OCImPics -- Olympics with More Roids
Again? Has it really been a year? No of course it hasn't been a year, it's been 11 months. But apparently schools setting up On-Campus Interviews are on the lunar calendar or something. Might as well wish everyone a Happy Yom Kippur while I'm at it. All that aside, this year promises to be special. It's an Olympics year and to be quite honest, I'd love to see Bob Costas cover the competitive, fearless, and agonizing spirit of OCIP. Who doesn't want to see a montage of Bobby hitting the gym to practice his handshake grip? Or Janey having a break down while shopping for a conservative, yet sassy business suit, only to build herself back up just in the nick of time to stick the hotel room greetings. Will THIS be the year someone finally attempts a three-piece suit? Who will dominate the VAULT? Pesky questions that I'm sure NBC will answer over the next few weeks.
With my ranting out of the way, this is your OCIP thread, but we do have some guidelines and best practices. For those of you who are unfamiliar, here is a short explanation (you should also probably consult 2010's thread and follow the links in that post to educate yourself). In essence, this thread is to inform those who want to be informed of such things when firms send out offers and/or rejections following OCIP. OCIP is a stressful process and it brings out the best and often the worst in people. If you feel OCIP is a notch below the library during exam times then you might want to skip this thread.
1. We will take comments posted below regarding offers/rejections and incorporate them into the body of this post. The process is tedious and generally not fun. There's a lot you can do to expedite things along.
2. PLEASE READ THE BODY OF THIS POST AND THE LAST FEW COMMENTS TO SEE IF ANYONE HAS POSTED THE SAME OFFER/REJECTION THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO POST.
3. SEE NUMBER 2.
4. Post the offers/rejections in the following format:
Best of luck to all of you, but for the love all that is holy and good, please follow Rules 2 and 3.
***
Altshuler Berzon +
Allen Matkins, LA +.
Arnold & Porter, SF +/-.
Baker & Hostetler, NY -.
Baker & McKenzie, SV +.
Baker Botts, SV +.
Bingham McCutchen, LA +, SF +.
Boies Schiller, OAK +.
Brownstein Hyatt, DEN -.
Bryan Cave, LA +/-, OC +.
Cadwalader, NY -.
Cleary, DC -, NY +, SV +
Cooley, SD +, SF +/-, SV +/-.
Covington, DC +, SF +/-.
Cravath +/-.
Crowell & Moring, DC -, SF +/-.
Curtis-Mallet Prevost, NY +.
Davis Polk, NY +, SV +/-.
Downey Brand, SAC +/-.
Drinker Biddle, SF +/-.
Edelson McGuire, CHI +.
Farella Braun, SF +/-.
Fenwick West, SF +/-, SV -.
Foley Lardner, DC -, LA +/-, SD -.
Gibson Dunn, LA +/-, SF +/-.
Goodwin Procter, BOS -, LA +/-, SF +, SV -.
Greenberg Traurig, SF +.
Gunderson Dettmer, SV -.
Haynes Boone, OC +/-.
Hogan Lovells, LA +, SF +.
Holland & Knight, SF +.
Hooper Lundy, SF +.
Hughes Hubbard & Reed, NY -.
Irell, LA +.
Jeffer Mangels, LA +.
Jenner & Block, CHI +, LA +.
Jones Day, DC -, LA +/-, NY -, SD -, SF +/-.
K&L Gates, SEA +.
Kasowitz, SV +/-.
Keker & Van Nest, +/-.
King & Spalding, DC +.
Kirkland Ellis, LA +, SF +.
Latham, LA +, OC -, SD +/-, SF +/-.
Lowenstein, SV +/-.
McDermott, Will & Emery, SV -.
Manatt, LA +/-.
Morgan Lewis, LA -, SF +.
Morrison Foerster, LA +, SD -, SF +/-.
O'Melveny, CC +/-, LA +/-, OC +, SF +/-, SV -.
Orrick, SF +/-, SV -.
Paul Hastings, LA -, NY +, SF +/-.
Paul Weiss, NY +.
Perkins Coie, SEA +, SF -, SV +.
Pillsbury, SF +.
Proskauer Rose, LA +.
Reed Smith, SF -, SV -.
Ropes & Gray, SF +.
Rutan & Tucker, +/-.
Sedgwick, SF -.
Schiff Hardin, CHI -, SF -.
Shearman & Sterling, NY +.
Sheppard Mullin, LA +, SD +, SF +.
Sidley Austin, CHI +, LA +/-, SF +.
Simpson Thatcher, DC -, LA -, NY +/-, SV +/-.
Skadden, LA +, NY +, SV +/-.
Sullivan & Cromwell, NY +, SV +.
Wachtell, +.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, NY -, SV +.
White & Case, LA +.
WilmerHale, DC +/-, LA -, NY +, SV +/-.
Wilson Sonsini, SF -, SV +/-.
Winston & Strawn, SF +/-.
With my ranting out of the way, this is your OCIP thread, but we do have some guidelines and best practices. For those of you who are unfamiliar, here is a short explanation (you should also probably consult 2010's thread and follow the links in that post to educate yourself). In essence, this thread is to inform those who want to be informed of such things when firms send out offers and/or rejections following OCIP. OCIP is a stressful process and it brings out the best and often the worst in people. If you feel OCIP is a notch below the library during exam times then you might want to skip this thread.
THE RULES
1. We will take comments posted below regarding offers/rejections and incorporate them into the body of this post. The process is tedious and generally not fun. There's a lot you can do to expedite things along.
2. PLEASE READ THE BODY OF THIS POST AND THE LAST FEW COMMENTS TO SEE IF ANYONE HAS POSTED THE SAME OFFER/REJECTION THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO POST.
3. SEE NUMBER 2.
4. Post the offers/rejections in the following format:
Firm name, Office, +/- to indicate offer/rejection respectively. For example:The location abbreviations are as follows:
Orrick, SF +.
Atl -- Atlanta; Bos -- Boston; Chi -- Chicago; Dal -- Dallas; DC -- DC; EBay -- East Bay locations (Oakland, Walnut Creek, etc.); LA -- LA area offices (includes Century City); Mia = Miami and South Florida; Minn -- Minnesota; NY -- New York/New Jersey; OC -- Orange County area offices; Por -- Portland; Sac -- Sacramento; SD -- San Diego; SF -- San Francisco; SV -- Silicon Valley offices (includes Palo Alto, San Jose, Menlo Park, and all other South Bay locations).5. This is now the eighth OCIP that N&B has had this thread. Without failure, each previous thread contained comments that were ummm worthy of staying up. So, while we will delete comments that are only posting +/-, more substantive comments will stay up. At the same time, it's probably wise not to identify yourself to your prospective employers. So don't write anything silly that's going to reveal who you are.
