Columbia EIP 2015 Forum

[Anonymous User]

given your strong grades, it might be worth culling a firm or two from the top so you're safer in your bidding

i.e., i'd cut clifford chance and jones day and slide everyone else up

given that you have great grades and WE, I think you already have a number of good "safe" firms

i think you should be able to fill up your schedule with whatever firms you feel like, tbh. you're in a really good position with those grades and those ambitions.

more concretely, if you have a list of 20 or so firms you really like, i'd try to focus on getting interviews with those 20 and then would add safe filler; i shouldn't be concerned if you start having issues getting past that.

Thanks a lot. Could you possibly explain why you suggest cutting CC and Jones Day?

I have no particular preference for Jones Day, but CC is up there because of its international presence, and I would eventually like to move out of NYC.

-Fat Man Jungle

[smaug]

I don't know enough about CC but I generally don't have a great impression of the Magic Circle firms. I think you'll likely have better options. But, I could be totally wrong. Don't trust a random dude on the Internet.

Word on the street is that Jones Day pays below market in practice through its black box bonus system. Again, I just expect you'll have better offers/think you'd be better making sure you get all of your bids for better firms.

I think if you're looking international, it's worth looking to the markets that you're interested in. What do JDs do in that market?

I don't know shit about international corp work and you should talk to real people. The little I know, I get the impression that real cross borders work centers on cap markets and M&A, with cap markets probably being the area that makes up more work.

If you're looking into, for example, London, see whether the expat packages are the same across the board—comp. overseas tends to vary more than compensation here, so there can be big differences. There might be real advantages to being at a US based firm than a Magic Circle firm.

Without knowing more, that's about what I can tell you. Also, again, I really recommend you find some people who are more knowledgeable about TLS so you can figure out that other market.

[Anonymous User]

I don't know enough about CC but I generally don't have a great impression of the Magic Circle firms. I think you'll likely have better options. But, I could be totally wrong. Don't trust a random dude on the Internet.

Word on the street is that Jones Day pays below market in practice through its black box bonus system. Again, I just expect you'll have better offers/think you'd be better making sure you get all of your bids for better firms.

I think if you're looking international, it's worth looking to the markets that you're interested in. What do JDs do in that market?

I don't know shit about international corp work and you should talk to real people. The little I know, I get the impression that real cross borders work centers on cap markets and M&A, with cap markets probably being the area that makes up more work.

If you're looking into, for example, London, see whether the expat packages are the same across the board—comp. overseas tends to vary more than compensation here, so there can be big differences. There might be real advantages to being at a US based firm than a Magic Circle firm.

Without knowing more, that's about what I can tell you. Also, again, I really recommend you find some people who are more knowledgeable about TLS so you can figure out that other market.

Thanks. I actually decided to take out most of the magic circle firms based on the # of callback invitations (ratio seems much lower). I would like to be as conservative as I can, since the immediate goal is to land a job in NYC.

Updated bidlist (first failed bid on the right; all NYC offices):

3.73 (A, A, A-, A-, A-, A-, B+)
WE (paralegal) at V5 firm
Corporate preference

1 Shearman & Sterling 2
2 Kirkland 2
3 Skadden 4
4 Gibson Dunn 4
5 Debevoise 6
6 White & Case 7
7 Weil 8
8 Kaye Scholer 8
9 Milbank 11
10 MoFo 12
11 S&C 14
12 Paul Weiss 14
13 Ropes & Gray 14
14 Schulte 15
15 Cahill Gordon 16
16 Cleary 17
17 Freshfields 19
18 Davis Polk 19
19 Latham 20
20 Covington 20
21 Chadbourne 22
22 Cooley 22
23 Cravath 26
24 Dechert 26
25 Vinson & Elkins 26
26 Perkins Coie 27
27 Dentons 27
28 Simpson Thatcher 30
29
30 Winston & Strawn n/a

Would like to include:

Cadwalader 17
Fried Frank 19

I tried to bid at least a slot above FFB (most recent data). Most firms are ones with a large number of callbacks in previous years.

