Latest employment data

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Sun Apr 19, 2015 9:54 am

Cobretti wrote:
OneLisfun wrote:Also, in response to this, no, that's wrong. If the place that has more than 30% of the SAs has a very high cutoff and past of median grades and you fall far below that, you should not be applying there over other firms that have standards that are more in line with your grades. That might work at Columbia, but not at schools where firms will not take people that are below a certain percentile.


Edit: And while in general I just believe in that advice, a particular circumstance where what you're saying would be particularly untrue would be a person from, let's say, Nebraska, who has a 2.9, and there's a Nebraska firm saying they want people with at least a 2.8. I would suggest that person apply to the Nebraska firm rather than the firm that says they want a 3.7 and has a past history of median of 3.7 that takes lots of SAs from his school.

In total extreme examples like you've created here this might be good advice, but this isn't what anyone here is talking about and this is probably the most common logic that causes people to strike out that didn't need to. If you have a 3.1 at a lower T14 (median 3.3) and you bid on tiny shops that take 1 or 2 SAs a year with a historic median CB of 3.0 you are less likely to get a job than if you bid on a bunch of large summer classes in NY with median CBs of 3.3. Interviewing is too unpredictable and you can never assume you'll be the one person out of all the law schools in the country that gets that job. When its such a small summer size anything can happen. You could happen to have someone else from you hometown that went to Yale your year, you could make an innocent remark that happens to offend some uptight partner during your CB, anything can happen. The safest bet is always to go with the greatest number of CBs for the largest summer classes, and that is why NYC should be everyone's backup plan and not some tiny home market.



If by tiny shops you meant tiny shops in whatever non-obscure market, I think it's clear I'm not talking about that.

As far as firms in obscure states, this is my opinion:

If you're from these obscure states, you should definitely have them as part of your bid list. You could not let them fill your bid list even if you tried, only a very tiny number of the firms at OCI are from places like this. That person's top 20 bids will end up almost entirely states that aren't the particular obscure state he/she is from. At the same time, having the few on there is great.

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Cobretti » Sun Apr 19, 2015 9:56 am

OneLisfun wrote:
Cobretti wrote:
OneLisfun wrote:Also, in response to this, no, that's wrong. If the place that has more than 30% of the SAs has a very high cutoff and past of median grades and you fall far below that, you should not be applying there over other firms that have standards that are more in line with your grades. That might work at Columbia, but not at schools where firms will not take people that are below a certain percentile.


Edit: And while in general I just believe in that advice, a particular circumstance where what you're saying would be particularly untrue would be a person from, let's say, Nebraska, who has a 2.9, and there's a Nebraska firm saying they want people with at least a 2.8. I would suggest that person apply to the Nebraska firm rather than the firm that says they want a 3.7 and has a past history of median of 3.7 that takes lots of SAs from his school.

In total extreme examples like you've created here this might be good advice, but this isn't what anyone here is talking about and this is probably the most common logic that causes people to strike out that didn't need to. If you have a 3.1 at a lower T14 (median 3.3) and you bid on tiny shops that take 1 or 2 SAs a year with a historic median CB of 3.0 you are less likely to get a job than if you bid on a bunch of large summer classes in NY with median CBs of 3.3. Interviewing is too unpredictable and you can never assume you'll be the one person out of all the law schools in the country that gets that job. When its such a small summer size anything can happen. You could happen to have someone else from you hometown that went to Yale your year, you could make an innocent remark that happens to offend some uptight partner during your CB, anything can happen. The safest bet is always to go with the greatest number of CBs for the largest summer classes, and that is why NYC should be everyone's backup plan and not some tiny home market.



If by tiny shops you meant tiny shops in whatever non-obscure market, I think it's clear I'm not talking about that.

As far as firms in obscure states, this is my opinion:

If you're from these obscure states, you should definitely have them as part of your bid list. You could not let them fill your bid list even if you tried, only a very tiny number of the firms at OCI are from places like this. That person's top 20 bids will end up almost entirely states that aren't the particular obscure state he/she is from. At the same time, having the few on there that there is great.

you have to be talking about obscure markets because every secondary market is more competitive than NYC.

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:00 am

Cobretti wrote:
OneLisfun wrote:
Cobretti wrote:
OneLisfun wrote:Also, in response to this, no, that's wrong. If the place that has more than 30% of the SAs has a very high cutoff and past of median grades and you fall far below that, you should not be applying there over other firms that have standards that are more in line with your grades. That might work at Columbia, but not at schools where firms will not take people that are below a certain percentile.


