As a 1L , the upcoming Fall OCI is a bit of an opaque mystery to me.
Can others help fill this void by sharing their experiences and views?
- What does it take--class rank--to land biglaw? midlaw? otherlaw? Gov jobs?
- What can current 1Ls do to put themselves in a good position next August?
- Will it be more difficult than in years past in light of this economy?
41 comments:
IMI, if you are not top 10% then you better start looking for a job on your own. OCI will not be that productive for you.
Try to get an internship somewhere. It's tempting to take the summer off. Don't. If you can get in somewhere - anywhere - and you do a good job, it could lead to a permanent job later on.
I followed none of the advice I am giving you and I never got a law job.
I graduated a number of years ago and don't work within the profession.
The overwhelming majority of people do not get a summer job through OCI. The firms take very few people and the competition is tough (and will probably get worse this year). I also heard that some firms are freezing their summer associate programs (though, like all rumors around the building, take it with a grain of salt).
During OCI, firms offer a lot of "interviews" where you sit with people in the firm who simply shoot the s*** for 20 minutes. If you don't get work through OCI, don't worry about it. The school makes a bigger deal out of it than it should.
Anon. 11:24's advice strikes me as being well-founded. That s/he doesn't work within the legal profession is a good sign of reasonableness.
Look at it from the perspective of the employers. They want highly-qualified people for a tiny quantity of jobs. Unless they know you outside of the hiring process, they have no independent information upon which to evaluate your performance. When going through the pile of CVs--and there will be a pile--they need a way to cut a number of people. So they're going to look at only a few things, like grades, rank, ethnicity, and where you did your undergrad. And they're going to compare you with people from other law schools, namely DU.
To add to 11:24, do something to distinguish yourself from the pack. Internships are a great idea. Work for a judge--they tend to be well-connected. Go to New York and work for free--Denver law firms love New York and DC experience. Finally, work in house--there's a hell of a lot more companies than law firms that are hiring in Denver right now.
So basically, BIGLAW is out unless you are way up there and gov't is out because of hiring freezes. That basically leaves open Wendy's and Frank Azar.
Instead of worrying about getting a law job, recognize that your 1L summer is basically the last time that you get to have a fun summer free from the law. You'll have the rest of your life to deal with the suckfest that is being an attorney.
I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't look for a job. You do not want a big glaring hole in your resume. That being said, try to find something practical that you enjoy. It helps if you can find something differentiates you from your peers. Be original - if nothing else, it gives interviewers something to BS about should you get into OCI interviews. Do really think that they want to talk about clerkships for 20 minutes? Newsflash - they don't care all that much. They're much more interested to see if you can fit with the firm.
Biglaw - top 10% at a minimum. In this economic environment, you probably have to be top 10 ranked, not top 10%.
Midlaw - network like a mofo.
Gov jobs? Check your pulse. Some agencies do have hiring freezes, but for those of you playing the home game - the gov just passed about $1.5T in spending. Jobs will open up. How much interest do you have in securities regs or bankruptcy?
As far as the economy and law - the economy blows. Law is not recession proof, despite what you may have been told. Companies are cutting, not hiring. On the flip side, firms have been laying off mid-level associates. This means that someone (junior associates) still has to do the bitch work.
A final tidbit - relax. Play the OCI game. If nothing else, it gives you some interview experience.
I was outside the top 30% and wanted a government job, but I went through OCI anyway and look back on it as a good experience. I received several first interviews and a few second interviews, so those of you in that grade bracket still stand a chance. I did not get a job, but it was excellent interview experience. Make sure your writing sample is flawless -- I had two partners call out minor mistakes in mine, which was a bit embarrassing. Other than that, well worth the effort.
As for gov't jobs, if you're willing to volunteer you can get your foot in the door (which is exceptionally important down the road when you want a real job). Working for free doesnt sound great now, but can make a huge difference when it really matters.
Damn. Went below 7000 today. I hope BIDLAW doesn't rescind all of those offers. It's gonna suck to have to compete with those people for jobs at Starbucks.
