Michigan OCI 2016 Forum

[Anonymous User]

Let's use this to discuss bid strategy and report callbacks!

Important OCI Dates:

July 1 Deadline to meet with a counselor to have your bid list reviewed

July 6 Deadline to upload your resume to Symplicity at 5:00 p.m. EDT.

July 7 Bidding for EIW interviews begins at 12:00 a.m.

July 14 Bidding closes at 5:00 p.m. EDT.

July 18 Interview schedules available on Simplicity.

August 1 Mandatory EIW meeting in Hutchins Hall, Room 100 at 2:00 p.m.

August 2-5 Early Interview Week!

GO BLUE!

Callbacks

Tuesday (8/2)
Schulte
MoFo (w/ dinner invites)

Wednesday (8/3)
Latham (NY)
Richards Layton Finger
SullCrom
Mayer Brown (NY)

Thursday (8/4)
butzel long
Clearly (NY)

Friday (8/5)
Varnum
Dykema (Detroit)
Honigman
Goodwin (Boston)
Proskauer(NY)
Sidley (Chicago)
K&E (Chicago)
Sidley (NY)
Cravath
Skadden (DC)
Steptoe (unconfirmed)

Saturday (8/6)
Baker & McKenzie (Chicago)
Sidley (NY)

Monday (8/8)
Chadbourne & Parke (NY)
W&C (NY)
Warner Norcross & Judd
Skadden (Chicago)

Tuesday (8/9)
Miller Johnson
BakerHostetler (Cleveland)
Covington (DC)
Schiff Hardin (Chi)

Wednesday (8/10)
Dickinson Wright
Reed Smith (Chi)

[Anonymous User]

Hey all,

Anyone have any info on the Detroit/Grand Rapids markets? Is bidding competitive at all?

[Anonymous User]

I asked OCP for bid:interview ratios for each firm, but apparently they stopped giving that data out. My advisor just told me to rank based on preference without trying to game the system. Is that terrible advice? Looking to bid Chicago.

[Anonymous User]

I asked OCP for bid:interview ratios for each firm, but apparently they stopped giving that data out. My advisor just told me to rank based on preference without trying to game the system. Is that terrible advice? Looking to bid Chicago.

Yes, but OCP is more concerned with the class on a macro-level, and on the macro level this is how OCP thinks interviews will be distributed the most efficiently. Generally firms that have fewer interview slots and lower gpa requirements are more competitive, but if you have a 3.5 you don't really have any business bidding on Schiff Hardin anyways.

[Anonymous User]

FWIW I think someone posted in last year's OCI thread that they split Chicago/LA and got every firm they wanted (or close to that).

[Anonymous User]

Not to derail the discussion but does anyone have any insight into the MLR notification process? Do they call people who make it on round by round or do they do it all at once?

It doesn't appear that there are any resources anywhere that discuss how we'll be notified.

[Anonymous User]

Does OCP have/give out offer rates data?

[Anonymous User]

When I did OCI last year, I found interview/bid data as well as offer/callback/interview data from the previous year (2014). If they stopped making that stuff available, that's pretty shitty.

Someone should ask OCP for it directly. If they won't distribute, I can track down my 2014 data. You'll have to cross check against the firms and interview slots available, obviously, in that case. Some things have changed in the marketplace, too, so hopefully they'll give out 2015 #s.

[Anonymous User]

When I did OCI last year, I found interview/bid data as well as offer/callback/interview data from the previous year (2014). If they stopped making that stuff available, that's pretty shitty.

Someone should ask OCP for it directly. If they won't distribute, I can track down my 2014 data. You'll have to cross check against the firms and interview slots available, obviously, in that case. Some things have changed in the marketplace, too, so hopefully they'll give out 2015 #s.

Agree, very shitty of OCP if that's the case. If someone emails LawOpen I am sure someone on there has data from last year or the year before.

[Anonymous User]

When I did OCI last year, I found interview/bid data as well as offer/callback/interview data from the previous year (2014). If they stopped making that stuff available, that's pretty shitty.

Someone should ask OCP for it directly. If they won't distribute, I can track down my 2014 data. You'll have to cross check against the firms and interview slots available, obviously, in that case. Some things have changed in the marketplace, too, so hopefully they'll give out 2015 #s.

Agree, very shitty of OCP if that's the case. If someone emails LawOpen I am sure someone on there has data from last year or the year before.

Its better for the class as a whole not to release the information. Remember all the people who bid Sidley NYC #1 and still didn't get it? That's fine for people who are using it as a back up, but super shitty for people who might only get one offer. Of course on an individual level people want as many screeners as they can possibly get, but OCP is trying to increase the likelihood of offers on a group-level.

[Anonymous User]

When I did OCI last year, I found interview/bid data as well as offer/callback/interview data from the previous year (2014). If they stopped making that stuff available, that's pretty shitty.

