Top Law Schools

Hastings 3L here. I called Career Services, and they said that their policy is not to reveal who got OCI interviews through preselect or lottery. I got a lottery interview slot for a big law firm last fall, and it was a humiliating experience because the interviewer smirked when he saw my transcript and told me that I did not have a chance. I am terribly afraid of experiencing that again.

My stats: average grades (top 50%), secondary journal, RA 1L summer, consulting firm 2L summer. Nothing stellar, and the firm that I am interviewing with explicitly says "top 10% preferred."

Should I cancel this interview? If it was a lottery slot I got, then I would rather give someone else this opportunity and surrender my slot. Any advice would be appreciated.

This isn't helpful, but I don't understand the point of doing lottery interviews. Preselect makes sense because a firm won't interview someone they wouldn't hire because of grades. Lottery just seems like it's wasting both people's time.

beach_terror wrote:This isn't helpful, but I don't understand the point of doing lottery interviews. Preselect makes sense because a firm won't interview someone they wouldn't hire because of grades. Lottery just seems like it's wasting both people's time.

I agree, totally! Hastings Career Office keeps saying that they want people to participate and give everyone a chance, but it doesn't make sense for the firm to interview someone who doesn't have a shot anyway. And it doesn't make sense for the student (who does not otherwise qualify) to waste time and energy on this. It's so pointless.

I feel that it's not very good tact for the interviewer to humiliate you like that. Even if you won't be joining his firm, you may become a successful attorney elsewhere and people's paths do cross. There's nothing wrong for him to be honest about your chances but he should not humiliate you. I think you should take this interview as a practice in how to deal with difficult questions, and if this interviewer is as bad as your last experience, how to deal with difficult people. If you do that well, you can shine despite not being in the top 10%. You'll also be memorable in a good way even if it's strict firm policy not to hire below 10%. Just take this interview slot as part of the training to milk more out of the beaucoup tuition & fees that you pay each year.

Anonymous User wrote:I feel that it's not very good tact for the interviewer to humiliate you like that. Even if you won't be joining his firm, you may become a successful attorney elsewhere and people's paths do cross. There's nothing wrong for him to be honest about your chances but he should not humiliate you. I think you should take this interview as a practice in how to deal with difficult questions, and if this interviewer is as bad as your last experience, how to deal with difficult people. If you do that well, you can shine despite not being in the top 10%. You'll also be memorable in a good way even if it's strict firm policy not to hire below 10%. Just take this interview slot as part of the training to milk more out of the beaucoup tuition & fees that you pay each year.

+1, but I'm less forgiving of the OP. If an interviewer opened with that, I'd say something like, "I appreciate your forthrightness, but we've got 18 minutes left and I'd like to take it to explain why I'd be a perfect fit at Cravath." I suspect the odds would be long, but there's no way I'd leave until I'd given it a real shot. Getting a job outside of a top school isn't for shrinking violets ITE and you need to be all right with that. Who cares if your next interview is lottery or pre-select? Go. Do well. Don't be this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbZEkFLXh9Y

Unfortunately I don't think there's any way to find out whether it's a lottery interview or not. The only way to tell would be if Career Services explicitly told you it was one or the other. But I agree that no matter what, you should just go in there and do your best, and if the interviewer is a jerk to you because of your stats or whatever, that's their problem, not yours.

More than just probable one of my Wednesday interviews is a lottery one. Just checked now only to find that it requires top 25%...and I'm only top half.

Oh well. I guess for that one, I just need to come up with a clever response in the even the interviewer smirks at my transcript and says "Not a chance."

beach_terror wrote:This isn't helpful, but I don't understand the point of doing lottery interviews. Preselect makes sense because a firm won't interview someone they wouldn't hire because of grades. Lottery just seems like it's wasting both people's time.

Lotteries make sense when a large portion of the class meets most firms' grade cutoffs and those firms are making their decisions based largely on interest, personality, and fit. Lotteries assume that student self-selection (expressed via bid rankings and subsequent adjustment) is a better way to fill interview slots than picking among candidates who have no GPAs, no class rank, and who all have strong resumes. This probably explains why HYS are exclusively lottery, for instance.

smittytron3k wrote:

beach_terror wrote:This isn't helpful, but I don't understand the point of doing lottery interviews. Preselect makes sense because a firm won't interview someone they wouldn't hire because of grades. Lottery just seems like it's wasting both people's time.

Lotteries make sense when a large portion of the class meets most firms' grade cutoffs and those firms are making their decisions based largely on interest, personality, and fit. Lotteries assume that student self-selection (expressed via bid rankings and subsequent adjustment) is a better way to fill interview slots than picking among candidates who have no GPAs, no class rank, and who all have strong resumes. This probably explains why HYS are exclusively lottery, for instance.

Most other top schools with the exception of UVA also use lotteries exclusively.

beach_terror wrote:This isn't helpful, but I don't understand the point of doing lottery interviews. Preselect makes sense because a firm won't interview someone they wouldn't hire because of grades. Lottery just seems like it's wasting both people's time.

Lottery makes sense for those at the top. At my school, for example, most firms take students from the top 25%, which is about 60 individuals. Most of the firms only interview 30-40 candidates at OCI. Since the firm has to choose among equally qualified individuals, student preference gets to play a role through lottery.

Don't blame the lottery, blame the students who bid unrealistically.

Cupidity wrote:

beach_terror wrote:
Don't blame the lottery, blame the students who bid unrealistically.

This. And shame on career services who do not provide students with enough information helping students to make informed bidding decisions instead of relying on firm posted grade cutoffs.