General comment would be helpful, and would also like to know if any firm is out of place given my preference (NYC; general corporate). I do not (yet) have any specific firm preferences, but would say Chadbourne, Cooley, V&E are most expendable from my list.

-Fat Man Jungle

[smaug]

i'd still nix kaye scholer and move everything up

but someone should probably tell me i'm being too conservative

like, i thin there will always be the risk of creep now that the first failed bid numbers are out there, so i'd avoid seeing them as safe, group action will mean that people will move to those numbers, making many of them slide up over time

put another way, before they released the ffb data, there was an information asymmetry that some people used to exploit (in a good way) to secure more interviews

by putting the information out there, people who bid poorly before should be doing better, but that's going to have a cost of firms having the first failed bids move a bit from where they were

if it were me and i were a strong candidate like you are (you're a very good candidate) I'd sacrifice one or two firms I don't care that much about to ensure I get the slate I want

if you're consistently tracking one bid higher than the first failed bid of the year prior, you might have some issues

unfortunately, you also can't tell that movement yet, because you only have one year of first failed bid data to rely on

again, someone can yell at me, but I think the big issue is that your bidlist right now is conservative in one way and aggressive in another—the firms you're going are might be a touch conservative for your grades and background (though really WLRK is the only firm you're not trying for and you're probably? right in not bidding them?—not sure, no clue where the WLRK line is) but you're aggressive in that you're trying to bleed out as many interviews as possible

I did that during my cycle, and I regret it. The marginal gain of one more screener is low, and once you're above 22-3 screeners, I think it starts to come at a cost.

And, just so people don't get the wrong idea, I'm not saying that everyone should cut down on their interviews. I'm not saying you're absolutely guaranteed a job with those grades (or any grades).

But, you're in a really good situation. So, I'd consider knocking off something from the high end of your list. I'd expect that your hope is to end up at one of the more grade selective firms on your list (e.g., DPW, Cleary, S&C), so just trying to make sure you have the opportunity to interview with those firms.

Willkie is a decent firm that you don't have on your list. (I'd include them over Cadwalader, but that's just me) harder to say which others you should have without a clearer idea of practice area interests. could be sidley, Akin Gump, someone else

[Anonymous User]

Thoughts? Is this too aggressive? GPA = 3.63.

First number = position; second number = last failed bid.

1. NY Shearman & Sterling 2
2. SV Cooley 4
3. NY Debevoise 6
4. NY White & Case 7
5. NY Weil 8
6. NY Jones Day 9
7. NY Willkie Farr 14
8. LA Paul Hastings 13
9. NY S&C 14
10. NY Paul Weiss 14
11. NY Cleary 17
12. NY Cadwalader 17
13. LA Skadden 18
14. NY Davis Polk 19
15. NY Fried Frank 19
16. LA Sheppard Mullin 21
17. SV Wilson Sonsini 22
18. NY Cravath 26
19. LA Sidley 27
20. LA Proskauer 28
21. LA Kirkland 29
22. LA Latham *
23. NY Simpson Thacher 30
24. LA Gibson Dunn *
25. LA O'Melveny 29
26. NY Wachtell 28
27. LA Akin Gump *
28. LA Manatt 29
29. SV Fenwick N/A
30. LA Irell *

Thanks!

- Original Toaster.

[Anonymous User]

i'd still nix kaye scholer and move everything up

but someone should probably tell me i'm being too conservative

like, i thin there will always be the risk of creep now that the first failed bid numbers are out there, so i'd avoid seeing them as safe, group action will mean that people will move to those numbers, making many of them slide up over time

put another way, before they released the ffb data, there was an information asymmetry that some people used to exploit (in a good way) to secure more interviews

by putting the information out there, people who bid poorly before should be doing better, but that's going to have a cost of firms having the first failed bids move a bit from where they were

if it were me and i were a strong candidate like you are (you're a very good candidate) I'd sacrifice one or two firms I don't care that much about to ensure I get the slate I want

if you're consistently tracking one bid higher than the first failed bid of the year prior, you might have some issues

unfortunately, you also can't tell that movement yet, because you only have one year of first failed bid data to rely on

again, someone can yell at me, but I think the big issue is that your bidlist right now is conservative in one way and aggressive in another—the firms you're going are might be a touch conservative for your grades and background (though really WLRK is the only firm you're not trying for and you're probably? right in not bidding them?—not sure, no clue where the WLRK line is) but you're aggressive in that you're trying to bleed out as many interviews as possible

I did that during my cycle, and I regret it. The marginal gain of one more screener is low, and once you're above 22-3 screeners, I think it starts to come at a cost.

