Top Law Schools

Those of you who go to schools that have pre-selects, how much better are they than lottery interviews? How often do they turn into callbacks. I ask because I figure my interviews from mass mailings will be about as good.

Does Penn not have employer pre-screening either?

flcath wrote:Does Penn not have employer pre-screening either?

Of course we don't.

Veyron wrote:

flcath wrote:Does Penn not have employer pre-screening either?

Of course not, employer pre-screening during OCI is for plebes.

Whatevs, I wish ND had it.

flcath wrote:

Veyron wrote:

flcath wrote:Does Penn not have employer pre-screening either?

Of course not, employer pre-screening during OCI is for plebes.

Whatevs, I wish ND had it.

Why? Are you top 10% or something?

Veyron wrote:

flcath wrote:

Veyron wrote:

flcath wrote:Does Penn not have employer pre-screening either?

Of course not, employer pre-screening during OCI is for plebes.

Whatevs, I wish ND had it.

Why? Are you top 10% or something?

Pretty close. And on LR.

And bear in mind that the dynamics of Penn (two-thirds of the class has enough of a shot to make it worth doing) differ from those of ND in this regard.

Edit: I also thought that pre-selects were the standard, other than Yale, which for some reason I knew didn't have them... knowing that's not the case makes me feel less irritated with ND.

[quote="Veyron"]Those of you who go to schools that have pre-selects, how much better are they than lottery interviews? How often do they turn into callbacks. I ask because I figure my interviews from mass mailings will be about as good.[/quote


It is impossible to say how often they turn into callbacks, but I am rather certain it is a higher rate. Preselect means that you meet their on-paper guidelines and there is nothing there to ding you yet. Pre-select=pre-ding. With lottery you will have post-drawing dings that heavily affect you. Lottery candidates outside of the T14 are treated like shit.

Preselect still kind of sucks because you get fewer chances, but the selections clearly mean more when you do get picked.

Glock wrote:

Veyron wrote:Those of you who go to schools that have pre-selects, how much better are they than lottery interviews? How often do they turn into callbacks. I ask because I figure my interviews from mass mailings will be about as good.[/quote


It is impossible to say how often they turn into callbacks, but I am rather certain it is a higher rate. Preselect means that you meet their on-paper guidelines and there is nothing there to ding you yet. Pre-select=pre-ding. With lottery you will have post-drawing dings that heavily affect you. Lottery candidates outside of the T14 are treated like shit.

Preselect still kind of sucks because you get fewer chances, but the selections clearly mean more when you do get picked.

Thank you. I should probably clarify that I am equating pre-selects to selections from mass mailing, not trying to understand the relative merits and demerits of the two systems.

Veyron wrote:

Glock wrote:

Veyron wrote:Those of you who go to schools that have pre-selects, how much better are they than lottery interviews? How often do they turn into callbacks. I ask because I figure my interviews from mass mailings will be about as good.[/quote


It is impossible to say how often they turn into callbacks, but I am rather certain it is a higher rate. Preselect means that you meet their on-paper guidelines and there is nothing there to ding you yet. Pre-select=pre-ding. With lottery you will have post-drawing dings that heavily affect you. Lottery candidates outside of the T14 are treated like shit.

Preselect still kind of sucks because you get fewer chances, but the selections clearly mean more when you do get picked.

Thank you. I should probably clarify that I am equating pre-selects to selections from mass mailing, not trying to understand the relative merits and demerits of the two systems.

Lol. This has been a point of contention for me recently.

FWIW, I think an interview from a mass mailing is significantly stronger (will have higher callback potential) than an OCI preselect.

flcath wrote:

Veyron wrote:

Glock wrote:

Veyron wrote:Those of you who go to schools that have pre-selects, how much better are they than lottery interviews? How often do they turn into callbacks. I ask because I figure my interviews from mass mailings will be about as good.[/quote


It is impossible to say how often they turn into callbacks, but I am rather certain it is a higher rate. Preselect means that you meet their on-paper guidelines and there is nothing there to ding you yet. Pre-select=pre-ding. With lottery you will have post-drawing dings that heavily affect you. Lottery candidates outside of the T14 are treated like shit.

Preselect still kind of sucks because you get fewer chances, but the selections clearly mean more when you do get picked.

Thank you. I should probably clarify that I am equating pre-selects to selections from mass mailing, not trying to understand the relative merits and demerits of the two systems.

Lol. This has been a point of contention for me recently.

FWIW, I think an interview from a mass mailing is significantly stronger (will have higher callback potential) than an OCI preselect.

This is my fervent HOPE.

My ranking (in ascending order):

Lottery interview = firm ends up interviewing kids in whom it has literally no interest

Preselect interview = firm got some of its top choices, and fleshed out its schedule with the 'best of the rest'... you might as well interview a full slate, since you're already there, right?

