Anonymous User wrote:My tier 3 is a respected school in the region, but not so much out of it. I thought that was a factor but there are other transfers here from my old school and schools similarly situated who did really well, so I really have no idea what the deal is with OCI besides just my lack of interviewing skills (possibly?-- I really don't know though because a lot of firms really didn't interview me but just asked me what questions I had for them).
I know the mega spamming isn't the most effective method of getting a job, but it's just really hard to target firms because it's unclear as to what firms even have a summer program this year (about 50% that did last year don't this year), and then out of those that do it seems like most have cut close to 50% of their programs. I actually did have a large pile of rejection letters sitting around at home until I just started throwing them out right away. I think I actually threw a few away without even opening them because I knew they were rejections without even opening them. Many firms emailed back as well though-- It was actually pretty bad when I was spamming during the day because it felt like I was getting rejections just about as fast as I was sending out emails.
Overall, I think last year I would have at least ended up with something out of OCI (even if not a top vault firm), but this year is definitely rougher (but I guess it's not exactly new news that grades alone weren't going to cut it this year, and the lack of journal acceptance (yet) or prior experience didn't help).
I've read/heard that the questions you ask can actually be really important and it's important to put some thought into it. I've been told some interviewers will grade you specifically on the questions you ask. If you think about it, most law student resumes probably look about the same. We all have some random crap from UG, some random part-time work experience, and similar grades, etc. So, one good way to differentiate between the masses is quality of questions we ask, because it shows that we've actually thought about the firm and thus are interested (supposedly).
The same would probably be true for mass mailing. Although all firms are basically the same, they like to think they are super special and thus are looking for you to show them how special you think you are. It's a lame thing, I know.
Also, law firm interviewing is just plain retarded in general. There have been numerous studies done that show that the type of interviewing we do has absolutely no correlation to job performance. There's a name for the type of interviewing it is, but I forgot. Anyway, I think another good approach to interviews with law firms is to strike up a convo about a mutual interest. Then you both enjoy talking, etc.
Anyway, just my thoughts on the process. Take it for what it's worth.