Apparently, Prof. NM revealed to her legal writing class that the law school is bringing in a "consultant" to deal with the problem of "unprofessionalism among the generation that is currently going through the law school." (That "consultant" has the bullshit job of all bullshit jobs). This revelation was brought about when one student got up in the middle of class [gasp!] to take a potty break. NM explained that this was a "major problem" that the faculty has been discussing - that we take a lot of bathroom breaks and sometimes leave class early or arrive late, and apparently they need a consultant to tell them how to get us youngins under control.
Hey Prof. NM (and the rest of the faculty): How fucking professional is it to turn your grades in a month late? And how irresponsible is it to hire a shit-break consultant while you whine about being "forced" to double our tuition in three years? You've put enough unnecessary pressure on us already, so get off our fucking backs.
Its amazing that the faculty considers this a "major issue" facing the law school. Somebody has to much time on their hands (and they reside on the fifth floor).
Ironically, when Prof. MW had her little pity party last year and complained about students taking too many bathroom breaks, the response I heard the most from other students that heard about it was that it was really an unprofessional email for her to sent.
Apparently the students and the faculty are on completely different pages when it comes to what is considered professional. The students, on the one hand, think its unprofessional for the faculty fail to do complete the one assignment they have each year (grading exams) within a month of its deadline. The faculty, on the other hand, seem to think that its unprofessional to take a bathroom break or to leave early for a doctors appointment.
Haha! I love it. I always raise my hand and get permission when I need to leave to go potty. I make sure to do this after lunch, especially.
On another note: what is the ballpark number for a passing score on the MPRE? I realize that it differs, but does anyone know what the last test's cutoff was?
These Profs, and there as some major exceptions to this, are so in love with the sound of their own voices that they throw a little temper tantrum and hire a consultant if people don't schedule their whole lives, including defecation, around them.
One of the law school's better professors--who shall remain initial-less because I'm sure that the administration would promptly seek to close this sensible solution--gives 5 minute breaks in the middle of the 1:15/20 classes. (wait, do we need ABA approval for bathroom breaks?). When I was in grad. school this was also done (as I also did when I taught). Problem solved. In the rare occasion that someone really needed to leave momentarily, that wasn't considered "unprofessional" but was written off to necessity.
Will the consultant teach Bankruptcy as well?
I am saddened to see the third floor waste time and money in such a manner. Just yesterday, the alumni received a mailing indicating that the endowment won't cover scholarships this year and begging us to pitch in more. So, I have three suggestions: first, fire the "decorum consultants" and use their projected fees to fund the scholarships. Second, ask Professor Hill to give a free, one-hour lecture to the faculty on how to control a classroom. Problem solved.
[Hit enter by mistake]
Third, take some responsibility for your own contributions to the problem--it's you, not the students.
That was a GOOD rant bathroom break consultant!
After three years, I just have to say this; the teachers frequently talk about "respect" and how we students think more highly of ourselves than we should, but I can never shake the idea that we are in fact the people paying their salaries, keeping the school going, putting in countless hours to keep up with their BS, and spending over $100k on an education that might not lead anywhere, so a little respect (like timely grades) or leniency for our not-so-perfect behavior does not seem too much to ask.
I certainly am not advocating we should be able to do what we want, and I agree at times students lack some courtesy, but by-and-large law students are good people that try their best to respect the professors, administrators, and classmates. Furthermore, the way students "act" (taking bathroom breaks after lunch? #$it happens) actually is what the real world is like outside of the classroom/research world, in case the profs forgot, and ultimately, we are the consumer here.
So to make a long story short, if this "consultant" is a reality, all I can say is wow.
While we are on the topic of administrative malfeasance - in case you haven't heard, DM and company have decided that adjuncts are now too expensive. Thus, adjuncts will no longer be teaching, and CU will be hiring more full time professors.
As a 3L, some of the best classes that I have taken have been taught by adjuncts (for instance, JM and TR). Adjuncts have to work for a living, understand the nuances of the field, and teach practical information. Generally, they are not allowed to get by with their heads up their asses - unlike quite a few of the pompous tenured track professors who can't seem to get enough of their own bullshit(PC and RN come to mind as examples - feel free to add others).
