SEO Corporate Law

(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: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 3:22 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Has there been anyone that got in this year that is not going to a T-14??



Yes, just barely outside, but outside.


Considering the markets they're placing in, that's obviously U Texas...



Nope.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 3:30 pm

So for those of us who haven't heard back after a follow up it's pretty much over? :( are there still spaces left?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 3:33 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Has there been anyone that got in this year that is not going to a T-14??



Yes, just barely outside, but outside.


Considering the markets they're placing in, that's obviously U Texas...



Nope.


LOL. UCLA? :P

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 3:39 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
1212 wrote:The facebook group has been deleted because people have lied to me about getting into the program in order to gain access. Shame on you.

Good luck to all those still waiting.


This sucks! The group was a fun and informal way of meeting new interns and sharing useful information. We have been informed that now, thanks to a few perpetrators, we have to shut it down.

SEO has set up a private site for us to communicate. You can only gain access if you are invited by an SEO representative. Those that were faking acceptances to get info will REALLY be perturbed now, smh.

I have a feeling that someone might suggest that SEO made all of this up to control the flow of information. That's just preposterous....right? *ponders possible conspiracy* lol


Uh oh, what if seo gets a hold of the names of those who were in the group without an acceptance...


They did. And to those people, that's a serious character issue, and not the kind any level-headed legal professional would overlook when making final decisions.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 3:39 pm

I really don't have a problem with SEO selecting students only attending top 14 or so universities. They could be more transparent throughout their application process about this however. Also, they should only give interviews to students who have been admitted already to a school of SEO's liking (top 14 or so). I had to buy a suit (170$), ask my professors for rec letters (bothering them again for like the 5th time), commute to another city (over 14 hrs and over 100$), and prepare extensively for an interview I aced. Then as soon as I inform SEO that I would be attending a school ranked #33 they send me an email hours later indicating I was not selected. I'm not angry about not being selected, although I am not happy obviously, but most of all I am upset I wasted my time trying to get something that was out of my reach the whole time. There wasn't any way I was going to land it. So SEO, please be more transparent in your selection process. Don't deceive future applicants like myself.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 3:39 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Has there been anyone that got in this year that is not going to a T-14??



Yes, just barely outside, but outside.


Considering the markets they're placing in, that's obviously U Texas...




LOL. UCLA? :P


Nope again. lol

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 3:40 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Has there been anyone that got in this year that is not going to a T-14??



Yes, just barely outside, but outside.


In recent years, people have been accepted to SEO from non T-14 schools. Even if you just look at the SEO Corporate Law homepage and watch the videos, people say where they're going, and not everyone is at a T-14.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 3:47 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I really don't have a problem with SEO selecting students only attending top 14 or so universities. They could be more transparent throughout their application process about this however. Also, they should only give interviews to students who have been admitted already to a school of SEO's liking (top 14 or so). I had to buy a suit (170$), ask my professors for rec letters (bothering them again for like the 5th time), commute to another city (over 14 hrs and over 100$), and prepare extensively for an interview I aced. Then as soon as I inform SEO that I would be attending a school ranked #33 they send me an email hours later indicating I was not selected. I'm not angry about not being selected, although I am not happy obviously, but most of all I am upset I wasted my time trying to get something that was out of my reach the whole time. There wasn't any way I was going to land it. So SEO, please be more transparent in your selection process. Don't deceive future applicants like myself.



Why didnt you just do the skype interview?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 3:49 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I really don't have a problem with SEO selecting students only attending top 14 or so universities. They could be more transparent throughout their application process about this however. Also, they should only give interviews to students who have been admitted already to a school of SEO's liking (top 14 or so). I had to buy a suit (170$), ask my professors for rec letters (bothering them again for like the 5th time), commute to another city (over 14 hrs and over 100$), and prepare extensively for an interview I aced. Then as soon as I inform SEO that I would be attending a school ranked #33 they send me an email hours later indicating I was not selected. I'm not angry about not being selected, although I am not happy obviously, but most of all I am upset I wasted my time trying to get something that was out of my reach the whole time. There wasn't any way I was going to land it. So SEO, please be more transparent in your selection process. Don't deceive future applicants like myself.


