UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

(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: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:50 am

I have a spiel about ties that I'll give generally because I think TLS has overstates or at least misstates their importance.

Honestly it's all a spectrum where growing up somewhere > living there for part of your childhood > going to college there > going to college/growing up in the same state > relatives there > fiance/wife with ties there > visited frequently > been there once/never or whatever, I'm sure we can debate the minutiae of my spontaneous list. The point is that it's only one part of the equation, and while it's better to be earlier on the list, you can be later and make up for it with good grades/personality/work experience/looks/etc. Similarly, if you are lacking in one of those departments, really strong ties can do some work to help you.

So for the LA example, someone who comes across as endearing/intelligent/driven whose ties to LA are a genuine interest in copyright stuff and a hatred for Chicago weather is probably going to do just as well as someone who grew up across the street from the firm's office but interviews mediocrely.


It's just a little more squishy than a pure cutoff, and I believe that even no ties sold by the right person can work for any market. It just helps immensely the more you have.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:35 am

Anonymous User wrote:I have a spiel about ties that I'll give generally because I think TLS has overstates or at least miss
It's just a little more squishy than a pure cutoff, and I believe that even no ties sold by the right person can work for any market. It just helps immensely the more you have.



Absolutely. I think what TLS is getting at is that if you bomb the ties question (ie don't sell it) then that's basically the downfall to your application--and it's hard to overcome. Firms can only give out so many callbacks, and they aren't going to waste one on someone they think will leave them for another market (even if they're the entire package otherwise).

I know over three people with 180+LR that said they wished they sold their ties harder in Chicago, which is why I think it's stated so many times on TLS and in this thread.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:00 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I thought that Irell hasn't been super choosy lately.

Their class this coming summer is 4 or 5 LR kids I believe. Of course that doesn't necessarily mean high grades, but it's a reasonable assumption. Idk of anyone with an Irell or Munger offer who went somewhere else.

Also keep in mind for people saying that even the most selective firms will drop to median. This is true, but hiring is not a pure numbers game. Interviewing, work experience, diversity, etc matter. It's only evidence that their cutoffs are not hard, but the firms the anon earlier listed plus a few others almost certainly traditionally have very strong preferences for high grades (of course you could argue every firm would prefer high grades but let's not go down that road).


I know of multiple people who turned them down, but usually for top firms in other markets (Kirkland, WLRK, W&C)


I turned Irell down, because I just wasn't ready to go to LA. But they were probably my favorite of all of my callbacks, including Wachtell and W&C. The people there were genuine and friendly to an extent I didn't find at those or a number of other firms I visited (or around our own school frankly lol). I felt at home there, and they were very difficult to turn down. The work they do (and trust junior people to do)* is also top-notch. I'm not sure about their pro-bono programs generally, but I met with associates who had devoted huge amounts of time to very very high profile pro-bono work (the kind you hear about on the news) and they said the firm was 100% behind it. It is difficult to make partner there, and doing so requires a lot of work, but I think exit options out of the firm are also very high quality. I would highly encourage anyone interested in LA to look for them and to try for them if you are at all competitive.

*a big thing for me, and something which I think/hope differentiates firms, is the kind of work they will let young associates do. We're all going to be pretty much useless when we graduate, but some of us will remain useless for a long time because the firms we go to won't let us do any shit that is at all important/challenging. There are plenty of firms where midlevels never see the courtroom or haven't even taken a deposition yet. Looking for firms where that isn't the case is something I would advise people to do at OCI. Asking associates about their coolest experiences at the firm, or whether they've taken depositions/been on a trial team/argued a motion in court, written the brief for a case, etc. is a good way to get some feel for how common those experiences are at whatever firm you're looking at. As the poster above notes, being an associate any any firm is probably going to involve a lot of work that isn't particularly glorious. But I really think some firms are better about letting associates find the occasional diamond in the coal mine than others are.



Posts like this would have been incredibly helpful when I was going into OCI. I'll do the same.

I turned them down, but I really liked Paul Weiss. Everyone there is incredibly nice, but also fun. At their callback dinner conversation was easy and everyone I talked to that went had a great time. They also take you on a great lunch during the callback (we went to a steakhouse in NY and got three courses including prime rib). Apparently, these lunches happen throughout the summer as well. They had the best associates of any firm I went to in NY (easiest to have a conversation with and they made me feel like I was one of them even though I was just a prospective 2L). The partners knew the summer associates and first years by name (which I found to be kind of rare), and they were eager to teach their young associates because "they're the future of the firm." They also give callbacks the night of the screener, so if you have them your first day (like I did), it's a great way to gauge how you're doing at OCI --if you don't get it you know there's things to improve on.

Lots of people struggled and didn't know they were struggling until the end of interviews because they applied to firms in Chicago (slow market). Knowing how you're doing can tell you to either keep up what you're doing or try to find things you can fix.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:35 am

Anonymous User wrote:I turned Irell down, because I just wasn't ready to go to LA. But they were probably my favorite of all of my callbacks, including Wachtell and W&C.


I don't really understand your logic here. I went on callbacks with V5s and V10s and firms that weren't even ranked by Vault--and I didn't see any correlation between how much I enjoyed my callback and perceived prestige. Frankly, some of the more "prestigious" firms seemed very obnoxious (probably because they had the same mentality that you are exuding right here). Believe it or not, personalities don't correlate with grades and/or Vault ranking.

Anonymous User wrote:The people there were genuine and friendly to an extent I didn't find at those or a number of other firms I visited (or around our own school frankly lol).


You sound real pleasant.

Anonymous User wrote: The work they do (and trust junior people to do)* is also top-notch. I'm not sure about their pro-bono programs generally, but I met with associates who had devoted huge amounts of time to very very high profile pro-bono work (the kind you hear about on the news) and they said the firm was 100% behind it. It is difficult to make partner there, and doing so requires a lot of work, but I think exit options out of the firm are also very high quality. I would highly encourage anyone interested in LA to look for them and to try for them if you are at all competitive.


Note that the bolded applies to effectively any top firm you can think of (i.e., 75%+ of the firms that come to OCI).

