Top Law Schools

nhop wrote:Is there any way to find out how many people a firm is actually interviewing and/or historical data on how many people bid on a firm and didn't get a screening interview?

Not that the school provides . . . but that data sure would be nice to have.

doinmybest wrote:

nhop wrote:Is there any way to find out how many people a firm is actually interviewing and/or historical data on how many people bid on a firm and didn't get a screening interview?

Not that the school provides . . . but that data sure would be nice to have.

Exactly. Not only that, but it's not even the kind of "sensitive" information (e.g. less highly aggregated GPA data) that OCS(OCP?) is ostensibly worried about disclosing. /rant.

I've only ever gotten pretty general advice on that front (bid "popular" firms higher and more selective ones lower); what I'd like to know is:

how low can one bid, say, Cleary or S&C and still be assured of getting an interview?
what about firms that send one recruiter for multiple offices (specifically firms like Ropes & Gray or Gibson Dunn that have big offices in several major markets)?

As a prospective transfer student, this thread is kind of intimidating. Any advice on what I should start doing to prepare for all of this chaos? I guess next week I'm going to start some major research. Anybody have tips for how a transfer should bid if he's aiming for NYC?

Bronte wrote:If I remember correctly, OCP strongly suggests we not put our GPAs on our resumes. Is it wise to follow this advice?

I have wondered this same thing. I have heard OCP explain the reasoning for not putting GPAs on our resumes, but I never quite followed the rationale.

JetstoRJC wrote:

Bronte wrote:If I remember correctly, OCP strongly suggests we not put our GPAs on our resumes. Is it wise to follow this advice?

I have wondered this same thing. I have heard OCP explain the reasoning for not putting GPAs on our resumes, but I never quite followed the rationale.

Doesn't it typically go Resume -> Interview -> Transcript? (Or at least supposed to go.) I guess leaving the GPA off of your resume helps if you don't have terrific grades so the interviewer won't already have his mind decided on no-callback before you even walk in the door. I dunno. I was planning on putting mine on there, but I'm not exactly an expert.

Helmholtz wrote:

JetstoRJC wrote:

Bronte wrote:If I remember correctly, OCP strongly suggests we not put our GPAs on our resumes. Is it wise to follow this advice?

I have wondered this same thing. I have heard OCP explain the reasoning for not putting GPAs on our resumes, but I never quite followed the rationale.

Doesn't it typically go Resume -> Interview -> Transcript? (Or at least supposed to go.) I guess leaving the GPA off of your resume helps if you don't have terrific grades so the interviewer won't already have his mind decided on no-callback before you even walk in the door. I dunno. I was planning on putting mine on there, but I'm not exactly an expert.

The way OCS words it makes it seem as if putting the GPA on there is a serious faux pas. You guys think it's just blustering?

I will definitely put mine on for all non-OCI stuff, just not sure about what to do for OCI.

goodolgil wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:

JetstoRJC wrote:

Bronte wrote:If I remember correctly, OCP strongly suggests we not put our GPAs on our resumes. Is it wise to follow this advice?

I have wondered this same thing. I have heard OCP explain the reasoning for not putting GPAs on our resumes, but I never quite followed the rationale.

Doesn't it typically go Resume -> Interview -> Transcript? (Or at least supposed to go.) I guess leaving the GPA off of your resume helps if you don't have terrific grades so the interviewer won't already have his mind decided on no-callback before you even walk in the door. I dunno. I was planning on putting mine on there, but I'm not exactly an expert.

The way OCS words it makes it seem as if putting the GPA on there is a serious faux pas. You guys think it's just blustering?

I will definitely put mine on for all non-OCI stuff, just not sure about what to do for OCI.

They definitely make it seem like a faux pas. But I was reading another thread, not specific to Michigan, where everyone was making it sound like suicide not to put your GPA on your OCI resume unless it's really bad. I think at most schools everyone puts there GPA on their resume. So it's hard for me to believe it's a faux pas.

