TLS v. OCS! ROUND 1! FIGHT! Forum

[Anonymous User]

So I had a question about OCS vs. TLS, which I originally posted in my school's OCI thread, with the note that it might be worth its own topic. Since then, I've come to think it does.

TLS and OCS in at least a few schools seem to disagree with each other about several basic EIP issues. The first few, below, are what I noticed in my school, and posted in that other thread.

TLS says that the most important thing is odds - it's better to bid on a somewhat selective firm with a huge class than a unselective one with 7 summer associates. For example, there are V20s who historically have taken large portions of their class from median and OCS still calls them "selective firms". OCS recommends using firms in the lower rankings as safeties, since they are less selective, although they may only hire 5-7 summer associates.

TLS says that (leaving aside the so-prestigious-they're-douchy firms) Wachtell is super selective, SullCrom and Cravath somewhat less, and then the order is something like DPW, Paul Weiss, Cleary, Debevoise, Gibson Dunn, Kirkland. OCS seems to lump them all together.

TLS says that the main concern is getting a job, so use firms with big classes that aren't so selective as safeties. OCS says that you should choose firms that do what you want to do. In this case, there's a third party - me - and I say that what I want to do is get a job doing interesting work that will allow me some exit options. (ETA: Frankly, this bugs me. If I want to do IP litigation, I am a big boy or girl and I will say that. I don't. I want to maximize my odds of getting a good job, which is my prerogative. It is not empowering to tell me that I should find something I'll love, and then disparage my choice to value pragmatism over lifestyle.)

I'm not sure if I should listen to my intuition, which leans more TLS, or to OCS, who theoretically has the experience and data to back up what they say. While I may think I'm right, I also have nightmares about not getting a job because I didn't listen to OCS.

The thing that put me over the edge and pushed me to start a general topic about it was a conversation with a friend at another school. For illustrative purposes, say he's top 1/3 @ CCN. He is a K-JD with an utterly blank resume and a crap undergrad. Think University of Phoenix.

We had discussed different firms, and I had told him to spread his bids about 1/3 in the V20, 1/3 up to V50, and 1/3 V50 and on. Frankly, I thought that was conservative. If top third at CCN can't get a bite in the V50, things are pretty bad.

He met with his OCS, and they basically dug out some firms from the bottom of an old dusty pile of the Chambers book. They told him to maybe try New Jersey and Philadelphia, and be prepared to settle for less than market. I looked up one of the firms and they hire basically 3 summers. They are not ranked by Vault, and they have a couple lawyers in band 3 and 4 of Chambers. So who is crazy here? Is it OCS, who thinks that he is safer from his position getting a non-market offer in an office with 3 summers, or is it me, who thinks that he is pretty safe from top third at CCN even though his previous resume sucks?

I am also very interested in people's experience with their OCS as compared to TLS wisdom. If you went through OCI with the two viewpoints in your ear, how did it turn out? Who was right and who was wrong?

[chasgoose]

At NYU our OCS pretty much echoes the wisdom from TLS. They are a bit less forthcoming with specifics (particularly bid/screener ratios) and their extensive knowledge diminishes the further you get from NYC, but they mostly know what they are doing and have been indispensable throughout this process.

[timbs4339]

So I had a question about OCS vs. TLS, which I originally posted in my school's OCI thread, with the note that it might be worth its own topic. Since then, I've come to think it does.

TLS and OCS in at least a few schools seem to disagree with each other about several basic EIP issues. The first few, below, are what I noticed in my school, and posted in that other thread.

TLS says that the most important thing is odds - it's better to bid on a somewhat selective firm with a huge class than a unselective one with 7 summer associates. For example, there are V20s who historically have taken large portions of their class from median and OCS still calls them "selective firms". OCS recommends using firms in the lower rankings as safeties, since they are less selective, although they may only hire 5-7 summer associates.

