UChicago OCI 2013 Forum

[Anonymous User]

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Also, considering the masthead for LR comes out Monday, it's safe to assume you didn't get LR.


Anonymous User wrote:
Word is there's another round of LR calls coming out Monday. Hang in there fellas.


Well, this is confusing.


I don't mean to create false hope. This is just what I heard.

Well. What's your source?

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

LR members have received the new masthead and various other info with every indication that membership has been finalized. If additional offers were made tomorrow, we would all know who these "second choice" people were. There is no way that is happening. I'm sorry, but don't let that poster get your hopes up.

[HoratioHornblower]

.

[Anonymous User]

Unfortunately I can't out my source. But we have one that's on LR saying the opposite so ignore mine.

That poster should be outed for being a mega-dick. Trolling the TLS forums, how dare he!

I think this is uncalled for. I made it clear that it was something I heard by saying "word is." This thread should be a place where people can share information without witchhunts ensuing on the off-chance it's wrong. Everything we post isn't going to always be 100% confirmed (such as if a firm is done with callbacks or not) and I think we need to stop this behavior before it chills the sharing of potentially useful information throughout the OCI process.

[Anonymous User]

Unfortunately I can't out my source. But we have one that's on LR saying the opposite so ignore mine.

That poster should be outed for being a mega-dick. Trolling the TLS forums, how dare he!

I think this is uncalled for. I made it clear that it was something I heard by saying "word is." This thread should be a place where people can share information without witchhunts ensuing on the off-chance it's wrong. Everything we post isn't going to always be 100% confirmed (such as if a firm is done with callbacks or not) and I think we need to stop this behavior before it chills the sharing of potentially useful information throughout the OCI process.

The information you shared was helpful. Suggesting that these people would be "second choice" is what Horatio was probably objecting to.

[2014]

Why can't we all just be friends

[Anonymous User]

This thread should be a place where people can share information without witchhunts ensuing on the off-chance it's wrong. Everything we post isn't going to always be 100% confirmed (such as if a firm is done with callbacks or not) and I think we need to stop this behavior before it chills the sharing of potentially useful information throughout the OCI process.

This is more important for OCI than LR, but I do agree that when people are providing an inside scoop, they should provide a source. It would be helpful to know whether information is based on OCS advice, 2L intel about what happened next year, an attorney at the firm, etc.

Also, I don't think the likelihood of "outing" a source is increased that much by giving some vague info. If your source actually reads these posts, they will probably suspect you based on the information you provided anyway... especially since some clearly incorrect information like this discussion of more LR offers was probably not being offered by multiple people.

[RodneyRuxin]

This is more important for OCI than LR, but I do agree that when people are providing an inside scoop, they should provide a source. It would be helpful to know whether information is based on OCS advice, 2L intel about what happened next year, an attorney at the firm, etc.

Also, I don't think the likelihood of "outing" a source is increased that much by giving some vague info. If your source actually reads these posts, they will probably suspect you based on the information you provided anyway... especially since some clearly incorrect information like this discussion of more LR offers was probably not being offered by multiple people.

I think this is entirely reasonable. I do, however, want to say that if it's either 1) give info with no source or 2) not give info; I'd prefer the former.

[Anonymous User]

Getting back on topic--
How low can I bid Ivins Phillips & Barker? Only 11 slots, but I doubt there are too many people interested in a tax boutique.

[Anonymous User]

Getting back on topic--
How low can I bid Ivins Phillips & Barker? Only 11 slots, but I doubt there are too many people interested in a tax boutique.

You have my word that I won't be bidding it.

[Anonymous User]

Getting back on topic--
How low can I bid Ivins Phillips & Barker? Only 11 slots, but I doubt there are too many people interested in a tax boutique.


You have my word that I won't be bidding it.

TITCR. Seconded. Don't waste a top-20 bid on it, IMO.

[Anonymous User]

Getting back on topic--
How low can I bid Ivins Phillips & Barker? Only 11 slots, but I doubt there are too many people interested in a tax boutique.


You have my word that I won't be bidding it.

TITCR. Seconded. Don't waste a top-20 bid on it, IMO.

How selective are these guys? I don't think we have any associates there, so I don't have any data points. Any older folks know anyone who got a CB and/or offer from them? The few associates they have all look well-credentialed, but not necessarily Wachtell-competitive.

[Anonymous User]

Getting back on topic--
How low can I bid Ivins Phillips & Barker? Only 11 slots, but I doubt there are too many people interested in a tax boutique.


You have my word that I won't be bidding it.

TITCR. Seconded. Don't waste a top-20 bid on it, IMO.

third. good luck!

[Anonymous User]

40 new LR staffers. Interesting.

[Helmholtz]

40 new LR staffers. Interesting.

Yeah, that seems really high. I thought it was around thirty only a couple of years ago. But the higher number fits in with the current trend.

[Emma.]

40 new LR staffers. Interesting.

Yeah, that seems really high. I thought it was around thirty only a couple of years ago. But the higher number fits in with the current trend.

They are slowly increasing the staffer pool to (a) make being a staffer less arduous than when back in the day when we were staffers, and (b) to help more people have a shot at fed clerkships. I bet this year it was top 15% that graded on.

[Helmholtz]

40 new LR staffers. Interesting.

Yeah, that seems really high. I thought it was around thirty only a couple of years ago. But the higher number fits in with the current trend.

They are slowly increasing the staffer pool to (a) make being a staffer less arduous than when back in the day when we were staffers, and (b) to help more people have a shot at fed clerkships. I bet this year it was top 15% that graded on.

Makes sense and probably overdue to be honest. Also puts us more in line with elite schools of our size (e.g. Stanford).

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

40 new LR staffers. Interesting.

Yeah, that seems really high. I thought it was around thirty only a couple of years ago. But the higher number fits in with the current trend.

They are slowly increasing the staffer pool to (a) make being a staffer less arduous than when back in the day when we were staffers, and (b) to help more people have a shot at fed clerkships. I bet this year it was top 15% that graded on.

Anyone with a rough idea of the cut off?

[Emma.]

40 new LR staffers. Interesting.

Yeah, that seems really high. I thought it was around thirty only a couple of years ago. But the higher number fits in with the current trend.

They are slowly increasing the staffer pool to (a) make being a staffer less arduous than when back in the day when we were staffers, and (b) to help more people have a shot at fed clerkships. I bet this year it was top 15% that graded on.

Anyone with a rough idea of the cut off?

If I'm right and grade on was top 15% this year then the cutoff will almost certainly be below 180, probably somewhere between 179.5 and 180.

[Haymarket]

A limited offer to rising 2Ls: Send me your GPA, your market preferences, and your bid list. I will then tell you how stupid or risky I think your list is given the former two pieces of information, and I may suggest changes.

The first five are guaranteed responses. After that, no promises. Credentials: I think I have a pretty good handle on OCI and I can give specifics about my performance in PMs.

[Bildungsroman]

Here's my free advice: keep a wine glass in your bedroom during OCI or else you might find yourself drinking straight from the bottle.

[Emma.]

Here's my free advice: keep a wine glass in your bedroom during OCI or else you might find yourself drinking straight from the bottle.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Xifeng]

Here's my free advice: keep a wine glass in your bedroom during OCI or else you might find yourself drinking straight from the bottle.

And don't be a dick at Booth.