Monday, September 21, 2009

OPEN THREAD: How's It Going Out There? (Revisted)

With OGI Part Deux beginning this week, and many people done with their callbacks from round I, it's time to check in:

Please use the comments section to discuss below - anonymously if you wish. Please also indicate what, if anything, you'd like to see improved or changed about our OGI coverage.

Our apologies for such a quick post and the general lack of posting - we're currently in moot court hell, and won't ascend for another two weeks - - but hey, if you're going Weds. night, you just might have us as a judge. Is there any rule against live-blogging the proceedings?

61 comments:

Anonymous said...

We can has similar poll for 3Ls kthxbye?

Anonymous said...

No need for that, none of us are hiring 3Ls.

Anonymous said...

I would like to see one of two changes to OGI in the future:

1. Keep the system how it is but add a lottery slot trading system. The problem that I want to rectify is the one where a firm selects you as an alternate and you do not get an interview with this firm through the lottery system. The firm is clearly interested in you, but absent them making extra spots or somebody dropping, it's not going do you any good. You should be able to trade lottery interview slots that you are less interested in to other students for a slot with a firm you really want or who picked you as an alternate.

OR

2. Switch to a system that balances preselects and lottery picks in an 80/20 ratio rather than a 50/50 ratio. We could either go back to the old system (mostly preselects) or switch to a system with only 20% preselects. I think the latter is the better option. The result would be to make it a lot clearer where students stand w/ regard to a specific employer, either by making most interviewees preselected, or by making the number of preselects so small that being "preselected" is not nearly as important as it used to be.

Anonymous said...

3.65~ GPA. 5 callbacks. 4 rejections, 1 silence (and its been 3 weeks since that). I wanna kill myself right now. I went to a school "where everyone gets jobs." I did my part on exams and building my resume. And now I'm going to get shut out.

Anonymous said...

"or switch to a system with only 20% preselects. I think the latter is the better option"

This is a really dumb idea. We can apply the grade bar before wasting our and your time, or right there when we get your resume. Why do you think that you getting face time at the expense of us getting to see people we want to interview will *help* you?

Anonymous said...

In response to 1:44:

From what I know of how recruiting works at other T-14 schools, employer pre-selects seem to a small, or non-existent, part of the bidding process. Unless this is inaccurate, or you have some evidence that this process hurts students at other T-14 schools, I fail to see why we would be hurt from moving to a largely lottery based system.

Although entirely anecdotal, my OGI experience gave me the impression that preselects were not all that important. First, my callbacks have come from lottery picks, not preselects. Additionally, during OGI several interviewers asked me how the OGI bidding process worked. They were surprised to learn that there was a preselect system and they had no idea who within their firms was making the preselections.

Anonymous said...

Of course, the argument behind moving away from the preselects (i.e. that employer preselects may not have that much impact in grand scheme) is completely at odds with the argument for moving towards a system were students can trade lottery slots (i.e. that employer alternates matter).

However, both proposed changes serve the same goal: giving students a little bit of control over the OGI process. This will encourage students to do a lot of research on the firms they want to talk to, and (hopefully) to bid intelligently on firms that they think they can get jobs at aka the free market solution to the grade cutoff problem.

Anonymous said...

12:50 -- Are you serious?

Anonymous said...

3.55; 2 callbacks, waiting to hear from both.

Anonymous said...

12:50 - I hope you're kidding. I'm below median but not near the bottom and I haven't gotten a single callback. And I only have 2 firms left to hear from.

Anonymous said...

12:50 -- that is crazy.

What market?

Did you work before law school?

Did you go to a good undergrad?

Again, that is crazy

Anonymous said...

Cap the total number of interviews. If a few unlucky folks near the top of the class are unable to secure a position from 18 or so screening interviews, then so be it.

It looks like a *good* number of folks hovering around median have a callback or two from a pretty small number of screeners. If they had 5-10 more screeners, it looks like their chance of getting an offer would probably increase tremendously.

It also looks like most people at the top have fared quite well, and interviewed with firms they, quite fortunately, did not need to interview with. Not knocking them for doing so, but forcing them to drop a few more firms would have helped, strictly from the point of view of maximizing total job offers to UVA students.

Anonymous said...

12:50 here:

Targeted DC and NY. All my CBs were NY except 1 DC. And I am not kidding at all. I'm going to start mass mailing soon but I doubt it'll do any good. One more A- and I'd probably be on law review with multiple offers. Ugh

Anonymous said...

For those of you who received offers, how long after the callback did you get them (on average)?

Anonymous said...

3.4
Two callbacks. One turned into an offer, nothing but silence on the other callback (3 weeks on!). I'm counting my lucky stars. If I don't hear from the other firm by the end of the week I'm accepting my offer.

Good luck everybody.

Anonymous said...

4:39, 18 interviewers seems a bit on the low side given that before the economic crisis the average was about 20 I believe. I agree with your sentiment though that it might be worth capping the number somewhere in the low 20's (22 or so).

What do people mean when they're voting for the 2nd option on the poll mean? The only way I'd feel "Okay" is if I either had somewhere around five callbacks and no dings, otherwise I'd feel very anxious.

