UT Lottery vs. Pre-Select Forum

[Anonymous User]

Any word from GDC or Fulbright?

GDC had a private dinner and have started making CB's. Fulbright had a private dinner, but not sure if they've started making CB's yet.

[Anonymous User]

Any news from Jackson Walker?

[Anonymous User]

Do we know for sure that lottery picks are drawn AFTER the firms choose their preselects? It occurred to me that it might be the other way around. That would make more sense because then the 30% of lottery selects is not entirely composed of people the firm had no real interest in interviewing.

[Anonymous User]

Any news from Jackson Walker?

I know they CB'd Ft Worth

[Anonymous User]

Do we know for sure that lottery picks are drawn AFTER the firms choose their preselects? It occurred to me that it might be the other way around. That would make more sense because then the 30% of lottery selects is not entirely composed of people the firm had no real interest in interviewing.

I think the lottery picks are drawn before, but I have no source for this. Unsolicited opinions ftw.

[Anonymous User]

Do we know for sure that lottery picks are drawn AFTER the firms choose their preselects? It occurred to me that it might be the other way around. That would make more sense because then the 30% of lottery selects is not entirely composed of people the firm had no real interest in interviewing.

I think the lottery picks are drawn before, but I have no source for this. Unsolicited opinions ftw.

Drew said lottery picks are allotted after preselects are chosen.

[Anonymous User]

Do we know for sure that lottery picks are drawn AFTER the firms choose their preselects? It occurred to me that it might be the other way around. That would make more sense because then the 30% of lottery selects is not entirely composed of people the firm had no real interest in interviewing.

I think the lottery picks are drawn before, but I have no source for this. Unsolicited opinions ftw.

Drew said lottery picks are allotted after preselects are chosen.

This makes more sense. It's better for the students who would otherwise would not have gotten an interview with a given employer (though from what I gather most employers write off lottery picks before they even get to the screener).

[Anonymous User]

Do we know for sure that lottery picks are drawn AFTER the firms choose their preselects? It occurred to me that it might be the other way around. That would make more sense because then the 30% of lottery selects is not entirely composed of people the firm had no real interest in interviewing.

I think the lottery picks are drawn before, but I have no source for this. Unsolicited opinions ftw.

Drew said lottery picks are allotted after preselects are chosen.

This makes more sense. It's better for the students who would otherwise would not have gotten an interview with a given employer (though from what I gather most employers write off lottery picks before they even get to the screener).

Several folks I know have CB's from lottery select firms. Some have multiple CB's all from lotteries.

[Anonymous User]

Several folks I know have CB's from lottery select firms. Some have multiple CB's all from lotteries.

Damn, that's awesome, then. I was just going off what several visiting attorneys had told me.

[Anonymous User]

Several folks I know have CB's from lottery select firms. Some have multiple CB's all from lotteries.

Damn, that's awesome, then. I was just going off what several visiting attorneys had told me.

My takeaway is that personality really does matter more than people think. Some firms might write folks off, but I think a lot more go into the process with relatively open minds.

[Anonymous User]

Gibson Dunn DC CB

[Anonymous User]

Anyone heard from:

Zelle Hoffman
Gardere
Kelly, Hart & Hallman

Gardere and KHH were only on Friday so not expecting much yet, but Zelle was Tues so figured something would be out by now.

[Anonymous User]

What about Jackson Walker?

[Anonymous User]

Do we know for sure that lottery picks are drawn AFTER the firms choose their preselects? It occurred to me that it might be the other way around. That would make more sense because then the 30% of lottery selects is not entirely composed of people the firm had no real interest in interviewing.

I think the lottery picks are drawn before, but I have no source for this. Unsolicited opinions ftw.

Drew said lottery picks are allotted after preselects are chosen.

This makes more sense. It's better for the students who would otherwise would not have gotten an interview with a given employer (though from what I gather most employers write off lottery picks before they even get to the screener).

