Cornell 2015 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI Forum

[hephaestus]

Hey everyone! Interested in corporate work (work history and undergrad majors related to it as well, though work history is not that long).
GPA: 3.89 (top 5%, but only narrowly made that cut).

The column headings are GPA Low, Average, and High, and then the number of interview slots. ALl NYC.

Thanks for your input!

Overall, very solid bid list. It only needs minimal tweaking.

Day 1:
1 Sullivan and Cromwell 3.76 3.86 4.01 40
2 Cleary Gottlieb 3.77 3.86 3.92 40
3 Latham & Watkins 3.45 3.63 3.88 26
4 Cravath, Swaine & Moore 3.62 3.78 4.01 36
5 Gibson Dunn 3.65 3.8 4.01 20
6 DPW 3.24 3.73 4.01 60
7 Jones Day 3.24 3.55 3.88 40
8 Morrison & Foerster 3.28 3.58 3.71 20
9 Akin Gump 3.57 3.64 3.73 40
10 WilmareHale 3.24 3.62 3.92 40
11 Shearman & Sterling 3.02 3.48 3.77 60
12 Milbank Tweed 3.43 3.6 3.88 20
13 Proskauer 3.38 3.55 3.67 20
14 Fried Frank 3.35 3.58 3.78 40
15 Cahill Gordon 3.19 3.44 3.65 60

Good day one. I think that you are making the right play by focusing on maximizing your screeners with elite firms. As I said to an earlier poster, the important thing for someone in your position is to make sure that you have a seat at the table with all the elite firms at AJF.

Day 2:
1 Skadden 3.43 3.74 4.01 20
2 Simpsons Thatcher 3.05 3.73 4.01 60
3 Weil 3.24 3.57 3.91 40
4 Kirkland & Ellis 3.42 3.67 3.91 20
5 Paul Weiss 3.24 3.68 4.01 40
6 Sidley Austin 3.43 3.62 3.91 20
7 White & Case 3.35 3.57 3.81 40
8 Arnold & Porter -- -- -- 20
9 O'Melveny & Myers -- -- -- 20
10 Debevoise & Plimpton 3.24 3.69 3.92 60
11 Paul Hastings 3.29 3.61 4.01 80
12 Orrick 3.25 3.35 3.45 20
13 Linklaters 3.24 3.49 3.88 40
14 Hogan Lovells 3.38 3.45 3.65 40
15 Cadwadlader 3.21 3.51 3.81 80

STB can be lower. In addition, I think that PW and K&E should both be higher. I would drop Weil, put PW at 2, then K&E at 3. I would follow it with Debevoise, then it is entirely your call.

Day 3:
1 Ropes & Gray 20
2 Clifford Chance 3.24 3.56 3.92 80
3 Cooley 3.28 3.4 3.48 20
4 Crowell & Moring 20
5 Bryan Cave 3.06 3.25 3.43 20
6 Hunton & Williams 20
7 Dentons 20
8 Pepper Hamilton 20
9 Haynes & Boon 20
10 Fox Rothschild 3.05 3.13 3.21 20

Ropes at 1 is the right call here.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for the help! I'm the person with the 3.50. I just have 1 question: What should I do with Goodwin Procter on day 2? Move it up to 1?

[hephaestus]

3.75. Didn't do writing competition, and not great at interviewing. Not sure if that changes how I should bid.

I am curious why you self-select as being not great at interviewing. Feel free to PM if you want to discuss it further. Generally, I get the impression that this bid list is purposefully risk averse. That is totally fine, but keep in mind that most elite firms are within your reach, so you should consider adding them to your schedule. I did not indicate specific firms in my bidlist commentary below, but would be happy to discuss placement in a followup depending on your preferences.

1 Latham, NYC, 18, (3.88-3.63-3.45)
2 Proskauer Rose, NYC, 20, (3.67-3.55-3.38)
3 Milbank, NYC, 20, (3.88-3.6-3.43)
4 Cahill, 60, (3.65-3.44-3.19)
5 Fried Frank, NYC, 40, (3.78-3.58-3.35)
6 Davis Polk, 60, (4.01-3.73-3.24)
7 Jones Day, DC, 20, No Data
8 Schulte Roth, NYC, 40, (3.75-3.46-3.29)
9 Shearman & Sterling, NYC, 60, (3.77-3.48-3.02)
10 WilmerHale, NYC, 40, (3.92-3.62-3.24)
11 Akin Gump, NYC, 40, (3.73-3.64-3.57)
12 Freshfields , NYC, 20, (3.92-3.64-3.43)

I think that FF and Shearman should be higher. I would drop Proskauer, slot Fried Frank below Milbank, then Shearman, then Cahill. Keep DPW where it is to make sure that you get a screener. Unless you really want to be in DC, JD NY has a larger class and is less competitive. I would think that given your risk aversion that would make the better choice, but its your call.

