Columbia EIP 2015 Forum

[Anonymous User]

This last post is correct. The guy with the 3.7X posting his bid list is going about it all wrong. You cannot afford, with grades like that and a transactional interest, to miss ANY V10 NYC interview, and you have no basis for assuming that 3-6 points above last years FFB is a safe spot, especially since everyone had the FFBs and most folks are modifying their bidding accordingly.

The credited response is to bid the V10 and places like Wilkie as high as possible. The value of maximizing total interviews, especially before you have the opportunity to add or resume drop day-of, is minimal.

Looked at my list based on this advice:

1. Wachtell
2. Cravath
3. Skadden
4. S&C
5. Davis Polk
6. Simpson Thatcher
7. Cleary
8. Weil
9. Kirkland
10. Latham

3 and 9 cannot be bid any higher as they are my #1 and #2.
1, 2, 4, 6 seem to be at their safe spots at least given last two years of data (FFB did not fluctuate much)

5 (4 spots above FFB), 7 (3 spots above), 8 (2 spots above), and 10 (2 spots above) I guess could be moved.

I agree that I should probably move Latham up, but I think 5 and 7 are at pretty safe spots given the data, and 8 (Weil) cannot be moved unless I drop Gibson, Debevoise, or W&C, which I don't think is a no-brainer.

Would love to know how you would structure my bidlist.

Thanks.

-Fat Man Jungle

Just wanted to add that I am using FFB data from:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =639798873

Wachtell 30 -> 28 (bidding #25)
Cravath 26 -> 26 (bidding #23)
S&C 15 -> 14 (bidding #9)
Simpson * -> 30 (bidding #26)

DPW 21 -> 19 (bidding #15)
Cleary 20 -> 17 (bidding #14)
Weil 11 -> 8 (bidding #6)
Latham 13 -> 20 (bidding #17; switched with fried frank)

-Fat Man Jungle

[Tiago Splitter]

I would probably cut White & Case or Clifford Chance just to lock everything else in.

Let me just say as someone whose only V10 offer was from Cravath I can confirm Jason Taverner is giving good advice.

[jbagelboy]

Maybe for transactional talking about V10 explicitly has some merit, but it's crazy IMO for a new york bound student to emphasize getting into the room with Latham's NY office or Weil over Debevoise; for lit same goes for Paul Weiss and Gibson. This shit gets so circular but when you're listing firms point by point to the vault survey (which, btw, just changed to 2016), stop and start over with something better.

I feel like Fat Man Jungle's list was fine once he or she dropped Shearman, Chadbourne, ect. No point hashing and rehashing an extremely strong candidates' list.

[Anonymous User]

Maybe for transactional talking about V10 explicitly has some merit, but it's crazy IMO for a new york bound student to emphasize getting into the room with Latham's NY office or Weil over Debevoise; for lit same goes for Paul Weiss and Gibson. This shit gets so circular but when you're listing firms point by point to the vault survey (which, btw, just changed to 2016), stop and start over with something better.

I feel like Fat Man Jungle's list was fine once he or she dropped Shearman, Chadbourne, ect. No point hashing and rehashing an extremely strong candidates' list.

Fuck. Now to redo all my list based on the twentySIXTEEN rankings, not twentyFIFTEEN.

[jbagelboy]

Maybe for transactional talking about V10 explicitly has some merit, but it's crazy IMO for a new york bound student to emphasize getting into the room with Latham's NY office or Weil over Debevoise; for lit same goes for Paul Weiss and Gibson. This shit gets so circular but when you're listing firms point by point to the vault survey (which, btw, just changed to 2016), stop and start over with something better.

I feel like Fat Man Jungle's list was fine once he or she dropped Shearman, Chadbourne, ect. No point hashing and rehashing an extremely strong candidates' list.

Fuck. Now to redo all my list based on the twentySIXTEEN rankings, not twentyFIFTEEN.

Get on it, gotta stick with them times yo

[Anonymous User]

Maybe for transactional talking about V10 explicitly has some merit, but it's crazy IMO for a new york bound student to emphasize getting into the room with Latham's NY office or Weil over Debevoise; for lit same goes for Paul Weiss and Gibson. This shit gets so circular but when you're listing firms point by point to the vault survey (which, btw, just changed to 2016), stop and start over with something better.

I feel like Fat Man Jungle's list was fine once he or she dropped Shearman, Chadbourne, ect. No point hashing and rehashing an extremely strong candidates' list.

Fuck. Now to redo all my list based on the twentySIXTEEN rankings, not twentyFIFTEEN.