Edit: And while in general I just believe in that advice, a particular circumstance where what you're saying would be particularly untrue would be a person from, let's say, Nebraska, who has a 2.9, and there's a Nebraska firm saying they want people with at least a 2.8. I would suggest that person apply to the Nebraska firm rather than the firm that says they want a 3.7 and has a past history of median of 3.7 that takes lots of SAs from his school.

In total extreme examples like you've created here this might be good advice, but this isn't what anyone here is talking about and this is probably the most common logic that causes people to strike out that didn't need to. If you have a 3.1 at a lower T14 (median 3.3) and you bid on tiny shops that take 1 or 2 SAs a year with a historic median CB of 3.0 you are less likely to get a job than if you bid on a bunch of large summer classes in NY with median CBs of 3.3. Interviewing is too unpredictable and you can never assume you'll be the one person out of all the law schools in the country that gets that job. When its such a small summer size anything can happen. You could happen to have someone else from you hometown that went to Yale your year, you could make an innocent remark that happens to offend some uptight partner during your CB, anything can happen. The safest bet is always to go with the greatest number of CBs for the largest summer classes, and that is why NYC should be everyone's backup plan and not some tiny home market.



If by tiny shops you meant tiny shops in whatever non-obscure market, I think it's clear I'm not talking about that.

As far as firms in obscure states, this is my opinion:

If you're from these obscure states, you should definitely have them as part of your bid list. You could not let them fill your bid list even if you tried, only a very tiny number of the firms at OCI are from places like this. That person's top 20 bids will end up almost entirely states that aren't the particular obscure state he/she is from. At the same time, having the few on there that there is great.

you have to be talking about obscure markets because every secondary market is more competitive than NYC.



Obscure markets are a type of secondary market.

Edit: Additionally, I do not buy this idea entirely. I believe certain "secondary" (secondary markets that aren't also obscure) are harder to get than NYC, but not all are. I think this goes back to what I was saying about people who are from Texas who go to UT. It's easier for them to get Texas BL than NYC BL. A lot of this stuff depends on the firms that are coming to your school's OCI. If you go to a school where all the firms coming to your OCI are from a southern state, it's going to be harder to get NYC big law. (T14s have bunches of NYC firms come to their school, so southern T14s are good for NYC still.) If you go to a southern non-T14, getting the southern home market you have ties to for the most part is easier to get than NYC.

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Cobretti » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:07 am

OneLisfun wrote:Obscure markets are a type of secondary market.

I think most people would call them tertiary markets. Secondary markets refers to markets with a reasonable sized market.

The problem is that secondary markets are more competitive than NYC and tertiary markets don't have enough summer spots to make hiring predictable; so NYC is always the credited backup plan to ensure biglaw.

ETA: re your edit, what are you basing this on? you seem to be going off intuition here when everyone else ITT that has been through OCI says you're wrong. And again i'm not saying because the GPA cutoffs are higher in some obscure southern market, but because there aren't enough jobs and it isn't predictable.

And to tie this back to the original point about Michigan, the point is that they seem to be making this very "mistake" I'm talking about and not targeting NYC. But maybe they all made informed decisions and had priorities other than biglaw or bust, who knows.

EETA: saw you tried to change your argument to non-T14s. This could very well be the case if you are talking about a school that is completely off everyone in NYC's radar but this is a different argument from what this has been about for the last 5 pages.
Last edited by Cobretti on Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15524
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:12 am

OneLisfun wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
OneLisfun wrote:Also, just to make clear, the typical advice at lower T14s is not to target NYC with lower grades. NYC is considered harder to get than secondary markets that you have ties to. At a lower T14, they will advise students with lower grades that the best move is to target secondary markets that they have ties to, as those are easier to get than NYC. That is the classic advice from career services. However, they will also make clear that targeting a secondary market you don't have ties to is an extremely bad move, so much below median grades with no secondary market ties is just not a great situation to be in at a lower T14.

Maybe this is the advice from CSO, but it's bad advice. Everyone should be targeting the place with more than 30% of the SA's.



Also, in response to this, no, that's wrong. If the place that has more than 30% of the SAs has a very high cutoff and past of median grades and you fall far below that, you should not be applying there over other firms that have standards that are more in line with your grades. That might work at Columbia, but not at schools where firms will not take people that are below a certain percentile.

First of all, who are you? Aren't you still a 1L? If so, why so much certainty?

You are the one who said CSO's tell people not to bid NYC but instead to bid their home market. Obviously this implies it's one or the other. That's the bad advice. There's nothing wrong with targeting your home market, but to do so to the exclusion of NYC is what costs people jobs every year. There are numerous V100 firms that hire deep into every T14 class.

