University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

(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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:30 am

Jones Day (Chi) email ding this morning from TT

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:40 am

Anonymous User wrote:I love how this thread has turned into the people with callbacks claiming that it's all about personality: "People must love me!" And people without callbacks, who must have terrible personalities under this theory, are blaming it on the economy, OCS, etc.: "I'm not a complete loser, am I?"

I think we can all agree that a number of factors determine who gets cb's:

1) Grades matter. Everywhere. Yet high grades don't necessarily lead to auto-cb's, and low grades =/= auto-ding (at least at some places).

2) Location matters. Many of our classmates bid exclusively on Chicago. Over the past three years, the number of SA positions in Chicago has fallen from 900 to 300. Because most Chicago firms recruit at more than simply NU and UofC, it is tough to get a position in Chicago.

3) Some people did a terrible job bidding in at least two ways.
a) Some people did very little research on the selectivity of firms. I was shocked by the number of students clearly outside the top 10% (ok, I'm being a bit judgmental) who interviewed with Wachtell, W&C, Cravath, Susman, Munger, Irell, etc.
b) Some people were content with less than 15 screening interviews. In my opinion, everyone outside of the top 10% should have tried for at least 25 interviews. If there were only 10 firms a market, people should have tried for multiple markets.

4) Firms make freakish, random-seeming decisions. Maybe a hiring partner--with whom you didn't meet--also has an undying passion for rock-climbing, or loves people from your undergrad, or was impressed by your exceptionally high grade in a cryptically named class, "Emotion, Reason, and the Law." Grading and cb decisions can be equally arbitrary.

5) A confident, warm personality helps, but it's unclear how much. I don't think personality should be a huge factor since nearly everyone with the brains to attend UofC also has the ability to act friendly and outgoing for 20 minutes. Maybe not, but this has been my experience. Also, for a number of firms, an associate did the interview, but some hiring partner made the cb decision. In this case, it seems unlikely personality helps much.

Of the people I know who did well at OCI outside the top 10%, (3) seems to have played the biggest role. (1) and (5) probably played minor roles.


I mean, if you focus on one market, then that will take care of #3. If you bid every Chicago firm, from Kirkland all the way to the smallest IP boutique, you're bound to get around 20 interviews, with firms inside V10 to boutiques outside of V100.

Chicago is a tough market. I did very well so far. I have no Work Experience. I have poor grades. However, I am a good interviewer. I have 5 CB's from (1) V20, (4) V100-V30 . My grades have definitely held me back at some firms, but my interviews have gotten me in the door everywhere else. I'm a genuine person, and I don't look for the "right" answer in interviews. Firms see through that - I'm 100% honest about what I want to do. I don't go into a hiring partner saying I want to do corporate work because the interviewer is head of the corporate department.

No one can complain about grades holding us back. The only thing holding you back is yourself - the people with multiple callbacks are the people who are genuine, nice, outgoing, and personable. Not the people with great grades and nothing else to offer. 20 minute interviews are more than adequate for a hiring partner to determine if he likes or doesn't like a candidate.

I had multiple partners in interviews state that every person who walks in to an interview from UofC is more than capable of doing a good job. The make or break question that firms ask is "Can I see myself working with this person and being happy with it for the next 3, 5, or 10 years?" It is all about personality outside of grades.

User avatar
doyleoil
Posts: 631
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:59 pm

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby doyleoil » Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:42 am

These OCI analyses are making me thirsty.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:05 pm

I find all these 'ZOMG PERSONALITY IS KEY!!!!' screeds a little laughable. Good luck wowing with personality if your grades are below median and you want a competitive market from which no firm outside of V50 came to interview. Alternatively, good luck with personality if your grades are below median and you want DC.

Firms probably CB no more than a third of everyone they interview. This means, what, 6 out of 20 get CBs? I'm pretty sure that on any given interview list for a V50 firm there's more than enough pleasant above-median people to give a CB to.

Those with below median grades that supposedly racked up CBs have my congrats. But they would likely do well to understand that they are the exception to the rule, particularly given that below median grades correlate with no CBs across the board and that there is no correlation otherwise between bad grades and a crappy personality.

