Group interview for Law firm

JCC2000

Thanks for the advice Legal Eagle:), yeah I plan on sending her an email on Monday morning looking for any constructive criticism, highlighting any areas I could improve on for next year

legal eagle 1

JCC2000 wrote: »

Thanks for the advice Legal Eagle:), yeah I plan on sending her an email on Monday morning looking for any constructive criticism, highlighting any areas I could improve on for next year

No problem She'll be very honest with you, so don't take any of it to heart! Just work on it and if you apply next year make sure and remind her of how you have responded to that criticism!
And don't be disheartened, unlike some people round here, most of us have suffered a lot of rejection!!

Thirdfox

legal eagle 1 wrote: »

If I was you, I'd send a quick email to Jane Babb and ask her for some critical feedback on why you didn't make the next stage. At least you will know for the next time round . Plus you can improve on the areas they were critical of!

JCC2000 wrote: »

Thanks for the advice Legal Eagle:), yeah I plan on sending her an email on Monday morning looking for any constructive criticism, highlighting any areas I could improve on for next year

Definitely - asking for constructive criticism is highly beneficial, in more ways than one.

In fact just on the response I got from one firm's HR after I politely asked for some criticism after a failed internship application - they gave me stone wall silence - I decided that this time round I will not be applying to such a firm. However, it may have just been a blip - friends have said that they like the culture that is presented by partners/trainees at talks etc.

Repeat to self: it's a two way street - mutual respect between firms and yourself

What does DNIW mean? (I'll google but just in case )

Firms who had internships (and I know many friends who had at least 2 internships during the summer) have conducted traineeship interviews already within the internship grouping. So it's possible for people to have 1-3 offers already before the general traineeship application season.

And JCC - in terms of backgrounds - I've found that people tend to like the broadly qualified person better (i.e. don't be a pacman - strong in some areas, gaping hole in others - dabble a little in everything and show your specific interests). And while that 1.1 may be impressive, showing that you're a genuinely decent human being that people can get along with (hard in an interview/cv I know) gains big marks (at least in my opinion).

Thirdfox

Sarahaw wrote: »

I thought that some people said extraordinary things in the groups. In my group for example there were two people who shot themselves in the foot on the first question yet they seemed oblivious to it. Im not going to get into specifics but I nearly started laughing as did the people either side of me, bloody hilarious

Now that has really piqued my interest - at least tell us the question if not what was said. From the questions that I got it seemed quite difficult to give a "wrong" answer.

What I did see though, was people giving some really extraordinary insight into the economic/political/social issues of the day - though obviously not everyone managed to have the rhetoric power of Obama.

Oh and nothing came up for DNIW - not even urban dictionary...

Apologies for the double post!

legal eagle 1

What does DNIW mean? (I'll google but just in case )

Haha it took me a while to get this too.......you have to read it from bottom up
D
N
I
W
(Wind up................some people round here think its humorous :rolleyes:)

Ooh ya I wanna hear what the question was that was asked too, do spill

Thirdfox

Ah - that did come up somewhat in urban dictionary... and I did notice the "wind" part (in my mind I imagined a gusty breeze )

I'm guessing the question wasn't the dinner party one? (How anyone could do wrong in that one I can't imagine).

The "last comedy film you saw?" one?

dee8839

I didn't find anyone's answers laughable but I do think some people answered the first question weakly, as in with a very contrived answer that was fooling no-one or very abruptly with a non-descript answer. But god knows, pressure can really melt the brain at times, it could happen to anyone.

Commiserations to the person who didn't get through, if it makes you feel any better I didn't even get an interview last year but this year I've gotten every interview I've applied for (so far, we'll see about the other law firms soon!!), so live and learn, getting feedback is a great idea and a year isn't as long as you'd think!

Fair play to anyone who had a few internships, wow! And to anyone getting pre-application time interviews, that must feel great. But at the same time I do think a little humility goes a long way, just saying! You don't want to jinx yourself!

I'd also love to know how many people are going through to the second round, I would guess about 40% of those from the first round? Also, do ye think there is a tendency to choose only a few from each uni in order to keep things diverse? As in if there are a few of you with the same undergrad, masters, work experience, would ye be of the opinion that it would be unlikely that two such similar candidates would get hired? Or do you think it really does depend on how your personality and general demeanor are in the interview and that background doesn't come into it as much as interview performance?

P.S. Totally didn't get the DNIW thing! :rolleyes:

Sarahaw

it WAS the dinner party question!! Im a bit paranoid that this thread is being tracked by AC HR so im not going to say what the person in my group said but it was enuf to rule her out and every1 there knew it..

legal eagle 1

You never know just because you or the others in the group didn't like it doesn't mean the panel didn't! You never know you may end up sitting beside her before your second interview

Sarahaw

Anything is possible.......except that!:)

Podge & Rodge or else Dustin!...there i've said it! And yes I am being serious....whoever it was clearly didnt want the job!

drkpower

Sarahaw wrote: »

it WAS the dinner party question!! Im a bit paranoid that this thread is being tracked by AC HR so im not going to say what the person in my group said but it was enuf to rule her out and every1 there knew it..

Unlikely.
These things are not really about what you say; they are about the way you say it and more particularly, the manner of your interaction with other people.

