CLS EIP Bidding Forum

[MTC87]

I would just add that with the new curve, I'm unsure that you're top 5%. I think top 10% is the more conservative and safer guesstimate. Otherwise, what everyone else said (except for Magnificent) seems right based upon my experience (3.55 on old curve so probably 3.63ish on new curve?)

Wow, did the new curve really bump up everyone's GPAs by that much? A .08-point boost seems pretty huge.

[Anonymous User]

W&C only hires one person a year from Columbia. That person is usually the #1 student in the class (or very close).

MTO likewise only hires one person from Columbia per year and that person is usually a Kent Scholar.

Unless your Kent, your wasting your bid at those firms.

[Anonymous User]

3.70, no Law Review, but one of the secondary journals. Do I have a shot at Wachtell under the new curve? Do they care about Law Review or is that only in lit-heavy firms?

[viking138]

3.70, no Law Review, but one of the secondary journals. Do I have a shot at Wachtell under the new curve? Do they care about Law Review or is that only in lit-heavy firms?

How do you know about law review already? I thought that wasn't coming out for a few days still?

Anyway, no one really knows about the new curve. It hasn't been publicized. Honestly, I'd say you have a minimal shot. A friend with a high 3.5 and law review got a callback. At a certain point, it's just unpredictable, and is a variant of the personality they're looking for, grades, work experience, etc etc etc. But you'll have tons of offers I'm sure, even if you're a bad interviewer, with those grades.

One other word of advice -- definitely don't go in with preconceived ideas about firms, because you could miss a firm you'd love. I completely overlooked one V10 firm because I was so concentrated on "not paying attention to Vault" and almost canceled the callback. Thank goodness I didn't, because I absolutely loved the firm and ended up there. Use Vault as a rough approximation, a guide to firms, etc., but just don't make your actual decision based on the rankings. Vault is valuable as an entry point to firms, just not as the decision-making rubric.

[Anonymous User]

3.70, no Law Review, but one of the secondary journals. Do I have a shot at Wachtell under the new curve? Do they care about Law Review or is that only in lit-heavy firms?

nope

Wachtell only gives about 4 offers at CLS at any given year and all are LR/Kent. Sometimes they dip into Stone/LR. Maybe Kent by itself is sometimes good enough. But I can't see Stone alone (even really high Stone) getting you an offer WLRK.

Also, I don't see the fascination with WLRK unless your dead set on M&A. If not, bid more on LA/DC firms. NYC is the absolute worst place to work as a young lawyer.

[overandout]

OP: Looks like a good bidlist. You may not be a 100% lock for a V5 firm but you are basically 99%. You should have your pick of CSM, DPW, S+C, Skadden, STB. Wachtell is in play but they are a crapshoot even for someone with your grades. Most people I know with grades in your range (3.65+) cleaned up. LR shouldn't be a factor if you want to do corporate. Just make sure you have a good idea of what corporate law is.

I agree with other posters who say that if you want corporate, round out your bidlist with non-V10 NYC firms. You'll still get exposure to a wide variety of corporate departments even if those firms are not Band 1 in everything.

Thanks, appreciate the input. I pretty much figured Wachtell is a longshot, since they're obviously huge on grades, and I'd guess with the new curve they'll be even less likely to dip into any non-Kents... But oh well, still worth a shot!

I would just add that with the new curve, I'm unsure that you're top 5%. I think top 10% is the more conservative and safer guesstimate. Otherwise, what everyone else said (except for Magnificent) seems right based upon my experience (3.55 on old curve so probably 3.63ish on new curve?)

See that's what I was thinking too. I mean, the new curve is still harder than the 2L and 3L curves, so if Kent is usually about 8% of the class those years, it would make sense that its around 5-6% of 1L this year... I just hope any new curve confusion doesn't end up screwing over our entire year...