Best of luck to all of you, but for the love all that is holy and good, please follow Rules 2 and 3.
***
Altshuler Berzon +
Allen Matkins, LA +.
Arnold & Porter, SF +/-.
Baker & Hostetler, NY -.
Baker & McKenzie, SV +.
Baker Botts, SV +.
Bingham McCutchen, LA +, SF +.
Boies Schiller, OAK +.
Brownstein Hyatt, DEN -.
Bryan Cave, LA +/-, OC +.
Cadwalader, NY -.
Cleary, DC -, NY +, SV +
Cooley, SD +, SF +/-, SV +/-.
Covington, DC +, SF +/-.
Cravath +/-.
Crowell & Moring, DC -, SF +/-.
Curtis-Mallet Prevost, NY +.
Davis Polk, NY +, SV +/-.
Downey Brand, SAC +/-.
Drinker Biddle, SF +/-.
Edelson McGuire, CHI +.
Farella Braun, SF +/-.
Fenwick West, SF +/-, SV -.
Foley Lardner, DC -, LA +/-, SD -.
Gibson Dunn, LA +/-, SF +/-.
Goodwin Procter, BOS -, LA +/-, SF +, SV -.
Greenberg Traurig, SF +.
Gunderson Dettmer, SV -.
Haynes Boone, OC +/-.
Hogan Lovells, LA +, SF +.
Holland & Knight, SF +.
Hooper Lundy, SF +.
Hughes Hubbard & Reed, NY -.
Irell, LA +.
Jeffer Mangels, LA +.
Jenner & Block, CHI +, LA +.
Jones Day, DC -, LA +/-, NY -, SD -, SF +/-.
K&L Gates, SEA +.
Kasowitz, SV +/-.
Keker & Van Nest, +/-.
King & Spalding, DC +.
Kirkland Ellis, LA +, SF +.
Latham, LA +, OC -, SD +/-, SF +/-.
Lowenstein, SV +/-.
McDermott, Will & Emery, SV -.
Manatt, LA +/-.
Morgan Lewis, LA -, SF +.
Morrison Foerster, LA +, SD -, SF +/-.
O'Melveny, CC +/-, LA +/-, OC +, SF +/-, SV -.
Orrick, SF +/-, SV -.
Paul Hastings, LA -, NY +, SF +/-.
Paul Weiss, NY +.
Perkins Coie, SEA +, SF -, SV +.
Pillsbury, SF +.
Proskauer Rose, LA +.
Reed Smith, SF -, SV -.
Ropes & Gray, SF +.
Rutan & Tucker, +/-.
Sedgwick, SF -.
Schiff Hardin, CHI -, SF -.
Shearman & Sterling, NY +.
Sheppard Mullin, LA +, SD +, SF +.
Sidley Austin, CHI +, LA +/-, SF +.
Simpson Thatcher, DC -, LA -, NY +/-, SV +/-.
Skadden, LA +, NY +, SV +/-.
Sullivan & Cromwell, NY +, SV +.
Wachtell, +.
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, NY -, SV +.
White & Case, LA +.
WilmerHale, DC +/-, LA -, NY +, SV +/-.
Wilson Sonsini, SF -, SV +/-.
Winston & Strawn, SF +/-.
Labels: OCIP/Employment
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 9:23 AM
156 Comments:
Why did they split OCIP in two?
Historically that's how it has always been done. As for why? I mean it's a bit obvious, isn't it? Easier to schedule, you minimize conflicts, less gaming, yada yada yada. Why do we have divisions and conferences in sports?
I thought we had divisions in the NFL because the Patriots are little bitches and are afraid to have to compete in-division with the Raiders.
No one is afraid of competing with the Raiders.
Saul Goodman (Santa Fe)+
Here's the thing, listing Saul Goodman, or Bob Loblaw, or Lionel Hutz, or Jackie Chiles may seem amusing at first, but let's just say the novelty wears off after a few years.
DAMN WE GETTIN' TROLLED
Wait, is this a thread of callbacks or a list of offers? (Post implies offers/rejections ... but feels too early for that..) Are these just offers for 1L SAs?
Callbacks, not offers.
manatt -
What office?
So how screwed are those of us with all P's?
Straight P's. So far, 1 rejection, 2 CB's. Pretty wary of the odds of an offer from the offices.
So a msg to call someone back at orrick is not necessarily a good thing, huh? Guess I'll just be nervous all night...
No that's good news! They wouldn't ask you to call them just so they could tell you that you didn't get the job. They reject by email so they don't have to experience the awkwardness of it.
6:19-
Although it varies from firm to firm, your grades tend not to matter as much once you have a callback. In general, the purpose of the screening interview is to filter out those with (1) disagreeable personalities and (2) unacceptable grades. If you made it through the screener, then you've got a strong shot so long as you interview well at your callback. The firm wouldn't have called you back if it had a problem with your straight-P transcript.
7:46
Yeah I realize that. They are small offices is why I am worried; they will probably hire between one and two associates each.
@7:43...that's what I would think too, but I just saw some references to orrick rejecting by phone, so didn't want to get my hopes up.
Orrick is infamous for rejecting people by phone. AFAIK, they are the only firm that does this.
Some previous comments on OCIP threads past (I make no substantive comments on any firm's practices):
Orrick, SF, - (by voicemail! classy!)
10/11/2006 2:27 PM
Orrick SF just called to reject me...wouldn't a letter have sufficed?
9/14/2007 2:24 PM
At least last year, Orrick SF called to ding...sometimes within 24 hours.
Surprise!
9/15/2009 2:39 PM
I got a rejection call from Orrick SF...
8/31/2010 4:18 PM
Orrick, SF - (via phone call. cruel.)
8/09/2011 11:18 PM
Dear People With Callbacks,
Stop talking about them openly when you are in and around the hotel. I don't care if you are talking with someone else who also has callbacks, we can all hear you. Today I heard two separate people complain about how hard it was to schedule multiple callbacks. It makes the rest of us feel like crap.
10:27, with all due respect, I don't see it and I don't get it. This process is stressful and plainly not fun for candidates. What people don't need on top of all that is worrying that they may be offending their egg-shell colleagues who don't have the capacity to appreciate and celebrate their colleagues' success. Can we all imagine instances of people being jerks about OCIP by, for example, rambling on and on about everyone loves him/her and how he/she's God's gift to the legal profession? Yes, but then again we all chose to forgo law schools that attract people of that sort and came to Boalt for the camaraderie. Don't let the stress of this process turn you into a sourpuss. (And I'm going to assume that the post is just a release valve as you're going through a stressful process and not an overall reflection of your personality of being incapable of watching those around you reach certain accomplishments).
