Hide table of contents

A few months ago I was hired for an entry-level role in a Congressional office. In this post I will share my job search and application process. 

I hope this will be helpful to people who are considering Congressional work as a career option. Because I am early in my career, I imagine this will be most helpful/applicable for people who are in undergrad or earlier. 

Note: I’m intentionally keeping this post anonymous. If you have any questions, please comment them here and I will do my best to answer them. If you’d like to connect further, feel free to send me a private message through the EA Forum. 


 

My Specific Experience

Context about myself as an applicant:

I earned an undergraduate social science major at a relatively prestigious university and was an unremarkable student academically. While there, I was involved with party politics + local elections, held leadership positions in student activist campaigns, spent two summers working for local politicians, and worked in ‘government affairs’ for public interest groups for two semesters. During one semester I lived in Washington DC and interned in Congress. 

My application process:

I started my job search in earnest the summer after graduating college. I recommend making time to network and begin your job hunt in your last semester, but I was too busy with coursework to do so. 

I spent about 20 hours a week for 3 months applying for Congressional entry level roles almost exclusively. Though it took me 3 months, it could have easily been a few months longer than that (I got lucky to land my position early but was prepared to job hunt longer). 

I spent the majority of my time ‘networking.’ For me, this meant sending emails to people, requesting that we meet briefly (this was during pandemic, so it was all virtual). I contacted (nearly) everyone I knew from the time I spent in DC, asked to catch up via phone or video call, let them know I was job searching, and asked them to connect me with people who work in Congress. Especially important were the people who I’d worked with as an intern on the Hill, because they could flag my resume with other offices and could vouch for my work experience. 

I also emailed strangers who I knew worked on the Hill, whose names I found by searching on LinkedIn. I tried to find people who I had one or more things in common with (graduates of the same university, from my home state, working on a policy issue that I have a demonstrated interest in, worked at the same non-profit I used to work for, etc). After I found someone who worked on the Hill, I would contact them by using the standard email format for Congressional staffers, which is Jane_Doe@lastnameofSenator.senate.gov for the Senate or Jane.Doe@mail.house.gov for the House of Representatives. Most people did not reply to these emails, but some people did! In these conversations, I asked them about their job experience in general and their tips on job searching. 

  • Example ‘cold’ networking email:
    • Hello [name],
    •  
    • Hope you're having a restful recess. I graduated from [your alma mater] in [recent month] and just moved to D.C. I’m heading into my last month working with [government advocacy group] and am interested in exploring Congressional work as my next step.
    •  
    • I really admire that you work for [name of Congressperson], who [list 2-3 things you admire about their boss]. I'd love to hear about your journey to becoming a [position/title name], how you're liking your work, and whether you have any advice on navigating the Hill [during this unique moment / pandemic / etc].
    •  
    • Do you have availability for a short call in the next two weeks?
    •  
    • Thank you and I hope we can talk soon,
    • [Your name]

Other than networking and asking people to send me any internal postings they came across, I checked the House and Senate employment bulletins every morning. I looked for entry level roles, which were Staff Assistant positions in both chambers or Legislative Correspondent (LC) positions in the House (in the Senate, LC positions are considered more senior and so it would be difficult to get one without prior full-time Congressional experience). I applied to all the entry level roles where I either had a connection to the office (where I grew up, where I went to school, where I lived for a period of time, or least convincingly, where the member was a leader in an issue area where I had a demonstrated passion) and/or where I thought I had a chance that someone would flag my resume with the office (because I either networked with them directly OR I thought someone I had a strong relationship with would know someone in that office). I always tried to apply within 24 hours of the job being posted, so that my application would not get buried under hundreds of others. For the most part I kept my resume and cover letter the same, though I always tailored the introduction of the cover letter to the specific Congressperson. 

Ultimately the position I got hired for wasn’t advertised publicly. I emailed one of my Hill contacts, asking about a different job posting, and the contact mentioned that there was an opening in their office. I sent my resume to the hiring director, had my first interview the next day, had my second interview in 4 days, and heard back that I got the job in 2 days. It just happened that my office was hiring quickly, but this is not always the case. I have heard of situations where offices take weeks and months to get back to interviewees. 

To prepare for my interviews, I read through my Congressperson’s press releases, knew their top issue areas and biggest initiatives, read their recent news mentions, recent interviews, and practiced common interview questions. I felt confident I had a very solid understanding of the member’s style, accomplishments, and priorities. I also had an edge because I grew up in my Congressperson’s state. 

