Loyola PLIP 2013: Brace yourselves... Forum

[Anonymous User]

Email ding from a "donotreply" from WilmerHale DC.

Classless asshats... you wouldn't want to work there anyways

*shrug* I'm just waiting on some of the others that people here have gotten CBs from (i.e. Sterne Kessler), see if I'm in the reject pile or the backup pile. I've gotten 2 CBs so far, this was my first official ding. Still waiting on 6 others.

I'd prefer not to tell who I had CBs from until (and unless?) I get an offer, but rest assured they are both from firms reported as giving out CBs already.

[Jsa725]

.

[kyle010723]

No Ding nor CB yet. It seems firms on both coasts are moving much faster than Chicago.

[Anonymous User]

No Ding nor CB yet. It seems firms on both coasts are moving much faster than Chicago.

Also a Chicago-focused applicant here. No word as well.

[Anonymous User]

Still waiting to hear back from MBHB and Sughrue

[Anonymous User]

Anyone heard from Crowell Moring? I only had 3 screeners and got callbacks from the other two already.

[laxbrah420]

Email ding from a "donotreply" from WilmerHale DC.

Classless asshats... you wouldn't want to work there anyways

Dear employers who may be reading this, Jsa725 has done a very good job with this thread, but he is very very very wrong in how he characterizes class. Email rejection is much preferred to snail mail. It's faster and more reliable.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone heard from Crowell Moring? I only had 3 screeners and got callbacks from the other two already.

No one's reported anything from Crowell, from what I've seen. Been keeping up with this thread since the weekend.

[kyle010723]

Dear employers who may be reading this, Jsa725 has done a very good job with this thread, but he is very very very wrong in how he characterizes class. Email rejection is much preferred to snail mail. It's faster and more reliable.

Lol, agreed. I rather have a swift death than waiting for snail mail. It's alright, we need to pick on Jsa725 every once in a while.

[Anonymous User]

^I think it was more the whole "donotreply" because then you can't even thank them for their time. It's like they disliked you so much they don't even want you to contact them again!

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone heard from Brinks? Seems like most of the major IP boutiques have sent responses (Leydig, Fitzpatrick, MBHB, SKGF, Sughrue) but I haven't seen word of Brinks yet.

edit: I guess I haven't seen anything from Kenyon yet, either.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone heard from Brinks? Seems like most of the major IP boutiques have sent responses (Leydig, Fitzpatrick, MBHB, SKGF, Sughrue) but I haven't seen word of Brinks yet.

edit: I guess I haven't seen anything from Kenyon yet, either.

Leydig has sent responses?? Damn.

[Anonymous User]

Callbacks - all Chicago offices
Greenberg Traurig
Drinker Biddle & Reath
McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert Berghoff
K & L Gates

Dings
Foley & Lardner (EE prosecution)

[Jsa725]

.

[Anonymous User]

Has anyone heard from Brinks? Seems like most of the major IP boutiques have sent responses (Leydig, Fitzpatrick, MBHB, SKGF, Sughrue) but I haven't seen word of Brinks yet.

edit: I guess I haven't seen anything from Kenyon yet, either.

Leydig has sent responses?? Damn.

Anon who posted that msg. Sorry - haven't seen anything from Leydig. Sleep deprivation is making my memory fuzzy...

[Anonymous User]

DENIED at Paul Weiss. Not too surprised, didn't think that interview went all that great. The interviewer had a super strong personality, I feel like I kind of got steamrolled in that interview.

edit: also, I definitely don't want snail mail dings. If you don't want me, just let me know so I can move on.

[Anonymous User]

DENIED at Paul Weiss. Not too surprised, didn't think that interview went all that great. The interviewer had a super strong personality, I feel like I kind of got steamrolled in that interview.

Sorry to hear.

How important do you guys think the screening interviews are? Do you think most firms already have a good idea of who they want to hire? Or do you think the screener is merely a first round of cuts? It's hard for me to tell how important the screener really is, as some people reporting callbacks also said they had terrible interviews (then again, perhaps they have very, very high standards).

edit: I ask because the firm I'm interested in interviewed a very large # of applicants. I wonder if that means anything.

