Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
caputlupinum
Posts: 105
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2011 12:22 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby caputlupinum » Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:01 am

Anonymous User wrote:
woah d00d, don't blame me for your incompetence. It was more a helpful tip for the next time (and it seems likely that there will be a next time) you want to get all whiny on a TLS thread. Just helpin a brother out.


Would have been more helpful if it didn't have any sass. That's what my sarcasm was getting at. Nice avatar btw.


This is suppose to be sarcastically only you talking to yourself right?

LawIdiot86
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby LawIdiot86 » Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:19 am

Anonymous User wrote:
I don't think it's open to debate. Are there firms in major markets that aren't totally filled during bidding? If not, more bids is useless.


Problem is that there were firms in major markets that had open interview slots at open sign-up...

So more bids is not useless.

I think one problem with unlimited bids is it encourages bidding in markets with no ties, or to firms that you have zero shot with.


I strongly doubt that that's OCS's reason for not allowing unlimited bids. Either way, who cares what reasons law students have for bidding on a firm? Didn't seem to hurt Berkeley if the NLJ numbers are accurate...


Yes, DPW had the functional equivalent of unlimited bids at our school and I'm sure they were horrified to be interviewing people like me (not sarcasm).

Anonymous User
Posts: 273381
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:05 pm

LawIdiot86 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
I don't think it's open to debate. Are there firms in major markets that aren't totally filled during bidding? If not, more bids is useless.


Problem is that there were firms in major markets that had open interview slots at open sign-up...

So more bids is not useless.

I think one problem with unlimited bids is it encourages bidding in markets with no ties, or to firms that you have zero shot with.


I strongly doubt that that's OCS's reason for not allowing unlimited bids. Either way, who cares what reasons law students have for bidding on a firm? Didn't seem to hurt Berkeley if the NLJ numbers are accurate...


Yes, DPW had the functional equivalent of unlimited bids at our school and I'm sure they were horrified to be interviewing people like me (not sarcasm).

ahnhub
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:14 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby ahnhub » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:01 am

Just wanted to update this thread with info about problems with NLJ's methodology: http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/REBUTTAL

So basically Paul Campos accused NYU and Columbia of overstating their employment figures because they don't match up with NLJ, and NYU responded. It looks like there are some serious issues with how NLJ data is collected.

LawIdiot86
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby LawIdiot86 » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:04 am

ahnhub wrote:Just wanted to update this thread with info about problems with NLJ's methodology: http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/REBUTTAL

So basically Paul Campos accused NYU and Columbia of overstating their employment figures because they don't match up with NLJ, and NYU responded. It looks like there are some serious issues with how NLJ data is collected.


I want to see someone who doesn't have a stake in the data doing the analysis and critique of the NLJ250 numbers. At the end of the day, NYU has a huge incentive to twist the numbers, while the NLJ has a fairly small incentive to lie.

Having trouble knowing what to believe? We have a proposal for Paul Campos: come audit our numbers. We’ll show you a list of all NLJ 250 firms to which we sent associates in 2010 and 2011. Pick a reasonably sized sample from that group, and compare them to firm-verifiable data. Then let us, and the world, know what you find.


Why don't you just release (with student names removed) this list publicly? What possible reason could NYU have for keeping such a list secret?

ahnhub
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:14 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby ahnhub » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:35 am

LawIdiot86 wrote:
ahnhub wrote:Just wanted to update this thread with info about problems with NLJ's methodology: http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/REBUTTAL

So basically Paul Campos accused NYU and Columbia of overstating their employment figures because they don't match up with NLJ, and NYU responded. It looks like there are some serious issues with how NLJ data is collected.


I want to see someone who doesn't have a stake in the data doing the analysis and critique of the NLJ250 numbers. At the end of the day, NYU has a huge incentive to twist the numbers, while the NLJ has a fairly small incentive to lie.


I don't know if any of the info firmly decides in one side's favor or not, but to me what the NYU post reveals about the NLJ's collection methods basically tells you their list is often not accurate. The NLJ editor admits many firms, including many very highly-regarded NY firms with big SA classes, simply did not report any information. In one case the NLJ reports 15 NYU grads going to a firm in a single year, when NYU knows it only sent 4.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273381
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:43 am

Yes, DPW had the functional equivalent of unlimited bids at our school and I'm sure they were horrified to be interviewing people like me (not sarcasm).


This is really just a non-sequiter.

LawIdiot86
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby LawIdiot86 » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:45 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Yes, DPW had the functional equivalent of unlimited bids at our school and I'm sure they were horrified to be interviewing people like me (not sarcasm).