Anyway, I put together an actual ranked bid list. If you guys could toss down any advice on this as well it would be amazing, everyone's been really helpful so far... I obviously was trying to balance past bid volume with firms I'm actually interested in, which is a little easier said than done... I'm also a little concerned because I feel like all of the good firms will be bid heavier this year than in the past, as a function of more people having high grades, at least nominally. But whatever.

1 Skadden
2 Cleary Gottlieb
3 Kirkland & Ellis
4 Latham
5 Sullivan & Cromwell
6 Weil
7 Cravath
8 Davis Polk
9 Paul Weiss
10 Wachtell
11 Simpson Thacher
12 Debevoise
13 Milbank Tweed
14 Willkie Farr
15 Fried Frank
16 Boies (Corporate Schedule)
17 Proskauer
18 Sidley Austin
19 Paul Hastings
20 Kaye Scholer
21 Shearman & Sterling
22 Schulte Roth
23 Akin Gump
24 Ropes & Gray
25 Jones Day
26 Gibson Dunn
27 Goodwin Procter
28 Cadwalader
29 Dechert
30 McKinsey

[lizlemon123]

Cravath, Davis Polk, and Simpson can all go much farther down the list. You could rank them in the 20's and still get an interview. That said, I think you need to move up Debevoise, Milbank, Ropes, Sidley and Gibson Dunn for sure. The firms that are hardest to get interviews at are the ones where everyone thinks they have a chance, and those are firms that fall squarely in that range. I would rethink Latham being so high-- they haven't been able to attract top tier columbia people in the last couple of years-- I think there are better places to go, but that might just be my personal bias.

[overandout]

Cravath, Davis Polk, and Simpson can all go much farther down the list. You could rank them in the 20's and still get an interview. That said, I think you need to move up Debevoise, Milbank, Ropes, Sidley and Gibson Dunn for sure. The firms that are hardest to get interviews at are the ones where everyone thinks they have a chance, and those are firms that fall squarely in that range. I would rethink Latham being so high-- they haven't been able to attract top tier columbia people in the last couple of years-- I think there are better places to go, but that might just be my personal bias.

Hm... I was really nervous to drop the firms I actually want too far down and risk getting shut out entirely. Are they generally pretty good about giving people interviews if they don't get them through the bidding process and go to their hospitality suites?

[viking138]

Cravath, Davis Polk, and Simpson can all go much farther down the list. You could rank them in the 20's and still get an interview. That said, I think you need to move up Debevoise, Milbank, Ropes, Sidley and Gibson Dunn for sure. The firms that are hardest to get interviews at are the ones where everyone thinks they have a chance, and those are firms that fall squarely in that range. I would rethink Latham being so high-- they haven't been able to attract top tier columbia people in the last couple of years-- I think there are better places to go, but that might just be my personal bias.

Hm... I was really nervous to drop the firms I actually want too far down and risk getting shut out entirely. Are they generally pretty good about giving people interviews if they don't get them through the bidding process and go to their hospitality suites?

Honestly, you can put them in the high teens to the low 20s and be fine. For real. I missed out on Debevoise and Sidley (not a big deal, obviously, but before I got an offer it would have been comforting) because I ranked them too low since I wanted to be cautious.

If you have excel, input the number of interviews given and number of bids to figure out the percentage of interviews given, then reorder your list using that so that the lowest percentage (hardest to get an interview) is at the top and highest percentage is at the bottom. From there, move firms around a bit based on your interest/preference, but keep those brackets of 1-10, 11-20, 21-30 (roughly, obviously, no strict rules here).

And yeah, you'll never get an interview with Akin, Ropes, Jones Day, Schulte, Kaye, Sidley, or Boies ranking them the way you have. Probably not even Willkie. Think about it this way -- there are more students with below-Stone grades than above-Stone grades, and they're all bidding on those firms, too. If you want a shot with them, then have the ones you like the best in your top 10.