Throughout this process, I frequently felt discouraged and like I was not making any progress, until suddenly it worked. My advice is to keep in mind that this can be a lengthy process and requires patience and persistence, which is something I heard from many people who I met with as well. Just because you feel like you’re failing doesn’t mean you are. Luck and timing absolutely play a role and since you can’t account for that, just have compassion for yourself, do your best, and keep going! 

 

Things working in my favor:

  • I spent a semester in Washington DC doing a Congressional internship and an internship with a non-profit before I graduated from undergrad, so I already had a network in the city. In my former office, I had a Legislative Director (LD) who was willing to push my resume. LDs are senior staffers and are typically the #2 in an office under the Chief of Staff, have been in Congress for a long time, and know a lot of other LDs or senior people in Congress.
    • My Congressional internship was with a Committee, which is considered more impressive & selective than an internship with a member.
  • The university I attended for my undergrad is relatively prestigious and has a relatively large and active alumni network, including many alums who are currently Congressional staffers. This made it easier to network, as I had something in common with people who were otherwise strangers.
  • My parents supported me financially. This was true throughout my undergraduate years, allowing me to take multiple unpaid internships that I believed best served my long-term career goals (including the Congressional internship). I was also supported after my graduation, allowing me time to apply to jobs half of the time, and giving me the financial stability to not need to accept the first (non-Congressional) jobs that came my way. I also knew I could afford to take another internship on the Hill, which I would have done if I didn’t land my full-time role. Also, in general I know that in an emergency I can survive on a Congressional salary because of my familial safety net.
    • All Congressional offices now have access to funding to pay their interns, but the amount offices choose to give to each intern can vary.
  • I had a previous internship where I did a lot of constituent-facing work, which included speaking on the phone with constituents and managing the front desk of an office. This is something offices look for when hiring for a Staff Assistant, since speaking with constituents is the bulk of the job. You can get this type of experience working as an intern in both DC and district Congressional offices (be aware: not all offices let interns answer phones!), but also state legislator offices, or with local politicians. You may be able to get relevant experience outside of a politician’s office as long as you’re working directly with demanding strangers-- for example working as a union representative to help people understand their resources and hear their complaints, working as a de-escalation volunteer with the local emergency services, working as a canvasser/phone banker for an advocacy campaign.
  • My references were very strong. I got along well with many past supervisors, both on and off the Hill. This didn’t end up playing a role in my hiring (no references contacted), but I still see this as a potential strength in my candidacy.
  • I was a strong fit for Congressional work in general. I love thinking about policy and I don’t mind politics/mainstream electoral work. I don’t mind being ‘partisan’ because I largely agree with one party and its priorities. I generally like and enjoy the company of other Hill staffers.

 

Things working against me:

  • During my Congressional internship, I did not work hard enough to meet with other folks who worked in Congress. I could’ve started my job search with a much bigger network if I had worked harder to push through my discomfort at this.
    • I only met one-on-one with about half of the people in my Congressional office. This was a mistake, as almost everyone in my office would have been willing to meet with me! For the people I did meet with, I typically asked them about their policy portfolios, their own ‘journey’ of how they got to their current position, and anything else I was curious about. I would also always share that I was interested in coming back to the Hill once I graduated.
      • I had crippling imposter syndrome and was very scared of and intimidated by my co-workers. Even though I recognized this as irrational immediately, I was never able to fully work through it, and this affected my ability to be impressive in that workspace.
    • I did not work to meet with people from outside of my office. This felt more difficult than reaching out to people in my office, since people in other offices were under no obligation to meet with me. However, this part is very important, since the more offices you know someone in, the better your chances of having someone flag your resume when you are applying. You can always ask people in your office to help connect you.
      • I also did not follow up / maintain some of the connections that I did make with people outside of my office. If I had reached out every 1-3 months with a simple update, that would’ve been enough for me to reach out once I started my job search in earnest. But since I did not keep up with them, the contact was lost.
  • My writing samples were not very good. If I could do it again, I would have specifically sought to write ‘constituent letters’ during my Congressional internship. These are the form letters that offices send out to constituents who write to them. These form letters are directly relevant, since writing them is the bulk of your job if you’re applying to a Legislative Correspondent role.
    • However, since I didn’t have this, I tried to find a piece of policy writing that I was proud of, especially something clear and succinct. I used an essay from my coursework.
  • The networking was hard for me, and I often felt thrown off or wired up after my networking calls. It took me a long time to send each email.
  • I had a major that is pretty unimpressive (it has the word “studies” in it) and an unremarkable academic career (‘B’ student, no honors). I don’t think this hurt me too much, as no one I met stressed academic performance (though I was required to submit a transcript for a few internship applications).
  • I am neither highly extroverted nor highly charismatic. Extroversion can be helpful to make networking meetings more fun and less of a chore. Charisma can help you make a stronger impression during your networking meetings.