Anonymous User wrote:*a big thing for me, and something which I think/hope differentiates firms, is the kind of work they will let young associates do. We're all going to be pretty much useless when we graduate, but some of us will remain useless for a long time because the firms we go to won't let us do any shit that is at all important/challenging. There are plenty of firms where midlevels never see the courtroom or haven't even taken a deposition yet. Looking for firms where that isn't the case is something I would advise people to do at OCI. Asking associates about their coolest experiences at the firm, or whether they've taken depositions/been on a trial team/argued a motion in court, written the brief for a case, etc. is a good way to get some feel for how common those experiences are at whatever firm you're looking at. As the poster above notes, being an associate any any firm is probably going to involve a lot of work that isn't particularly glorious. But I really think some firms are better about letting associates find the occasional diamond in the coal mine than others are


While I agree with the general idea of this quote, I would point out that this will be extremely difficult to figure out during the OCI process/from interviewers. For example, Sullivan and Cromwell will LOVE to feed you their spiel about how their associates REALLY get substantive work, and they are SO different from the other firms in terms of the work assigned to their juniors. This is a pretty easy lie to see through. Juniors at law firms get boring work because of the structure that you find at every single one of these big law firms. Even first year associates at SullCrom will do due diligence. While it is true that plenty of firms will tell you that they REALLY give juniors substantive work experience, in my experience, there were a few that placed a comical amount of emphasis on how it made their firm different from the rest (e.g., SullCrom, Quinn, Kirkland).

At the end of the day, while this should concern you, I would try not to take it too seriously. At almost any firm, competent associates will step up/prove themselves, and get interesting/meaningful work.

I think my #1 piece of advice would be to keep perspective. People tend to get very caught up in Vault rankings and the number of callbacks they get, and it can really make the OCI process a miserable experience. Realistically, these firms are fungible in almost any way that should matter to you as a rational actor (although I would not recommend you voice that observation in an interview). The most important factor in your decision making process, and far and away the most distinguishing characteristic among these law firms, is location.

We are all very lucky to be at UChicago, and overwhelmingly we will finish the process with jobs that pay $160k per year. 160,000 US dollars. Please try to keep that in mind (instead of obsessing over the "prestige" of your employer--which by the way, almost no one outside of law school will have heard of/care about).

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:29 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I turned Irell down, because I just wasn't ready to go to LA. But they were probably my favorite of all of my callbacks, including Wachtell and W&C.


I don't really understand your logic here. I went on callbacks with V5s and V10s and firms that weren't even ranked by Vault--and I didn't see any correlation between how much I enjoyed my callback and perceived prestige. Frankly, some of the more "prestigious" firms seemed very obnoxious (probably because they had the same mentality that you are exuding right here). Believe it or not, personalities don't correlate with grades and/or Vault ranking.

Anonymous User wrote:The people there were genuine and friendly to an extent I didn't find at those or a number of other firms I visited (or around our own school frankly lol).


You sound real pleasant.

Anonymous User wrote: The work they do (and trust junior people to do)* is also top-notch. I'm not sure about their pro-bono programs generally, but I met with associates who had devoted huge amounts of time to very very high profile pro-bono work (the kind you hear about on the news) and they said the firm was 100% behind it. It is difficult to make partner there, and doing so requires a lot of work, but I think exit options out of the firm are also very high quality. I would highly encourage anyone interested in LA to look for them and to try for them if you are at all competitive.


Note that the bolded applies to effectively any top firm you can think of (i.e., 75%+ of the firms that come to OCI).

Anonymous User wrote:*a big thing for me, and something which I think/hope differentiates firms, is the kind of work they will let young associates do. We're all going to be pretty much useless when we graduate, but some of us will remain useless for a long time because the firms we go to won't let us do any shit that is at all important/challenging. There are plenty of firms where midlevels never see the courtroom or haven't even taken a deposition yet. Looking for firms where that isn't the case is something I would advise people to do at OCI. Asking associates about their coolest experiences at the firm, or whether they've taken depositions/been on a trial team/argued a motion in court, written the brief for a case, etc. is a good way to get some feel for how common those experiences are at whatever firm you're looking at. As the poster above notes, being an associate any any firm is probably going to involve a lot of work that isn't particularly glorious. But I really think some firms are better about letting associates find the occasional diamond in the coal mine than others are


While I agree with the general idea of this quote, I would point out that this will be extremely difficult to figure out during the OCI process/from interviewers. For example, Sullivan and Cromwell will LOVE to feed you their spiel about how their associates REALLY get substantive work, and they are SO different from the other firms in terms of the work assigned to their juniors. This is a pretty easy lie to see through. Juniors at law firms get boring work because of the structure that you find at every single one of these big law firms. Even first year associates at SullCrom will do due diligence. While it is true that plenty of firms will tell you that they REALLY give juniors substantive work experience, in my experience, there were a few that placed a comical amount of emphasis on how it made their firm different from the rest (e.g., SullCrom, Quinn, Kirkland).

At the end of the day, while this should concern you, I would try not to take it too seriously. At almost any firm, competent associates will step up/prove themselves, and get interesting/meaningful work.

I think my #1 piece of advice would be to keep perspective. People tend to get very caught up in Vault rankings and the number of callbacks they get, and it can really make the OCI process a miserable experience. Realistically, these firms are fungible in almost any way that should matter to you as a rational actor (although I would not recommend you voice that observation in an interview). The most important factor in your decision making process, and far and away the most distinguishing characteristic among these law firms, is location.

We are all very lucky to be at UChicago, and overwhelmingly we will finish the process with jobs that pay $160k per year. 160,000 US dollars. Please try to keep that in mind (instead of obsessing over the "prestige" of your employer--which by the way, almost no one outside of law school will have heard of/care about).


OP here. Would really appreciate it if people would stop making posts just to argue with a previous poster.

I think firms can be very different in terms of culture and various other things (like early work for associates) and the only way to find those things out is asking for specific examples of those things (like the previous poster mentioned), or reading about people's perspectives (like the previous poster provided).

Let's keep the unnecessary conflict to a minimum. If you disagree with something, express it in a productive way.

