In my maudlin moments connected to the job search I get frustrated with figuring out how to represent myself. Until I entered an environment where merit was judged so reductively I used to think that past accomplishments were simply enough. I was reading a book the other day about how to play up those things, especially seeing how (for most of us!) our GPAs are not going to be opening the doors. But in reflecting on the whole system, I noted how certain items end up being shorthand confessions for negative qualities, whether they mean so truthfully or not. The GPA is just one example (hmmm, only a 3.09? Not very smart or hardworking...). Or for a person who is unemployed, they acquire a certain "untouchability," because even though their unemployment may be due to no fault of their own (e.g., a layoff) it's so easy for an employer to immediately construe that if a person is unemployed, there must be some aspect of dessert to it. Who would want to hire the kind of person who would actually need a job?
But these kinds of erroneous supposition evidence themselves in many other ways and many other contexts, and my thoughts on it turned to something I recently read in Salon, a discussion on women who wear t-shirts admitting that they'd had abortions. While this subject matter has little bearing on my job search, it was interesting to think about because the same mechanism was in play, trying to communicate something whose resulting message you can't control and is often misconstrued. For instance, some people said that the t-shirts acknowledging abortions would label these women negatively, perhaps as sluts, poor, or people with the poor judgment to have gotten pregnant. And they might even appear as such to people who claim to be pro-choice! The worst is so easily assumed, and the truth of it is so frequently ignored. Very likely those women are monogamous, educated, and responsible, but for some reason still needed to make that choice. But that is the last thing that is presumed, because these biases become very ingrained and we judge people so easily on their basis, even though we may aspire to be non-judgmental.
It was argued that the women wore the t-shirts because they wanted to start rewriting those suppositions. That as long as people kept their reproductive activities in the shadows, the false perceptions would persist for lack of anything to challenge them.
Although it may appear to be a leap of topics from reproductive freedom to job-hunting, the connection between the two, relevant also to many other areas in between, is the way that they all involve communicating to strangers in such brief ways that helping them get past their biases to see your worth as a person may be difficult.
Comments (3)
I don't disagree with your comments that GPA tends to overpower everything else on a law student's resume.
On the other hand, I'm not sure what other indicator they could use for the main cut. By definition, law students don't have much (or often any) work experience that is especially a good indicator of job fit or skills. Many law students just have student-type jobs, which are usually pretty menial and can't really be used as a judge of much. And even those law students who have had carreer jobs before going to law school usually don't have the type of "executive" office jobs that are especially relevant to most legal practice. That means that, for most applicants, the experience sections of the resume only provide interesting things to talk about at interviews, but not especially good indicators of qualifications. Even first summer jobs aren't that useful, since no one really develops many skills (in the grand scheme of things) during the three months of a summer job.
So... What does that leave the employers with, basically two semesters of law grades, a full set of undergradute grades, and a general notion of the types of workplaces and job roles (ie maturity) the person has had. This means that grades are about all they have.
And remember, extensive experience in the pre-law life isn't necessarily a good thing. Firms generally don't see tons of value in having people who have been used to high levels of resposibility or being a manager. Such people are less willing to do gruntwork. On the other hand, they do like people who have a deep, business-end, knowledge of their clients or of the underlying subject matter their clients are working with. But that knowledge has to be really deep and at a pretty sophisticated level.
Mark
Posted by Mark | September 28, 2004 2:47 PM
Posted on September 28, 2004 14:47
Cathy...
Also, be careful relying too much on one of those job hunting books that isn't geared towards legal searches for 2L's.
A lot of the tricks don't apply as strongly with hunts for first law jobs (especially at the bigger firms) since most firms only marginally care about pre-law school work experience. In essence, when you go to law school you get a (mostly) fresh start. Attutude, grades, law school academics, and maturity/professionalism matter a lot more than prior jobs. Things that happened before law school are mostly interesting because they give you something to talk about in the endless interviews.
Mark
Posted by Mark | September 28, 2004 4:48 PM
Posted on September 28, 2004 16:48
The book was geared towards law students.
Also this post wasn't really about my grade predicament but more an observation generally about how presumptive conclusions are so often drawn.
Posted by Cathy | November 17, 2004 7:06 PM
Posted on November 17, 2004 19:06