TLS says that (leaving aside the so-prestigious-they're-douchy firms) Wachtell is super selective, SullCrom and Cravath somewhat less, and then the order is something like DPW, Paul Weiss, Cleary, Debevoise, Gibson Dunn, Kirkland. OCS seems to lump them all together.

TLS says that the main concern is getting a job, so use firms with big classes that aren't so selective as safeties. OCS says that you should choose firms that do what you want to do. In this case, there's a third party - me - and I say that what I want to do is get a job doing interesting work that will allow me some exit options. (ETA: Frankly, this bugs me. If I want to do IP litigation, I am a big boy or girl and I will say that. I don't. I want to maximize my odds of getting a good job, which is my prerogative. It is not empowering to tell me that I should find something I'll love, and then disparage my choice to value pragmatism over lifestyle.)

I'm not sure if I should listen to my intuition, which leans more TLS, or to OCS, who theoretically has the experience and data to back up what they say. While I may think I'm right, I also have nightmares about not getting a job because I didn't listen to OCS.

The thing that put me over the edge and pushed me to start a general topic about it was a conversation with a friend at another school. For illustrative purposes, say he's top 1/3 @ CCN. He is a K-JD with an utterly blank resume and a crap undergrad. Think University of Phoenix.

We had discussed different firms, and I had told him to spread his bids about 1/3 in the V20, 1/3 up to V50, and 1/3 V50 and on. Frankly, I thought that was conservative. If top third at CCN can't get a bite in the V50, things are pretty bad.

He met with his OCS, and they basically dug out some firms from the bottom of an old dusty pile of the Chambers book. They told him to maybe try New Jersey and Philadelphia, and be prepared to settle for less than market. I looked up one of the firms and they hire basically 3 summers. They are not ranked by Vault, and they have a couple lawyers in band 3 and 4 of Chambers. So who is crazy here? Is it OCS, who thinks that he is safer from his position getting a non-market offer in an office with 3 summers, or is it me, who thinks that he is pretty safe from top third at CCN even though his previous resume sucks?

I am also very interested in people's experience with their OCS as compared to TLS wisdom. If you went through OCI with the two viewpoints in your ear, how did it turn out? Who was right and who was wrong?

So you go to CLS, right?

I got pretty screwed over following my OCS bid advice. But your friend should be bidding on V20 or V10 firms as long as he has a wide variety of other firms. It would be foolish for him to bid on NJ/Philly firms (assuming he is at CLS and Stone).

The thing about "pick firms that do what you want to do" is that 1) generally you don't have any idea what the fuck you want to do that's more specific than "litigation or corporate" and 2) large 501+ person firms do pretty much everything.

[Anonymous User]

So I had a question about OCS vs. TLS, which I originally posted in my school's OCI thread, with the note that it might be worth its own topic. Since then, I've come to think it does.

TLS and OCS in at least a few schools seem to disagree with each other about several basic EIP issues. The first few, below, are what I noticed in my school, and posted in that other thread.

TLS says that the most important thing is odds - it's better to bid on a somewhat selective firm with a huge class than a unselective one with 7 summer associates. For example, there are V20s who historically have taken large portions of their class from median and OCS still calls them "selective firms". OCS recommends using firms in the lower rankings as safeties, since they are less selective, although they may only hire 5-7 summer associates.

TLS says that (leaving aside the so-prestigious-they're-douchy firms) Wachtell is super selective, SullCrom and Cravath somewhat less, and then the order is something like DPW, Paul Weiss, Cleary, Debevoise, Gibson Dunn, Kirkland. OCS seems to lump them all together.

TLS says that the main concern is getting a job, so use firms with big classes that aren't so selective as safeties. OCS says that you should choose firms that do what you want to do. In this case, there's a third party - me - and I say that what I want to do is get a job doing interesting work that will allow me some exit options. (ETA: Frankly, this bugs me. If I want to do IP litigation, I am a big boy or girl and I will say that. I don't. I want to maximize my odds of getting a good job, which is my prerogative. It is not empowering to tell me that I should find something I'll love, and then disparage my choice to value pragmatism over lifestyle.)

