PSA: There's NO such thing as Yield Protection Forum

[Old Gregg]

Firms do not yield protect. Yes, they will not give offers to people that they dont perceive as interested in their firm, but thats your problem based on your interviewing skills. There's no person with credentials too good for any firm; all firms are in play with such credentials if you show sufficient interest.

So instead of thinking it's the firm's fault, LOOK IN THE MIRROR.

[Old Gregg]

To same tune, firm selectivity doesn't necessarily correlate with Vault rank. If you're interviewing at Hughes Hubbard, I strongly doubt they give a shit whether you have offers at White & Case or Milbank. I'm almost positive that HHR doesn't view those firms as superior or more selective, despite the fact that they have a higher vault rank.

[ben4847]

I don't agree with this. Firms can know based on your credentials that there is no way you are picking their firm. If it's a big enough stretch, there is no way you are selling it.

[shock259]

And what are you basing this conclusion on? Heard quite a bit anecdotal evidence that seems to point the other way. Not sure it can be conclusively resolved one way or another.

[Old Gregg]

I don't agree with this. Firms can know based on your credentials that there is no way you are picking their firm. If it's a big enough stretch, there is no way you are selling it.

Nope. You can sell it. Just gotta do the legwork.

[Old Gregg]

And what are you basing this conclusion on? Heard quite a bit anecdotal evidence that seems to point the other way. Not sure it can be conclusively resolved one way or another.

The fact that there's zero incentive at play. Almost no cost in giving an offer to someone who will almost certainly turn it down. Rankings don't take "acceptance rate" into account, either.

Does your anecdotal evidence include law students who believe they were dinged by YP? If so, that's not really strong evidence.

Is your evidence some recruiter or partner who said we don't like to offer students who don't express enough interest, see OP.

If your evidence is some recruiter or partner who said they won't offer someone whose credentials are too good because they won't accept their offer, that's bullshit.

[letsdoit]

And what are you basing this conclusion on? Heard quite a bit anecdotal evidence that seems to point the other way. Not sure it can be conclusively resolved one way or another.

bro, he works for a v10 firm so he knows everything about every vault firm.

[Old Gregg]

FYI: At my firm, we give offers to people we're reasonably sure will not accept. Firms, including my own, will even interview at schools where the offer-acceptance rate is historically low, and might be even more inclined to give offers there just so they can get some accepts.


Another FYI: When I interviewed, I had offers in the V10, and dings from places like Dewey, Schulte, Stroock, etc. I'm a thousand times sure I wasn't yield protected (and this is based off the fact that classmates with better credentials got offered there).

[ben4847]

And what are you basing this conclusion on? Heard quite a bit anecdotal evidence that seems to point the other way. Not sure it can be conclusively resolved one way or another.

The fact that there's zero incentive at play. Almost no cost in giving an offer to someone who will almost certainly turn it down.

A call-back can cost the firm something like 1000 bucks, easily. Plus waste 3 hours of partner and associate time.

[Old Gregg]

And what are you basing this conclusion on? Heard quite a bit anecdotal evidence that seems to point the other way. Not sure it can be conclusively resolved one way or another.

bro, he works for a v10 firm so he knows everything about every vault firm.

Bro, self-serving anecdotal evidence is totes sufficient proof in the face of common sense and knowledge about how recruiting works.

[ben4847]

I don't agree with this. Firms can know based on your credentials that there is no way you are picking their firm. If it's a big enough stretch, there is no way you are selling it.

Nope. You can sell it. Just gotta do the legwork.

I don't believe you can always sell it. But in any event, you should at least agree it is a lot harder to sell it than a firm within your appropriate range.

[Old Gregg]

And what are you basing this conclusion on? Heard quite a bit anecdotal evidence that seems to point the other way. Not sure it can be conclusively resolved one way or another.

The fact that there's zero incentive at play. Almost no cost in giving an offer to someone who will almost certainly turn it down.

A call-back can cost the firm something like 1000 bucks, easily. Plus waste 3 hours of partner and associate time.

Holy shit, $1000!?!?!?!?!?! That's a ton of money.

For me and you, a ton of money. But a drop in the bucket of any big firm's recruiting budget.

[Old Gregg]

I don't agree with this. Firms can know based on your credentials that there is no way you are picking their firm. If it's a big enough stretch, there is no way you are selling it.

Nope. You can sell it. Just gotta do the legwork.

I don't believe you can always sell it. But in any event, you should at least agree it is a lot harder to sell it than a firm within your appropriate range.

Nope. When we encounter students we really want and whom we're reasonably sure will not accept, we try extra hard to recruit. We don't reject them.

But dipshit above has a point. Just because this happens at my firm, doesn't mean it happens at others.

But I do know for a fact many other firms where this happens.

[shock259]

YP could occur at the screener stage, too. Students with credentials that are "too good" or whatever could be denied CBs. If that were to happen, the firm could save a lot of money.

2 x 30 minute partner interviews = $1000
3 x 30 minute associate interviews = $1200
Lunch = $150
Travel = $500
Hotel = $300

Total = $3,150

I'm not saying my anecdotal evidence should be taken as representative. That's why I clearly said it was anecdotal. I don't really know or care if firms YP.

