Top Law Schools

What kind of work experience is valuable come OCI? Would being a high school coach or working at a restaurant help whatsoever versus k-jd interviewees?

funstuff wrote:What kind of work experience is valuable come OCI? Would being a high school coach or working at a restaurant help whatsoever versus k-jd interviewees?

It would help more than having no WE at all.

most bumps for WE involve investment banking or some other type of financial or accounting background...also, some firms like paralegals or people who have seen the inside of a law firm.

food service wont help...weve all worked at subway and chili's and lets be honest.

Got a job with an IP firm due to WE & undergrad major. I didn't even do OCI - they asked for my resume during an on-campus presentation.

Anonymous User wrote:Got a job with an IP firm due to WE & undergrad major. I didn't even do OCI - they asked for my resume during an on-campus presentation.

Agreed. IP is its own beast though. I guess my answer is more tailored for corp (which is my focus).

I think part of the advantage of having some w/e before law school is that you have a better opportunity to seem mature and more focused than a k-jd person. Sure, a elementary PE teacher may not have transferable skills (but who know how you coould spin it), but at least that person has been in the real world.

Richie Tenenbaum wrote:I think part of the advantage of having some w/e before law school is that you have a better opportunity to seem mature and more focused than a k-jd person. Sure, a elementary PE teacher may not have transferable skills (but who know how you coould spin it), but at least that person has been in the real world.

CR. Usually people who even only work for 1 year have interviewed at least 1 person or have a good idea of how employers evaluate candidates (you see people get interviewed, hear reactions, etc.). This was really helpful in OCI interviews. Also, it's helpful to get a feel for workplace dynamics and how to deal with problems/challenges in a professional environment so you can relate to the interviewers. If you were client-side and ever worked with or observed lawyers, that can be really helpful as well.

Prior military played great if you want to take the long route.

lawschoolgrapedme wrote:most bumps for WE involve investment banking or some other type of financial or accounting background...also, some firms like paralegals or people who have seen the inside of a law firm.

food service wont help...weve all worked at subway and chili's and lets be honest.

This is a bit disingenuous. The work experience that helps is having a real, substantive, career-type job with responsibilities and such. It doesn't have to be at an investment bank.

Any work experience is better than none. If nothing else, it will take up white space on your resume. But the "work experience bump" (if you will) goes to people with work experience that is substantial enough to signal that you know how to have deadlines and a boss, and manage your career, and how to generally succeed at the things that make work suck.

Renzo wrote:

lawschoolgrapedme wrote:most bumps for WE involve investment banking or some other type of financial or accounting background...also, some firms like paralegals or people who have seen the inside of a law firm.

food service wont help...weve all worked at subway and chili's and lets be honest.

This is a bit disingenuous. The work experience that helps is having a real, substantive, career-type job with responsibilities and such. It doesn't have to be at an investment bank.

Any work experience is better than none. If nothing else, it will take up white space on your resume. But the "work experience bump" (if you will) goes to people with work experience that is substantial enough to signal that you know how to have deadlines and a boss, and manage your career, and how to generally succeed at the things that make work suck.

This. I don't think paralegals get a bump beyond the standard not being a K-JD boost. WE doesn't need to be financial or accounting at all, and I'm assuming that graped has a finance/accounting background.

I'm going to disagree and say that from my experience, the WE bump is not universal at all. In my own case, the firm that eventually hired me liked my WE, but very few other firms seemed to care (I'd also say 99% of my interviewers were K-JD). However, I digress in that I think my background would have played better if I went to a prestigious undergrad or something else prestigious in their background (i.e. TFA, Peace Corps, government fellowships, etc.). The people I know with prestigious backgrounds + WE did by far the best at OCI.

I've also seen WE actively hurt (though not in my case) for people who have very long-term significant public interest experience.

keg411 wrote:I'm going to disagree and say that from my experience, the WE bump is not universal at all. In my own case, the firm that eventually hired me liked my WE, but very few other firms seemed to care (I'd also say 99% of my interviewers were K-JD). However, I digress in that I think my background would have played better if I went to a prestigious undergrad or something else prestigious in their background (i.e. TFA, Peace Corps, government fellowships, etc.). The people I know with prestigious backgrounds + WE did by far the best at OCI.

I've also seen WE actively hurt (though not in my case) for people who have very long-term significant public interest experience.