I'm not sure if I should listen to my intuition, which leans more TLS, or to OCS, who theoretically has the experience and data to back up what they say. While I may think I'm right, I also have nightmares about not getting a job because I didn't listen to OCS.

The thing that put me over the edge and pushed me to start a general topic about it was a conversation with a friend at another school. For illustrative purposes, say he's top 1/3 @ CCN. He is a K-JD with an utterly blank resume and a crap undergrad. Think University of Phoenix.

We had discussed different firms, and I had told him to spread his bids about 1/3 in the V20, 1/3 up to V50, and 1/3 V50 and on. Frankly, I thought that was conservative. If top third at CCN can't get a bite in the V50, things are pretty bad.

He met with his OCS, and they basically dug out some firms from the bottom of an old dusty pile of the Chambers book. They told him to maybe try New Jersey and Philadelphia, and be prepared to settle for less than market. I looked up one of the firms and they hire basically 3 summers. They are not ranked by Vault, and they have a couple lawyers in band 3 and 4 of Chambers. So who is crazy here? Is it OCS, who thinks that he is safer from his position getting a non-market offer in an office with 3 summers, or is it me, who thinks that he is pretty safe from top third at CCN even though his previous resume sucks?

I am also very interested in people's experience with their OCS as compared to TLS wisdom. If you went through OCI with the two viewpoints in your ear, how did it turn out? Who was right and who was wrong?

So you go to CLS, right?

I got pretty screwed over following my OCS bid advice. But your friend should be bidding on V20 or V10 firms as long as he has a wide variety of other firms. It would be foolish for him to bid on NJ/Philly firms (assuming he is at CLS and Stone).

The thing about "pick firms that do what you want to do" is that 1) generally you don't have any idea what the fuck you want to do that's more specific than "litigation or corporate" and 2) large 501+ person firms do pretty much everything.

OP here. Not at CLS. But it's not school specific anyway, this friend and I are at different schools.

How did your OCS advice screw you over? What was your initial opinion, and how did you change based on their advice? What was the end result?

[dixiecupdrinking]

I echo chasgoose that NYU's OCS is phenomenal. Their advice echoed the TLS conventional wisdom in all the right ways but was also specific enough to be an indispensable resource. I feel for everyone at schools with bad career people.

That said -- I'd say this depends a bit on what school you're at. If you're at a T50 school or something, then for all intents and purposes it might be true that Kirkland and Cravath are basically equally selective (as in, either way you gotta be top 5%). If you're at a T14 school though, then, yeah that's almost criminal advice.

Yeah okay as I go through this your OCS sounds pretty bad. The "do what you love!" thing is frankly a telltale sign that they have given up on the notion that they can get everyone jobs. At NYU they're like, do what you love if you can get the job, but if not, apply to these places because they need people and then give us a list of where you did callbacks and we will call their asses until they hire you.

[Anonymous User]

I echo chasgoose that NYU's OCS is phenomenal. Their advice echoed the TLS conventional wisdom in all the right ways but was also specific enough to be an indispensable resource. I feel for everyone at schools with bad career people.

That said -- I'd say this depends a bit on what school you're at. If you're at a T50 school or something, then for all intents and purposes it might be true that Kirkland and Cravath are basically equally selective (as in, either way you gotta be top 5%). If you're at a T14 school though, then, yeah that's almost criminal advice.

Yeah okay as I go through this your OCS sounds pretty bad. The "do what you love!" thing is frankly a telltale sign that they have given up on the notion that they can get everyone jobs. At NYU they're like, do what you love if you can get the job, but if not, apply to these places because they need people and then give us a list of where you did callbacks and we will call their asses until they hire you.

OP. That's not what I think it is. My friend and I are in similar positions. His grades are slightly better, maybe, depending on how you compare schools. My resume is fuller. Both of us are, according to TLS, at least competitive for at least a few V10s. And yet our OCSs from different schools, both rained on us pretty heavily. Mine sent me to the V50 as a starting point, his OCS was like, have you heard of Personal Injury practice? Okay, I'm exaggerating, but not by much.

