Top 10% at GULC - please critique bid list Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hi everyone. I have a 3.68 (top 10%) at GULC and will be a LRW Law Fellow. We don't have journal results yet, so I can't comment on that. Below is my first draft of a bid list. The percentages represent the percentage of GULC students who bid on the firm and got interviews last year. Please comment and critique. Thanks!

EDIT: updated list below

Ropes & Gray NYC 8.71%
Sidley Austin DC 13.38%
Gibson Dunn DC 26.09%
Arnold & Porter DC 17.12%
Morrison & Foerster DC 18.75%
Debevoise NYC 20.19%
Kirkland & Ellis NYC 14.48%
Skadden Arps NYC 33.07%
Boies, Schiller DC 15.79%
WilmerHale DC 19.09%
Paul, Weiss NYC 21.00%
Latham & Watkins DC 25.16%
Jones Day DC 27.88%
hogan lovells DC 35.00%
Akin Gump DC 20.14%
Davis Polk NYC 96.18%
Shearman & Sterling NYC 64.29%
Milbank Tweed Hadley NYC 64.12%
O'Melveny DC 30.66%
Sullivan & Cromwell NYC 36.84%
Simpson Thatcher NYC 45.65%
WilmerHale NYC 30.00%
Cleary Gottlieb DC 41.76%
Williams & Connolly DC 39.58%
Paul Hastings NYC 42.73%
Cravath NYC 48.57%
Covington & Burling DC 49.22%
White & Case DC 16.15%
Wilkie Farr NYC 41.58%
Cadwalader NYC 44.49%
Freshfields NYC 38.18%
King & Spalding NYC 50.00%
Linklaters NYC 50.60%
Proskauer Rose NYC 28.97%
Fried Frank DC 30.88%
Dechert DC 60.00%
Patton Boggs DC 10.71%
Skadden Arps DC 26.58%
Weil, Gotshal NYC 54.31%
Winston & Strawn DC 16.80%
Crowell & Moring DC 29.17%
Cahill Gordon NYC 27.10%
DLA Piper DC 15.44%
Foley & Lardner DC 15.33%
Fulbright & Jaworski DC 18.67%
Goodwin Procter DC 19.44%
K&L Gates DC 35.39%
Morgan Lewis & Bockius DC 24.90%
Vinson & Elkins DC 12.14%
Steptoe & Johnson DC 26.58%

[Anonymous User]

Anyone?

[Anonymous User]

Looks pretty good. You should probably bid Wilmer #1 or #2 (I did OCI in 2011 and bid them #3 and didn't get an interview through the lottery, but did pick them up during the add/drop period). Cleary should also go up, as with Williams & Connolly and Hogan DC. I would drop the multiple offices and add some more firms in/bump up other firms. IME, it's best to tell the firm that you're really committed to their market-- interviewing at multiple offices is kinda a bad mark.

Realistically, you'll get most of your Top 20 and then none after 20 or so. But those firms will be contacting you for shadow schedule interviews.

One weird firm is White & Case DC-- I always had them pegged for a festering TTT. I think a better "safety" DC bid is Fried Frank (although they're kinda festering as well). Another weird one is Ropes NYC @ #1. You're likely to get offers at several V10s which have much better work than Ropes NYC. Also, not sure how the whole Boston/NYC dynamic works at that firm.

I was also in the top 10% and had my choice of the V5/V10 in NYC, with kind of a random assortment of DC firms. They were so, so selective my year- ended up with CBs at Wilmer/Williams/V&E/a few other random down-market firms.

Good luck- you're in a good position.

[Robespierre]

Could you describe a bit about your methodology in setting the list? I mean, you basically ranked firms in order of bid-to-interview selectivity. But then you've got a firm like Proskauer NYC, which has a high selectivity, way down the list. And some firms out of selectivity order, e.g., Cleary below Davis Polk even though it is more selective. Why the adjustments?

[Anonymous User]

Could you describe a bit about your methodology in setting the list? I mean, you basically ranked firms in order of bid-to-interview selectivity. But then you've got a firm like Proskauer NYC, which has a high selectivity, way down the list. And some firms out of selectivity order, e.g., Cleary below Davis Polk even though it is more selective. Why the adjustments?