[AppsAbound]

Cleary/DPW/Paul Weiss don't need to be ranked incredibly high, but keep in mind that they are all popular. I don't know anyone who wanted an interview with them and didn't get it. I would think that low teens would be enough. Places like Gibson Dunn though, with much smaller class sizes need to be moved up. Latham really isn't in demand so I'd drop that too. The way you rank shouldnt be primarily based on your interest but on the firm's class size/interview slots/popularity. For example, I don't think Cravath is incredibly popular at CLS and I doubt their schedule fills up.

Oh and I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure Wachtell is only interested in LR/Kent, at least based on the students I know who've gone there the past couple of years.

[overandout]

Cravath, Davis Polk, and Simpson can all go much farther down the list. You could rank them in the 20's and still get an interview. That said, I think you need to move up Debevoise, Milbank, Ropes, Sidley and Gibson Dunn for sure. The firms that are hardest to get interviews at are the ones where everyone thinks they have a chance, and those are firms that fall squarely in that range. I would rethink Latham being so high-- they haven't been able to attract top tier columbia people in the last couple of years-- I think there are better places to go, but that might just be my personal bias.

Hm... I was really nervous to drop the firms I actually want too far down and risk getting shut out entirely. Are they generally pretty good about giving people interviews if they don't get them through the bidding process and go to their hospitality suites?

Honestly, you can put them in the high teens to the low 20s and be fine. For real. I missed out on Debevoise and Sidley (not a big deal, obviously, but before I got an offer it would have been comforting) because I ranked them too low since I wanted to be cautious.

If you have excel, input the number of interviews given and number of bids to figure out the percentage of interviews given, then reorder your list using that so that the lowest percentage (hardest to get an interview) is at the top and highest percentage is at the bottom. From there, move firms around a bit based on your interest/preference, but keep those brackets of 1-10, 11-20, 21-30 (roughly, obviously, no strict rules here).

And yeah, you'll never get an interview with Akin, Ropes, Jones Day, Schulte, Kaye, Sidley, or Boies ranking them the way you have. Probably not even Willkie. Think about it this way -- there are more students with below-Stone grades than above-Stone grades, and they're all bidding on those firms, too. If you want a shot with them, then have the ones you like the best in your top 10.

Bleh, yeah you're right I guess, I was just kind of nervous because the new curve might make more people think they have a chance at these places than normal, and thus I was being really careful. But I have heard that it's pretty simple to go to the hospitality suites and get an interview if you don't get a firm you really like. I'll do a little shuffling around per your advice, thanks.

Also, it's Boies' Corporate Schedule, in 2011 and 2009 they only ended up with 18 interviews on 21 and 17 bids respectively, so I think they can be ranked pretty low.

Oh and I'm not positive, but I'm pretty sure Wachtell is only interested in LR/Kent, at least based on the students I know who've gone there the past couple of years.

Probably true. Still, I figure I was just a half-letter away from Kent, so if I actually make Law Review, I may as well at least give it a shot. Worst comes to worst I don't get an offer, just like 70 of the other people who interview with them. It's not like that bid is taking one away from another firm I particularly want.

[viking138]

Bleh, yeah you're right I guess, I was just kind of nervous because the new curve might make more people think they have a chance at these places than normal, and thus I was being really careful. But I have heard that it's pretty simple to go to the hospitality suites and get an interview if you don't get a firm you really like. I'll do a little shuffling around per your advice, thanks.

The above isn't true, sadly. The only callback I received from firms I picked up that way (and I had like an 85% callback rate) were from the one firm that I had expressed interest in outside the recruiting process so they had record of my interest. For example, I picked up a Debevoise interview, it went very well, but not callback. The reason is that if you don't get them, they know you ranked them low enough not to get them, so that demonstrates a lack of interest to them.

That's why I recommend putting them in the teens rather than the 20s, even though the percentages would suggest you could put them in the 20s. You'll be safer that way, but you won't be ruling out a bunch of other firms that you won't get if they're not rated highly enough.

Ok I'm not sure that made sense, I'm kind of sick, but PM me if you want more clear advice or anything.