I also think that Kirkland and Quinn have noticeably different cultures/ways of doing things that make an attempt for them to highlight those differences in OCI not disingenuous. Not so sure about S&C, but I think its a little rash to say that no firms are different and as long as you're making 160k and the location is the same it doesnt matter which one you go to.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:48 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I turned Irell down, because I just wasn't ready to go to LA. But they were probably my favorite of all of my callbacks, including Wachtell and W&C.


I don't really understand your logic here. I went on callbacks with V5s and V10s and firms that weren't even ranked by Vault--and I didn't see any correlation between how much I enjoyed my callback and perceived prestige. Frankly, some of the more "prestigious" firms seemed very obnoxious (probably because they had the same mentality that you are exuding right here). Believe it or not, personalities don't correlate with grades and/or Vault ranking.


I called these firms out because people in this thread are loving on them and because an earlier poster suggested that Irell regularly loses offers to them. I thought it was relevant.

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:The people there were genuine and friendly to an extent I didn't find at those or a number of other firms I visited (or around our own school frankly lol).


You sound real pleasant.


I think you're proving my point.

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: The work they do (and trust junior people to do)* is also top-notch. I'm not sure about their pro-bono programs generally, but I met with associates who had devoted huge amounts of time to very very high profile pro-bono work (the kind you hear about on the news) and they said the firm was 100% behind it. It is difficult to make partner there, and doing so requires a lot of work, but I think exit options out of the firm are also very high quality. I would highly encourage anyone interested in LA to look for them and to try for them if you are at all competitive.


Note that the bolded applies to effectively any top firm you can think of (i.e., 75%+ of the firms that come to OCI).

Anonymous User wrote:*a big thing for me, and something which I think/hope differentiates firms, is the kind of work they will let young associates do. We're all going to be pretty much useless when we graduate, but some of us will remain useless for a long time because the firms we go to won't let us do any shit that is at all important/challenging. There are plenty of firms where midlevels never see the courtroom or haven't even taken a deposition yet. Looking for firms where that isn't the case is something I would advise people to do at OCI. Asking associates about their coolest experiences at the firm, or whether they've taken depositions/been on a trial team/argued a motion in court, written the brief for a case, etc. is a good way to get some feel for how common those experiences are at whatever firm you're looking at. As the poster above notes, being an associate any any firm is probably going to involve a lot of work that isn't particularly glorious. But I really think some firms are better about letting associates find the occasional diamond in the coal mine than others are


While I agree with the general idea of this quote, I would point out that this will be extremely difficult to figure out during the OCI process/from interviewers. For example, Sullivan and Cromwell will LOVE to feed you their spiel about how their associates REALLY get substantive work, and they are SO different from the other firms in terms of the work assigned to their juniors. This is a pretty easy lie to see through. Juniors at law firms get boring work because of the structure that you find at every single one of these big law firms. Even first year associates at SullCrom will do due diligence. While it is true that plenty of firms will tell you that they REALLY give juniors substantive work experience, in my experience, there were a few that placed a comical amount of emphasis on how it made their firm different from the rest (e.g., SullCrom, Quinn, Kirkland).

At the end of the day, while this should concern you, I would try not to take it too seriously. At almost any firm, competent associates will step up/prove themselves, and get interesting/meaningful work.


Here is where you are just plain wrong. All firms will say they offer good experiences, but half of them will either a) be lying or b) just won't actually comprehend how minimal their associate development compared to their competitors is. It is something to hear a 4th-year associate at a prestigious NY firm say "well the junior partner is sick so that means I might get to take my first deposition next month" with starry eyes. Good for them, but that kind of comment reveals a lot about how mindless the work their firm typically has associates do is. On the other hand when a second year associate says "yeah I argued my first summary judgment motion in court last week and my experience is not atypical among my associate friends"--that counts for something. Obviously you have to have some gut weighing of people's credibility and the range of their responses. And obviously the star associate at any firm will get good work to do. But just because you were unable to discern any meaningful differences in work quality between firms does not mean that you should encourage the 1Ls to repeat your mistake.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:58 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I turned Irell down, because I just wasn't ready to go to LA. But they were probably my favorite of all of my callbacks, including Wachtell and W&C.


I don't really understand your logic here. I went on callbacks with V5s and V10s and firms that weren't even ranked by Vault--and I didn't see any correlation between how much I enjoyed my callback and perceived prestige. Frankly, some of the more "prestigious" firms seemed very obnoxious (probably because they had the same mentality that you are exuding right here). Believe it or not, personalities don't correlate with grades and/or Vault ranking.


I called these firms out because people in this thread are loving on them and because an earlier poster suggested that Irell regularly loses offers to them. I thought it was relevant.

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:The people there were genuine and friendly to an extent I didn't find at those or a number of other firms I visited (or around our own school frankly lol).


You sound real pleasant.


I think you're proving my point.


Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: The work they do (and trust junior people to do)* is also top-notch. I'm not sure about their pro-bono programs generally, but I met with associates who had devoted huge amounts of time to very very high profile pro-bono work (the kind you hear about on the news) and they said the firm was 100% behind it. It is difficult to make partner there, and doing so requires a lot of work, but I think exit options out of the firm are also very high quality. I would highly encourage anyone interested in LA to look for them and to try for them if you are at all competitive.


Note that the bolded applies to effectively any top firm you can think of (i.e., 75%+ of the firms that come to OCI).

Anonymous User wrote:*a big thing for me, and something which I think/hope differentiates firms, is the kind of work they will let young associates do. We're all going to be pretty much useless when we graduate, but some of us will remain useless for a long time because the firms we go to won't let us do any shit that is at all important/challenging. There are plenty of firms where midlevels never see the courtroom or haven't even taken a deposition yet. Looking for firms where that isn't the case is something I would advise people to do at OCI. Asking associates about their coolest experiences at the firm, or whether they've taken depositions/been on a trial team/argued a motion in court, written the brief for a case, etc. is a good way to get some feel for how common those experiences are at whatever firm you're looking at. As the poster above notes, being an associate any any firm is probably going to involve a lot of work that isn't particularly glorious. But I really think some firms are better about letting associates find the occasional diamond in the coal mine than others are


While I agree with the general idea of this quote, I would point out that this will be extremely difficult to figure out during the OCI process/from interviewers. For example, Sullivan and Cromwell will LOVE to feed you their spiel about how their associates REALLY get substantive work, and they are SO different from the other firms in terms of the work assigned to their juniors. This is a pretty easy lie to see through. Juniors at law firms get boring work because of the structure that you find at every single one of these big law firms. Even first year associates at SullCrom will do due diligence. While it is true that plenty of firms will tell you that they REALLY give juniors substantive work experience, in my experience, there were a few that placed a comical amount of emphasis on how it made their firm different from the rest (e.g., SullCrom, Quinn, Kirkland).

