by AUSA anon » Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:07 am
I would worry about this way less than you are. If they’re interviewing you, they’ve decided your grades/school are fine; no one wastes time interviewing someone they know they won’t hire, and there are always enough candidates, there’s no need to pad out the interview pool with filler or anything like that. So the fact that they’re interviewing you means that you know they’re willing to overlook your school record in consideration of your substantive legal experience.
I have never seen grades or (lack of) journal come up in an interview. Obviously I can’t say it’ll never happen, but generally the questions are much more designed for you to show your strengths rather than defend weaknesses - so why do you want to be a federal prosecutor (or civil AUSA, I presume), why this office, what about your experience has prepared you to do this job (maybe not in so many words, but things like “tell us about your trial experience, how do you handle x, tell us about a time when...”).
The biggest “academic” issue is going to be your ability to write/research. Depending on your exact background you may get questions about that (your publications suggest that won’t be a major concern, although scholarly writing is different from practice). So I would anticipate getting asked about your comfort level/facility with writing. Beyond that, suppose someone might ask why you didn’t do a journal (although frankly I think it would be a boring question), but if so, just have an answer about how it let you do other things you were more interested in doing (rather than “I didn’t get onto one”). And I suppose you might in theory get a question about your grades, but I can’t even really come up with one. “Why didn’t you get better grades” (or the equivalent) isn’t really something I can imagine being asked. But if it did, I feel like the answer would be something about how you didn’t click with the artificial setting of law school exams but that you’ve thrived in practice. Maybe a question like “I see you got a [not great grade] in [law school class] - how have you handled that topic in practice?” but even that seems like a stretch.
Again, my experience has been that offices are much more interested in finding out what you actually can do, rather than probing your deficiencies. If they’re interviewing you, they’re interested in what you’ve done in your 5 years of practice. I’ll be honest, I can’t say that in the end, they won’t go with someone who has the classic academic pedigree (often this person will also have great experience), but they’re competitive jobs and no one is ever a shoo-in.
I would worry about this way less than you are. If they’re interviewing you, they’ve decided your grades/school are fine; no one wastes time interviewing someone they know they won’t hire, and there are always enough candidates, there’s no need to pad out the interview pool with filler or anything like that. So the fact that they’re interviewing you means that you know they’re willing to overlook your school record in consideration of your substantive legal experience.
I have never seen grades or (lack of) journal come up in an interview. Obviously I can’t say it’ll never happen, but generally the questions are much more designed for you to show your strengths rather than defend weaknesses - so why do you want to be a federal prosecutor (or civil AUSA, I presume), why this office, what about your experience has prepared you to do this job (maybe not in so many words, but things like “tell us about your trial experience, how do you handle x, tell us about a time when...”).
The biggest “academic” issue is going to be your ability to write/research. Depending on your exact background you may get questions about that (your publications suggest that won’t be a major concern, although scholarly writing is different from practice). So I would anticipate getting asked about your comfort level/facility with writing. Beyond that, suppose someone might ask why you didn’t do a journal (although frankly I think it would be a boring question), but if so, just have an answer about how it let you do other things you were more interested in doing (rather than “I didn’t get onto one”). And I suppose you might in theory get a question about your grades, but I can’t even really come up with one. “Why didn’t you get better grades” (or the equivalent) isn’t really something I can imagine being asked. But if it did, I feel like the answer would be something about how you didn’t click with the artificial setting of law school exams but that you’ve thrived in practice. Maybe a question like “I see you got a [not great grade] in [law school class] - how have you handled that topic in practice?” but even that seems like a stretch.
Again, my experience has been that offices are much more interested in finding out what you actually can do, rather than probing your deficiencies. If they’re interviewing you, they’re interested in what you’ve done in your 5 years of practice. I’ll be honest, I can’t say that in the end, they won’t go with someone who has the classic academic pedigree (often this person will also have great experience), but they’re competitive jobs and no one is ever a shoo-in.