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:23 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:
OneLisfun wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:
OneLisfun wrote:Also, just to make clear, the typical advice at lower T14s is not to target NYC with lower grades. NYC is considered harder to get than secondary markets that you have ties to. At a lower T14, they will advise students with lower grades that the best move is to target secondary markets that they have ties to, as those are easier to get than NYC. That is the classic advice from career services. However, they will also make clear that targeting a secondary market you don't have ties to is an extremely bad move, so much below median grades with no secondary market ties is just not a great situation to be in at a lower T14.

Maybe this is the advice from CSO, but it's bad advice. Everyone should be targeting the place with more than 30% of the SA's.



Also, in response to this, no, that's wrong. If the place that has more than 30% of the SAs has a very high cutoff and past of median grades and you fall far below that, you should not be applying there over other firms that have standards that are more in line with your grades. That might work at Columbia, but not at schools where firms will not take people that are below a certain percentile.

First of all, who are you? Aren't you still a 1L? If so, why so much certainty?

You are the one who said CSO's tell people not to bid NYC but instead to bid their home market. Obviously this implies it's one or the other. That's the bad advice. There's nothing wrong with targeting your home market, but to do so to the exclusion of NYC is what costs people jobs every year. There are numerous V100 firms that hire deep into every T14 class.



Didn't ever say that, I think you need to read back. My certainty comes from people I've spoken to. I understand there are certain secondary markets you shouldn't be bidding on instead of NYC. I also understand that not every law student should be bidding on whatever 30% of the SA class is getting, that's simply wrong, not right in any way at a lower T14. If that firm at your school has had median 3.65 over the last X years and you have a a 3.3, I would suggest you bid elsewhere for your top 10. You need to look at how many people bid on the one you're looking at last year, the number of interview slots there were as a proportion of how many bids there were, the number of students they're taking, their records on median GPA. You're over simplifying a (somewhat) complicated process.

And again, I'm sorry that if that offends you, but you're straight up wrong on saying that. A lot of T14 students don't have the grades for that and have grades for other NYC firms.

(That's in addition to people from secondary markets or whatever else you want to call them that want below a 3.0. for students who have those kinds of grades.)


Additionally, I think it's extremely plausible that 1L at a lower T14 would know more how lower T14s work than a Columbia grad or 3L or whatever. Both of us could easily make arguments against each other on this on who would know more. I actually come into contact with people at a lower T14 in real life. You don't. Your school had a 90% OCI success rate, you talk to other people in real life with that situation. I talk to people that go to a lower T14.
Last edited by OneLisfun on Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:30 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15524
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:28 am

It's absolutely not wrong, which is why everyone in this thread who is not a 1L is disagreeing with you. But even if someone takes your advice what should they be doing for their OCI bids? You've already conceded that there won't be many firms from "obscure" markets coming to OCI. If the typical T14 student can land 20-30 interviews where else should they be bidding if not NYC once the 3 firms from their home market have been exhausted?

Also just lol at thinking I don't come into contact with people from lower T14 schools in real life. If you want to throw that shade at me what do you have to say to the Northwestern people or anyone else from lower T14's also saying you're wrong?

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:32 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:It's absolutely not wrong, which is why everyone in this thread who is not a 1L is disagreeing with you. But even if someone takes your advice what should they be doing for their OCI bids? You've already conceded that there won't be many firms from "obscure" markets coming to OCI. If the typical T14 student can land 20-30 interviews where else should they be bidding if not NYC once the 3 firms from their home market have been exhausted?



Here's what they should do. Bid firms that have medians that were within range for what their GPA is. So go down the list, find firms that are within up to .1 above what your gpa is, the bigger the class size the better, and if you don't have ties, make sure it's NYC. Any firm with .3 or more above what you have ignore, do not waste a single bid on them. Try to get some firms in there that have lower gpas than what you have. Additionally, if you're the lucky guy who's from X obscure market then definitely make sure to bid any of those firms as well if your GPA wasn't top notch (there will only end up being a few anyway.)
Last edited by OneLisfun on Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:34 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:It's absolutely not wrong, which is why everyone in this thread who is not a 1L is disagreeing with you. But even if someone takes your advice what should they be doing for their OCI bids? You've already conceded that there won't be many firms from "obscure" markets coming to OCI. If the typical T14 student can land 20-30 interviews where else should they be bidding if not NYC once the 3 firms from their home market have been exhausted?

Also just lol at thinking I don't come into contact with people from lower T14 schools in real life. If you want to throw that shade at me what do you have to say to the Northwestern people or anyone else from lower T14's also saying you're wrong?



Every person I know at my school would say that to make sure to bid the one that has the largest number of SAs from my school while having below median grades would laugh at you.

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Cobretti » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:38 am

OneLisfun wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:It's absolutely not wrong, which is why everyone in this thread who is not a 1L is disagreeing with you. But even if someone takes your advice what should they be doing for their OCI bids? You've already conceded that there won't be many firms from "obscure" markets coming to OCI. If the typical T14 student can land 20-30 interviews where else should they be bidding if not NYC once the 3 firms from their home market have been exhausted?