While I'm not sure exactly how much adjuncts get paid, the rumor mill has put the cost per class at about $1700. This may seem like a lot, but let's examine some numbers. According to the CU Office of Planning, Budgeting, and Analysis, CU Law profs make between about $114-$180K a year + benefits. Taking the low range of this salary for the most junior of professors = $114000/professor divided by $1700/adjunct/class = 67 classes. If one divides this figure by a 15 week semester (the current semester is actually 14 weeks + finals, so I'm being generous), one gets about 4.5 class periods taught per week - or at least two different full-time courses. Many full-time profs don't teach at this level of course load (some do - major kudos to those that actually give a damn about us students).
I understand that faculty must perform research. I get that. But not all faculty conduct research, and not all research is valuable. On the value added side, I'd much rather be instructed by someone who knows what they hell he/she is talking about because he/she does it every day than a professor whose only knowledge in that field comes from reading or writing a bullshit academic journal article.
This decision is a travesty. The economics don't add up, and we as students are getting screwed yet again! We know that the economy is tough. Cut elsewhere (ridiculous waste like bathroom break consultants comes to mind - thanks previous posters for a laugh), and keep the adjuncts!!!
I've been hearing many students say they don't want to practice law after they graduate.
What jobs does a law degree many you more competitive for?
Apparently NM did her entire class about the rampant unprofessionalism at CU Law today. Anyone in that class to verify and tell us about it? If not, then for crying out loud somebody tell the 1L's about this blog so we can get some feedback.
I'm so glad to be out of this place in May. Never before have I paid so much to be patronized and treated like a 6 year-old by people who don't believe in deadlines, don't respond to emails, and who think yelling "I'm not fucking around here!" to people who had nothing to do with the "problem" is perfectly acceptable.
In answer to your question, anon. 8:52 (which is a fair one), I think you are missing the point. People haven't just decided to not practice law because their degree makes them more competitive in other fields (though there may be a few). I think many have been turned off by their experience thus far. For some, law school has been rewarding. For others, it has been a slap in the face. I guess for others, it has been both.
It is hard to want to validate complaints about law school because there is a lot of whining that goes on around here. But, that shouldn't take away from the fact that there are legitimate criticisms of our school either. I think the one above is a case in point. Professors need to realize that they aren't God's gift to us and that our BMs won't always accommodate their schedules, especially when you need to drink a gallon of coffee to stay awake through endless case recitations.
So does all this answer your question, Katko?
anon 6:08, you, me and MH must have all been in the same room at one point... talk about getting treated like a first grader
6:52: There's lots of good stuff here, that's useful to lots of 1Ls.
I would like to hear more stories/impressions specifically about OCI.
Does top 10% guarantee biglaw? Is top third out of the running? How about top 20%?
Well students do get too drunk at the talent show after doing kegstands and then have to be carried out of there . . . oh no, wait, that was a current faculty member.
As someone who currently does the interviews for incoming positions, I would suggest that students participate in OCI - just to have the added experience of interviewing and going through the process. It is really obvious when I get students who haven't ever seriously interviewed before. Whether you get a position through OCI or not, it is a good learning experience.
I would also suggest that 1Ls volunteer/intern as much as they can over the summer and throughout the school year, so that their resumes are full. If I see a student with no activities in law school, even if they have a good GPA, I will probably put their resume in the don't interview pile.
And finally, I can't emphasize the need to network. Especially with the economy the way it is - shadow a judge or attorney for a week, go to the bar events, attend conferences (usually they are free for law students), or do anything you can to meet people. If I have met someone at an event, I am much more likely to advocate for hiring them.
In my experience, as someone who may not ever practice law traditionally, the degree is beneficial in a lot of other fields. Any policy/government jobs that may not have you actually practicing but require an understanding of government will generally view the JD as a plus. Also, I know several people who have gone from law school into human resource departments--they know enough about the law to write policy manuals and deal with employment issues, but they don't practice. To be honest, I think the kind of motivation it takes to get through law school and the breadth of knowledge you end up with (whether it feels like it while you're going through or not) makes law students an attractive candidate for a lot of jobs outside the profession...this actually has to be true given the number of law students graduated each year and the number or practicing lawyers, even pre-recession.