At the end of the day, while this should concern you, I would try not to take it too seriously. At almost any firm, competent associates will step up/prove themselves, and get interesting/meaningful work.


Here is where you are just plain wrong. All firms will say they offer good experiences, but half of them will either a) be lying or b) just won't actually comprehend how minimal their associate development compared to their competitors is. It is something to hear a 4th-year associate at a prestigious NY firm say "well the junior partner is sick so that means I might get to take my first deposition next month" with starry eyes. Good for them, but that kind of comment reveals a lot about how mindless the work their firm typically has associates do is. On the other hand when a second year associate says "yeah I argued my first summary judgment motion in court last week and my experience is not atypical among my associate friends"--that counts for something. Obviously you have to have some gut weighing of people's credibility and the range of their responses. And obviously the star associate at any firm will get good work to do. But just because you were unable to discern any meaningful differences in work quality between firms does not mean that you should encourage the 1Ls to repeat your mistake.


186

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:04 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I turned Irell down, because I just wasn't ready to go to LA. But they were probably my favorite of all of my callbacks, including Wachtell and W&C.


I don't really understand your logic here. I went on callbacks with V5s and V10s and firms that weren't even ranked by Vault--and I didn't see any correlation between how much I enjoyed my callback and perceived prestige. Frankly, some of the more "prestigious" firms seemed very obnoxious (probably because they had the same mentality that you are exuding right here). Believe it or not, personalities don't correlate with grades and/or Vault ranking.


Aren't W&C/Irell perfect examples of why vault rankings aren't everything?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:18 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I turned Irell down, because I just wasn't ready to go to LA. But they were probably my favorite of all of my callbacks, including Wachtell and W&C.


I don't really understand your logic here. I went on callbacks with V5s and V10s and firms that weren't even ranked by Vault--and I didn't see any correlation between how much I enjoyed my callback and perceived prestige. Frankly, some of the more "prestigious" firms seemed very obnoxious (probably because they had the same mentality that you are exuding right here). Believe it or not, personalities don't correlate with grades and/or Vault ranking.

Anonymous User wrote:The people there were genuine and friendly to an extent I didn't find at those or a number of other firms I visited (or around our own school frankly lol).


You sound real pleasant.

Anonymous User wrote: The work they do (and trust junior people to do)* is also top-notch. I'm not sure about their pro-bono programs generally, but I met with associates who had devoted huge amounts of time to very very high profile pro-bono work (the kind you hear about on the news) and they said the firm was 100% behind it. It is difficult to make partner there, and doing so requires a lot of work, but I think exit options out of the firm are also very high quality. I would highly encourage anyone interested in LA to look for them and to try for them if you are at all competitive.


Note that the bolded applies to effectively any top firm you can think of (i.e., 75%+ of the firms that come to OCI).

Anonymous User wrote:*a big thing for me, and something which I think/hope differentiates firms, is the kind of work they will let young associates do. We're all going to be pretty much useless when we graduate, but some of us will remain useless for a long time because the firms we go to won't let us do any shit that is at all important/challenging. There are plenty of firms where midlevels never see the courtroom or haven't even taken a deposition yet. Looking for firms where that isn't the case is something I would advise people to do at OCI. Asking associates about their coolest experiences at the firm, or whether they've taken depositions/been on a trial team/argued a motion in court, written the brief for a case, etc. is a good way to get some feel for how common those experiences are at whatever firm you're looking at. As the poster above notes, being an associate any any firm is probably going to involve a lot of work that isn't particularly glorious. But I really think some firms are better about letting associates find the occasional diamond in the coal mine than others are


While I agree with the general idea of this quote, I would point out that this will be extremely difficult to figure out during the OCI process/from interviewers. For example, Sullivan and Cromwell will LOVE to feed you their spiel about how their associates REALLY get substantive work, and they are SO different from the other firms in terms of the work assigned to their juniors. This is a pretty easy lie to see through. Juniors at law firms get boring work because of the structure that you find at every single one of these big law firms. Even first year associates at SullCrom will do due diligence. While it is true that plenty of firms will tell you that they REALLY give juniors substantive work experience, in my experience, there were a few that placed a comical amount of emphasis on how it made their firm different from the rest (e.g., SullCrom, Quinn, Kirkland).

At the end of the day, while this should concern you, I would try not to take it too seriously. At almost any firm, competent associates will step up/prove themselves, and get interesting/meaningful work.

I think my #1 piece of advice would be to keep perspective. People tend to get very caught up in Vault rankings and the number of callbacks they get, and it can really make the OCI process a miserable experience. Realistically, these firms are fungible in almost any way that should matter to you as a rational actor (although I would not recommend you voice that observation in an interview). The most important factor in your decision making process, and far and away the most distinguishing characteristic among these law firms, is location.

We are all very lucky to be at UChicago, and overwhelmingly we will finish the process with jobs that pay $160k per year. 160,000 US dollars. Please try to keep that in mind (instead of obsessing over the "prestige" of your employer--which by the way, almost no one outside of law school will have heard of/care about).


This is, by far, the dumbest and least helpful post in this thread. You managed to attack the poster and discount their (personal, and valuable) experience with a particular firm for what? To tell 1L's to keep perspective and that Vault rankings do not matter? Everyone, do not forget that you will make tons of money! Tons! This has absolutely no relevance besides me saying it! Strangely, you got on them for prestige when endorsing a firm that is not high up on vault, and is one of the few that is *actually* well-known for early substantive work. Strange. You have a myopic (and seemingly bitter) view of OCI, and really should stop giving out advice.