Also just lol at thinking I don't come into contact with people from lower T14 schools in real life. If you want to throw that shade at me what do you have to say to the Northwestern people or anyone else from lower T14's also saying you're wrong?



Every person I know at my school would say that to make sure to bid the one that has the largest number of SAs from my school while having below median grades would laugh at you.

Well maybe GULC does have less placement power than the rest of the lower T14 if that is honestly what 2/3Ls there think.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15524
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:38 am

OneLisfun wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:It's absolutely not wrong, which is why everyone in this thread who is not a 1L is disagreeing with you. But even if someone takes your advice what should they be doing for their OCI bids? You've already conceded that there won't be many firms from "obscure" markets coming to OCI. If the typical T14 student can land 20-30 interviews where else should they be bidding if not NYC once the 3 firms from their home market have been exhausted?


Here's what they should do. Bid firms that have medians that were within range for what their GPA is. So go down the list, find firms that are within up to .1 above what your gpa is, the bigger the class size the better, and if you don't have ties, make sure it's NYC. Any firm with .3 or more above what you have ignore, do not waste a single bid on them. Try to get some firms in there that have lower gpas than what you have. Additionally, if you're the lucky guy who's from X obscure market then definitely make sure to bid any of those firms as well if you're GPA wasn't top notch (there will only end up being a few anyway.)

I don't think anyone is going to disagree with this.

OneLisfun wrote:Every person I know at my school would say that to make sure to bid the one that has the largest number of SAs from my school while having below median grades would laugh at you.

You won't tell me what school you go to, but there are people from Michigan, Northwestern, Georgetown, WUSTL, and Texas all saying it's a good idea to target NYC. If someone wants to laugh at me and put just 5 firms on their bid list because they think their grades are too low for NYC, they can go right ahead.

User avatar
Cobretti
Posts: 2560
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:45 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Cobretti » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:39 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:You won't tell me what school you go to, but there are people from Michigan, Northwestern, Georgetown, WUSTL, and Texas all saying it's a good idea to target NYC. If someone wants to laugh at me and put just 5 firms on their bid list because they think their grades are too low for NYC, they can go right ahead.

post history looks like gulc

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:42 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:
OneLisfun wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:It's absolutely not wrong, which is why everyone in this thread who is not a 1L is disagreeing with you. But even if someone takes your advice what should they be doing for their OCI bids? You've already conceded that there won't be many firms from "obscure" markets coming to OCI. If the typical T14 student can land 20-30 interviews where else should they be bidding if not NYC once the 3 firms from their home market have been exhausted?


Here's what they should do. Bid firms that have medians that were within range for what their GPA is. So go down the list, find firms that are within up to .1 above what your gpa is, the bigger the class size the better, and if you don't have ties, make sure it's NYC. Any firm with .3 or more above what you have ignore, do not waste a single bid on them. Try to get some firms in there that have lower gpas than what you have. Additionally, if you're the lucky guy who's from X obscure market then definitely make sure to bid any of those firms as well if you're GPA wasn't top notch (there will only end up being a few anyway.)

I don't think anyone is going to disagree with this.

OneLisfun wrote:Every person I know at my school would say that to make sure to bid the one that has the largest number of SAs from my school while having below median grades would laugh at you.

You won't tell me what school you go to, but there are people from Michigan, Northwestern, Georgetown, WUSTL, and Texas all saying it's a good idea to target NYC. If someone wants to laugh at me and put just 5 firms on their bid list because they think their grades are too low for NYC, they can go right ahead.



Didn't say you were wrong when you said target NYC. I said you were wrong when you said to bid on the one that has 30% of the SAs. That's not true for a lot of people.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15524
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Tiago Splitter » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:44 am

OneLisfun wrote:Didn't say you were wrong when you said target NYC. I said you were wrong when you said to bid on the one that has 30% of the SAs. That's not true for a lot of people.

I don't think it's true for everyone, sure, but it's true for a lot of people in the middle of the pack who risk striking out with a suboptimal bid strategy. But at this point our disagreement is just a matter of degree and we seem to be in line on the general idea.

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:45 am

Cobretti wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:You won't tell me what school you go to, but there are people from Michigan, Northwestern, Georgetown, WUSTL, and Texas all saying it's a good idea to target NYC. If someone wants to laugh at me and put just 5 firms on their bid list because they think their grades are too low for NYC, they can go right ahead.

post history looks like gulc



No one would say that. Fill up your bid list, everyone knows that. The laughable part is the idea of everyone in the class putting on their bid list the firm that hires the most SAs from the school. Like I said, that might work at Columbia though.