1 Sidley Austin, NYC, 20, (3.91-3.62-3.43)
2 Willkie Farr, NYC, 40, (3.91-3.56-3.37)
3 Paul, Weiss, …, NYC, 40, (4.01-3.68-3.24)
4 Kirkland & Ellis, NYC, 20, (3.91-3.67-3.42)
5 Weil, NYC, 40, (3.91-3.57-3.24)
6 Simpson Thacher, NYC, 60, (4.01-3.73-3.05)
7 White & Case, NYC, 40, (3.81-3.57-3.35)
8 Debevoise, NYC, 60, (3.92-3.69-3.24)
9 O’Melveny, NYC, 20, No Data
10 Cadwalader, NYC, 80, (3.81-3.51-3.21)
11 Paul Hastings, NYC, 80, (4.01-3.61-3.29)
12 Dechert, NYC, 60, (3.9-3.54-3.16)

Good day 2. I don't think that you are going to get W&C that low, so I would consider putting Debevoise, Cadwalader, and Dechert above it solely to maximize your screeners. In addition, firms like Debevoise should be your target firms, so you are going to want to make sure that you get a screener with them (though given their high GPA and 60 slots, that should be attainable where they are on your bidlist).

1 Ropes & Gray, NYC, 20, No Data
2 Hunton & Williams, Richmond, VA, 20, No Data
3 Clifford Chance, NYC, 80, (3.92-3.56-3.24)
4 Cooley, NYC, 20, (3.48-3.4-3.28)
5 Dentons, NYC, 20, No Data
6 Perkins Coie, DC, 20, No Data

Thanks!

Keep ropes there, potentially switching it with CC if you are very risk averse.

[hephaestus]

Thanks for the help! I'm the person with the 3.50. I just have 1 question: What should I do with Goodwin Procter on day 2? Move it up to 1?

Personally, I would put W&C, Willkie, Weil, and Dechert first. Goodwin Proctor is predominantly known in Boston, and as a result I think it would be smarter to prioritize NY centric firms. You could put them first in an effort to maximize screeners (for example, you are very likely to get W&C at #2), but I would air on the side of making sure that you can get screeners with the NY firms with large classes that are in your grade range. Goodwin NYC is small (11 SAs last year, 7 the year before), and if I were in your position I would much rather be prioritizing screeners for firms with 30+ SA classes.

[Lavitz]

Oh, finally, someone interested in lit.

Hi everyone. I spoke with a career services advisor and I'm still a bit confused, so any help with my bid list would be greatly appreciated. I'm a K-JD and am interested in NYC, Washington DC, and Chicago, but assume I'm only bidding NY unless noted otherwise. I'm more interested in litigation right now, but I'm still keeping my options open. My GPA is a 3.76.

Monday:
1. Latham NY and Chicago--18 slots--avg. 3.63
2. Cravath--36 slots--avg. 3.78
3. Davis Polk--60 slots--avg 3.73
4. Jones Day (NY and Chicago)--40--avg 3.55
5. WilmerHale NY--40--avg. 3.62
6. Akin Gump--40--avg 3.64
7. Freshfields--20--avg 3.64
8. Gibson Dunn--20--avg 3.8
9. Fried Frank--40--avg 3.58
10. Cahill--60--avg 3.44
11. WilmerHale DC--20--avg 3.82
12. Sullivan and Cromwell--40--avg. 3.86

GDC, WilmerHale DC, and S&C are going to be questionable that low since most people in the top 10% are going to bid on them. Your choice to elevate them will depend almost entirely on your personal risk aversion. You are in the GPA range where you should have no trouble whatsoever, but I also totally understand playing it safe. I think you can afford to move S&C and GDC up, and I think you should also put Cleary on. My year the GPA median was a 3.77, so you are well within the respected variance. For context, Cravath was a 3.84, and S&C was a 3.85, so the numbers shift more for the most grade selective firms. I think you should especially move GDC up, because they are one of the top firms for litigation (keep in mind that what Vault is really useful for is comparing NYC corporate practices, so not always the best measuring tool). I would have my list be something like: Latham, Cravath, GDC, S&C, Cleary, DPW, WilmerHale DC. Again, this would be to maximize screeners for top firms, which is a less risk averse strategy, but consider implementing it to some extent.

