De Minimis
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Constitution
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12

How to Win Clerkships and Alienate Failure

23/5/2017

 
NICK PARRY-JONES

Vol 11, Issue 12

​I'm a smidge older than the majority of my cohort. While that age grants me no authority, it does beget me having more experience. Job wise, I've been around the block a few times: I've worked in start ups; for up starts, in hollywood films; in tech; as a referee; as a competitor; for an illegal call centre; for a legal call centre; for international media companies; for local blogs. I've been a bartender, a rule bender and a Russian language comprehender. I've worked in security, as security and around security. I've worked with the homeless; with kids; with refugees (while homeless). I've been in lawyer's offices, courtrooms and prisons, sometimes even of my own free will.
Picture
Basically, I've attended a lot of interviews in my time, so here are my top tips on landing the top job (which will invariably be entry level).

1 Know Your Audience
As anyone experienced with stagecraft or adept with Tinder will tell you, the key to getting the job you want is to know what kind of person the other party is looking for. This means LinkedIn stalking the hell out of them. Remember: set your LinkedIn privacy settings to invisible to not look like a creeper and don't worry, if you really needed to see who visited your profile, you wouldn't have read this far. Might as well have a simultaneous stalk tab up open on facebook too; in for a penny, in for a pound. Once you know what they want, edit your resume and personality accordingly. Don't worry if you've already been invited to an interview so they have your resume. By handing them a new one as you walk in you show that you're dynamic and think on your feet. Employers love that.

2 Appearance

Men: dress professionally. Don't go double breasted, nothing too fancy on the suit. A pocket square shows that you're daring. How's that working out for you? Exactly. If you're in good shape, don't be afraid to show it off, wear a shirt that is a little tight, and flash the interviewer your abs on the way out.


Women: It’s a double edged sword here, because while men can do better showing their body, women can be seen as unprofessional for wearing anything slightly flattering, yet attractive women are given jobs at a higher rate than unattractive women. You could ask yourself: am I attractive? But that's too hard and subjective. I suggest getting some bonding tape and attending the interview as a man just to be safe. In short my advice is the same for both genders: don't go double breasted.

3 Personality

A lot of businesses are conservative, but there are a fair few on the left wing of the political spectrum. It can be hard to tell from the outset, and even harder to remember when you've spammed every seek.com and my.careers link in your vague criteria. It's best to deflect any questions about your own values and instead focus them on the enemies of each creed. For the right: oppressive fiscal policy; for the left: oppressive social policy. Sound confusing? It is. A nice coverall is to say that you're “angry at what the country is becoming.” This seems to elicit nods of approval from both sides of the floor.

4 In the Interview

When at the interview stage, they're already impressed with your work history, so now you just have to show them you're a confident go getter! Nepotism is a problem in many industries, particularly the shrinking legal market. You can lean into this opportunity by looking at your most senior interviewer and saying “...D-dad?” with a quiver in your voice. Often, in my experience, this is met with confusion, particularly from females. In order to appear confident, sit with a straight back and speak clearly and loudly. Don't be afraid to lie, in fact I encourage it. Nothing says confidence like lying about your physical abilities in a face to face interview. When they know it’s a lie they'll respect your commitment even more. It’s a good idea to bring head shots into every interview. In case they didn't like who they saw, maybe they'd like them better as Morning Mist or Winter cruelty. A lot of businesses want to appear tech savvy to “innovate” and “pivot” despite never daring to change practices or culture and never even attempting to play basketball. You can use this to your advantage by peppering your sentences with the word “blockchain”.  Just slip it in there every once and a blockchain while. If there's ever a lull in conversation, steer the conversation back to blockchain, it will pay dividends.

5 After the Interview

So you've waited three days and she hasn't called. Worse, the job you interviewed for hasn't contacted you for two weeks. It’s over. The best thing you can do is call yourself and ask for areas you can improve. But that doesn't sound very confident does it? An even better idea is to snub them at any and all future events. Yeah, that'll show them.

Nick is a Third Year JD student and serial interviewee

More by NPJ
  • The Problem of Post-Modern Legal Discourse
  • Pruning the root of all evil
  • Go8 Speaks; Calls Kettle Black
  • In Remembering Harrambe You Invoke the Spectre of Racism
  • The Art of Computer Programming Without Really Trying

​The rest of this issue
  • On Leaving the Law School
  • Coming Face to Face with Mr Adler
  • A History of the Split Profession
  • Stuff We Applied for and Did Not Get
Not impressed
23/5/2017 10:48:29 pm

You might think this is a joke but it's just sexist shit

"Women: It’s a double edged sword here, because while men can do better showing their body, women can be seen as unprofessional for wearing anything slightly flattering, yet attractive women are given jobs at a higher rate than unattractive women."

NPJ
23/5/2017 11:18:56 pm

Yeah see that's the issue I had, while I ultimately went for a comedic tone. I definitely started off serious. Hence the presentation of the issue facing women re dress sense and the ultimately absurdist solution of attending the interview as a male.