I would say that top ten is a virtual lock for BigLaw. Top third is more variable--generally a combination of top third and good networking will get you in the door at BigLaw, depending upon the firm.
The better question to ask yourself, is why BigLaw? And salary doesnt count as an answer.
OCI sucks. It only yields results for a very very small number of people. I did a TON of interviews, got at least 5 or 6 second rounds, had a top 5% rank, and still didn't get squat. I think they have not only academic requirements but a certain personality/background requirement as well.
They will harp on you if you're from out of state, I think that was my biggest problem.
Passing scores on the MPRE do not vary by year. It is always 85 in Colorado, different in other states.
Everyone Loves a Rant, Right? Look What I Got in My Inbox After Reading Brown v. Board of Education I and II for Education Law Today Courtesy of CW...
**********
Hello,
Please know that the U.S. government laws and policies oppressed blacks in education and employment prior to Brown v Board of Education and it continues to do so through laws and policies (e.g. racial discrimination laws such as Title VII; affirmative action policies, drug laws, welfare laws, etc.). Ultimately, these laws promote the notion of white supremacy and prevent blacks from achieving their intellectual and economic potential.
In fact, the fed govt study recently admitted that govt-mandated Affirmative Action policies at law schools (and every other school studies would show) are harmful to blacks. The August 2007 study found that "admitting students into law schools for which they might not academically be prepared could harm their academic performance and hinder their ability to obtain secure and gainful employment..." If interested, please see the link below.
http://www.usccr.gov/press/2007/AALS82807.pdf
I am proud and grateful that my ancestors achieved equal protections under the law for me and all Americans of African descent. However, with the help of unethical and immoral blacks such as Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, the govt was able to continue its tradition of passing laws and implementing policies that oppress blacks.
Government is inherently corrupt and should have almost no power outside of the military and infrastructure. Without government oppression of blacks, whites would have had to compete with blacks. American blacks have always been willing to fight and die for freedom. Without widespread, massive govt oppression, blacks would have been able to do so to the benefit of their descendants and ALL Americans.
With equal legal rights and NO racial preferences, blacks would have been permitted to achieve educational and economic equality. By now, the fallacy of white intellectual supremacy would soon be meeting the same fate as the hundreds-year long fallacy of white athletic superiority.
Racist governments prey on unpopular minority groups in a way that would be impossible for individual racists. It's probably too late to go back to the type of government envisioned by a group of old white men (modified by racial equality under the law).
However, as I sit in class with wall-to-wall white people, I have no doubt that when minority groups become the majority in the United States, and they realize that post BROWN, it was the GOVERNMENT (not individual white racists who are largely powerless, particularly over more than a generation) that prevented them (as groups) from achieving educational and economic equality with whites, these minority groups undoubtedly are going to use GOVERNMENT to oppress whites.
Eventually, the ineptitude and corruption of GOVERNMENT will lead to The United States becoming a third-world country. Free markets are imperfect, but economic disaster is the inevitable result of a large govt.
Unlike large, powerful govts, people are NOT inherently evil. It would have been impossible for tens of millions of racist whites (without govt help) to systematically oppress millions of black people. The NAACP needed Brown v Board, not to obtain racial preferences, but to enable about 15% of "academically-prepared" blacks to obtain good educations (primary, secondary, and higher ed). They intended for those blacks to return to black neighborhoods and strengthen black schools and black educational institutions.
The original (and noble) black civil rights leaders (1800s thru Dr. King) expected that 15% to significantly increase, generation after generation. They had to dismantle segregation laws to do this. However, they did not intend for academically- unprepared blacks to attend white schools. At some point, black leaders envisioned that black educational and economic institutions would be equal to white ones.
Instead, Brown II has led to massive educational under-achievement among blacks. In addition, as academically-unprepared blacks enrolled in white universities (and other schools), billions of dollars in govt grants poured into white schools. Much of this money would have followed black students to black universities. This money was used to support study areas such as biochemistry, engineering. Most engineers graduate from black universities because it's taught in a way that matches the academic background of the students. All state universities depend on govt grants to fund their programs.