Yeah, you won't get those 3 down there. I know I couldn't get Wilmer DC at #10 and that was when they had 40 slots. If you still want to keep options open though, I wouldn't bother with GDC. If you decide you want corporate, it's not that great, and even if you want lit, it's still a satellite office and hardly hires anyone from here anyway. You could use that slot for a firm where you have a better chance of being hired. That's assuming you play a bit more conservatively than Scar's advice. I think whether or not you want to play it safe will depend on your own assessment of your interviewing skills.

Personally, if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't even bid Cravath. I cannot imagine doing lit in their rotation system and being stuck under one partner for 18 months at a time. I'd rather use that spot for something else. Also, I just generally disagree with Cravath being #2 since you should be able to get them at #5. I had Cleary at #2 and Cravath at #5 and got both, but maybe it doesn't matter and you can get both anywhere in the top 5.

Tuesday:
1. Kirkland and Ellis--20--3.67
2. Skadden--20--3.74
3. Weil--40--3.57
4. Simpson Thatcher--60--3.73
5. Sidley Austin--20--3.62
6. Paul Weiss--40--3.68
7. Debevoise--60--3.69
8. Paul Hastings--80--3.61
9. White and Case--40--3.57
10. Wilkie Farr--40--3.56
11. Williams and Connolly DC--20--3.85
12. Dechert NY and Chicago--60--3.53
13. Cadwalader--80--3.51

Since you want to litigate I think that Paul Weiss should be number one here, maybe #2. Then K&E, Skadden, Weil (though that probably won't happen that low), Debevoise, STB, Williams & Connolly. Then the 60 and 80 slot firms. This day the litigation/corp divide really matters, so how much you change it depends on how sure you are on litigation. For example, STB has one of the absolute best corporate practices, but lit is weaker there than at some of its peer firms (hence where I have it on my hypothetical list). Just something to keep in mind.

Yeah, PW has 8 SAs from Cornell, Skadden has 3, Sidley has at least 3, and Kirkland NYC has 0. I'd just scrap Kirkland altogether and put PW, Sidley, Skadden in some order at the top. I'm also not sure why anyone bids Weil (jk, sort of). Following the top 3 with Debevoise, Simpson, Paul Hastings, Cadwalader, and Williams and Connolly in that order would probably net you 8 interviews that day, with a nice mix of targets and safeties. I got Williams and Connolly at #8, which is why I'd put it down there below Paul Hastings and Cadwalader. If you want to try for more, I guess you can leave Kirkland and/or Weil in there like in Scar's list and see what happens.

Re: hospitality suites, you basically just go in and talk to people at recruiting, some junior associates, and usually 2Ls that just spent their summer at the firm. You give them your resume and depending on how competitive you are they may schedule you in for an interview. That works generally by them calling you a few hours later to set up a screener, usually tacked on at the end of the schedule. You don't have to be suave, and its a great idea to go. Everyone in hospitality suites is friendly and excited when students come in.

There is also free food.

[Anonymous User]

Cool. Thanks again!

[hephaestus]

Oh, finally, someone interested in lit.

Hi everyone. I spoke with a career services advisor and I'm still a bit confused, so any help with my bid list would be greatly appreciated. I'm a K-JD and am interested in NYC, Washington DC, and Chicago, but assume I'm only bidding NY unless noted otherwise. I'm more interested in litigation right now, but I'm still keeping my options open. My GPA is a 3.76.

Monday:
1. Latham NY and Chicago--18 slots--avg. 3.63
2. Cravath--36 slots--avg. 3.78
3. Davis Polk--60 slots--avg 3.73
4. Jones Day (NY and Chicago)--40--avg 3.55
5. WilmerHale NY--40--avg. 3.62
6. Akin Gump--40--avg 3.64
7. Freshfields--20--avg 3.64
8. Gibson Dunn--20--avg 3.8
9. Fried Frank--40--avg 3.58
10. Cahill--60--avg 3.44
11. WilmerHale DC--20--avg 3.82
12. Sullivan and Cromwell--40--avg. 3.86

GDC, WilmerHale DC, and S&C are going to be questionable that low since most people in the top 10% are going to bid on them. Your choice to elevate them will depend almost entirely on your personal risk aversion. You are in the GPA range where you should have no trouble whatsoever, but I also totally understand playing it safe. I think you can afford to move S&C and GDC up, and I think you should also put Cleary on. My year the GPA median was a 3.77, so you are well within the respected variance. For context, Cravath was a 3.84, and S&C was a 3.85, so the numbers shift more for the most grade selective firms. I think you should especially move GDC up, because they are one of the top firms for litigation (keep in mind that what Vault is really useful for is comparing NYC corporate practices, so not always the best measuring tool). I would have my list be something like: Latham, Cravath, GDC, S&C, Cleary, DPW, WilmerHale DC. Again, this would be to maximize screeners for top firms, which is a less risk averse strategy, but consider implementing it to some extent.