And, just so people don't get the wrong idea, I'm not saying that everyone should cut down on their interviews. I'm not saying you're absolutely guaranteed a job with those grades (or any grades).

But, you're in a really good situation. So, I'd consider knocking off something from the high end of your list. I'd expect that your hope is to end up at one of the more grade selective firms on your list (e.g., DPW, Cleary, S&C), so just trying to make sure you have the opportunity to interview with those firms.

Willkie is a decent firm that you don't have on your list. (I'd include them over Cadwalader, but that's just me) harder to say which others you should have without a clearer idea of practice area interests. could be sidley, Akin Gump, someone else

Thanks. This is really helpful and makes a lot of sense. I got rid of MoFo and Kaye Scholer and moved everything else up (and I added Wachtell because, what the hell).

I have bid #29 and #30 left over, and was wondering what my best strategy was. Options that I am considering are:

1. Bid NYC firms that did not have failed bids (would probably be safeties).
2. Bid firms I already have listed, but in other offices (like London) that did not have failed bids.
3. Bid firms that I will not get (like Proskauer, which had FFB at #1), just to be able to e-mail them and say that my bid was unsuccessful but I would still love to schedule an interview if possible (how successful is this anyway?).

What do people think is the best way to go?

-Fat Man Jungle

[MCFC]

When do we find out if we're Stone or not? Is it listed on on the transcript somewhere?

You can calculate it yourself or else yes eventually it will go on the transcript.

Last year these were posted at the very end of June.

[Anonymous User]

When do we find out if we're Stone or not? Is it listed on on the transcript somewhere?

You can calculate it yourself or else yes eventually it will go on the transcript.

Last year these were posted at the very end of June.

Can someone confirm that A- = 3.67 and B+ = 3.33? (as opposed to 3.7 and 3.3 respectively).

[MCFC]

Can someone confirm that A- = 3.67 and B+ = 3.33? (as opposed to 3.7 and 3.3 respectively).

That's what this calculator says. https://www.college.columbia.edu/academ ... calculator

...But it also says A+s are worth 4.33 and that's not true for the law school, so I suppose it's possible it's wrong in other ways.

[Anonymous User]

So as a below median student, I know the drill, I have to bid conservatively (less selective firms, big classes, yadda yadda). I'm wondering how many "reaches" I can safely include in my bid list. I'm focused on NYC and corp, K-JD if it matters. Also what should my reach firms be?

[Anonymous User]

Bumping for comments. 3.66 GPA (A, A, A-, A-, A-, B+, B+), regulatory litigation focused, would prefer DC over NY but I understand the need to bid NY high to secure a job during EIP. Parenthesis is last year's FFB. Bold are high preferences.

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

In addition to this list I will be mass mailing Quinn Emmanuel- NY and DC, Cahill- DC, Jenner and Block- DC, Boeis Schiller- NY and DC, Gibson-DC, and Skadden-DC.

Any and all comments, thoughts, critiques, and suggestions are welcome.

-Crutcher

[smaug]

That seems pretty aggressive to me, Crutcher. Hopefully you'll be able to lock down something pre-EIP so you can be that aggressive, but I'd consider removing some of the very selective firms (or just a couple of the bid selective firms) so you can slot in a couple more of the NY giants

[Anonymous User]

That seems pretty aggressive to me, Crutcher. Hopefully you'll be able to lock down something pre-EIP so you can be that aggressive, but I'd consider removing some of the very selective firms (or just a couple of the bid selective firms) so you can slot in a couple more of the NY giants

Which firms would you recommend removing and replacing them with? What do you mean by bid selective firms?

