HLS EIP 2019 Forum

[Anonymous User]

Williams & Connolly?

[Anonymous User]

At least some calls went out for Williams & Connolly and Covington DC on Friday

[QContinuum]

It's when something about you besides your grades makes you a stronger candidate. Here's what OCS says:

CONSIDERATIONS OTHER THAN GRADES (THE VIRTUAL H)
If you have one or more of the following characteristics, you can add one (1) virtual “H” to your transcript:

• Relevant work
• Relevant advanced degrees
• Geographic ties to the area
• Diversity
• Relevant language abilities
• Strength of your undergraduate institution
• Relevant course of study as an undergraduate. For example, if you majored in business or economics, you might have a slight edge if you are interested in transactional work. Similarly, those with a background in engineering or one of the hard sciences, may more easily market themselves for intellectual property work.
• Comfort and experience with conversational professional interviews

Conversely, if you are bidding in regions known to be particularly competitive, such as Washington, DC or California, subtract a virtual “H” from your transcript.

The list of helpful "softs" looks generally decent, though I'm not sure I agree with the precise weighting ("one (1) virtual "H"") or the implication that all of the factors are always equally helpful. For example, I'm pretty sure someone with a STEM Ph.D. targeting patent prosecution or even litigation can add more than "one (1) virtual "H"" to their chances. Conversely, I'm not sure someone with geographic ties to D.C. can add anything to their chances at D.C. firms. And I strongly doubt "relevant course of study as an undergraduate" ever provides a measurable boost.

[Splurgles23]

It's when something about you besides your grades makes you a stronger candidate. Here's what OCS says:

CONSIDERATIONS OTHER THAN GRADES (THE VIRTUAL H)
If you have one or more of the following characteristics, you can add one (1) virtual “H” to your transcript:

• Relevant work
• Relevant advanced degrees
• Geographic ties to the area
• Diversity
• Relevant language abilities
• Strength of your undergraduate institution
• Relevant course of study as an undergraduate. For example, if you majored in business or economics, you might have a slight edge if you are interested in transactional work. Similarly, those with a background in engineering or one of the hard sciences, may more easily market themselves for intellectual property work.
• Comfort and experience with conversational professional interviews

Conversely, if you are bidding in regions known to be particularly competitive, such as Washington, DC or California, subtract a virtual “H” from your transcript.

The list of helpful "softs" looks generally decent, though I'm not sure I agree with the precise weighting ("one (1) virtual "H"") or the implication that all of the factors are always equally helpful. For example, I'm pretty sure someone with a STEM Ph.D. targeting patent prosecution or even litigation can add more than "one (1) virtual "H"" to their chances. Conversely, I'm not sure someone with geographic ties to D.C. can add anything to their chances at D.C. firms. And I strongly doubt "relevant course of study as an undergraduate" ever provides a measurable boost.

TLS is a very useful and valuable forum for both law students and junior associates, but I gotta say, I think it's pretty unwise to offer opinions in conflict with the advice of professional, experienced, full-time OCS employees who are in direct and frequent contact with firms about what they're looking for, especially when student-OCS interests are aligned.

We on TLS may have anecdotal experiences here and there based on being on one or both sides of the interview process a few times, but that really doesn't compare to the experience and resources OCS brings to bear. So you can doubt their official position on some specific measure, but giving much weight to that doubt seems like a pretty bad idea to me. Given that law students are looking at these boards and making big life decisions, we need to have more than just a little measure of our own capacity to make these kinds of statements.

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

It's when something about you besides your grades makes you a stronger candidate. Here's what OCS says:

CONSIDERATIONS OTHER THAN GRADES (THE VIRTUAL H)
If you have one or more of the following characteristics, you can add one (1) virtual “H” to your transcript:

• Relevant work
• Relevant advanced degrees
• Geographic ties to the area
• Diversity
• Relevant language abilities
• Strength of your undergraduate institution
• Relevant course of study as an undergraduate. For example, if you majored in business or economics, you might have a slight edge if you are interested in transactional work. Similarly, those with a background in engineering or one of the hard sciences, may more easily market themselves for intellectual property work.
• Comfort and experience with conversational professional interviews

Conversely, if you are bidding in regions known to be particularly competitive, such as Washington, DC or California, subtract a virtual “H” from your transcript.

