Re: Applicant Has Law Degree

[Infected Mushroom]

Please consider the following hypothetical:

You are a hiring manager at a medium-sized private dental clinic.

There’s a lot of very basic (but very annoying and time consuming) paperwork piling up and since your staff is overworked, you want to hire 3-4 new guys to help you deal with this.

This is “chimp work” but it’s gotta be done right, requires copious/endless repetition, requires ridiculously long hours, and if people quit mid way it’s going to cause annoying delays and costs for the company (as you look to hire and train the replacement).

You advertise the job as follows:

Entry level, college degree required (health or science- related is a plus), willing to work very long hours and perform lots of administrative tasks, detail-oriented and able to work as a team... experience with Word, Excel, Power Point... possible opportunities for advancement... we hope for a long term commitment

You offer a fairly low salary (you feel sorry for whoever takes the job) because you would like to partake in the exploitation of labour. All the while, you keep hiring and work conditions within the legal.

---

Keeping all of the above in mind, let’s say that you are interviewing a candidate. Now this candidate has a completed a law degree and 1 year of private law firm work. The candidate tells you that they quit law because the work was not a good fit for them and have absolutely no plans to go back there. They tell you they are looking for a stable, long term gig and they think your a good fit.

As a hiring manager, would you see the law degree as a Plus factor or as a Negative factor? Why?

Let’s say for the sake of the hypothetical, that your legal department doesn’t need to hire now or in the foreseeable future.

Your choices:

1. Plus factor- It demonstrates that they are intelligent, hard-working, detail-oriented and able to meet challenges. That’s the main takeaway for me. A bit overqualified? Whatever. A law degree doesn’t lead to a logical inference (on its own) that they couldn’t do this job, stay and do well.

2. Negative factor- They are overqualified and I don’t necessarily believe them when they say they truly left law behind. They will likely jump ship as soon as they find work in law; or else they’ll get bored of this work and leave... notwithstanding what they represent now.

3. Negative factor- We don’t want someone with legal training possibly suing us in the future or causing ruckus (the risk is unacceptable). We can hire someone less potentially problematic. Our exploitation of labour is legal but you never know.

4. Negative factor - Isn’t law prestigious? Why would they leave after just 1 year and having invested so much in law school? There’s likely MORE to the story about why they really left their last job than they are telling me. I don’t necessarily want to know but it’s a red flag.

5. Mostly Neutral factor - I wouldn’t read anything into it. It has no impact on the hiring decision at all. I’ll take their word for what they say but I’m not seeing a single thing here when this factor is isolated that leads to a positive or a negative factor except maybe the SLIGHT positive factor of meeting the college degree requirement in the job listing.

6. Other (please explain)

As an analytical exercise, I’ll say that the options presented are with respect to the one factor of law school and whether all else being equal, it’s a plus or a negative factor? It doesn’t mean you’ll necessarily hire or not hire (that’s based on the totality of all factors).

Please provide a justification.

A bit of a touchy issue for me personally because not that many years ago, I’ve been in a similar position as the interviewee. I’d say that most employers seemed to go with 2-4 and many have even outright said it. I can definitely understand the logic.

However, having personally experienced the horrors of law practice, I’d go with option 1. But I’m interested in how you see it.

[Sundiata]

I think that law is a noble profession. I would hire them for entry level work because it's not what they specialized in.

[Shofercia]

I'd go with option one. American Law Schools require 60 hour workweeks to survive, meaning that they're used to the grind. Also, the minimum wage for a 60 hour workweek would still be above $20k per year, and could be higher depending on location. That's enough to survive, while the law graduate is trying to figure out his/her next steps. Plus, law grads that have been rejected are typically hard workers. When you work 60 hours workweeks for three years, or four years in your hypo, you're not suddenly going to become a slacker.

Edit: and to respond to your point, oftentimes people won't hire if they feel intimidated, i.e. "will this candidate take my job in 3-6 months" while the poor law grad is thinking "fuck, I don't want to be a hobo"

[Eukaryotic Cells]

Plus factor, in my book. I'd expect a person with a law degree and work experience to be able to handle lots of paperwork and writing tasks.

The long term gig language is a bit odd, the person does come off as a bit desperate saying that. I'd make sure to follow up with their previous employer before bringing them on (assuming they consented on their job application).

[Infected Mushroom]

I think that law is a noble profession. I would hire them for entry level work because it's not what they specialized in.

Do you mean not hire them?

[Odreria]

He’s probably a serial killer

[Esternial]

Based on what you've outlined in the OP, the mere fact of having a law degree is can be either positive or negative. It depends on the interviewee's history.

Now, assuming that as the interviewer I don't mistrust the interviewee's statement:

If they've had several "law gigs", it would signal to me that this person has tried to make it in law but - as he told me - didn't enjoy the work. Option 1.

If they've only had one or two, it would signal to me that this person is possibly just "bored out" of his law work because of the X years of studying leading up to it and some bad initial work experiences, so possibly option 4 depending on whether or not I care that this person might just work here as a "sabbatical" and leave after 6 months.

