Michigan 2014 OCI Thread!!!!!!! Forum

[Anonymous User]

As someone working at a v10 nyc firm I can tell you with 100 percent certainty that we are adjusting our expectations upwards given the new curve. I also know with 100 percent certainty that 3 other v10 firms are doing this and other v50 firms are doing this as well. It is a fact.

Look here's the deal. Let's assume I'm wrong. Let's say that firms are working off the old scale and Michigan does way better. Do I think it's likely? No. But if they do, great. What does this mean for you? Let's assume you decided to bid conservatively and said "Hey its possible for me to get cravath but I'm going to bid Nixon Peabody high just in case" and you forgo the chance to bid cravath. Extreme example but a possibility. Assuming everyone works off the old curve, YOU HAVE A JOB. Now let's assume the opposite. Let's assume that you think firms are working off the old curve and they are actually on the new one. You have now big aggressively given where the market is at and you risk your chance for a job.

Remember the guy that said bid conservative. Listen and stop playing guessing games. You don't fucking know what firms are going to do so bid conservatively.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think this is right. People are really overestimating interviewers' familiarity with old curve. I came to OCI during 3L to help recruit for my V5 a couple years back. When we closed the door to discuss candidates during lunch, the conversation went something like this:

A: I really liked Steve, did any of you get to talk to him?
B: Yeah, he seemed smart. What are his grades like?
A: (digs transcript from pile)... 3.6
B: Is that good? What is his rank?
A: Yeah I think it's pretty good. It doesn't say his rank.
B: Does anybody know where we find a student's rank?
(Various people explain that Michigan doesn't rank)
A: All right, let's keep him in mind. Who else?

After a half day of interviewing (and countless years of Michigan doing it the same way), some interviewers don't even understand that we don't rank. I also doubt many firms are different from mine. Think about it: not only does Michigan not rank, it doesn't even publish historical data about class distributions after 1L. You guys have access to more information than anybody (and more time/desire to analyze it), and even you are having trouble figuring it out. There is just no way for firms to do the kinds of granular analysis that you guys think they are doing, even if they cared enough to do it. The interviewers, even if they went to Michigan, are years removed from their OCIs, clerkship searches, and other experiences that put them in contact with this kind of information. Even among those who were once familiar with the old curve, few will remember.

Remember, though, you are still competing against your classmates in a way. A below-median student might look more attractive this year, but so does everyone else. More people will be above the firm's GPA cutoff--not just you--and there are usually a finite number of callbacks available. I think the real benefit is that it gives you a chance to succeed through the interview more than before because, for a firm with a 3.5 GPA cutoff, the difference between a 3.45 and a 3.55 (old curve) is much bigger than the difference between a 3.55 and a 3.65 (new curve). On the old curve, that interviewer might have to really put himself out there to get you to the next round. On the new curve, he might just have to say you were better than the other guy.

+1 completely agree with all of this, the only point I take issue with and where I think students bidding should be willing to take slightly more risk is that "More people will be above the firm's GPA cutoff--not just you--and there are usually a finite number of callbacks available."

As I stated earlier Michigan has DRASTICALLY reduced its class size in the past year or two, so even with the increased curve the number of students above the firm's GPA cutoff should be about the same.

For a numerical example, when the class size was 400 two years ago, 100 students were in the top 25% at around a 3.6+ for the old curve.
Now with the class size at 315, 100 students are still at 3.6+, but it is the top 1/3 instead of top 25%. These numbers are rough estimates but demonstrate how a reduced class size coupled with a higher curve result in the same number of students with top grades, it really was ingenious by Michigan to raise the curve right as they reduced the class size, I'm predicting really great employment outcomes for Michigan's 1L class as a whole because of this.