Get on it, gotta stick with them times yo

good thing there were like no changes. otherwise would've had to stay up all night tonight

[Anonymous User]

Again, I'm using V10 as shorthand for "strong NYC transactional firms". If the bidder doesn't know that Deb is on that list, then someone hasn't done their research.

I still think that list is very wonky. FFB changes by a max of 3-4 every year for some firms. If your Bid is 3 or 4 higher than last years FFB for firms that you must interview with, then you will be the FFB in some instances! Not interviewing with S&C or Cleary so that you could preserve your spot with, say, Sidley, is criminal.

[Anonymous User]

To specifically critique the bid list, having W&C and CC taking up spots when you have Wilkie and Cleary within easy range of being a FFB is the big error.

Also, I don't know where this idea that s&c is some sort of insane grade whore came from, because when I did this (admittedly a couple of years ago) anyone with Stone was competitive.

[Anonymous User]

As a Kent targeting DC with no ties, how much will no ties hurt me? Is it primarily about constructing a narrative for wanting to be in DC- or is the lack of ties a really strong mark against me, no matter the narrative I spin.

-Nam

[Anonymous User]

As a Kent targeting DC with no ties, how much will no ties hurt me? Is it primarily about constructing a narrative for wanting to be in DC- or is the lack of ties a really strong mark against me, no matter the narrative I spin.

-Nam

It won't hurt you if the narrative's strong. You need the narrative. For me, it was an interest in antitrust that I could clearly articulate based on past work. I don't think you need past work in whatever sphere you want, though - anything that'll convince them that you're sincere works.

Even if I got a screening or callback interviewer who didn't practice antitrust specifically, almost everyone still knew as much or more about it than I did - they've been practicing for a while and you pick things up throughout your career. You can't bullshit it or say "I've always wanted to be an antitrust lawyer" then have only superficial reasons why. Be ready to talk at length about the work you want (or the city, or whatever else is compelling).

If you genuinely want DC and nothing else, I'm sure that will come through, too.

-Rising 3L Who Bid DC

[philepistemer]

Yeah, obviously only use vault as a guide if you want nyc transactional, but if you have really strong grades and that's what you want, there aren't that many great firms in that arena and you really want an interview with all of them if you have stone+ grades. Just LOL at thinking you'll get interviews at these places by beating last years first failed bid by 3 spots, and LOL at white and case not yield protecting someone with a 3.7 if they don't have a compelling narrative for why someone with a 3.7 is turning down all of the V5 to work there. Note: "I want to do what your firm does" is not a compelling narrative.

[smaug]

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but most firms don't "yield protect."

This isn't like law school applications.

Their rankings don't go down by extending you interviews.

And, unlike law, there are often real reasons to consider taking a lower ranked firm. Working for S&C isn't everyone's dream. Some people don't want to work for Cravath. Those positions aren't necessarily foolish.

It's also impossible for you to know how much creep there will be based on FFB stuff. Your year was the first year to have that data, philepistemer. I'm sure you heard stories about how bad people were at bidding, still. Imagine how much worse they were before they were given that first failed bid info.

Put simply: there was a huge correction in information asymmetry in bidding prior to your year, philepisemer. There isn't a similar asymmetry to correct for this year.

That said, it seems like strong hiring last year might have created knew information asymmetries. A 3.41 student probably isn't getting a callback at S&C. At least that's well below what the expected floor was. I don't know if Cravath had a floor (they seem to be more holistic) but 3.41 is probably below their modal GPA. This isn't as applicable to Fat Man Jungle as he should be above pretty much every floor (I don't know anything about WLRK, so I can't comment there).

You also make assumptions that others won't hold true. I wasn't going to argue with Tiago about this, but if I was a strong candidate considering lit, I'd probably bid Jenner NYC, despite the small office and relative lack of prestige. They generally take very strong candidates (good grades or law review, sometimes just generally charming people) and it's considered a good place to work.

I don't think it would be absurd at all to consider Sidley over S&C.

If you're doing lit, you obviously have places like Irell and MTO that are great options, but there are places (like Jenner, or Patterson, or others) that are worth looking into.

I wouldn't rant at you philepistemer, but I think you're giving bad advice that could hurt people.

[Anonymous User]

That said, it seems like strong hiring last year might have created knew information asymmetries. A 3.41 student probably isn't getting a callback at S&C. At least that's well below what the expected floor was. I don't know if Cravath had a floor (they seem to be more holistic) but 3.41 is probably below their modal GPA. This isn't as applicable to Fat Man Jungle as he should be above pretty much every floor (I don't know anything about WLRK, so I can't comment there).