[Old Gregg]

YP could occur at the screener stage, too. Students with credentials that are "too good" or whatever could be denied CBs. If that were to happen, the firm could save a lot of money.

2 x 30 minute partner interviews = $1000
3 x 30 minute associate interviews = $1200
Lunch = $150
Travel = $500
Hotel = $300

Total = $3,150

I'm not saying my anecdotal evidence should be taken as representative. That's why I clearly said it was anecdotal. I don't really know or care if firms YP.

Again, pennies in a recruiting budget. And sometimes pays off if you end up getting that well credentialed superstar that you really wanted. Nobody in any of the recruiting teams I know thinks about dollars and cents and wasting money when interviewing candidates. We interview the candidates and call them back if we want them. We don't check our wallets first.

[drmguy]

And what are you basing this conclusion on? Heard quite a bit anecdotal evidence that seems to point the other way. Not sure it can be conclusively resolved one way or another.

The fact that there's zero incentive at play. Almost no cost in giving an offer to someone who will almost certainly turn it down. Rankings don't take "acceptance rate" into account, either.

Does your anecdotal evidence include law students who believe they were dinged by YP? If so, that's not really strong evidence.

Is your evidence some recruiter or partner who said we don't like to offer students who don't express enough interest, see OP.

If your evidence is some recruiter or partner who said they won't offer someone whose credentials are too good because they won't accept their offer, that's bullshit.

Oh good, as long as you have no evidence, I am completely persuaded.

[Old Gregg]

Oh good, as long as you have no evidence, I am completely persuaded.

I don't really care about convincing you, and here's why:

1) All the evidence on this forum is anecdotal.

2) Any evidence that I give you that isn't anecdotal is outing, so I can't do that.

3) The price of outing to convince some random guy isn't worth it for me.

So you can believe me or not. Whatever helps you look yourself in the mirror at night after you received that Cravath offer but can't for the life of yourself explain how you got dinged by frickin' Arendt Fox.

[094320]

..

[yuzu]

I think there is definitely yield protection, but of a different type. Almost every interviewer (outside of NY) asks about ties to the market, and the stated reason for this is to ensure that you come back after the summer. Firms can waste $2k on a callback interview, but not $80k on training and paying for a summer associate. So if you consider the SA position the "offer" of permanent employment, firms do yield protect. And the yield (permanent offer acceptance rate) is published in the NALP data.

[Old Gregg]

I think there is definitely yield protection, but of a different type. Almost every interviewer (outside of NY) asks about ties to the market, and the stated reason for this is to ensure that you come back after the summer. Firms can waste $2k on a callback interview, but not $80k on training and paying for a summer associate. So if you consider the SA position the "offer" of permanent employment, firms do yield protect. And the yield (permanent offer acceptance rate) is published in the NALP data.

1) This is not yield protection. It's a firm gauging whether to make a long-term investment in someone. If you can't convince the firm, that's your problem.

2) NALP data is meaningless for permanent offer acceptance rate, since 99% of summers will accept their permanent offers, especially in this economy.

3) Firms don't slavishly follow NALP data like law schools do for USNews rankings (and law students don't, either).

[thesteelers]

Some firms do yield protect. I've seen this happen - some of my friends have been dinged by firms and, when they called to ask about it, they were given a YP-ish answer (off the record of course).

[letsdoit]

Oh good, as long as you have no evidence, I am completely persuaded.

I don't really care about convincing you, and here's why:

1) All the evidence on this forum is anecdotal.

2) Any evidence that I give you that isn't anecdotal is outing, so I can't do that.

3) The price of outing to convince some random guy isn't worth it for me.

So you can believe me or not. Whatever helps you look yourself in the mirror at night after you received that Cravath offer but can't for the life of yourself explain how you got dinged by frickin' Arendt Fox.

breh, prefstige is everything. i wish i could be as cool and prefstigious as you.

[Old Gregg]

Some firms do yield protect. I've seen this happen - some of my friends have been dinged by firms and, when they called to ask about it, they were given a YP-ish answer (off the record of course).

Again, was the feedback "you didn't express enough interest," or "your credentials are too good for us"?

[thesteelers]

Some firms do yield protect. I've seen this happen - some of my friends have been dinged by firms and, when they called to ask about it, they were given a YP-ish answer (off the record of course).

Again, was the feedback "you didn't express enough interest," or "your credentials are too good for us"?

"your credentials are too good for us" type stuff, i.e. "with your grades, we thought you'd go to Firm X or Y"

[Old Gregg]

Some firms do yield protect. I've seen this happen - some of my friends have been dinged by firms and, when they called to ask about it, they were given a YP-ish answer (off the record of course).

Again, was the feedback "you didn't express enough interest," or "your credentials are too good for us"?

"your credentials are too good for us" type stuff, i.e. "with your grades, we thought you'd go to Firm X or Y"

I genuinely believe that's just a failure on the interviewer's part to convince. If a firm really wants you, and they sense you have better offers, at least for all the situations I've heard from other firms and at my firm, they'll try extra hard to recruit you.