Berkeley OCIP

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
worldtraveler
Posts: 7665
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:47 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby worldtraveler » Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:As mentioned previously, CLR's effect depends on the firm. I know a few straight P, LR 3Ls who got locked out completely despite having a good number of callbacks (6+) last year. I also know some that landed an offer.

Lets rewind here; 1) are there straight P on CLR? Seems unlikely; 2) firms will base an offer decision for a 3L based on LR, and not their body of work over the summer? Seems unlikely?


1) There are straight Ps on law review.

2) You completely misunderstood the person's point. They're talking about getting an offer for a summer associate position.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 06, 2010 7:16 pm

Given that there are straight Ps on CLR, I think it's odd to presume that membership in CLR automatically makes one a good writer. I'm not saying it's impossible or that test performance is highly indicative of writing ability under normal circumstances. I just don't think one should jump to that conclusion.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:11 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Given that there are straight Ps on CLR, I think it's odd to presume that membership in CLR automatically makes one a good writer. I'm not saying it's impossible or that test performance is highly indicative of writing ability under normal circumstances. I just don't think one should jump to that conclusion.


??????????

The CLR law review membership is based on an exercise which has exclusively to do with writing (editing is part of writing). The CLR law review thing was under "normal circumstances" - unlike a final exam in law school.

I'm scratching my head as to what CLR membership means - if it doesn't signal that a member is a good writer. What does it measure then, that they're a good writing competition contestant, i.e. they write and edit well? I'm lost here.

The straight Ps has to do with issue spotting/analysis, not "writing ability"

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:36 pm

If you think exams have nothing to do with writing ability... well that's probably why you are not doing well... Being able to convey your ideas well is what gets you an H or HH. And tests are more indicative of normal circumstances than CLR. You are usually working under extreme pressure to meet a ridiculous deadline, not given two weeks to write a small paper.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote:If you think exams have nothing to do with writing ability... well that's probably why you are not doing well... Being able to convey your ideas well is what gets you an H or HH. And tests are more indicative of normal circumstances than CLR. You are usually working under extreme pressure to meet a ridiculous deadline, not given two weeks to write a small paper.

I mean, yes, you have to CONVEY IDEAS, but the points aren't style points.. they're points for issue spotting and in depth analysis in the alternative

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Sep 06, 2010 11:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Did anyone hear from Covington DC, or any other DC firms for that matter?

Still waiting on Covington. Though I was told by my references that Brianna had contacted them sometime last week (mid- to late-).

I've been dinged by WilmerHale. Callback at Jones Day. Also waiting on Crowell, Hogan, A&P, Pillsbury.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:30 am

worldtraveler wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:As mentioned previously, CLR's effect depends on the firm. I know a few straight P, LR 3Ls who got locked out completely despite having a good number of callbacks (6+) last year. I also know some that landed an offer.

Lets rewind here; 1) are there straight P on CLR? Seems unlikely; 2) firms will base an offer decision for a 3L based on LR, and not their body of work over the summer? Seems unlikely?


1) There are straight Ps on law review.

2) You completely misunderstood the person's point. They're talking about getting an offer for a summer associate position.


Yep, this is what I meant.

I know of a few people on CLR with straight Ps. I think both CLR and final exams test writing ability, but exams also gauge the ability to work under pressure and probably test analytical ability to a greater degree as well.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:25 am

Anonymous User wrote:Given that there are straight Ps on CLR, I think it's odd to presume that membership in CLR automatically makes one a good writer. I'm not saying it's impossible or that test performance is highly indicative of writing ability under normal circumstances. I just don't think one should jump to that conclusion.


Straight P, CLR member here. And making CLR does signify being a good writer. The CLR write-on and exams test two entirely different skill sets. Some people are better at formulating a thesis, weeding through large amounts of scholarship, and defending that thesis through a lengthy analytical essay. Others are better at quickly analyzing on their toes and identifying as many troublesome issues as possible. Both skills are useful as a lawyer - knowing how to come up with quick resolutions is key (exam skills), as is taking the time to analyze and write a highly developed piece (aka a brief) to help your client ultimately win (write-on skills).

Many interviewers have commented on my being a good writer b/c of CLR. And I know I am a good writer. I've written a 60 page thesis, been published, and received awards for my writing in the academic community.

Calm down with the CLR hate.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 07, 2010 4:25 pm

DPW ny cb today

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Given that there are straight Ps on CLR, I think it's odd to presume that membership in CLR automatically makes one a good writer. I'm not saying it's impossible or that test performance is highly indicative of writing ability under normal circumstances. I just don't think one should jump to that conclusion.


