Jump to content
Newfoundland

How much time did you devote to OCI vs Readings ?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

There are still classes but OCI is next week. I could do my tax readings etc. but I could also prepare for OCI. I feel like a lot of people are doing OCIs over readings but I am not sure what more there is to do for OCI prep, like I have a rough idea of my story. I don't want to over prep where it becomes like a script where I deliver something I have rehearsed so many times that it doesn't sound natural. I know there are some people that have suggested for me to read about each firm's recent cases  and be prepared to discuss them but others have said it's not required because it's just 17 mins. 

Edited by Newfoundland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Prep for me consisted of approximately two hours of reading my interviewers bios (total). I have received a full slate of in-firms. Youre being foolish if you allow yourself to fall behind on readings.

Discussing recent cases seems really unnecessary to me. I dont know where that would come up in an interview.

Edited by chaboywb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Newfoundland said:

There are still classes but OCI is next week. I could do my tax readings etc. but I could also prepare for OCI. I feel like a lot of people are doing OCIs over readings but I am not sure what more there is to do for OCI prep, like I have a rough idea of my story. I don't want to over prep where it becomes like a script where I deliver something I have rehearsed so many times that it doesn't sound natural. I know there are some people that have suggested for me to read about each firm's recent cases  and be prepared to discuss them but others have said it's not required because it's just 17 mins. 

Jesus Christ. Stop listening to whoever is telling you anything like this.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rashabon said:

Jesus Christ. Stop listening to whoever is telling you anything like this.

I am beginning to wonder if people are even telling the OP this, or if he is just concocting all these make-believe fantasies himself. Frankly, I cannot wait until this process is over so we can stop seeing these posts from this poster. It is borderline spam at this point. 

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Newfoundland said:

There are still classes but OCI is next week. I could do my tax readings etc. but I could also prepare for OCI. I feel like a lot of people are doing OCIs over readings but I am not sure what more there is to do for OCI prep, like I have a rough idea of my story. I don't want to over prep where it becomes like a script where I deliver something I have rehearsed so many times that it doesn't sound natural. I know there are some people that have suggested for me to read about each firm's recent cases  and be prepared to discuss them but others have said it's not required because it's just 17 mins. 

Do not read our recent cases. Do not read our recent cases. Please. Holy shit this is terrible advice. It's going to be the student person and someone who wasn't on that case. Please don't do this. Are you trolling me right now 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, chaboywb said:

Prep for me consisted of approximately two hours of reading my interviewers bios (total). I have received a full slate of in-firms. Youre being foolish if you allow yourself to fall behind on readings.

Discussing recent cases seems really unnecessary to me. I dont know where that would come up in an interview.

I was told to say it  in the context of showing interest to the firm and show you did research on it. An upper-year student even suggested when you say Why X you answer your research and you add in an interesting case they did recently and what you found interesting about it and how it shows the firm does leading work. 

 

 

Edited by Newfoundland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Newfoundland said:

I was told to say it  in the context of showing interest to the firm and show you did research on it. An upper-year student even suggested when you say Why X you answer your research and you add in an interesting case they did recently and what you found interesting about it and how it shows the firm does leading work. 

 

 

Your mistake is assuming that high strung  people got jobs because they’re high strung and not in spite of it.

You either need to start listening to the established professionals here who literally interview candidates, or just stop asking if the most unreasonable rumors you hear are true. You can’t have both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, theycancallyouhoju said:

Your mistake is assuming that high strung  people got jobs because they’re high strung and not in spite of it.

You either need to start listening to the established professionals here who literally interview candidates, or just stop asking if the most unreasonable rumors you hear are true. You can’t have both.

Sounds like a logical reasoning question. Isn't OP at U of T law, so presumably they scored highly on the LSAT? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Newfoundland said:

I was told to say it  in the context of showing interest to the firm and show you did research on it. An upper-year student even suggested when you say Why X you answer your research and you add in an interesting case they did recently and what you found interesting about it and how it shows the firm does leading work. 