Not really, IMO. Because if you do lottery first, you're still assuring that every student gets at least a couple of interviews, but you're not saying, "Hey firms, we're going to force you to spend 30% of your time here interviewing people whose resumes were not good enough to get an interview with you." I think for a school like Texas (and I am a 2L here), having a 30% lottery system and allotting them afterwards is a terrible idea if you want New York, DC and Chicago firms to send partners from the actual offices down for OCI. 20 minutes of one partner's time is worth well over $100. And it's already inconvenient to get on a plane and fly down here. Then they get here and they have to deal with the lottery people AND the people who are applying to East Coast jobs but who actually want to stay (and/or will end up) in Texas. It's dumb.

And this is not to say that lottery selects don't get CBs or aren't taken seriously. Both of my lottery interview/reception experiences were great. There may be some elitist interviewers that write off lottery people, but I typically wouldn't want to work for their firm anyway. That's the way I look at any negative OCI interaction, really-- if they're assholes or uptight and it doesn't go well, it was a bad fit anyway. I know you can't be choosey in ITE, but you don't want to end up in a miserable or soul-sucking work environment (any more so than firm work can be generally, lol).

[Anonymous User]

What about Jackson Walker?

from the other Texas thread, it looks like JW made CBs for Ft Worth, Austin, and Dallas already.

[Anonymous User]

Not really, IMO. Because if you do lottery first, you're still assuring that every student gets at least a couple of interviews, but you're not saying, "Hey firms, we're going to force you to spend 30% of your time here interviewing people whose resumes were not good enough to get an interview with you." I think for a school like Texas (and I am a 2L here), having a 30% lottery system and allotting them afterwards is a terrible idea if you want New York, DC and Chicago firms to send partners from the actual offices down for OCI. 20 minutes of one partner's time is worth well over $100. And it's already inconvenient to get on a plane and fly down here. Then they get here and they have to deal with the lottery people AND the people who are applying to East Coast jobs but who actually want to stay (and/or will end up) in Texas. It's dumb.

And this is not to say that lottery selects don't get CBs or aren't taken seriously. Both of my lottery interview/reception experiences were great. There may be some elitist interviewers that write off lottery people, but I typically wouldn't want to work for their firm anyway. That's the way I look at any negative OCI interaction, really-- if they're assholes or uptight and it doesn't go well, it was a bad fit anyway. I know you can't be choosey in ITE, but you don't want to end up in a miserable or soul-sucking work environment (any more so than firm work can be generally, lol).

I completely agree with the bolded. Biglaw partners shouldn't even have to physically see submedian peasants when they come on campus, much less speak to such proles for 20 uninterrupted minutes.

[Anonymous User]

Not really, IMO. Because if you do lottery first, you're still assuring that every student gets at least a couple of interviews, but you're not saying, "Hey firms, we're going to force you to spend 30% of your time here interviewing people whose resumes were not good enough to get an interview with you." I think for a school like Texas (and I am a 2L here), having a 30% lottery system and allotting them afterwards is a terrible idea if you want New York, DC and Chicago firms to send partners from the actual offices down for OCI. 20 minutes of one partner's time is worth well over $100. And it's already inconvenient to get on a plane and fly down here. Then they get here and they have to deal with the lottery people AND the people who are applying to East Coast jobs but who actually want to stay (and/or will end up) in Texas. It's dumb.

And this is not to say that lottery selects don't get CBs or aren't taken seriously. Both of my lottery interview/reception experiences were great. There may be some elitist interviewers that write off lottery people, but I typically wouldn't want to work for their firm anyway. That's the way I look at any negative OCI interaction, really-- if they're assholes or uptight and it doesn't go well, it was a bad fit anyway. I know you can't be choosey in ITE, but you don't want to end up in a miserable or soul-sucking work environment (any more so than firm work can be generally, lol).

I completely agree with the bolded. Biglaw partners shouldn't even have to physically see submedian peasants when they come on campus, much less speak to such proles for 20 uninterrupted minutes.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not here (tis the nature of TLS), but that's not exactly what I'm saying. It's not that I think lottery picks are not worth BigLaw partners' time. It's that the lottery + UT students' notoriety for choosing to stay in Texas makes the partners THINK it's not worth their time to fly out here.