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:47 am

Tiago Splitter wrote:
OneLisfun wrote:Didn't say you were wrong when you said target NYC. I said you were wrong when you said to bid on the one that has 30% of the SAs. That's not true for a lot of people.

I don't think it's true for everyone, sure, but it's true for a lot of people in the middle of the pack who risk striking out with a suboptimal bid strategy. But at this point our disagreement is just a matter of degree and we seem to be in line on the general idea.



True

User avatar
UVAIce
Posts: 442
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:10 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby UVAIce » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:47 am

One of the things that I noticed through OGI/OCI is that some firms have more flexibility in their grade cut offs from others and most of the firms with flexibility are those with large SA classes.

And if you're below median then the only market you should realistically be looking at other than your home market is NYC. The vast majority of people that I know who got jobs below median did so in either NYC or their home market. So yeah, you should be bidding NYC. Even if you're in the top 10% of your class you should probably be putting in a few bids with NYC firms to hedge against completely striking out.

For example, imagine you're bidding in a secondary market like Minneapolis or Atlanta. There will be a few firms with double digit summer classes, but the vast majority of firm hiring will be in the lower single digits. Most of these firms keep relationships with the strong regional schools and will always hire a few of the best kids from those institutions (University of Minnesota for Minneapolis and Emory and UGA for Atlanta). The low number of SA spots can make the competition fierce. This is exacerbated by the fact that these firms tend to only have a small number of interview slots in the various T-14. It can be even be tough at times if you have really good grades from a top school because some of the smaller firms will assume that you aren't entirely serious.

User avatar
Capitol_Idea
Posts: 10742
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:54 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Capitol_Idea » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:47 am

Cobretti wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:You won't tell me what school you go to, but there are people from Michigan, Northwestern, Georgetown, WUSTL, and Texas all saying it's a good idea to target NYC. If someone wants to laugh at me and put just 5 firms on their bid list because they think their grades are too low for NYC, they can go right ahead.

post history looks like gulc

GULC student here - completely do not claim this crazy and our CSO and 2L/3L's do not follow this OneLisFun nonsense.

We fail completely on our own merits, not from crazy bad advice :P

User avatar
cookiejar1
Posts: 834
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 2:07 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby cookiejar1 » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:53 am

Alright—I'll bite the bullet.

OneLisfun: everything you've said so far is laughably wrong.

OneLisfun wrote:Well, for me, if I have to make my decision of which is an easier firm to get a job at, and one makes a posting saying their minimum gpa they want is a 3.0, and the other says their cutoff is 3.4, if I were a person from the state that says they want a 3.0, common sense leads me to believe getting the job that requires a 3.0 when I have a 3.2 would be easier than getting the job that requires a 3.4. Call me crazy...


I know that this is a bit of a side issue but published "grade cut-offs" are trash and you should treat them as such. If you are at a lower T14 then your CSO should have GPA median call back data for previous classes. At my own school (lower T14), comparing our GPA CB data with Symplicity "notes" postings from firms is actually pretty fun. Firms do not put much thought in these postings. They'll demand a top 25% student and almost exclusively interview those in the top 40%/median. Seriously, if I recall correctly Jones Day posted that they wanted a top 20% student/law review preferred student in their CCBA job fair listing. Lol just lol.

OneLisfun wrote:I think part of the issue with what you're saying is you're not getting that supply and demand are both involved here, not just supply. Additionally, there are some secondary markets where no T14 students are ever from, so they are salivating to get a T14 student who happens to be from that area. The supply of students who fit the criteria for these firms in obscure areas is very small, whereas while there are more NY firms, their supply of students is endless.


We'll need to talk concretely here. You're assuming that tertiary markets where no T14 students are ever from have robust Summer Classes that they fill with TTT law school students but would love to have a T14 student at their firm instead. How many 101+ attorney firms exist in Idaho or New Mexico? And how many of those 101+ firms have robust Summer Associate programs and hire directly out of law school (as opposed to tapping the lateral market)? Do you think a firm like http://www.crowleyfleck.com/ really cares about T14 students? Check to see how many people from your school is employed by them.

But I'm going to be fair to you. I believe you're mostly talking about opportunities in midlaw. It's a good outcome, sure. But that's not the reason why most people came to a T14. So for now on I'm only going to be generally speaking about firms in the AmLaw 200 (or really just v100).