Don't they only reach a decision on your file once all documents have been given to them......meaning maybe your interview didnt go well but they couldnt actually deny you until you had all your info in??


Just purely wondering

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 3:57 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I really don't have a problem with SEO selecting students only attending top 14 or so universities. They could be more transparent throughout their application process about this however. Also, they should only give interviews to students who have been admitted already to a school of SEO's liking (top 14 or so). I had to buy a suit (170$), ask my professors for rec letters (bothering them again for like the 5th time), commute to another city (over 14 hrs and over 100$), and prepare extensively for an interview I aced. Then as soon as I inform SEO that I would be attending a school ranked #33 they send me an email hours later indicating I was not selected. I'm not angry about not being selected, although I am not happy obviously, but most of all I am upset I wasted my time trying to get something that was out of my reach the whole time. There wasn't any way I was going to land it. So SEO, please be more transparent in your selection process. Don't deceive future applicants like myself.


Don't they only reach a decision on your file once all documents have been given to them......meaning maybe your interview didnt go well but they couldnt actually deny you until you had all your info in??


Just purely wondering


Nope... My LOR hasn't been submitted and I got rejected

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 3:58 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:I really don't have a problem with SEO selecting students only attending top 14 or so universities. They could be more transparent throughout their application process about this however. Also, they should only give interviews to students who have been admitted already to a school of SEO's liking (top 14 or so). I had to buy a suit (170$), ask my professors for rec letters (bothering them again for like the 5th time), commute to another city (over 14 hrs and over 100$), and prepare extensively for an interview I aced. Then as soon as I inform SEO that I would be attending a school ranked #33 they send me an email hours later indicating I was not selected. I'm not angry about not being selected, although I am not happy obviously, but most of all I am upset I wasted my time trying to get something that was out of my reach the whole time. There wasn't any way I was going to land it. So SEO, please be more transparent in your selection process. Don't deceive future applicants like myself.


Don't they only reach a decision on your file once all documents have been given to them......meaning maybe your interview didnt go well but they couldnt actually deny you until you had all your info in??

oh ok..I stand corrected I didn't know that


Just purely wondering


Nope... My LOR hasn't been submitted and I got rejected

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 4:00 pm

Were you guys emails your rejections or was it on your status checker?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 4:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:

Uh oh, what if seo gets a hold of the names of those who were in the group without an acceptance...


They did.


This is accurate. Names were submitted.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 4:15 pm

I was rejected on my status checker. I received an email saying a decision was made and to look at my status on their web page.

To the person who wrote "why didn't I just do a skype interview" ---> I thought that going in was more professional. I'm an old school individual and like talking to others face to face in person.
I wasted about 300$ for something I had no chance of getting to begin with.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 4:18 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I was rejected on my status checker. I received an email saying a decision was made and to look at my status on their web page.

To the person who wrote "why didn't I just do a skype interview" ---> I thought that going in was more professional. I'm an old school individual and like talking to others face to face in person.
I wasted about 300$ for something I had no chance of getting to begin with.


But as others have said there have been people who have gotten in without going to a t-14...so how you can you say you had no change to begin with

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 4:23 pm

Anonymous User wrote:I really don't have a problem with SEO selecting students only attending top 14 or so universities. They could be more transparent throughout their application process about this however. Also, they should only give interviews to students who have been admitted already to a school of SEO's liking (top 14 or so). I had to buy a suit (170$), ask my professors for rec letters (bothering them again for like the 5th time), commute to another city (over 14 hrs and over 100$), and prepare extensively for an interview I aced. Then as soon as I inform SEO that I would be attending a school ranked #33 they send me an email hours later indicating I was not selected. I'm not angry about not being selected, although I am not happy obviously, but most of all I am upset I wasted my time trying to get something that was out of my reach the whole time. There wasn't any way I was going to land it. So SEO, please be more transparent in your selection process. Don't deceive future applicants like myself.


Why wouldn't you just rent a suit? Seems like the money part really isn't their fault.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 5:34 pm

Does anyone know how many spots are left? Have many people been rejected already?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 5:46 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:

Uh oh, what if seo gets a hold of the names of those who were in the group without an acceptance...