[Anonymous User]

No Ding nor CB yet. It seems firms on both coasts are moving much faster than Chicago.

Also a Chicago-focused applicant here. No word as well.

I have Chicago CBs from McDermott, Kirkland, and Latham.

Also NY CBs from WilmerHale, Paul Hastings, Paul Weiss, Sidley Austin, and Kirkland (plus two PLIP firms where I arranged CBs without doing PLIP interviews).

[kyle010723]

Callbacks - all Chicago offices
Greenberg Traurig
Drinker Biddle & Reath
McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert Berghoff
K & L Gates

Dings
Foley & Lardner (EE prosecution)

Anyone hear anything from Vedder or Jenner yet?

[Anonymous User]

DENIED at Paul Weiss. Not too surprised, didn't think that interview went all that great. The interviewer had a super strong personality, I feel like I kind of got steamrolled in that interview.

Sorry to hear.

How important do you guys think the screening interviews are? Do you think most firms already have a good idea of who they want to hire? Or do you think the screener is merely a first round of cuts? It's hard for me to tell how important the screener really is, as some people reporting callbacks also said they had terrible interviews (then again, perhaps they have very, very high standards).

edit: I ask because the firm I'm interested in interviewed a very large # of applicants. I wonder if that means anything.

I'm a 3L with an offer in hand from my summer V20-30 and with 2 callbacks out of 3 screeners out of 4 bids at PLIP this year. IMHO the screening interview is pretty unimportant. The firms have a good idea and are mostly trying to sell you on the firm. You can screw up the screener by seeming bored, uninterested, and/or not having good responses to questions about your resume (a good response is one that sells you as a great candidate).

The callback interview is important insofar as you need to convince the interviewers that you are someone they want to work with. The callback is the "real" interview imho. The screener is mostly a sales pitch. Only occasionally does an underdog with the wrong resume shine brightly enough to take a spot from a disinterested/unprepared candidate with the right resume.

[Anonymous User]

DENIED at Paul Weiss. Not too surprised, didn't think that interview went all that great. The interviewer had a super strong personality, I feel like I kind of got steamrolled in that interview.

Sorry to hear.

How important do you guys think the screening interviews are? Do you think most firms already have a good idea of who they want to hire? Or do you think the screener is merely a first round of cuts? It's hard for me to tell how important the screener really is, as some people reporting callbacks also said they had terrible interviews (then again, perhaps they have very, very high standards).

edit: I ask because the firm I'm interested in interviewed a very large # of applicants. I wonder if that means anything.

I'm a 3L with an offer in hand from my summer V20-30 and with 2 callbacks out of 3 screeners out of 4 bids at PLIP this year. IMHO the screening interview is pretty unimportant. The firms have a good idea and are mostly trying to sell you on the firm. You can screw up the screener by seeming bored, uninterested, and/or not having good responses to questions about your resume (a good response is one that sells you as a great candidate).

The callback interview is important insofar as you need to convince the interviewers that you are someone they want to work with. The callback is the "real" interview imho. The screener is mostly a sales pitch. Only occasionally does an underdog with the wrong resume shine brightly enough to take a spot from a disinterested/unprepared candidate with the right resume.

Do you think it's safe to say that if they have a good idea of who they want to call back before the screeners, they wouldn't pre-select too many applicants, and if they intend to use the screener as a first round of cuts, they would invite more applicants to "try out" for a callback?

Now that I think of it a little more, I suppose it depends on the firm. If you're Cravath, you probably don't need to do too many screeners because your yield rate will be especially high from the pool of screeners. But other firms with lower yield rates will obviously need more applicants to screen from, so the initial interview will be more of a "tryout" for a callback than something they do just to fill up interview slots with no real intention of considering a candidate. Of course, please correct me if I'm wrong, and thanks for your input.

[Anonymous User]

DENIED at Paul Weiss. Not too surprised, didn't think that interview went all that great. The interviewer had a super strong personality, I feel like I kind of got steamrolled in that interview.