Yeah, you won't get those 3 down there. I know I couldn't get Wilmer DC at #10 and that was when they had 40 slots. If you still want to keep options open though, I wouldn't bother with GDC. If you decide you want corporate, it's not that great, and even if you want lit, it's still a satellite office and hardly hires anyone from here anyway. You could use that slot for a firm where you have a better chance of being hired. That's assuming you play a bit more conservatively than Scar's advice. I think whether or not you want to play it safe will depend on your own assessment of your interviewing skills.

Yeah its true that GDC does not really hire Cornell people, but they CB a decent number of people. Also, its true that its a satellite office, but they still handle some pretty major lit (e.g. the Chevron litigation averse to Patton Boggs), and I think for OP's position they make sense as a relatively high bid. Then again, I get what Lavitz is saying, and I am offering a less risk averse approch to your bidlist in that respect.

Personally, if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't even bid Cravath. I cannot imagine doing lit in their rotation system and being stuck under one partner for 18 months at a time. I'd rather use that spot for something else. Also, I just generally disagree with Cravath being #2 since you should be able to get them at #5. I had Cleary at #2 and Cravath at #5 and got both, but maybe it doesn't matter and you can get both anywhere in the top 5.

Yes, this is more or less right. Cravath is a slam dunk at 2 and could be lower, I was just allocating based on OP's stated preference, but OP keep in mind that you can put Cravath lower and still get it because almost everyone in the class will stay away based on the GPA median.

Tuesday:
1. Kirkland and Ellis--20--3.67
2. Skadden--20--3.74
3. Weil--40--3.57
4. Simpson Thatcher--60--3.73
5. Sidley Austin--20--3.62
6. Paul Weiss--40--3.68
7. Debevoise--60--3.69
8. Paul Hastings--80--3.61
9. White and Case--40--3.57
10. Wilkie Farr--40--3.56
11. Williams and Connolly DC--20--3.85
12. Dechert NY and Chicago--60--3.53
13. Cadwalader--80--3.51

Since you want to litigate I think that Paul Weiss should be number one here, maybe #2. Then K&E, Skadden, Weil (though that probably won't happen that low), Debevoise, STB, Williams & Connolly. Then the 60 and 80 slot firms. This day the litigation/corp divide really matters, so how much you change it depends on how sure you are on litigation. For example, STB has one of the absolute best corporate practices, but lit is weaker there than at some of its peer firms (hence where I have it on my hypothetical list). Just something to keep in mind.

Yeah, PW has 8 SAs from Cornell, Skadden has 3, Sidley has at least 3, and Kirkland NYC has 0. I'd just scrap Kirkland altogether and put PW, Sidley, Skadden in some order at the top. I'm also not sure why anyone bids Weil (jk, sort of). Following the top 3 with Debevoise, Simpson, Paul Hastings, Cadwalader, and Williams and Connolly in that order would probably net you 8 interviews that day, with a nice mix of targets and safeties. I got Williams and Connolly at #8, which is why I'd put it down there below Paul Hastings and Cadwalader. If you want to try for more, I guess you can leave Kirkland and/or Weil in there like in Scar's list and see what happens.

Yes, Lavitz is pretty on point here and I would lean towards follwing his advice, just noting that it depends on OP's preferences regarding the placement of Weil/Kirkland etc. It also depends on the degree of risk aversion (e.g., are you willing to sacrifice a screener with Cadwalader to make sure you get Williams & Connely) that is ultimately up to your bidding strategy.

Re: hospitality suites, you basically just go in and talk to people at recruiting, some junior associates, and usually 2Ls that just spent their summer at the firm. You give them your resume and depending on how competitive you are they may schedule you in for an interview. That works generally by them calling you a few hours later to set up a screener, usually tacked on at the end of the schedule. You don't have to be suave, and its a great idea to go. Everyone in hospitality suites is friendly and excited when students come in.

There is also free food.

[Lavitz]

Scar, I'm just glad you changed your tar so the 1Ls get the name reference.

[hephaestus]

Scar, I'm just glad you changed your tar so the 1Ls get the name reference.

Much appreciated, context is important.

[jasonredranger]

Here's an update: 3.63, shooting for NY corporate (with an interest in cap markets).