[swc65]

Bleh, yeah you're right I guess, I was just kind of nervous because the new curve might make more people think they have a chance at these places than normal, and thus I was being really careful. But I have heard that it's pretty simple to go to the hospitality suites and get an interview if you don't get a firm you really like. I'll do a little shuffling around per your advice, thanks.

The above isn't true, sadly. The only callback I received from firms I picked up that way (and I had like an 85% callback rate) were from the one firm that I had expressed interest in outside the recruiting process so they had record of my interest. For example, I picked up a Debevoise interview, it went very well, but not callback. The reason is that if you don't get them, they know you ranked them low enough not to get them, so that demonstrates a lack of interest to them.

That's why I recommend putting them in the teens rather than the 20s, even though the percentages would suggest you could put them in the 20s. You'll be safer that way, but you won't be ruling out a bunch of other firms that you won't get if they're not rated highly enough.

Ok I'm not sure that made sense, I'm kind of sick, but PM me if you want more clear advice or anything.

I just want to second this. I picked up a few interviews last year and they were mostly a sham (disorganized, interviewed by some random associate who happened to be in the hospitality suite, etc). I did not get a single callback from the pick-up interviews (though I do know that some people did get callbacks from pick-up interviews, but not many) and I had callbacks at something like 19 firms out of 22 screeners.

WLRK should be dead last, if you bid on them at all. They do not fill up. Don't waste a top 10 or even a top 29 bid on them.

The advice about making an excel sheet is exactly right. You are right too that if you are really interested in a particular firm that you should move them up. Just be sure not to waste bid slots. If you put a firm at 19 that is way over-subscribed you might as well take it out and put something else there. If I remember correctly, for many of your last ten there is little to no chance you will get an interview ranking them so low (though my memory is hazy and I do not have the bid/interview numbers with me).

re Latham: I ranked them 12 last year and didn't get an interview. There is a bit of randomness/luck in this process.

[overandout]

Bleh, yeah you're right I guess, I was just kind of nervous because the new curve might make more people think they have a chance at these places than normal, and thus I was being really careful. But I have heard that it's pretty simple to go to the hospitality suites and get an interview if you don't get a firm you really like. I'll do a little shuffling around per your advice, thanks.

The above isn't true, sadly. The only callback I received from firms I picked up that way (and I had like an 85% callback rate) were from the one firm that I had expressed interest in outside the recruiting process so they had record of my interest. For example, I picked up a Debevoise interview, it went very well, but not callback. The reason is that if you don't get them, they know you ranked them low enough not to get them, so that demonstrates a lack of interest to them.

That's why I recommend putting them in the teens rather than the 20s, even though the percentages would suggest you could put them in the 20s. You'll be safer that way, but you won't be ruling out a bunch of other firms that you won't get if they're not rated highly enough.

Ok I'm not sure that made sense, I'm kind of sick, but PM me if you want more clear advice or anything.

I just want to second this. I picked up a few interviews last year and they were mostly a sham (disorganized, interviewed by some random associate who happened to be in the hospitality suite, etc). I did not get a single callback from the pick-up interviews (though I do know that some people did get callbacks from pick-up interviews, but not many) and I had callbacks at something like 19 firms out of 22 screeners.

WLRK should be dead last, if you bid on them at all. They do not fill up. Don't waste a top 10 or even a top 29 bid on them.

The advice about making an excel sheet is exactly right. You are right too that if you are really interested in a particular firm that you should move them up. Just be sure not to waste bid slots. If you put a firm at 19 that is way over-subscribed you might as well take it out and put something else there. If I remember correctly, for many of your last ten there is little to no chance you will get an interview ranking them so low (though my memory is hazy and I do not have the bid/interview numbers with me).

re Latham: I ranked them 12 last year and didn't get an interview. There is a bit of randomness/luck in this process.

Wow, that's extremely disappointing... My OCS person specifically told me that the hospitality suites were a great way to pick up interviews and so I shouldn't even worry about my bidding too much. But what you guys just said makes perfect sense...

