Top Law Schools

rdy?

Michigan 2013 OCI Thread link below:
http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 3&t=211765

Callbacks are out for (not necessarily accurate):

THURSDAY:
Schulte
Milbank
Kirkland (NY)
Paul Weiss
Jones Day (NY)
Skadden
Sullivan Cromwell
Baker hostler Cleveland
Gibson Dunn dinner (Thurs interviews)
Sutherland

FRIDAY:
White & Case NY
Latham (NY, Chi, Bos)
Paul Weiss NY (Ding)
hogan lovells NY
Jones Day Chi
Linklaters NY
Pillsbury (DC)
Irell (CA)
Allen & Overy (Ding)
Ropes and Gray (Chi, NY)
Latham (LA)
Gibson dunn dinner (Fri interviews)


SATURDAY
Pillsbury CA

SUNDAY
Latham DC
Ropes & Gray CA, Bos, Chi


MONDAY
Mayer Brown Chi
Proskauer NY
Skadden NY
Wilmerhale Bos (Ding)
Wilmerhale NY
Goodwin DC
Latham SV
Sullivan & Cromwell NY
Gibson NY, Denver
Winston & Strawn (Chi)
Crowell & Moring (DC)

TUESDAY
Gibson (Cali)
Gibson (DC)
Kramer Levin
Sidley NY, Chi
Kirkland Chi
Seward Kissel NY
Proskauer NY (Ding)
DPW
Cadwalader NY
Simpson Thatcher NY ding
Gunderson (Bos)
Mayer Brown NY
Clifford chance NY
Jenner CHI
Skadden SV
K&L Gates (CHI)
Katten Muchin
McDermitt (Chi)
Skadden CHI
Kirkland (SF/SV)
A&P Denver
Reed Smith (NY)
Morgan, Lewis (NY)
Miller Johnson (Grand Rapids)

WEDNESDAY
Barack Ferrazzano
Nixon Peabody (SF)
Cravath (Ding)
Dechert (NY)
Debevoise
Goodwin(SV) ding
Pillsbury (NY)
Willkie Farr
Paul Hastings
Akin Gump
Shearman & Sterling (Ding)
Hughes Hubbard (NY)
Venable (DC)
Freshfields NY
Cadwalader (NY Ding)
McDermott
Cleary (NY, Ding)
Cooley (bos)
Miller Nash (OR)

THURSDAY
Linklaters NY (Ding)
Davis Polk NY (Ding)
Dechert SV
White & Case NY (Ding)
Chapman and Cutler (Ding)
Bryan Cave (Ding)
Jones Day SF
Beveridge and diamond (ding)
Jones Day (Cali Ding)
Schiff Hardin
Wilson Sonsini (CA)
Debevoise NY (ding)
Mayer Brown Chi (ding)
Jones Day NY (Ding)

FRIDAY Aug 15
Foley (ding)
Dorsey & Whitney (ding)
Kaye Scholer
Fried, Frank
K&L Gates NY
Cooley PA/NY/Cali (ding)
Sidley NY/DC (Ding)
WH NY ding)
OMM NY (Ding)
OMM NY
Warner Norcross & Judd (Grand Rapids)
Dykema (Grand Rapids)

SATURDAY Aug 16
Maslon (ding snail mail)

MONDAY August 18
DLA Piper (DC
Nixon Peabody (NY)
Simpson Thatcher CA (ding)
Baker & McKenzie

TUESDAY August 19
Weil NYC (ding)
MoFo (NY)
Cooley Cali (CB)
MoFo Cali (ding)

Dykema (Bloomfield Hills)
Arnold & Porter CO (ding)
Miller Canfield Detroit

WEDNESDAY Aug 20
Paul Hastings Cali (ding)
Powers pyles dc
Jaffe
Sheppard Mullin (SF ding)

Monday, Aug 26
Miller Canfield

Wednesday Aug 27
Cadwalader

Well below median here but good WE including an SA this summer and strong market ties. Already working on my mass mail spreadsheet. Gonna go all out trying to snag one.

Was at or slightly below median last year for OCI. Managed to snag big law. Happy to answer Qs. Good luck

Also happy to answer questions and will check throughout the summer. Grades were bad.

Another Michigan grad checking in, happy to answer questions. I know the following markets pretty well: SF, LA, and NYC.

- Michigan '13

Rising 2L here with a 3.33 GPA. Would anyone who's been through it care to give input on my bidlist? Mainly targeting NYC corporate or business lit.

It's not in order, but if you think any firms should be bid higher or lower please advise. Thanks!