In regards to the above, i certainly understand both perspectives. As someone who has had ups and downs in law school I know the desire to share your triumphs with someone and how frustrating it is to hear others gloat when you are down. I think people without callbacks need to understand that most people who they overhear discussing their callbacks are excited, looking for additional intel, and even occasionally facing actual logistical challenges. On the other hand I think everyone should be sensitive to the fact that is an incredibly stressful process and people have widely varying levels of success and don't want it rubbed in their faces.
100% agree with 10:27. I'm extremely happy for anyone that gets a callback or even 100 callbacks, but someone complaining about the odious task of scheduling multiple call backs within earshot of others is lame.
Armen,
One thing I like about your 9:51 p.m. post--in addition, of course, to highlighting Orrick's unique rejection etiquette--is that we can see how much OCIP/EIW has moved up in the schedule in just five short years. Since 2006, we've moved from mid-October to mid-September to late-August to early-August.
Complaining about scheduling callbacks is always douchey. That is such a first world problem.
Aaaand we have our first Rule No. 2 violator. That took longer than I thought actually.
Or maybe not?
If you're talking about Manatt, it was kind of unclear whether the info I gave was up-to-date or not.
No, I'm just confused. Not unusual.
Pretty sure CDO even sent out an email saying to act professional and respectful of other people going through the process.
Sort of like talking about finals.
It's called courtesy and empathy. Pretty sure that's why ppl went to Boalt and not Dbag law school.
This discussion is never-ending at Boalt and I apologize in advance for propagating it even further. This is essentially the perennial battle between the code of silence crowd and the "need to know" crowd. The rivalry is more bitter than the Starks vs. the Lannisters.
To be honest, I've been on both sides many times, which is the only reason I'm responding--I think it makes sense to lay out the pros and cons of both sides. That said, yes, I agree you should act professionally at all times. Would I talk publicly about my offers? No. Should you be considerate of your colleagues? Always. It sucks when people talk about call backs and your phone hasn't gone off. It sucks when you look at the list above and see firms that you interviewed with but haven't heard from. That's why there's a long list of warnings and caveats. I didn't sit here and make those up. They're based on years and years of debating the utility of this post. I think everyone appreciates that.
On the flip side, scheduling callbacks is actually stressful and not some taboo subject ("You said Jehova!"). And people with callbacks are probably just as eager to vent about their frustrations. But, let's assume that reasonable minds disagree. I'm still having a hard time understanding how the proper solution is coming to a blog post about callbacks and writing an open letter addressed to "Dear People With Callbacks." Isn't that the greater sin? What attitude does that convey? I don't care if you're in law school or in the profession, if you're going to walk around with resentment about people succeeding around you, you've chosen the wrong profession.
My last point is to clarify that what bothers me is the "I can't handle the success of others" attitude, I don't quibble that discussing callbacks in public can rub people the wrong way. In fact, I want to single out 11:19 pm from last night as an example of absolute professionalism for raising the issue in a way that's articulate and certainly far from petty. That's the person I want to work with in a conference room late on a Friday night!
People w/ Latham callbacks, did you get the email w/ instructions yet? And sorry if it is douchey to even post this I just don't know if I should follow up or be patient - its been more than 2 days....
I got a latham email very quickly, same day. You should probably follow up
Sheppard mullin sd already called back? They aren't even done interviewing people.
Yes.
Wachtell callback? Holy balls if that is real.
Did those Gibson CBs go to peeps who went to last night's dinner or Wednesday's dinner? (or maybe no dinner at all?)
Alum here, fall squarely into the do not talk about callbacks club. First, you can discuss them with classmates away from OCI, on Gchat, or at a bar after, no need to discuss there. Second, it's not logistically complex, they cover travel and hotel and take care of everything for you. Have too many callbacks and need to wait? Firms have no problems waiting for your response. Nothing about it is complicated to talk in front of others.
On the flipside, OCI is really a do or die proposition which makes it extremely stressful. Not getting a job at OCI, almost 95% of the time means not being able to start off at anywhere near a six figure income. With a 270k debtload at boalt, these are the only jobs which can lead to repayment. While there is IBR, someone like Paul Ryan would eradicate that in a second.
In summary, while some people are debating callbacks, other people are debating whether to gamble on a 270k debt at 8.5% which could realistically follow you and potentially impoverish you for the rest of your life, given the lack of high salaries outside biglaw.
So I did 20+ interviews and currently have 0 callbacks and 4 rejections. Should I be freaking out?
It's real. But let's be honest, there isn't a single person working at Wachtell that went to Berkeley. Unless this person with the CB can turn water into wine, it won't turn into an offer.
Has anyone heard back (+ or -) from Littler Mendelson?
So I'm assuming callbacks typically don't go out over weekends? Anyone expecting otherwise?
At least one person received an offer from Wachtell last year, although he/she decided to go somewhere else. That said, it is true that WLRK does not have any Boalt alums currently working there. But there are Duke and UT peeps, so getting an offer certainly isn't an impossibility.
Question for those who have been through this process before: Are all, most, or just a few places already done with callbacks? If we don't have a callback, but also no ding from a place with a + are we not going to get one or do they sometimes come in waves?
Every student has a different OCI experience. For some, CBs are going to come fast & furious. Whereas for me at OCI last year, I had 8 CBs but they came in waves. My grades are a mixed bag, fwiw. As other people declined CBs/offers, new CBs would pop up and this continued many weeks post-OCI. Close friends had the same experience and some who thought they'd have nothing ended with three offers to choose from. You just never know. Follow up when appropriate, send your thank you notes, and stay positive!
Re: Littler. Last year they took at least a couple weeks before calling people back. Their interviews were also later in the game, so don't get discouraged.
Are people sending thank yous? I was told not to send them...
re: thank you letters. OCI interviewer here. Most callback decisions are made on the same day, if not during the interview itself.
Apply that as you may. I can tell you that I have never seen anything in a thank you letter that changed my decision from a "no" to a "yes".
And if you do decide to send them anyways, keep it really short. Don't use it as a chance to get more information in front of the interviewer -- we don't want to read another cover letter.
It grinds my gears that administration accepted 40 (!) transfers who ate up a ton of callbacks, while many of our classmates aren't doing as well they had hoped. While I didn't participate in EIW because it's not the right career path for me, I want my friends to have success if that's the choice they've made.
Edley & Co. should have had some loyalty to people who have been here (paying outrageous tuition) all along. I'd love to hear his defense of this decision. I suspect it would be typically unsatisfying.
The people who run Boalt are arrogant, overpaid asshats.
Is that stat of 40 transfers accurate? Where did you find that out? I'm certain we didn't lose that many students from the 2L class so the fact that they would take so many seems odd. (But I agree entirely with the rest of your sentiment, especially if the number really is that high)
@ 2:33. I can't verify, but 40 is the number quite a few 2014ers mentioned throughout the week. 2014 was small to begin with (about 240-250, pre-dropouts and transfers), so it would make sense, as +40 would bring 2014 to Boalt's standard 270.