 

 

Man. Just no. Please re-read my PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Newfoundland said:

I was told to say it  in the context of showing interest to the firm and show you did research on it. An upper-year student even suggested when you say Why X you answer your research and you add in an interesting case they did recently and what you found interesting about it and how it shows the firm does leading work. 

 

 

Don't overdo it.  It may backfire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Newfoundland - I've been out of law school for almost ten years, and obviously have not participated in any sort of OCI process for longer than that. The amount of anxiety you bring to this topic is making me retroactively uneasy about the experience. I can only imagine how uncomfortable you must be making your peers and the students around you right now. Unlike some other people here, I don't imagine you are inventing these insane things you claim to have heard from other students. Rather, I believe that you have probably whittled down the base of people willing to speak with you at all, on these subjects, to (a) students who are similarly neurotic and detached from normal thinking - of which there are always a few, and (b) students who are messing with you, either intentionally in a mean way, or perhaps unintentionally by suggesting absurd things to you which you then take seriously.

You have heard this enough times now that repeating it is probably pointless, but I'll try one last time. Your overriding objective in an OCI interview is to present yourself like a human being that other human beings might want to work with. Right now, if you interact in person like you are interacting on this forum, you're probably going to fail at that. Because I doubt that I could stand to be in the same room with you for five minutes.

You seriously need to stop obsessing over every detail of this process. Right now, your best case scenario is that you successfully hide, in the short-term, how neurotic you are becoming over this. Like you're the guy (or gal) going out on a date who changed your outfit twelve times before leaving the house, and called the restaurant three times before going so you could confirm what would be on the menu and determine in advance what to order, and created a colour-coded chart intended to guide the conversation. Maybe if you are really lucky you can do all of those things and still create the surface impression on a single date that you are a normal person. But that's going to fall apart pretty quickly once someone gets to know you. In other words, your job is to actually be a normal person to the greatest extent possible, rather than strategize in some elaborate way to appear normal for a short period of time. Because even if you manage to fake it and get a job, where does that get you? The first time someone asks you to write something, you're going to have a meltdown over which font to use.

I've got nothing else here. The degree to which you are obsessing over this isn't normal. You need to get some perspective, and possibly some professional help.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I spent very little time both prepping for OCIs and on readings.

Edited by jwms
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The advice given to me from me at the beginning of law school was, "Ignore the lore of law school". There are so many stories and over exaggeration in law school which, as a result of hive mentality, permeate throughout the building and enhance student anxiety. For some reason students love these stories, they feed into them and perpetuate them. I suspect students do this out of some desperate attempt to find security but I really am unsure as to why this love of lore is so common. Nonetheless, no where have I seen more nonsensical lore in law school then in the job hunt.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 10/4/2019 at 11:47 PM, grishamlaw said:

Do not read our recent cases. Do not read our recent cases. Please. Holy shit this is terrible advice. It's going to be the student person and someone who wasn't on that case. Please don't do this. Are you trolling me right now 

I heard the Morgans interviewers expect you to be up to speed on the firm's recent cases.

Edited by harveyspecter993
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are times to joke about Morgans, but this probably isn't one of them. OP is ready to pop already, and is listening to every rumor and taking them all seriously. Messing with someone a little is fun. Messing with someone a lot isn't. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, for the record OP: Morgan’s is a completely fictional firm made up by yours truly years ago on this forum.

Everything at Morgan’s is way over the top, expectations comically and impossibly high, and the jokes all revolve around “the rumour I heard” and then saying the most ridiculous but marginally plausible thing.

It was a sort of social experiment to see if neurotic students would repeat its existence as gospel and - really - it was quite a bit more successful than any of us intended. Perhaps too much so. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you all, I do take it all in, and I don't plan on asking about their recent cases or transactions (at least in the context intially suggested). 

