Anyone else feel like a failure after striking out at oci? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Does your school offer paid fellowships. Start thinking about those - particularly if they will fund a fellowship for a clerkship. You can find a federal clerkship that you should be able to build off of. If not start thinking about where you could use a clerkship to turn it into a well paid job - you only want to be with a firm/organization/industry that will have post-fellowship opportunities.

If there are no fellowships, you need to be working with career services every week between now and graduation or finding a job.

To make you feel better, know that there are many others in the same boat. The majority will do just fine, even though the coming months might be nerve-wracking.

[Anonymous User]

This post really hits home. Before coming to law school I felt like I did everything right. Honors from a top undergrad, two years of WE in finance, T14 school, + almost my entire family (Dad, Sister, Sister, Uncle, Uncle, Cousin) works in big law in the big market I was targeting. First semester I worked hard, but finished in about bottom 20%. Second semester I made a strong come back and finished .01 outside of the top quarter. Was still below median at end of 1L. I had 19 screener interviews and 6 callbacks (two with firms that weren't even market rate) and I just found out I struck out. Heard through the grapevine that, at least at two firms, it was a grades problem and not an interviewing problem. Incredibly disappointed, I feel like I've done almost everything right and just because I sh!t the bed on one exam my first semester everything is effed. Once again, the black sheep of my family (LGBTQ in a southern family). Just absolutely sucks.

[Anonymous User]

If you’re above median and striking out then the problem is your interviewing skills. It’s not about being “awkward” or having no social skills. It’s about the amount of research you’ve done (if you’re like at the min of their cutoff) Have you talked to people at the firms you’re interviewing with? Does your resume align (or at least can you tell a story) about how you are a good fit? Above median grades won’t carry you far. There are so many other students who have better grades and have done their research.

[QContinuum]

First semester I worked hard, but finished in about bottom 20%. Second semester I made a strong come back and finished .01 outside of the top quarter. Was still below median at end of 1L. I had 19 screener interviews and 6 callbacks (two with firms that weren't even market rate) and I just found out I struck out. Heard through the grapevine that, at least at two firms, it was a grades problem and not an interviewing problem.

Outside of the V10 and prestigious boutiques, slightly below median at a T13 (25th percentile/80th percentile averages out to 52nd percentile assuming equal credits in both semesters) shouldn't result in any auto-dings. Unless...

just because I sh!t the bed on one exam my first semester everything is effed.

Unless you received an off-the-curve bad grade, like a C, on one exam. But even then, I don't think a single bad grade would outright disqualify a T13 student at median, esp. when the bad grade was in first semester and the candidate received much better grades second semester.

I'm inclined to think this was bad bidding (on grade-selective firms), not enough bidding (19 screeners sounds on the low end for a T13 student), and/or bad interviewing. I don't think this outcome was inevitable given your grades.

Which is good news, because your 1L grades are set in stone, but you still have time to mass mail and (simultaneously) get more interview practice! Don't give up. The worst thing you can do right now is give up. You still have a chance! As a previous poster ITT said, talk to career services ASAP and keep mass mailing (AND periodically follow up on your applications). Mass mail NYC, and mass mail any secondary markets where you have ties, however remote.

Also, this is pure speculation, so I may very well be completely off the mark here, but: Just to be sure, do you bring up politics or activism or anything at all in your interviews? If so, don't do it going forward. You don't know what might rub an older lawyer the wrong way, and even a liberal lawyer might question if you're more drawn to PI work if you sound super passionate about advocacy. Firms don't want to spend $35k in salary alone (plus thousands on entertainment) on a SA who just wants to cash in before going into PI after graduation.

[Anonymous User]

First semester I worked hard, but finished in about bottom 20%. Second semester I made a strong come back and finished .01 outside of the top quarter. Was still below median at end of 1L. I had 19 screener interviews and 6 callbacks (two with firms that weren't even market rate) and I just found out I struck out. Heard through the grapevine that, at least at two firms, it was a grades problem and not an interviewing problem.

Outside of the V10 and prestigious boutiques, slightly below median at a T13 (25th percentile/80th percentile averages out to 52nd percentile assuming equal credits in both semesters) shouldn't result in any auto-dings. Unless...

just because I sh!t the bed on one exam my first semester everything is effed.

Unless you received an off-the-curve bad grade, like a C, on one exam. But even then, I don't think a single bad grade would outright disqualify a T13 student at median, esp. when the bad grade was in first semester and the candidate received much better grades second semester.