@2:30: From what I could tell the transfers were basically cleaning up with CBs. I would think they would have done just as well via their original school since that's what they are judged on apparently anyway.
I met some wonderful transfers (and some super-intense ones), but it was upsetting to see friends that were struggling and getting none and seeing transfers getting calls left and right before last week was even done.
Transfers do not affect the school's LSAT / GPA numbers yet for two years you get $$$$ out of them. Why wouldn't you admit as many as you can?
Note: I'm intentionally sidestepping the anti-transfer hysteria ("They took our jobs!") that foments during every OCIP cycle.
Yeah, someone should do something about them uppity transfers. Their own hotel, their own OCIP, and their own drinking fountains would be a good start.
They really are completely different than those who happened to spend 16 months in Boalt Hall as opposed to 8 months at Boalt and 8 months at some other fully accredited ABA law school (where they killed their exams btw). I too find their success upsetting. What's next? They are in our classrooms, they are in our OCIP, our library, and our Zeb. What's next? Soon they'll be stealing our H's and sleeping with our womenfolk. Shame!
We should form a club or organization or something. What should we call it?
As a non-transfer Boaltie with 3 rejections and 0 CBs, I am totally apalled at the way I have heard my fellow students (some of them friends of mine) talking about the transfers. I have heard so many rude (and loud) comments in the boiler room over the course of the past week re: "transfer hysteria" that I've begun to question my generally positive feelings about people at Boalt. We pride ourselves on our camraderie and kindness, yet I heard some really ugly things coming out of some classmates' mouths. Lets not forget that to be a Boalt transfer, you generally have to get straight A's, which is a quite a feat at ANY law school. Moreover, law school tuition is pretty much ridiculous everywhere ... its not as if the transfers' 1L year was free. I am not going to blame the transfers for taking "my" callbacks, I'm going to blame my so-so grades and a tough job market. I worked really hard last year, and I know everyone else did too. But nobody is entitled to a callback, so please stop acting like the transfers are "stealing" from us. The transfers are Boalties now too, and they are probably reading this blog. Lets welcome them into the fold and congratulate them on a job well done rather than acting like a bunch of sour grapes.
couldn't agree more with 3:12.
3:12 is absolutely right.
2:41 here...I just reported on what I could see (that transfers were doing really well apparently). I actually like transfers better. They work their asses off to get in as transfers and all the ones I met (intense and laid-back) were nice and affable and helpful since they had done more homework on what it takes to do well. I think transfers get the callbacks they deserve. It was upsetting to see friends get no calls because I felt bad, not because transfers "took them."
I am a transfer. I can confirm the "40" number. I heard that number from the registar's office a couple weeks ago, although it might be smaller now if a few people eventually accepted at another school or something.
I find 3:12's response and those like it as indication that I made the right choice coming to Boalt. Every single student I've met has been welcoming and absolutley wonderful to me. This is obviously a great place to be.
In addition, I'm not exaclty swimming in callbacks yet either. Calm down everybody, I hear that although some firms make instant 24 hour decisions, like the firm 11:57 works for, many other firms do callbacks on a slower or a rolling basis as people accept and decline other callbacks and offers. I've heard plenty of anecdotal evidnece from rising 3L's and beyond that callbacks also go out days or weeks after EIW.
4:17, actually all my callbacks came within 48 hours of the interview. Rolling callbacks are exceedingly rare as firms are solid at predicting yield and tend to over-callback people to avoid this. For instance one firm I interviewed with gave 80CBs for 2 SA positions, another 30 CBS for 1 SA position. At this point, if you don't have callbacks it's time to start looking elsewhere.
For those complaining about OCIP or transfers, you are going to need a lot thicker skin to make it through the next two years. As someone who struck out at OCIP (and this will happen to around 30-50% of the class), the non OCIP job search is a nightmare that is at least 100 times more stressful than OCIP. Landing my job took at least 1500 applications and 40 in person interviews before landing a couple offers, and sleepless nights about if the education would turn out to be a good investment.
Even finding any position would not have been possible if I had continued to blame transfers and Edley. OCIP will always be a rude awakening for a lot of students. However, the only way to effectively deal with it is to self-examine and look within for reasons behind your failure, not blame everything else under the sun.
Lulz @ the idea of it being difficult to get all A's at some of the "accredited" law schools these cash cows went to. And many of them DID go to these schools virtually for free.
Mad props to the transfers for getting recruiters impressed by your good grades competing against the functionally retarded at university of western state ag or whatever. And mad props to Boalt admin for making millions off these transfers. There is definitely a lot of resentment toward these kids though, and it has more to do with their gunner attitudes than their number of callbacks.
+1 for welcoming transfers. Yes, I have joked with others about them taking our jerbs but, they are going to be our classmates for the next two years, they are very accomplished people, and, from what I've seen so far seem like mostly good eggs. I like y'all but lets be honest is an infusion of fresh blood into the class such a bad thing? Some of them might even be attractive! I know we are stressed to the breaking point and this process sucks. I don't really blame anyone who loses their sh*t a little bit and says things they aren't proud of. But I personally haven't seen anyone be anything but welcoming to the transfers and I hope that continues. I can't tell you how many times I heard from interviewers that their firms like hiring Boalties because they are smart, ambitious, and hardworking without being cutthroat or petty. Lets keep that up.
7:48 - you kind of suck. Don't call your new classmates cash cows or future colleagues in the legal profession functionally retarded (no matter where they went to law school). Talk about a gunnerish attitude. Do you realize a few folks at the schools higher ranked then us would look down on our Boalt grades and think its "easy" to do well here...and we hate those people and hope we don't have to work with them because they are insecure snobs. To any transfers reading this thread I hope you don't take that comment to heart - even a great bunch like Boalt has a couple of bad apples.
5 rejections and 0 CBs so far...
Anyone else thinking about dropping out if they strike out?
Is there any hope if we have 0 callbacks right now?
How unfortunate that some of these posts are from those we call our Boalt classmates. We're all very lucky that the internet affords such anonymity so that others can spew out such malicious thoughts. I've seen such horrendous things said from both those who are fortunate enough to have many callbacks, and those who currently have few. EIW truly brings out the worst of us. I was expecting it, but not to this extent.
While most of us may be frustrated, it's misguided to blame the transfers. How silly to think that they are taking "our" jobs. Please, everyone knew of the reality of the legal market when we entered law school. Why are we to feel entitled now? Our new transfer classmates have done superlatively at their respective schools. They deserve those callbacks. My new transfer classmates -- I applaud you for kicking such ass your 1L year. I have little doubt you'll do the same here.
With that said, I think some of the blame lies with CDO. They've been fairly open about the success rate of EIW, but little has been done to guide students through other avenues. This includes students who strike out at EIW, students aiming for smaller firms, and students aiming for public interest related work.