However, govt policies deny them much of this money if they have insufficient numbers of black and brown students. Thus, no matter how harmful race-based Affirmative Action is to UNDERQUALIFIED minority students, CU and all state universities admit these students, year after year. White schools get tuition dollars from blacks and their tax dollars in the form of govt grants. In return, underqualified blacks receive poor grades, low graduation rates, low bar passage rates, and greatly diminished employment opportunities.
I understand that studies are being prepared by two university professors that show Title VII has led to massive black unemployment. This is because it has CLOSED employment opportunities while providing almost NO additional ones. When blacks achieved voting rights, they were guaranteed to receive a certain numbers of govt jobs, including high-paying ones. The 14th Amend prevents govt from discriminating against blacks in employment.
Black employment in the public sector was virtually guaranteed WITHOUT Title VII. Large employers hired blacks in high-level positions, not because of Title VII, but because black people buy their products. They hire them in other well-paid jobs because they can't find some skills they need amongst white applicants (a well-kept secret). That's how I obtained well-paid management positions prior to law school.
Of course, blacks obtain low-paid jobs (without Title VII) because employers can't find whites who'll do the work. Title VII did NOT have a significant affect on any of the above job opportunities for blacks (i.e. govt jobs, well-paid jobs in the private sector, and low-paid jobs).
Instead, Title VII prevented millions of blacks from obtaining jobs from "NON-RACIST" white employers/hiring managers. That's because under Title VII enabled blacks to sue private employers for racial discrimination. This caused non-racist whites to avoid hiring qualified blacks to avoid lawsuits. When I worked as a manager for one of the largest companies in the world, I and every other manager knew we couldn't hire a minority unless directed to do so by our supervisors, or if there were no qualified white applicants (which was rare).
As a black person, I would loved to have been free to hire a qualified black applicant. However, the truth is that I didn't want my budget to be impacted by a racial discrimination lawsuit anymore than a white manager. Like me, millions of whites (the same ones that voted for President Obama) would hire blacks but for the threat of Title VII racial discrimination lawsuits. I certainly wouldn't have discriminated against a black employee, but this employee encounters many whites in a large company. Unfortunately, they too often make racist and offensive statements. If I decided that a black hiree wasn't performing to my expectations, I couldn't easily fire the person because of Title VII.
Usually, it takes three months to fire a minority employee and they are often given severance packages when a similarly-situated white employee would get nothing. Title VII makes white applicants much more attractive than black ones. That's why this federal law has greatly increased black unemployment. Of course, black civil rights leaders want to blame this on white racism.
Just like the original NAACP members planned for decades to secure the Brown ruling, present-day civil rights leaders know that decades from now, their descendants will be able to use a large federal govt to systematically oppress WHITES! This cannot happen with a small fed govt.
IN SPITE of past government oppression and CURRENT government oppression, blacks have progressed economically. I would like to see what we can do without such govt interference in our lives. Certainly without Title VII, our country would have continued to be racially segregated, long after 1964. However, by now black communities would have retained the trillions of dollars they send to white communities every year due to "artificial integration." This money would have been used to help black achieve economic equality with whites.
Unfortunately, the "melting pot" ideal doesn't work (in the short-term) when it comes to blacks, in light of the fact that we are NOT white and because of the legacy of slavery. The government successfully eliminated RACIAL SEGREGATION, but to the detriment of the black community. Unfortunately, it's probably way too late to eliminate much of what we call the GOVERNMENT.
Sorry, I don't have time to proofread as I'm headed to class.
CW
**********
DEPP BREATH...Discuss!
Here we go again.
is CW a student or a prof... either way ... WOW
she's a student
But ... I'll bet she's a future law prof with such wonderful elocution.
is this person still in school??? wow.
Holy gramoley. CW was ranting like this when I was a 1L and I already graduated. How is she still a student?
CW will have to leave town to find a job. Her rep is toast in Denver.
CW likes to drag the pain that is law school out far too long to be sensible. That alone is a bad sign.
I thought she walked in our 2008 graduation...
Post a Comment