Michigan 2013 OCI Thread Forum

[Anonymous User]

Missed:

DLA Piper (Chi) (9)
K&L Gates (Chi) (12)
Perkins Coie (Chi) (30)

Also missed 4 small secondaries scattered from 17-29.

[DaftAndDirect]

missed mayer brown at 3 (haha) but also got my 27th bid.

So firms actually take the time to screen based on resumes? I know people who got Mayer after bidding them lower...I thought this was a purely numbers based game.

[gnuwheels]

Missed a ton in NY, guess that's what happens.

Mayer Brown (3)
Freshfields (9)
Kirkland (12)

and every single bid below 15 with the exception of 27, including Willkie, Cahill, Milbank, White & Case etc etc etc. pretty rough.

[Anonymous User]

missed mayer brown at 3 (haha) but also got my 27th bid.

So firms actually take the time to screen based on resumes? I know people who got Mayer after bidding them lower...I thought this was a purely numbers based game.

This literally cannot be true.

[DaftAndDirect]

missed mayer brown at 3 (haha) but also got my 27th bid.

So firms actually take the time to screen based on resumes? I know people who got Mayer after bidding them lower...I thought this was a purely numbers based game.

This literally cannot be true.

Ok so "know people" was pretty lame cover for I bid Mayer CHI at 14 and got an interview. I'm confused as to how gnuwheels could have missed at 3.

As far as those I missed:

Gibson NY (17)
Paul Hastings CHI (18)
Katten CHI (20)
Winston CHI (21)
Ropes NY (22)
Perkins (23)
Paul Weiss NY (24)
WilmerHale NY (25)
Sidley CHI (28)
Simpson NY (29)
Didn't submit a #30 because i'm an idiot who can't figure out symplicity

[hyakku]

They may have less slots for NY than they do for Chicago. It seems like firms that are big in NY / Chicago tend to send more people to interview for Chicago at Michigan based off of last year's data.

[Anonymous User]

missed mayer brown at 3 (haha) but also got my 27th bid.

So firms actually take the time to screen based on resumes? I know people who got Mayer after bidding them lower...I thought this was a purely numbers based game.

This literally cannot be true.

DaftandDirect's acquaintances must not have bid NYC. NYC Mayer Brown filled fast.

I missed:

Katten Muchin (3) (CHI)
Mayer Brown (4) (NYC)
Baker & McKenzie (9) (CHI)
Faegre Baker Daniels (29) (CHI)

[gnuwheels]

Does anyone know anyone who got MoFo NY? No one i know was able to get it. I bid it lower but i know others who bid it really high. Are they only interviewing like two people for that office? I also know they pulled out of Penn's OCI altogether. Strange.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

Does anyone know anyone who got MoFo NY? No one i know was able to get it. I bid it lower but i know others who bid it really high. Are they only interviewing like two people for that office? I also know they pulled out of Penn's OCI altogether. Strange.

I don't know about Mofo NYC but last year they had very few slots for any office. For example, SF had 3 slots. Three. So I bid them #1 and got it but I bet at 2 I wouldn't have got them. I bet it's a similar story for NYC.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know anyone who got MoFo NY? No one i know was able to get it. I bid it lower but i know others who bid it really high. Are they only interviewing like two people for that office? I also know they pulled out of Penn's OCI altogether. Strange.

I don't know about Mofo NYC but last year they had very few slots for any office. For example, SF had 3 slots. Three. So I bid them #1 and got it but I bet at 2 I wouldn't have got them. I bet it's a similar story for NYC.

I also bid a MoFo office #1 and got it, and I've talked to a few people who bid MoFo and nobody got an interview that didn't bid them #1. Although, my sample size is 6 people.

[potted plant]

I also got Mofo SF bidding them number 1.

[gnuwheels]

Does anyone know anyone who got MoFo NY? No one i know was able to get it. I bid it lower but i know others who bid it really high. Are they only interviewing like two people for that office? I also know they pulled out of Penn's OCI altogether. Strange.

I don't know about Mofo NYC but last year they had very few slots for any office. For example, SF had 3 slots. Three. So I bid them #1 and got it but I bet at 2 I wouldn't have got them. I bet it's a similar story for NYC.

Crazy. Well, for future classes, seems like MoFo is a wasted bid if not #1.

[RedSwingline]

Does anyone know anyone who got MoFo NY? No one i know was able to get it. I bid it lower but i know others who bid it really high. Are they only interviewing like two people for that office? I also know they pulled out of Penn's OCI altogether. Strange.

I don't know about Mofo NYC but last year they had very few slots for any office. For example, SF had 3 slots. Three. So I bid them #1 and got it but I bet at 2 I wouldn't have got them. I bet it's a similar story for NYC.