I'm inclined to think this was bad bidding (on grade-selective firms), not enough bidding (19 screeners sounds on the low end for a T13 student), and/or bad interviewing. I don't think this outcome was inevitable given your grades.

Which is good news, because your 1L grades are set in stone, but you still have time to mass mail and (simultaneously) get more interview practice! Don't give up. The worst thing you can do right now is give up. You still have a chance! As a previous poster ITT said, talk to career services ASAP and keep mass mailing (AND periodically follow up on your applications). Mass mail NYC, and mass mail any secondary markets where you have ties, however remote.

Also, this is pure speculation, so I may very well be completely off the mark here, but: Just to be sure, do you bring up politics or activism or anything at all in your interviews? If so, don't do it going forward. You don't know what might rub an older lawyer the wrong way, and even a liberal lawyer might question if you're more drawn to PI work if you sound super passionate about advocacy. Firms don't want to spend $35k in salary alone (plus thousands on entertainment) on a SA who just wants to cash in before going into PI after graduation.

Unfortunately I did receive one C my first semester. Also second semester was 2 less hours so I think It is closer to bottom 40% than median. FWIW I think that it is mainly from bad bidding. I did my undergrad in NYC and was/am trying to avoid going back there, so I did not bid heavily on NYC offices. I also wanted a specific southern market (or DC...but I know this is a pipe dream), which might be what did me in. Time to mass mail the most overpriced city in the world, lol!! Also, I don't think I come off as too ideological. I worked for a committee on the hill and besides a leadership position in my school's fed soc, there is no ideological indiction + I do not really discuss it.

[nixy]

I don't have any idea how much weight it would carry, if at all, but a leadership position in fed soc is going to read as ideological to a lot of people. (I don't think it would actually hurt you, but FWIW.)

[QContinuum]

FWIW I think that it is mainly from bad bidding. I did my undergrad in NYC and was/am trying to avoid going back there, so I did not bid heavily on NYC offices. I also wanted a specific southern market (or DC...but I know this is a pipe dream), which might be what did me in. Time to mass mail the most overpriced city in the world, lol!!

Sounds like a good plan - NYC's still hiring. Best of luck - fingers crossed for you!

Also, I don't think I come off as too ideological. I worked for a committee on the hill and besides a leadership position in my school's fed soc, there is no ideological indiction + I do not really discuss it.

Sounds good, agree w/ nixy that I've never heard of anyone being discriminated against in firm hiring due to being on FedSoc (& in fact may receive a boost from conservative interviewers given most law students lean left).

[BeeTeeZ]

Sounds good, agree w/ nixy that I've never heard of anyone being discriminated against in firm hiring due to being on FedSoc (& in fact may receive a boost from conservative interviewers given most law students lean left).

This may depend on the region. In my left wing region, fedsoc is viewed as right wing, regardless of whether it is intended to be apolitical. Scalia's legacy triggers people.

[Anonymous User]

Just wanted to report that movement in NYC is definitely still happening.

I received a callback invite today for a V20 firm after not receiving a screener with the same firm during my school’s OCI. There is definitely still movement happening.

Mass mail, use your contacts to get your resume to HR people, call/email alums at firms- there’s still opportunity to get a big firm job!

[Anonymous User]

Just wanted to report that movement in NYC is definitely still happening.

I received a callback invite today for a V20 firm after not receiving a screener with the same firm during my school’s OCI. There is definitely still movement happening.

Mass mail, use your contacts to get your resume to HR people, call/email alums at firms- there’s still opportunity to get a big firm job!

Congrats--do you mind sharing stats? Do you have connections there? Thanks!

[QContinuum]

Sounds good, agree w/ nixy that I've never heard of anyone being discriminated against in firm hiring due to being on FedSoc (& in fact may receive a boost from conservative interviewers given most law students lean left).

This may depend on the region. In my left wing region, fedsoc is viewed as right wing, regardless of whether it is intended to be apolitical. Scalia's legacy triggers people.

FedSoc is right-wing, in the same sense that ACS is left-wing. FedSoc's very founding purpose was to create a home for right-wing law students and lawyers. Any characterization of FedSoc as "apolitical" is flat-out wrong. (Of course, the fact that FedSoc is right-wing doesn't mean every FedSoc'er votes Republican, or supports Trump, or what have you, just like I'm sure not every ACS member voted for Hillary.)