This is really just a non-sequiter.


Ok, maybe not phrased the best, but I'll expand it for you. DPW had so many interview slots available that in the past 3 years, they had never filled all of them. That meant you could list them dead last on your bid list and you would still get an interview with them. I'm sure lots of mediocre candidates like myself did that. While I'm sure HR/HR partner made the decision on how many slots to create, the actual lawyers who got stuck interviewing 60 median kids could not have been happy having to fake interest that much.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273381
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:53 am

LawIdiot86 wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:
Yes, DPW had the functional equivalent of unlimited bids at our school and I'm sure they were horrified to be interviewing people like me (not sarcasm).


This is really just a non-sequiter.


Ok, maybe not phrased the best, but I'll expand it for you. DPW had so many interview slots available that in the past 3 years, they had never filled all of them. That meant you could list them dead last on your bid list and you would still get an interview with them. I'm sure lots of mediocre candidates like myself did that. While I'm sure HR/HR partner made the decision on how many slots to create, the actual lawyers who got stuck interviewing 60 median kids could not have been happy having to fake interest that much.


We had the same thing at my school, because I also bid DPW dead last and still got an interview. The first thing out of my interviewer's mouth was that he wished he could've given out more CB's at the school, but that they're just limited. My thought (not response) was that, why send so many people then and waste everyone's time?

dixiecupdrinking
Posts: 3142
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 2:39 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby dixiecupdrinking » Sun Mar 18, 2012 11:59 am

LawIdiot86 wrote:
ahnhub wrote:Just wanted to update this thread with info about problems with NLJ's methodology: http://www.law.nyu.edu/news/REBUTTAL

So basically Paul Campos accused NYU and Columbia of overstating their employment figures because they don't match up with NLJ, and NYU responded. It looks like there are some serious issues with how NLJ data is collected.


I want to see someone who doesn't have a stake in the data doing the analysis and critique of the NLJ250 numbers. At the end of the day, NYU has a huge incentive to twist the numbers, while the NLJ has a fairly small incentive to lie.

Having trouble knowing what to believe? We have a proposal for Paul Campos: come audit our numbers. We’ll show you a list of all NLJ 250 firms to which we sent associates in 2010 and 2011. Pick a reasonably sized sample from that group, and compare them to firm-verifiable data. Then let us, and the world, know what you find.


Why don't you just release (with student names removed) this list publicly? What possible reason could NYU have for keeping such a list secret?

The same reason they say they didn't release the info to NLJ in the first place: they didn't want to undermine the firms' decision not to release it.

You can buy that explanation or not, but it's perfectly consistent with continuing not to release the information.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273381
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:01 pm

DPW had so many interview slots available that in the past 3 years, they had never filled all of them. That meant you could list them dead last on your bid list and you would still get an interview with them. I'm sure lots of mediocre candidates like myself did that. While I'm sure HR/HR partner made the decision on how many slots to create, the actual lawyers who got stuck interviewing 60 median kids could not have been happy having to fake interest that much.


I got a DPW screener under the exact same circumstances but received an offer. No, I didn't think I had a shot (and my grades were definitely closer to median), but if I hadn't had as many bids I probably wouldn't have even been in a position to interview with them...

In other words, the interest isn't "fake." The problem with limited bidding and people who are fixated with the process of school admissions is that it makes student fixate on grades when it comes to things like job interviews. That's not to say that grades aren't determinative; it's just to say that grades have less of an impact than rising 2Ls think they do.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273381
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:09 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
DPW had so many interview slots available that in the past 3 years, they had never filled all of them. That meant you could list them dead last on your bid list and you would still get an interview with them. I'm sure lots of mediocre candidates like myself did that. While I'm sure HR/HR partner made the decision on how many slots to create, the actual lawyers who got stuck interviewing 60 median kids could not have been happy having to fake interest that much.


I got a DPW screener under the exact same circumstances but received an offer. No, I didn't think I had a shot (and my grades were definitely closer to median), but if I hadn't had as many bids I probably wouldn't have even been in a position to interview with them...

In other words, the interest isn't "fake." The problem with limited bidding and people who are fixated with the process of school admissions is that it makes student fixate on grades when it comes to things like job interviews. That's not to say that grades aren't determinative; it's just to say that grades have less of an impact than rising 2Ls think they do.