Straight P, CLR member here. And making CLR does signify being a good writer. The CLR write-on and exams test two entirely different skill sets. Some people are better at formulating a thesis, weeding through large amounts of scholarship, and defending that thesis through a lengthy analytical essay. Others are better at quickly analyzing on their toes and identifying as many troublesome issues as possible. Both skills are useful as a lawyer - knowing how to come up with quick resolutions is key (exam skills), as is taking the time to analyze and write a highly developed piece (aka a brief) to help your client ultimately win (write-on skills).

Many interviewers have commented on my being a good writer b/c of CLR. And I know I am a good writer. I've written a 60 page thesis, been published, and received awards for my writing in the academic community.

Calm down with the CLR hate.


How have you explained your straight P transcript to legal employers? How do you keep them from thinking that you're talented but lazy - a thought that many will probably have in the back of their mind?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:03 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Given that there are straight Ps on CLR, I think it's odd to presume that membership in CLR automatically makes one a good writer. I'm not saying it's impossible or that test performance is highly indicative of writing ability under normal circumstances. I just don't think one should jump to that conclusion.


Straight P, CLR member here. And making CLR does signify being a good writer. The CLR write-on and exams test two entirely different skill sets. Some people are better at formulating a thesis, weeding through large amounts of scholarship, and defending that thesis through a lengthy analytical essay. Others are better at quickly analyzing on their toes and identifying as many troublesome issues as possible. Both skills are useful as a lawyer - knowing how to come up with quick resolutions is key (exam skills), as is taking the time to analyze and write a highly developed piece (aka a brief) to help your client ultimately win (write-on skills).

Many interviewers have commented on my being a good writer b/c of CLR. And I know I am a good writer. I've written a 60 page thesis, been published, and received awards for my writing in the academic community.

Calm down with the CLR hate.


How have you explained your straight P transcript to legal employers? How do you keep them from thinking that you're talented but lazy - a thought that many will probably have in the back of their mind?


I don't think this is a safe assumption with someone with straight Ps. This is from the perspective of someone with only 1H, and I worked damn hard last year.

No one has looked at my transcript in an interview, except three firms. One was the near infamous waving transcript guy, another was Quinn, and another was a firm I got a callback with after they asked me if my grades were indicative of my abilities as a litigator. Although it was slightly ballsy, I just told them all the other things I bring to the table.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:09 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Given that there are straight Ps on CLR, I think it's odd to presume that membership in CLR automatically makes one a good writer. I'm not saying it's impossible or that test performance is highly indicative of writing ability under normal circumstances. I just don't think one should jump to that conclusion.


Straight P, CLR member here. And making CLR does signify being a good writer. The CLR write-on and exams test two entirely different skill sets. Some people are better at formulating a thesis, weeding through large amounts of scholarship, and defending that thesis through a lengthy analytical essay. Others are better at quickly analyzing on their toes and identifying as many troublesome issues as possible. Both skills are useful as a lawyer - knowing how to come up with quick resolutions is key (exam skills), as is taking the time to analyze and write a highly developed piece (aka a brief) to help your client ultimately win (write-on skills).

Many interviewers have commented on my being a good writer b/c of CLR. And I know I am a good writer. I've written a 60 page thesis, been published, and received awards for my writing in the academic community.

Calm down with the CLR hate.


How have you explained your straight P transcript to legal employers? How do you keep them from thinking that you're talented but lazy - a thought that many will probably have in the back of their mind?


I don't think this is a safe assumption with someone with straight Ps. This is from the perspective of someone with only 1H, and I worked damn hard last year.

No one has looked at my transcript in an interview, except three firms. One was the near infamous waving transcript guy, another was Quinn, and another was a firm I got a callback with after they asked me if my grades were indicative of my abilities as a litigator. Although it was slightly ballsy, I just told them all the other things I bring to the table.



nice work! i am in a similar position grade-wise and i also worked my butt off. 6 callbacks. you never know unless you try your best and stick your neck out. i didnt have the balls for Quinn though...

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 07, 2010 8:45 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
How have you explained your straight P transcript to legal employers? How do you keep them from thinking that you're talented but lazy - a thought that many will probably have in the back of their mind?


I don't think this is a safe assumption with someone with straight Ps. This is from the perspective of someone with only 1H, and I worked damn hard last year.