[Myself]

.

[Anonymous User]

I echo chasgoose that NYU's OCS is phenomenal. Their advice echoed the TLS conventional wisdom in all the right ways but was also specific enough to be an indispensable resource. I feel for everyone at schools with bad career people.

That said -- I'd say this depends a bit on what school you're at. If you're at a T50 school or something, then for all intents and purposes it might be true that Kirkland and Cravath are basically equally selective (as in, either way you gotta be top 5%). If you're at a T14 school though, then, yeah that's almost criminal advice.

Yeah okay as I go through this your OCS sounds pretty bad. The "do what you love!" thing is frankly a telltale sign that they have given up on the notion that they can get everyone jobs. At NYU they're like, do what you love if you can get the job, but if not, apply to these places because they need people and then give us a list of where you did callbacks and we will call their asses until they hire you.

OP. That's not what I think it is. My friend and I are in similar positions. His grades are slightly better, maybe, depending on how you compare schools. My resume is fuller. Both of us are, according to TLS, at least competitive for at least a few V10s. And yet our OCSs from different schools, both rained on us pretty heavily. Mine sent me to the V50 as a starting point, his OCS was like, have you heard of Personal Injury practice? Okay, I'm exaggerating, but not by much.

Grades/school?

[dixiecupdrinking]

I echo chasgoose that NYU's OCS is phenomenal. Their advice echoed the TLS conventional wisdom in all the right ways but was also specific enough to be an indispensable resource. I feel for everyone at schools with bad career people.

That said -- I'd say this depends a bit on what school you're at. If you're at a T50 school or something, then for all intents and purposes it might be true that Kirkland and Cravath are basically equally selective (as in, either way you gotta be top 5%). If you're at a T14 school though, then, yeah that's almost criminal advice.

Yeah okay as I go through this your OCS sounds pretty bad. The "do what you love!" thing is frankly a telltale sign that they have given up on the notion that they can get everyone jobs. At NYU they're like, do what you love if you can get the job, but if not, apply to these places because they need people and then give us a list of where you did callbacks and we will call their asses until they hire you.

OP. That's not what I think it is. My friend and I are in similar positions. His grades are slightly better, maybe, depending on how you compare schools. My resume is fuller. Both of us are, according to TLS, at least competitive for at least a few V10s. And yet our OCSs from different schools, both rained on us pretty heavily. Mine sent me to the V50 as a starting point, his OCS was like, have you heard of Personal Injury practice? Okay, I'm exaggerating, but not by much.

All I can say is I didn't realize how lucky we were to have a good office until hearing some of these stories. It sucks not to know whether or not you can trust the people who get paid solely to give you this advice.

[Anonymous User]

I echo chasgoose that NYU's OCS is phenomenal. Their advice echoed the TLS conventional wisdom in all the right ways but was also specific enough to be an indispensable resource. I feel for everyone at schools with bad career people.

That said -- I'd say this depends a bit on what school you're at. If you're at a T50 school or something, then for all intents and purposes it might be true that Kirkland and Cravath are basically equally selective (as in, either way you gotta be top 5%). If you're at a T14 school though, then, yeah that's almost criminal advice.

Yeah okay as I go through this your OCS sounds pretty bad. The "do what you love!" thing is frankly a telltale sign that they have given up on the notion that they can get everyone jobs. At NYU they're like, do what you love if you can get the job, but if not, apply to these places because they need people and then give us a list of where you did callbacks and we will call their asses until they hire you.

OP. That's not what I think it is. My friend and I are in similar positions. His grades are slightly better, maybe, depending on how you compare schools. My resume is fuller. Both of us are, according to TLS, at least competitive for at least a few V10s. And yet our OCSs from different schools, both rained on us pretty heavily. Mine sent me to the V50 as a starting point, his OCS was like, have you heard of Personal Injury practice? Okay, I'm exaggerating, but not by much.