This is such fucking stupid reasoning. Firms aren't going to be like "oh this student is actually less competitive relative to his peers but because of sheer numbers, happens to be numerically higher up than he would have been in previous years given his GPA so lets hire him." Firms want people that can show they are at the top of their class, or above a certain mark in their class. The GPA is a means to arriving at that conclusion. They aren't going to forget their ultimate goal because Michigan decided to get crafty. If you're smart enough to figure it out, the guys that are going to be paying you a shit ton of money are smart enough to figure it out too. They pay other smart people to figure this stuff out. You have literally no reason to assume incompetence from firms other than the fact that it works to your benefit to make that assumption.

[Druid]

Grain of salt and all that, but OCP specifically told me that I shouldn't make any adjustments to my target firms based on the new curve. Not entirely sure whether I trust that, but the Chicago recruiter also said my 3.57 makes me competitive pretty much everywhere there, which aligns with OCP's advice and old GPA info. I mean, maybe it's a conspiracy, but my guess (and it's just a guess) is that the lower curve from prior years was hurting Michigan folks for precisely the same reason it'll help us out now: most interviewers aren't digging much deeper than the number itself.

obligatory post coming from the one V10 Mich. alum who says his/her firm does adjust.

Yeah fuck the people who are actually on the ground doing this for the employers and reporting back to people in this thread. They're totally trying to fuck you over.

[Anonymous User]

At their main offices, only Weil and maybe Latham.

3.5 in our class is only top third.

How do you know this?

Because I have looked at the firm hiring profiles. There are 10 V10 firms, and only two show any real propensity to hire below 3.5, with the other eight making the occasional exception. Additionally, the slightly higher curve (let's not get carried away, it's a jump of 0.1) should have some impact on the way firms evaluate GPAs. I've also looked over the grade distributions for 1L classes. A 3.5 almost certainly falls within the top third of our class, but likely does not fall within the top quarter. This is supported by my knowledge of a few friends' GPAs. My GPA exceeds the median hiring GPA for all firms for which OCP makes GPA data available, so I'm really not concerned about this. However, a Michigan 2016 student with a GPA of 3.5 should consider V10 firms, with the possible exception of the two I noted, to be reaches. There are better uses of those students' top 15+ bids than the likes of Cravath, Cleary, S&C, Skadden, Davis Polk, Simpson Thatcher, or Kirkland (to say nothing of Covington & Burling, Williams and Connolly, WilmerHale, and other DC firms, or for that matter the Chicago office of Mayer Brown or Sidley). I think it's completely reasonable for someone with a 3.5 to use some lower bids to try to pick up an interview with those firms. Maybe they'll have a shot if they are impressive when they interview. However, the utility derived from some big law offer is substantial. My classmates with 3.50s would be well to focus their high bids on selective firms with large summer associate classes but to leave the ultra-selective firms for lower bids. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that.

[Druid]

I can get on board, but you should still be bidding popular, non-selective firms very high.

[Anonymous User]

Whatever, the exact distribution doesn't really matter.

3.1: Struggle for NYC, smaller markets, gotta sell yourself well
3.2: Struggle for NYC , smaller markets, got a decent chance
3.3: Competitive for lower NYC firms, less selective Chicago firms, and other secondary markets
3.4: Competitive for middle NYC firms, some Chicago firms, and other midwest markets
3.5: Competitive for non top-20 firms in NYC, most Chicago firms, some DC firms, some CA firms, other secondary market
3.6: Competitive for non top-10 firms in NYC, most Chicago firms, most DC firms, most CA firms, other secondary markets
3.7+: Competitive for all firm

Yeah, this is bullcrap. There are definitely people with 3.5s who get V10s.

You are right. There are people with 3.5's that get V10s. But those people are few and far between. They are the exception to the rule, not the norm. There are also people with 3.5s that strike out completely. Those people are exceptions to the rule, not the norm. You wouldn't use the 3.5 strikeout as a general example of how successful people with a 3.5 are going to be. Similarly, you wouldn't use the v10 3.5 success story as a general example of how successful people with a 3.5 are going to be.

