Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

(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: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:56 am

all journal results come in by email, DLJ included. (DLJ will send out calls later but by that time, everyone knows what journal they're on. no one gets a surprise call to find out they're on law review)


Care to share how you know this? Based on last year? Did they also send out the heads-up email last year?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:29 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
all journal results come in by email, DLJ included. (DLJ will send out calls later but by that time, everyone knows what journal they're on. no one gets a surprise call to find out they're on law review)


Care to share how you know this? Based on last year? Did they also send out the heads-up email last year?



Not original anon, but rising 3L on a journal. They did send the heads-up email last year. All the journal results do indeed come by email. You'll get an email from the "CASENOTE" email address that has your journal in the subject line. Someone from the journal will call/email you later on to touch base. Non-exclusive journals will start calling people to make offers in the days after the exclusive journal emails come out.

Happy hunting.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:02 pm

You da real MVP. Thanks.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 3:28 pm

Dat post in the fb group, tho---insensitive af...

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 4:27 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Dat post in the fb group, tho---insensitive af...


If there's such a thing as GPA privilege, that girl has it.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 4:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Dat post in the fb group, tho---insensitive af...


If there's such a thing as GPA privilege, that girl has it.


whats GPA privilege?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 4:58 pm

^^ Insensitive? Give me a break, she was being friendly. Like it really sucks feeling like you don't have a great GPA for OCI (believe me) but her pointing out a possible "light at the end of the tunnel" isn't insensitive, it's being a good classmate.


Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:49 pm

.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 5:50 pm

Anonymous User wrote:^^ Insensitive? Give me a break, she was being friendly. Like it really sucks feeling like you don't have a great GPA for OCI (believe me) but her pointing out a possible "light at the end of the tunnel" isn't insensitive, it's being a good classmate.


She probably didn't mean anything by it, but that was pretty insensitive. Duke has good employment stats, but some of us will inevitably strike out. Posting that was a slap in the face to anyone who doesn't get an SA.

edit: Not OP btw. Just wanted to add my two cents.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:34 pm

what was the gist of what she posted? I'm a rising 3L so not in your fb group

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote:what was the gist of what she posted? I'm a rising 3L so not in your fb group


http://www.wsj.com/articles/for-summer- ... 1436229949

She posted that article. People need to chill out, her post was well intended I'm sure.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:what was the gist of what she posted? I'm a rising 3L so not in your fb group


http://www.wsj.com/articles/for-summer- ... 1436229949

She posted that article. People need to chill out, her post was well intended I'm sure.


The title reads: For Summer Law Interns the Livin is Easy....

You're right that it was probably well intended, but it was tactless regardless.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:57 pm

3L anon from above, I don't think it was that tactless tbh. Shit was in the WSJ, its not like its a secret or anything. Also, the comment section of the article is 180

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote:her pointing out a possible "light at the end of the tunnel" isn't insensitive, it's being a good classmate.


:? ...

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:50 pm

Anonymous User wrote:3L anon from above, I don't think it was that tactless tbh. Shit was in the WSJ, its not like its a secret or anything. Also, the comment section of the article is 180


My bet is that if you had struck out at OCI, you would understand why the post was insensitive. It's not about keeping the reality under wraps... it's about having some common decency and not rubbing it in others' faces.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:57 pm

It'd be weird if everyone were as hyper-sensitive in real life as we seem to be about OCI and legal jobs. We wouldn't be able to post anything about law school on Facebook for fear of being insensitive to struggling friends who work in shitty factories or worse--people whose actual lives are our worst-case scenario, people with no possibility of what we're shooting for. Countless Duke students wouldn't be able to drive the Mercedes or BMWs their parents give to them for worry of being insensitive to those of us not coming from wealth. No pictures of our parents online because, hey, X's mom died of cancer.

Can we admit that we're not nearly as absurdly sensitive to others as we--very privileged people regardless of OCI's outcome--are apparently expecting others to be to us, and give the article poster the benefit of the doubt? Can we reserve our ire for legitimate braggadocio and bad intent? Can we get back on topic?

-Repairman-man-man-man

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:08 pm

Slippery slopes aside, it was in poor form.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:46 am

It'd be weird if everyone were as hyper-sensitive in real life as we seem to be about OCI and legal jobs. We wouldn't be able to post anything about law school on Facebook for fear of being insensitive to struggling friends who work in shitty factories or worse--people whose actual lives are our worst-case scenario, people with no possibility of what we're shooting for. Countless Duke students wouldn't be able to drive the Mercedes or BMWs their parents give to them for worry of being insensitive to those of us not coming from wealth. No pictures of our parents online because, hey, X's mom died of cancer.

Can we admit that we're not nearly as absurdly sensitive to others as we--very privileged people regardless of OCI's outcome--are apparently expecting others to be to us, and give the article poster the benefit of the doubt? Can we reserve our ire for legitimate braggadocio and bad intent? Can we get back on topic?

-Repairman-man-man-man


Yeah agreed.

anyone know how consistent the interviews-bid ratio numbers are year to year? I think I may be giving them too much weight in my bidlist.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:57 am

I don't think it's insensitive to talk about SA's like that. Who in my class (rising 3L) even ended up without an SA who we should worry about offending? My impression was that everyone who wanted one ended up with one even if they struck out at OCI.

That said. It is really tacky to talk openly about summer associate perks. It comes off as immature and childish. Especially when you don't even have an SA yet.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:05 am

Anonymous User wrote:anyone know how consistent the interviews-bid ratio numbers are year to year? I think I may be giving them too much weight in my bidlist.


3Ls, none of you still happen to have the document/data from the year prior to you, do you?

-Repairman-man-man-man

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 09, 2015 10:49 am

Anonymous User wrote:I don't think it's insensitive to talk about SA's like that. Who in my class (rising 3L) even ended up without an SA who we should worry about offending? My impression was that everyone who wanted one ended up with one even if they struck out at OCI.


Is this actually true? I know the economy has gotten better, but still remember hearing that some rising 3Ls got completely no-offered.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 09, 2015 10:53 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I don't think it's insensitive to talk about SA's like that. Who in my class (rising 3L) even ended up without an SA who we should worry about offending? My impression was that everyone who wanted one ended up with one even if they struck out at OCI.


Is this actually true? I know the economy has gotten better, but still remember hearing that some rising 3Ls got completely no-offered.


Anon 3L --Is this is true for people well below median?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 09, 2015 10:57 am

^^^ I have a 3.1, and the idea of everyone at my GPA-level getting an SA seems too good to be true.....

Anonymous User
Posts: 273431
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Duke Law OCI 2015 (C/O 2017)

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jul 09, 2015 11:46 am

I counted 188 rising 3Ls in the Class of 2016 summer employment doc with SAs at private firms. (Yes it's the the tail end of my SA and I have too much time on my hands.) This number is not double counting people who split with multiple firms. Theres a little over 200 of us in our class if I recall correctly. 188 people cannot all be at or above median, folks.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.