Cadwalader
Milbank Tweed
Mayer Brown
Proskauer
Schulte Roth Zabel
Weil Gotshal Manges
Jones Day
Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel
O'Melveny & Myers
Paul Hastings
White & Case
Wilkie Farr & Gallagher
Duane Morris
Sidley Austin
Allen & Overy
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
Clifford Chance
Arnold & Porter
Cahill Gordon
Cooley
Dechert
Greenberg Traurig
Shearman & Sterling
Holland & Knight
Nixon Peabody (Boston)
Ropes & Gray (Boston)
WilmerHale (Boston)
Gunderson Dettmer (Boston)
Goodwin Proctor (Boston)

Anonymous User wrote:Rising 2L here with a 3.33 GPA. Would anyone who's been through it care to give input on my bidlist? Mainly targeting NYC corporate or business lit.

It's not in order, but if you think any firms should be bid higher or lower please advise. Thanks!

Cadwalader
Milbank Tweed
Mayer Brown
Proskauer
Schulte Roth Zabel
Weil Gotshal Manges
Jones Day
Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel
O'Melveny & Myers
Paul Hastings
White & Case
Wilkie Farr & Gallagher
Duane Morris
Sidley Austin
Allen & Overy
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
Clifford Chance
Arnold & Porter
Cahill Gordon
Cooley
Dechert
Greenberg Traurig
Shearman & Sterling
Holland & Knight
Nixon Peabody (Boston)
Ropes & Gray (Boston)
WilmerHale (Boston)
Gunderson Dettmer (Boston)
Goodwin Proctor (Boston)

I'd get rid of the Boston firms. Also I think you're going to have to put Mayer first. Last year people who listed them second didn't get interviews. I'm not sure what O'Melveny's GPA req is but I'm fairly certain its out of your range so you may want to drop them. Same with Jones Day. Put Nixon Peabody in there as well (NY office).

I think the problem you're having is that the GPA's that are listed on the OCI sheet were from the old curve where a 3.3 put you above median. Now that you're below median, you're going to have to adjust this list to get interviews with as many of the firms that hire below median as possible. Adjust the GPA range that you're looking at down a couple GPA points (do the math to figure out how the distribution shifted). Otherwise you're going to go into these interviews and firms will be expecting someone at median or higher and you're going to have a very rough OCI.

scaliaantics wrote: I think the problem you're having is that the GPA's that are listed on the OCI sheet were from the old curve where a 3.3 put you above median. Now that you're below median, you're going to have to adjust this list to get interviews with as many of the firms that hire below median as possible. Adjust the GPA range that you're looking at down a couple GPA points (do the math to figure out how the distribution shifted). Otherwise you're going to go into these interviews and firms will be expecting someone at median or higher and you're going to have a very rough OCI.

I'm also trying to decide how much my gpa (after the curve adjustment) is representative of what firms took from 2009-2013. I've heard that firms don't look much into your class rank (i.e., where you stand relative to the median), but instead focus more on the number. In fact when I talked to OCP the other day I told them my GPA and she told me what firms I should bid for without accounting for this year's curve adjustment. It may be because the numbers are more "guidelines", as she said, but you do hear of firms looking only at the number when deciding whether to give a callback.

Anyway, I'm sure firms do also care about your rank (this after all determines whether you'll get honors). I just wanted to throw that out there.

Anonymous User wrote:

scaliaantics wrote: I think the problem you're having is that the GPA's that are listed on the OCI sheet were from the old curve where a 3.3 put you above median. Now that you're below median, you're going to have to adjust this list to get interviews with as many of the firms that hire below median as possible. Adjust the GPA range that you're looking at down a couple GPA points (do the math to figure out how the distribution shifted). Otherwise you're going to go into these interviews and firms will be expecting someone at median or higher and you're going to have a very rough OCI.

I'm also trying to decide how much my gpa (after the curve adjustment) is representative of what firms took from 2009-2013. I've heard that firms don't look much into your class rank (i.e., where you stand relative to the median), but instead focus more on the number. In fact when I talked to OCP the other day I told them my GPA and she told me what firms I should bid for without accounting for this year's curve adjustment. It may be because the numbers are more "guidelines", as she said, but you do hear of firms looking only at the number when deciding whether to give a callback.

Anyway, I'm sure firms do also care about your rank (this after all determines whether you'll get honors). I just wanted to throw that out there.

You're totally right, which is why you're totally wrong. Firms don't care about your class rank because they don't know it. They know from your GPA number where you stand in your class (they have had years and years of applicants with GPA's to pool from and create a distribution that looks roughly like our bell curve). So up until last year, firms could come in and say we'll take people above a 3.3 because thats top 45% or higher. Over time, the reasoning for why the GPA cutoff disappeared and the first part of the sentence held steady.