As for dropping out, if it really is true that callbacks come in waves, then maybe it is best to wait a bit. With that said, you should be proactive in continuing your job search with firms.
One doesn't have to hold anything against transfers personally to be unhappy with the situation. They did well at their own schools and that's great. BUT it's still really unfair to us OG Boalties, and I personally am very let down by our administration for letting in such a huge number of transfers.
In fact I would go further than what's already been said and and say that an administrative move like this makes Boalt seem like a diploma mill and devalues all of our degrees.
Best of luck to the OGs.
Personally, my view is that striking out in OCIP is a poor reason to leave law school. If the only thing keeping you at Boalt is the prospect of being an associate in a big law firm, then it is hard to believe you will be happy when you become one. In other words, if law school is not right for you but for the job, then the job is not a good reason to go to law school. Few people would take those jobs if they did not pay so well, and life is too short to affirmatively decide to be miserable on account of money.
That is my own view. But it comes from someone who really enjoyed the education Boalt gave him, and who remembers law school as a fantastic experience. I recognize and understand that mileage on that point varies.
As to the transfer student thing, that is just silly. Everyone who graduates with you is a fellow Boaltie and a colleague. I assume people are just venting.
CDO is a joke. Galligan should be canned yesterday. 8 employers (or whatever) in phase 2 of FIP? Seriously?
Transfer here: obvs stole the callback at wachtell only because I promised they could put my old school on the website if hired. They really hate berkeley people.
If any consolation, cravath -
:::clap clap clap::: creative trolling 9:50.
people who got the Sheppard Mullin LA callback - are you counting drink invites or was a round of calls actually received?
Similarly, did someone actually get a callback interview invitation at Gibson Dunn SF or are they counting the dinner invite?
Disagree respectfully with Patrick, striking out is a good reason to dropout, especially if you could eclipse anywhere near the now estimated 250k debtload by graduation.
Outside of Biglaw, most legal jobs (small+midsize firms) pay around 60k tops (and thats being quite positive). Interest on your loan alone is 20k per year. Basically, if you strike-out, you are looking at around 35k pre-tax income tops to live on without paying any loan principal.
People can point to IBR, but one act by congress can repeal it and essentially make you a debt slave for the rest of your life, since LRAP relies on IBR. While the school tries to say an IBR repeal is unrealistic: "And don’t expect the government to forgive the debt that you take on.”- Mitt Romney
Unfortunately,these Biglaw jobs, however they are, are the only realistic way of paying down the tremendous tuition costs without taking a political gamble.
@10:29, received Sheppard Mullin call for callback specifically.
Sheppard picking up the tab was great though.
10:47, your argument is essentially that you are wearing golden handcuffs, except they're not so golden. Why DID you come to law school then? You knew the cost. Did you really write a personal statement about wanting to be a junior associate at Billy, Bob & Moe LLP?
There is something to be said of the underlying points you make though. The fact is that Dean Edley's policies on the price of legal education at Boalt has been premised on the assumption that everyone will land a high-paying job at big law. That's the only way this all makes sense. I was ok with it when the school had its own robust, independent loan repayment program. But now, I'm not so sure. I don't know if there is a viable alternative to the choices DE has made. But at the same time, I think for the past 4 years now, the school should have seriously reconsidered its fiscal assumptions. The problem, of course, is that all the economic forces that require you to reconsider your assumptions are also pushing you in the direction of continuing with your rosy assumptions.
Welcome to the law school tuition bubble!
Here's why you shouldn't despair if you haven't gotten a callback (or many CB's) yet -- from some firms' perspectives, this is still early in the game. Yes, yes, I know, everyone thinks recruitment is happening earlier and earlier, and to a certain extent, it is. But there are still a lot of other schools for firms to consider. So they take their time with CB's in this EIW cycle more than they did in previous years, when Boalt had OCIP in Sept.
I know someone who had like 1 CB his/her first week of interviews, and ended up getting a total of 5 CB's or so.
And unless you hate law school or don't want to be a lawyer or anything JD-related, don't drop out.
10:47PM here, Actually came to law school because I really wanted to work in Biglaw in a certain transactional area I had past experience with, so maybe actually wanting the job makes me odd. I don't also really have a problem with people coming to law school to make money, some people just don't like working regardless of the task, and just want to maximize the yield of their efforts.
As for what the administration has done wrong with regards to cost is in faculty hiring. The school has gone on a spending spree to hire more teachers to write useless law review articles nobody will ever read in order to keep up in the world of acedemia, which has no benefit to students directly. I think Prof. Campos said a law review article costs a school around 100k, that would be a solid place to start. Berkeley could start trying to be a school rather than a pointless academic thinktank, but then again that's the way the bubble is going.
also interested in the question about GDC callbacks (see 10:37).
Gibson callback was actual callback for interviews, not just dinner.
Re: yesterday 7:20pm about 15 comments up - I have a hard time really believing it would be standard practice for a firm to invite 80 people back for 2 spots. That is a colossal waste of time and money for the firm and I'm sure they'd look for more efficiencies in finding the right person. 80 people x 5 hours each is 400 hours to find two people! And that's just the CBs, not all the full days of screening at schools and fairs. That's colossally inefficient and I'd think the attorneys, who would rather be billing hours than spending an hour in interviews 5-10 times per week, would be pissed. But if I'm wrong I'm wrong. Anyone out there corroborate?
@ 12:06. It's also a *ton* of spent money. Paying for travel costs of 80 people? A generous lowball of $300x80 = $24,000 is the amount they'd spend looking for two attorneys.
FWIW Lowenstein Sandler just sent an email saying they'd contact me after sept 17th if they were going to do a callback. not sure if that is significant re: this being early for firms to recruit?
Lowenstein, SV -
2:40 pm: It sounds like you've been delayed to a second round of CB potentials with Lowenstein. The email I just received was an actual rejection.
Do people ask DE about the high tuition? What does he say?
80 people for two spots seems unlikely. When i was in big law, I think in our office (SV, lit), we probably brought back 30 folks for about 5 spots.
Every firm handles the callbacks differently. While the OCIP interview may give the list of recommended folks to the recruiter right after the interviews, that does not mean that callbacks will necessarily go out that quickly.
Don't give up hope and remember to breathe.
Come blow off steam this weekend at the Launch Party. Open bar, DJ, dinner - where can you get all that for $40? Buy your tix now while you're thinking about it - it's this Saturday! http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/255921
6:28: Why are you guys so restrictive about who can come? The page says the event is only open to current students and only one guest of a student can be a non-student. What if a student wants to bring two Boalt alums as guests? Is that really not allowed?