Someone should ask OCP for it directly. If they won't distribute, I can track down my 2014 data. You'll have to cross check against the firms and interview slots available, obviously, in that case. Some things have changed in the marketplace, too, so hopefully they'll give out 2015 #s.

Agree, very shitty of OCP if that's the case. If someone emails LawOpen I am sure someone on there has data from last year or the year before.

Its better for the class as a whole not to release the information. Remember all the people who bid Sidley NYC #1 and still didn't get it? That's fine for people who are using it as a back up, but super shitty for people who might only get one offer. Of course on an individual level people want as many screeners as they can possibly get, but OCP is trying to increase the likelihood of offers on a group-level.

Why would keeping the class as a whole in the dark be better for the class as a whole? That makes zero sense. It's going to make an inefficient distribution.

[Anonymous User]

When I did OCI last year, I found interview/bid data as well as offer/callback/interview data from the previous year (2014). If they stopped making that stuff available, that's pretty shitty.

Someone should ask OCP for it directly. If they won't distribute, I can track down my 2014 data. You'll have to cross check against the firms and interview slots available, obviously, in that case. Some things have changed in the marketplace, too, so hopefully they'll give out 2015 #s.

I asked OCP directly for last year's data and was denied. If anyone has the 2014 data, can you upload it for us?

[Anonymous User]

When I did OCI last year, I found interview/bid data as well as offer/callback/interview data from the previous year (2014). If they stopped making that stuff available, that's pretty shitty.

Someone should ask OCP for it directly. If they won't distribute, I can track down my 2014 data. You'll have to cross check against the firms and interview slots available, obviously, in that case. Some things have changed in the marketplace, too, so hopefully they'll give out 2015 #s.

I asked OCP directly for last year's data and was denied. If anyone has the 2014 data, can you upload it for us?

Send out a Lawopen message instead, it seems shitty to give it to the whole world on TLS.

[Anonymous User]

When I did OCI last year, I found interview/bid data as well as offer/callback/interview data from the previous year (2014). If they stopped making that stuff available, that's pretty shitty.

Someone should ask OCP for it directly. If they won't distribute, I can track down my 2014 data. You'll have to cross check against the firms and interview slots available, obviously, in that case. Some things have changed in the marketplace, too, so hopefully they'll give out 2015 #s.

I asked OCP directly for last year's data and was denied. If anyone has the 2014 data, can you upload it for us?

Send out a Lawopen message instead, it seems shitty to give it to the whole world on TLS.

Nose goes

[Anonymous User]

When I did OCI last year, I found interview/bid data as well as offer/callback/interview data from the previous year (2014). If they stopped making that stuff available, that's pretty shitty.

Someone should ask OCP for it directly. If they won't distribute, I can track down my 2014 data. You'll have to cross check against the firms and interview slots available, obviously, in that case. Some things have changed in the marketplace, too, so hopefully they'll give out 2015 #s.

Agree, very shitty of OCP if that's the case. If someone emails LawOpen I am sure someone on there has data from last year or the year before.

Its better for the class as a whole not to release the information. Remember all the people who bid Sidley NYC #1 and still didn't get it? That's fine for people who are using it as a back up, but super shitty for people who might only get one offer. Of course on an individual level people want as many screeners as they can possibly get, but OCP is trying to increase the likelihood of offers on a group-level.

Why would keeping the class as a whole in the dark be better for the class as a whole? That makes zero sense. It's going to make an inefficient distribution.

Bc OCP wants you to bid firms you actually want to work at higher in an effort to prevent screener hoarding. OCP wants 200 students to get at least 1 offer each more than it wants the top 10% to get ten offers each.

[Anonymous User]

When I did OCI last year, I found interview/bid data as well as offer/callback/interview data from the previous year (2014). If they stopped making that stuff available, that's pretty shitty.

Someone should ask OCP for it directly. If they won't distribute, I can track down my 2014 data. You'll have to cross check against the firms and interview slots available, obviously, in that case. Some things have changed in the marketplace, too, so hopefully they'll give out 2015 #s.

Agree, very shitty of OCP if that's the case. If someone emails LawOpen I am sure someone on there has data from last year or the year before.

Its better for the class as a whole not to release the information. Remember all the people who bid Sidley NYC #1 and still didn't get it? That's fine for people who are using it as a back up, but super shitty for people who might only get one offer. Of course on an individual level people want as many screeners as they can possibly get, but OCP is trying to increase the likelihood of offers on a group-level.

Why would keeping the class as a whole in the dark be better for the class as a whole? That makes zero sense. It's going to make an inefficient distribution.

Bc OCP wants you to bid firms you actually want to work at higher in an effort to prevent screener hoarding. OCP wants 200 students to get at least 1 offer each more than it wants the top 10% to get ten offers each.

The way to achieve this is to ensure that there isn't any slack, i.e. unfilled interview slots, NOT by having people bid (for ex) Mayer #1 unnecessarily b/c they have no idea how many other people are bidding on them. More information is always better. The side squelching information always loses in the end, as it will here.