In short, these OCI analyses by and large suck.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:15 pm

5) A confident, warm personality helps, but it's unclear how much. I don't think personality should be a huge factor since nearly everyone with the brains to attend UofC also has the ability to act friendly and outgoing for 20 minutes. Maybe not, but this has been my experience. Also, for a number of firms, an associate did the interview, but some hiring partner made the cb decision. In this case, it seems unlikely personality helps much.


You need to think through this point a little bit more. Yes, nearly everyone has the ability to act friendly and outgoing for 20 minutes. That's the problem. A firm might auto-callback and auto-ding 20% of their interviewers based on their grades, but what do they do with the other 80%, all of whom are acting friendly and outgoing?

Some people in that latter pool will get CBs because they randomly happen to connect with the interviewer. You don't want to bank on that. There are people who convert 40-60% of their screeners to callbacks, despite not being top 10% + LR. How do they do that? They: (1) bid carefully, on firms that won't auto-ding them; (2) stand out in that pool of 80% as someone exceptional.

I'm harping on this because people still have CBs to go, and also because I know there are some 1Ls reading this thread who will be dealing with a similar market next year.

The CW that all employers care about is grades is misleading. Yes, its the first round of screening. Employers auto-callback/auto-ding people based on them. However, that does not mean that for the rest of the pool, interviewers mechanically give CBs to the people with the highest grades, as long as they "act friendly and outgoing for 20 minutes." You can't walk into an interview at a low-V100 and assume that just because you have top 1/4 grades you'll get a callback as long as you're pleasant. That low-V100 would rather give the CB to the guy with median grades who looks like he has his shit together.

To answer the poster above:

This means, what, 6 out of 20 get CBs? I'm pretty sure that on any given interview list for a V50 firm there's more than enough pleasant above-median people to give a CB to.


There probably are, but that's not how the CBs will be handed out. 2-3 of them will go to the top 10% folks who interviewed. The rest will go to the people the interviewer liked that were above the cut-off. At U Chi at many firms it might be top 2/3. The slightly below median guy with great presence will get the CB over the slightly above median guy who is merely pleasant nearly every time.

You're acting like personality will lose you a CB that you're otherwise entitled to. That may have been true in that past, but it's not true ITE. Personality is something that will win you a CB that you can't otherwise get automatically by being top 10%+LR.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 12:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote:In short, these OCI analyses by and large suck.


+1

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:05 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I love how this thread has turned into the people with callbacks claiming that it's all about personality: "People must love me!" And people without callbacks, who must have terrible personalities under this theory, are blaming it on the economy, OCS, etc.: "I'm not a complete loser, am I?"

I think we can all agree that a number of factors determine who gets cb's:

1) Grades matter. Everywhere. Yet high grades don't necessarily lead to auto-cb's, and low grades =/= auto-ding (at least at some places).

2) Location matters. Many of our classmates bid exclusively on Chicago. Over the past three years, the number of SA positions in Chicago has fallen from 900 to 300. Because most Chicago firms recruit at more than simply NU and UofC, it is tough to get a position in Chicago.

3) Some people did a terrible job bidding in at least two ways.
a) Some people did very little research on the selectivity of firms. I was shocked by the number of students clearly outside the top 10% (ok, I'm being a bit judgmental) who interviewed with Wachtell, W&C, Cravath, Susman, Munger, Irell, etc.
b) Some people were content with less than 15 screening interviews. In my opinion, everyone outside of the top 10% should have tried for at least 25 interviews. If there were only 10 firms a market, people should have tried for multiple markets.

4) Firms make freakish, random-seeming decisions. Maybe a hiring partner--with whom you didn't meet--also has an undying passion for rock-climbing, or loves people from your undergrad, or was impressed by your exceptionally high grade in a cryptically named class, "Emotion, Reason, and the Law." Grading and cb decisions can be equally arbitrary.

5) A confident, warm personality helps, but it's unclear how much. I don't think personality should be a huge factor since nearly everyone with the brains to attend UofC also has the ability to act friendly and outgoing for 20 minutes. Maybe not, but this has been my experience. Also, for a number of firms, an associate did the interview, but some hiring partner made the cb decision. In this case, it seems unlikely personality helps much.