Just some FYI for older posters: Last year Wachtell made 6 offers, 2 were to people with sub 3.41 GPA.
Cravath made 43 offers, at least 4 were to individuals that were sub-3.41
S&C made 34 offers, only one was to a sub-3.41 GPA
(Note that one person might have gotten offers to all three because they had particularly appealing soft-factors. Also, there will be LR participants that are below Stone, and that was likely a factor in some of these cases).

if I was a strong candidate considering lit, I'd probably bid Jenner NYC, despite the small office and relative lack of prestige. They generally take very strong candidates (good grades or law review, sometimes just generally charming people) and it's considered a good place to work.

This assumption is correct. Last year Jenner and Block made only 4 offers, all to people with GPAs of at least 3.41.

[Anonymous User]

I am an active transaction associate at a midlevel firm. JBB, you know who I am and you know I know what I'm talking about. Whoever this tavener guy is doesn't know what he's talking about and should be ignored.

The following applies only for NYC transactional. But it is at least based on meaningful knowledge.

Surprsingly few firms do the top end transactional work. You need to get a position with one of them. It is mostly the V10 plus a couple of other firms like Debevoise.

The more elite firms have slightly better exit ops, but it doesn't matter THAT much. One can totally reasonably choose, say, Simpson over S&C. One cannot reasonably choose, say, Milbank over Cleary.

All these firms will work you equally hard. Some of these firms have higher leverage on their transactional practices, some have strongnly EWYK partner comp or non-lockstep associate bonuses. Those firms are less desirable. Everyone knows which firms those are.

There are meaningful culture and training differences between the firms. It is not fatal if you end up at a bad fit firm, because you will tend to gravitate towards a group that is closer to your style, and there is pretty much a niche for everyone. It's like college - even at Swarthmore, there's a jock clique. But the closer you are to the broader firm "style", the easier it will be to find that niche.

Finally, except in rare instances, you have no idea what practice area you want to do and likely will have only a partial idea in four years when you are picking your group at most firms. That's why it's so important to pick off of general transactional excellence rather than chambers, because as a not-even-2L you have no bleeping idea whether you'll end up in that vaunted projects finance group or will be pushing paper for a fourth tier leveraged finance practice.

Hope this helps.

[smaug]

I'm not going to claim to have more knowledge about NYC transactional practice than I have. I totally bow down to our guest associate wrt relative strength of firms.

I am tempted to quarrel over whether "all these firms will work you equally hard" and over whether people are subjectively as happy at all of these places.

I'd post the S&C bag copypasta, but I'm lazy and don't want to enrage our esteemed guest.

[smaug]

(found it)

Congratulations!

Based on your reaction to getting the offer, this is probably the best thing that could have ever happened to you. I encourage you to enjoy the summer and take accept their offer as nothing in the world will cure you of your prestige obsession quicker than some time at S&C.

During orientation, they'll give you an S&C shoulderbag and you'll wear it with the S&C logo facing outward so any other commuters in the know can see it and you'll just know that they're either impressed or envious. And that will make you happy and proud. And then you'll try to figure out the best way to ensure that you're sworn in as soon as possible after receiving your bar results because then you'll get the box full of business cards that say "Sullivan & Cromwell LLP" with your actual name underneath. You'll be giddy at the thought of casually passing one (mid-conversation) to some acquaintance from undergrad you've lost touch with.

You'll start working and you'll notice that there are an awful lot of "Farewell" emails and someone will tell you that the farewell emails can only contain 4 names at a time per firm policy because the partners decided sometime in 2004 that emails indicating 6 or 7 people were leaving the firm in a two week period might cause some unhelpful whispering. You'll talk to a midlevel associate who is super-psyched to work at S&C and you'll find out that he (not a lot of shes) lateralled from some firm that frankly you would never have considered working for (too TTT for you). When you get back to your office, this will trouble you a bit, you'll wonder if your own escutcheon is being blemished by the presence of this type of person (i.e., non-elite) at your S&C. But that feeling will pass as you'll find plenty of other like-minded first years who equally relish the prestige as you you head for a drink at Ulysses (shoulderbag logo facing outward).

Then you'll get staffed on your first big deal and you'll work late night after late night and then on the weekend and on to the next weekend and then on to the weekend when you had planned to go to a friend's wedding. And you won't go because the work has to get done and you have dues to pay (or so you'll be told). You'll get a little bit upset about this turn of events, but the arrival of those business cards will soften the blow.