I sorted them based on their average bid:interview ratio from 2009 and 2011, and then moved around a little bit like everyone suggested. Does this look a bit better?

1 Kirkland & Ellis
2 Proskauer
3 Sidley Austin
4 Milbank Tweed
5 Willkie Farr
6 Kaye Scholer
7 Akin Gump
8 Weil
9 Skadden
10 Debevoise
11 Latham
12 Shearman & Sterling
13 Paul Hastings
14 Sullivan & Cromwell
15 Gibson Dunn
16 Ropes & Gray
17 Jones Day
18 Schulte Roth
19 Goodwin Procter
20 Cleary Gottlieb
21 Paul Weiss
22 Fried Frank
23 Davis Polk
24 Cravath
25 Simpson Thacher
26 Boies (Corporate Schedule)
27 Cadwalader
28 Dechert
29 McKinsey
30 Wachtell

[itbdvorm]

Bleh, yeah you're right I guess, I was just kind of nervous because the new curve might make more people think they have a chance at these places than normal, and thus I was being really careful. But I have heard that it's pretty simple to go to the hospitality suites and get an interview if you don't get a firm you really like. I'll do a little shuffling around per your advice, thanks.

The above isn't true, sadly. The only callback I received from firms I picked up that way (and I had like an 85% callback rate) were from the one firm that I had expressed interest in outside the recruiting process so they had record of my interest. For example, I picked up a Debevoise interview, it went very well, but not callback. The reason is that if you don't get them, they know you ranked them low enough not to get them, so that demonstrates a lack of interest to them.

That's why I recommend putting them in the teens rather than the 20s, even though the percentages would suggest you could put them in the 20s. You'll be safer that way, but you won't be ruling out a bunch of other firms that you won't get if they're not rated highly enough.

Ok I'm not sure that made sense, I'm kind of sick, but PM me if you want more clear advice or anything.

I just want to second this. I picked up a few interviews last year and they were mostly a sham (disorganized, interviewed by some random associate who happened to be in the hospitality suite, etc). I did not get a single callback from the pick-up interviews (though I do know that some people did get callbacks from pick-up interviews, but not many) and I had callbacks at something like 19 firms out of 22 screeners.

WLRK should be dead last, if you bid on them at all. They do not fill up. Don't waste a top 10 or even a top 29 bid on them.

The advice about making an excel sheet is exactly right. You are right too that if you are really interested in a particular firm that you should move them up. Just be sure not to waste bid slots. If you put a firm at 19 that is way over-subscribed you might as well take it out and put something else there. If I remember correctly, for many of your last ten there is little to no chance you will get an interview ranking them so low (though my memory is hazy and I do not have the bid/interview numbers with me).

re Latham: I ranked them 12 last year and didn't get an interview. There is a bit of randomness/luck in this process.

Wow, that's extremely disappointing... My OCS person specifically told me that the hospitality suites were a great way to pick up interviews and so I shouldn't even worry about my bidding too much. But what you guys just said makes perfect sense...

I sorted them based on their average bid:interview ratio from 2009 and 2011, and then moved around a little bit like everyone suggested. Does this look a bit better?

1 Kirkland & Ellis
2 Proskauer
3 Sidley Austin
4 Milbank Tweed
5 Willkie Farr
6 Kaye Scholer
7 Akin Gump
8 Weil
9 Skadden
10 Debevoise
11 Latham
12 Shearman & Sterling
13 Paul Hastings
14 Sullivan & Cromwell
15 Gibson Dunn
16 Ropes & Gray
17 Jones Day
18 Schulte Roth
19 Goodwin Procter
20 Cleary Gottlieb
21 Paul Weiss
22 Fried Frank
23 Davis Polk
24 Cravath
25 Simpson Thacher
26 Boies (Corporate Schedule)
27 Cadwalader
28 Dechert
29 McKinsey
30 Wachtell

given your GPA, I'd knock down a few of the lower-ranked firms you have so high and up some of the firms you have in the 8-17 range (assuming those are ones you'd like more). but that's just me

[overandout]

Okay I think this is my last swing at it...