Anonymous said...

I'm not surprised by 12:50 at all because I could be in a similar position soon (higher GPA but same # of callbacks, not done with them yet so only one rejection, no offers). FWIW, I voted option #2 in the poll, but I am debating if it's time to start mailing. Don't beat yourself up over that A-, because I'm on LR and it's not a magic bullet at all.

Just hoping this process is over soon, for me and for everybody else...

Anonymous said...

>3.7, Moot Court, Law Review. 30 OGI interviews, 19 callbacks (declined 9), just got my 6th offer, everything DC. Notifying the firm I'm choosing tomorrow in late afternoon after conferring with a mentor.

Anonymous said...

@7:26- I'm loving that you felt the need to include that you along with ~250 of our classmates signed up for Moot Court... Congratulations on DC!

Anonymous said...

8:04,

Thanks for the congrats, but by Moot Court I don't mean Lile (though I am doing Lile). I mean the Extramural team. But thanks for the congrats again.

7:26

Anonymous said...

Aha... thanks for the clarification- and many congrats on DC. Also, as a student who is waiting for post-callback news, I for one appreciate you making a swift decision. Hope to see you in the city next summer...

Anonymous said...

@5:17-

The cap should be *lower* because of the economy-- there were far fewer interviews to go around.

-4:39

Anonymous said...

2:08--not sure what firms those are, but none of them were mine.

Anonymous said...

Cap the total number of interviews.

Ha. And you propose to enforce that how? If some kid with a 3.93 walks up to an interview room and says "I'd love to interview with your firm, but UVA won't let me have more than X formal interviews," you'd better believe that time will be made for him/her during lunch or at the end of the day.

You'll be competing against the best of your classmates regardless of what arbitrary restrictions career services tries to impose on students/firms.

Anonymous said...

~3.6, 5 callbacks, 4 offers (2 DC, 1 Northern VA, 1 NY), 1 ding. After the bidding process I got 15 screening interviews but obtained 5 more through special requests, 2 of which turned into offers. So for any 1L's, I would highly advise making as many special requests as possible.

Anonymous said...

@10:08

1. There already is a cap (30)

2. I'm fine with students making informal "special requests" as you described simply because it won't affect the distribution of interviews across the class. In other words, non-enforcement of additional requests is not going to threaten a capped regime. First, those requests won't be frequent-- they *can't* be frequent because there are only 2-3 more slots available (a few during lunch and maybe a few more after hours)! Second, fitting someone during lunch won't take away slots from anyone else.

3. What's "artificial" about a cap? Are you forgetting that OGI is in a sense capped anyway-- there are a fixed number of slots per schedule, a max number of bids (50)...

4. You're actually not always competing against the very best of your class. I'm not sure what exactly makes you think that's true? You definitely are for selective and desirable firms, but not so for others. Schedules vary widely across firms due to selectivity and desirability, as they should (and ought to to an even greater extent).

It sounds like your opposition is based on an intuition that a "free market" system is necessarily best. But if you think it through, it's just not true. If our goal is to maximize employment amongst UVA students (which I think it should be), then adding restrictions (like a more onerous cap) could avoid unnecessarily costing jobs on the margins that will go to students at other schools. My contention is that our preoccupation with providing students at the top choices, or with making sure that students near the top who don't interview well or fall on some bad luck have enough opportunity to find a job, is actually costing students jobs. Ie, it's effecting the bottom line: UVA's employment numbers.

I think there's a fairness argument, too, regarding the distribution of interview slots, but for now I'm curious about whether the above "efficiency" contention is true. This is supposed to be sober assessment of what would work best for the school (and *not* a tirade from a disgruntled job-seeker-- I would surely have been affected by the cap). In any case, let me know what you think is wrong with the analysis.

Anonymous said...

11:33, the flaw in your analysis is in your mistaking which side of the interview table I'm sitting on, and what it means to interview when you don't fit the basic criteria for even being in the running for one of a limited number of callback spots.

I know for a fact that, for a fair number of firms, the push to avoid pre-selection simply results in a lot of wasted time. Nobody is going to say "gee, that LR kid with the 3.76 isn't interviewing, I guess I'll give a CB slot to the 3.5 who isn't going to get an offer because I have to fill the spaces." It doesn't work like that.

Anonymous said...

What did we learn about this economy in general:

You better be well above median and a real good interviewer to have a good chance of securing an offer.

I've seen people with slightly lower GPAs cleaning up on the offer side because of their personality. Unfortunately, the opposite has been true, many top 1/3 with average to poor interview skills have been shut out.

Anonymous said...

7:43-

That's a bit of an oversimplification. There are definitely people below median with offers. The point is, if your gpa isn't stellar, make sure you can interview well.

Rule 12 (f) said...

So really, it seems like at this point 1/3 of the (meaningful) responses right now are from people who have an offer. I can't decide if that's cause for dismay (in previously years it was higher at this point) or relief (that things aren't as terrible as they could be.

Anonymous said...

4:28: Your comment incorrectly assumes that the criteria are academic. If the guy with the 3.5 like golf and has on a navy blazer and khakis, he's going to get the offer over the LR kid every time.