Monday

1. Latham & Watkins (London) 3.41 - 3.64 - 3.86 (19)
2. Cahill, Gordon & Reindel 3.19 - 3.44 - 3.65 (60)
3. Shearman & Sterling 3.02 - 3.48 - 3.77 (60)
4. Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson 3.35 - 3.58 - 3.78 (40)
5. Jones Day 3.24 - 3.55 - 3.88 (40)
6. Akin Gump 3.57 - 3.64 - 3.73 (40)
7. Schulte Roth & Zabel 3.29 - 3.46 - 3.75 (40)
8. Davis Polk & Wardell 3.24 - 3.73 - 4.01 (60)
9. freshfields bruckhaus deringer 3.43 - 3.64 - 3.92 (20)
10. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy 3.43 - 3.60 - 3.88 (20)
11. Morrison & Foerster 3.28 - 3.58 - 3.71 (20)
12. Seward & Kissel 3.05 - 3.49 - 3.97 (20)
13. Proskauer Rose 3.38 - 3.55 - 3.67 (20)
14. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 3.34 - 3.58 - 3.85 (20)
15. Stroock Stroock & Lavan 3.15 - 3.28 - 3.39 (20)

Tuesday

1. Kirkland & Ellis 3.42 - 3.67 - 3.91 (20)
2. Weil, Gotshal & Manges 3.24 - 3.57 - 3.91 (40)
3. White & Case 3.35 - 3.57 - 3.81 (40)
4. Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft 3.21 - 3.51 - 3.81 (80)
5. Dechert 3.16 - 3.54 - 3.90 (60)
6. Linklaters 3.24 - 3.49 - 3.88 (40)
7. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 3.05 - 3.73 - 4.01 (60)
8. Paul Hastings 3.29 - 3.61 - 4.01 (80)
9. Hogan Lovells 3.38 - 3.45 - 3.65 (40)
10. Willkie Farr & Gallagher 3.37 - 3.56 - 3.91 (40)
11. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 3.25 - 3.53 - 3.81 (40)
12. King & Spalding - 20
13. Hughes Hubbard
14. K&L Gates 3.43 - 3.57 - 3.67 (20)
15. Kaye Scholer 3.24 - 3.35 - 3.48 (20)

Wednesday

1. Clifford Chance 3.24 - 3.56 - 3.92 (80)
2. Cooley 3.28 - 3.40 - 3.48 (20)
3. Perkins Coie (LA) - (20)
4. Ropes & Gray 3.60 - 3.80 - 4.03 (20)

[jasonredranger]

Here's an update: 3.63, shooting for NY corporate (with an interest in cap markets).

Monday

1. Latham & Watkins (London) 3.41 - 3.64 - 3.86 (19)
2. Cahill, Gordon & Reindel 3.19 - 3.44 - 3.65 (60)
3. Shearman & Sterling 3.02 - 3.48 - 3.77 (60)
4. Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson 3.35 - 3.58 - 3.78 (40)
5. Jones Day 3.24 - 3.55 - 3.88 (40)
6. Akin Gump 3.57 - 3.64 - 3.73 (40)
7. Schulte Roth & Zabel 3.29 - 3.46 - 3.75 (40)
8. Davis Polk & Wardell 3.24 - 3.73 - 4.01 (60)
9. freshfields bruckhaus deringer 3.43 - 3.64 - 3.92 (20)
10. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy 3.43 - 3.60 - 3.88 (20)
11. Morrison & Foerster 3.28 - 3.58 - 3.71 (20)
12. Seward & Kissel 3.05 - 3.49 - 3.97 (20)
13. Proskauer Rose 3.38 - 3.55 - 3.67 (20)
14. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman 3.34 - 3.58 - 3.85 (20)
15. Stroock Stroock & Lavan 3.15 - 3.28 - 3.39 (20)

Tuesday

1. Kirkland & Ellis 3.42 - 3.67 - 3.91 (20)
2. Weil, Gotshal & Manges 3.24 - 3.57 - 3.91 (40)
3. White & Case 3.35 - 3.57 - 3.81 (40)
4. Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft 3.21 - 3.51 - 3.81 (80)
5. Dechert 3.16 - 3.54 - 3.90 (60)
6. Linklaters 3.24 - 3.49 - 3.88 (40)
7. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 3.05 - 3.73 - 4.01 (60)
8. Paul Hastings 3.29 - 3.61 - 4.01 (80)
9. Hogan Lovells 3.38 - 3.45 - 3.65 (40)
10. Willkie Farr & Gallagher 3.37 - 3.56 - 3.91 (40)
11. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 3.25 - 3.53 - 3.81 (40)
12. King & Spalding - 20
13. Hughes Hubbard
14. K&L Gates 3.43 - 3.57 - 3.67 (20)
15. Kaye Scholer 3.24 - 3.35 - 3.48 (20)

Wednesday

1. Clifford Chance 3.24 - 3.56 - 3.92 (80)
2. Cooley 3.28 - 3.40 - 3.48 (20)
3. Perkins Coie (LA) - (20)
4. Ropes & Gray 3.60 - 3.80 - 4.03 (20)

[Anonymous User]

If I built a relationship with a recruiter and they said I should just send them an email if I don't get a screener with their firm, wouldn't it be to my advantage to use my higher bids somewhere else? I mean I could just use a lower bid on the recruiter's firm, they'll check to make sure that I at least made a bid, and then they'll give me a screener because of the aforementioned relationship, right?