They did.


This is accurate. Names were submitted.



gosh, I hope this isn't my fault...I go by my first and middle name on fb :s (I'm in, I swear, late interview batch though). Sad to hear the fb group is gone :c

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 6:03 pm

As someone who is still waiting on a decision and did not fraudulently join the facebook group, i'm more than a little weirded out by the fact that 1. other people did, 2. that admitted people submitted their names to SEO, and 3. that SEO cares...why does this whole process need to be so secretive???

I don't think that it's at all unreasonable that people are a little desperate for information at this point...and while I have no idea what those people were hoping to gain by joining, why not just kick them out of the facebook group and be done with it? I mean its not like they hacked SEO's internal network - it's a facebook group for peets sake.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 6:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote:As someone who is still waiting on a decision and did not fraudulently join the facebook group, i'm more than a little weirded out by the fact that 1. other people did, 2. that admitted people submitted their names to SEO, and 3. that SEO cares...why does this whole process need to be so secretive???

I don't think that it's at all unreasonable that people are a little desperate for information at this point...and while I have no idea what those people were hoping to gain by joining, why not just kick them out of the facebook group and be done with it? I mean its not like they hacked SEO's internal network - it's a facebook group for peets sake.


I think you're missing the point-- the admin was allowing people to join with no verification (which they can't do anyway, since they don't know who was admitted). SEO realized there was a Facebook group that had been infiltrated by people who hadn't been admitted (according to TLS posts, which we all know they monitor). Doesn't it creep you out that admitted students were sharing personal information, looking for roommates, etc. etc. with fake people or people who were posing as SEO admits? It doesn't seem like they're trying to control the flow of information, just trying to protect the admits. How is a compiled list of who's gotten in going to do anybody any good anyway? It's the same schools as it is every year.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 7:11 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:As someone who is still waiting on a decision and did not fraudulently join the facebook group, i'm more than a little weirded out by the fact that 1. other people did, 2. that admitted people submitted their names to SEO, and 3. that SEO cares...why does this whole process need to be so secretive???

I don't think that it's at all unreasonable that people are a little desperate for information at this point...and while I have no idea what those people were hoping to gain by joining, why not just kick them out of the facebook group and be done with it? I mean its not like they hacked SEO's internal network - it's a facebook group for peets sake.


I think you're missing the point-- the admin was allowing people to join with no verification (which they can't do anyway, since they don't know who was admitted). SEO realized there was a Facebook group that had been infiltrated by people who hadn't been admitted (according to TLS posts, which we all know they monitor). Doesn't it creep you out that admitted students were sharing personal information, looking for roommates, etc. etc. with fake people or people who were posing as SEO admits? It doesn't seem like they're trying to control the flow of information, just trying to protect the admits. How is a compiled list of who's gotten in going to do anybody any good anyway? It's the same schools as it is every year.

If people were trying to find roommates without having been admitted, then yes I would agree that's creepy - but I find it hard to believe that's what the non-admits were doing. I hazard to guess that most of them joined hoping to get a better handle on how the larger admissions process is shaping up [i.e. slots left/chances of admission], not to stalk SEO admits and compile their personal information.

As stated in my original post I agree that having a list of who's been admitted isn't going to help anyone still waiting, but I still think the response was way extreme given that we're talking about a facebook group, which SEO has no control over and accordingly no authority to regulate. If the group administrator was concerned enough about the hazards of sharing personal information via facebook group to delete said group, then fine - but reporting back to SEO with the idea that people should be penalized because they "snuck" in just seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 7:47 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:As someone who is still waiting on a decision and did not fraudulently join the facebook group, i'm more than a little weirded out by the fact that 1. other people did, 2. that admitted people submitted their names to SEO, and 3. that SEO cares...why does this whole process need to be so secretive???

I don't think that it's at all unreasonable that people are a little desperate for information at this point...and while I have no idea what those people were hoping to gain by joining, why not just kick them out of the facebook group and be done with it? I mean its not like they hacked SEO's internal network - it's a facebook group for peets sake.