The list of helpful "softs" looks generally decent, though I'm not sure I agree with the precise weighting ("one (1) virtual "H"") or the implication that all of the factors are always equally helpful. For example, I'm pretty sure someone with a STEM Ph.D. targeting patent prosecution or even litigation can add more than "one (1) virtual "H"" to their chances. Conversely, I'm not sure someone with geographic ties to D.C. can add anything to their chances at D.C. firms. And I strongly doubt "relevant course of study as an undergraduate" ever provides a measurable boost.

TLS is a very useful and valuable forum for both law students and junior associates, but I gotta say, I think it's pretty unwise to offer opinions in conflict with the advice of professional, experienced, full-time OCS employees who are in direct and frequent contact with firms about what they're looking for, especially when student-OCS interests are aligned.

We on TLS may have anecdotal experiences here and there based on being on one or both sides of the interview process a few times, but that really doesn't compare to the experience and resources OCS brings to bear. So you can doubt their official position on some specific measure, but giving much weight to that doubt seems like a pretty bad idea to me. Given that law students are looking at these boards and making big life decisions, we need to have more than just a little measure of our own capacity to make these kinds of statements.

Nah, QContinuum is right. What HLS did is compile a list of non-grade factors that law firms care about. But these all vary in how much they matter. They can't be equated to an "H" each. I'd think bidding straight DC would be like subtracting 3 or 4 H's, given chance of strikeout there versus bidding straight NY. Not saying the OCS folks screwed up -- I'm saying their "virtual H" idea is not a scientific exercise. It's designed to 1) communicate what softs matter and 2) make students with few/no H's feel better about themselves and go into EIP more confidently.

And another big issue with the virtual H -- actual "H" grades are a finite resource thanks to the curve. These "Virtual H's" are unlimited. Most HLS students have one or more of them. In order for soft factors to become a benefit in EIP, you don't just need some helpful softs -- you need better softs than your competitors.

[QContinuum]

Nah, QContinuum is right. What HLS did is compile a list of non-grade factors that law firms care about. But these all vary in how much they matter. They can't be equated to an "H" each. I'd think bidding straight DC would be like subtracting 3 or 4 H's, given chance of strikeout there versus bidding straight NY. Not saying the OCS folks screwed up -- I'm saying their "virtual H" idea is not a scientific exercise. It's designed to 1) communicate what softs matter and 2) make students with few/no H's feel better about themselves and go into EIP more confidently.

And another big issue with the virtual H -- actual "H" grades are a finite resource thanks to the curve. These "Virtual H's" are unlimited. Most HLS students have one or more of them. In order for soft factors to become a benefit in EIP, you don't just need some helpful softs -- you need better softs than your competitors.

Thanks! Agree entirely. I don't mean to "bash" the OCS folks at all, only to point out the limits of their advice.

Also, re: OCS staffers always "knowing best," I have yet to come across an OCS employee with much knowledge about advanced-degree STEM hiring in the IP space - especially patent prosecution. This isn't their fault per se, more just a function of the rarity of advanced-degree STEM students in the T13 and also the rarity of T13 students wanting patent pros. OCS staffers, very reasonably, focus on the "typical" candidate: a law student with a Bachelor's degree and maybe a year or two of work experience who's interested broadly in "corporate" or "litigation" in a major legal market. OCS is terrific at placing "typical" candidates. The more you stray from that "typical" profile - say you're interested in practicing in Nebraska, or you're interested in patent prosecution - the more you should be hesitant to solely rely on OCS' guidance.

There are many things OCS staffers will always be better at than TLS. For one thing, they have access to way more hiring data than any of us will ever get our hands on. For another thing, as Splurgles notes, they do receive feedback from firms. At the same time, unlike us, OCS staffers don't have (recent) firsthand experience on the interviewing circuit (as interviewees or interviewers). It's one thing to receive after-the-fact feedback from interviewers, but a very different perspective to actually be in that room.

[Person1111]

For what it's worth, I think that Harvard OCS has a very good pulse on what big firms in Boston and NYC are looking for and will give you excellent advice about how to get hired at those firms, which ones you are competitive for, etc. It has significantly less expertise in - and less data from - other markets and its advice is correspondingly less helpful if you are looking outside of those two markets (and maybe DC to a lesser extent).