1L's - our class suffers from a few bad apples. If you get advice, either on this board or in person, that is negative or stresses you out - know that it is likely because that person had a difficult experience, and that it's not necessarily the norm. Try to ignore it and find someone else.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:56 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Aren't W&C/Irell perfect examples of why vault rankings aren't everything?


To the extent that they are examples of firms that aren't corporate/NYC-based firms, sure. There are a million other problems with vault. See, e.g., the methodology. Literally associates are asked to rank firms by prestige. Overwhelmingly, "prestige" is only significant enough to be outcome-determinative for people with poor self-confidence who spend their lives chasing the ability to name drop. See, e.g., the posters above who are desperately butt hurt about being fooled by basic marketing shticks.

Anonymous User wrote:I called these firms out because people in this thread are loving on them and because an earlier poster suggested that Irell regularly loses offers to them. I thought it was relevant..


Yes, please contribute to the chest-beating discussion where people anonymously justify their choices by poo-pooing their classmates choices by explaining how you liked your callback better at Irell than you did at W&C. Newsflash: you might have met with different people. You might have different interests than your classmate. The interviewers might have been up all night working/exhausted.

I know what you're thinking: WHAT?! THIS DECISION IS SUBJECTIVE, AND NOT OBJECTIVE?! OH MY GOD!! If you STILL don't realize that these firms are fungible after doing OCI and talking to practitioners who have worked for multiple firms, you are in for a rude awakening.

Anonymous User wrote:Here is where you are just plain wrong. All firms will say they offer good experiences, but half of them will either a) be lying or b) just won't actually comprehend how minimal their associate development compared to their competitors is. It is something to hear a 4th-year associate at a prestigious NY firm say "well the junior partner is sick so that means I might get to take my first deposition next month" with starry eyes. Good for them, but that kind of comment reveals a lot about how mindless the work their firm typically has associates do is. On the other hand when a second year associate says "yeah I argued my first summary judgment motion in court last week and my experience is not atypical among my associate friends"--that counts for something. Obviously you have to have some gut weighing of people's credibility and the range of their responses. And obviously the star associate at any firm will get good work to do. But just because you were unable to discern any meaningful differences in work quality between firms does not mean that you should encourage the 1Ls to repeat your mistake.


Hahah literally every single firm will have people that say both of these things. The irony is almost painful--clearly you did not do your research.


Anonymous User wrote:This is, by far, the dumbest and least helpful post in this thread. You managed to attack the poster and discount their (personal, and valuable) experience with a particular firm for what? To tell 1L's to keep perspective and that Vault rankings do not matter? Everyone, do not forget that you will make tons of money!

1L's - our class suffers from a few bad apples. If you get advice, either on this board or in person, that is negative or stresses you out - know that it is likely because that person had a difficult experience, and that it's not necessarily the norm. Try to ignore it and find someone else.


Oh yes, I am glad you found the insightful knowledge that a law firm had: difficult partnership prospects, "substantive work experience for juniors," commitment to pro bono work, and a great culture "personal, and valuable." LOL.

P.S. I crushed it at OCI by any standard imaginable.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 2:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Aren't W&C/Irell perfect examples of why vault rankings aren't everything?


To the extent that they are examples of firms that aren't corporate/NYC-based firms, sure. There are a million other problems with vault. See, e.g., the methodology. Literally associates are asked to rank firms by prestige. Overwhelmingly, "prestige" is only significant enough to be outcome-determinative for people with poor self-confidence who spend their lives chasing the ability to name drop. See, e.g., the posters above who are desperately butt hurt about being fooled by basic marketing shticks.

Anonymous User wrote:I called these firms out because people in this thread are loving on them and because an earlier poster suggested that Irell regularly loses offers to them. I thought it was relevant..


Yes, please contribute to the chest-beating discussion where people anonymously justify their choices by poo-pooing their classmates choices by explaining how you liked your callback better at Irell than you did at W&C. Newsflash: you might have met with different people. You might have different interests than your classmate. The interviewers might have been up all night working/exhausted.

I know what you're thinking: WHAT?! THIS DECISION IS SUBJECTIVE, AND NOT OBJECTIVE?! OH MY GOD!! If you STILL don't realize that these firms are fungible after doing OCI and talking to practitioners who have worked for multiple firms, you are in for a rude awakening.

Anonymous User wrote:Here is where you are just plain wrong. All firms will say they offer good experiences, but half of them will either a) be lying or b) just won't actually comprehend how minimal their associate development compared to their competitors is. It is something to hear a 4th-year associate at a prestigious NY firm say "well the junior partner is sick so that means I might get to take my first deposition next month" with starry eyes. Good for them, but that kind of comment reveals a lot about how mindless the work their firm typically has associates do is. On the other hand when a second year associate says "yeah I argued my first summary judgment motion in court last week and my experience is not atypical among my associate friends"--that counts for something. Obviously you have to have some gut weighing of people's credibility and the range of their responses. And obviously the star associate at any firm will get good work to do. But just because you were unable to discern any meaningful differences in work quality between firms does not mean that you should encourage the 1Ls to repeat your mistake.


Hahah literally every single firm will have people that say both of these things. The irony is almost painful--clearly you did not do your research.


Anonymous User wrote:This is, by far, the dumbest and least helpful post in this thread. You managed to attack the poster and discount their (personal, and valuable) experience with a particular firm for what? To tell 1L's to keep perspective and that Vault rankings do not matter? Everyone, do not forget that you will make tons of money!

1L's - our class suffers from a few bad apples. If you get advice, either on this board or in person, that is negative or stresses you out - know that it is likely because that person had a difficult experience, and that it's not necessarily the norm. Try to ignore it and find someone else.


Oh yes, I am glad you found the insightful knowledge that a law firm had: difficult partnership prospects, "substantive work experience for juniors," commitment to pro bono work, and a great culture "personal, and valuable." LOL.

P.S. I crushed it at OCI by any standard imaginable.


