UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

(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: 273147
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:43 pm

trudat15 wrote:
Whatisthis wrote:
Also, anyone have any idea how competitive Southern California interview spots are?



Would love to know this too...


I have heard that the LA spots are sometimes difficult to get, the OC spots and SD spots are variable in terms of bidding difficulty, but getting actual OC and SD jobs are very, very, very hard to get without good ties or IP-- OC and SD are as different from LA as Boston is from New York, or Austin is from Houston.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273147
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:40 pm

trudat15 wrote:
Whatisthis wrote:
Also, anyone have any idea how competitive Southern California interview spots are?



Would love to know this too...


If you're talking about how hard it is to get an OCI interview for bidding strategy purposes, I don't think anyone can really help you. It all depends on how many people in your class are interested in the SoCal market, which is not consistent from year to year. Your best bet is to survey your peers or (maybe) call OCS and ask them if they have any anecdotal sense of this number.

scat_cat
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 11:12 am

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby scat_cat » Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:50 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
What is this "at or below median" crap? From plenty of anecdotal evidence, and discussions with hiring folks, it sounds like you need at least above a 178.5 or a 179 to actually receive a significant grade boost. There are only a few actually selective firms at OCI. They can't put on your bio on their website "almost got law review." Therefore, they are just looking at factors that are indicative of you actually contributing to their bottom line. Less-than law review grades may be a proxy, but so is work experience, technical skill sets, personality, and a lot of other things for firms that don't have hard cut-offs.

[...]

Also, addressing Kirkland and Sidley directly, I spoke with a partner at Kirkland who straight-faced said that my slightly above-median grades would in no way disqualify me, and that relevant work experience and technical skills easily trump a point or two on Chicago's system. The only people who they can actually tell through grades are smarter than everyone else are those with almost law-review-level grades, everything else is a crap-shoot.


I do think you need something near a 179 to get a grade boost, but NB: Law firms can put "graduated with honors" (179+) on their firm websites, and first-year grades are a decent predictor of second and third-year grades and therefore honors at graduation.

My class may not be representative of your OCI, since SA class sizes were so small, but it looks like of the eight 2L SAs at Kirkland, five ended up graduating with honors or better; of the three that didn't, one was a woman (in my class at least, men were 2 to 1 more likely to graduate with some kind of honors, so there might have been a shortage of women with honors-track grades applying) and another was non-AA but possibly counted as URM. Of the seven 2L SAs at Sidley Chicago, five ended up having some kind of honors, and of the two that didn't, one was a woman and the other was a transfer whose lovely first-year grades must not have continued at Chicago.

The partner you spoke to was not lying when he/she said you will not be disqualified if you're not above 178.5, but it may be an uphill climb.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273147
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Aug 01, 2011 6:22 pm

scat_cat wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
What is this "at or below median" crap? From plenty of anecdotal evidence, and discussions with hiring folks, it sounds like you need at least above a 178.5 or a 179 to actually receive a significant grade boost. There are only a few actually selective firms at OCI. They can't put on your bio on their website "almost got law review." Therefore, they are just looking at factors that are indicative of you actually contributing to their bottom line. Less-than law review grades may be a proxy, but so is work experience, technical skill sets, personality, and a lot of other things for firms that don't have hard cut-offs.

[...]

Also, addressing Kirkland and Sidley directly, I spoke with a partner at Kirkland who straight-faced said that my slightly above-median grades would in no way disqualify me, and that relevant work experience and technical skills easily trump a point or two on Chicago's system. The only people who they can actually tell through grades are smarter than everyone else are those with almost law-review-level grades, everything else is a crap-shoot.


I do think you need something near a 179 to get a grade boost, but NB: Law firms can put "graduated with honors" (179+) on their firm websites, and first-year grades are a decent predictor of second and third-year grades and therefore honors at graduation.