Of the people I know who did well at OCI outside the top 10%, (3) seems to have played the biggest role. (1) and (5) probably played minor roles.


I actually think this analysis is pretty good, but maybe it's because I wrote it. Seriously, though, I wasn't trying to explain why oci turned out the way it did. I was merely trying to refudiate the growing "consensus" that personality was the difference maker, so I pointed out reasons--other than personality--that people with similar gpa's have a different number of cb's.

HTH

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:09 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I find all these 'ZOMG PERSONALITY IS KEY!!!!' screeds a little laughable. Good luck wowing with personality if your grades are below median and you want a competitive market from which no firm outside of V50 came to interview. Alternatively, good luck with personality if your grades are below median and you want DC.

Firms probably CB no more than a third of everyone they interview. This means, what, 6 out of 20 get CBs? I'm pretty sure that on any given interview list for a V50 firm there's more than enough pleasant above-median people to give a CB to.

Those with below median grades that supposedly racked up CBs have my congrats. But they would likely do well to understand that they are the exception to the rule, particularly given that below median grades correlate with no CBs across the board and that there is no correlation otherwise between bad grades and a crappy personality.

In short, these OCI analyses by and large suck.


+1 - especially true for the LA market and mostly true for NYC.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:11 pm

I'm not sure if the market matters (CA) but at my callbacks this week several interviewers (including hiring partners) expressed absolute befuddlement regarding our grading system. They used words like "incomprehensible" and "bizarre." At one point while looking at my transcript, a partner asked me to explain it, but then thought better of it. "I'm sure you did well, let's leave it at that," he said.

Another point re: personality. A partner actually read me his notes from a meeting to discuss candidates. "Here's how you were pitched to us ..." This info was basically an analysis of "fit" with the firm based on my w/e and personality, and included stuff about my hobbies and other interests.

These were V10-25 firms, for whatever it's worth. I'm top 40%-ish with 4 CBs so far and each and every CB resulted from a really strong interview performance coupled with a genuine connection with the interviewer. So count me on the "personality and W/E can count for a lot -- at least at certain firms" side of the fence.

What truly sucks is that OCS is utterly useless in directing us to firms that are likely to be a good fit. There's a shitload of luck, confusion and chaos built into this process and OCS exacerbates rather than reduces it.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:What truly sucks is that OCS is utterly useless in directing us to firms that are likely to be a good fit. There's a shitload of luck, confusion and chaos built into this process and OCS exacerbates rather than reduces it.


+1. I called OCS to talk about my bidding strategy and my various concerns, and I was told repeatedly to just bid on what I liked. Huh? How does that help?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:What truly sucks is that OCS is utterly useless in directing us to firms that are likely to be a good fit. There's a shitload of luck, confusion and chaos built into this process and OCS exacerbates rather than reduces it.


I was with you until you wrote this. What is OCS supposed to do? Make personality-based judgment calls:

"Well, from your resume, general demeanor, and stated interests, I gather you're an aspie striver with a strong tolerance for abuse. Perhaps Williams & Connolly suits you?"

Also, where is your faith in your fellow students? Shouldn't we have some responsibility for our job search?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:25 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I find all these 'ZOMG PERSONALITY IS KEY!!!!' screeds a little laughable. Good luck wowing with personality if your grades are below median and you want a competitive market from which no firm outside of V50 came to interview. Alternatively, good luck with personality if your grades are below median and you want DC.

Firms probably CB no more than a third of everyone they interview. This means, what, 6 out of 20 get CBs? I'm pretty sure that on any given interview list for a V50 firm there's more than enough pleasant above-median people to give a CB to.

Those with below median grades that supposedly racked up CBs have my congrats. But they would likely do well to understand that they are the exception to the rule, particularly given that below median grades correlate with no CBs across the board and that there is no correlation otherwise between bad grades and a crappy personality.

In short, these OCI analyses by and large suck.


+1 - especially true for the LA market and mostly true for NYC.