It is really quite remarkable how insufferable you are. Congratulations on crushing OCI - you are a really special snowflake, and uniquely qualified to give your advice and discount others. Give it a rest. Most everyone in this thread did well at OCI. Simply because you were unable to distinguish between firms does not mean others were unable to do so. Some differences are imaginary; others are not. 1L's - I stress that this person is not the norm. At least I hope.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 2:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:It is really quite remarkable how insufferable you are. Congratulations on crushing OCI - you are a really special snowflake, and uniquely qualified to give your advice and discount others. Give it a rest. Most everyone in this thread did well at OCI. Simply because you were unable to distinguish between firms does not mean others were unable to do so. Some differences are imaginary; others are not. 1L's - I stress that this person is not the norm. At least I hope.


This. Please stop. He was saying he liked Irell and he didn't even decide to go there. He's not buffing up his own choice, and it was a helpful post. If we all shared our knowledge about 1 firm, 1Ls could go into OCI with the specific knowledge about the peculiarities and strengths of each firm. Posts like yours chill the proactive discussion.

Hell, even if you don't believe that the similarities exist, the recruiters sure seem to think so, and if the 1Ls point out these things they will have more success at OCI because it will look like they did their research.

Also, since you keep bashing on people and talking about your own success ITT, I can only assume it's because of grades alone (not personality). YOU are in for the rude awakening when it comes to firm life. Spoiler alert: the associate who bills 3000 hours but isn't able to cultivate business or relationships in the firm doesn't make partner.

Let's stop this silliness and move on to a productive discussion, please. It's the bad eggs like you that make us look like assholes in every single UChicago thread.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 2:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote:It is really quite remarkable how insufferable you are. Congratulations on crushing OCI - you are a really special snowflake, and uniquely qualified to give your advice and discount others. Give it a rest. Most everyone in this thread did well at OCI. Simply because you were unable to distinguish between firms does not mean others were unable to do so. Some differences are imaginary; others are not. 1L's - I stress that this person is not the norm. At least I hope.


Anonymous User wrote:It is really quite remarkable how insufferable you are. Congratulations on crushing OCI - you are a really special snowflake, and uniquely qualified to give your advice and discount others. Give it a rest. Most everyone in this thread did well at OCI. Simply because you were unable to distinguish between firms does not mean others were unable to do so. Some differences are imaginary; others are not. 1L's - I stress that this person is not the norm. At least I hope.


Heard the thing about the pot and the kettle? Sorry I called you out for your humble brag. The difference between us is that I came here to post useful information, and only resorted to discussing my OCI performance when personally attacked. You, on the other hand, came here to post a not-so-subtle humble brag, bathed in miserable information about non-existent substantive differences between firms. It is pathetic/stupid/misleading/potentially harmful for you to spew this garbage about distinguishing between firms by looking at criteria such as partnership prospects, pro bono commitment, prestige, "substantive work experience for juniors," (again, a select few number of firms might be particularly bad at this, but in most circumstances you should not take this seriously) and "good culture." You could not possibly have picked criteria that is more fungible among firms.

1Ls: I promise people this obsessed with prestige (who derive their entire life's meaning from it) are not the norm.

To be clear (because the person above seems amazingly dense/misconstruing my message): research firms. Learn what they want to tell you about themselves. It will matter for getting the job. My advice ITT has nothing to do with the actual interview process, but rather what to do when you have an offer in hand.

When it comes down to making your choice, try to use criteria other than this meaningless marketing dribble about "substantive work experience." You will do diligence and doc review at SullCrom, and if you make your decision based upon some fairy-tale that says otherwise, you will be sorely disappointed. Do not look to Vault--no one will care that you worked at SullCrom (V3!!!) over Paul Weiss (V14 :oops: ).

In my opinion (and to provide something constructive instead of continuing to deal with these trolls), more useful criteria for choosing a law firm (in no particular order):
Gut feeling/subjective impression
How a firm assigns work: free market vs. formal system vs. hybrid
Location
Compensation
Rotations (how many?) vs. assigned to a practice Area vs. no formal practice areas
Practice area specialties*


*I would generally use Chambers and NALP (to see the group size) for this, but try not to get too hung up on the small distinctions in "bands"

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 2:42 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:It is really quite remarkable how insufferable you are. Congratulations on crushing OCI - you are a really special snowflake, and uniquely qualified to give your advice and discount others. Give it a rest. Most everyone in this thread did well at OCI. Simply because you were unable to distinguish between firms does not mean others were unable to do so. Some differences are imaginary; others are not. 1L's - I stress that this person is not the norm. At least I hope.


This. Please stop. He was saying he liked Irell and he didn't even decide to go there. He's not buffing up his own choice, and it was a helpful post. If we all shared our knowledge about 1 firm, 1Ls could go into OCI with the specific knowledge about the peculiarities and strengths of each firm. Posts like yours chill the proactive discussion.

Hell, even if you don't believe that the similarities exist, the recruiters sure seem to think so, and if the 1Ls point out these things they will have more success at OCI because it will look like they did their research.

Also, since you keep bashing on people and talking about your own success ITT, I can only assume it's because of grades alone (not personality). YOU are in for the rude awakening when it comes to firm life. Spoiler alert: the associate who bills 3000 hours but isn't able to cultivate business or relationships in the firm doesn't make partner.

Let's stop this silliness and move on to a productive discussion, please. It's the bad eggs like you that make us look like assholes in every single UChicago thread.


This post really epitomizes the difference between me and the butt hurt posters above. You: suffering from special snowflake syndrome, believes he can make partner. Me: realistically understand that the firms are fungible, just like we are fungible as associates, with effectively 0% chance of making partner. Enjoy reality bro.

Anyway, I am done with your straw man arguments and this pointless discussion. 1Ls: pay special attention to your BS meters throughout this thread and this process.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 2:54 pm

Anonymous User wrote:This post really epitomizes the difference between me and the butt hurt posters above. You: suffering from special snowflake syndrome, believes he can make partner. Me: realistically understand that the firms are fungible, just like we are fungible as associates, with effectively 0% chance of making partner. Enjoy reality bro.