Again, though, in BigLaw hiring specifically, I've never heard of anyone who even suspected they were discriminated against due to having FedSoc on their CV. And trust me, if there was even a mere suspicion of such political viewpoint-based discrimination, it would be on ATL yesterday.

[Wild Card]

Sounds good, agree w/ nixy that I've never heard of anyone being discriminated against in firm hiring due to being on FedSoc (& in fact may receive a boost from conservative interviewers given most law students lean left).

This may depend on the region. In my left wing region, fedsoc is viewed as right wing, regardless of whether it is intended to be apolitical. Scalia's legacy triggers people.

FedSoc is right-wing, in the same sense that ACS is left-wing. FedSoc's very founding purpose was to create a home for right-wing law students and lawyers. Any characterization of FedSoc as "apolitical" is flat-out wrong. (Of course, the fact that FedSoc is right-wing doesn't mean every FedSoc'er votes Republican, or supports Trump, or what have you, just like I'm sure not every ACS member voted for Hillary.)

Again, though, in BigLaw hiring specifically, I've never heard of anyone who even suspected they were discriminated against due to having FedSoc on their CV. And trust me, if there was even a mere suspicion of such political viewpoint-based discrimination, it would be on ATL yesterday.

True, but I'm under the impression that ACS is purely Far Left (i.e., open borders, death to Whites) whereas FedSoc includes Moderates, Conservatives, and Libertarians.

Regardless, you're right that it doesn't matter.

I think that striking out, or coming close to it, results from a combination of average or below average grades and non-upper-middle-class socioeconomic background. There's an odd way in which UMC people interact with each other, sort of like how you can tell the person you're talking to, his or her first language isn't English. I think not being upper middle class is social awkwardness or maladroitness in the eyes of the UMC. Of course, 85%+ of people aren't UMC, so it's technically not "abnormal" to behave and talk in a non-UMC way.

Maybe I'm projecting. I went to NYU, and know a lot of smart people who struck out. That's what they all had in common, non-UMCness.

It's not something you can control; you'll just have to find firms and mentors who accept you for who you are and like what you have to offer.

[lavarman84]

True, but I'm under the impression that ACS is purely Far Left (i.e., open borders, death to Whites) whereas FedSoc includes Moderates, Conservatives, and Libertarians.

My perception is that Fed Soc are conservatives and libertarians. ACS are liberals (but far more varied on the political spectrum than you're saying). There are likely some moderates in both, but I would expect most moderates don't feel strongly enough to join either. They tend to attract people who are ideologues. Although, as a moderate, I kind of wish that I was involved in the Fed Soc in law school. Why? Not because I care about what they're trying to accomplish, but rather because it gives you a boost when applying to conservative judges for a clerkship.

[Anonymous User]

Sounds good, agree w/ nixy that I've never heard of anyone being discriminated against in firm hiring due to being on FedSoc (& in fact may receive a boost from conservative interviewers given most law students lean left).

This may depend on the region. In my left wing region, fedsoc is viewed as right wing, regardless of whether it is intended to be apolitical. Scalia's legacy triggers people.

FedSoc is right-wing, in the same sense that ACS is left-wing. FedSoc's very founding purpose was to create a home for right-wing law students and lawyers. Any characterization of FedSoc as "apolitical" is flat-out wrong. (Of course, the fact that FedSoc is right-wing doesn't mean every FedSoc'er votes Republican, or supports Trump, or what have you, just like I'm sure not every ACS member voted for Hillary.)

Again, though, in BigLaw hiring specifically, I've never heard of anyone who even suspected they were discriminated against due to having FedSoc on their CV. And trust me, if there was even a mere suspicion of such political viewpoint-based discrimination, it would be on ATL yesterday.

True, but I'm under the impression that ACS is purely Far Left (i.e., open borders, death to Whites) whereas FedSoc includes Moderates, Conservatives, and Libertarians.

Regardless, you're right that it doesn't matter.

I think that striking out, or coming close to it, results from a combination of average or below average grades and non-upper-middle-class socioeconomic background. There's an odd way in which UMC people interact with each other, sort of like how you can tell the person you're talking to, his or her first language isn't English. I think not being upper middle class is social awkwardness or maladroitness in the eyes of the UMC. Of course, 85%+ of people aren't UMC, so it's technically not "abnormal" to behave and talk in a non-UMC way.

Maybe I'm projecting. I went to NYU, and know a lot of smart people who struck out. That's what they all had in common, non-UMCness.

It's not something you can control; you'll just have to find firms and mentors who accept you for who you are and like what you have to offer.