Crazy. Well, for future classes, seems like MoFo is a wasted bid if not #1.

I don't think future classes need that info... it was abundantly clear that would be the case if you looked at the info that OCP sent out. Only 16% (rounded) of people who bid MoFo actually got an interview. They only had 21 interviews total for all of their offices, with 135 people bidding. If you read that, you would have figured out that you need to bid them #1 or else risk not getting an interview.

[hyakku]

Does anyone know anyone who got MoFo NY? No one i know was able to get it. I bid it lower but i know others who bid it really high. Are they only interviewing like two people for that office? I also know they pulled out of Penn's OCI altogether. Strange.

I don't know about Mofo NYC but last year they had very few slots for any office. For example, SF had 3 slots. Three. So I bid them #1 and got it but I bet at 2 I wouldn't have got them. I bet it's a similar story for NYC.

Crazy. Well, for future classes, seems like MoFo is a wasted bid if not #1.

I don't think future classes need that info... it was abundantly clear that would be the case if you looked at the info that OCP sent out. Only 16% (rounded) of people who bid MoFo actually got an interview. They only had 21 interviews total for all of their offices, with 135 people bidding. If you read that, you would have figured out that you need to bid them #1 or else risk not getting an interview.

True, which is why I removed them from my list, but you never know when a firm is going to try to increase their presence at a school or attract more from a particular school. I doubt MoFo is super gung ho about Michigan kids over say, Hastings/Stanford/Berkeley kids from the Bay Area, but there are some firms where there are a lot of Michigan alumni that want to see more of us and make pushes for the firm to hire from the school. In those cases the interview slots might vary from the last year.


Alternatively, and I think this is the case with MoFo although I'm not sure, some firms have pulled back/out of hiring from Michigan because offers were never accepted by Michigan students in the past for one reason or the other. No real way to know those changes before OCI each year unless the firm announces it.

[Anonymous User]

Soo... Arent Fox has pulled out of OCI as of this morning, but they are still gladly accepting applications from MLaw students. WTF? Why not pull out before we bid, rather than waiting until after.

Also, it wasn't due to lack of bids... they had their interview slots full when they pulled out.

[potted plant]

Question for the SF/SV people. If a firm has offices in both SF and SV and I would genuinely like to work at either office, does it matter which one is listed as the office I'm interviewing for? I have a Gibson interview for Palo Alto (for sure thought I picked the SF office, but apparently not). Should I try to get it changed? Main reason for picking SF over Palo Alto would be the larger summer class size and the fact that I'm not IP, so I have no real reason to prefer Palo Alto. Should I just mention that I'd like to be considered for either office in my interview? I'd like to avoid answering the question "why did you bid on Palo Alto and not SF" because my answer is "I'm stupid and can't read Symplicity properly," which probably isn't a strong selling point.

[gnuwheels]

Does anyone know how likely it is to pick up interviews during the add/drop period? It was my understanding that almost no one got interviews this way, but a friend at Columbia, where they have an almost identical system, says people almost always pick up a few there. Anyone know?

[RedSwingline]

Question for the SF/SV people. If a firm has offices in both SF and SV and I would genuinely like to work at either office, does it matter which one is listed as the office I'm interviewing for? I have a Gibson interview for Palo Alto (for sure thought I picked the SF office, but apparently not). Should I try to get it changed? Main reason for picking SF over Palo Alto would be the larger summer class size and the fact that I'm not IP, so I have no real reason to prefer Palo Alto. Should I just mention that I'd like to be considered for either office in my interview? I'd like to avoid answering the question "why did you bid on Palo Alto and not SF" because my answer is "I'm stupid and can't read Symplicity properly," which probably isn't a strong selling point.

You aren't stupid because you can't read Symplicity properly... just stupid lazy because you didn't take the time to find the answer yourself.

If you took the time to read the OCI guide and the multiple emails they sent out, you would have read that, in some instances, firms that only allow you to bid/interview with one office may end up having have extra room in an office you did not bid, and will allow you to interview with the person from the SF office for the SV office, or vice-versa. So, what likely happened is that you did actually bid SF and SF got bid up, but the SV interviewer had space.

I have two interviews that were the same situation as yours, so when I found out, I looked it up.

[potted plant]

Question for the SF/SV people. If a firm has offices in both SF and SV and I would genuinely like to work at either office, does it matter which one is listed as the office I'm interviewing for? I have a Gibson interview for Palo Alto (for sure thought I picked the SF office, but apparently not). Should I try to get it changed? Main reason for picking SF over Palo Alto would be the larger summer class size and the fact that I'm not IP, so I have no real reason to prefer Palo Alto. Should I just mention that I'd like to be considered for either office in my interview? I'd like to avoid answering the question "why did you bid on Palo Alto and not SF" because my answer is "I'm stupid and can't read Symplicity properly," which probably isn't a strong selling point.