Of course, isolated statements that show up someone's gross stupidity or massive lack of judgment could have the immediate effect of ruling someone out, but that is very rare and the content of what people say is, for the most part, irrelevent.

legal eagle 1

Sarahaw wrote: »

Anything is possible.......except that!:)

Podge & Rodge or else Dustin!...there i've said it! And yes I am being serious....whoever it was clearly didnt want the job!

So, that was the person's opinion, just because you don't like it doesn't mean its wrong!! Group interview is all about being honest and putting across who you really are, fair play to that person for saying it how they wish rather than saying someone like Barack Obama or Nelson Mandela, just so they can sound impressive and acceptable.

drkpower

Sarahaw wrote: »

Anything is possible.......except that!:)

Podge & Rodge or else Dustin!...there i've said it! And yes I am being serious....whoever it was clearly didnt want the job!

You're kidding me? You think that was a bad answer...?!
Its a far better answer than the usual Mandela, John Hume or some such heavyweight.
Content is not the issue; you could say Josef Fritzl and make it a great answer depending on the way you structure it.

Sarahaw

Well obviously thats the case but they didnt justify it well at all. They seemed to think that it would be funny (which it was) but I dont think they thought past the one liner..

drkpower

Sarahaw wrote: »

Well obviously thats the case but they didnt justify it well at all. They seemed to think that it would be funny (which it was) but I dont think they thought past the one liner..

I am still not sure why it automatically ended their chances?
Worst case scenario, they answered the question in a tongue and cheek manner and it fell a bit flat; a reason to watch their next involvement a little closer, not a reason to rule them out. On the other hand, if it went down well and got a good response, the fact that the answer was a little bit superficial is neither here nor there.

Jev/N

The only purpose those questions serve is to relax the group... that answer is far from being the most cringeworthy I've heard and it seems like it's fairly honest and transparent one at that

drkpower

Jev/N wrote: »

The only purpose those questions serve is to relax the group...

They are a little more than that. All of the questions (primarily) serve the same purpose, the same purpose as a full interview - to guage your communication and interpersonal skills, two things that are difficult to fully determine from an application form or a CV. Never ever think that the question on NAMA is more important than the fluffy light hearted one. As I said, its not about content.

legal eagle 1

If that person had answered Barack Obama, they may also have been ruled out on the basis that it didn't accord with the person they had envisaged from their CV. I think its harsh to be so over critical of someones answer simply because you didn't like it!

Jev/N

drkpower wrote: »

They are a little more than that.

Maybe only was a little harsh, I agree with the fact that the delivery outweighs the content in terms of importance

legal eagle 1

Anyone a bit anxious about the second interview yet? How are ye preparing for it or are you?

dee8839

Hard to know what can really be done, beyond reading the papers and keeping up to date with the law. I've done a few interviews already this year for other professions and they've gone well, so I've decided not to bother getting any interview training or anything, but some people are going down that road as far as I know. I've heard from two people I know who have already secured contracts at AC in the past few years that out of all the big firms this interview is one of the most informal and friendly so that's good news, if true. I think to be honest that the group interview was way worse than this one will be. All we can do is be ourselves, be aware of the core values of the firm and try to demonstrate how well we can fit in.

Sangre

Sarahaw wrote: »

Anything is possible.......except that!:)

Podge & Rodge or else Dustin!...there i've said it! And yes I am being serious....whoever it was clearly didnt want the job!

God, don't take these group interviews so seriously.

They are about presentation, interaction, confidence and humility.

If you can come out with an original answer, that is well thought out then it doesn't matter what you said. They would be sick to death of hearing 'Obama'.

drkpower

Sangre wrote: »

They would be sick to death of hearing 'Obama'.

Amen to that.
You would be far better off extolling the virtues of McCain or Palin, or bemoaning the loss of Bush. At least it would rise the interviewers from their slumber and start listening to you.

Sangre

drkpower wrote: »

Amen to that.
You would be far better off extolling the virtues of McCain or Palin, or bemoaning the loss of Bush. At least it would rise the interviewers from their slumber and start listening to you.

I did my interviews at some point during the US elections, before the candidates were picked. I always said I hoped a republican like McCain would win as he'd be more likely support US multinationals who based their operations/taxes outside of America e.g., Ireland. A democrat would be more likely to change the tax system and cause these companies to pull over/stop investing. The interviewers immediately started listening again as it was an opinion, that was a bit different, that they could engage with, challenge and explore.

Thirdfox

So how did people get on in the individual interviews?

legal eagle 1

Have you had your individual interview yet Thirdfox?

Thirdfox

Yup. Confident it went well

legal eagle 1

Thirdfox wrote: »

Yup. Confident it went well

Cool, good for you By any chance, do you know how many trainees their taken on this time round?

Thirdfox

legal eagle 1 wrote: »

Cool, good for you By any chance, do you know how many trainees their taken on this time round?

Didn't ask them that. Though I suspect it's less than before - I recall them saying that a few years ago they took around 38/35ish?

legal eagle 1

Ya, I'd love to know how many there taking on, just to know my chances at least:rolleyes: Congrats on having yours over with, i'm regretting leaving mine off till next week.......hate the waiting and the hundreds of random questions I keep asking myself