On a psychological level and possibly based on results year to year, i.e., if they don't end up calling back that many Texas kids and some/many of the ones they do call back opt for Texas firms, they are not going to send as many people down here. And it's ultimately a bad thing for all of us. One of the biggest things holding UT back (BTW, is everyone here aware that Dean Sager is dunzo after 2012? Very big bummer.), in prestige and rankings, is the reputation for feeding Texas firms and sending only like a quarter of its grads to other states. I realize that I've now gone from talking about the lottery system to the self-selection issue, but the point is the post-preselect lottery can only exacerbate other reasons a given firm might not send serious recruiters here.

And admittedly, part of the reason I'm complaining is that I've had multiple interviews for East Coast jobs that were conducted (at least in part) by people from the firms' Houston offices or by people from offices I wasn't interested in. To that note, here's a question: How do you think it works when they send just an associate from the office you want or partners from offices you don't want? Like I imagine the CB odds are a lot lower. Because then the associate has to really really like you (enough to stand behind you and look bad if you disappoint at the CB) AND convince the partners you're worth a CB.

[Anonymous User]

Not really, IMO. Because if you do lottery first, you're still assuring that every student gets at least a couple of interviews, but you're not saying, "Hey firms, we're going to force you to spend 30% of your time here interviewing people whose resumes were not good enough to get an interview with you." I think for a school like Texas (and I am a 2L here), having a 30% lottery system and allotting them afterwards is a terrible idea if you want New York, DC and Chicago firms to send partners from the actual offices down for OCI. 20 minutes of one partner's time is worth well over $100. And it's already inconvenient to get on a plane and fly down here. Then they get here and they have to deal with the lottery people AND the people who are applying to East Coast jobs but who actually want to stay (and/or will end up) in Texas. It's dumb.

And this is not to say that lottery selects don't get CBs or aren't taken seriously. Both of my lottery interview/reception experiences were great. There may be some elitist interviewers that write off lottery people, but I typically wouldn't want to work for their firm anyway. That's the way I look at any negative OCI interaction, really-- if they're assholes or uptight and it doesn't go well, it was a bad fit anyway. I know you can't be choosey in ITE, but you don't want to end up in a miserable or soul-sucking work environment (any more so than firm work can be generally, lol).

I completely agree with the bolded. Biglaw partners shouldn't even have to physically see submedian peasants when they come on campus, much less speak to such proles for 20 uninterrupted minutes.

I disagree. Maybe you're on the border grade-wise, but you have your heart set on one firm--this system allows you a shot at your #1 firm, and it's likely that your enthusiasm will show through in an interview.

I'm another one of those students who has received callbacks from lottery interviews, so I obviously am happy with the way UT does it, but my guess is that the interviewers who chose me over preselects are fine with it too.

[Anonymous User]

Not really, IMO. Because if you do lottery first, you're still assuring that every student gets at least a couple of interviews, but you're not saying, "Hey firms, we're going to force you to spend 30% of your time here interviewing people whose resumes were not good enough to get an interview with you." I think for a school like Texas (and I am a 2L here), having a 30% lottery system and allotting them afterwards is a terrible idea if you want New York, DC and Chicago firms to send partners from the actual offices down for OCI. 20 minutes of one partner's time is worth well over $100. And it's already inconvenient to get on a plane and fly down here. Then they get here and they have to deal with the lottery people AND the people who are applying to East Coast jobs but who actually want to stay (and/or will end up) in Texas. It's dumb.

And this is not to say that lottery selects don't get CBs or aren't taken seriously. Both of my lottery interview/reception experiences were great. There may be some elitist interviewers that write off lottery people, but I typically wouldn't want to work for their firm anyway. That's the way I look at any negative OCI interaction, really-- if they're assholes or uptight and it doesn't go well, it was a bad fit anyway. I know you can't be choosey in ITE, but you don't want to end up in a miserable or soul-sucking work environment (any more so than firm work can be generally, lol).