I'm guessing the reason OCP gave you advice was because they adjusted your GPA down to what last years distribution was and gave he same advice they wold have given someone last year. I think thats totally fair advice (assuming you think anything OCP says isn't complete bullshit).

The numbers are more guidelines, but don't trick yourself into thinking the numbers are guidelines like the Pirates Code is a set of guidelines. Think of it as a rubric where the borders may be fuzzy but that has strict groups that your GPA puts you into. If you're really close one way or another, it may, though probably wont, make a difference. But if the 25th percentile GPA is a 3.4, and you're not a URM, and you have a 3.28, I wouldn't waste a bid.

Talking to friends at other similarly ranked schools, the GPA "cutoffs" that appear on the data OCP makes available (i.e. what the lowest offered GPA was) here at Michigan, is similar if not the same at cutoffs at other schools. Thus, a firm who took a 3.5 as their lowest GPA here I know has the same cutoff at Duke and Northwestern.

My point is, I think the new curve is meant to help Mich. students in this position. I could be wrong, and if someone has better inside information than I do I am willing to admit it, but I don't think firms think about what % in your class a 3.5 is at Michigan vs. Duke vs. Northwestern. They are similar enough to have made the cutoff universal to similarly ranked schools in many cases.

I don't think we need to "adjust" the information OCP gives us as much as some people might think. Does the new curve mean there will be more people above a 3.5? Yes. But I think this also means, in most cases, a given firm would consider more people now.

Anyways, above poster, Mayer Brown stood out for me on your list--if I recall correctly from the data sent out yesterday, has a really low (like 9%?) interview to callback ratio. And also a really low bid to interview rate. I am not sure its worth it for such a small class, but that's just me.

I don't think we need to "adjust" the information OCP gives us as much as some people might think. Does the new curve mean there will be more people above a 3.5? Yes. But I think this also means, in most cases, a given firm would consider more people now.

Rising 3L, I agree. The idea that firms spend time creating bell curves for each school based on accumulated interview data is insane. They create hard cutoffs, and go to each school in a certain range with them. Hence why Michigan, with it's lower than T10-average curve, has been getting relatively slaughtered in recent years, and why the curve was raised.

To bid list poster: Anecdotally, a lot of the less selective firms had a 3.3 floor last year so I'd say you're in an OK spot, but still bid conservatively. If you want Mayer it has to be #1, I didn't get it at #2 last year. Disagree about O'Melveny, you're good for them numbers wise if it's the NY office, but they have a really small class. Also, if you want Clifford or A&O they need to come up.

Anonymous User wrote:

I don't think we need to "adjust" the information OCP gives us as much as some people might think. Does the new curve mean there will be more people above a 3.5? Yes. But I think this also means, in most cases, a given firm would consider more people now.

Rising 3L, I agree. The idea that firms spend time creating bell curves for each school based on accumulated interview data is insane. They create hard cutoffs, and go to each school in a certain range with them. Hence why Michigan, with it's lower than T10-average curve, has been getting relatively slaughtered in recent years, and why the curve was raised.

To bid list poster: Anecdotally, a lot of the less selective firms had a 3.3 floor last year so I'd say you're in an OK spot, but still bid conservatively. If you want Mayer it has to be #1, I didn't get it at #2 last year. Disagree about O'Melveny, you're good for them numbers wise if it's the NY office, but they have a really small class. Also, if you want Clifford or A&O they need to come up.

I'm at a firm and work for the Michigan hiring partner right now. We talked about this. We have a bell curve and they are currently working on modifying it upwards.

You really think Firms are that stupid that they just assume gpas from each school are the same? The people at my firm that go to peer schools have wildly different gpas but are all within 10% of each other in class rank. Where you stand absolutely matters.

And look. If I'm wrong, you end up working for a firm that is slightly below where you could have ended up on the vault rankings. If I'm right, you strike out. Lord knows that happened to a lot of people last year using data that we knew was accurate.

3.31 targeting DC with ties. If there is anyone who had similar stats and targeted DC in the past, I'd love some guidance.

Any recommendations on forming a bidlist for Chicago (maybe another Midwest city or two) for someone below median? Obviously, Kirkland, Mayer and Jenner are likely out.

Anonymous User wrote:Any recommendations on forming a bidlist for Chicago (maybe another Midwest city or two) for someone below median? Obviously, Kirkland, Mayer and Jenner are likely out.