No one has looked at my transcript in an interview, except three firms. One was the near infamous waving transcript guy, another was Quinn, and another was a firm I got a callback with after they asked me if my grades were indicative of my abilities as a litigator. Although it was slightly ballsy, I just told them all the other things I bring to the table.



nice work! i am in a similar position grade-wise and i also worked my butt off. 6 callbacks. you never know unless you try your best and stick your neck out. i didnt have the balls for Quinn though...


Nice work to both of you. I have an equal amount of Hs and Ps and still haven't had a single call back. I didn't think that I was a bad interviewer, but I'm starting to second guess myself now.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:50 pm

Some H's here but mostly P's. No call-back yet. A growing number of dings. I thought most interviews went well. But clearly I'm missing something. If nothing by the end of the week, then goodbye to biglaw. And good riddance too.

(1) Strike out on OCIP and miss the biglaw boat
(2) ???
(3) Profit

The glass is actually greener on the empty side. Might not be $$$ bills greener, but greener nonetheless.

edit: congrats to those who got call-backs even with mostly or all P's. That's f'king awesome!

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:54 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Given that there are straight Ps on CLR, I think it's odd to presume that membership in CLR automatically makes one a good writer. I'm not saying it's impossible or that test performance is highly indicative of writing ability under normal circumstances. I just don't think one should jump to that conclusion.


Straight P, CLR member here. And making CLR does signify being a good writer. The CLR write-on and exams test two entirely different skill sets. Some people are better at formulating a thesis, weeding through large amounts of scholarship, and defending that thesis through a lengthy analytical essay. Others are better at quickly analyzing on their toes and identifying as many troublesome issues as possible. Both skills are useful as a lawyer - knowing how to come up with quick resolutions is key (exam skills), as is taking the time to analyze and write a highly developed piece (aka a brief) to help your client ultimately win (write-on skills).

Many interviewers have commented on my being a good writer b/c of CLR. And I know I am a good writer. I've written a 60 page thesis, been published, and received awards for my writing in the academic community.

Calm down with the CLR hate.


How have you explained your straight P transcript to legal employers? How do you keep them from thinking that you're talented but lazy - a thought that many will probably have in the back of their mind?


All Ps, not IP, CLR person here again....

I've never had to explain it in an interview. I've never been asked to explain my grades. I've been asked what my favorite class was, but that's about as close to a "grades" convo as I've had with anyone.

One person DID mention my grades, but it wasn't a question. A partner said "her grades aren't the best, no honors - but her resume's stellar, she's on law review, she has x, y, and z, etc." I think a whole package can sometimes take you far. If you have zero work experience and came straight from college, it might be harder to pull off. If you have a good work history with other factors (I'm really trying not to give too much away here), it might be easier. One callback partner told me that it is clear from my resume that I'm an overachiever who knows what she wants and gets it. Some firms don't equate Ps with laziness. Seek out those firms.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:56 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Some H's here but mostly P's. No call-back yet. A growing number of dings. I thought most interviews went well. But clearly I'm missing something. If nothing by the end of the week, then goodbye to biglaw. And good riddance too.

(1) Strike out on OCIP and miss the biglaw boat
(2) ???
(3) Profit

The glass is actually greener on the empty side. Might not be $$$ bills greener, but greener nonetheless.

edit: congrats to those who got call-backs even with mostly or all P's. That's f'king awesome!
Anonymous User wrote:Some H's here but mostly P's. No call-back yet. A growing number of dings. I thought most interviews went well. But clearly I'm missing something. If nothing by the end of the week, then goodbye to biglaw. And good riddance too.

(1) Strike out on OCIP and miss the biglaw boat
(2) ???
(3) Profit

The glass is actually greener on the empty side. Might not be $$$ bills greener, but greener nonetheless.

edit: congrats to those who got call-backs even with mostly or all P's. That's f'king awesome!


this is the poster above with okay grades and callbacks. i'm going to start declining a bunch as soon as i get an offer (fingers crossed, who knows grades may matter more at that stage). i imagine the others I know with multiple callbacks will do the same and firms will callback again. i know a few people with A LOT of callbacks, for whatever reason, probably grades. i can't imagine they will go on all the interviews.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 08, 2010 2:24 am

Irell LA (BH) + Ropes NY (SE) callbacks by phone today, very happy bec both are tier 1 IP lit

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 08, 2010 12:39 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Given that there are straight Ps on CLR, I think it's odd to presume that membership in CLR automatically makes one a good writer. I'm not saying it's impossible or that test performance is highly indicative of writing ability under normal circumstances. I just don't think one should jump to that conclusion.