Earlier anon who talked about DPW just saying they didn't have many CB's to give out at the beginning of my interview:

I would agree that there are other factors. But for a firm like DPW to have so many slots when they know they're not taking a ton of people from your school seems like a waste for them. I go to an MVP-level school, so I'm guessing it's different somewhere like CLS or NYU where DPW takes a ton of people and probably wouldn't have any problem dipping to median for those that are the right "fit".

LawIdiot86
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby LawIdiot86 » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
DPW had so many interview slots available that in the past 3 years, they had never filled all of them. That meant you could list them dead last on your bid list and you would still get an interview with them. I'm sure lots of mediocre candidates like myself did that. While I'm sure HR/HR partner made the decision on how many slots to create, the actual lawyers who got stuck interviewing 60 median kids could not have been happy having to fake interest that much.


I got a DPW screener under the exact same circumstances but received an offer. No, I didn't think I had a shot (and my grades were definitely closer to median), but if I hadn't had as many bids I probably wouldn't have even been in a position to interview with them...

In other words, the interest isn't "fake." The problem with limited bidding and people who are fixated with the process of school admissions is that it makes student fixate on grades when it comes to things like job interviews. That's not to say that grades aren't determinative; it's just to say that grades have less of an impact than rising 2Ls think they do.


Agreed. Although, I did have one partner email me after a screener (not from DPW), saying they had gone to their hiring committee and said they only wanted to CB one person from my school, me, but that the hiring committee vetoed on grades saying they could never hire someone with grades like mine, even if my personality/fit was ideal.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273381
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:32 pm

But for a firm like DPW to have so many slots when they know they're not taking a ton of people from your school seems like a waste for them. I go to an MVP-level school, so I'm guessing it's different somewhere like CLS or NYU where DPW takes a ton of people and probably wouldn't have any problem dipping to median for those that are the right "fit".


Even at CLS and NYU, DPW calls back a ton of people and rejects many of them. It's not a waste at all. The firm simply likes to view a large swath of people because fit is so much more important to them. There are many other firms out there that will sidestep grades for the sake of fit, but law students write them off because (a) they don't know they do that and (b) they have limited bids to dole out, so why waste them on that "V10" that probably wouldn't give them an offer?

Regarding the CCN/MVP distinction, I know people at M who had 3.3s and got offers at DPW. The problem is that their grade grids would lead you to believe that they wouldn't touch such a person with a 10-foot pole. But they did. Among my group of friends, there's a good chunk with middle-of-the-line grades who got offers from V10s, and another good chunk of people with similar grades who deeply regret not bidding on said firms because they thought they were "out of their league."

Again, if you're in the bottom 10%, no bidding system will really help you. But a lot of people above median slipped through the cracks at top schools. This impacts employment stats, and a better bidding system and a better career education system would prepare them properly for interviewing with firms.

LawIdiot86
Posts: 1159
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby LawIdiot86 » Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:41 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
But for a firm like DPW to have so many slots when they know they're not taking a ton of people from your school seems like a waste for them. I go to an MVP-level school, so I'm guessing it's different somewhere like CLS or NYU where DPW takes a ton of people and probably wouldn't have any problem dipping to median for those that are the right "fit".


Even at CLS and NYU, DPW calls back a ton of people and rejects many of them. It's not a waste at all. The firm simply likes to view a large swath of people because fit is so much more important to them. There are many other firms out there that will sidestep grades for the sake of fit, but law students write them off because (a) they don't know they do that and (b) they have limited bids to dole out, so why waste them on that "V10" that probably wouldn't give them an offer?

Regarding the CCN/MVP distinction, I know people at M who had 3.3s and got offers at DPW. The problem is that their grade grids would lead you to believe that they wouldn't touch such a person with a 10-foot pole. But they did. Among my group of friends, there's a good chunk with middle-of-the-line grades who got offers from V10s, and another good chunk of people with similar grades who deeply regret not bidding on said firms because they thought they were "out of their league."

Again, if you're in the bottom 10%, no bidding system will really help you. But a lot of people above median slipped through the cracks at top schools. This impacts employment stats, and a better bidding system and a better career education system would prepare them properly for interviewing with firms.


I'm sure 3.3s have gotten offers, but at my DCNG, half of the people ever to get offers from DPW had GPAs in the top 10%.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273381
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:06 pm

Same other anon who got the "we can't take very many" speech:

Considering the 1L median is like a 3.1, a 3.3x at M for 1L is also still pretty close to top 1/3. Let's be real here. It's not the same as median. It's also possible that they liked so many people that they maxed out before I interviewed since I was pretty near the end and they saw a lot of people. I only know two people who got DPW CB's/offers (one turned it down).