Grades/school?

Like I said above, my friend is top 1/3 at CCN with a blank resume, and I'm median-ish at HYS with a better, albeit not great, resume. Actually, I didn't say my grades above.

[Anonymous User]

OCS is seriously dumb. You guys should be good applying to all the v10-v50 firms and most of the v10 firms also...

[prezidentv8]

(ETA: Frankly, this bugs me. If I want to do IP litigation, I am a big boy or girl and I will say that. I don't. I want to maximize my odds of getting a good job, which is my prerogative. It is not empowering to tell me that I should find something I'll love, and then disparage my choice to value pragmatism over lifestyle.)

QFT

[chasgoose]

I echo chasgoose that NYU's OCS is phenomenal. Their advice echoed the TLS conventional wisdom in all the right ways but was also specific enough to be an indispensable resource. I feel for everyone at schools with bad career people.

That said -- I'd say this depends a bit on what school you're at. If you're at a T50 school or something, then for all intents and purposes it might be true that Kirkland and Cravath are basically equally selective (as in, either way you gotta be top 5%). If you're at a T14 school though, then, yeah that's almost criminal advice.

Yeah okay as I go through this your OCS sounds pretty bad. The "do what you love!" thing is frankly a telltale sign that they have given up on the notion that they can get everyone jobs. At NYU they're like, do what you love if you can get the job, but if not, apply to these places because they need people and then give us a list of where you did callbacks and we will call their asses until they hire you.

OP. That's not what I think it is. My friend and I are in similar positions. His grades are slightly better, maybe, depending on how you compare schools. My resume is fuller. Both of us are, according to TLS, at least competitive for at least a few V10s. And yet our OCSs from different schools, both rained on us pretty heavily. Mine sent me to the V50 as a starting point, his OCS was like, have you heard of Personal Injury practice? Okay, I'm exaggerating, but not by much.

All I can say is I didn't realize how lucky we were to have a good office until hearing some of these stories. It sucks not to know whether or not you can trust the people who get paid solely to give you this advice.

Agreed. My interactions with OCS have been nothing short of great. You have to help them help you a bit, since they do start off giving fairly generic advice. But when they start suggesting things that you know are off track just tell them and they will quickly get the picture.

[rayiner]

Yeah, go with TLS on this one. Though, I do kind of agree that the non-WLRK V15 are not as disparate in their selectivity as people assume. E.g. I don't think there is anybody for whom Cravath is a reach but Debevoise is a safety.

I'll also say that NU's OCS is extremely helpful, at least my advisor. He basically told me to make my (exhaustively researched) bid list a bit more aggressive, and I'm quite glad I did. A quality OCS makes a huge difference.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, go with TLS on this one. Though, I do kind of agree that the non-WLRK V15 are not as disparate in their selectivity as people assume. E.g. I don't think there is anybody for whom Cravath is a reach but Debevoise is a safety.

I'll also say that NU's OCS is extremely helpful, at least my advisor. He basically told me to make my (exhaustively researched) bid list a bit more aggressive, and I'm quite glad I did. A quality OCS makes a huge difference.

The data at least seems to suggest this is not true. I agree that Cravath as a reach and Debevoise as a safety is unlikely, but the data that some schools make available shows that some V10 firms hire 96% honors students while others hire 55%. I know that there are potentially other explanations, but on its face, it certainly seems that some are significantly less grade selective.

Also, if a firm hires deep down into the class and the firm has a large summer class, it can be much safer for someone above median than another firm that hires three summer associates. Especially if they then only make one offer. The huge classes and 100% offer rates tend to be at bigger, higher ranked firms, so it pays to utilize to the fullest firms which are less selective than you'd expect, rather than just assuming that V10 is V10.