A true secondary market—Colorado—as I mentioned before will have several AmLaw 200 satellites. And, my god, working in Denver biglaw would be an ideal outcome. But you are deluded to think that you have a better shot at Colorado with a 3.4 because you have ties there and because no one else in your 250-person large lower T14 class is from Denver too (there's one guy from Colorado Springs but you heard that he's going to NYC). The fact of the matter is that the entire Colorado SA class size for all NALP-reporting AmLaw 200 firms will probably be less than 20 people. And that top 40% good looking all american UC Berkeley kid who grew up in Southern California and has never been to Colorado but is now dating a bombshell advertising account executive looking to move back to Boulder? He's going to take your spot.

I happen to have GPA CB data from my school on CO. Holland & Hart—basically the Cravath of Denver BIGLAW—is impossibly selective. So much so that I'd wager that a 3.4 at my school who shows up to her Schulte interview in sweatpants is more likely to receive an offer. Yes, it is unfair to compare the top firm in CO to Schulte (actually, it's not, I think we on TLS all uniformly agree that SRZ is god). But, damn it, there are only four firms (in 2012) that have over 100+ attorneys! http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/ ... st-63.html

OneLisfun wrote:I understand there are certain secondary markets you shouldn't be bidding on instead of NYC.


But, I see what you mean. You're arguing that if you had a 3.4, went to a lower T14 (which one?), and had ties to an obscure tertiary market you should bid said market. What I'm just trying to say is this: you can get a biglaw from median at a T14 if you're smart. Not bidding NYC effectively means you won't get biglaw. Maybe you'll get some midlaw gig in North Dakota—and maybe that's a desirable outcome, sure—but we're on a forum called top law school discussing BIGLAW+FEDERAL CLERKSHIPS employment data.

OneLisfun wrote:I also understand that not every law student should be bidding on whatever 30% of the SA class is getting, that's simply wrong, not right in any way at a lower T14. If that firm at your school has had median 3.65 over the last X years and you have a a 3.3, I would suggest you bid elsewhere for your top 10. You need to look at how many people bid on the one you're looking at last year, the number of interview slots there were as a proportion of how many bids there were, the number of students they're taking, their records on median GPA. You're over simplifying a (somewhat) complicated process.


I see that you're back tracking, which is fine, as long as you're doing this as an acknowledgement that you've been wrong this whole time.

This is what the board is arguing about:
OneLisfun wrote:Also, just to make clear, the typical advice at lower T14s is not to target NYC with lower grades. NYC is considered harder to get than secondary markets that you have ties to. At a lower T14, they will advise students with lower grades that the best move is to target secondary markets that they have ties to, as those are easier to get than NYC. That is the classic advice from career services


This advice is wrong. NYC, as we've repeatedly said before, will dig deeeeeeep into a class for candidates that they like. I'm talking about the Fried Franks, the Milbanks, the SRZs, Kaye Scholers, the Weils, the Kirkland NYs—god damn even Cahill Gordon, who pays above market bonuses, seems attainable with a 3.4 from my school given our data.

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:54 am

zacharus85 wrote:
Cobretti wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:You won't tell me what school you go to, but there are people from Michigan, Northwestern, Georgetown, WUSTL, and Texas all saying it's a good idea to target NYC. If someone wants to laugh at me and put just 5 firms on their bid list because they think their grades are too low for NYC, they can go right ahead.

post history looks like gulc

GULC student here - completely do not claim this crazy and our CSO and 2L/3L's do not follow this OneLisFun nonsense.

We fail completely on our own merits, not from crazy bad advice :P



Yes, crazy bad advice. Bid on firms that have a history of hiring students with around the gpa you have rather than ones that are .3 or more above your gpa. How did I come to this level of sickness?

User avatar
Rigo
Posts: 11954
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Rigo » Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:58 am

OneLisfun is a real treat.

User avatar
Capitol_Idea
Posts: 10742
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:54 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby Capitol_Idea » Sun Apr 19, 2015 11:02 am

OneLisfun wrote:
zacharus85 wrote:
Cobretti wrote:
Tiago Splitter wrote:You won't tell me what school you go to, but there are people from Michigan, Northwestern, Georgetown, WUSTL, and Texas all saying it's a good idea to target NYC. If someone wants to laugh at me and put just 5 firms on their bid list because they think their grades are too low for NYC, they can go right ahead.

post history looks like gulc

GULC student here - completely do not claim this crazy and our CSO and 2L/3L's do not follow this OneLisFun nonsense.

We fail completely on our own merits, not from crazy bad advice :P



Yes, crazy bad advice. Bid on firms that have a history of hiring students with around the gpa you have rather than ones that are .3 or more above your gpa. How did I come to this level of sickness?

No reason you can't do both? You get a shitton of bids - categorically excluding THE major market is dumb. A colleague at a prestigious lit shop was decently below their median and CSO even told her not to bother. Cost her nothing to add a bid and she got it. That shit ain't frequent but when you factor in the sheer number of spots per firm and variety of competitiveness in the multitude of NY firms, it is legitimately insane to avoid NY.

