Its definitely the PI thing. I know a number of kids who had no interest in firm jobs, and didn't even bother with EIW. Sure, most people would say "why not just do it for insurance?" But NYU has a real strength when it comes to securing high level PI jobs for students. The students who want it can usually get it. So there isn't really much of a need for "insurance" options. Unlike many schools, where kids come in saying they want PI, but inevitably end up on the firm route, a real solid chunk of NYU PI kids actually stay the course.

And I can't leak too much either, but I also heard that EIW success rate was something like mid-80's, which is excellent.

A lot more people here say they would never want to work a firm job and choose not to do EIW. I personally find it dumb and know a couple who deeply regretted it, but it's their choice...

PI people don't usually realize what a huge cluster fuck PI hiring is until its too late.

I agree that they would have been wise to do EIW. Getting a firm job out of NYU is pretty easy, and it would have at least provided a safety net. The vast majority of PI kids I know are set, but there are definitely a few who weren't able to land the PI positions they wanted, and would now like to have had a firm job alternative.

I have heard that CSOs will blacklist you for reneging on an accepted offer. Maybe some PI hiring is done before you are required to accept a NALP offer (28 days after getting it), but I think a big chunk of PI employers haven't really even gotten to call back stage by that point yet (going based on materials from my school).

Anyone know if Spanish is considered a valuable language at OCI? Particularly in California?

It's probably going to help a lot more in PI employment than OCI. I doubt it'll make much of a difference.

Haha if that were true it would be the most ridiculously unjust thing ever, considering what's happened in the past couple of years.

I think the difference is that PI and EIW hiring are on such different timeframes. Doing EIW as a "backup" for PI doesn't really work since most PI places aren't hiring until well after any NALP-mandated offer-acceptance deadline. Intriguingly I have heard a very common type of person to strike-out at EIW is someone who is sort of PI focused but wants to see if he could get a job through EIW at only a select number of firms so they bid on like 5 instead of 50 and then don't get any offers because the firms are all super-selective and they don't really have their heart in the process.

so the offer rate was 85% for columbia for those who did eip and ~80% for nyu's eiw?

Some basic numbers for NYU, for comparison sake.

Columbia claims 78%, I think NYU is at 70%.

I think there were 498 in the class last year. I believe 439 participated in EIW, roughly equaling 88%.

NYU claims a shade less than 80% of students who participated in EIW got at least one offer, which is where the 70% number comes in.

I know nothing of specific firms.

Wait, this is information for c/o 2012 or 2013?

Should be 2013.

Gotta be 2013 given how strong the numbers are

anyone know the pre-ITE numbers? was it much different?

Yep, this is c/o 2013, the class that will SA in 2012 and did OCI in 2011.

Towards the bottom of this page: http://www.law.columbia.edu/careers/car ... rospective

What %-age of people worked at firms for 2L summer at Columbia:
76.7% (C/O 2012)
74.7% (C/O 2011)
91.3% (C/O 2010).

At Chicago: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/prospective ... oymentdata
76.6% (C/O 2012)
69.3% (C/O 2011)
89.1% (C/O 2010)

Recruiting was actually down slightly for OCI 2008 versus OCI 2007, so the boom peak might have been a percentage point or two higher.

The text on the Columbia law TLS profile is from pre-ITE: "Securing employment at top law firms has been likened to ‘shooting fish in a barrel’ by some Columbia graduates."

The stats actually understate the pre-ITE difference. There were basically twice as many jobs during the boom, so even people way below median had a bunch of callbacks and often multiple offers to choose from. These days a lot of the people who do get jobs squeak into one with 2-3 callbacks -> 1 offer.

Well I'm just pulling this from old threads, but this is for CLS:

2009 (crash OCI)
# of 2L participants (including transfers): ~400
# of 2L's who got at least 1 offer: ~270 (67.5%)
V10 Placement: 77 (19.25%)


For comparison, 2006 stats:
# of 2L participants (including transfers): ~400
# of 2L's who got at least 1 offer: ~390 (97.5%)
V10 Placement: 134 (33.5%)

If that's accurate, Christ, why the f*** did they even study.

Pre-ITE was a different world bro. When I first got on TLS in 2008, we would rag on Fordham for putting only half its class into big law and regularly tell people to pick amongst V10 firms based on who had the best swag at OCI.

Most partners I've spoken to say that there is no way we'll ever return to pre-ITE standards.

The excess of wealth was insane and not sustainable.

It seems like the firm structure is evolving to be more responsive to 21st century type of demands (and tech) than a 20th century type of corporate structure. It's going to be hard to go back to the way things were, and most partners say that it probably won't be that way again.

Until then, give me my money.

They didn't have to.

Yet partner profits have miraculously risen back up to pre-ITE levels. How convenient.

I've heard PPP is unreliable (as in firms basically lie about them), but for some firms I think PPP stayed the same during the crash; i.e., they were laying people off and no-offering associates left and right but reaping the exact same big paychecks for themselves.

Sometimes I wonder whether this is really the game I'm interested in playing.

Hiring is really influenced by associate attrition and leverage, and is only indirectly related to PPP. ITE, clients have been less willing to pay for busy work by junior associates. At the same time, more senior associates are sticking around longer because the rest of the economy is still soft. So firms have de-leveraged, having a smaller number of more experienced associates that stick around longer. PPP is maintained by outsourcing or insourcing all the busy-work junior associates used to do to and having fewer overall associates than there used to be. Hiring needs are correspondingly lower.

This state of affairs is bad for hiring, bad for bonuses, but isn't necessarily a bad thing for firms in the institutional sense. Lower leverage and lower turnover is a good thing in terms of stability.

Ah, the good ol days.