GW OCI 2014 - Meh? Forum

[Anonymous User]

I think that firms want to call so few back from gw, but theyre used to having at least one 3.8+ on their schedule to give it to. That isnt the case anymore, and J bet they either are giving no callbacks, or very few. I bet that there are some 3.8+s who bid and accepted interviews stupidly that got wrecked.

Yea, it seems like the same 20 people are all fighting over W&C, GDC, S&C, and Wilmer, but all those firms combined might take 1 GW student. I'll bet most of the class from previous years got the SA offers from firms that wouldn't have been in their 20 preselect picks. But that also creates the problem that these firms typically had the top of the class interviewing for them, now instead of v40 firms having a full schedule of students with a 3.7, they're interviewing 20 people that they'd never extend offers to.

[Anonymous User]

Case in point; i got jones day with below a 3.6.

[Anonymous User]

now instead of v40 firms having a full schedule of students with a 3.7, they're interviewing 20 people that they'd never extend offers to

This is the V50 alum interviewer who answered questions earlier in this thread. Having just done my interviews, I can say the quoted statement is somewhat correct. I definitely wouldn't say all 20 of our interviews were dead on arrival, but there were a few. I also know some associates here who wouldn't have put the firm in their top 20 during OCI. I certainly wouldn't have (though I did not have more than 20 screeners so I wouldn't have run into this new rule).

In my opinion from the alum perspective, anything a law school does to hinder its students' employment opportunities is stupid at best and horrifically unconscionable at worst. The concept that students are paying an extraordinary amount for their legal education only to have their own school do violence to their job search is ridiculous. You all should start a petition to change the rule. I know a lot of people who had mid-teen screeners and struck out at OCI; I would not be surprised if someone could get 20 and strike out too.

[Anonymous User]

now instead of v40 firms having a full schedule of students with a 3.7, they're interviewing 20 people that they'd never extend offers to

This is the V50 alum interviewer who answered questions earlier in this thread. Having just done my interviews, I can say the quoted statement is somewhat correct. I definitely wouldn't say all 20 of our interviews were dead on arrival, but there were a few. I also know some associates here who wouldn't have put the firm in their top 20 during OCI. I certainly wouldn't have (though I did not have more than 20 screeners so I wouldn't have run into this new rule).

In my opinion from the alum perspective, anything a law school does to hinder its students' employment opportunities is stupid at best and horrifically unconscionable at worst. The concept that students are paying an extraordinary amount for their legal education only to have their own school do violence to their job search is ridiculous. You all should start a petition to change the rule. I know a lot of people who had mid-teen screeners and struck out at OCI; I would not be surprised if someone could get 20 and strike out too.

I had 30 firms offer me an interview. I chose the 20 that I thought I had a reasonable shot at. I'm currently sitting on 2 offers and 10+ callbacks. I LOVED the policy because I wasn't forced to interview with firms that I only bid on in order to reach 35 bids. Instead of stretching me really thin, I was able to focus on the 20 firms I thought I had the best shot at and that I liked the most.

I imagine the policy also led to more screeners for students who had lower grades this year. Whether or not those alternates were DOA in the screener they then received is up to the firm, but they had 20 minutes to make their case at least.

The problem isn't the policy, it's students who accept screeners with the top 20 firms when their GPA was below median for students interviewing at those firms (we received student gpa data from last year of students interviewing with each firm). If you're cruising in with a 3.6 or 3.7, and you get screeners at the top 20 firms, you should know that a lot of those are purely because the firm has 20 screener spots to fill. Obviously accept a few but don't go for broke with top firms.

[Anonymous User]

V50 alum interviewer here.

I had 30 firms offer me an interview. I chose the 20 that I thought I had a reasonable shot at. I'm currently sitting on 2 offers and 10+ callbacks.

Congrats!

I LOVED the policy because I wasn't forced to interview with firms that I only bid on in order to reach 35 bids. Instead of stretching me really thin, I was able to focus on the 20 firms I thought I had the best shot at and that I liked the most.