More scenarios exists, I'm sure, but those are the first two off the top of my head. I'd probably get into why they wanted to stop doing law anyway, out of interest.

[Cetacea]

Any degree shows that the candidate can meet requirements, collate disparate data and present a cohesive report, a Law degree suggest that report will contain a supported argument.

As the candidate must have a college qualification to be considered, having a law degree is a neutral factor in the hire

[The Free Joy State]

As Esty says, many things about the interviewees history would have to be considered before deciding whether it's positive, negative or neutral. Having a law degree itself is fairly neutral.

Passing the law degree shows that a person is unafraid of hard work, has reasonable language skills and meets the basic listed requirements -- so that's a check in the positive box.

However, if they left the law due to boredom, what is the chance they will stay in a job that is apparently repetitive -- so that would be a negative. If they were previously a high-flier and are now looking for entry-level work, then you would have to know why -- having left a high-flying career to spend more time with the family... fine; having to leave a high-flying career because you were harassing the interns... big nope!

There would need to be a frank discussion about why they left the law, checking references (and it would be wise to get the candidate's permission to call all past employers) and doing what the majority of potential employers do these days anyway, apparently, check the candidate's social media.

[Chan Island]

So this candidate has a law degree, the epitome qualification of being able to sit on a desk for hours on end going through paperwork? For a job that's all sitting at a desk going through paperwork?

Hired. Unless there is some other aspect to this person, like what everyone else is talking about, that makes them undesirable, you can consider them a valued employee.

[Thermodolia]

As Esty says, many things about the interviewees history would have to be considered before deciding whether it's positive, negative or neutral. Having a law degree itself is fairly neutral.

Passing the law degree shows that a person is unafraid of hard work, has reasonable language skills and meets the basic listed requirements -- so that's a check in the positive box.

However, if they left the law due to boredom, what is the chance they will stay in a job that is apparently repetitive -- so that would be a negative. If they were previously a high-flier and are now looking for entry-level work, then you would have to know why -- having left a high-flying career to spend more time with the family... fine; having to leave a high-flying career because you were harassing the interns... big nope!

There would need to be a frank discussion about why they left the law, checking references (and it would be wise to get the candidate's permission to call all past employers) and doing what the majority of potential employers do these days anyway, apparently, check the candidate's social media.

Pretty much this

[Tinhampton]

Completely Neutral factor. I don't know who the other applicants are yet

[Ethel mermania]

Completely Neutral factor. I don't know who the other applicants are yet

This. ^

[Greed and Death]

I would likely interview him and see why he wants the job. Maybe he burnt out on law and is considering dentistry and wants to see how an office is ran. A great employee for a short time is better than a so so employee forever.

With the over educated there is a fear they are salts. But if they are being open with their education they are typically not salts.

[Page]

I would see it as positive and I generally hold the concept of being "overqualified" in disdain.

When I went to college, I was a full time student and didn't work. When I got my Bachelor's degree, I soon came to realize that no one would hire me in that field because I didn't have any work experience, I had 3 interviews from the many applications I sent out and I was rejected every time. Meanwhile, I was being rejected for "low skill" jobs because I was overqualified. I don't think being overqualified was the main factor, more significant is the fact that so many employers refuse to even consider anyone who is currently unemployed, but still, being overqualified was an annoying factor. In the rare cases I actually got an interview, I was always asked "why do you want to work here" and of course most of the time they don't want an honest answer. I did eventually get a call center job but the whole process was soul-crushing.

[The Blaatschapen]

Law is good in administration. They presumably know how to handle documents.

So in that regard it's a plus.

[Geneviev]

Option 1 sounds about right to me. That is, unless they quit law for the wrong reasons.

[Enjuku]

To be honest, it'd depend how they are in the interview and if I get more information about their 1 year stint in law. Just on paper, I'd see it as a negative factor. Why wasn't law a good fit for them? Law school can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. A law job, especially in the current market, is hard to come by. Law is a commitment. For them to decide it wasn't for them is noble, but there are too many other reasons why they could've left that are unexplored and undebunked. And making that kind of time and money investment to just simply decide on a whim it's "not for me", isn't really a good thing. It shows a lack of commitment. If I spoke with them in person and I got a fuller idea of why law "wasn't for me", maybe I'd see it differently. Everyone in person can be different from what you see on paper. Explanations and context are everything.

If they come off fishy in the interview though, I'd ask for a reference or check their resume so I can call up the firm they were at and ask about their work there. If it's confirmed that they really did just leave because they didn't enjoy the work, that's fine. Unsure what you'd discover though.

A law degree otherwise would be a great positive factor. But taking the demotion to such a low-level job after one year in law leaves the door open to too many bad scenarios. Mishap at the law firm, maybe a disbarment going on, bad work ethic, numerous things that could be why they left law. So unfortunately, it'd be a negative unless I have more info on their previous work or I get more context in the interview.

[Infected Mushroom]

What if it had been med school?