My class may not be representative of your OCI, since SA class sizes were so small, but it looks like of the eight 2L SAs at Kirkland, five ended up graduating with honors or better; of the three that didn't, one was a woman (in my class at least, men were 2 to 1 more likely to graduate with some kind of honors, so there might have been a shortage of women with honors-track grades applying) and another was non-AA but possibly counted as URM. Of the seven 2L SAs at Sidley Chicago, five ended up having some kind of honors, and of the two that didn't, one was a woman and the other was a transfer whose lovely first-year grades must not have continued at Chicago.

The partner you spoke to was not lying when he/she said you will not be disqualified if you're not above 178.5, but it may be an uphill climb.


This sounds pretty accurate to me. I always recommend NYC to near median students and it's not because I want Chicago, but rather it is because 3 of the biggest law firms in Chicago are also some of the most grade selective. This means that over one third of the already small # of SA spots are long-shots for a median student. Some people in the know recommended 178+ for Kirkland/Sidley/Jenner.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273147
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:42 am

Anyone know if the orange triangle on Symplicity which says "no multiple interviews" refers to the four or so offices which are inclusive in that particular interview group, or the firm in general. ie, could I bid Latham New York and Latham Tokyo?

User avatar
Jay W. Weatherman
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Jay W. Weatherman » Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:20 am

Anonymous User wrote:Anyone know if the orange triangle on Symplicity which says "no multiple interviews" refers to the four or so offices which are inclusive in that particular interview group, or the firm in general. ie, could I bid Latham New York and Latham Tokyo?


Someone can correct me, but my understanding is that the orange triangle means you're bidding on the firm in general. Bid on the office you want most, and in interviews you can express your interest for other offices.

If a firm has multiple offices and lacks the triangle, you need to use multiple bids to speak with each office because they are interviewing individually.

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Emma. » Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:41 am

Jay W. Weatherman wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Anyone know if the orange triangle on Symplicity which says "no multiple interviews" refers to the four or so offices which are inclusive in that particular interview group, or the firm in general. ie, could I bid Latham New York and Latham Tokyo?


Someone can correct me, but my understanding is that the orange triangle means you're bidding on the firm in general. Bid on the office you want most, and in interviews you can express your interest for other offices.

If a firm has multiple offices and lacks the triangle, you need to use multiple bids to speak with each office because they are interviewing individually.


My understanding is you still need to bid every office you are interested in, but you are only going to get one interview for the company as a whole. It is a weird system. Apparently you'll get credited an extra bid. So you bid on the NY and Tokyo offices but then it only really "counts" as one of your bids and you'll have 51 bids total.

User avatar
Jay W. Weatherman
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Jay W. Weatherman » Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:50 am

Emma. wrote:
Jay W. Weatherman wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Anyone know if the orange triangle on Symplicity which says "no multiple interviews" refers to the four or so offices which are inclusive in that particular interview group, or the firm in general. ie, could I bid Latham New York and Latham Tokyo?


Someone can correct me, but my understanding is that the orange triangle means you're bidding on the firm in general. Bid on the office you want most, and in interviews you can express your interest for other offices.

If a firm has multiple offices and lacks the triangle, you need to use multiple bids to speak with each office because they are interviewing individually.


My understanding is you still need to bid every office you are interested in, but you are only going to get one interview for the company as a whole. It is a weird system. Apparently you'll get credited an extra bid. So you bid on the NY and Tokyo offices but then it only really "counts" as one of your bids and you'll have 51 bids total.


Okay, I stand corrected. If you're doing that, are you required to list the offices sequentially, or could I list Firm X's NY office as number 3 on my list and then list it's Chi office as 51? The latter option seems like it'd maximize potential interviews.

User avatar
JollyGreenGiant
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:12 pm

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby JollyGreenGiant » Tue Aug 02, 2011 2:52 pm

Glad to see your internet is working smoothly, Mr. Weatherman. 8)

User avatar
Emma.
Posts: 2401
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:57 pm

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Emma. » Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:20 pm

Jay W. Weatherman wrote:
Emma. wrote:
Jay W. Weatherman wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Anyone know if the orange triangle on Symplicity which says "no multiple interviews" refers to the four or so offices which are inclusive in that particular interview group, or the firm in general. ie, could I bid Latham New York and Latham Tokyo?