1 Kirkland & Ellis
2 Proskauer
3 Weil
4 Sidley Austin
5 Willkie Farr
6 Skadden
7 Kaye Scholer
8 Sullivan & Cromwell
9 Akin Gump
10 Milbank Tweed
11 Shearman & Sterling
12 Debevoise
13 Latham
14 Gibson Dunn
15 Ropes & Gray
16 Paul Hastings
17 Jones Day
18 Cleary Gottlieb
19 Paul Weiss
20 Davis Polk
21 Cravath
22 Simpson Thacher
23 Schulte Roth
24 Goodwin Procter
25 Fried Frank
26 Boies (Corporate Schedule)
27 Cadwalader
28 Dechert
29 McKinsey
30 Wachtell


And for what it's worth, the firms I'm most interested in are (in some order) Davis Polk, Cleary, Simpson Thacher, Cravath, Skadden, S&C, Paul Weiss, and Weil.

And again, thank you to all of you who have been giving input, it's really nice of you to help out.

[viking138]

Okay I think this is my last swing at it...

1 Kirkland & Ellis
2 Proskauer
3 Weil
4 Sidley Austin
5 Willkie Farr
6 Skadden
7 Kaye Scholer
8 Sullivan & Cromwell
9 Akin Gump
10 Milbank Tweed
11 Shearman & Sterling
12 Debevoise
13 Latham
14 Gibson Dunn
15 Ropes & Gray
16 Paul Hastings
17 Jones Day
18 Cleary Gottlieb
19 Paul Weiss
20 Davis Polk
21 Cravath
22 Simpson Thacher
23 Schulte Roth
24 Goodwin Procter
25 Fried Frank
26 Boies (Corporate Schedule)
27 Cadwalader
28 Dechert
29 McKinsey
30 Wachtell


And for what it's worth, the firms I'm most interested in are (in some order) Davis Polk, Cleary, Simpson Thacher, Cravath, Skadden, S&C, Paul Weiss, and Weil.

And again, thank you to all of you who have been giving input, it's really nice of you to help out.

So... basically the V10? It's a fine place to start, but those firms have EXTREMELY different cultures. Something to pay attention to as you move forward in the process. A few thoughts:

• S&C doesn't have a culture. They give offers on screening interviews (check the callback to offer ratio, it's basically 1:1). They're looking for the best and the brightest--as demonstrated by 1L grades--and someone who can pass a basic sociability test. This means you have some great people and some terrible people, and plenty in between, but there's not a defined firm culture. Of course, people gravitate towards groups, so there are dynamics in groups.
• Davis Polk and Simpson are probably the most similar. They're the nice firms. You'll still be working long hours, but when you have to be there late, they'll be like "yeah sorry but..." as opposed to "do this now." Or at least most people will. Genial, friendly culture. Again, generally. All of this is a generalization.
• Cleary is sort of a quirky and fratty mix.
• Paul Weiss and Weil are both quite fratty, and Skadden I can't really comment on because I didn't even bother doing a screener there because I knew it wasn't for me. I didn't do a screener with Weil, either, but I can safely say they are a fratty firm.

All generalities, based on my own experience/anecdotes, etc etc. Anyway, I'd move up Debevoise and Ropes if you really want an interview with either, but your bidlist looks pretty good otherwise.

[piccolittle]

Okay I think this is my last swing at it...

