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and he mentioned that most chambers in Australia work on an equity scheme where you have to buy in to a share in order to become a tenant. I didn't ask quite how much money would be involved but I get the impression that you need quite a bit to get started. After that hurdle though, I think the profession's pretty healthy and I wouldn't let the doom and gloom stories put you off too much. If you aren't sure about taking the barristerial route, or won't be crossing that bridge for a while, you could always find out more about it and you've got plenty of time to consider it. Of course, you might want to stay in academia anyway in which case you should definitely take the offer!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 11:24
|
|
|
dos4gw posted:I think you should definitely take it. If you want to stay in academia then it sounds fantastic. If you want to go into practice, I am guessing that would be as a barrister since you mentioned thinking about that previously. Thanks for the advice  . Are you a barrister, or a solicitor, or something else entirely? With regards to how chambers work here, I had heard that a lot operate like something resembling a cooperative, but there are big law firms that operate much like they do in the USA as well.
Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 13:28 on Apr 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 12:00
|
|
|
Cwapface posted:Ha, I meant I thought about being a barrister when I was 14 in a "what do you want to be when you grow up, little boy?" sense. Probably because I liked Rumpole. I don't know. The get the whole "gee you'd make a great barrister, you're so good at arguing" thing a lot, but I know that's not what lawyering is. I could see myself potentially doing a variety of different things, but I don't have a clear picture because I don't have a clear picture of the profession, because, well, I haven't even been to law school yet. I don't know if they exist in Australia like they do in the UK but if you did want to find out more about it, you can do a mini-pupillage, which is just a week's work experience at a chambers somewhere. It's something that everyone here just does for their CV and it sort of loses all meaning but it's actually a really good way to find out if you would like the job so maybe consider looking into that if you thought the job might interest you. If you do the LLB then you'll soon work out what you like and don't like as well, and if there are any competitions there like mooting where you could have a go at standing up and arguing, you'd see if you did enjoy it too. I'm a barrister so all my advice is bound to be biased because I really love the job but I would definitely recommend looking into it. You work for yourself, which means none of the horrible aspects of working at a firm as a solicitor and having to account for your time every 6 minutes, where everything you do is measured in 'units' and if you want to take a day off and make up for the work later you can. Obviously there are downsides - no paid holiday etc. but the money's generally good so that's not really an issue, even if the cheques always arrive much later than they should do. On the plus side to that though, you will have clerks who negotiate your fees for you and chase up your payments so you don't have to do the spend all your time doing admin. The idea of working in a chambers is also an odd one, but it's great because you've got that independence but you've got other people around to talk to and bounce ideas off. My chambers for instance (and I think lots here) will have an afternoon tea so if you've not been in court but you've just been doing paperwork all day in your room, it's good to take a 30 minute break and catch up with people. Only bad thing about it is that the Queen won't be alive forever and it will change from QC to KC before you ever took silk, which is a stupidly vain complaint but I just don't think it has the same ring to it. When things like that become a concern though you realise that you have a pretty comfortable life so I would definitely recommend looking into it if you want to weigh up your options.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 13:04
|
|
|
Cwapface: I am a US lawyer and know dickall about Australia, but I moved to Melbourne two weeks ago and tonight I was talking to some guy who graduated from some TTT law school in 2008. He has been working as a law clerk bitch for the last four years, and still cannot get a job as a proper lawyer. I think the legal m Ani fucked around with this message at 13:43 on Apr 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 13:34
|
|
|