[Anonymous User]

did you do OCI last year? that's not how it played out. People game-theoried the fuck out of bidding and it resulted in everyone bidding the most competitive interview slots very highly regardless of how much they actually wanted to work at those firms. It went very poorly for lots of medianish people bidding NYC. OCP wants you to bid on firms that you are competitive for and interested in highly, so more people get the screeners that they are the most interested in. I don't know what's so confusing about this. For certain individuals it might result in fewer screeners, but for the class as a whole it should result in more offers.

Also, there isn't any slack. People can sign up for screeners during add/drop, and come in early each day to sign up for any additional spots that open up. The only spots that went empty last year were in random secondary markets.

[Anonymous User]

Denying information to median students that would be useful to them in constructing a rank order is not the way to help them. Firms already know that their yield rate on offers to high gpa students is much lower than it is on offers to lower gpa students, and they know their firm gpa-wheelhouse. Do you think all of the Skadden offerees were monopolizing the Morgan Lewis offers or something? That's not how it works. More data means better outcomes, in admissions and in jobs. Why people defend law schools to this day is confusing.

[Anonymous User]

Denying information to median students that would be useful to them in constructing a rank order is not the way to help them. Firms already know that their yield rate on offers to high gpa students is much lower than it is on offers to lower gpa students, and they know their firm gpa-wheelhouse. Do you think all of the Skadden offerees were monopolizing the Morgan Lewis offers or something? That's not how it works. More data means better outcomes, in admissions and in jobs. Why people defend law schools to this day is confusing.

law students do all of their OCI screeners before they get any offers through OCI. law students are risk averse people who are not going to cancel screeners because they got a callback somewhere else. Its relatively easy to get a screener at Skadden and its peer firms. It is not easy to get screeners with certain firms with lower GPA cut offs. People who will go on to get offers at Skadden obviously aren't burning a bid on Morgan Lewis or Nixon Peabody, but they probably are bidding on firms the NYC offices of firms that they're clearly not going to end up at like Mayer Brown and Sidley Austin. And if you think law students aren't collecting offers like pokemon, you're delusional.

[Anonymous User]

So, how does OCP hiding the ball from students who need poor gpa firm screeners going to help those students? Everyone, including poor gpa and median gpa students, just randomly guesses which firms to rank where? How is that helping anyone, in any gpa band? It seems more likely to produce inefficient bidding, not less. At least with the data I know how to rank order for my median gpa.

Suppressing information isn't the solution to the "problem" you're describing.

[umichman]

Yeah that really sucks. That info is valuable because some forms do come and do almost no call backs. Even if those firns have a low GPA it is still stupid to bid them highly

[Anonymous User]

So, how does OCP hiding the ball from students who need poor gpa firm screeners going to help those students? Everyone, including poor gpa and median gpa students, just randomly guesses which firms to rank where? How is that helping anyone, in any gpa band? It seems more likely to produce inefficient bidding, not less. At least with the data I know how to rank order for my median gpa.

Suppressing information isn't the solution to the "problem" you're describing.

Tell us your solution to the problem. I'm serious. We talked about this last year and unless you want to move towards a partial pre select model like UVA or GULC (which is not what people pay Michigan tuition for) this is the best way.

You keep on saying efficient. Efficiency here is not the most screeners for you, it's the most offers for you and your classmates. Every screener you get is a screener that no one else can have. OCP would rather most people have 15 than some people have 25 and some people have 12, which is what happened last year.

The point about the callbacks is valid, and I'm surprised they haven't distributed the info for beyond the first cut of bidding. It's helpful to know who makes a lot of offers and who didn't make any.

Anyways there are about 40 fewer people in your class, so you guys should have better luck with getting screeners with from that alone.

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone comment on bid strategies for someone looking exclusivly at secondary markets?

[Anonymous User]

Coming from someone who did OCI back when they provided full access to the data--who personally gamed the f*** out of the system and got 23 screener interviews (though I heard stories of people getting up to 28...)--I have no opinion on this either way.

I thought it was inequitable that some people got 23 (or 28, or whatever) and others got less than 10. Some people had more callbacks than others had screener interviews. On its face, that seems pretty unfair.

But I also believe most of the people who got less than 10 were lazy as shit for not crunching a few numbers. I mean, it's arguably the most important week of law school. Come on. Some people hustled and had big time offers before OCI even started. NY was interviewing and hiring throughout the summer. It's competitive. And in that environment, people can't be bothered to do a little math? That 9-5 internship taxing you too much to figure out how to put your bids in an optimal order?

Anyway, let me tell you the problem you all need to worry about this year: Lots of people will have access to last year's data from friends, etc. Because some have access, those who don't will be screwed. So email your 2L classmates and get the data.

Honestly, some 2L should put it on lawopen. But that won't happen because law school.

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone comment on bid strategies for someone looking exclusivly at secondary markets?

What markets? Detroit/Cleveland/Minn, or Atl, etc?