Re: Launch Party. You can absolutely bring two non-students/alumni. Each Boaltie can bring up to THREE guests. The UC Berkeley campus policy is somewhat restrictive, in that each student should bring their school ID, can bring up to 3 guests, and no non-Berkeley students can wander in alone.
Ah, and everyone must be over 21, so bring picture ID. Open bar, catered, DJ, just $40 (45 at the door): http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/255921
I have developed a mailbox phobia. This wait is becoming increasingly painful. So far: cooley, davis polk, holland knight, latham, and sterling are a no within 48 hours; Greenberg and cadwalader are yes also within 48. The rest are silent.....
This is weird. Got a CB on Friday evening, returned call Monday afternoon to accept (so I thought legit - w/ 1 business day). That was almost three days ago, and they haven't followed up. I kinda don't mind because I'm not super into this firm after all, so am I off the hook, or do I have an obligation to not let this passively linger on?
anon @ 10:03, was it jones day? the lady called me last night to schedule, but otherwise that time line is about what i experienced, so maybe she'll call today?
also, Boies Schiller, EBay, -
no, not Jones Day.
Wait, only 2 DC offices have offered callbacks?! Anyone else have luck?
Still have 0 callbacks after 20 interviews. I am dropping out. Peace out Boalt.
Some comments from a 3L for those living through the agony of callbacks:
- I did 23 interviews, got two callbacks, and one job. The two callbacks came within 24 hours. CDO told me that they're certain I'll get more in the coming weeks. Never happened.
- If you don't get any callbacks and are considering whether your law schools debts will ever get paid, don't despair -- yet. If your grades are somewhere in the middle, there is a reasonable chance that you could get a job if you were able to do 2L OCI all over again. You have two ways to make that happen:
(1) Enter some joint degree program during your 2L year. An MBA, MPP, MA or anything that adds one year to your graduation date and appears relevant (business, finance, and accounting related programs would work best for corporate law jobs). Then you'll be able to do 2L OCI next year all over again, perhaps with better 2L grades. Based on the results of that OCI, you can decide to drop out of that other degree program. Drawback: if you get a job, you'll add one year to your graduation and job start. If you don't get a job, you can still graduate in three years by dropping out of that joint degree program. If your joint degree is an MBA, you'll have access to other job markets too -- including a shot at starting a private equity firm and even becoming the Republican nominee for presidency.
(2) Take an year off. Do something sexy like a start-up to add to your story. Come back to school next year as a 2L, and do 2L OCI again. If you still don't get a job, you'd have the option of dropping out instead of piling on more debt from registering for 2L year.
These methods have been used by past generations. But past experience does not guarantee future performance. User discretion is advised.
Bryan Cave (Santa Monica) +
Don't despair people callbacks are definitely still ongoing.
Anyone hear either way from Boies Schiller DC or Lieff Cabraser?
rest assured, non-transfer kids, that the firms when evaluating transfers apply grade cutoffs based not on boalt's grade cutoffs but based upon the school from which they came. these are often very strict - top 5% or even top 5-10 in his/her class depending on specific school. however, boalt's transfers often fit in those categories, which is what got them into boalt, which is why they're doing better than the boalt population as a whole. however, very few firms have strict quotas for schools so they're not exactly taking up "boalt spots". so feel free to feel happy for them - their success isn't at the expense of yours.
aside, now that i'm a couple years out, was wondering which firms are getting the chatter - either good or bad? back when I was there DPW/gunderson/latham/orrick were always sought after, while paul hastings/wilson/pillsbury/skadden had bad reps.
All this don't-hate-on-the-transfers posting is a little over the top. It is true that there is no need to hate transfers personally for choosing to come to our school. But why can't we hate on our school for letting in SO many transfers?
Just stop and consider what is happening. Forty+ transfers is enough to have a significant impact on all of us, and not just because of their real effect on OCI but because of their effect on the poor course availability this semester as well.
Again, nothing against the transfers-I wish them success-but our school has revealed itself to be a diploma mill. Way to go Boalt!
5:20 just stop. You know not of what you speak. Only in the insanely myopic spoiled world in which you live is Boalt a diploma mill. Many of your incredibly accomplished new classmates came from real diploma mills. Schools with poor job prospects that can't justify their own cost. Boalt students do very well at OCI and the transfers do not have a negative effect on that. No school can guarantee you a big law job (except maybe YS and its not Boalt's fault you didn't end up there). As far as course schedules go - some classes are bound to be oversubscribed and some canceled because of lack of enrollment. The biggest problem that affects class availability is that Boalt is an underfunded public institution and if anything the transfers help with that. Just step back for a second and appreciate the quality of education you are receiving and the opportunities it affords you. The transfers are not to blame for any complaints you have with either, and the transfers are just as deserving of both - after all unlike us "OGs" who simply did well on the LSAT and in college - the transfers rocked their first year of law school. Props to them. I am so tired of Boalties who don't realize what they have - start thinking about how you can make the most of it rather then blaming others and trashing your school on the internet.
preach, 5:20. 1 in every 6 people in our class is new. it totally changes the feel of our community.
@5:20 here. I reiterate that I have nothing against individual transfers or the group of forty transfers as a whole. But it is "myopic" to say that the presence of the forty didn't affect outcomes at OCI or that their presence won't be felt throughout the next two years. Thus Berkeley is diluting our experience for transfer-student-money. That is my gripe.
I came to Berkeley with a romantic view of the school and what it means to be part of the Berkeley Law community. I feel let down.
The class of 2012 was also joined by about forty transfer students. The class of 2013, on the other hand, only saw 20-25 transfers. I assumed this was because the size of the 2013 1L class (290+ students ) was unusually large by Boalt standards, so they didn't have as much room for transfers. The class of 2014 was relatively small (around 250 students), so it's not surprising that this year's transfer class was bigger.
5:20/8:18: You write: "I came to Berkeley with a romantic view of the school and what it means to be part of the Berkeley Law community. I feel let down." I honestly don't understand what you mean. All of the top law schools accept a significant number of transfer students. Why did you think Boalt would be different? And why do you think that adding students adversely affects the student community? (I'm not asking rhetorically; I'm genuinely trying to understand your perspective.)
I don't think transfers have anything to do with this, but the quality of course offerings is pretty shitty. This might not be just a Boalt thing, since the popular notion seems to be that the ABA incentivizes the more esoteric classes and academic research instead of emphasizing skills and clinicals. So, Boalt has 5 negotiations classes and could probably accommodate 10 based on wait list/interest, but there are a bunch of other classes that are totally under enrolled, taught by tenured professors with esoteric "research" interests (I also hate to lose my romantic view of Boalt/law school, but I hesitate to call most of what goes on in the legal community "research." Now that is an industry that exists mostly to perpetuate itself).
The system of class enrollment is a clusterfuck every semester, and I can't help but suspect that it is because there is a perverse incentive to offer classes people don't want or have time for, while other important/basic classes are not offered enough, or they are all offered at the same time, so you can only take 1 per semester.