As someone who bid on NYC almost exclusively, I can confirm that nearly no non-V50 NYC office bothered to show up at our OCI (unlike at CLS and NYU that swarmed with V100+ firms, meaning firms unwilling to incur traveling expenses but hiring otherwise). Hence my analysis.

And, btw, I'm not in the above-median-no-CB category. But grades limit a great deal, and cases where that limit is overcome are rarer than bros ITT care to admit.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What truly sucks is that OCS is utterly useless in directing us to firms that are likely to be a good fit. There's a shitload of luck, confusion and chaos built into this process and OCS exacerbates rather than reduces it.


I was with you until you wrote this. What is OCS supposed to do? Make personality-based judgment calls:

"Well, from your resume, general demeanor, and stated interests, I gather you're an aspie striver with a strong tolerance for abuse. Perhaps Williams & Connolly suits you?"

Also, where is your faith in your fellow students? Shouldn't we have some responsibility for our job search?


While personality based judgment calls are outside of OCS's province, they certainly could do a better job of letting us know which grade cutoffs are 'hard' and which are 'soft.' This is something they're almost certainly aware of.

By way of example, I happen to know that Paul Weiss means business with its cutoffs. Some other firms, not as much. Being able to discern which firms really mean it when they say 'top 50 percent' might have helped some of us.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:What truly sucks is that OCS is utterly useless in directing us to firms that are likely to be a good fit. There's a shitload of luck, confusion and chaos built into this process and OCS exacerbates rather than reduces it.


+1. I called OCS to talk about my bidding strategy and my various concerns, and I was told repeatedly to just bid on what I liked. Huh? How does that help?


It's good advice, though they probably could have done a better job presenting it.

You're at U Chicago, and I'm guessing your grades weren't terrible. If so, you're above the cut-off for pretty much any firm outside the V10. If you bid on firms you like, then you can make a good persuasive case for why you want to work there, which will help you get a callback.

I mistakenly bid "conservatively" on lots of firms that had big summer classes that really didn't do what I wanted but had GPA medians substantially below mine. I struck out on pretty much all of those interviews because I had a hard time pitching why I wanted to work there. On the other hand, I ended up with 5 callbacks and 2 quick offers at firms where I was slightly to substantially below their GPA median but could make a passionate case for why I wanted to work there.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote:3) Some people did a terrible job bidding in at least two ways.
a) Some people did very little research on the selectivity of firms. I was shocked by the number of students clearly outside the top 10% (ok, I'm being a bit judgmental) who interviewed with Wachtell, W&C, Cravath, Susman, Munger, Irell, etc.
b) Some people were content with less than 15 screening interviews. In my opinion, everyone outside of the top 10% should have tried for at least 25 interviews. If there were only 10 firms a market, people should have tried for multiple markets.


Point 3) a) is extremely credited.

Point 3) b), not so much. What good would it have done anyone to rack up the number of interviewing slots if it meant interviewing with markets that clearly and unequivocally demand ties? I had 21 interviews and would gladly have racked up more, had it not been for the fact that open slots tended to be (1) for TX offices only, (2) that I've never even visited TX and (3) that TX firms are well known for wanting 'locals' only.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:16 pm

This thread makes our school look terrible. Please stop.

Hoopster
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:51 pm

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Hoopster » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:20 pm

Anonymous User wrote:This thread makes our school look terrible. Please stop.


The truth hurts.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:23 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:This thread makes our school look terrible. Please stop.


The truth hurts.


I don't think our school is terrible. That said, some of the stuff that has been posted ITT is ridic. We'd have all been better off sticking with reporting dings/CBs, myself very much included.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:24 pm

K&L Gates CB. 176...this is my 5th cb this season. I am totally not a douche/bro, never been to bar review. Rather awkward. Who knows what is going on.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:While personality based judgment calls are outside of OCS's province, they certainly could do a better job of letting us know which grade cutoffs are 'hard' and which are 'soft.' This is something they're almost certainly aware of.

By way of example, I happen to know that Paul Weiss means business with its cutoffs. Some other firms, not as much. Being able to discern which firms really mean it when they say 'top 50 percent' might have helped some of us.