Someone can correct me, but my understanding is that the orange triangle means you're bidding on the firm in general. Bid on the office you want most, and in interviews you can express your interest for other offices.

If a firm has multiple offices and lacks the triangle, you need to use multiple bids to speak with each office because they are interviewing individually.


My understanding is you still need to bid every office you are interested in, but you are only going to get one interview for the company as a whole. It is a weird system. Apparently you'll get credited an extra bid. So you bid on the NY and Tokyo offices but then it only really "counts" as one of your bids and you'll have 51 bids total.


Okay, I stand corrected. If you're doing that, are you required to list the offices sequentially, or could I list Firm X's NY office as number 3 on my list and then list it's Chi office as 51? The latter option seems like it'd maximize potential interviews.


Yeah, you don't need to bid them sequentially, you could do the latter. Though if there were a firm you are really interested in and they have 2 offices you like, I guess you could bid the offices like 8 and 9 and maximize your chance of getting an interview? I'm not really sure what the correct strategy is here.

User avatar
Jay W. Weatherman
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:32 pm

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Jay W. Weatherman » Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:58 pm

JollyGreenGiant wrote:Glad to see your internet is working smoothly, Mr. Weatherman. 8)


Every day has its miracles.

zcc2012
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby zcc2012 » Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:25 am

If anyone is legitimately interested in Texas but doesn't have ties, feel free to shoot me a PM. I was in that situation last year, and it's definitely possible to land a summer position there, despite common sentiment.

duckmoney
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:21 pm

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby duckmoney » Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:42 am

zcc2012 wrote:If anyone is legitimately interested in Texas but doesn't have ties, feel free to shoot me a PM. I was in that situation last year, and it's definitely possible to land a summer position there, despite common sentiment.


I have heard that Texas is not nearly as tribal and tie-centric as people on here make it out to be. Does this apply to all firms or moreso to satellites than Texas-headquartered firms?

User avatar
TaipeiMort
Posts: 874
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:51 pm

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby TaipeiMort » Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:05 pm

duckmoney wrote:
zcc2012 wrote:If anyone is legitimately interested in Texas but doesn't have ties, feel free to shoot me a PM. I was in that situation last year, and it's definitely possible to land a summer position there, despite common sentiment.


I have heard that Texas is not nearly as tribal and tie-centric as people on here make it out to be. Does this apply to all firms or moreso to satellites than Texas-headquartered firms?


I talked to a Uchicago guy who had 10 tx callbacks and 0 offers

duckmoney
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:21 pm

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby duckmoney » Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:19 pm

TaipeiMort wrote:
duckmoney wrote:
zcc2012 wrote:If anyone is legitimately interested in Texas but doesn't have ties, feel free to shoot me a PM. I was in that situation last year, and it's definitely possible to land a summer position there, despite common sentiment.


I have heard that Texas is not nearly as tribal and tie-centric as people on here make it out to be. Does this apply to all firms or moreso to satellites than Texas-headquartered firms?


I talked to a Uchicago guy who had 10 tx callbacks and 0 offers


ouch

zcc2012
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby zcc2012 » Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:13 pm

duckmoney wrote:
zcc2012 wrote:If anyone is legitimately interested in Texas but doesn't have ties, feel free to shoot me a PM. I was in that situation last year, and it's definitely possible to land a summer position there, despite common sentiment.


I have heard that Texas is not nearly as tribal and tie-centric as people on here make it out to be. Does this apply to all firms or moreso to satellites than Texas-headquartered firms?


I summered at a Texas-headquartered firm. The firm is open to people without ties, provided that the interviewee can express solid, well thought out reasons for wanting to be in Texas.

duckmoney
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 2:21 pm

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby duckmoney » Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:39 pm

zcc2012 wrote:
duckmoney wrote:
zcc2012 wrote:If anyone is legitimately interested in Texas but doesn't have ties, feel free to shoot me a PM. I was in that situation last year, and it's definitely possible to land a summer position there, despite common sentiment.