 

General Tips & Takeaways

Note: These are just my opinion, so make sure to seek a second opinion and use your best judgement

  • Networking is very, very important. Without someone in an office to ‘flag’ your resume for the hiring director, your chances of getting the position are slim, since each opening can receive hundreds of applications.
    • Meet with as many people who are working in Congress as you can. The more memorable the meeting, the better. Meeting in person and offering to buy them a coffee/pastry is best, video calls is second best. Your goal is to get them to recognize your name or face and better yet, become slightly invested in you, so that later they might want to help you if they see an open position.
    • Follow up with people every few weeks/months. Update people on new/concluding internships, graduation, and when you start your job search.
    • As a bonus, you can also get advice that is tailored to your situation and you get to find out what working in Congress is really like -- helpful!
  • Do a Hill internship. Many offices look for this when hiring.
    • While there, ideally meet everyone on your team early, have a great relationship with your Legislative Director specifically, and meet staffers in as many other offices as you can (always letting them know that you hope to return to the Hill).
    • Try to stand out with your internship work, because the best people in your network will be those who can speak to your work. The office you intern for will be your biggest champion when you come back to look for jobs. There are already a few resources out there on how to stand out, but I recommend asking both your direct boss (usually the staff assistant) and your Legislative Director how you can be most helpful and get the most out of the experience.
  • Have a work/internship history where you build the skills most relevant to the entry level role of choice. For a staff assistant, you want to be able to speak specifically to 1) working with constituents (ideal) or doing any sort of customer service, especially on the phone, 2) managing a team of interns 3) administrative work 4) policy writing. In that order of importance. For a press assistant role, have a background in communications. For legislative correspondence, have experience in succinct, public-facing policy writing.
    • Aside from this, just generally show that you’re energetic and accomplished. Ideally you have a demonstrated interest in something that matters to your party and has a ‘social good’ component.
  • Don’t give up! It takes patience, luck, and persistence.

Please see this excellent forum post for more detailed information on how to get hired in Congress, and for more general info on Congress as an institution, take a look at this forum post

Comments5


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Congrats! I don't know you but I'm very happy for you!

The networking was hard for me, and I often felt thrown off or wired up after my networking calls. It took me a long time to send each email.

I'm impressed you were able to persist in your job search while feeling this way. Did you have a particularly strong motivation toward your long-term goal, or were there other strategies you used to overcome these mental blockers?

Thank you! 

I do think there was a strong motivation. I was convinced that landing a Congressional role was an early career dream job for me because 1) with just a few years of investment I could be in a position to make policy change, much faster than other paths 2) even if it ended up being too hard/not what I expected, it is great career capital for political advocacy which is my Plan B 3)  I generally thought I would enjoy this type of work a lot. At one point, I decided to commit 100% to applying for Congressional jobs and give myself a 6 month deadline to do it. I'm not sure if I would've actually quit after 6 months, but the looming threat of 'total failure'  if I didn't get there was really terrifying motivating. Also, being unemployed/underemployed sucks and was pretty uncomfortable in and of itself. I knew networking  would be the key to landing a role, so day-to-day I just had to keep pushing myself to do it. I had faith that if I just kept at it, I couldn't fail. 

It was also helpful to remember that networking is totally routine in Washington DC and in Congress. People really are generous and willing to help and receiving that help doesn't make you annoying. Emotionally, I never stopped feeling like a nuisance but it was good to know on an intellectual level that everything I was doing was normal.

Also, if you ask questions that you are genuinely curious about in your meetings with people, it will make the meetings more interesting. This seems obvious, but it is easy to get caught in the trap of asking the same questions and hearing the same answers.

And lastly, I  just sort of accepted that it was always going to be uncomfortable for me. So I just had to push past the 'discomfort' points, like pushing 'send' on the email, or the moments where I asked people for concrete things. 

...