This was the only thing that Paul Woo did that was remotely helpful. He listed firms at the OCI overview last Spring that were either 1) extremely grade conscious or 2) somewhat grade conscious.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:32 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:While personality based judgment calls are outside of OCS's province, they certainly could do a better job of letting us know which grade cutoffs are 'hard' and which are 'soft.' This is something they're almost certainly aware of.

By way of example, I happen to know that Paul Weiss means business with its cutoffs. Some other firms, not as much. Being able to discern which firms really mean it when they say 'top 50 percent' might have helped some of us.


This was the only thing that Paul Woo did that was remotely helpful. He listed firms at the OCI overview last Spring that were either 1) extremely grade conscious or 2) somewhat grade conscious.


He did? I don't recall that.

I spoke with another OCS person who said that only three firms were very grade conscious. My OCI experience speaks otherwise, of course.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:39 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:While personality based judgment calls are outside of OCS's province, they certainly could do a better job of letting us know which grade cutoffs are 'hard' and which are 'soft.' This is something they're almost certainly aware of.

By way of example, I happen to know that Paul Weiss means business with its cutoffs. Some other firms, not as much. Being able to discern which firms really mean it when they say 'top 50 percent' might have helped some of us.


This was the only thing that Paul Woo did that was remotely helpful. He listed firms at the OCI overview last Spring that were either 1) extremely grade conscious or 2) somewhat grade conscious.


He did? I don't recall that.

I spoke with another OCS person who said that only three firms were very grade conscious. My OCI experience speaks otherwise, of course.


Yea. It was at the OCI explanation and tutorial he had in the Spring. At the very end he told us the firms that were somewhat snobby when it came to grades and said he/OCS would only be doing it that one time. If you didn't write them down or weren't at the meeting, then you were out of luck.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273174
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:43 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Yea. It was at the OCI explanation and tutorial he had in the Spring. At the very end he told us the firms that were somewhat snobby when it came to grades and said he/OCS would only be doing it that one time. If you didn't write them down or weren't at the meeting, then you were out of luck.


Oh, I was aware of firms' relative selectivity anyway since, fortunately enough, I happened to be privy to some of the data other OCSs released to my friends at other schools. Still. Why the hell did they do it 'that one time' only? Stuff like that should always be available upon inquiry.

USAIRS
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:08 pm

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby USAIRS » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:43 pm

As someone who conducted on-campus interviews (not at chicago, but local ones to where I worked), and someone whose been through chicago's OCI as a studen, allow me to give some insight on the process:

When interviewers go to a school, they typically know that only a certain number of people can be given second interviews from that school. Accordingly, the students at a school are only competing with themselves. So if we can do 4 follow-up interviews, then I have to figure out a way to weed out 16 Chicago students, who all did well in undergrad, most of whom have similar grades (and only first-year grades) in all the same classes. I know nearly every student at schools of Chicago's caliber can do this job and do it well (although, at least at the local T10, it seemed like the occasional dud slipped in). So, you have to find ways if narrowing down the list. All those things that you guys have been hashing out come in to play (although "personality" is pretty much never an issue - everyone seems nice), but it isn't an exact science.

Grades - Some firms have unspoken grade cutoffs. "Below median" for this purpose typically means below 176. For a lot of the bigger ones, like Sidley Austin or Kirland Ellis, this will be the case (they'll also have similar "below median" cutoffs for other schools, including Harvard). Some firms would be happy to get someone, anyone, from a school like Chicago. Some places will overlook grade requirements if you have law review (obviously) or pertinent work experience (you worked in accounting and we have a need in M&A), or maybe a pertinent major or certification (CPA) that sets you apart from the other 20 candidates at your school.

Undergrad - It matters. I've got to pick one more person out of 16, and they've all got near median grades and non-relevant work experience. They've all taken the same classes. They all seemed nice in the 15 minute interview. One of them went to Harvard for undergrad, you went to community college and transferred to UC Riverside.

Relevant experience - goes a long way. It is easy to find law students, but it is hard to find someone who worked in a large corporation before going to law school. This is mostly important if you do a type of work where the insight one gets from the experience matters. But, if you come across that person whose experience fits, you can't pass her up.