I don't mind leaving out my GPA. I just want to make sure I won't be sending a negative signal by doing so.

It seems weird to think of it as a faux pas when they're going to see your transcript after the interview (or sometimes before/doing). It's not like you're listing your LSAT score. Maybe I'm missing something here. If I had incredible grades, I would certainly enjoy walking into a grade-centric V10 interview with them thinking, "all right, this guy's grades are great; this is his to lose."

At UVA it's up to us whether we put GPA on resumes or not. Structurally it's much different though, because any firm we have an interview at already got and had a chance to pre-screen us based on GPA/transcript/resume. Perhaps it's a faux pa there because it's understood one doesn't do it even if it's acceptable at other schools? And since you'll likely have many Michigan alum lawyers that might be worth considering. I really don't know though.

No TLS consensus? I'm like a rudderless ship.

In fairness, the lack of the consensus means it's not likely to be material either way. It's playing at psychological margins - the firms will see all of your grades when deciding who to callback and make offers to.

Yeah I'm with you. I'll probably go with OCP's advice.

I do not really see this as mattering one way or the other. To the extent GPA matters, having the firm see the GPA before the screening interview instead of, instantly within the screener, 10 minutes into the screener, or at the end of the screening interview, I think is not going to make or break anyway. If we are talking about marginal advantages, maybe, but from what other 2Ls say, fit is still important, and I do not think the interviewer knowing your GPA will help you establish a connection with the interviewer anymore than if it is not included. I think Career Services rationale for not including your GPA silly ("firms will think you are a prick, if you have a high GPA and include it, and not high GPA looks bad"), but who knows maybe (some) firms think like this (esp as thesealocust mentioned if as michigan alums they got the same advice while at michigan, or have seen the same thing from previous classes). I think if you do not mind taking this minimal risk and want the minimal benefit of showing off your GPA slightly earlier, then go for it. I am not sure what I will do.

Well, I guess it would be a faux pas because it sort of frustrates the purpose of the lottery system. Especially considering OCS always emphasizes that employers are not allowed to see our grades before the interview.

Eh, it's not as if interviewers at previous Michigan EIWs asked for the transcript at the very beginning, where a few even turned away candidates, saying "let's not waste each others' time here."

Actually, that did happen.

And there's nothing OCS can do about it.

Anonymous User wrote:Eh, it's not as if interviewers at previous Michigan EIWs asked for the transcript at the very beginning, where a few even turned away candidates, saying "let's not waste each others' time here."

Actually, that did happen.

And there's nothing OCS can do about it.

Uh huh. So yay or nay on the GPA on the resume? Haha.

Bronte wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Eh, it's not as if interviewers at previous Michigan EIWs asked for the transcript at the very beginning, where a few even turned away candidates, saying "let's not waste each others' time here."

Actually, that did happen.

And there's nothing OCS can do about it.

Uh huh. So yay or nay on the GPA on the resume? Haha.

I guess the moral of the story was supposed to be: Just put it on there. Firms that really want to see your grades will find a way to see them anyways at the beginning of the interview. I didn't have my GPA on my resume. During my Davis Polk interview, the interviewer took my transcript at the beginning of the interview... and placed it face down. Sounds like he wanted to give me a fair shot, but I don't know if this is universal Davis Polk practice.

You guys are missing the point of OCI. They're there to collect transcripts and do a sniff test of you. You need to pass both tests, not just one or the other. It doesn't matter when they see your gpa, they have your entire transcript to look at after the interview. I did it in 2009 and some places specifically asked for the transcript straight off, looked it over thoroughly, and then opened up with questions. Others didn't even look at it. Here's the issue as I see it why you shouldn't put it on your gpa for OCI purposes: if your gpa is good enough to be competitive at a firm then the interviewer either 1) had a similar gpa and won't be impressed, or 2) had a worse gpa but scrambled to get their job and may be sensitive to people who are really open about their high gpa because they think it entitles them to a callback. Would you rather be the dude with a high gpa who isn't obnoxious about it who makes an awesome impression or the dude with a high gpa who's personality was a little smug and really doesn't seem like someone who would be fun to work with (and that is what they are testing)? The two clearly aren't mutually exclusive, but I'm just making the point that people coming to interview you are not going to be impressed with whatever gpa you have, they just want to make sure it is high 'enough' and that you'll be a good worker and if you're the one in twenty person who puts their above median gpa on your resume you'll probably stand out in a bad way. That's it. Just be subtle about it and trust that they will absolutely 100% look at your transcript and find out your gpa before giving you a callback. You shouldn't be worried about your grades at this point, they're decided, focus on dominating your 20 minutes and letting everything else work itself out.