You'll meet more and more laterals from firms that you would never work for (some you've never even heard of). You'll note in the farewell emails that some of the junior and midlevel associates leaving S&C are going to those very same firms. Survival of the fittest you'll say. But late at night, when the air conditioning clicks down from a barely perceptible hissing sound to complete silence, these things will bother you. But you'll tell yourself you're just tired and frustrated and anyway you have work to do.

You'll have lunch with Rodge and he'll tell you that business is good and that he's listening to associates' concerns about quality of life issues. You'll notice that some of the senior associates visibly roll their eyes at each other when this comes up, but you won't mind that much because, really, what other firm's managing partner regulalry has lunch with associates to hear their concerns (and takes notes!)

A few months will pass, a few marathon deals will happen, you'll have to re-schedule a vacation but you'll tell yourself that that is to be expected.

About a year in, a couple of your classmates will crack and start talking about how much the job sucks. They'll very likely have gone to Yale Law School. You'll joke that they couldn't hack it when they leave the firm for a clerkship, or an academic position or to go to a firm in another city.

Things will go on in this pattern and you'll notice the fact that you're working a lot harder than your friends who went to "peer" firms. At first you'll be proud of this and brag about it, but after a while you'll find yourself downplaying it. At least when you have the time to get out and socialize with your law school friends.

Something will happen: a partner will scream at you, a senior associate gunning for partner will blame you for her mistake, the partner will tell you that the trip to Europe your spouse meticulously planned just won't be able to happen (he'll be really sorry and will tell you a funny story about the exotic vacation he missed or cut short). Doesn't matter what, but you'll get really pissed and you'll start to take some of the 4 or 5 calls from headhunters that you'll receive every day at that point (vultures spell blood). They'll give you the names of firms that you laughed on in the days when you posted on the TLS board, but you'll find yourself looking into them. The headhunter will encourage to just listen to their offer and you'll consider doing so. But you won't leave because then you'd have to give up your business cards. And stop wearing the shoulder bag. And the bonus is only x months away so you'll start thinking about it then.

Until one day you won't be able to take it any more and you'll find yourself arranging to meet with people from a lightly regarded firm for a position in their New York office. And you'll worry that the TLS crowd will see you.

And you don't believe any of this will happen, but I suggest you print this out and keep it in the top desk of your drawer so late at night when you're feeling sorry for yourself, you can add to the list of reasons to be miserable this fact: someone told you this was going to happen and you thought that person was crazy.

and with that I think I'll check out

godspeed friends

[Anonymous User]

The sucker who believes the S&C bag post or its equivalent (and there is an equivalent for every firm, if you're on the right email chains) is uniquely true for any single firm but not others deserves their 3000 hr year in Debevoise's finance practice.

If you want to do NYC transactional, you will work very hard, everywhere. it is the nature of the beast.

This is actually mathematically provable. Look at RPL numbers. Te extra profitability of public company M&A distorts those a tad, so let's focus on firms that are more cap market focused and have probably similar realized billing rates:

DPW - 1.23M
Cahill - 1.17M
Debevoise - 1.16M
Latham - 1.25M

These numbers are basically identical because the lawyers at these firms are basically working the same number of hours, "sweatshop" v. "classy" reputations aside.

[smaug]

fine one last post

not uniquely true about one firm (though I wonder if i hit the right one, lol) but I think particularly applicable to a certain group of firms

you can get destroyed at any firm

but maybe, just maybe some are better or worse to work for, for a variety of reasons

(and also, 'mathematically provable' if we ignore that it's confounded by a number of variables you don't consider, because shockingly, these firms don't all have the same compensation structures, have their profits come from many groups beyond just the transactional practice, probably have different billing structures [you'd be shocked!] and more)

but yeah, simple decision

nothing to think about

[Anonymous User]

I appreciate all the comments and assistance the wiser folks have provided us younglings. I think this is my final draft, but would appreciate any further critiques. I'm a bit nervous about the top 7 and their ~1-2 FFB proximity, but I'm not sure what would be worth cutting. Also interested in any big-class NYC lit firms that I missed in my grade range.

3.66, litigation focused. Ties to and heavy interest in DC.