Chicago is really hard. Bid on the least selective firms (Locke Lord, shit like that). If you're below median, bid less selective New York firms. What's your GPA?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Any recommendations on forming a bidlist for Chicago (maybe another Midwest city or two) for someone below median? Obviously, Kirkland, Mayer and Jenner are likely out.

Chicago is really hard. Bid on the least selective firms (Locke Lord, shit like that). If you're below median, bid less selective New York firms. What's your GPA?

3.2

Really strong connections and good WE though.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Any recommendations on forming a bidlist for Chicago (maybe another Midwest city or two) for someone below median? Obviously, Kirkland, Mayer and Jenner are likely out.

Chicago is really hard. Bid on the least selective firms (Locke Lord, shit like that). If you're below median, bid less selective New York firms. What's your GPA?

3.2

Really strong connections and good WE though.

I'll be honest with you. I think it's going to be really hard for you to get Chicago, assuming firms take the new gpas into account. I'd probably do 23 NYC bids and 7 bids on low GPA Chicago firms and hope and pray.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Any recommendations on forming a bidlist for Chicago (maybe another Midwest city or two) for someone below median? Obviously, Kirkland, Mayer and Jenner are likely out.

Chicago is really hard. Bid on the least selective firms (Locke Lord, shit like that). If you're below median, bid less selective New York firms. What's your GPA?

3.2

Really strong connections and good WE though.

I was comparable on our 1L curve, except marginally lower. I didn't get a CB in Chicago and I have decent ties. No WE. I'm not telling you what to do, but I know if I could do last year over again I would go all in on NYC.

3.31 here as well.

No ties to NY, but b/c of my shit GPA, I'm going all-in there. Wanna do corp. (M&A) but no relevant w/e and no business background. Heard conflicting things about whether NY really requires at least some connection, or if wanting to do corp. law in NY is a sufficient reason.

Anyone familiar with someone landing NY BigLaw in my position? Or, alternatively, have you heard of someone striking out in NY because of having no connections? Thanks!

Anonymous User wrote:3.31 targeting DC with ties. If there is anyone who had similar stats and targeted DC in the past, I'd love some guidance.

Well obviously targeting DC with a 3.31 is going to be an uphill battle. Many people will tell you not to bid DC at all. At a minimum you should be bidding on NY as well. (1) try to be realistic about your chances. Do not bid on firms outside your grade range. This might mean that you have very few DC firms to bid on. (2) use your ties now to learn about the D.C. market. Ties aren't super important in DC, firms care more about grades and what type of work you're interested in doing. But if you know people the area, use those connections to get in touch with attorneys and talk to them; learn about what their jobs are like; get a sense of where someone like you and with your interests would be most competitive in D.C.; and create a narrative about yourself that explains your interest in D.C. that goes beyond ties and touches on the type of work you're interested in. (3) mass mail the DC market. (4) bid heavy on NY.

Anonymous User wrote:3.31 here as well.

No ties to NY, but b/c of my shit GPA, I'm going all-in there. Wanna do corp. (M&A) but no relevant w/e and no business background. Heard conflicting things about whether NY really requires at least some connection, or if wanting to do corp. law in NY is a sufficient reason.

Anyone familiar with someone landing NY BigLaw in my position? Or, alternatively, have you heard of someone striking out in NY because of having no connections? Thanks!

I had about .1 less than you last year and got 1 offer in New York. I have heavy connections in NY and they were useless. No ties necessary.

Rising 2L here! Let's do this.

3.483 -- am I screwed for firms that have a 3.5 cut off? I'm guessing with the new curve I'm floating around top 35%ish? On the GPA rank sheet online (clerkship resources page) a 3.529 33% when the median for the graduating class was a 3.42... totally guessing.

Also does H in legal practice mean anything at all for OCI? On a related note, does anyone know what honors GPA bump is for law review?

Glad we have this thread, guys!

Anonymous User wrote:Rising 2L here! Let's do this.

3.483 -- am I screwed for firms that have a 3.5 cut off?

If you're a good interviewer, no. I know someone with a similar GPA last year who got multiple V5s.

Sorry to be annoying I'm new to this... V5 = Vault 100 top 5 firms (cravath, skadden, etc)?

Anonymous User wrote:Rising 2L here! Let's do this.

3.483 -- am I screwed for firms that have a 3.5 cut off? I'm guessing with the new curve I'm floating around top 35%ish? On the GPA rank sheet online (clerkship resources page) a 3.529 33% when the median for the graduating class was a 3.42... totally guessing.

Also does H in legal practice mean anything at all for OCI? On a related note, does anyone know what honors GPA bump is for law review?

Glad we have this thread, guys!

graduating class median is different. Our median is likely 3.36. 3.48 is likely top third