[runinthefront]

If I built a relationship with a recruiter and they said I should just send them an email if I don't get a screener with their firm, wouldn't it be to my advantage to use my higher bids somewhere else? I mean I could just use a lower bid on the recruiter's firm, they'll check to make sure that I at least made a bid, and then they'll give me a screener because of the aforementioned relationship, right?

I don't think they even have any way of knowing whether you bid them or not. I'm doing the same thing with my bidlist. That sounds pretty correct to me, assuming their promise to get you a screener/callback if you don't get one from the bidding lottery is strong.

[Lavitz]

If I built a relationship with a recruiter and they said I should just send them an email if I don't get a screener with their firm, wouldn't it be to my advantage to use my higher bids somewhere else? I mean I could just use a lower bid on the recruiter's firm, they'll check to make sure that I at least made a bid, and then they'll give me a screener because of the aforementioned relationship, right?

I don't think they even have any way of knowing whether you bid them or not. I'm doing the same thing with my bidlist. That sounds pretty correct to me, assuming their promise to get you a screener/callback if you don't get one from the bidding lottery is strong.

Yeah, this is the kind of tactic I would use.

[Anonymous User]

OP that was interested in litigation here

Thanks so much Imnoscar and Lavitz for your help and your time. I really appreciate it!

[Anonymous User]

If I built a relationship with a recruiter and they said I should just send them an email if I don't get a screener with their firm, wouldn't it be to my advantage to use my higher bids somewhere else? I mean I could just use a lower bid on the recruiter's firm, they'll check to make sure that I at least made a bid, and then they'll give me a screener because of the aforementioned relationship, right?

I don't think they even have any way of knowing whether you bid them or not. I'm doing the same thing with my bidlist. That sounds pretty correct to me, assuming their promise to get you a screener/callback if you don't get one from the bidding lottery is strong.

Yeah, this is the kind of tactic I would use.

I heard that the employers can see whether or not you bid on them, just not where you bid them at.

[runinthefront]

If I built a relationship with a recruiter and they said I should just send them an email if I don't get a screener with their firm, wouldn't it be to my advantage to use my higher bids somewhere else? I mean I could just use a lower bid on the recruiter's firm, they'll check to make sure that I at least made a bid, and then they'll give me a screener because of the aforementioned relationship, right?

I don't think they even have any way of knowing whether you bid them or not. I'm doing the same thing with my bidlist. That sounds pretty correct to me, assuming their promise to get you a screener/callback if you don't get one from the bidding lottery is strong.

Yeah, this is the kind of tactic I would use.

I heard that the employers can see whether or not you bid on them, just not where you bid them at.

Well, I'm not opposed to calling Monday and finding out from CSO, but I highly doubt that they can see whether or not you bid them. I'll find out tho

[Lavitz]

If I built a relationship with a recruiter and they said I should just send them an email if I don't get a screener with their firm, wouldn't it be to my advantage to use my higher bids somewhere else? I mean I could just use a lower bid on the recruiter's firm, they'll check to make sure that I at least made a bid, and then they'll give me a screener because of the aforementioned relationship, right?

I don't think they even have any way of knowing whether you bid them or not. I'm doing the same thing with my bidlist. That sounds pretty correct to me, assuming their promise to get you a screener/callback if you don't get one from the bidding lottery is strong.

Yeah, this is the kind of tactic I would use.

I heard that the employers can see whether or not you bid on them, just not where you bid them at.

Well, I'm not opposed to calling Monday and finding out from CSO, but I highly doubt that they can see whether or not you bid them. I'll find out tho

My understanding is that they get a list of everyone who bid on them. I don't see why you wouldn't just throw them on the bottom of your list so you can say it honestly.

[hephaestus]

If I built a relationship with a recruiter and they said I should just send them an email if I don't get a screener with their firm, wouldn't it be to my advantage to use my higher bids somewhere else? I mean I could just use a lower bid on the recruiter's firm, they'll check to make sure that I at least made a bid, and then they'll give me a screener because of the aforementioned relationship, right?