ETA: Tell ya what though, you do your thing and snag some Cleveland BigLaw. Don't drag others down with you though kthxbye.

ETA the deuce: Please tell me you don't go to GULC. Please.

BigZuck
Posts: 10884
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Latest employment data

Postby BigZuck » Sun Apr 19, 2015 11:08 am

Rigo wrote:OneLisfun is a real treat.

The problem is this is so dumb and convoluted and the edits and all that crap don't even make it useful for 0Ls/lurkers to read. Usually someone saying dumb stuff and the Hivemind correcting them can be of some value even if the person saying dumb stuff is a lost cause but I don't think that's the case here. It's just a dumpster fire.

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Sun Apr 19, 2015 11:20 am

cookiejar1 wrote:Alright—I'll bite the bullet.

OneLisfun: everything you've said so far is laughably wrong.

OneLisfun wrote:Well, for me, if I have to make my decision of which is an easier firm to get a job at, and one makes a posting saying their minimum gpa they want is a 3.0, and the other says their cutoff is 3.4, if I were a person from the state that says they want a 3.0, common sense leads me to believe getting the job that requires a 3.0 when I have a 3.2 would be easier than getting the job that requires a 3.4. Call me crazy...


I know that this is a bit of a side issue but published "grade cut-offs" are trash and you should treat them as such. If you are at a lower T14 then your CSO should have GPA median call back data for previous classes. At my own school (lower T14), comparing our GPA CB data with Symplicity "notes" postings from firms is actually pretty fun. Firms do not put much thought in these postings. They'll demand a top 25% student and almost exclusively interview those in the top 40%/median. Seriously, if I recall correctly Jones Day posted that they wanted a top 20% student/law review preferred student in their CCBA job fair listing. Lol just lol.

OneLisfun wrote:I think part of the issue with what you're saying is you're not getting that supply and demand are both involved here, not just supply. Additionally, there are some secondary markets where no T14 students are ever from, so they are salivating to get a T14 student who happens to be from that area. The supply of students who fit the criteria for these firms in obscure areas is very small, whereas while there are more NY firms, their supply of students is endless.


We'll need to talk concretely here. You're assuming that tertiary markets where no T14 students are ever from have robust Summer Classes that they fill with TTT law school students but would love to have a T14 student at their firm instead. How many 101+ attorney firms exist in Idaho or New Mexico? And how many of those 101+ firms have robust Summer Associate programs and hire directly out of law school (as opposed to tapping the lateral market)? Do you think a firm like http://www.crowleyfleck.com/ really cares about T14 students? Check to see how many people from your school is employed by them.

But I'm going to be fair to you. I believe you're mostly talking about opportunities in midlaw. It's a good outcome, sure. But that's not the reason why most people came to a T14. So for now on I'm only going to be generally speaking about firms in the AmLaw 200 (or really just v100).

A true secondary market—Colorado—as I mentioned before will have several AmLaw 200 satellites. And, my god, working in Denver biglaw would be an ideal outcome. But you are deluded to think that you have a better shot at Colorado with a 3.4 because you have ties there and because no one else in your 250-person large lower T14 class is from Denver too (there's one guy from Colorado Springs but you heard that he's going to NYC). The fact of the matter is that the entire Colorado SA class size for all NALP-reporting AmLaw 200 firms will probably be less than 20 people. And that top 40% good looking all american UC Berkeley kid who grew up in Southern California and has never been to Colorado but is now dating a bombshell advertising account executive looking to move back to Boulder? He's going to take your spot.

I happen to have GPA CB data from my school on CO. Holland & Hart—basically the Cravath of Denver BIGLAW—is impossibly selective. So much so that I'd wager that a 3.4 at my school who shows up to her Schulte interview in sweatpants is more likely to receive an offer. Yes, it is unfair to compare the top firm in CO to Schulte (actually, it's not, I think we on TLS all uniformly agree that SRZ is god). But, damn it, there are only four firms (in 2012) that have over 100+ attorneys! http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/ ... st-63.html

OneLisfun wrote:I understand there are certain secondary markets you shouldn't be bidding on instead of NYC.


But, I see what you mean. You're arguing that if you had a 3.4, went to a lower T14 (which one?), and had ties to an obscure tertiary market you should bid said market. What I'm just trying to say is this: you can get a biglaw from median at a T14 if you're smart. Not bidding NYC effectively means you won't get biglaw. Maybe you'll get some midlaw gig in North Dakota—and maybe that's a desirable outcome, sure—but we're on a forum called top law school discussing BIGLAW+FEDERAL CLERKSHIPS employment data.