Mass mailing interview = firm actively sought out you, personally, from an essentially infinite pool of applicants, and is expending resources (that would otherwise be conserved) on interviewing you


This is "just so" logic I'm sure you've already considered, but I doubt any CSO tracks callback rates for ad hoc interviews, so it's prolly as good as you're gonna get.

flcath wrote:My ranking (in ascending order):

Lottery interview = firm ends up interviewing kids in whom it has literally no interest

Preselect interview = firm got some of its top choices, and fleshed out its schedule with the 'best of the rest'... you might as well interview a full slate, since you're already there, right?

Mass mailing interview = firm actively sought out you, personally, from an essentially infinite pool of applicants, and is expending resources (that would otherwise be conserved) on interviewing you


This is "just so" logic I'm sure you've already considered, but I doubt any CSO tracks callback rates for ad hoc interviews, so it's prolly as good as you're gonna get.

Well, better than nothing.

Depends if you are in the grade range for the firm. If you aren't in that firms range then not a shot. If your GPA is in their range of grades then you have as good a shot as anyone.

Most mass mail interviews are basically CB's. So obviously they're better than pre-selects or lottery interviews.

flcath wrote:My ranking (in ascending order):

Lottery interview = firm ends up interviewing kids in whom it has literally no interest

Preselect interview = firm got some of its top choices, and fleshed out its schedule with the 'best of the rest'... you might as well interview a full slate, since you're already there, right?

Mass mailing interview = firm actively sought out you, personally, from an essentially infinite pool of applicants, and is expending resources (that would otherwise be conserved) on interviewing you


This is "just so" logic I'm sure you've already considered, but I doubt any CSO tracks callback rates for ad hoc interviews, so it's prolly as good as you're gonna get.

That can be viewed backward as well. There is no real limit to the number of mass mail interviews they take, while OCI has pretty strict limits. On balance I think a mass mail screening interview is more advantageous, but depending on the firm and the OCI we are talking about it could work the other way.

Has anyone who responded here actually had a mass-mailing interview? They are certainly not callback interviews, even if they look like them. I had seven, and only one firm offered to pay for anything. And even though you have multiple interviews, as you would during a callback, they feel like screening interviews--i.e., the interviewers are not really that interested in you, mostly because no one has talked you up to them yet and they haven't invested anything into you.

Glock wrote:

flcath wrote:My ranking (in ascending order):

Lottery interview = firm ends up interviewing kids in whom it has literally no interest

Preselect interview = firm got some of its top choices, and fleshed out its schedule with the 'best of the rest'... you might as well interview a full slate, since you're already there, right?

Mass mailing interview = firm actively sought out you, personally, from an essentially infinite pool of applicants, and is expending resources (that would otherwise be conserved) on interviewing you


This is "just so" logic I'm sure you've already considered, but I doubt any CSO tracks callback rates for ad hoc interviews, so it's prolly as good as you're gonna get.

That can be viewed backward as well. There is no real limit to the number of mass mail interviews they take, while OCI has pretty strict limits. On balance I think a mass mail screening interview is more advantageous, but depending on the firm and the OCI we are talking about it could work the other way.

Yeah that's possible, but I don't think it applies when the OP's school is a constant (as it always is).

So maybe a firm likes more Yale kids than they have interview slots at Yale OCIs, and thus getting a preselect from that firm at Yale's OCIs is highly likely to be fruitful--even moreso than some of the interviews they granted to non-Yalies who resume dropped.

But OP doesn't go to Yale for OCIs and resume drop as a Penn student, so I think the general rule will probably be an absolute rule for any given person.

showNprove wrote:Has anyone who responded here actually had a mass-mailing interview? They are certainly not callback interviews, even if they look like them. I had seven, and only one firm offered to pay for anything. And even though you have multiple interviews, as you would during a callback, they feel like screening interviews--i.e., the interviewers are not really that interested in you, mostly because no one has talked you up to them yet and they haven't invested anything into you.

I'll concede that I'm wrong since I haven't gone on any yet.

flcath wrote:

Glock wrote:

flcath wrote:My ranking (in ascending order):

Lottery interview = firm ends up interviewing kids in whom it has literally no interest

Preselect interview = firm got some of its top choices, and fleshed out its schedule with the 'best of the rest'... you might as well interview a full slate, since you're already there, right?

Mass mailing interview = firm actively sought out you, personally, from an essentially infinite pool of applicants, and is expending resources (that would otherwise be conserved) on interviewing you


This is "just so" logic I'm sure you've already considered, but I doubt any CSO tracks callback rates for ad hoc interviews, so it's prolly as good as you're gonna get.

That can be viewed backward as well. There is no real limit to the number of mass mail interviews they take, while OCI has pretty strict limits. On balance I think a mass mail screening interview is more advantageous, but depending on the firm and the OCI we are talking about it could work the other way.