I don't think they even have any way of knowing whether you bid them or not. I'm doing the same thing with my bidlist. That sounds pretty correct to me, assuming their promise to get you a screener/callback if you don't get one from the bidding lottery is strong.

Yeah, this is the kind of tactic I would use.

I heard that the employers can see whether or not you bid on them, just not where you bid them at.

Well, I'm not opposed to calling Monday and finding out from CSO, but I highly doubt that they can see whether or not you bid them. I'll find out tho

My understanding is that they get a list of everyone who bid on them. I don't see why you wouldn't just throw them on the bottom of your list so you can say it honestly.

Yes this is also my understanding of how it works. So the firm won't see that you bid them 17th or whatever, they will only see that you did actually bid them. You can sell your interest at the hospitality suite more genuinely if you just throw a firm at the bottom of your bid list.

[Anonymous User]

If I built a relationship with a recruiter and they said I should just send them an email if I don't get a screener with their firm, wouldn't it be to my advantage to use my higher bids somewhere else? I mean I could just use a lower bid on the recruiter's firm, they'll check to make sure that I at least made a bid, and then they'll give me a screener because of the aforementioned relationship, right?

I don't think they even have any way of knowing whether you bid them or not. I'm doing the same thing with my bidlist. That sounds pretty correct to me, assuming their promise to get you a screener/callback if you don't get one from the bidding lottery is strong.

Yeah, this is the kind of tactic I would use.

I heard that the employers can see whether or not you bid on them, just not where you bid them at.

Well, I'm not opposed to calling Monday and finding out from CSO, but I highly doubt that they can see whether or not you bid them. I'll find out tho

My understanding is that they get a list of everyone who bid on them. I don't see why you wouldn't just throw them on the bottom of your list so you can say it honestly.

Yes this is also my understanding of how it works. So the firm won't see that you bid them 17th or whatever, they will only see that you did actually bid them. You can sell your interest at the hospitality suite more genuinely if you just throw a firm at the bottom of your bid list.

Yeah the honesty thing is definitely a consideration, and you can have more than 15 bids per day anyway. Thanks guys I appreciate it

[Anonymous User]

I'm the K-JD at 10% aiming at corporate. Thanks to ImNoScar for your time and advice! I edited my bidding list accordingly.

[Anonymous User]

Hi all,

Wondering if anyone could help me with my bid list. I'm interested in multiple fields but am aiming towards transactional. Currently, I'm looking at corporate or real estate. Definitely open to other areas. GPA is 3.425. (How worried should I be? I'm seeing so many high GPAs posted here...).

Thanks for your time

1. Morrison and Foerster (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.71; Low: 3.28; Avg. 3.58)
2. proskauer rose llp (20 slots)
3. Latham and Watkins (18 slots; GPA: High: 3.88; Low: 3.45; Avg. 3.63) -- Definitely a reach, but Career Offices told me to move it up from 7...
4. Jones Day (40 slots; GPA: High: 3.88; Low: 3.24; Avg. 3.55)
5. Pillsbury (20 slots)
6. Greenberg (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.59; Low: 3.12; Avg. 3.32)
7. Fried Frank (40 slots; GPA: High: 3.78; Low: 3.35; Avg. 3.58)
8. Cahill Gordon (60 slots, GPA: High: 3.65; Low: 3.19; Avg. 3.44)
9. Chadbourne (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.76; Low: 3.48; Avg. 3.55)
10. Stroock & Stroock (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.39; Low: 3.15; Avg. 3.28)
11. Shearman & Sterling LLP (60 slots; GPA: High: 3.77; Low: 3.02; Avg. 3.48)
12. Seward (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.97; Low: 3.05; Avg. 3.49)
13. Akin Gump (40 slots; GPA: High: 3.73; Low: 3.57)
14. Davis Polk (60 slots; GPA: High: 4.01; Low: 3.24; Avg. 3.73)
15. Carter Ledyard and Milburn (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.25; Low: 3.21; Avg. 3.23)

DAY 2
1. Paul Hastings (80 slots; Moderately grades oriented (Low: 3.29)
2. Goodwin Proctor (20 slots; Flexible)
3. Holland & Knight (20 slots; Moderately grades oriented)
4. foley and lardner llp (20 slots; Flexible)
5. Paul Weiss (40 slots; Very grades-oriented)
6. Sidley Austin (20 slots; Moderately grades oriented (Low: 3.43))
7. Weil (40 slots; Moderately grades-oriented (Low: 3.24))
8. Alston and Bird (20 slots)
9. K & L (20 slots)
10. O’Melveny and Myers (20 slots)
11. Cadawalder (80 slots; Flexible GPA)
12. Wilkie Farr (40 slots; Moderately grades-oriented)
13. Baker Botts (20 slots)

DAY 3
1. Ropes & Gray (20 slots)
2. cooley llp (20 slots; Flexible)
3. Fox Rothschild (20 slots; Flexible)
4. Perkins Coie (20 slots)
5. Clifford Chance LLP (80 slots; moderately grades oriented)
6. Hunton & Williams (20 slots)
7. Haynes & Boone (20 slots)

[Anonymous User]

Disclaimer: 1L.