1 Kirkland & Ellis
2 Proskauer
3 Weil
4 Sidley Austin
5 Willkie Farr
6 Skadden
7 Kaye Scholer
8 Sullivan & Cromwell
9 Akin Gump
10 Milbank Tweed
11 Shearman & Sterling
12 Debevoise
13 Latham
14 Gibson Dunn
15 Ropes & Gray
16 Paul Hastings
17 Jones Day
18 Cleary Gottlieb
19 Paul Weiss
20 Davis Polk
21 Cravath
22 Simpson Thacher
23 Schulte Roth
24 Goodwin Procter
25 Fried Frank
26 Boies (Corporate Schedule)
27 Cadwalader
28 Dechert
29 McKinsey
30 Wachtell


And for what it's worth, the firms I'm most interested in are (in some order) Davis Polk, Cleary, Simpson Thacher, Cravath, Skadden, S&C, Paul Weiss, and Weil.

And again, thank you to all of you who have been giving input, it's really nice of you to help out.

And thank you for helpfully laying out the firms I now know I have no chance at

[overandout]

So... basically the V10? It's a fine place to start, but those firms have EXTREMELY different cultures. Something to pay attention to as you move forward in the process. A few thoughts:

• S&C doesn't have a culture. They give offers on screening interviews (check the callback to offer ratio, it's basically 1:1). They're looking for the best and the brightest--as demonstrated by 1L grades--and someone who can pass a basic sociability test. This means you have some great people and some terrible people, and plenty in between, but there's not a defined firm culture. Of course, people gravitate towards groups, so there are dynamics in groups.
• Davis Polk and Simpson are probably the most similar. They're the nice firms. You'll still be working long hours, but when you have to be there late, they'll be like "yeah sorry but..." as opposed to "do this now." Or at least most people will. Genial, friendly culture. Again, generally. All of this is a generalization.
• Cleary is sort of a quirky and fratty mix.
• Paul Weiss and Weil are both quite fratty, and Skadden I can't really comment on because I didn't even bother doing a screener there because I knew it wasn't for me. I didn't do a screener with Weil, either, but I can safely say they are a fratty firm.

All generalities, based on my own experience/anecdotes, etc etc. Anyway, I'd move up Debevoise and Ropes if you really want an interview with either, but your bidlist looks pretty good otherwise.

That's a super helpful breakdown of the cultures. It is basically the V10, although that's less because they are the V10, and more because they are the firms that are the most highly rated by Chambers in the practice areas I actually find interesting and relevant to my future goals. If I was really delving down into the top-top picks, Davis Polk, Simpson Thacher, and Weil are probably the three I'm most interested in.

I actually made some more moves today since bidding actually started and while I was doing it I realized that for some of those firms, I really just don't want to miss out on interviews because I over-committed to having "safeties." In general, I've been told I am a good interviewer and make a very good impression, so I think I'm willing to take a little risk and ensure I get interviews with the firms I really care about. Besides, I think I have enough "safeties" (I really do feel compelled to put that in quotes because it still seems douchey to assume any firm is a guarantee) peppered up high that I should be okay.

1 Kirkland & Ellis
2 Proskauer
3 Weil
4 Sidley Austin
5 Willkie Farr
6 Skadden
7 Kaye Scholer
8 Sullivan & Cromwell
9 Akin Gump
10 Debevoise
11 Milbank Tweed
12 Gibson Dunn
13 Shearman & Sterling
14 Latham
15 Ropes & Gray
16 Cleary Gottlieb
17 Paul Weiss
18 Davis Polk
19 Paul Hastings
20 Jones Day
21 Simpson Thacher
22 Cravath
23 Schulte Roth
24 Goodwin Procter
25 Fried Frank
26 Boies (Corporate Schedule)
27 Cadwalader
28 Dechert
29 McKinsey
30 Wachtell

[viking138]

So... basically the V10? It's a fine place to start, but those firms have EXTREMELY different cultures. Something to pay attention to as you move forward in the process. A few thoughts:

• S&C doesn't have a culture. They give offers on screening interviews (check the callback to offer ratio, it's basically 1:1). They're looking for the best and the brightest--as demonstrated by 1L grades--and someone who can pass a basic sociability test. This means you have some great people and some terrible people, and plenty in between, but there's not a defined firm culture. Of course, people gravitate towards groups, so there are dynamics in groups.
• Davis Polk and Simpson are probably the most similar. They're the nice firms. You'll still be working long hours, but when you have to be there late, they'll be like "yeah sorry but..." as opposed to "do this now." Or at least most people will. Genial, friendly culture. Again, generally. All of this is a generalization.
• Cleary is sort of a quirky and fratty mix.
• Paul Weiss and Weil are both quite fratty, and Skadden I can't really comment on because I didn't even bother doing a screener there because I knew it wasn't for me. I didn't do a screener with Weil, either, but I can safely say they are a fratty firm.