I have heard that Texas is not nearly as tribal and tie-centric as people on here make it out to be. Does this apply to all firms or moreso to satellites than Texas-headquartered firms?


I summered at a Texas-headquartered firm. The firm is open to people without ties, provided that the interviewee can express solid, well thought out reasons for wanting to be in Texas.


Would "I love George Bush, Jesus, and BBQ" fly?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273147
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:08 pm

Would "I love George Bush, Jesus, and BBQ" fly?


On a serious note, tell them the following:

(1) You hate cold weather, especially after living in Chicago for three years. California's too expensive, and the work in Arizona and Florida just isn't as sophisticated as it is in Texas.

(2) You love Texas because you get to enjoy the big city lifestyle at about a third of the cost of California, Chicago or New York.

(3) Similarly, the quality of work is on par with those cities, and the comp is similar, but again, you get a lot more bang for the buck.

NOTE: The first of those is true but misleading -- the summer in Texas is far worse than the winter in Chicago. You're going to see a heat index around 115 no matter what -- the only question is if you prefer 95 with 90% humidity (Houston), or 105 with 50% humidity (Dallas). The second is just wrong. You don't have the same big city lifestyle in Houston or Dallas as you do in New York or Chicago or SF. LA might be vaguely comparable, depending where you live. Though the restaurant scene is actually pretty sweet, at least outside the high end stuff. Third, with a few notable exceptions (energy, maybe IP), the work isn't going to be comparable. That's why they seemingly overpay for associates. But to a true Texan, those reasons for wanting to go to Texas will make absolute, perfect sense.

Things not to say:

(1) Try to avoid coming across as a conservative redneck. Yes, a lot of the people down there are like that, but a healthy minority aren't -- and they disproportionately make up the professional classes. If you are in a room with three Texas Biglaw lawyers, probably at least one of them is going to resent that stereotype.

(2) Try to avoid indicating that you want to go to Texas for better hours. At a lot of firms -- especially the big ones -- they're not. And they are very wary about people who just want to go down there to work less.

Hope this helps! (FYI: I grew up in Texas but left for law school and never looked back.)

Transferthrowaway
Posts: 608
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 9:40 am

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Transferthrowaway » Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:34 pm

"I want a governor who believes the world is 6000 years old."

Anonymous User
Posts: 273147
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Aug 05, 2011 7:31 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
NOTE: The first of those is true but misleading -- the summer in Texas is far worse than the winter in Chicago.


You're nuts. Chicago winters are unrelenting all the god damn time. At least in Texas it's decent out in the morning and at night. I would also much rather put up with 105 than a windchill of -15, but that might just be me.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273147
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:32 pm

Interview schedules are out.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273147
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:35 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Interview schedules are out.


Pro: Received an interview with a firm I wanted.
Con: I bid the wrong office.

Is there any way to fix this?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273147
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 11, 2011 1:45 pm

Haha. My bid results:

Bids #1-#22: Got every firm with the exception of Dewey at #18 and Allen & Overy at #21.
Bids #23-#50: Only one firm, at #35 (Sheppard Mullin, lol)

Pretty much lines up with the "bids don't really matter after #25" talk that I got from upperclassmen. I may not have maximized my number of interviews with my strategy, but I can say that, for the most part, every single firm I'm interviewing with I would be more than happy to work for.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273147
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:37 pm

Bid primarily Chicago. Got all of my top 10 but missed #11 and #12. Interestingly, bid all the biggest NYC firms from #27-#34 and did not get any of those.

20 interviews in total. Some are secondary market. Kinda disappointed I missed out on a few Chicago firms, but I got my main ones. I am now exceedingly nervous that I'm going to not get a job.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273147
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago 2011 OCI Discussion and Results

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Aug 11, 2011 2:45 pm

Pretty happy with my list, although I didn't get as many as some of you guys.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.