+1 prestigious undergrad. Law school can mask a TTT UG, but an Ivy UG + T30 school + decent WE + median grades = top half at t14

keg411 wrote: I've also seen WE actively hurt (though not in my case) for people who have very long-term significant public interest experience.

Care to extrapolate? I just don't understand this logic. Are they just afraid that you'll run off after a couple of years? Cause PI places IMO give you significant experience and responsibility. I think you get to do real substantive work since most PI orgs are understaffed. How long is long term anyway?

c3pO4 wrote:

keg411 wrote:I'm going to disagree and say that from my experience, the WE bump is not universal at all. In my own case, the firm that eventually hired me liked my WE, but very few other firms seemed to care (I'd also say 99% of my interviewers were K-JD). However, I digress in that I think my background would have played better if I went to a prestigious undergrad or something else prestigious in their background (i.e. TFA, Peace Corps, government fellowships, etc.). The people I know with prestigious backgrounds + WE did by far the best at OCI.

I've also seen WE actively hurt (though not in my case) for people who have very long-term significant public interest experience.

+1 prestigious undergrad. Law school can mask a TTT UG, but an Ivy UG + T30 school + decent WE + median grades = top half at t14

This varies greatly by market and firm.

adonai wrote:

keg411 wrote: I've also seen WE actively hurt (though not in my case) for people who have very long-term significant public interest experience.

Care to extrapolate? I just don't understand this logic. Are they just afraid that you'll run off after a couple of years? Cause PI places IMO give you significant experience and responsibility. I think you get to do real substantive work since most PI orgs are understaffed. How long is long term anyway?

If you can spin it well, it won't hurt you (unless you're at a pre-select school). I mean, yes, the firm would probably prefer you were doing the work that their big institutional bank clients do, so in that sense former i-bankers and traders are probably going to out-perform you, but you should have expected that anyway.

c3pO4 wrote:

keg411 wrote:I'm going to disagree and say that from my experience, the WE bump is not universal at all. In my own case, the firm that eventually hired me liked my WE, but very few other firms seemed to care (I'd also say 99% of my interviewers were K-JD). However, I digress in that I think my background would have played better if I went to a prestigious undergrad or something else prestigious in their background (i.e. TFA, Peace Corps, government fellowships, etc.). The people I know with prestigious backgrounds + WE did by far the best at OCI.

I've also seen WE actively hurt (though not in my case) for people who have very long-term significant public interest experience.

+1 prestigious undergrad. Law school can mask a TTT UG, but an Ivy UG + T30 school + decent WE + median grades = top half at t14

I found this to be so. Edit: except for the "median grades" part.

Another question if y'all don't mind. I've heard that sales can be helpful for OCI. Does that just mean Sales at Verizon Wireless, sales ala Jim & Dwight in the Office, etc. or something else?

IAFG wrote:

adonai wrote:

keg411 wrote: I've also seen WE actively hurt (though not in my case) for people who have very long-term significant public interest experience.

Care to extrapolate? I just don't understand this logic. Are they just afraid that you'll run off after a couple of years? Cause PI places IMO give you significant experience and responsibility. I think you get to do real substantive work since most PI orgs are understaffed. How long is long term anyway?

If you can spin it well, it won't hurt you (unless you're at a pre-select school). I mean, yes, the firm would probably prefer you were doing the work that their big institutional bank clients do, so in that sense former i-bankers and traders are probably going to out-perform you, but you should have expected that anyway.

Not at a pre-select school. Know someone who was dinged based on it, which is why I wrote what I did in the first place. It was ultimately a "fit" determination. Granted, it's certainly possible this person didn't spin it well (or didn't really want BigLaw), but there is a chance that BigLaw could be weary.

c3pO4 wrote: +1 prestigious undergrad. Law school can mask a TTT UG, but an Ivy UG + T30 school + decent WE + median grades = top half at t14

I've never thought about it like that, but that equation makes a lot of sense at my school for the people that did well at OCI.

monkey85 wrote:

c3pO4 wrote: +1 prestigious undergrad. Law school can mask a TTT UG, but an Ivy UG + T30 school + decent WE + median grades = top half at t14

I've never thought about it like that, but that equation makes a lot of sense at my school for the people that did well at OCI.