OneLisfun wrote:I also understand that not every law student should be bidding on whatever 30% of the SA class is getting, that's simply wrong, not right in any way at a lower T14. If that firm at your school has had median 3.65 over the last X years and you have a a 3.3, I would suggest you bid elsewhere for your top 10. You need to look at how many people bid on the one you're looking at last year, the number of interview slots there were as a proportion of how many bids there were, the number of students they're taking, their records on median GPA. You're over simplifying a (somewhat) complicated process.


I see that you're back tracking, which is fine, as long as you're doing this as an acknowledgement that you've been wrong this whole time.

This is what the board is arguing about:
OneLisfun wrote:Also, just to make clear, the typical advice at lower T14s is not to target NYC with lower grades. NYC is considered harder to get than secondary markets that you have ties to. At a lower T14, they will advise students with lower grades that the best move is to target secondary markets that they have ties to, as those are easier to get than NYC. That is the classic advice from career services


This advice is wrong. NYC, as we've repeatedly said before, will dig deeeeeeep into a class for candidates that they like. I'm talking about the Fried Franks, the Milbanks, the SRZs, Kaye Scholers, the Weils, the Kirkland NYs—god damn even Cahill Gordon, who pays above market bonuses, seems attainable with a 3.4 from my school given our data.



1) I'm aware published grade cut-offs are not a great proxy of exactly what they're looking for, that is obvious to me and I've never said otherwise. However, they generally go in the higher than what they're looking for direction, not lower. If a firm posts they want a 2.9 and you are from that state and have a 3.0, apply to that firm immediately, (almost) no NY law firms with a history of 3.4 will be hiring you. (In sum, yes, don't trust the ones that are really high, that's why if you noticed I spoke about not applying to firms that have past medians .3 above yours. Again show me where I said otherwise. You're wrong, not me.

2) No, again, you make more incorrect assumptions and are wrong. Didn't assume robust classes, wrong on that as well. Please do not post specific firms, I will not be posting any, but I've seen firms that are over 100 people that have six figure salaries in these markets asking for below 3.0 grades, something NY firms do not do. You want to call that midlaw? That's great, read more carefully and you'll see I mention throughout that we call 100+ big law on here, and that's the format I was continuing.
Checking to see how many people are employed by anyone is worthless, again, I'm saying these firms for people from there (i.e. not a single person I know) but if you are great, you are now competitive for big law with a 2.8. Again, more straw men to argue with.

3) Another wrong thing you've said. I say secondary markets as a general statement and you wrongly assume I mean all secondary markets, even after conversing with others for a while saying I don't know about other secondary markets, but obscure markets for all, either way I'm not sure. I think there are some secondary markets that will be getting and others that aren't. I guess in a way you're just a combo of arguing with a straw man and wrong here. Think and read, don't just come up with an idea in your head that you have an easy argument against and argue with it, this is a consistent problem for you.

4) Yes our big law plus fed clerks data includes firms of 100+, I'm talking about firms of 100+, I don't quite see what your point is on this one. I still don't see anywhere where I'm wrong. I'll keep looking. As a side note, no I didn't say if you have a 3.4 with median from lower T14 you should bid the tertiary market, if you look at any of the specific examples I posted, you'll see I'm talking about people who have 2.9s and the cutoff is a 2.8 How is that median?

5) I didn't backtrack, again you are wrong. If you think I backtracked explain to me the backtracking, it didn't happen.

6) And as far as that last thing, that is the typical advice, I did not make that up. Not target doesn't mean not include. Maybe we have different definitions of target.

OneLisfun
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Latest employment data

Postby OneLisfun » Sun Apr 19, 2015 11:23 am

ETA: Tell ya what though, you do your thing and snag some Cleveland BigLaw. Don't drag others down with you though kthxbye.

ETA the deuce: Please tell me you don't go to GULC. Please.[/quote]


More strawmen. Didn't say categorically exclude the major market, didn't say Cleveland big law, don't have ties there, said don't put bids into the one with the 30% that's far above what you have, there are other firms in the major market that aren't that firm. Why do you constantly believe everything I write is something I didn't write. I literally cannot grasp how you come up with this stuff.



In sum, since I'm tired of people making up things I didn't say, I said Tiago Splitter was wrong, which he was, when he said everyone in the class should apply to the 30% SA, which I thought he meant was a specific law firm. If that's not what that meant, that is the entire conversation right there, I was wrong about the one thing, and everything else in this ridiculous conversation has stemmed from that.

aka is the 30% SA a specific firm or did he mean NY big law in general. I'm arguing against the one firm idea, of course NYC big law is the way to go generally for at least a large portion of your bids.




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baby Gaga, Bing [Bot], guybourdin, lawlita and 6 guests