[rayiner]

Yeah, go with TLS on this one. Though, I do kind of agree that the non-WLRK V15 are not as disparate in their selectivity as people assume. E.g. I don't think there is anybody for whom Cravath is a reach but Debevoise is a safety.

I'll also say that NU's OCS is extremely helpful, at least my advisor. He basically told me to make my (exhaustively researched) bid list a bit more aggressive, and I'm quite glad I did. A quality OCS makes a huge difference.

The data at least seems to suggest this is not true. I agree that Cravath as a reach and Debevoise as a safety is unlikely, but the data that some schools make available shows that some V10 firms hire 96% honors students while others hire 55%.

I'm not saying all the firms are completely fungible. Your example is actually a good one. If the honor is Stone at CLS (top 1/3) then you might have Cravath hiring within the top 1/3 (median top 1/4) and K&E hiring within the top 1/2 (median top 1/3). For someone who just makes Stone, then, Cravath is a reach and K&E is a target. In that case, for bidding purposes, there is really no point in breaking down the whole Cravath to K&E range into more than two or three clumps of selectivity.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, go with TLS on this one. Though, I do kind of agree that the non-WLRK V15 are not as disparate in their selectivity as people assume. E.g. I don't think there is anybody for whom Cravath is a reach but Debevoise is a safety.

I'll also say that NU's OCS is extremely helpful, at least my advisor. He basically told me to make my (exhaustively researched) bid list a bit more aggressive, and I'm quite glad I did. A quality OCS makes a huge difference.

Basically this thread has indicated that at least NYU and NU get advice from OCS that matches TLS wisdom. What are experiences in other schools? Do they tend to match? Who do you believe when they disagree about something as concrete as whether to choose a random no name firm or a V30 with a big summer class as a safety?

[piccolittle]

Yeah, go with TLS on this one. Though, I do kind of agree that the non-WLRK V15 are not as disparate in their selectivity as people assume. E.g. I don't think there is anybody for whom Cravath is a reach but Debevoise is a safety.

I'll also say that NU's OCS is extremely helpful, at least my advisor. He basically told me to make my (exhaustively researched) bid list a bit more aggressive, and I'm quite glad I did. A quality OCS makes a huge difference.

Basically this thread has indicated that at least NYU and NU get advice from OCS that matches TLS wisdom. What are experiences in other schools? Do they tend to match? Who do you believe when they disagree about something as concrete as whether to choose a random no name firm or a V30 with a big summer class as a safety?

Our OCS (Columbia, so I suppose that's not as helpful since you've already been talking about us) has been telling people to rank firms in their top ten by preference, and then by ratio. I'm going with ratio all the way down. They have also been telling some of my friends that their bid lists are too aggressive, without specifying what that means or how to make it less so (this to a person on LR). They're also trying to steer some people away from EIP entirely and toward small personal injury firms. Wtf.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah, go with TLS on this one. Though, I do kind of agree that the non-WLRK V15 are not as disparate in their selectivity as people assume. E.g. I don't think there is anybody for whom Cravath is a reach but Debevoise is a safety.

I'll also say that NU's OCS is extremely helpful, at least my advisor. He basically told me to make my (exhaustively researched) bid list a bit more aggressive, and I'm quite glad I did. A quality OCS makes a huge difference.

Basically this thread has indicated that at least NYU and NU get advice from OCS that matches TLS wisdom. What are experiences in other schools? Do they tend to match? Who do you believe when they disagree about something as concrete as whether to choose a random no name firm or a V30 with a big summer class as a safety?

Our OCS (Columbia, so I suppose that's not as helpful since you've already been talking about us) has been telling people to rank firms in their top ten by preference, and then by ratio. I'm going with ratio all the way down. They have also been telling some of my friends that their bid lists are too aggressive, without specifying what that means or how to make it less so (this to a person on LR). They're also trying to steer some people away from EIP entirely and toward small personal injury firms. Wtf.

OP. Well, it's good to know that it's not just one person. Is there any hint of why this might be? Are they explaining themselves? Do they have inside information that suggests a bloodbath, or are they gun-shy from 2010?