It makes sense. If you are hiring someone and you have somebody who got strait A's at Moron State U and an A- average at a T30 school versus somebody who graduated from a top 5 UG with B's at the T30, there is no way you think the MSU kid is smarter---the difference between median and top 30% in 1L given randomness of grading and curves is MUCH smaller than the difference between matriculating at MSU and Harvard. MAYBE you think they worked harder in 1L, but if the Ivy UG kid has entry level F500 WE with proven track record, you know they can work hard. The MSU kid probably was a store manager at Blockbuster. So now you know they are smarter and they can work hard. Easy hire. The Ivy UG kid at a T30 = if this MSU kid went to T14 and got into top half.

c3pO4 wrote:

monkey85 wrote:

c3pO4 wrote: +1 prestigious undergrad. Law school can mask a TTT UG, but an Ivy UG + T30 school + decent WE + median grades = top half at t14

I've never thought about it like that, but that equation makes a lot of sense at my school for the people that did well at OCI.

It makes sense. If you are hiring someone and you have somebody who got strait A's at Moron State U and an A- average at a T30 school versus somebody who graduated from a top 5 UG with B's at the T30, there is no way you think the MSU kid is smarter---the difference between median and top 30% in 1L given randomness of grading and curves is MUCH smaller than the difference between matriculating at MSU and Harvard. MAYBE you think they worked harder in 1L, but if the Ivy UG kid has entry level F500 WE with proven track record, you know they can work hard. The MSU kid probably was a store manager at Blockbuster. So now you know they are smarter and they can work hard. Easy hire. The Ivy UG kid at a T30 = if this MSU kid went to T14 and got into top half.

This is exactly the call that every lawl and med school adcom makes on a daily basis (although the lawl schools are arguably doing it just to game USNWR).

mrloblaw wrote:

c3pO4 wrote:

monkey85 wrote:

c3pO4 wrote: +1 prestigious undergrad. Law school can mask a TTT UG, but an Ivy UG + T30 school + decent WE + median grades = top half at t14

I've never thought about it like that, but that equation makes a lot of sense at my school for the people that did well at OCI.

It makes sense. If you are hiring someone and you have somebody who got strait A's at Moron State U and an A- average at a T30 school versus somebody who graduated from a top 5 UG with B's at the T30, there is no way you think the MSU kid is smarter---the difference between median and top 30% in 1L given randomness of grading and curves is MUCH smaller than the difference between matriculating at MSU and Harvard. MAYBE you think they worked harder in 1L, but if the Ivy UG kid has entry level F500 WE with proven track record, you know they can work hard. The MSU kid probably was a store manager at Blockbuster. So now you know they are smarter and they can work hard. Easy hire. The Ivy UG kid at a T30 = if this MSU kid went to T14 and got into top half.

This is exactly the call that every lawl and med school adcom makes on a daily basis (although the lawl schools are arguably doing it just to game USNWR).

Not sure I follow. The parallel is people who hire out of medschool, not lawl/medschool apps. In my hypo goth kids could have EQ UG gpas -- the question is about how employers view the combination of TTT UG + T14 LS and T5 UG + T30 LS.

c3pO4 wrote:
Not sure I follow. The parallel is people who hire out of medschool, not lawl/medschool apps. In my hypo goth kids could have EQ UG gpas -- the question is about how employers view the combination of TTT UG + T14 LS and T5 UG + T30 LS.

I guess I took the first sentence slightly out of context: it looked like you were doing offers as a function of UG, UG-GPA, and LS-GPA.

I guess I don't understand the fixation on ivies. I've met some pretty dumb kids who came out of Harvard and Princeton with solid grades in fluff majors.

mrloblaw wrote:

c3pO4 wrote:
Not sure I follow. The parallel is people who hire out of medschool, not lawl/medschool apps. In my hypo goth kids could have EQ UG gpas -- the question is about how employers view the combination of TTT UG + T14 LS and T5 UG + T30 LS.

I guess I took the first sentence slightly out of context: it looked like you were doing offers as a function of UG, UG-GPA, and LS-GPA.

I guess I don't understand the fixation on ivies. I've met some pretty dumb kids who came out of Harvard and Princeton with solid grades in fluff majors.

They are more marketable on a firm bio, though. I'm not saying they are objectively smarter, just talking about chances of landing job in OCI.

at our T25, the EIC of the law review graduated summa cum laude from a third-tier state U
apparently she got excellent grades in her first year here (top 1 or 2)

what do you think? I do not want to believe that she is really the smartest person out there. There are probably a bunch of smarties there (good grades or just average grades). Aceing a law school exam =/= smart in every way.