I think you're missing the point-- the admin was allowing people to join with no verification (which they can't do anyway, since they don't know who was admitted). SEO realized there was a Facebook group that had been infiltrated by people who hadn't been admitted (according to TLS posts, which we all know they monitor). Doesn't it creep you out that admitted students were sharing personal information, looking for roommates, etc. etc. with fake people or people who were posing as SEO admits? It doesn't seem like they're trying to control the flow of information, just trying to protect the admits. How is a compiled list of who's gotten in going to do anybody any good anyway? It's the same schools as it is every year.

If people were trying to find roommates without having been admitted, then yes I would agree that's creepy - but I find it hard to believe that's what the non-admits were doing. I hazard to guess that most of them joined hoping to get a better handle on how the larger admissions process is shaping up [i.e. slots left/chances of admission], not to stalk SEO admits and compile their personal information.

As stated in my original post I agree that having a list of who's been admitted isn't going to help anyone still waiting, but I still think the response was way extreme given that we're talking about a facebook group, which SEO has no control over and accordingly no authority to regulate. If the group administrator was concerned enough about the hazards of sharing personal information via facebook group to delete said group, then fine - but reporting back to SEO with the idea that people should be penalized because they "snuck" in just seems a bit ridiculous to me.


You're assuming that the administrator or admitted students "snitched" on the non-admits. That's not the case at all. One of the non-admits posted on here that according to facebook, people had started receiving placements, did that mean that it was closed for the rest of us. SEO has frequently admitted they monitor TLS for incorrect information. At that point, they figured out there were non-admits in the facebook group-- Before this, they had actually mentioned to admits that there was a facebook group that they had no control over, and that they should try to join the group to network. It's not that hard for them to go on facebook, find the group, and check who the members are-- they are the ONLY ones who know who is admitted or not, so yeah, they figured this out, not the admitted students.

It would do no good for the admin to just kick out the fake admits, as, again, they cannot know who is a legit admit and who isn't. So now, all of us actual admits have migrated over to the SEO-controlled message board, since we at least now know that everyone there is an actual, legitimate, real admit and not a poser.

Basically, the SEO staff isn't stupid, they don't need admits to snitch on the infiltrators, when someone posted on here admitting s/he was in the group and not admitted yet.

User avatar
1212
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 2:23 pm

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby 1212 » Tue May 08, 2012 8:01 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
As stated in my original post I agree that having a list of who's been admitted isn't going to help anyone still waiting, but I still think the response was way extreme given that we're talking about a facebook group, which SEO has no control over and accordingly no authority to regulate. If the group administrator was concerned enough about the hazards of sharing personal information via facebook group to delete said group, then fine - but reporting back to SEO with the idea that people should be penalized because they "snuck" in just seems a bit ridiculous to me.


I was the admin of the Fb group. I did not, nor did any other admit, report the people that "snuck in" to the group to SEO. I had no way of knowing who lied to me about their admission. I assumed people were telling me the truth. SEO found out because those who had gotten in the group without being admitted posted here about firm placements being released. This led to a flood of inquiries into SEO. SEO is a small staff working incredibly hard to put this program together, the last thing they needed was the massive influx of phone calls and emails from neurotic applicants sparked by conversation in a FB group intended only for admits. I thought that I was among other admits when I shared that info. That misplaced trust was violated and sensitive information spread on TLS. The dissemination of that information had tangible consequences for the SEO staff. I am not pleased about it, and have so far refrained from participating in this useless and speculative discussion but feel it is necessary to set the record straight on this issue.

SEO is not attempting to censor us, the suggestion that they are is what's ridiculous to me.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 8:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:

Uh oh, what if seo gets a hold of the names of those who were in the group without an acceptance...


They did.


This is accurate. Names were submitted.

Can someone please explain the above then?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273139
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: SEO Corporate Law

Postby Anonymous User » Tue May 08, 2012 8:07 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:

Uh oh, what if seo gets a hold of the names of those who were in the group without an acceptance...


They did.


This is accurate. Names were submitted.

Can someone please explain the above then?


SEO does check the forum. That's one possibility




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.