It's great that this worked out for you. I think the policy should be "students can turn down interviews if they want to, as long as they do it by X date (far enough in advance to refill the slots). That should be your choice, and then if you turn down 10 interviews and strike out at OCI, it's on you. But if you didn't get an offer from your 20 and it was the school that stopped you from doing 10 more, it would be unacceptable.

I imagine the policy also led to more screeners for students who had lower grades this year. Whether or not those alternates were DOA in the screener they then received is up to the firm, but they had 20 minutes to make their case at least.

This betrays a lack of understanding of how biglaw recruiting works (not your fault -- law students don't have the inside perspective and career services is incompetent). If these students were employable, they'd get screeners outside of OCI. Firms don't really care when they do interviews. OCI happens to be convenient but isn't more likely to result in a job offer. Also, nobody who is unemployable on paper will get a job offer by interviewing well in a 20-minute screener. This system helps nobody.

The problem isn't the policy, it's students who accept screeners with the top 20 firms when their GPA was below median for students interviewing at those firms.

Maybe, but GPA statistics are very unreliable (especially for nontraditional students such as foreign lawyers, hard IP students, and those with relevant work experience). You just never know who will give you an offer. It's unconscionable to imagine that a student who does 20 interviews and strikes out could've gotten an offer if the school hadn't screwed with their opportunities. It is equally unconscionable to say that a student with a 3.8 should give up on their dream firm because they need to be prudent with their artificially, unnecessarily limited job opportunities. The school shouldn't put students in a position to guess wildly at which firms will give them offers and which won't -- it's impossible to predict which partners will click with you, which firms are looking for associates for a given practice area at a given time, or which firms are willing to overlook GPA for a nontraditional student.

[Anonymous User]

Happy to hear you're doing so well. I'm a student with a 3.55, bid conservatively, and have just been getting trounced. I've been prepared for all my interviews, only interviewed with firms I had a real GPA shot at, etc., and its been nearly nothing. Whatever have caused this, I'm so incredibly frustrated. Fairly certain that if I strike out, I'm dropping out in the spring.

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

now instead of v40 firms having a full schedule of students with a 3.7, they're interviewing 20 people that they'd never extend offers to

This is the V50 alum interviewer who answered questions earlier in this thread. Having just done my interviews, I can say the quoted statement is somewhat correct. I definitely wouldn't say all 20 of our interviews were dead on arrival, but there were a few. I also know some associates here who wouldn't have put the firm in their top 20 during OCI. I certainly wouldn't have (though I did not have more than 20 screeners so I wouldn't have run into this new rule).

In my opinion from the alum perspective, anything a law school does to hinder its students' employment opportunities is stupid at best and horrifically unconscionable at worst. The concept that students are paying an extraordinary amount for their legal education only to have their own school do violence to their job search is ridiculous. You all should start a petition to change the rule. I know a lot of people who had mid-teen screeners and struck out at OCI; I would not be surprised if someone could get 20 and strike out too.

I had 30 firms offer me an interview. I chose the 20 that I thought I had a reasonable shot at. I'm currently sitting on 2 offers and 10+ callbacks. I LOVED the policy because I wasn't forced to interview with firms that I only bid on in order to reach 35 bids. Instead of stretching me really thin, I was able to focus on the 20 firms I thought I had the best shot at and that I liked the most.

I imagine the policy also led to more screeners for students who had lower grades this year. Whether or not those alternates were DOA in the screener they then received is up to the firm, but they had 20 minutes to make their case at least.

The problem isn't the policy, it's students who accept screeners with the top 20 firms when their GPA was below median for students interviewing at those firms (we received student gpa data from last year of students interviewing with each firm). If you're cruising in with a 3.6 or 3.7, and you get screeners at the top 20 firms, you should know that a lot of those are purely because the firm has 20 screener spots to fill. Obviously accept a few but don't go for broke with top firms.

But what's the benefit? You get to turn down 10 interviews? Everyone else is talking about the downside and how it's messing with a lot of people and your defense is you got to skip 10 interviews.

I'll agree I was on board with the interview cap, but it looks like there were a lot of unforeseen problems. What we really should have is something like 10% lottery spots so at least the people who get only a few interviews get at least one they want. I saw a lot of people interviewing with firms they got preselected for that only were looking to hire for public finance and the person they were interviewing had nothing on their resume that would indicate they wanted to do that.