Tangerine Holden
24/5/2017 11:58:12 am

Whether it is a joke, or sexist shit, its also actually true.

Do you really doubt that attractive women have more success in job applications than unattractive women? Are you just offended by the implication that there might be such a thing as unnatractive women?

And yes women are practically always judged by how they dress and dressing in some ways gives the impression of being unprofessional.

But a man said these things so I guess it must be sexist.

Mary Michele
25/5/2017 03:29:43 pm

You have clearly missed the point

@ not impressed
24/5/2017 05:36:25 pm

the comments were clearly tongue in cheek. good stuff NPJ

Mary Michele
25/5/2017 03:34:28 pm

You obviously have an incredibly low threshold for what you like. I suggest broadening your reading scope and starting with well founded, reasoned articles - (as opposed to 'advice' from someone who clearly knows nothing) - you may need to look beyond De Minimis for that.

Zoe
24/5/2017 09:18:07 am

"I suggest getting some bonding tape and attending the interview as a man just to be safe."

I suggest actually taking the time to think about something new and informative to write about rather than regurgitating the same sexist bile in an attempt to be controversial.

Did you step into a time machine and get your humour from 1950?

Mary Michele
25/5/2017 03:35:42 pm

Agreed. And when in the time machine did he also loose all common sense and perspective - must have.

Nisha
24/5/2017 09:31:46 am

Please take Zoe's advice.

Em
24/5/2017 11:20:47 am

To be fair to Nick, I think he's trying to point out how difficult it is for females to negotiate double standards in corporate life. The stats do show that subjective attractiveness is an advantage for both genders. However, males don't face the double standard of trying too hard to look attractive.

It would be a shame if guys like Nick stop speaking out about gender issues for fear of being branded 'sexist' by heroic De Minimis commenters with their uncritical outrage and faux feminism.

Gough
24/5/2017 11:48:59 am

"It would be a shame if guys like Nick stop speaking out about gender issues"

Would it though? Really?

Mary Michele
25/5/2017 03:37:07 pm

No. it would not be a shame. It would be the right thing to do, because this guy is as sexist as they come. De Minimis STOP PUBLISHING HIS CRAP!

woah @ above comments
24/5/2017 05:39:05 pm

i think you have all misread the tone of the article! it's a dig more at the social advantages men have over women in interviews than a dig at actual women...

Zoe
24/5/2017 07:45:42 pm

If someone is genuinely concerned about systemic disadvantage in recruitment there is a long, long list of ways that it could be addressed, none of which involve annoying, repetitive, 'how far can I go' jokes about bonding tape and unattractive women. They're just tasteless and boring to be honest.

Also MASSIVE eye roll at people who think the fact that the author is male isn't relevant.

'Faux feminist' (lol) over and out

Toxic patriarchal manspreader
24/5/2017 08:55:46 pm

"also MASSIVE eye roll at people who think the fact that the author is male isn't relevant."


There seems to be no end of
female commentators these days womansplaining to men about how they should behave and what is an is not acceptable on topics ranging from the evils of 'toxic masculinity' to lecturing men about how to sit on public transport.

I don't believe it was NPJ's intent to do the same thing, but in the sense that you have interpreted this article, I for one find it refreshing that the shoe is on the other foot for a change.

Mary Michele
25/5/2017 06:57:00 pm

As long as anyone is sexist or behaves in a sexist way, they will be TOLD. So get used to it. For further explanation I will be happy to meet in person to break it down for you in a step by step way so that you can understand the point we are getting at. I for one don't need to hide behind anonymity.

In my opinion
26/5/2017 05:01:01 pm

You are not the arbiter of what is and is not sexist. You are of course free to your opinions and are free to make them known, but I really doubt invective and rage explosively out of proportion to these sort of words is going to convince anybody. It's more likely to alienate you and your cause.

The words in the article are words over which reasonable minds might easily differ as to their meaning. You don't get to take your interpretation, proclaim it to be the objectively true meaning, and beat everyone who disagrees over the head with it to cow them into submission.

Anonymous
25/5/2017 07:46:17 am

I agree with Em and several of the other commenters.

The humour in the contentious paragraph flows from identifying the very real barriers that women face when entering the job market. For example, double standards about beauty ("women can be seen as unprofessional for wearing anything slightly flattering") and unreasonable social expectations of femininity ("attractive women are given jobs at a higher rate than unattractive women"). The writer's absurdist conclusion ("I suggest getting some bonding tape and attending the interview as a man just to be safe"), highlights a deep irony about the commercial legal sector – that women cannot avoid sexism unless they pretend to be a man ("don't go double-breasted"). Far from being sexist, this article underscores the great difficulties of being female in a patriarchal society.

Admittedly, if one were to read the article literally, it might cause offence. However, the spirit of the piece is clearly satirical, as indicated by numerous absurd suggestions (e.g. "edit your resume and personality accordingly", "wear a shirt that is a little tight, and flash the interviewer your abs", "looking at your most senior interviewer and saying “...D-dad?” with a quiver in your voice", etc). In my view, the strength of the writing stems from its subtle opening paragraph, which disguises the humorous tone that develops later. When re-read in light of the rest of the article, the introduction also serves as an ironic comparison to other articles that have been published in this magazine and others about how to succeed in clerkship interviews.