This is a general list. Not the end all be all. Just a general list for the average person. Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good.

I can get on board, but you should still be bidding popular, non-selective firms very high.

This is the absolutely true. If Mayer brown NYC isn't #1 or #2 if you're feeling lucky, don't waste the bid.

[Anonymous User]

Another Michigan alum here.

The amount of stupidity coming out of this grade curve talk is pretty startling

Yep.

1. You all get the benefit of better looking grades. You lose some value of the data you have.
2. This grade change might fool some firms. It probably will not fool others. Hint: some firms read TLS and/or have numerous Michigan alum and/or have enough applicants to compare GPAs. Some do not (and some do not care enough to).
3. You do not get to input GPA into a calculator that tells you what firm you get. OCI does not work the same way as law school admissions. Yes, very high grades can bid more freely and will do better. Lower grades should probably be focused on NYC. But it is a lot more complicated than that.
4. Bidding is not a science. Use whatever empirical guesses you want. Using the old GPA data as a guide (and maybe slightly adjusting it) will probably as good of an anchor as anything else. But that is just my guess. The total number of interviews is fixed. Some will play the bidding game better than others. Some will be just unlucky. Most will converge to the mean (11-13 or so interviews). That is just how the lottery works.
5. Regardless, everyone should mass mail. Those who have low GPAs doubly so. Those who do bad in the lottery even more so. Some people who end up with too many interviews (yes this will happen) will give up some. So you might be able to pick up 1 or so odd interviews during OCI if you hustle. You can also stop by firm receptions and see if firms will squeeze you in during lunch or at the end of the day. I wouldn't count on this, but it is possible. The point is everyone needs to hustle in every way you can.

[Anonymous User]

Couple questions: First, what's the conventional wisdom for bidding firms from secondary markets that come to OCI? Chicago/NY/DC/CA bids first, then your target secondary? (I'd much rather work in the secondary, if that matters).

Second, given all the discussion that's followed, with a 3.57 would it be stupid to bid Sidley, Jenner, Mayer Brown and, say, Latham Chicago all at/near the top? Is that the opposite of being conservative? Seems like it might be.

[Anonymous User]

Depends on whether your secondary market firms are tough interview slots to get or not. If not, then putting those firms near the top isn't a bad play if you don't care to work at less selective Chicago, NYC, or DC firms, but if you are looking at firms in secondary markets that are tough to get interview slots with, put those near the top. The firms you mention are not especially difficult to get interviews at OCI with.

[Druid]

Couple questions: First, what's the conventional wisdom for bidding firms from secondary markets that come to OCI? Chicago/NY/DC/CA bids first, then your target secondary? (I'd much rather work in the secondary, if that matters).

Second, given all the discussion that's followed, with a 3.57 would it be stupid to bid Sidley, Jenner, Mayer Brown and, say, Latham Chicago all at/near the top? Is that the opposite of being conservative? Seems like it might be.

I would follow the above poster's wisdom on secondary markets given your GPA. But I will reiterate my previous thought that Chicago is insanely hard, and I don't think those firms should take the top of your list.

[potted plant]

Couple questions: First, what's the conventional wisdom for bidding firms from secondary markets that come to OCI? Chicago/NY/DC/CA bids first, then your target secondary? (I'd much rather work in the secondary, if that matters).

Second, given all the discussion that's followed, with a 3.57 would it be stupid to bid Sidley, Jenner, Mayer Brown and, say, Latham Chicago all at/near the top? Is that the opposite of being conservative? Seems like it might be.

Do you need to bid these firms near the top? Looking at the 2013 bidding data, both Latham and Mayer Brown Chicago gave interviews to almost everyone that bid on them. Sidley and Jenner had space for close to 75% of those who bid so also not bad. I think it's fine to bid on these firms, but you probably don't want to waste your top bids when you have a pretty good chance of getting an interview bidding them in the middle/near the end of your list.