[Anonymous User]

The GPA data was also completely misleading and useless. Cravath's median screener given out last year was sub 3.8. I promise they're not calling anyone back in that range. Same for the top DC firms.

The heart of the issue is that GW is awful for big law hiring, and by increasing the class size back to near 500 this year they fucked us, all for the sake of their own money.

What a fucking joke. Should have transfered.

[Anonymous User]

Interesting discussion re: interview limits. I'll add one data point. I have a good-not-great GPA, and I ended up getting an interview as an alternate that turned into a callback. I'm sure there are others in my boat. So there were some benefits to the policy, and I also think that 3.7/8 students would have a lot of success direct mailing firms in NYC they haven't already applied to (if they're struggling, which as far as I know most are not).

On that note... Sutherland ding via snail mail. It boggles the mind that some firms still do dings via snail mail.

Edit: also agree w/ poster above. GW admin has been highly exploitative of its student body. The class size increase is unforgivable.

[Anonymous User]

Drinker Biddle PA ding.

[Anonymous User]

It boggles the mind that some firms still do dings via snail mail.

I was about to e-mail my references to Covington when I got their snail-mail ding, which showed that they made up their mind well before I even got my references ready for them. The delay is unacceptable, and the thousands that must fly around every year and the time it takes to prepare them probably cost the firms decent money that you'd think the partners would want to save.

Edit: also agree w/ poster above. GW admin has been highly exploitative of its student body. The class size increase is unforgivable.

I was not happy about the bigger class size when I found out about it, but you can at least assume that it has helped your 1L grades on the curve, assuming you could have gotten into GW with a smaller class size. I think there are more transfer students, also, but a lot of these students are not at the top of the class here, either.

I would think that the bigger problem than class size per se is the limit on bids and interview slots in combination with the bigger class size. Maybe the career center people will go back to the drawing board and fix this next year, but for this years 2Ls who actually did get screwed, there may not be an easy solution for them.

[Anonymous User]

It boggles the mind that some firms still do dings via snail mail.

I was about to e-mail my references to Covington when I got their snail-mail ding, which showed that they made up their mind well before I even got my references ready for them. The delay is unacceptable, and the thousands that must fly around every year and the time it takes to prepare them probably cost the firms decent money that you'd think the partners would want to save.

Edit: also agree w/ poster above. GW admin has been highly exploitative of its student body. The class size increase is unforgivable.

I was not happy about the bigger class size when I found out about it, but you can at least assume that it has helped your 1L grades on the curve, assuming you could have gotten into GW with a smaller class size. I think there are more transfer students, also, but a lot of these students are not at the top of the class here, either.

I would think that the bigger problem than class size per se is the limit on bids and interview slots in combination with the bigger class size. Maybe the career center people will go back to the drawing board and fix this next year, but for this years 2Ls who actually did get screwed, there may not be an easy solution for them.

Even assuming it did help my grade along the curve, it also generated more 3.8+ students. Probably a null or worse proposition.

[Anonymous User]

Ice Miller cb

[Anonymous User]

Ice miller post above...connections to region?

[Anonymous User]

Jones Day DC Ding

[Anonymous User]

Jones Day DC Ding

Snail mail?

[Anonymous User]

Jones Day DC Ding

Snail mail?

Email

[Anonymous User]

Anything from Finnegan? There was only 7 of us, so wouldn't be surprised if none were on this boart.

[Anonymous User]

Ice miller post above...connections to region?

Originally from southwestern Ohio.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone hear of any W&C callbacks?

[Anonymous User]

For anyone still reading this thread (I hope that number is low as people get offers), I'm the anon topic creator. If you post advice you want to leave for next years class, I'll add them to the OP. Bonus if you hate on the school.

[Anonymous User]

Hogan or paul hastings? Haven't heard anything.

[Anonymous User]

Gibson offer.

[Anonymous User]

Gibson offer.

Wow that was fast. Is this DC and was offer on the spot?