Cwapface I think you need more information about two things: 1. Employment prospects as a philosophy Ph.D, and 2. Employment prospects with a law degree. A free ride is pretty nice, but it's still a waste of time if you can't find work at the end of the program. Here in the U.S., jobs for philsophy Ph.D.s are incredibly incredibly rare, and I would tell anyone choosing between a philosophy Ph.D. and a J.D. to pick a J.D. - even with the current U.S. market for legal emploment. So if your choice is philosophy Ph.D. or law degree, you really need more information abotu employment prospects, and your supervisor's opinion is only one small piece of data. Also, I am immediately skeptical of any non-lawyer who says that "talented people with no personality defects" have a better chance at legal employment - no poo poo. The problem is that there are ton of such people looking for work (at least here in the US) so that doesn't get you very far. You need to sit down with hiring partners on an informal basis and ask them about their perspectives on the market AND their opinion of a law degree from your university in contast to law degrees from better schools. As your supervisor, and any lawyers you know, help you connect with hiring partners. These are informational interviews, and most lawyers will give you 15 minutes for this sort of thing, especially if you can find some sort of mutual friend/acquiantance to make the introduction. I assume you already have the contacts in academia to get a better handle on philosophy ph.D. employment. entris fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Apr 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 14:56
|
|
|
Ani posted:Cwapface: I am a US lawyer and know dickall about Australia, but I moved to Melbourne two weeks ago and tonight I was talking to some guy who graduated from some TTT law school in 2008. He has been working as a law clerk bitch for the last four years, and still cannot get a job as a proper lawyer. quote:I think the legal m dos4gw, thanks. I've never heard of a 'mini pupillage', but internships, including in barristers' chambers, are common for law students. Even disregarding the reams of shared law and the wigs, I think the states of the Australian and English legal professions are probably more similar than they are different. I'm a British citizen too, and there will come a point when my SO will want to postdoc overseas, so this is a good thing as far as I'm concerned. Your joke about QC vs. KC made me laugh. It is a slightly depressing thought that it will change soon, though. It really doesn't have the same ring. Just out of curiosity, what percentage of British barristers are silks? Is it just for the truly exceptional, or do you take silk as a matter of course if you've paid a decade or two's worth of dues and have demonstrated competence?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 15:04
|
|
|
entris posted:Some very good points One thing worth mentioning, though, is that my choice isn't really between a philosophy PhD and a law degree. It's between continuing a philosophy PhD and a law degree. The same scholarships that exist for research students now won't be any less available to me as a law graduate. The higher research door won't close on me if I do law, I'll just be older if I choose to open it again. Also, like I said just after your made your post, I didn't mean to give the impression that the University of Queensland isn't a good school for law. It's drat good, really. It's nearly always rated as one of Australia's top 5 universities, and globally it's in the same league as Tufts or Vanderbilt overall (The Times puts it roughly halfway between Brown and Dartmouth/Notre Dame, if that helps put it in perspective. I'm assuming you're American here, and I don't know how good those universities are, I'm just referencing American universities whose names I recognise). It's not rated quite as highly for law as it is for research, but it's still well within the top 10 nationally for law, and occasionally top 5 depending on your source. It's just not quite as good as ANU, Sydney Uni, or Melbourne Uni. But I couldn't do better without moving at least 1000km away, and I know a lot of students who would kill to have gotten into UQ's law school (as an undergrad - getting in as a graduate isn't that hard, especially if you have honours), nevermind on a free ride. There's an IP lawyer who's a senior partner at Malleson's, one of Australia's biggest law firms. He did a lot of work for my parents when they were in business and became quite friendly with my family. I'll see if I can take him to lunch and talk to him about the state of the profession, employment prospects, and what sorts of things employers in the profession want out of a graduate. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Apr 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 16:11
|
|
|
I had a professor in law school at Texas who was an Australian philosophy/law guy and he was awesome as heck and I got an A, so go for it I guess
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
I mean, let's be clear here: if an Australian with a philosophy grad degree (Masters or Ph.D) plus a law degree comes to the U.S., he will get laaaaaaidd by all the hippie philosophy undergrad ladies and by all the pre-law undergrad ladies. Australian accent + philosophy degree (ie, ability to say things that sound really intellectual and interesting) + law degree (ie, "I'm a baller, baby") = constant sex, forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2012 16:51
|
|