1. Kirkland and Ellis (2)
2. Gibson Dunn (4)
3. Skadden (4)
4. Debevoise (6)
5. Hogan Lovells (DC) (6)
6. WilmerHale (8)
7. Weil (8)
8. Jenner and Block (12)
9. Paul Weiss (14)
10. Cahill (16)
11. Davis Polk (19)
12. Akin Gump (17)
13. Covington and Burling (20)
14. Arnold and Porter (DC) (21)
15. Williams and Connolly (DC) (21)
16. Covington and Burling (DC) (25)
17. Akin Gump (DC) (25)
18. Crowell and Moring (DC) (25)
19. Cravath (26)
20. Jones Day (DC) (28)
21. Wachtell (28)
22. Paul Weiss (DC) (*)
23. Winston and Strawn (DC) (*)
24. Kirkland and Ellis (DC) (30)
25. WilmerHale (DC) (*)
26. Steptoe and Johnson (DC) (29)
27. Bracewell and Giuliani (30)
29. Simpson Thacher (30)
29. Hunton and Williams (DC) (*)
30. O'Melveny and Myers (DC) (*)

Mass-mailing Quinn and Boeis.

-Crutcher

[philepistemer]

While firms don't yield protect, they do something that is effectively the same thing from the perspective of an applicant: they will not give you a callback or offer if they don't think you will seriously consider it. I know a few people who have been told as much in the middle of screening interviews.

[Anonymous User]

FYI- For NY corporate work, the Chambers ratings are generally accurate:

http://chambersandpartners.com/12806/354/editorial/5/1

And it's also the one thing where the Vault rankings are helpful.

[jbagelboy]

I am an active transaction associate at a midlevel firm. JBB, you know who I am and you know I know what I'm talking about. Whoever this tavener guy is doesn't know what he's talking about and should be ignored.

The following applies only for NYC transactional. But it is at least based on meaningful knowledge.

Surprsingly few firms do the top end transactional work. You need to get a position with one of them. It is mostly the V10 plus a couple of other firms like Debevoise.

The more elite firms have slightly better exit ops, but it doesn't matter THAT much. One can totally reasonably choose, say, Simpson over S&C. One cannot reasonably choose, say, Milbank over Cleary.

All these firms will work you equally hard. Some of these firms have higher leverage on their transactional practices, some have strongnly EWYK partner comp or non-lockstep associate bonuses. Those firms are less desirable. Everyone knows which firms those are.

There are meaningful culture and training differences between the firms. It is not fatal if you end up at a bad fit firm, because you will tend to gravitate towards a group that is closer to your style, and there is pretty much a niche for everyone. It's like college - even at Swarthmore, there's a jock clique. But the closer you are to the broader firm "style", the easier it will be to find that niche.

Finally, except in rare instances, you have no idea what practice area you want to do and likely will have only a partial idea in four years when you are picking your group at most firms. That's why it's so important to pick off of general transactional excellence rather than chambers, because as a not-even-2L you have no bleeping idea whether you'll end up in that vaunted projects finance group or will be pushing paper for a fourth tier leveraged finance practice.

Hope this helps.

I think you meant a midlevel associate at a top firm, not an associate at a midlevel firm (?)

You're right of course (although I'm not sure jason said anything objectionable besides the sidley comment, which of course would be silly for m&a or finance but not necessarily for international trade or something out of DC), my only point was don't take 'vault' too literally (see the previous page with the exact list copied), esp outside of transactional. Talk to a lot of attorneys at these firms and you can find out about peer groupings and where different shops fit in the sinews of the city better than a survey. There are maybe five or six firms that offer associates the same level of high brow corporate excellence across practice areas that are pretty interchangeable IMO, and then a lot of others that are as strong as those five in at least a few areas but weaker in others.

And yea, unfortunately every fancy firm has an s&c bag story of their own. It's more an allegory for a certain personality at these types of firms generally. Humorous though.

[Anonymous User]

3.6 GPA

1 Boies 1
2 Gibson Dunn 4
3 Debevoise 6
4 White & Case 7
5 Arnold & Porter 9
6 Paul, Weiss 14
7 Milbank Tweed 11
8 Jenner & Block 12
9 Paul Hastings (LA) 13
10 Ropes & Gray 14
11 Sullivan & Cromwell 14
12 Cleary 17
13 Akin Gump 17
14 Cahill 16
15 Davis Polk 19
16 Covington & Burling 20
17 Skadden (LA) 18
18 Wilson Sonsini (SV) 22
19 Cravath 26
20 O'Melveny & Myers 22
21 Sidley Austin (LA) 27
22 Proskauer Rose (LA) 28
23 Kirkland & Ellis (LA) 29
24 Wachtell 28
25 Simpson Thacher 30
26 Irell (LA) *
27 Morrison & Foerster (SF) *
28 Akin Gump (LA) *
29 K&L Gates (LA) *
30 Latham & Waktins (LA) *

-Teemo

[Anonymous User]

So if you got the best grade in a class, when does that show up on your transcript?

[jbagelboy]

So if you got the best grade in a class, when does that show up on your transcript?

Never? Unless your professor lept for the A+