Anyway, I am done with your straw man arguments and this pointless discussion. 1Ls: pay special attention to your BS meters throughout this thread and this process.


Saying you won't make partner =/= saying I will make partner.

Let's move on.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:It is really quite remarkable how insufferable you are. Congratulations on crushing OCI - you are a really special snowflake, and uniquely qualified to give your advice and discount others. Give it a rest. Most everyone in this thread did well at OCI. Simply because you were unable to distinguish between firms does not mean others were unable to do so. Some differences are imaginary; others are not. 1L's - I stress that this person is not the norm. At least I hope.


Anonymous User wrote:It is really quite remarkable how insufferable you are. Congratulations on crushing OCI - you are a really special snowflake, and uniquely qualified to give your advice and discount others. Give it a rest. Most everyone in this thread did well at OCI. Simply because you were unable to distinguish between firms does not mean others were unable to do so. Some differences are imaginary; others are not. 1L's - I stress that this person is not the norm. At least I hope.


Heard the thing about the pot and the kettle? Sorry I called you out for your humble brag. The difference between us is that I came here to post useful information, and only resorted to discussing my OCI performance when personally attacked. You, on the other hand, came here to post a not-so-subtle humble brag, bathed in miserable information about non-existent substantive differences between firms. It is pathetic/stupid/misleading/potentially harmful for you to spew this garbage about distinguishing between firms by looking at criteria such as partnership prospects, pro bono commitment, prestige, "substantive work experience for juniors," (again, a select few number of firms might be particularly bad at this, but in most circumstances you should not take this seriously) and "good culture." You could not possibly have picked criteria that is more fungible among firms.

1Ls: I promise people this obsessed with prestige (who derive their entire life's meaning from it) are not the norm.

To be clear (because the person above seems amazingly dense/misconstruing my message): research firms. Learn what they want to tell you about themselves. It will matter for getting the job. My advice ITT has nothing to do with the actual interview process, but rather what to do when you have an offer in hand.

When it comes down to making your choice, try to use criteria other than this meaningless marketing dribble about "substantive work experience." You will do diligence and doc review at SullCrom, and if you make your decision based upon some fairy-tale that says otherwise, you will be sorely disappointed. Do not look to Vault--no one will care that you worked at SullCrom (V3!!!) over Paul Weiss (V14 :oops: ).

In my opinion (and to provide something constructive instead of continuing to deal with these trolls), more useful criteria for choosing a law firm (in no particular order):
Gut feeling/subjective impression
How a firm assigns work: free market vs. formal system vs. hybrid
Location
Compensation
Rotations (how many?) vs. assigned to a practice Area vs. no formal practice areas
Practice area specialties*


*I would generally use Chambers and NALP (to see the group size) for this, but try not to get too hung up on the small distinctions in "bands"


You've gone off the rails at this point. You quoted my post calling you insufferable - I am not the person that posted positive things about Irell, nor did I ever "brag" about my OCI success. My point was that you come off like an asshole. There is a difference between noting that you found the differences fungible and that location is most important, and slamming on others for their perceptions of the process. That you cannot do the former speaks volumes of your sincerity and humility, and is a big reason why Chicago has such an icy reputation.

I also disagree with you. Much of the firms were fungible, but I thought there were very real differences between the ones I ended up choosing between. For me, how people treated each other was important. Were associates/partners nice to each other? Did they have a life outside of the firm that they seemed to genuinely enjoy talking about? Importantly, were these people I could see myself being around for 10 weeks, if not more? In this capacity, there were huge differences. I turned down the best firm I got an offer from because I did not get along with anyone on my CB. Yeah, most of us are not making partner. That doesn't mean we cannot have preferences on the place where we will spend the good years of our 20s.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:53 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I also disagree with you. Much of the firms were fungible, but I thought there were very real differences between the ones I ended up choosing between. For me, how people treated each other was important. Were associates/partners nice to each other? Did they have a life outside of the firm that they seemed to genuinely enjoy talking about? Importantly, were these people I could see myself being around for 10 weeks, if not more? In this capacity, there were huge differences. I turned down the best firm I got an offer from because I did not get along with anyone on my CB. Yeah, most of us are not making partner. That doesn't mean we cannot have preferences on the place where we will spend the good years of our 20s.


Moving forward from one person that's clearly trolling us, I think these are good reasons for picking a firm. 1Ls, if these things are important to you, the questions you ask when networking/at receptions should be geared toward finding stuff like this out.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:02 pm

Thought I'd post a quick piece of advice while we're on the topic of questions.

At OCI, you should ask the questions you're interested in, but you can also sneak in more about yourself.

For some firms, I would say something like, "the fact that your firm has X (ie training program) is really important to me; [personal experience about why X is important], could you tell me a little about X1 (ie detail of training program, how the program is in practice, etc)?

This shows 1) you did your research 2) you thought critically about what the firm has to offer, and 3) that you are genuinely interested in the answer.

Be sure to ask follow-ups and respond conversationally.

Also: NEVER walk out of the room early. It isn't that hard to come up with questions and it doesn't necessarily mean the interview is going poorly when they leave a ton of time for questions. Some interviewers just want to let you speak and find out what matters to you. This is your chance to shine above those that haven't thought critically about what they care about in a firm and those who haven't done their research.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:15 pm

I like poster above's suggestion.

Another thing you can do is look to see if any of your interviewers started at other firms than the one they are interviewing you for/lateraled recently/etc. If they did, politely asking if there are differences in the work or culture that they have noticed in their new firm might be a way for you to both get a (skewed but still extant) comparison between firms and for you to send them a softball that lets them talk about theirself and their firm to you (which I think a lot of them will like doing).

Also if there are two interviewers in the room try to engage with both of them. It is easy to end up hitting it off with one but ignoring the other (who probably has just as much say in whether you get a callback as the other one does) and managing that can be hard sometimes.