Sorry to hear.

How important do you guys think the screening interviews are? Do you think most firms already have a good idea of who they want to hire? Or do you think the screener is merely a first round of cuts? It's hard for me to tell how important the screener really is, as some people reporting callbacks also said they had terrible interviews (then again, perhaps they have very, very high standards).

edit: I ask because the firm I'm interested in interviewed a very large # of applicants. I wonder if that means anything.

I'm a 3L with an offer in hand from my summer V20-30 and with 2 callbacks out of 3 screeners out of 4 bids at PLIP this year. IMHO the screenig interview is pretty unimportant. The firms have a good idea and are mostly trying to sell you on the firm. You an screw up the screener by seeming bored, uninterested, and/or not having good responses to questions about your resume (a good response is one that sells you as a great candidate).

The callback interview is important insofar as you need to convince the interviewers that you are someone they want to work with. The callback is the "real" interview imho. The screener is mostly a sales pitch. Only occasionally does an underdog with the wrong resume shine brightly enough to take a spot from a disinterested/unprepared candidate with the right resume.

Maybe for you w the great stats wsince your at v20. But for me w mildling stats, I can't agree w this. My burden to prove my worth during screeners is far greater than yours as evidenced by my low CB conversion rate (yes I'm certain I'm a good interviewer). In some ways, screeners are yours to lose. Friend of mine w fantastic stats who could not make Loyola last year did phone interviews instead and got a ton of CBs. Some barely bothered w a screener. Against someone like that or you, I have to display an infectious personality to get a CB. Things must REALLY click, which was the case for every CB I ever got.

[kyle010723]

Maybe for you w the great stats wsince your at v20. But for me w mildling stats, I can't agree w this. My burden to prove my worth during screeners is far greater than yours as evidenced by my low CB conversion rate (yes I'm certain I'm a good interviewer). In some ways, screeners are yours to lose. Friend of mine w fantastic stats who could not make Loyola last year did phone interviews instead and got a ton of CBs. Some barely bothered w a screener. Against someone like that or you, I have to display an infectious personality to get a CB. Things must REALLY click, which was the case for every CB I ever got.

I think this is correct.

For people with stellar credential, screeners are less important, dont screw up and you'll get callback
For people with median grade from median school, unless you have a stellar screener, CB is a much longer shot

Case in point, a few page earlier, someone below median from YHS reportedly got tons of callbacks from top firms already, whereas people reporting CBs from none-T14 generally have stellar grades.

[Anonymous User]

Maybe for you w the great stats wsince your at v20. But for me w mildling stats, I can't agree w this. My burden to prove my worth during screeners is far greater than yours as evidenced by my low CB conversion rate (yes I'm certain I'm a good interviewer). In some ways, screeners are yours to lose. Friend of mine w fantastic stats who could not make Loyola last year did phone interviews instead and got a ton of CBs. Some barely bothered w a screener. Against someone like that or you, I have to display an infectious personality to get a CB. Things must REALLY click, which was the case for every CB I ever got.

I think this is correct.

For people with stellar credential, screeners are less important, dont screw up and you'll get callback
For people with median grade from median school, unless you have a stellar screener, CB is a much longer shot

Case in point, a few page earlier, someone below median from YHS reportedly got tons of callbacks from top firms already, whereas people reporting CBs from none-T14 generally have stellar grades.

I don't think there is any disagreement here. The right resumes typically get CBs after the screener unless they royally screw up. The wrong resumes typically get dinged after the screener unless they rocked it AND someone with the right resume screwed up (thus potentially opening up a CB slot). The screening interview can have an impact at the margins, but on the whole it does not matter much compared to grades, school, experience, and connecting at the callback.

[kyle010723]

I don't think there is any disagreement here. The right resumes typically get CBs after the screener unless they royally screw up. The wrong resumes typically get dinged after the screener unless they rocked it AND someone with the right resume screwed up (thus potentially opening up a CB slot). The screening interview can have an impact at the margins, but on the whole it does not matter much compared to grades, school, experience, and connecting at the callback.

Precisely