[piccolittle]

Yeah, go with TLS on this one. Though, I do kind of agree that the non-WLRK V15 are not as disparate in their selectivity as people assume. E.g. I don't think there is anybody for whom Cravath is a reach but Debevoise is a safety.

I'll also say that NU's OCS is extremely helpful, at least my advisor. He basically told me to make my (exhaustively researched) bid list a bit more aggressive, and I'm quite glad I did. A quality OCS makes a huge difference.

Basically this thread has indicated that at least NYU and NU get advice from OCS that matches TLS wisdom. What are experiences in other schools? Do they tend to match? Who do you believe when they disagree about something as concrete as whether to choose a random no name firm or a V30 with a big summer class as a safety?

Our OCS (Columbia, so I suppose that's not as helpful since you've already been talking about us) has been telling people to rank firms in their top ten by preference, and then by ratio. I'm going with ratio all the way down. They have also been telling some of my friends that their bid lists are too aggressive, without specifying what that means or how to make it less so (this to a person on LR). They're also trying to steer some people away from EIP entirely and toward small personal injury firms. Wtf.

OP. Well, it's good to know that it's not just one person. Is there any hint of why this might be? Are they explaining themselves? Do they have inside information that suggests a bloodbath, or are they gun-shy from 2010?

No explanations. All year before this it's been sunshine and rainbows and unicorns about everyone's EIP job prospects. I suppose they don't want to scare you until they have to.

[Gecko of Doom]

Advice from my OCS (Virginia) has mirrored TLS advice almost exactly.

[timbs4339]

Yeah, go with TLS on this one. Though, I do kind of agree that the non-WLRK V15 are not as disparate in their selectivity as people assume. E.g. I don't think there is anybody for whom Cravath is a reach but Debevoise is a safety.

I'll also say that NU's OCS is extremely helpful, at least my advisor. He basically told me to make my (exhaustively researched) bid list a bit more aggressive, and I'm quite glad I did. A quality OCS makes a huge difference.

Basically this thread has indicated that at least NYU and NU get advice from OCS that matches TLS wisdom. What are experiences in other schools? Do they tend to match? Who do you believe when they disagree about something as concrete as whether to choose a random no name firm or a V30 with a big summer class as a safety?

Our OCS (Columbia, so I suppose that's not as helpful since you've already been talking about us) has been telling people to rank firms in their top ten by preference, and then by ratio. I'm going with ratio all the way down. They have also been telling some of my friends that their bid lists are too aggressive, without specifying what that means or how to make it less so (this to a person on LR). They're also trying to steer some people away from EIP entirely and toward small personal injury firms. Wtf.

I say this with all seriousness. Do not listen to a word CLS OCS says.

[timbs4339]

So I had a question about OCS vs. TLS, which I originally posted in my school's OCI thread, with the note that it might be worth its own topic. Since then, I've come to think it does.

TLS and OCS in at least a few schools seem to disagree with each other about several basic EIP issues. The first few, below, are what I noticed in my school, and posted in that other thread.

TLS says that the most important thing is odds - it's better to bid on a somewhat selective firm with a huge class than a unselective one with 7 summer associates. For example, there are V20s who historically have taken large portions of their class from median and OCS still calls them "selective firms". OCS recommends using firms in the lower rankings as safeties, since they are less selective, although they may only hire 5-7 summer associates.

TLS says that (leaving aside the so-prestigious-they're-douchy firms) Wachtell is super selective, SullCrom and Cravath somewhat less, and then the order is something like DPW, Paul Weiss, Cleary, Debevoise, Gibson Dunn, Kirkland. OCS seems to lump them all together.

TLS says that the main concern is getting a job, so use firms with big classes that aren't so selective as safeties. OCS says that you should choose firms that do what you want to do. In this case, there's a third party - me - and I say that what I want to do is get a job doing interesting work that will allow me some exit options. (ETA: Frankly, this bugs me. If I want to do IP litigation, I am a big boy or girl and I will say that. I don't. I want to maximize my odds of getting a good job, which is my prerogative. It is not empowering to tell me that I should find something I'll love, and then disparage my choice to value pragmatism over lifestyle.)