This is true. I think being UMC is a lot more important than race, even. It’s a lot easier to talk about your trip to Santorini with someone when you don’t have much in common. I think most, if not all, of my colleagues grew up UMC. Im not white, but I grew up in a very cookie cutter UMC area and have never had a problem connecting with interviewers/colleagues.

But I completely understand. Two of my closest friends grew up in lower middle class families, and I always get the eye roll treatment when I talk about my problems and stuff that my colleagues would just nod and agree with.

[Anonymous User]

Agree with poster above.

I think that being UMC definitely does help especially in dinner/lunches/ cocktail receptions after callback interviews. That being said, I also know a lot of people who were not UMC but got fantastic offers.

Its a domino effect. For example, people who are not UMC are more likely to bid poorly or not know the importance of cold emailing/ informational phone calls which could ultimately lead to striking out.

[Anonymous User]

The upper middle class discussion is interesting. I (not UMC) nearly struck out at OCI from HYS. That’s different from actually striking out and I’m not sure UMC matters more than racial bias, but it’s something I didn’t consider.

[Anonymous User]

I am definitely UMC, and top 10% HYS. I did more than 10 callbacks (all at V25 firms) and only got one offer. What I would say is that this process is much more random than one might think, and that interviewing ability matters a lot. Looking back, I think I came across as robotic (and basically a resume personified) which contributed to my extreme lack of success in converting callbacks to offers. Based on past conversion rates for my school, I should have expected 6-7 offers. Notably, during the interview for the one offer I got, I showed more personality (and signaled my class background with typical UMC talk, international trips etc.). I also think that grades matter much less at HYS than they do at lower T14s (once you cross the median threshold). Just one person's experience.

[Anonymous User]

UMC definitely matters. couple associates at lunch kept talking about golfing at a country club and I was like do I look like I do that shit

[Anonymous User]

Your socioeconomic class is not material unless you're ridiculously rich and well-connected, or you are so poor that you have a story. Otherwise, just work on your conversation skills.

Stop having such a weird, contrived discussion. Sure, your background could make studying easier or give you more to talk about due to greater resources . . . but you can have a good conversation regardless.

[Anonymous User]

Your socioeconomic class is not material unless you're ridiculously rich and well-connected, or you are so poor that you have a story. Otherwise, just work on your conversation skills.

Stop having such a weird, contrived discussion. Sure, your background could make studying easier or give you more to talk about due to greater resources . . . but you can have a good conversation regardless.

No!

[Anonymous User]

The link between UMC background and job/callback success is that UMCs don’t interview as well because they don’t golf, play polo, etc.?

[Johnnybgoode92]

The link between UMC background and job/callback success is that UMCs don’t interview as well because they don’t golf, play polo, etc.?

I struck out because of this

[Anonymous User]

The link between UMC background and job/callback success is that UMCs don’t interview as well because they don’t golf, play polo, etc.?

I think it is a little more tenuous than that, but yeah. Something along the lines of, a huge part of "fit" is just being able to hold a conversation. When people have similar backgrounds and interests, they are more likely to hit it off in the first five minutes, which are really important. They're probably more likely to be forgiving of small missteps too. Charisma, attractiveness also play, maybe small, but definitely important roles in the interview process as well imo

[Anonymous User]

The link between UMC background and job/callback success is that UMCs don’t interview as well because they don’t golf, play polo, etc.?

I think it is a little more tenuous than that, but yeah. Something along the lines of, a huge part of "fit" is just being able to hold a conversation. When people have similar backgrounds and interests, they are more likely to hit it off in the first five minutes, which are really important. They're probably more likely to be forgiving of small missteps too. Charisma, attractiveness also play, maybe small, but definitely important roles in the interview process as well imo

Confidence probably plays a role as well. I'm not quite UMC and while I went to school with a lot of UMC, I'm definitely more comfortable talking with people who come to a more similar bg as me and I think that helps build my confidence.

[Anonymous User]

at the end of the day there are a lot of factors that go into an offer besides just grades. "Fit" is just a catch-all phrase right?
Everyone always says "oh you're social, you'll interview well" but there is a lot more to that. IMO, being able to show how your past experience & interests (UMC or not) align with the firm is truly the best way to prepare. For example, say you used to work in a small company. One can point out how much they enjoyed working on a leanly staffed team and can show off their self-starter attitude which would fit well with the firm's culture. That has nothing to do with UMC-ness or social skills.