question for experienced job seekers/recruiters

[knaidel]

DH is in his last year of law school. He has a specific interest in labor law, and is interested in working for the federal gov't- either in a regional office of one of the appropriate agency (NLRB, DOL, etc), or in D.C.

Yesterday, he was asked for an interview for an office in D.C. the interviewer said, "We can interview you via teleconference at our regional office in Chicago or you can come to D.C. The other candidates from Chicago are are not coming in. We won't hold it against you if you don't come in."

My husband really wants to work for this agency (the NLRB, in case it makes a difference). He is wondering if it's worth it to make the trip to D.C. He could get a flight on ATA for about $140-$175, but he might also have to stay overnight.

For those who have experience- do you think it's worth it? We are willing to spend the $$ if we think that it will really make a good impression and will really give him a competitive edge. If not, then it's not worth it to us.

Any thoughts? thank you!

[LarsMal]

When do you have to decide? My DH went through this recently when he was trying to go from large firm to a gov't position. We were in DC and he traveled to Chicago, Miami, Indianapolis, to name a few. Nothing worked out so he took a job at a different firm in a smaller city. I can ask him and see what his opinion is if you'd like.

[crl]

My experience is pretty dated so take it with a grain of salt. (BTW I am an attorney.)

About 8 years ago, we moved to the DC area. I was job-hunting from Missouri and found a job at NOAA (federal agency) that I really really wanted. They called and asked to interview me. They offered to do a phone interview to save me the cost of the flight, but I turned them down and went in person. I knew I would not do as well on a phone interview and I also wanted to make sure they knew how much I wanted the job. I did get the job and I think it helped that I went in-person.

(Another advantage to doing it in person is that you may get to meet more people--I was walked around the office and introduced after the interview, and you get to see the place you would be working if you get the job. Also a chance to see how other people dress so you don't invest in a whole new wardrobe of suits only to find it's a casual office and people don't wear suits. . . .)

On the other hand, I was part of the team for hiring a new person more recently (about 4 years ago) and the person we ultimately hired was interviewed mostly by phone. I met her in person while on a business trip near her area. Everyone else involved in the decision interviewed her by phone. All of the candidates for that position were interviewed by phone, except for one or two who happened to be already living in the area.

I have never interviewed via teleconference, but I have participated in meetings. I found it to be quite awkard as the camera would take some time to shift from speaker to speaker and there was a lag and so we ended up with people talking over each other, etc. This was sometime ago (probably 5 years or so) as I am no longer working. The equipment may be much better now so that might not be as big a factor.

If it were me and I really wanted the job, I would go in person if I could at all afford it.

Just my thoughts and good luck to your husband!

[bubbaray]

I am a lawyer and I have interviewed for jobs in gov't and private practice in person and via telephone.

If he can afford to go in person, I'd pick that route -- assuming his school schedule allows it. The phone interviews I did were scheduled around my court times and there was no way as a busy litigator that I could have gone in person. I'm not sure that if he is interviewing with gov't agencies that it give him any edge, though -- usually gov't interviews are set questions by a panel, pretty structured. Quite different than how law firms interview, which is a lot more subjective IME.

I agree with the PP that going in person gives him the chance to meet people and get a "feel" for who he'll be working with. IMO, that is more important than any "edge" going in person would give him in the minds of the interview panel. For one job I got and accepted via a phone interview, I would NEVER have accepted the job if I had met the person who ended up being my boss IRL. Meeting your prospective coworkers and boss(es) in person is, as the ads say, priceless.

Good luck to him! I hope he gets his first pick job!!


Melissa

DD#1: 04/2004

DD#2: c/s 01/2007

[crl]

>not sure that if he is interviewing with gov't agencies that
>it give him any edge, though -- usually gov't interviews are
>set questions by a panel, pretty structured. >Melissa

Just wanted to say that the interview process at NOAA was anything but structured and there were not set questions. Multiple people participated in the interview, but not a "panel" in the sense I would think of, ie not the same people for each interview. Other agencies may be quite different and I have no idea about NLRB.

[miki]

I was a govt attorney for the USDA and I got that job with 2 phone interviews, no in person interview. If they say they won't hold it against him, I would believe them. But if your DH thinks he does a much, much better interview in person and can afford to go, then go. The only edge he would have in person is whatever he can convey in person that wouldn't be apparent over the phone. I knew I interviewed well via phone and I was busy trying a case so when they offered to do a phone interview with a panel of 3, I said fine. Also keep in mind that an in person interview could also hurt. He's got no idea who will interview him and what quirks they might have and what sort of personality things they look at to see if he's a good fit. After I started my USDA job, I was told that they were deciding between me and one other candidate. Her credentials were just as good as mine but she had an interview in person and some of the attorneys in thee office found her a little dull. Good luck to your DH.