I'm not sure if I should listen to my intuition, which leans more TLS, or to OCS, who theoretically has the experience and data to back up what they say. While I may think I'm right, I also have nightmares about not getting a job because I didn't listen to OCS.

The thing that put me over the edge and pushed me to start a general topic about it was a conversation with a friend at another school. For illustrative purposes, say he's top 1/3 @ CCN. He is a K-JD with an utterly blank resume and a crap undergrad. Think University of Phoenix.

We had discussed different firms, and I had told him to spread his bids about 1/3 in the V20, 1/3 up to V50, and 1/3 V50 and on. Frankly, I thought that was conservative. If top third at CCN can't get a bite in the V50, things are pretty bad.

He met with his OCS, and they basically dug out some firms from the bottom of an old dusty pile of the Chambers book. They told him to maybe try New Jersey and Philadelphia, and be prepared to settle for less than market. I looked up one of the firms and they hire basically 3 summers. They are not ranked by Vault, and they have a couple lawyers in band 3 and 4 of Chambers. So who is crazy here? Is it OCS, who thinks that he is safer from his position getting a non-market offer in an office with 3 summers, or is it me, who thinks that he is pretty safe from top third at CCN even though his previous resume sucks?

I am also very interested in people's experience with their OCS as compared to TLS wisdom. If you went through OCI with the two viewpoints in your ear, how did it turn out? Who was right and who was wrong?

So you go to CLS, right?

I got pretty screwed over following my OCS bid advice. But your friend should be bidding on V20 or V10 firms as long as he has a wide variety of other firms. It would be foolish for him to bid on NJ/Philly firms (assuming he is at CLS and Stone).

The thing about "pick firms that do what you want to do" is that 1) generally you don't have any idea what the fuck you want to do that's more specific than "litigation or corporate" and 2) large 501+ person firms do pretty much everything.

OP here. Not at CLS. But it's not school specific anyway, this friend and I are at different schools.

How did your OCS advice screw you over? What was your initial opinion, and how did you change based on their advice? What was the end result?

My OCS has a very poor reputation. I wouldn't say they screwed me over- I just trusted them too much. I went in with a bidlist that was built on some pretty piss poor assumptions and bad understanding of how the bidding system and EIP generally worked. OCS did nothing to dissuade me and I ended up wasting a lot of bids on firms that became available on add/drop. Additionally, I was being shut out of my hometown market because most of the firms were calling back 0-3 people and there were 5-6 people with super-high grads grabbing all the CBs. Meanwhile, I ended up with a few callbacks out of 10 or so NYC firms. Not enough for an offer, but I wonder what would have happened if instead of spending my top 15 bids on firms that were going to end up being underbid anyway I'd bid all the large NY firms. I also did not mass mail even though I was the type of applicant that should have been mass mailing. All of this was stuff was helpfully explained to me by a 3L- two months after EIP.

My advice is to just ask everybody you know who might be able to give you information. Don't trust OCS. When I dealt with them they seemed almost annoyed at people who asked detailed questions. They really tried to convey an atmosphere the grades didn't matter, everyone would be just fine (of course when you struck out they called you 'weird'), and that we shouldn't think too hard about bidlists or EIP.

[Aberzombie1892]

Our OCS (Columbia, so I suppose that's not as helpful since you've already been talking about us) has been telling people to rank firms in their top ten by preference, and then by ratio. I'm going with ratio all the way down. They have also been telling some of my friends that their bid lists are too aggressive, without specifying what that means or how to make it less so (this to a person on LR). They're also trying to steer some people away from EIP entirely and toward small personal injury firms. Wtf.

Maybe they are trying to artificially increase their success rate at EIP. It wouldn't be surprising.