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

Thank you and good luck with your journey! I hope you find success 

Great write-up!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
Science just released an article, with an accompanying technical report, about a neglected source of biological risk. From the abstract of the technical report: > This report describes the technical feasibility of creating mirror bacteria and the potentially serious and wide-ranging risks that they could pose to humans, other animals, plants, and the environment...  > > In a mirror bacterium, all of the chiral molecules of existing bacteria—proteins, nucleic acids, and metabolites—are replaced by their mirror images. Mirror bacteria could not evolve from existing life, but their creation will become increasingly feasible as science advances. Interactions between organisms often depend on chirality, and so interactions between natural organisms and mirror bacteria would be profoundly different from those between natural organisms. Most importantly, immune defenses and predation typically rely on interactions between chiral molecules that could often fail to detect or kill mirror bacteria due to their reversed chirality. It therefore appears plausible, even likely, that sufficiently robust mirror bacteria could spread through the environment unchecked by natural biological controls and act as dangerous opportunistic pathogens in an unprecedentedly wide range of other multicellular organisms, including humans. > > This report draws on expertise from synthetic biology, immunology, ecology, and related fields to provide the first comprehensive assessment of the risks from mirror bacteria.  Open Philanthropy helped to support this work and is now supporting the Mirror Biology Dialogues Fund (MBDF), along with the Sloan Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and Patrick Collison. The Fund will coordinate scientific efforts to evaluate and address risks from mirror bacteria. It was deeply concerning to learn about this risk, but gratifying to see how seriously the scientific community is taking the issue. Given the potential infoha
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
THL UK protestors at the Royal Courts of Justice, Oct 2024. Credit: SammiVegan.  Four years of work has led to his moment. When we started this, we knew it would be big. A battle of David versus Goliath as we took the Government to court. But we also knew that it was the right thing to do, to fight for the millions of Frankenchickens that were suffering because of the way that they had been bred. And on Friday 13th December, we got the result we had been nervously waiting for. Represented by Advocates for Animals, four years ago we started the process to take the Government to court, arguing that fast-growing chicken breeds, known as Frankenchickens, are illegal under current animal welfare laws. After a loss, and an appeal, in October 2024 we entered the courts once more. And the judgment is now in on one of the most important legal cases for animals in history. The judges have ruled in favour on our main argument - that the law says that animals should not be kept in the UK if it means they will suffer because of how they have been bred. This is a huge moment for animals in the UK. A billion Frankenchickens are raised with suffering coded into their DNA each year. They are bred to grow too big, too fast, to make the most profit possible. In light of this ruling, we believe that farmers are breaking the law if they continue to keep these chickens. However, Defra, the Government department responsible for farming, has been let off the hook on a technicality. Because Defra has been silent on fast-growing breeds of chicken, the judges found they had no concrete policy that they could rule against. This means that our case has been dismissed and the judges have not ordered Defra to act. It is clear: by not addressing this major animal welfare crisis, Defra has failed billions of animals - and the farming community. This must change. While this ruling has failed to force the Government to act, it has confirmed our view that farmers are acting criminally by using
 ·  · 14m read
 · 
1. Introduction My blog, Reflective Altruism, aims to use academic research to drive positive change within and around the effective altruism movement. Part of that mission involves engagement with the effective altruism community. For this reason, I try to give periodic updates on blog content and future directions (previous updates: here and here) In today’s post, I want to say a bit about new content published in 2024 (Sections 2-3) and give an overview of other content published so far (Section 4). I’ll also say a bit about upcoming content (Section 5) as well as my broader academic work (Section 6) and talks (Section 7) related to longtermism. Section 8 concludes with a few notes about other changes to the blog. I would be keen to hear reactions to existing content or suggestions for new content. Thanks for reading. 2. New series this year I’ve begun five new series since last December. 1. Against the singularity hypothesis: One of the most prominent arguments for existential risk from artificial agents is the singularity hypothesis. The singularity hypothesis holds roughly that self-improving artificial agents will grow at an accelerating rate until they are orders of magnitude more intelligent than the average human. I think that the singularity hypothesis is not on as firm ground as many advocates believe. My paper, “Against the singularity hypothesis,” makes the case for this conclusion. I’ve written a six-part series Against the singularity hypothesis summarizing this paper. Part 1 introduces the singularity hypothesis. Part 2 and Part 3 together give five preliminary reasons for doubt. The next two posts examine defenses of the singularity hypothesis by Dave Chalmers (Part 4) and Nick Bostrom (Part 5). Part 6 draws lessons from this discussion. 2. Harms: Existential risk mitigation efforts have important benefits but also identifiable harms. This series discusses some of the most important harms of existential risk mitigation efforts. Part 1 discus