All generalities, based on my own experience/anecdotes, etc etc. Anyway, I'd move up Debevoise and Ropes if you really want an interview with either, but your bidlist looks pretty good otherwise.

That's a super helpful breakdown of the cultures. It is basically the V10, although that's less because they are the V10, and more because they are the firms that are the most highly rated by Chambers in the practice areas I actually find interesting and relevant to my future goals. If I was really delving down into the top-top picks, Davis Polk, Simpson Thacher, and Weil are probably the three I'm most interested in.

I actually made some more moves today since bidding actually started and while I was doing it I realized that for some of those firms, I really just don't want to miss out on interviews because I over-committed to having "safeties." In general, I've been told I am a good interviewer and make a very good impression, so I think I'm willing to take a little risk and ensure I get interviews with the firms I really care about. Besides, I think I have enough "safeties" (I really do feel compelled to put that in quotes because it still seems douchey to assume any firm is a guarantee) peppered up high that I should be okay.

1 Kirkland & Ellis
2 Proskauer
3 Weil
4 Sidley Austin
5 Willkie Farr
6 Skadden
7 Kaye Scholer
8 Sullivan & Cromwell
9 Akin Gump
10 Debevoise
11 Milbank Tweed
12 Gibson Dunn
13 Shearman & Sterling
14 Latham
15 Ropes & Gray
16 Cleary Gottlieb
17 Paul Weiss
18 Davis Polk
19 Paul Hastings
20 Jones Day
21 Simpson Thacher
22 Cravath
23 Schulte Roth
24 Goodwin Procter
25 Fried Frank
26 Boies (Corporate Schedule)
27 Cadwalader
28 Dechert
29 McKinsey
30 Wachtell

If you're interested in Gibson Dunn, probably move it up. Otherwise I think that looks pretty good.

Weil and DPW/STB have very different cultures, too, and very different areas of strength. Weil is the type of firm where you'll be made to feel guilty if you're not going out every time a bunch of summers are going out (or associates, once you start). DPW/STB are different in that there are plenty of going out and drinking opportunities, but you're not necessarily going to be looked down upon if you don't go because it's not an intrinsic part of the culture.

Good luck with things!

[overandout]

Just wanted to give an update for posterity's sake. Hopefully this helps CLS students bidding next year.

I ended up with 19 interviews. I got (with where I bid them):

Kirkland & Ellis (1)
Proskauer (2)
Weil (3)
Sidley Austin (4)
Skadden (5)
Kaye Scholer (6)
SullCrom (7)
Akin Gump (8)
Debevoise (9)
Willkie (10)
Milbank (11)
Paul Weiss (17)
Davis Polk (18)
Simpson Thacher (21)
Cravath (22)
Goodwin Proctor (24)
Boies - Corporate (26)
McKinsey (29)
Wachtell (30)

I didn't get:

Gibson Dunn (12)
Shearman & Sterling (13)
Latham (14)
Ropes & Gray (15)
Cleary (16)
Paul Hastings (19)
Jones Day (20)
Schulte Roth (23)
Fried Frank (25)
Cadwalader (27)
Dechert (28)

[viking138]

From what I'm hearing, this year was drastically different from last year. It could be people bidding too aggressively with the new curve (overestimating how well they'll do?) or it could be that Career Services was redistributing interviews (which yes, there have been reports of them doing and it's not against any rule).