[Anonymous User]

Depends on whether your secondary market firms are tough interview slots to get or not. If not, then putting those firms near the top isn't a bad play if you don't care to work at less selective Chicago, NYC, or DC firms, but if you are looking at firms in secondary markets that are tough to get interview slots with, put those near the top. The firms you mention are not especially difficult to get interviews at OCI with.

Okay. Cool. Thanks. The secondary market firms definitely look like they’re tougher to get based on the percentage of people receiving interviews, but it’s hard to know whether that’s because they’re actually difficult or if people were just tossing low bids their way to round out a bid list. (Or maybe those two are the same thing?) Sounds like I ought to do tough-to-get secondary > tough-to-get Chicago > easy Chicago > easy secondary in that case.

[Anonymous User]

Yes. And good job getting us off the annoying GPA junk.

[Anonymous User]

Cannot emphasize enough how difficult Chicago is. Look back at OCI threads from years past and this is a constant theme. Make sure (i) your GPA is up there and (ii) you have some strong ties or a very good reason for wanting to work there (e.g. really interested in restructuring for Kirkland).

[Anonymous User]

3.3, but I really want Boston (NY 2nd choice...lived there most my life). Is TCR to bid NY 1-24 and then do the Boston firms to round out the bids (not the crazy selective ones). I want to get in the v100, but don't want to screw myself because I was too focused on location.

[Anonymous User]

3.3, but I really want Boston (NY 2nd choice...lived there most my life). Is TCR to bid NY 1-24 and then do the Boston firms to round out the bids (not the crazy selective ones). I want to get in the v100, but don't want to screw myself because I was too focused on location.

What are you saying?

Boston firms are very tough to get interview slots for, at least historically. Everyone who goes outside of NYC takes a hit on the vault ranking of the firm they go to, that's just the way those rankings work. They're dumb. Kirkland (Chi.), Ropes (Boston), Williams and Connolly (DC) are all much tougher to get associate positions at than Weil or Simpson Thatcher or Latham, at least that's true most years.

[Druid]

3.3, but I really want Boston (NY 2nd choice...lived there most my life).

To be clear, you've lived in Boston most of your life rather than NY, right?

[scaliaantics]

3.3, but I really want Boston (NY 2nd choice...lived there most my life).

To be clear, you've lived in Boston most of your life rather than NY, right?

At median its probably not going to matter. Boston is probably out.

[Druid]

3.3, but I really want Boston (NY 2nd choice...lived there most my life).

To be clear, you've lived in Boston most of your life rather than NY, right?

At median its probably not going to matter. Boston is probably out.

Agreed. I was just curious.

[Anonymous User]

3.3, but I really want Boston (NY 2nd choice...lived there most my life).

To be clear, you've lived in Boston most of your life rather than NY, right?

NYC 17 years and Boston about 7. But Boston now

[Anonymous User]

OK screw it NYC 1-30 here I come.

[Druid]

3.3, but I really want Boston (NY 2nd choice...lived there most my life).

To be clear, you've lived in Boston most of your life rather than NY, right?

NYC 17 years and Boston about 7. But Boston now

Yeah. Cut Boston.

[BuckinghamB]

Couple questions: First, what's the conventional wisdom for bidding firms from secondary markets that come to OCI? Chicago/NY/DC/CA bids first, then your target secondary? (I'd much rather work in the secondary, if that matters).

Second, given all the discussion that's followed, with a 3.57 would it be stupid to bid Sidley, Jenner, Mayer Brown and, say, Latham Chicago all at/near the top? Is that the opposite of being conservative? Seems like it might be.

3L here. I had a similar GPA last year and bid my preferred secondary market at the bottom of my list. Ended up being fine. PM me for more details if you want

[Anonymous User]

Can whoever created this thread stick this link in the first post?
http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 3&t=211765

[Tubrid]

When using resume collect, should we keep our GPA off our resume? Or is the no-GPA deal only for bidding so firms are going in blind?