How many interviews are normal for OCI? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I had 23 screeners, 1 CB, and 0 offers at a low T14. There is no comfortable number, there is only "keep hustling until you have a job."

Was this an interview problem? I feel like you should have at least had 2-3 CBs with 20+ screeners, but I could be wrong entering into this whole crapfest now

[Anonymous User]

What are the conversion rates on diversity fairs? A vast majority of my interviews are from diversity fairs/massmail and I am kind of worried.

[bbr234]

GULC does 70/30 (lottery/pre-select) and the max we're allowed is 18. Pretty sure the minimum is 6, but I dunno where I heard that and can't verify at the moment. The thing I hate about this system is that we bust hump to make a sweet resume that's appealing to employers, but if somehow we do too good a job, we run the (unlikely) risk of filling up slots with lower-ranked preselects and missing out on the lottery slots we really want. In theory I could interview with the bottom 18 firms I bid on, and none of my top 20. The fact that I'm not top 10% makes me fairly confident that won't happen, but what the hell do I know. OCS doesn't even seem to understand how this crap plays out.

Safe to say I would prefer more than 18 screeners and a less chaotic system, but I knew what I was getting into when I signed aboard the good ship Hoya.

I'm not sure if GULC has a min number of guaranteed interviews from OCI. The impression I got from the panel initially discussing OCI (when someone asked a question about the number of interviews they could get) was that theoretically, if a person bid terribly (think bottom 1/3 using only 20 bids solely for DC Skadden, Cravath, Covington, etc.) they could get no interviews at all. That being said, it's very unlikely because I can't think of anyone who would throw it that badly.

I've also heard that even though people get 18 through the system, open sign ups and hospitality suite hustling can bump that number to the low 20s. The more the better, always.

[Glasseyes]

I'm not sure if GULC has a min number of guaranteed interviews from OCI. The impression I got from the panel initially discussing OCI (when someone asked a question about the number of interviews they could get) was that theoretically, if a person bid terribly (think bottom 1/3 using only 20 bids solely for DC Skadden, Cravath, Covington, etc.) they could get no interviews at all. That being said, it's very unlikely because I can't think of anyone who would throw it that badly.

I've also heard that even though people get 18 through the system, open sign ups and hospitality suite hustling can bump that number to the low 20s. The more the better, always.

Unless they lied about the way the lottery works (entirely possible), your grades have zero bearing on whether you get lottery interviews. So the kid in the bottom third bidding Covington at #1 (sadly, these people exist... probably droves of them) will almost definitely get that interview, even though it's an absolute waste of everyone's time and eats a slot that someone with better grades (i.e., an actual chance) might have used. Hence the horror of the lottery. In theory the preselect system should ensure that the most desirable candidates cut the line, but the implementation seems scattershot at best.

[bbr234]

I'm not sure if GULC has a min number of guaranteed interviews from OCI. The impression I got from the panel initially discussing OCI (when someone asked a question about the number of interviews they could get) was that theoretically, if a person bid terribly (think bottom 1/3 using only 20 bids solely for DC Skadden, Cravath, Covington, etc.) they could get no interviews at all. That being said, it's very unlikely because I can't think of anyone who would throw it that badly.

I've also heard that even though people get 18 through the system, open sign ups and hospitality suite hustling can bump that number to the low 20s. The more the better, always.

Unless they lied about the way the lottery works (entirely possible), your grades have zero bearing on whether you get lottery interviews. So the kid in the bottom third bidding Covington at #1 (sadly, these people exist... probably droves of them) will almost definitely get that interview, even though it's an absolute waste of everyone's time and eats a slot that someone with better grades (i.e., an actual chance) might have used. Hence the horror of the lottery. In theory the preselect system should ensure that the most desirable candidates cut the line, but the implementation seems scattershot at best.

Wouldn't be surprised if they lied. OCI was/is very good at deflecting questions in order to get people to "bid safely" even though it usually just ends up with decent candidates underselling themselves and borderline candidates pursuing the pipe dream

[Anonymous User]

Wouldn't be surprised if they lied. OCI was/is very good at deflecting questions in order to get people to "bid safely" even though it usually just ends up with decent candidates underselling themselves and borderline candidates pursuing the pipe dream

I'm a hair outside of top 1/3 with solid work experience, and they wanted me to bid more aggressively than I would have liked to/actually did. They also tried to tell me to hammer my secondary in the top 10 rather than keeping it safe with mostly NYC.

[registering]

Wouldn't be surprised if they lied. OCI was/is very good at deflecting questions in order to get people to "bid safely" even though it usually just ends up with decent candidates underselling themselves and borderline candidates pursuing the pipe dream

I'm a hair outside of top 1/3 with solid work experience, and they wanted me to bid more aggressively than I would have liked to/actually did. They also tried to tell me to hammer my secondary in the top 10 rather than keeping it safe with mostly NYC.

They really tried to drive home the message that we shouldn't be overly reliant on DC and NY. Seems like they really want to get people with ties to exploit them. They might also be trying to direct this at the people median or below median, though, since absent excellent interviewing or niche WE, ties are going to matter a lot. They might think you're safe since you're probably at least top 40%, in which case you should be able to look at "quality" of biglaw firm rather than having one at all.

[Anonymous User]

In general in my experience at my school, Career Services gets a bad rap for being too aggressive rather than too wimpy, especially with students who are significantly above median. They want to make sure that less selective firms are available for the other students, which is impossible if the top students are also bidding on them.

Although, there's also an inherent "rain bias" in this kind of anecdata. After all, the kid who bids aggressively and strikes out will blame anyone and everyone for his failures and wish he had bid more conservatively. The kid who bids too conservatively rarely regrets that he didn't take a shot at Skadden, since his pay is (at least near) the same and most importantly he has a job. So I (and likely everyone else) have heard a lot more stories about Career Services encouraging aggressive bidding versus encouraging conservative bidding.