My methodology was mainly to place firms in order of bid-to-interview selectivity (as you mentioned), with some adjustments to reflect my interest in firms. There are several firms that are interviewing for multiple cities and allow you to bid for multiple cities, but will only award you one interview. If we get an interview, we can express our interest in being considered for other cities during the interview. For many of those firms, I bid on both NYC and DC in order to increase the chance that I would get an interview. Cleary is one example of this. I have them on the list twice - once above Davis Polk and once below it. Do you agree with the other response that it's a bad idea to bid on multiple cities for the same firm?

[Anonymous User]

Looks pretty good. You should probably bid Wilmer #1 or #2 (I did OCI in 2011 and bid them #3 and didn't get an interview through the lottery, but did pick them up during the add/drop period). Cleary should also go up, as with Williams & Connolly and Hogan DC. I would drop the multiple offices and add some more firms in/bump up other firms. IME, it's best to tell the firm that you're really committed to their market-- interviewing at multiple offices is kinda a bad mark.

Realistically, you'll get most of your Top 20 and then none after 20 or so. But those firms will be contacting you for shadow schedule interviews.

One weird firm is White & Case DC-- I always had them pegged for a festering TTT. I think a better "safety" DC bid is Fried Frank (although they're kinda festering as well). Another weird one is Ropes NYC @ #1. You're likely to get offers at several V10s which have much better work than Ropes NYC. Also, not sure how the whole Boston/NYC dynamic works at that firm.

I was also in the top 10% and had my choice of the V5/V10 in NYC, with kind of a random assortment of DC firms. They were so, so selective my year- ended up with CBs at Wilmer/Williams/V&E/a few other random down-market firms.

Good luck- you're in a good position.

Thanks for the response! You mentioned the shadow schedule. Do firms typically contact you on their own about those, or does that happen only in response to sending your materials and requesting an interview? Or a mixture of both?

I'll definitely think about what you said re: bidding on multiple offices. My reason for most (but not all) of my multiple-office bids was simply to increase the likelihood of getting one interview. Most of those firms say you can bid on multiple locations but will only be awarded one interview (and you can say you'd like to be considered for other offices during your interview). Is there any harm to bidding on both as long as, come interview time, I only express interest in one of the locations?

[Anonymous User]

Not the anon from above, but am a GULC grad.

The "shadow schedule" interviews come from a combo of firms contacting you (if you put them in your top 20 they get your resume no matter what, and some journals have resume drops with certain firms), and you just emailing them to spam your resume. You'll definitely pick up a bunch of extra interviews if you want them.

I don't think the "don't have interviews with two offices of the same firm" is as true as people think. When I was going through OCI, I had an interview through the lottery with one office of a firm, and another office of the same firm called me to offer me an interview (they got my resume through my journals resume drop). I don't think they knew I was interviewing with one of their other offices and if they did, they didn't seem to care. This happened with multiple firms.

Of course, some firms do prefer that you only interview for one office (I think Jones Day does this), so if you have any specific info, go with that.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. GULC now sends your resume to all 50 of your bids, rather than just the top 20. To the anon poster above, what about the firms that say you may bid for multiple locations, but they'll only give you one interview slot (and you can express your interest in being considered for other location during your interview). Do you think it's a bad idea to actually bid on multiple cities in that situation?

[Robespierre]

Could you describe a bit about your methodology in setting the list? I mean, you basically ranked firms in order of bid-to-interview selectivity. But then you've got a firm like Proskauer NYC, which has a high selectivity, way down the list. And some firms out of selectivity order, e.g., Cleary below Davis Polk even though it is more selective. Why the adjustments?

My methodology was mainly to place firms in order of bid-to-interview selectivity (as you mentioned), with some adjustments to reflect my interest in firms. There are several firms that are interviewing for multiple cities and allow you to bid for multiple cities, but will only award you one interview. If we get an interview, we can express our interest in being considered for other cities during the interview. For many of those firms, I bid on both NYC and DC in order to increase the chance that I would get an interview. Cleary is one example of this. I have them on the list twice - once above Davis Polk and once below it. Do you agree with the other response that it's a bad idea to bid on multiple cities for the same firm?