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4394
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Helmholtz » Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:50 pm

Can you guys cool it with the anonymous bickering? We've gotten multiple reports about it, and the needless back-and-forth is just gumming up a could-be-very-useful thread. I have no interest in outing anonymous posters, but it's getting kind of silly (not pointing fingers at anybody in particular). Thanks in advance.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:51 pm

How common is it for students to go back to their 1L Summer employer for their 2L Summer? Many people have said that where you are for your 1L Summer employment isn't as crucial as your 2L Summer, but do firms or corporations for example ever ask their 1L Summers to come back for 2L and potentially after graduation and if so how common is it? Thanks, appreciate all the advice here.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Jan 11, 2014 1:40 am

Anonymous User wrote:How common is it for students to go back to their 1L Summer employer for their 2L Summer? Many people have said that where you are for your 1L Summer employment isn't as crucial as your 2L Summer, but do firms or corporations for example ever ask their 1L Summers to come back for 2L and potentially after graduation and if so how common is it? Thanks, appreciate all the advice here.


It's pretty common for people at firms (especially big law firms, less so for mid law). Also less likely if they are in public interest or diversity positions at biglaw firms. As for corporations, it's pretty rare.

Public interest varies depending on the organization and the connections you make there.

For judicial internships, I get the impression that most judges say expressly that they will not hire summer interns for clerkship positions.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:16 am

Hi 1Ls. Stopping in to drop some additional advice.

1L Summer Jobs:

What I'd shoot for (in order):

Law firm: most money. Not too much work required. I've heard good for OCI because it's hard to get and it shows that you are desired. Have heard its bad because you don't bring in any real experience.

Corporate gig: get paid 10-20k and develop relationships with people in a corporation.

Clinic: get the 5k bonus, clinic students get to do awesome things and get tons of usable experience for OCI

PI gig: 5K and it doesn't require too much work. Need to spin it at OCI if you have a PI background

RA job: barely work and you get the line on your resume. Make money per hour, though so you won't make as much as clinics/PI

Judge job: either you're a glorified coffee-getter (and employers know you are working for a judge that doesn't give real work to externs) or you're working a LOT for no pay. Even if you get a super-awesome judge those are the ones least likely to remember you.


Just my two cents. Other 2Ls can share their experience, too.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:34 am

Anonymous User wrote:Hi 1Ls. Stopping in to drop some additional advice.

1L Summer Jobs:

What I'd shoot for (in order):

Law firm: most money. Not too much work required. I've heard good for OCI because it's hard to get and it shows that you are desired. Have heard its bad because you don't bring in any real experience.

Corporate gig: get paid 10-20k and develop relationships with people in a corporation.

Clinic: get the 5k bonus, clinic students get to do awesome things and get tons of usable experience for OCI

PI gig: 5K and it doesn't require too much work. Need to spin it at OCI if you have a PI background

RA job: barely work and you get the line on your resume. Make money per hour, though so you won't make as much as clinics/PI

Judge job: either you're a glorified coffee-getter (and employers know you are working for a judge that doesn't give real work to externs) or you're working a LOT for no pay. Even if you get a super-awesome judge those are the ones least likely to remember you.


Just my two cents. Other 2Ls can share their experience, too.


Not to get super far ahead of myself before we even have one quarter's worth of grades out, but do these ranks change if you're gunning hard for clerkship/bristow/doj honors post-grad? My anecdotal knowledge of people I know who've gotten clerkships, especially feeder clerkships, are that a disproportionately high percentage of them RAed.

Also, would you lump gov gigs like USAO/fed honors in with PI?

Last question and then I'll stop being such an insufferable gunner: what about stuff like UN through the IHR program? Went to the IHR presentation last week and it seemed like they all got at least something at OCI, but no one said which firm they were going to (or what their grades were like, obviously). My instinct was that anything overseas would be a red flag for OCI so I was surprised to hear their claim that it may actually have helped differentiate their applications.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273203
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: UChicago OCI Alums Answering Questions About the Job Hunt

Postby Anonymous User » Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:54 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Hi 1Ls. Stopping in to drop some additional advice.

1L Summer Jobs:

What I'd shoot for (in order):

Law firm: most money. Not too much work required. I've heard good for OCI because it's hard to get and it shows that you are desired. Have heard its bad because you don't bring in any real experience.

Corporate gig: get paid 10-20k and develop relationships with people in a corporation.

Clinic: get the 5k bonus, clinic students get to do awesome things and get tons of usable experience for OCI

PI gig: 5K and it doesn't require too much work. Need to spin it at OCI if you have a PI background

RA job: barely work and you get the line on your resume. Make money per hour, though so you won't make as much as clinics/PI

Judge job: either you're a glorified coffee-getter (and employers know you are working for a judge that doesn't give real work to externs) or you're working a LOT for no pay. Even if you get a super-awesome judge those are the ones least likely to remember you.


Just my two cents. Other 2Ls can share their experience, too.


Not to get super far ahead of myself before we even have one quarter's worth of grades out, but do these ranks change if you're gunning hard for clerkship/bristow/doj honors post-grad? My anecdotal knowledge of people I know who've gotten clerkships, especially feeder clerkships, are that a disproportionately high percentage of them RAed.

Also, would you lump gov gigs like USAO/fed honors in with PI?

Last question and then I'll stop being such an insufferable gunner: what about stuff like UN through the IHR program? Went to the IHR presentation last week and it seemed like they all got at least something at OCI, but no one said which firm they were going to (or what their grades were like, obviously). My instinct was that anything overseas would be a red flag for OCI so I was surprised to hear their claim that it may actually have helped differentiate their applications.


I'd put them above PI. Everything depends on your priorities--I wanted a firm and anything legal works for OCI if you can spin it the right way--so my "rankings" were skewed.

Feeder clerkships come from grades. Basically when you get the grades, you approach Hutch and he will use his connections to get you the interview. Those that were RAs generally become RAs because they find the academic side of the law interesting, and those are the type of people that typically gun for bigtime clerkships. Once you get grades, if you are above a 180.5 (K&E scholar territory) you can email someone that's going to be working for a feeder judge and ask questions. Otherwise, don't waste their time (same goes for Hutch but he'll tell you that himself--he's quite frank).

If anyone else wants to weigh in, that'd be great. I'm not all-knowing when it comes to this stuff.

(People that did the IHR program seemed to do pretty well at OCI. I'd contact them via email and ask questions.)




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.