Idk if you'll get Greenberg that low, so it seems to make more sense moving Cahill/Fried Frank up to at least the 7-8 spot to ensure you get at least one of them...the latter two are all targets for everyone at median (majority of the class) so there's at least 100 people likely putting them 1-10.

For day 2, why not put GP at 1 and PH at 2? It's a popular firm but idk if it will be gone at 2 if there's 80 spots. Similarly, I think you should think about moving up cadawalader and Wilkie farr

Weil, Sidley Austin and Paul Weiss will be gone by then so you're wasting those slots anyway

If Lavitz or ImNoScar thinks this is incorrect I'll shut up

[King Cayuga]

Hi all,

Wondering if anyone could help me with my bid list. I'm interested in multiple fields but am aiming towards transactional. Currently, I'm looking at corporate or real estate. Definitely open to other areas. GPA is 3.425. (How worried should I be? I'm seeing so many high GPAs posted here...).

Thanks for your time

1. Morrison and Foerster (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.71; Low: 3.28; Avg. 3.58)
2. Proskauer Rose LLP (20 slots)
3. Latham and Watkins (18 slots; GPA: High: 3.88; Low: 3.45; Avg. 3.63) -- Definitely a reach, but Career Offices told me to move it up from 7...
4. Jones Day (40 slots; GPA: High: 3.88; Low: 3.24; Avg. 3.55)
5. Pillsbury (20 slots)
6. Greenberg (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.59; Low: 3.12; Avg. 3.32)
7. Fried Frank (40 slots; GPA: High: 3.78; Low: 3.35; Avg. 3.58)
8. Cahill Gordon (60 slots, GPA: High: 3.65; Low: 3.19; Avg. 3.44)
9. Chadbourne (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.76; Low: 3.48; Avg. 3.55)
10. Stroock & Stroock (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.39; Low: 3.15; Avg. 3.28)
11. Shearman & Sterling LLP (60 slots; GPA: High: 3.77; Low: 3.02; Avg. 3.48)
12. Seward (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.97; Low: 3.05; Avg. 3.49)
13. Akin Gump (40 slots; GPA: High: 3.73; Low: 3.57)
14. Davis Polk (60 slots; GPA: High: 4.01; Low: 3.24; Avg. 3.73)
15. Carter Ledyard and Milburn (20 slots; GPA: High: 3.25; Low: 3.21; Avg. 3.23)

DAY 2
1. Paul Hastings (80 slots; Moderately grades oriented (Low: 3.29)
2. Goodwin Proctor (20 slots; Flexible)
3. Holland & Knight (20 slots; Moderately grades oriented)
4. Foley and Lardner LLP (20 slots; Flexible)
5. Paul Weiss (40 slots; Very grades-oriented)
6. Sidley Austin (20 slots; Moderately grades oriented (Low: 3.43))
7. Weil (40 slots; Moderately grades-oriented (Low: 3.24))
8. Alston and Bird (20 slots)
9. K & L (20 slots)
10. O’Melveny and Myers (20 slots)
11. Cadawalder (80 slots; Flexible GPA)
12. Wilkie Farr (40 slots; Moderately grades-oriented)
13. Baker Botts (20 slots)

DAY 3
1. Ropes & Gray (20 slots)
2. Cooley LLP (20 slots; Flexible)
3. Fox Rothschild (20 slots; Flexible)
4. Perkins Coie (20 slots)
5. Clifford Chance LLP (80 slots; moderately grades oriented)
6. Hunton & Williams (20 slots)
7. Haynes & Boone (20 slots)

I'm not a pro at this like Lavitz and ImNoScar, but I can say with certainty that you don't have a chance at Ropes. They're extremely grade-selective. Latham is also a huge reach unless you have a major hook. I would drop them entirely and move firms like Greenberg, Cahill, and Stroock way up. On day 2 Paul Weiss probably isn't worth a bid either.

[runinthefront]

I just took a random sample of 15 cornell alum at Latham (searching cornell law). 5/15 graduated with no honors. It's definitely a reach but I wouldn't drop them if you know you're a good interview OP

I didn't check for LR tho