Obviously for non-OCI mass mailing purposes put that baby in bold up near the top to try and get someone to notice it.

Anonymous User wrote:During my Davis Polk interview, the interviewer took my transcript at the beginning of the interview... and placed it face down. Sounds like he wanted to give me a fair shot, but I don't know if this is universal Davis Polk practice.

Davis Polk has, based on my experience, a well-deserved reputation for being much more fit / personality / background focused than grades focused, at least once you are at one of the schools they recruit heavily from. I doubt Sullivan & Cromwell would pull the same trick, or at least doubt that even if they did they wouldn't immediately scrutinize your grades after you left the room.

Anonymous User wrote:Davis Polk has, based on my experience, a well-deserved reputation for being much more fit / personality / background focused than grades focused, at least once you are at one of the schools they recruit heavily from. I doubt Sullivan & Cromwell would pull the same trick, or at least doubt that even if they did they wouldn't immediately scrutinize your grades after you left the room.

Interesting, what would you say are the more grade conscious firms V10-15 then? I've heard W & C cares a lot about fit too.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Davis Polk has, based on my experience, a well-deserved reputation for being much more fit / personality / background focused than grades focused, at least once you are at one of the schools they recruit heavily from. I doubt Sullivan & Cromwell would pull the same trick, or at least doubt that even if they did they wouldn't immediately scrutinize your grades after you left the room.

Interesting, what would you say are the more grade conscious firms V10-15 then? I've heard W & C cares a lot about fit too.

I'm not doubting that there's some truth to what he's is saying, but I think it's safe to say Davis Polk is pretty grade conscious. Doesn't the GPA chart speak for itself to a certain extent?

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Davis Polk has, based on my experience, a well-deserved reputation for being much more fit / personality / background focused than grades focused, at least once you are at one of the schools they recruit heavily from. I doubt Sullivan & Cromwell would pull the same trick, or at least doubt that even if they did they wouldn't immediately scrutinize your grades after you left the room.

Interesting, what would you say are the more grade conscious firms V10-15 then? I've heard W & C cares a lot about fit too.

Here is my understanding of what the V10-15 are about / are looking for.

In NYC:

