It appears I’m going to buck the tide. Female, lawyer, OCI survivor from both sides of the table. As in, I’ve interviewed on a law school campus (and got a job out of it), and I’ve interviewed on law school campuses (and invited a number of law students to come into the office for a full day interview). I understand your concern, I understand why people outside the system don’t get it, but I think you may be overestimating how big an issue it is.
If you’re talking BigLaw, we’re all snobs. We make snap judgments about recruits based on where they went to school. Hell, there are some firms that won’t even take your resume unless you’re at a tier 1. But you’re at BC, which is tier 1 and pretty well known, particularly regionally. The fear I’d have is that outside New England, where BC isn’t as well known, all people would know about it is that some moronic chick who doesn’t know the difference between effect and affect decided to strip for some cheap magazine. BFD. Now, my law school, we routinely had alums arrested either for being call girls or for running a call girl ring. But we still had employers lining up for OCI.
[QUOTE=Happy Scrappy Hero Pup]
- Having to answer questions about it in an interview. When you’re one of 3000 people applying for 9 jobs and all you get is a 20 minute interview, figuring out the answer to “why do you want to work here and how do you see yourself contributing?” is difficult enough, without having to determine whether your gatekeeper will want to hear what you REALLY think or a PC answer to, “So, how about so-and-so?”
[/quote]
I think that the vast majority of employers will steer away from that question. It certainly won’t come up at OCI. It might come up at a callback, particularly at a dinner. I think that the response is a blank stare and, “Sorry, who? I don’t know her.”
[QUOTE=Mr. Excellent]
Just for fun, and because I’m a law student and this is my idea of fun, how’s this for an argument about how it might matter to the Pup?
Especially in a crowded legal market, like Boston’s, one of the hardest things to do is just get your name out there, exposed to the (legal) public’s eye. Most students do that by writing case notes for journals, clinical work, or so forth. This woman did it by taking off most of her clothes. By attaining a significant degree of prominence without much effort, she’s reduced the payoff for students doing it the old-fashioned way (remember, there’s no such thing as bad publicity.)
I don’t believe this is actually a good argument, but I think it’s close to the best that Happy Scrappy Hero Pup might muster.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but that misses the point. The bigger issue is this: BC is supposed to be a good school. Top 25, I think. Consequently, one expects that its student body reflects that caliber. This article, however, paints a picture of a BC student who is not intellectual, who seems to have poor decision-making skills, and who exercises poor judgment. If she is reflective of BC as a whole, or even simply reflective of a significant element in the BC population, we need to screen our BC recruits more carefully to ensure we don’t get any like her.
That does affect the BC student’s ability to get a job. And you 1Ls out there, don’t fool yourselves. We know all your professors. We know who the easy graders are. We know how to calculate your GPAs even if your school uses some arcane system. Our hiring committee will sit and discuss you, and your choices in classes, and your grades, and whether your professors are hard or easy, and whether you’re journaling or moot courting, and on and on. Because when we hire you for the summer, we are investing far more in you than simply your salary.
This does matter. But it’s fleeting. So don’t sweat it, Happy. Lawyers who end up salaciously displayed across the web are, unfortunately, a dime a dozen. Like, for example, the lawyer on ATL who used an emoticon in a court filing. Frankly, that’s embarrassing.