You aren't stupid because you can't read Symplicity properly... just stupid lazy because you didn't take the time to find the answer yourself.

If you took the time to read the OCI guide and the multiple emails they sent out, you would have read that, in some instances, firms that only allow you to bid/interview with one office may end up having have extra room in an office you did not bid, and will allow you to interview with the person from the SF office for the SV office, or vice-versa. So, what likely happened is that you did actually bid SF and SF got bid up, but the SV interviewer had space.

I have two interviews that were the same situation as yours, so when I found out, I looked it up.

Hmm, well I do have a vague recollection of this office swapping procedure, and I guess I should probably have faith in myself and my symplicity abilities. But, in case I just happen to actually be stupid, does anyone think this will be an issue? Looking at my bidlist, and not just my scheduled interviews, it shows a bid for the Palo Alto office. So I feel like there is at least a very high likelihood that I did it wrong and wasn't given a PA interview due to overbooking.

[descartesb4thehorse]

The really unnecessary hostility over people not reading the OCI guidebook cover to cover should probably be bumped down a notch. You know, for collegiality.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

The really unnecessary hostility over people not reading the OCI guidebook cover to cover should probably be bumped down a notch. You know, for collegiality.

I think things like this all the time in this forum.

Re: potted plant, I sure hope they're fine with that. I assume it would depend on the interviewer and maybe also the firm's protocol/views. But I think a half-way reasonable interviewer/firm would be okay with you saying you're actually interested in two offices even if you just bid one.

I'm in a similar situation with one office (also an SF/SV mix up). I plan on just telling the interviewer in the beginning I only bid on one but am really interested in both. Gibson does do a decent amount of corporate work out of SV (I believe) so you probably wouldn't look like a fool for bidding it. Also it seems like from the blurbs a few firms provided (something like: "if you're interested in more than one office, please tell the interviewer blah blah...) just telling them extra offices you're interested in would okay.

ETA: Gibson Dunn SV's lawyers in practice area per NALP http://www.nalpdirectory.com/employer_p ... bson%22%7D

[potted plant]

The really unnecessary hostility over people not reading the OCI guidebook cover to cover should probably be bumped down a notch. You know, for collegiality.

I think things like this all the time in this forum.

Re: potted plant, I sure hope they're fine with that. I assume it would depend on the interviewer and maybe also the firm's protocol/views. But I think a half-way reasonable interviewer/firm would be okay with you saying you're actually interested in two offices even if you just bid one.

I'm in a similar situation with one office (also an SF/SV mix up). I plan on just telling the interviewer in the beginning I only bid on one but am really interested in both. Gibson does do a decent amount of corporate work out of SV (I believe) so you probably wouldn't look like a fool for bidding it. Also it seems like from the blurbs a few firms provided (something like: "if you're interested in more than one office, please tell the interviewer blah blah...) just telling them extra offices you're interested in would okay.

ETA: Gibson Dunn SV's lawyers in practice area per NALP http://www.nalpdirectory.com/employer_p ... bson%22%7D

Hmm okay, well what if I'm interested in litigation and my work background and resume shows that I'm very clearly interested in a practice group that's strong in SF and doesn't exist in SV? I think it's a tough sell that I'm MORE interested in SV than SF. I feel like there has to be some practical way to resolve this. Would it be weird to contact Gibson and ask them what to do? OCS?

Also thanks, everyone for the feedback and humoring me when I'm being neurotic.

[gnuwheels]

Does anyone know how likely it is to pick up interviews during the add/drop period? It was my understanding that almost no one got interviews this way, but a friend at Columbia, where they have an almost identical system, says people almost always pick up a few there. Anyone know?

Three more interviews added to my schedule so I guess I answered my own question.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

Does anyone know how likely it is to pick up interviews during the add/drop period? It was my understanding that almost no one got interviews this way, but a friend at Columbia, where they have an almost identical system, says people almost always pick up a few there. Anyone know?

Three more interviews added to my schedule so I guess I answered my own question.

Were they good ones? There was only one I bid on/was at all interested in that was available and I decided not even to bother with it.

I saw Perkins Coie was available but I think it was just a glitch. Whenever a clicked on it said no slots available.

[Anonymous User]

So I know OCI tells us not to cancel interviews, but does anyone know the protocol for cancelling if we accept an offer somewhere after the add/drop period has passed? I won't know until after its too late I think, but I figure it would be best to maybe go the day of interviews/contact friends that wanted an interview at the firms and let them know what my time slot was that way they could get a chance to interview there. Seems like a dick move to interview somewhere and take a spot knowing you won't accept.