I completely agree with the bolded. Biglaw partners shouldn't even have to physically see submedian peasants when they come on campus, much less speak to such proles for 20 uninterrupted minutes.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not here (tis the nature of TLS), but that's not exactly what I'm saying. It's not that I think lottery picks are not worth BigLaw partners' time. It's that the lottery + UT students' notoriety for choosing to stay in Texas makes the partners THINK it's not worth their time to fly out here.

On a psychological level and possibly based on results year to year, i.e., if they don't end up calling back that many Texas kids and some/many of the ones they do call back opt for Texas firms, they are not going to send as many people down here. And it's ultimately a bad thing for all of us. One of the biggest things holding UT back (BTW, is everyone here aware that Dean Sager is dunzo after 2012? Very big bummer.), in prestige and rankings, is the reputation for feeding Texas firms and sending only like a quarter of its grads to other states. I realize that I've now gone from talking about the lottery system to the self-selection issue, but the point is the post-preselect lottery can only exacerbate other reasons a given firm might not send serious recruiters here.

And admittedly, part of the reason I'm complaining is that I've had multiple interviews for East Coast jobs that were conducted (at least in part) by people from the firms' Houston offices or by people from offices I wasn't interested in. To that note, here's a question: How do you think it works when they send just an associate from the office you want or partners from offices you don't want? Like I imagine the CB odds are a lot lower. Because then the associate has to really really like you (enough to stand behind you and look bad if you disappoint at the CB) AND convince the partners you're worth a CB.

+1

During the NY Job Fair, several of the interviewers (mostly partners) alluded to this. Many of them cancelled their on-campus interviews at UT because so few of the offers they extended in the past were actually accepted.

[Anonymous User]

H&B cbs going out.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone heard from Jones Day yet?

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone heard from Jones Day yet?

At least with the ATL office, I heard no decisions would be finalized before Aug. 29. Not sure if that's the case firmwide.

[Anonymous User]

H&B cbs going out.

which office?

[Anonymous User]

H&B cbs going out.

which office?

Houston

[Anonymous User]

Not really, IMO. Because if you do lottery first, you're still assuring that every student gets at least a couple of interviews, but you're not saying, "Hey firms, we're going to force you to spend 30% of your time here interviewing people whose resumes were not good enough to get an interview with you." I think for a school like Texas (and I am a 2L here), having a 30% lottery system and allotting them afterwards is a terrible idea if you want New York, DC and Chicago firms to send partners from the actual offices down for OCI. 20 minutes of one partner's time is worth well over $100. And it's already inconvenient to get on a plane and fly down here. Then they get here and they have to deal with the lottery people AND the people who are applying to East Coast jobs but who actually want to stay (and/or will end up) in Texas. It's dumb.

And this is not to say that lottery selects don't get CBs or aren't taken seriously. Both of my lottery interview/reception experiences were great. There may be some elitist interviewers that write off lottery people, but I typically wouldn't want to work for their firm anyway. That's the way I look at any negative OCI interaction, really-- if they're assholes or uptight and it doesn't go well, it was a bad fit anyway. I know you can't be choosey in ITE, but you don't want to end up in a miserable or soul-sucking work environment (any more so than firm work can be generally, lol).

I completely agree with the bolded. Biglaw partners shouldn't even have to physically see submedian peasants when they come on campus, much less speak to such proles for 20 uninterrupted minutes.

I disagree. Maybe you're on the border grade-wise, but you have your heart set on one firm--this system allows you a shot at your #1 firm, and it's likely that your enthusiasm will show through in an interview.

I'm another one of those students who has received callbacks from lottery interviews, so I obviously am happy with the way UT does it, but my guess is that the interviewers who chose me over preselects are fine with it too.

All I'm really saying is that if they're going to do lottery, they should run it first and THEN have the firms do preselects. Then most people would still get lottery on their top two or whatever and have all the benefits related to enthusiasm about a firm, but there wouldn't be quite the same feeling on both sides about lottery selects. This seems like a no-brainer to me; that's why I'm surprised to learn Drew said the lottery comes after preselects.

I've been happy with my lottery interviews, also. But remember, it's a very real possibility that you would have gotten interviews with those firms via preselect if 30% were not blocked off for the lottery.