And this, friends, is why Big Law's failure will be a good thing for the legal profession.

Anonymous said...

8:58 -

It's not that kid's fault that you're a loser.

Anonymous said...

I don't think grades or interview skills were as much of a factor as geography. I know people who cleaned up in smaller markets (midwest, south, etc.) but were shut-out in NYC/DC. All things being equal, it was just a tough year in the big markets. We all knew this going in, but I think CS should have stressed this more. I know I would have put way more bids out for smaller markets, even if I didn't have a "connection" to that city.

Anonymous said...

8:58, I'm not "assuming" anything: the firm for which I work -- and other, similarly situated firms -- do not recruit in the manner you describe.

It's nice that the affable 3.5 is a swell kid, and maybe we even like him/her better on a personal level. But "swell kid" does not get the best brief filed/regulatory question answer to the client; "smart and motivated kid" does that.

So, absent a serious lack of tact/social judgment, my "assumption" is correct. Do other, differently situated firms handle recruiting differently? I don't know, so feel free to speculate about that all you want.

Anonymous said...

@4:28 (AM!)

I agree-- that's why I'm fine with some preselection, but want a lower cap on the total max number of interviews.

A cap should free up a large number of spots to interview with less desirable and perhaps less selective firms. The free sports are not going to come from firms that the most qualified are going to really want a shot with.

This year, it looks like quite a few people with decent but not stellar grades didn't get many (if any) preselections, but got a few callbacks out of a very small number of screeners. It sounds like they could have used a few more screeners to perhaps get one more callback and turn it into an offer.

Rule 12 (f) said...

Yea . . . which one of you people was making comments @ 4.28 AM on a Wednesday morning?!

Anonymous said...

Above the Law is running a story about Columbia encouraging law students to go to undergrad career fairs. Contrary to most of the ATL comments, I think this is an excellent idea, especially for people who have decide they don't want to work in law after all.

Does anybody know if UG career fairs and recruiting efforts are open to law students? The McIntire School of Commerce pulls in some top notch consultants and financial services firms, many of whom are actually hiring.

If you don't have an offer in your pocket (or are a no-offered 3L) I would suggest checking out what UG recruiting events are open to law students.

Anonymous said...

1:06 = Dean Hopson

Anonymous said...

haha 1:15, good one. didn't we go to law school to avoid UG job fairs? sad thing is it probably was dean hopson

Anonymous said...

12f can we get an offers/dings sticky post going? Would be helpful. thx

Anonymous said...

DOWN WITH THE SELF-ENTITLED CLASS OF 2011!

Anonymous said...

4:19 = no offered 3L who badly needs to get laid

Anonymous said...

5:14=lonely and desperate anti-social 2L who's going to make 4:19 "feel all better."

Anonymous said...

I'm seriously considering coming back for an llm because having a real job is not as much fun as uva was, but judging by all this noise, y'all aren't quite the people I went to school with.

Anonymous said...

5:14 - won't have the opportunity to get no-offered in the first place.

Anonymous said...

has it really come to this?

Anonymous said...

Would be interested to know the statistics with GPA/# of preselects and alternates/# of lottery picks/# of callbacks/# of offers/cities targeted, with information like extracurriculars and work experience and advanced degrees thrown in. It would be great if Career Services did some research on this. After all, how are they going to be able to give effective advice to future classes (and even, to us) if they have no idea what happened with OGIs this year.

Anonymous said...

3:11

Are you actually judging the character of the school based on the bullshit that flies around on in the anonymous comments of a blog?

Perfectly nice, intelligent person + internet anonymity = total fucking asshole.

Don't worry. UVA is still the place you remember. This comments section reflects nothing but the darkest characteristics of the small subset of readers of this blog who actually post in the comments, those readers being a small subset of the student body (sorry 12f, it's true).

Rule 12 (f) said...

"This comments section reflects nothing but the darkest characteristics of the small subset of readers of this blog who actually post in the comments, those readers being a small subset of the student body (sorry 12f, it's true)."

Nooooooooo!!! Eh, better than 1L year. I was blogging to myself in those days.

Anonymous said...

"Perfectly nice, intelligent person + internet anonymity = total fucking asshole"

So does this internet anonymity make the person the asshole, or does the anonymity just rid the person of the need to put up the "perfectly nice" facade?

Anonymous said...

Anybody hear back from Withers Bergman (CT)?

Anonymous said...

didn't they give cb like a month ago? or u talking about offers?

Anonymous said...

11:18, talking about offers. Any word?

Anonymous said...

anyone hear from CIA?

Anonymous said...

5:40 -- if they had, do you think it would be wise to broadcast that fact to the readers of a freaking blog?

Anonymous said...

its an anonymous blog

Anonymous said...

i hope you don't get called by them, or else the nation is doomed.

Anonymous said...

11:33 people who get special request interviews during lunch DO take away slots from others who could have gotten those special request interviews during lunch.

LR people should just make up their minds sooner.

Anonymous said...

Just wanted to say hello all. This is my first post.

I expect to learn a ton here.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.