Mary Michele
25/5/2017 12:40:29 pm

This article is disgusting - really it is the reason I no longer read De Minimis nor want to write for it. Nick Parry-Jones no one should ever give you the opportunity to publish this kind of sexist rubbish. The only thing that should be taped is your mouth.

Anonymous
25/5/2017 05:07:18 pm

No longer read it Mary Michele? You shut down so much debate by attacking any person who doesn't share your views. Feel free to stop commenting on it also unless you are prepared to treat other people with respect or at least maintain some illusion of politeness.

Mary Michele
25/5/2017 06:41:07 pm

Oh no, we are beyond politeness. As soon as anyone mentions taping any part of a woman whether it is tongue in the bloody cheek or not I lose my politeness buddy. Also, nothing to debate about here. It's sexist and is unacceptable.

Em
26/5/2017 11:45:09 am

I agree that we should call out sexism when we see it Mary, but I think this one is an example where NPJ is on our side, and the fact that he uses the imagery of bonding tape isn't a problem to me. We shouldn't get too obsessed with the 'we women ought to have absolute autonomy over our bodies' meme in this case, because NPJ is actually highlighting how female body autonomy unfortunately can be a double-edged sword in the workplace.

I think we shouldn't shoot the messenger. The real problem is not only human shallowness (favouring 'beautiful' candidates of both genders for employment), and some of the male attitudes in that respect, but also perhaps too much advertising that justifies that shallowness, on the premise that 'sex sells', and perpetuates those male attitudes. That's something we might want to rally against - advertising that uses either beautiful actresses or talented artists to titillate males.

I've stepped out the argument 'for NPJ'. I'd like to hear a structured argument against him Mary, especially one that engages with the points I have made. Without reasoned debate, feminism will otherwise get a bad name!

Impotent rage
25/5/2017 05:20:46 pm

What a fine lawyer you will make

'Your honour I submit that my learned friend is a disgusting sexist racist pig. If there are no further questions that concludes my submission'.

fact checking
26/5/2017 12:30:23 pm

‘Spread the love’
Mary Connellan, ‘Mary’s Inspiration: Toward Exams’ D.M. 5/9/2017

‘this guy is as sexist as they come. De Minimis STOP PUBLISHING HIS CRAP!’
Mary Michele, D.M. comments section, 5/24/2017

‘happiness is infectious, so be kind to others’
Mary Connellan, ‘Mary’s Inspiration: Toward Exams’ D.M. 5/9/2017

‘Let me guess - Tim Sarder? Please. You are both delusional.’
Mary Michele, D.M. comments section, 5/24/2017

'I no longer read De Minimis nor want to write for it.’
Mary Michele, D.M. comments section, 5/24/2017

Mary Michele
27/5/2017 07:57:22 am

'Spread the love' and 'stop publishing sexist crap' really mean the same thing.

I am quite capable of striving and asking others to strive to be decent human beings as well as calling out delusional articles that are offensive.

I agree that I should not have assumed and written the full name of the person I thought anonymously defended NPJ's article because I could not have know for sure who it was. That was a mistake.

I do think defending the article is delusional.

I don't think my approach harms the feminist cause. It's not something I need to polite about.

Exasperated
27/5/2017 06:24:47 pm

You can disagree with what NPJ says without resorting to name calling and calling for De Minimis to refuse publishing his articles. I mean fuck, there is plenty of hyperbolic BS about how 'intolerant' the left is when it comes to opposing views, but this is a genuinely disquieting.

In no world is this 'delusional crap'. You may not agree with everything that NPJ says, you may even find it offensive (although tbh, I don't see how given he's CLEARLY pointing out the double standards that apply to women, rather than celebrating sexism as you seem to suggest), but he has a right express an opinion.

There are plenty of right-wing trolls on this page that cross the line, but Mary you've well and truly stooped to their level with your comments on this post. Disappointing.

NPJ
25/5/2017 02:55:21 pm

Just you guys know, I don't really do the whole commenting thing, but I sincerely appreciate all the people going to bat for me. I'm sorry people are offended, but I don't really understand at what. There's a few lines literally describing the double standard and impossible expectations put on women. But I'm sorry I guess?

Anywho, I'm perfectly fine with all of these comments btw, mr moderator . In some respects, a taste of my own medicine, I guess we all love to complain!

Britney
25/5/2017 05:00:32 pm

Gender debate at MLS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOZuxwVk7TU

Post Rater
25/5/2017 06:10:00 pm

Underrated post

Exasperated
27/5/2017 06:32:14 pm

Seconded.

The Comedy Arbiter
26/5/2017 08:04:18 am

In my view, this article was, in fact, quite funny.


Comments are closed.
    Picture

    Archives

    December 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014

  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Constitution
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12