I am a transfer. I too decided on Boalt with a romatic and positve view of what this experience would be. The author of 5:20 puts this hope of mine in doubt. Grow up, transfers would be getting callbacks if they stayed at their old schools too.
^ Agree with the transfer above. I just want to say to all the transfers reading this thread: don't take it to heart. 99% of us are very happy you are here and know that very soon you all will be as much a part of our class as anyone. The few people who are using this thread to take out their bitterness are embarrassing the rest of us and certainly don't speak for us.
If any of you folks doing callbacks at Jones Day SF want to chat with someone who worked there before your call back (I'm not there anymore, but will likely know some, if not all, of the people with whom you will have a callback), I'm happy to give my impressions of the firm and the different practice groups/people. I don't really know if you can do private messages on here, or what, but if you can figure it out, hit me up. Or leave a comment, and I'll attempt to follow.
Boalt isn't the only law school to use transfers and foreign students as cash cows. The money has to come from somewhere and if we cut off that revenue Boalt will have to get it from somewhere else.
Thanks 4:38!
Farella Brown, SF -
Sigh.
Paul Hastings, SF, -
also sigh.
4:27--Hate to say it, but not knowing the firm's name will usually result in a ding every time.
If you "say" you mean "spell," then it's hard to know how that could impacted anything seeing as how they didn't ask for a cover letter or any other documentation where I would have write their firm name on something. Thanks anyway for the sarcasm though.
@ 9:36- Was the CB for tax?
9:36 here. Yes, the Baker & McKenzie CB was for tax.
Covington DC -
Hanson Bridgett, SF +
Graduate here, who transferred in, and who is now on the other side of things. I get a little sensitive when I see so many anti-transfer posts because, from a hiring perspective, it's an absurd position to take. So, I want to reiterate what someone said a while back: firms give CBs/offers to transfers based on their 1L grades. My firm, and I know for a fact most others, absolutely do not care that someone transfers to Boalt; they care where they went during 1L, how they did, and then the other regular stuff (work experience, if they'd be pleasant to work with, etc), pretty much in that order.
I'm glad I made the move. I liked pretty much everyone I met. But to anyone who bitches re: dey terk er jerbs, please know the facts and how firms work rather than what you read on TLS or imagine to sooth your ego.
Also, get a positive attitude in general. It's a stressful time for everyone. Be cool to each other and have patience. It works out.
Crowell SF -
Bryan Cave SF -
Paul Hastings SF -
Bingham SF -
Littler SF +
Bryan Cave SF +
Munger Tolles -
12:44 I think it should be pointed out that there is a flaw in your thinking.
Sure, firms may say that they don't care that a person transferred into Berkeley. Ok, great. But, chances are, it would have been harder for that transfer person to even get an interview with a high ranked firm coming from a low ranked school. The "foot in the door" option just wouldn't be there.
And then, of course they care about grades. But transfers are going to have great grades. And, transfers are going to have grades that ARE EASY TO READ. This, IMO, is an important point. I'm convinced that, no matter how hard Berkeley tries, or how well adopted its grading system becomes, it is simply easier to read a transcript that has all As, as opposed to one that is "HH, H, H, H, P, P, P." The real point here with grades, though, is that Berkeley let in a bunch of people with really, really competitive grades. That hurts the students that were here to begin with that didn't have great grades. I don't really see how this can even be argued with. If, for example, a firm has 10 interview slots, then if there were no transfer students at all, the firm might have 3-4 people with top tier grades, and 6-7 people with normal grades. If transfer are thrown into the mix though, then there are the same Boalt people with top grades, then a transfer student with top grades, and the the rest are normal. Of course, that transfer student is going to take job that, if not for him/her being there, would have had a possibility of going to a Berkeley student.
So then they look at work experience, which is, I'll admit a level playing field.
I'm not saying that the transfer hate-athon going on here is justified. I am saying, however, that I just don't see how it is factually correct to think that having transfer students doesn't take away jobs for Berkeley people.
I don't really see how this can even be argued with.
Rather easily actually. Many firms reduce or eliminate recruiting from schools that feed transfers to Boalt. Those hypothetical 10 spots would actually be fewer if Boalt weren't essentially a one-stop shop for recruiting top students from most Bay Area law schools.
And seriously, let's put this whole transfer non-sense to bed. Even if Boalt passed the Transfer Exclusion Act of 2012, it will not affect your OCIP performance this year one bit. All this discussion does is foment hostility and ignorance for no apparent reason. I realize in law school that's like saying the sun rises in the East, but let's at least make an effort at civility.
Allen Matkins, SD, +
A lot of the comments here are spot on. Transfers are stealing spots from native Boalt students!
Let me suggest an easy way to deal with this problem: Ban law school transfers. Once you get into law school you should be "locked in." You will be allowed to compete for only your original school's spots.
Of course, this just highlights the fact that the law school admissions process is a little unfair--all those students from UC Santa Barbara stealing Boalt spots from original Berkeley undergrads! To make sure the world is completely fair, Boalt should recruit from only a few schools--Berkeley (of course), Stanford, Harvard, Yale . . .
Now, I know what you are going to say: what about college admissions? What about the fact that students that did really well at low income public schools can steal spots from students from Phillips Exeter? Easy. We prevent "transferring" all the way back.
When you are born you get a assigned a "class." Let's call it a "caste." Once assigned, you don't get to "transfer" and steal spots from other deserving people.
After all, why should your incredible, hard-fought achievement at some low-caste school entitle you to compete with some high-caste individual who earned a mix of P's and more P's.
Kuruvilla, please e-mail me.
Kuruvilla somehow managed to epitomize everything I hate about Boalt with that pathetic condescension of poorly executed sarcasm.
It's easy to blame transfers for stealing your job. You know what's not easy, getting high grades in law school. Going to Boalt is a great opportunity and we all have/had the ability to control our own destiny.
I struck out at OCI and I don't blame transfers for that.
People seem to be missing a very important aspect of the transfers, at least from my class: they are FAR better looking than non-transfers. I was ecstatic. I hope admissions is holding that line strong.
To all the bitter folk out there,
I am so disappointed that this transfer hysteria is still going on. At the end of the day, we are all entering a profession where our reputation-and our connections-will end up meaning a lot more than our first year law school grades. Even if you accept the fallacy that transfers have received callbacks that would have otherwise gone to OG Boalties with lower grade profiles, the fact of the matter is that they are now a part of our class and a potential member of your professional network. Maybe we should all make them feel a little more welcome & hope reciprocity or karma pays back the good will.
And in any case, perhaps it was your bad attitude and not the transfers that have negatively impacted your job prospects.