Would it hurt  to ask a question that the lawyers at a firm cant answer easily like it's not a simple question nor is it a usual  question like How does the firm assign work? (Answer: we do it by rotation).  What if it is a question  about the firm they may not know  much about or is something they may not really have an answer to? 

 

My other reluctance with questions is if the answer is "No, students do not work on tech (or other practices) [and tech/other practice is a major part of your resume (e.g., STEM education, worked previously in STEM]. The inference/deduction being I really want tech but I am open to other areas for sure though and in fact I do really want other areas on top of tech

 

 

Edited by Newfoundland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best advice with these sorts of questions (phony though they may be): 

-don't ask anything that you can find out on the website

-get lawyers talking about themselves

If for instance there is something more technical about the firm that you want answered that you cannot find out from the website (i.e. I want to work in this particular area of litigation, but I understand that Firm X only gives their students a general litigation rotation- what opportunities would I have to work in this particular area) then by all means ask that. 

With respect to getting them talking about themselves, my favourites were "What one factor brought you to the firm, and with the benefit of hindsight would that factor still be the most important?" and "What do you think is a problem facing the profession, and how do you expect Firm X to rise to the occasion?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hegdis said:

Yeah, for the record OP: Morgan’s is a completely fictional firm made up by yours truly years ago on this forum.

Everything at Morgan’s is way over the top, expectations comically and impossibly high, and the jokes all revolve around “the rumour I heard” and then saying the most ridiculous but marginally plausible thing.

It was a sort of social experiment to see if neurotic students would repeat its existence as gospel and - really - it was quite a bit more successful than any of us intended. Perhaps too much so. 

This is absolutely hilarious! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Thank you guys! Best of luck in the admissions cycle.  
    • Look, there is only one wrong question to ask about academic misconduct - and it's been asked here many times in the past. Do you really need to disclosure it? The answer is yes. Any time you are asked a direct question about this, you need to answer truthfully. Note that you'll also be asked when you apply to be licensed as a lawyer, assuming you get that far. Now kudos for the fact that you haven't asked that question, because when people do ask it often reveals a mindset that's not entirely in line with legal culture. But beyond answering this question which you haven't asked, no one here can comment definitively at all. I'm mainly answering to provide this context. I'm a criminal defence lawyer. And I'm frequently asked some variation of this question by clients - "will my past mistake stop me from doing X?" Again, it isn't often I have a definitive answer. But I've observed that many people who aren't defence lawyers like to get self-righteous when addressing this topic. It's human nature (though not the best part of human nature) to enjoy seeing other people suffer from mistakes that we ourselves have avoided. The Greeks understood this. And so in answer to an unanswerable question - how much will schools, the law society, etc. choose to care about this - it's likely you are going to get a lot of extreme replies that suggest you've permanently fucked your life. That doesn't make it true. I will observe that law schools have admitted students in the past who have been convicted of serious crimes, and so have law societies. Your individual situation is unique and I won't presume to suggest what will happen. But be honest in reply to any direct question - that's your obligation. How you choose to frame your experiences, or if you choose to highlight them at all beyond this, is entirely your choice. Don't lie about the past, because when you do that it creates new offences of dishonesty. But you also have no obligation to inhabit the identity full-time, as though you are permanently defined by your past. You're entitled to move on. And don't let anyone else imply otherwise. Good luck.
    • Ask for a coffee or lunch instead. Reiterate your interest in them and they should understand.
    • No one would be able to answer whether you have any chances at Canadian law schools or not. If you really reflect on your issues of academic misconduct and you are indeed serous about going to law schools, I would like to say that your personal statements may need to talk about your academic misconduct in the past and discuss how you personally or academically have grown by dealing with these wrongdoings. Good luck!  
    • How do I deal with conflicting dinner invitations?  I will be accepting the dinner with my first choice but I don't want to burn the other firms so early in the process.
×
×
  • Create New...