Interview - Personality, maybe if you work in a tiny office, may matter. In most cases, I can't tell whose a psycho. or a liar, or a dick, or passive-aggressive from an interview. The only thing you can tell is if someone is articulate, focused, quick, and just ready for the interview. There is definitely such thing as a bad interviewer. Some people are natural interviewers, I'm sure. But a bad interviewer is pretty much someone who comes in totally unprepared. You should come in with a spiel about why you want to work for this place, what your connection is to the area, what area of practice you want to work in and why, and be able to point to things in your resume - your prior experiences that actualy prove it. I will take the person who can articulate their interest and fit with our office best over someone who just has good grades. Why would we waste a second interview on someone who I don't think will take the offer to work here because they aren't actually interested in what we do or where we practice? Our time is short. Even more, there is no sense in taking someone who would hate working here. Do not confuse this with good personality, this would be someone who makes the sale, "here's why you should hire me." This is not just pandering, it is a closing statement at trial. I've seen a lot here today, it actually helps for you to lay it out for me. I can then go into the hiring committee and make the same pitch. Thank you for making my job easier. Also, I can see the interview as a reflection on how interested you are in this job. If you come in unprepared, then you don't give a shit. Finally, I can see it as how you are going to prepare for a trial, or a big deal. If you don't even take the time to prepare for this, one of the most important things in your life, then you are really going to screw up a trial.

Other stuff - resume, writing sample, cover letter- typos are an easy way to separate people out. Some people will not even look at an application if it has typos. Revise your stuff, have other people revise it. (By the way, my computer is acting funky, so I can't fully read what I am writing here. Excuse my typos.) Be ready to discuss everything in your resume, have something good to say about each line. Same thing with your writing sample. Have a concise explanation of what the issue was and how it worked out. If you can't do these things, it may create the impression that you were exaggerating your involvement on your resume or in writing the sample. That's bad.

Luck - Luck favors the prepared. Chicago gives you a lot of opportunity, to fack up. Bids on places that were out of your league because of grades or whatever, that was wasted opportunity for bidding wrong. Other ones, some other awesomely qualified Chicago person may have had pertinent experience or great grades a better undergrad. You are at a really awesome school, congratulations. You are going to be competing with these people at OCI, but you aren't competing with Loyola. Good for you. That's not bad luck, that's just how it is. If you are facking up your interviews, though, the BS thing is that people with a lot less opportunity are owning you because they are simply more prepared. Ask yourself, how many mock interviews have I done? Less than 6? Have you tried getting the inside scoop on firms by contacting alumni? I bet you haven't. Have you done much other than read websites and walk in with your transcript in hand? Eek.

The Chicago name will get you really far. Only at these tippy top schools do you even get these great OCI's. But you have to figure out how to maximize that edge you have. This expectation you all develop while you are there that everyone should be handed a job just by virtue of attending is not realistic. A tiny few make it through this OCI process without getting rejected by at least 2 out of 3 places they do screening interviews with. The majority of people get jobs through OCI, but with maybe one to three offers, after doing more than 20 screening interviews. There are just some odds that some people are not going to get a job out of OCI. From an external perspective, it seems "everyone gets something" but once you are there it becomes clear that it is a struggle even for those who it works out for. It may be that you have to stop competing with your fellow students, find firms that didn't come to OCI, and there are plenty of good ones. Apply to the good government jobs that give you long term prospects. The Chicago name is actually so strong, that everyone who graduates from there should have a job. There is always someone out there willing to take a chance on a Chicago student. You just have to find them. At the end of the day, by the way, so what if you don't get a big firm job through OCI? Five years down the road, hardly anyone is still at these firms. The people who seem to be doing really well are the ones who took different routes. This whole obsession that takes over students at Chicago is pretty off the mark, but most of you won't appreciate it until much later.

USAIRS
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:08 pm

Re: University of Chicago 2010 OCI - callbacks

Postby USAIRS » Thu Sep 09, 2010 2:44 pm

TL;DR




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.