If the people who struck out at OCI want to complain about transfers that is their prerogative. I think it is really messed up for Alumni or anyone not in their situation to judge how they feel at this moment. The reality is that some of them have taken on 200k in debt and even one more CB or one more screener could have been the difference between them being able to pay that debt back and not being able to pay that debt back. This is a serious process.
Totally agree with 4:38.
5:05 nobody is judging those who struck out for feeling frustrated or doubting that this is a serious process...but even in times of extreme stress and disappointment, a little judgement and maturity is called for. In fact those are pretty important qualities for a good attorney to have.
If you struck out now is the time to ask yourself seriously: what did I hope to get by coming to law school? Can I still find that (or something else worthwhile) to an extent that is worth another two years of time and tuition? If yes, then how?
Blaming others and Boalt simply delays this process and exhibits a very unattractive immaturity and negativity that frankly no employer is looking for.
For those who struck out the answer is not that the transfers took all the jobs...
EIW success basically comes down to three things: grades/resume, interviewing skills and a little luck. If you lacked any of these things it has nothing to do with transfers.
You can't do anything about luck but you can still improve your grades, add valuable experience to your resume and improve your interviewing skills. If you are upset and frustrated - I understand...but take the time to have your feelings in a mature way without attacking those who will now be your classmates and one day - colleagues in the legal profession.
I don't judge how people are feeling but I do judge how they are acting and it is really disappointing.
Seriously, though, can we get back to how attractive the transfers have been? And, more importantly, has this trend continued for the last 3-4 years? I sure hope so...
5:52: Don't forget personal attractiveness. I had great grades going into OCI, an impressive resume, a prestigious summer job, and killer interview skills (according to previous and current employers). But about half my OCI interviews were over the second they saw me. While I found a job with a great firm and I'm happy, don't underestimate how important it is to look the part.
Since everyone agrees the transfers are hotter than the rest of the class of 2014, that probably helps.
Transfer here and loving Boalt. Everybody has been really nice (seriously)! Just found this blog today and was surprised. Just wanted to throw out also that there are 3rd year visiting students, LLM students, and other new faces in the community. Some new students already had jobs lined up, and didn't even participate in OCI. More than a few of the transfers went to Cal for Undergrad too. Nativism doesn't seem like the right answer here. Good luck to everyone and I, for one, am really excited to be here and looking forward to getting to know my classmates.
Interviewers have the explanation of Boalt's grading system. They've even hired Boalties in the past. They understand how the grades work. They can figure out what they mean.
Stop overthinking this. As someone who has interviewed for BigLaw firms and has interviewed transfers, you compare the transfer's 1L grades for that school to your firm's criteria. Not to the new school's criteria.
Did people who did CBs with Gibson Dunn hear back from them relatively quickly? I'm guessing it's a ding at this point, but I haven't heard one way or the other.
Wow. I cant believe this Transfer Hate. I transferred here. I got call backs at OCI, I got offers, I worked this summer, and I have a firm job. Uh Oh!
Guess what? The entire transfer class from last year has done well...in classes...with non-transfers. Some of us may even be stealing "stealing" HH grades. So maybe those transfers deserve their offers...
Look--Firms will make you an offer if they like you and like your grades. If they dont, they wont.
sorry for the rant.
Why is it that both sides of the transfer debate come off as smug assholes? Oh yeah, it's because those are the only people who would enter into it in the first place.
12:12 P.M.,
I screened with Gibson Dunn last year, didn't get a callback, and never received a rejection letter. I just assumed that my rejection letter fell through the cracks somehow.
Chances are that you're dinged (especially if you didn't get asked to the GD callback dinner). But if you have a huge crush on Gibson Dunn and really want to work there, it probably wouldn't hurt to call and ask about the status of your application.
1:46 is why I don't like transfers. Whatever, they can come to Boalt and be in our classes but I don't have to hang out with them or talk to them. I will always feel more connected to the people that went through 1L hell with me.
10:35 P.M.,
Do you also not hang out or talk with the 2Ls who were in the other two supermods during your first year? What about LLMs? How about graduate students who are auditing classes at Boalt? How about a 2L who had to skip a year for family reasons and has now joined your class? Are you willing to talk or hang out with any of these people? Is your universe of friends and acquaintances completely frozen according to the eight months you spent at a law school last year?
I agree that 1:46's comments were a little obnoxious, but the anti-transfer comments in this thread are outright pathetic.
When you start at a firm there will be non-boalties.
Every year there will be a new class coming in. There will also be laterals.
All these people will be your co-workers but will also be more people to "compete" with for good work and possible future tracks.
I dont think ripping on these people for having a different path is going to be a good strategy.
On that note, has anyone asked transfers if they think classes at Boalt are harder, easier, or neither compared to their prior experiences? What about transfers who transfer for geographic reasons (ex. from NYU)?
The great thing about Boalt is the diversity of the student body. The school has people from all over, with all different prior experiences that enrich the learning atmosphere. There are many people who worked before law school and some who went "straight through." LLMs,JSDs, PHDs, etc.
Transfers are just another group, who took a different path. Not better. Not worse. Just different.
...and, on average, more attractive.
I agree with the poster that said that people on both sides of the transfer debate are coming across ugly in these comments.
One thing about the transfer who is bragging about getting HHs, though: you honestly cannot compare 2L and 3L year to 1L year. It is complete apples and oranges. I went from median first year to near top-of-the-class second year. My friend at CLS had the same experience as have doubtlessly thousands of other law students.
People need to be a little more mature on both sides. But to me step 1 is stopping the unwelcoming, irrational and downright rude and uncalled for anonymous comments directed at transfers. These people are in our class now, there is nothing you can do about that, the only thing you are accomplishing is alienating people who will be your classmates for two years. They are in a new environment, they worked very hard to get here and a lot of them are reading your posts. Please think about that before you post.
Hi. I have served on the hiring committee of a large firm with headquarters in the Bay Area.
Some firms ignore transfers because the firm decides that it cannot evaluate them until the transfer have had grades at Boalt. Other firms assume that anyone who aced grades and moved to Boalt must have a lot of skills and potential. Some firms are somewhere in between.
It doesn't benefit anyone at Boalt to worry about that, or obsess over it, or insult the transfers or incumbents. It does benefit everyone at Boalt to assist each other in making all Boalt students (including transfers) appear to be better candidates than students at other schools.
Has anyone got a reject from Kirkland SF?
Still haven't heard anything so I'm guessing its a ding, jw if anyone's gotten an official reject yet.
I also did not hear from Kirkland...
Last year I did not hear from Kirkland until much later than the rest of the firms, but it was a ding.
I followed up with Kirkland SF on Thursday and expressed my continued interest, requesting the status of my applicaiton. Got a ding e-mail the next day.
Shearman & Sterling, SF +
Gibson Dunn, NY -
Wrong year?
Post a Comment
<< Home