But I'm just going off of what my interviewer told me at the very beginning, which was that there just weren't enough CB's to go around for M students. I wasn't personally expecting anything -- I knew I was a terrible fit for the firm, which is why I put them last.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273381
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:29 pm

It was just an example. There are many top firms that go for fit.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273381
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Mar 18, 2012 5:51 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Same other anon who got the "we can't take very many" speech:

Considering the 1L median is like a 3.1, a 3.3x at M for 1L is also still pretty close to top 1/3. Let's be real here. It's not the same as median. It's also possible that they liked so many people that they maxed out before I interviewed since I was pretty near the end and they saw a lot of people. I only know two people who got DPW CB's/offers (one turned it down).

But I'm just going off of what my interviewer told me at the very beginning, which was that there just weren't enough CB's to go around for M students. I wasn't personally expecting anything -- I knew I was a terrible fit for the firm, which is why I put them last.


DPW's soft cut-off for T7-14 seems to be top 1/3. At the same time, most of the people they call back at T7-14 are in the top 10%. They're willing to dip down for good fit, more so than say S&C, but they don't do so regularly enough to impact the callback median.

That said, I'd be surprised if they only called back two people at M in recent memory. Based on the offer dinners, I'd guess they handed out 6-10 offers at NU each of the last two years. Note that yield can be highly variable from year to year. Last year there was only 1-2 M students in the summer class, and this year there are like 7. At NU, there was maybe 50% yield for C/O 2012, and only 20% for C/O 2013.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273381
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby Anonymous User » Sun Mar 18, 2012 9:38 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Same other anon who got the "we can't take very many" speech:

Considering the 1L median is like a 3.1, a 3.3x at M for 1L is also still pretty close to top 1/3. Let's be real here. It's not the same as median. It's also possible that they liked so many people that they maxed out before I interviewed since I was pretty near the end and they saw a lot of people. I only know two people who got DPW CB's/offers (one turned it down).

But I'm just going off of what my interviewer told me at the very beginning, which was that there just weren't enough CB's to go around for M students. I wasn't personally expecting anything -- I knew I was a terrible fit for the firm, which is why I put them last.


DPW's soft cut-off for T7-14 seems to be top 1/3. At the same time, most of the people they call back at T7-14 are in the top 10%. They're willing to dip down for good fit, more so than say S&C, but they don't do so regularly enough to impact the callback median.

That said, I'd be surprised if they only called back two people at M in recent memory. Based on the offer dinners, I'd guess they handed out 6-10 offers at NU each of the last two years. Note that yield can be highly variable from year to year. Last year there was only 1-2 M students in the summer class, and this year there are like 7. At NU, there was maybe 50% yield for C/O 2012, and only 20% for C/O 2013.


Oh, I'm positive they called back more than two. I just personally only know of two. Most of the people I know and have talked to about job stuff weren't targeting NYC.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273381
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:31 am

Anonymous User wrote:Same other anon who got the "we can't take very many" speech:

Considering the 1L median is like a 3.1, a 3.3x at M for 1L is also still pretty close to top 1/3. Let's be real here. It's not the same as median. It's also possible that they liked so many people that they maxed out before I interviewed since I was pretty near the end and they saw a lot of people. I only know two people who got DPW CB's/offers (one turned it down).

But I'm just going off of what my interviewer told me at the very beginning, which was that there just weren't enough CB's to go around for M students. I wasn't personally expecting anything -- I knew I was a terrible fit for the firm, which is why I put them last.


What made you think you'd be a terrible fit for the firm? Is there something on their website/something go around the rumor vine that hasn't yet reached mine ears?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273381
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Top 50 go-to law schools 2012

Postby Anonymous User » Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:12 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Same other anon who got the "we can't take very many" speech:

Considering the 1L median is like a 3.1, a 3.3x at M for 1L is also still pretty close to top 1/3. Let's be real here. It's not the same as median. It's also possible that they liked so many people that they maxed out before I interviewed since I was pretty near the end and they saw a lot of people. I only know two people who got DPW CB's/offers (one turned it down).

But I'm just going off of what my interviewer told me at the very beginning, which was that there just weren't enough CB's to go around for M students. I wasn't personally expecting anything -- I knew I was a terrible fit for the firm, which is why I put them last.


What made you think you'd be a terrible fit for the firm? Is there something on their website/something go around the rumor vine that hasn't yet reached mine ears?


Firms have certain reputations, and it's not a slight to DPW that I personally wouldn't fit in well there. They're just very, very white shoe, and I'm very very not.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.