Wachtell: You need very high grades from a very good school, but you don't need LR or to absolutely be in the top 5%. They appear to favor experience, especially in the financial sector, but that's hardly mandatory either.
Cravath: The better the school, the less they care about credentials. I've heard of median students at a few T14s getting CBs, and they notoriously went BACK to a school last year to look for more. But once you get out of the narrow band of schools they feed from (roughly the T6), they look for basically absolute top of the class credentials, and scrutinize undergrad records too.
Sullivan & Cromwell: S&C wants strong grades wherever you're from. They have one of the broadest attorney bases by school amongst 'peer' firms, and probably favor top 20%ish creds even from the best schools.
Skadden: Skadden is often much less grade conscious due to their enormous size. They have a well deserved reputation for being fratty, whatever that word means, but it's definitely not too far from the mark. Skadden was formed by attorneys who Cravath wouldn't consider hiring because of their ethnicity, and is almost a hundred years 'younger' than many other major wall street firms. Some of that 'scrappy' mentality certainly carries over to this day. While it's a bit easier to get a job here than many other mega firms, its reputation amongst businesses is every bit as strong as its peer firms.
Davis Polk (my firm): You probably can't get in much below median anywhere, and they absolutely FAVOR high grades (just looking at their average offer GPA at schools that offer such info, it's usually around Cravath levels and towards the highest range of any firm). That being said, they routinely pull people with the right characteristics from at or just above median even from T14 schools. They tend to get a lot of people from each of a very few schools, but every year there are a few from outside of the T14 or so that are the usual suspects. The focus on fit drives towards team mentality, politeness/friendliness, and charisma. They're looking for smart people who want to be part of the club and then work hard for it, not people who are looking to win at all costs or who want to be part of a free market / eat what you kill environment (which many other firms offer).
STB: I'm not sure if STB has an obvious personality. They're probably a little less grade conscious than the V10 crowd as a whole, but only by a slight amount. As far as personality I'd say it's a mix of the Skadden and DPW? For some reason this firm just makes less of a strong impression, whatever it 'is' feels less easy to describe in a few words.
Cleary: International. 10 times over, international. It's their major branding focus at this point, so I'd imagine language skills, international experience, desire to work in other offices, etc. will pay dividends here.
Weil: Weil is the undisputed king of BK (well, there are a few other firms nearly as good, but that's their bread and butter). They're definitely one of the least selective V10s based on grades, and probably have some trouble attracting cross-admits to the other V10ish firms due to having more financial troubles of late.
Debevoise: Another firm with a genteel and nice reputation that seems to come across in practice. They have a much stronger reputation for corporate work than for litigation, but are terrific at both. In that way the firm is sort of the inverse of Paul Weiss.
Paul Weiss: Paul Weiss has an out of this world rep for litigation, but a sweatshoppy reputation as well. Their corporate practice is a little smaller and not quite as well received as their litigation practice. PW and Debevoise are each probably slightly less selective than the other firms, as they're sort of - at least based on law student perceptions - on the border of the "truly elite" NYC firms and the "regular elite / extremely well regarded" NYC firms.

Bronte wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Davis Polk has, based on my experience, a well-deserved reputation for being much more fit / personality / background focused than grades focused, at least once you are at one of the schools they recruit heavily from. I doubt Sullivan & Cromwell would pull the same trick, or at least doubt that even if they did they wouldn't immediately scrutinize your grades after you left the room.

Interesting, what would you say are the more grade conscious firms V10-15 then? I've heard W & C cares a lot about fit too.

I'm not doubting that there's some truth to what he's is saying, but I think it's safe to say Davis Polk is pretty grade conscious. Doesn't the GPA chart speak for itself to a certain extent?

DPW, which is my firm, really likes high grades. But they'll take people every year from a lot of top schools all the way down to median if they click right with the firm's vibe, and unlike a firm like S&C that gives offers to most people who meet a very high GPA bar, DPW is still screening heavily for fit even amongst those with high GPAs they make offers to. Any given person with say a 3.4 from Michigan will be a long shot at DPW but they'll absolutely consider you and have probably hired from that group routinely over the years, even if most were from the 3.65++ range. I doubt you could say the same of S&C; this is the kind of thing looking only at median or average GPA data might mask.

As an example of this in practice, S&C is famous for giving 90%+ offers to people it extends callbacks to (far above average for big NYC firms), while DPW is notorious for giving offers to as low as 30% of the people it extends callbacks to (far below average for big NYC firms). Those two stats vary widely between schools, however.

In terms of getting the most interview, try to think in terms of game theory and how your classmates will likely bid. That should help you maximize your interviews. When you get into the interview, try not to be too excited, and if you are an okay person, your grades should get you the job. You don't have to wow anyone, you just have to come off as relaxed, interested, and intelligent. Not that tough.

My advice would be to not bid more than two markets. At least half of my interviews featured the question of how many markets I was interviewing in, and the relative breakdown of how many firms in each market I was bidding. You don't want to come off as indecisive.

DPW Anon: Thanks for the post. Very informative.

Bronte wrote:DPW Anon: Thanks for the post. Very informative.

+1