I don't agree with him. By bidding on two offices of the same firm, you are, admittedly, showing that you're not committed to either office's city. But on the other hand, you ARE showing that you're really enthusiastic about the firm as a whole, its practice areas, culture, name, etc. So I think it's a wash.

But the other poster has been all the way through the process, so he'll know better.

List looks good. You've basically done a bid-selectivity list spread across two cities, which is a sound idea. I'll assume your minor adjustments from strict bid-selectivity have a rational basis in your preferences among various firms. Good luck.

[Anonymous User]

OP here. GULC now sends your resume to all 50 of your bids, rather than just the top 20. To the anon poster above, what about the firms that say you may bid for multiple locations, but they'll only give you one interview slot (and you can express your interest in being considered for other location during your interview). Do you think it's a bad idea to actually bid on multiple cities in that situation?

I am in a very similar position as you OP. Actually anon tagged your other thread - I'm (barely) top 10% w/ a 3.65 (I think we're actually in the same section). Planning to post a draft of my bid-list up here in a few days. I agree with the advice of above poster, but the only reason I think it's a bad idea to do this is because you could be shorting yourself a screener (e.g. you are awarded Latham (DC) and Latham (NY) in lottery and you will be forced to drop the NY interview b/c it is later on your list). Still, in some situations I think it could be worth it, but I'm not sure if wasting a higher bid in this situation is advisable

also - I'v read on these boards that Gibson Dunn (DC) has a hard 3.7 floor for lower t14 at least. can anyone comment on the validity of this? i'v been straying away from bidding them for this reason

[Anonymous User]

]

also - I'v read on these boards that Gibson Dunn (DC) has a hard 3.7 floor for lower t14 at least. can anyone comment on the validity of this? i'v been straying away from bidding them for this reason

The grade history on the OCS website says the median GPA for GULC students who have accepted offers at Gibson (DC) over the past five years is 3.63.

[Anonymous User]

]

also - I'v read on these boards that Gibson Dunn (DC) has a hard 3.7 floor for lower t14 at least. can anyone comment on the validity of this? i'v been straying away from bidding them for this reason

The grade history on the OCS website says the median GPA for GULC students who have accepted offers at Gibson (DC) over the past five years is 3.63.

RC fail dude. that data is from 1998 - 2012, which is why it has been hard for me to put too much stock into it. No idea where you got the past five years from unless you specifically asked your OCS adviser (they have such information, but it is certainly not on the website). In fact, the grade history site even says to anticipate higher hiring criteria b/c it is loaded with pre-recession data, not to mention GULC used to have a much lower grading curve since the change in the mid 2000's

[Anonymous User]

RC fail dude. that data is from 1998 - 2012, which is why it has been hard for me to put too much stock into it. No idea where you got the past five years from unless you specifically asked your OCS adviser (they have such information, but it is certainly not on the website). In fact, the grade history site even says to anticipate higher hiring criteria b/c it is loaded with pre-recession data, not to mention GULC used to have a much lower grading curve since the change in the mid 2000's

Yep . . . that was a RC fail. Why in the world do they give us such outdated data? Now my mojo is askew.

[Anonymous User]

I've never heard of a 3.7 hard floor for Gibson DC; what is your source for that? I have heard from pretty reliable sources that they have a firm-wide hard floor for each school, but it's significantly less than a 3.7 for GULC. Either way, being top 10%, I think you have a chance with them, so bid them and let them reject you if they want.

As for the offer data, it's skewed by pre-ITE hiring practices and students that were hired on the old curve.

[Anonymous User]

I've never heard of a 3.7 hard floor for Gibson DC; what is your source for that? I have heard from pretty reliable sources that they have a firm-wide hard floor for each school, but it's significantly less than a 3.7 for GULC. Either way, being top 10%, I think you have a chance with them, so bid them and let them reject you if they want.

As for the offer data, it's skewed by pre-ITE hiring practices and students that were hired on the old curve.

i was the anon who posted about the Gibson (DC) floor, no reliable sources here - see my post (just thought I remembered reading that on these boards a few times)

[Anonymous User]

OP here. I've updated my bid list at the top of the thread and would love more comments and critique. Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

One final bump. Bid deadline is tomorrow at 6pm, so I'd really appreciate any last-minute critique of my revised list. Thanks.