??????????

The CLR law review membership is based on an exercise which has exclusively to do with writing (editing is part of writing). The CLR law review thing was under "normal circumstances" - unlike a final exam in law school.

I'm scratching my head as to what CLR membership means - if it doesn't signal that a member is a good writer. What does it measure then, that they're a good writing competition contestant, i.e. they write and edit well? I'm lost here.

The straight Ps has to do with issue spotting/analysis, not "writing ability"


Both sides of this argument are insecure, trying to rely on a credential to establish some sort of abstract self-commendation: I have x so I must be a good writer.

I hate to break it to everyone, but law review membership or good grades in school does not make one a good writer. A good legal writer, perhaps (although the jury is certainly still out, and good in comparison to what- your classmates not on CLR, which would be hilarious to claim given the write-on criteria), but certainly not a good writer.

This thread really explains the suck that is Boalt Hall these days.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Given that there are straight Ps on CLR, I think it's odd to presume that membership in CLR automatically makes one a good writer. I'm not saying it's impossible or that test performance is highly indicative of writing ability under normal circumstances. I just don't think one should jump to that conclusion.


??????????

The CLR law review membership is based on an exercise which has exclusively to do with writing (editing is part of writing). The CLR law review thing was under "normal circumstances" - unlike a final exam in law school.

I'm scratching my head as to what CLR membership means - if it doesn't signal that a member is a good writer. What does it measure then, that they're a good writing competition contestant, i.e. they write and edit well? I'm lost here.

The straight Ps has to do with issue spotting/analysis, not "writing ability"


Both sides of this argument are insecure, trying to rely on a credential to establish some sort of abstract self-commendation: I have x so I must be a good writer.

I hate to break it to everyone, but law review membership or good grades in school does not make one a good writer. A good legal writer, perhaps (although the jury is certainly still out, and good in comparison to what- your classmates not on CLR, which would be hilarious to claim given the write-on criteria), but certainly not a good writer.

This thread really explains the suck that is Boalt Hall these days.


You're an idiot who needs to work on reading comprehension. This discussion was started by the comment that an interviewer had written "good writer" on someone's resume next to their CLR membership and whether or not that presumption is justified. No one is arguing about their insecurities.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 08, 2010 7:43 pm

Well its all done!!! Anyways, general vibe I get is half it was a total disaster, half looking pretty, whats the vibe you are getting?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:34 pm

Def in the 1/2 of total disaster, heres to hoping for callback waitlists

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:27 am

historically, are callbacks from phase 1 supposed to be in or ding by now?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:03 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Given that there are straight Ps on CLR, I think it's odd to presume that membership in CLR automatically makes one a good writer. I'm not saying it's impossible or that test performance is highly indicative of writing ability under normal circumstances. I just don't think one should jump to that conclusion.


??????????

The CLR law review membership is based on an exercise which has exclusively to do with writing (editing is part of writing). The CLR law review thing was under "normal circumstances" - unlike a final exam in law school.

I'm scratching my head as to what CLR membership means - if it doesn't signal that a member is a good writer. What does it measure then, that they're a good writing competition contestant, i.e. they write and edit well? I'm lost here.

The straight Ps has to do with issue spotting/analysis, not "writing ability"


Both sides of this argument are insecure, trying to rely on a credential to establish some sort of abstract self-commendation: I have x so I must be a good writer.

I hate to break it to everyone, but law review membership or good grades in school does not make one a good writer. A good legal writer, perhaps (although the jury is certainly still out, and good in comparison to what- your classmates not on CLR, which would be hilarious to claim given the write-on criteria), but certainly not a good writer.

This thread really explains the suck that is Boalt Hall these days.


You're an idiot who needs to work on reading comprehension. This discussion was started by the comment that an interviewer had written "good writer" on someone's resume next to their CLR membership and whether or not that presumption is justified. No one is arguing about their insecurities.


Lol, you're actually the one who needs to learn how to read. The way the argument has progressed shows those involved to be insecure. It's just that simple.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:historically, are callbacks from phase 1 supposed to be in or ding by now?


yes, if you haven't heard back, it probably means a ding

Anonymous User
Posts: 273202
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Berkeley OCIP

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Sep 10, 2010 3:07 am

How many people does Irell interview at Boalt's OCIP, and how many do they callback?
I know there's a file out there for this data, not sure how to find it.
I'm interested in figuring out if I have a real shot at this firm, I got a callback recently.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.