Yeah that's possible, but I don't think it applies when the OP's school is a constant (as it always is).

So maybe a firm likes more Yale kids than they have interview slots at Yale OCIs, and thus getting a preselect from that firm at Yale's OCIs is highly likely to be fruitful--even moreso than some of the interviews they granted to non-Yalies who resume dropped.

But OP doesn't go to Yale for OCIs and resume drop as a Penn student, so I think the general rule will probably be an absolute rule for any given person.

*Not sure if English*

keg411 wrote:

showNprove wrote:Has anyone who responded here actually had a mass-mailing interview? They are certainly not callback interviews, even if they look like them. I had seven, and only one firm offered to pay for anything. And even though you have multiple interviews, as you would during a callback, they feel like screening interviews--i.e., the interviewers are not really that interested in you, mostly because no one has talked you up to them yet and they haven't invested anything into you.

I'll concede that I'm wrong since I haven't gone on any yet.

I have two next week, and I'm almost certain they are screeners. One firm is just with 1 attorney, so thats an obvious screener. The other I havent gotten the information yet. I don't think they are really any better than a preselect screener.

keg411 wrote:

showNprove wrote:Has anyone who responded here actually had a mass-mailing interview? They are certainly not callback interviews, even if they look like them. I had seven, and only one firm offered to pay for anything. And even though you have multiple interviews, as you would during a callback, they feel like screening interviews--i.e., the interviewers are not really that interested in you, mostly because no one has talked you up to them yet and they haven't invested anything into you.

I'll concede that I'm wrong since I haven't gone on any yet.

I had one. It's a screening interview. I did a half hour with a partner and a half hour with an associate and then got a call that evening for a call-back next week. They treat it as if you just came to their firm to do a screening interview.

With that said... the advantage is that you do get more face time. I was shown the firm, got a half hour with EACH interviewer, and had more of an opportunity to make an impression.

ms2010 wrote:

keg411 wrote:

showNprove wrote:Has anyone who responded here actually had a mass-mailing interview? They are certainly not callback interviews, even if they look like them. I had seven, and only one firm offered to pay for anything. And even though you have multiple interviews, as you would during a callback, they feel like screening interviews--i.e., the interviewers are not really that interested in you, mostly because no one has talked you up to them yet and they haven't invested anything into you.

I'll concede that I'm wrong since I haven't gone on any yet.

I had one. It's a screening interview. I did a half hour with a partner and a half hour with an associate and then got a call that evening for a call-back next week. They treat it as if you just came to their firm to do a screening interview.

With that said... the advantage is that you do get more face time. I was shown the firm, got a half hour with EACH interviewer, and had more of an opportunity to make an impression.

Depends on where and what the circumstance is. The firm I'm visiting in two weeks is paying for lunch and reimbursing mileage for my drive, plus about a 3 hour round of interviews. Unsolicited mass mailing. If that isn't a callback, I don't know what is. I suppose it's possible that there could be be another round, but what are they gonna do that they haven't already if that's the case?

ETA: I agree with flcath about the hierarchy, with the caveat that it may not be the case if you're already in the city the mass mail interview is from. OCI preselects can be the result of there just not being enough people that they're interested in, but they aren't going to pay for your travel or hotel if you aren't a real possibility. Doesn't mean you're a lock, but you've got a shot.

Veyron wrote:

flcath wrote:

Glock wrote:

flcath wrote:My ranking (in ascending order):

Lottery interview = firm ends up interviewing kids in whom it has literally no interest

Preselect interview = firm got some of its top choices, and fleshed out its schedule with the 'best of the rest'... you might as well interview a full slate, since you're already there, right?

Mass mailing interview = firm actively sought out you, personally, from an essentially infinite pool of applicants, and is expending resources (that would otherwise be conserved) on interviewing you


This is "just so" logic I'm sure you've already considered, but I doubt any CSO tracks callback rates for ad hoc interviews, so it's prolly as good as you're gonna get.

That can be viewed backward as well. There is no real limit to the number of mass mail interviews they take, while OCI has pretty strict limits. On balance I think a mass mail screening interview is more advantageous, but depending on the firm and the OCI we are talking about it could work the other way.

Yeah that's possible, but I don't think it applies when the OP's school is a constant (as it always is).

So maybe a firm likes more Yale kids than they have interview slots at Yale OCIs, and thus getting a preselect from that firm at Yale's OCIs is highly likely to be fruitful--even moreso than some of the interviews they granted to non-Yalies who resume dropped.

But OP doesn't go to Yale for OCIs and resume drop as a Penn student, so I think the general rule will probably be an absolute rule for any given person.

*Not sure if English*

All great scholarship is incoherent.

I definitely wish ND had preselect.

Wait, ND is lottery? That must try the patience of many firms.