-Crutcher

[smaug]

i was going to put this in another post and i should really stop posting in this thread because there are better people to give you all advice, but the idea of "reach" firms is misleading in many ways

some firms are grade selective—they care a lot about your grades and don't really have exceptions to that rule. you need high grades to get a CB/offer. (S&C is a good example)

some firms are fit selective—the MTO explanation above was very good. MTO is obviously also grade selective, but having good grades isn't enough to get an offer there. Some firms aren't particularly grade selective but are very fit selective. You have to be a good interviewer for those firms.

building on that i think bid selective is way of thinking about some firms even if they're not doing any selecting—you need to bid them high to secure an interview there. it's a form of opportunity cost, i guess. as you'd expect, firms that are less grade selective are the ones you have to bid higher

so, by "bid selective firms" i mean the firms that take up the valuable top portion of your bidlist. hard for me to say which firms you should swap out—that's totally on you. Mayer Brown seemed like an odd inclusion to me. Same with Clifford Chance. I'd try to get some of the larger, less grade selective firms in some how

[Tiago Splitter]

So as a below median student, I know the drill, I have to bid conservatively (less selective firms, big classes, yadda yadda). I'm wondering how many "reaches" I can safely include in my bid list. I'm focused on NYC and corp, K-JD if it matters. Also what should my reach firms be?

I think the key for reaches is to find ones that don't require a high bid. That might be a firm in a secondary market to which you have ties, or it could be an NYC firm that does 200+ interviews. Gun to my head I'd put reach firms for you in the 50-70% Stone category, with the caveat that those numbers become less meaningful with firms that aren't giving very many offers. The main point is that you want to land the firms you really need to shoot for with most of your first 15-20 bids.

[Anonymous User]

3.62 Revised bidlist from before. No city means NY. Bold are firms of high interest:

1. Boies
2. Paul Hastings
3. Gibson Dunn
4. Debevoise
5. White & Case
6. Weil
7. Arnold & Porter
8. Jenner & Block
9. Paul Weiss
10. Sullivan & Cromwell
11. Ropes & Gray
12. Cleary
13. Akin Gump
14. Skadden (LA)
15. Davis Polk
16. Covington (NY)
17. Akin Gump (DC)
18. Cravath
19. Sidley Austin (LA)
20. Kirkland & Ellis (SF)
21. Kirkland & Ellis (LA)
22. Proskauer Rose (LA)
23. O'Melveny & Myers (LA)
24. Simpson Thacher
25. Weil (Redwood)
26. MoFo (SanFran)
27. Akin Gump (LA)
28. K&L Gates (LA)
29. Cleary (DC)
30. Latham (LA)

Outside looking in:
Sheppard Mullin (LA)
Wilson Sonsini (Palo Alto)
Perkins Coie (SF)
Arent Fox
Williams and Connolly (DC)
Sullivan & Cromwell (LA)
Ropes & Gray (Palo Alto)
Munger Tolles (LA)
Gibson Dunn (LA) - can only interview for one office and they only made 4 LA offers last year.

Can I mail for Gibson in LA even if I bid NY at EIP? Should I just go for the Cali office anyway?

Also I plan to mail Quinn Emanuel (LA & NY)

[Anonymous User]

So... bad idea to put honors on resume before we officially get them?

Also, bad idea to mass mail before law review results come out?

[Anonymous User]

If you know you have Kent ( >3.8 ), OCS says you can include "as calculated by student" before the real designations come out. Idk if you could do the same for Stone since technically it changes every year.

Probably best to wait until journals come out to start email out your stuff, since then you'll have your journal and your legit honors designation.

[Anonymous User]

There is no need to resume drop/mass mail before the end of June when honors/journals come out.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know the approximate weight grades are given for LR? Are Kents pretty much sure to get it?

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know the approximate weight grades are given for LR? Are Kents pretty much sure to get it?

No. Several kents did not get law review last year. The writing component and diversity are valued higher than you might expect; don't assume you're a shoe-in (unless maybe you have perfect grades like 3.9+)

For the 30 non-write-on spots, I'd think of grades as roughly 1/3 the ballgame, maybe a little more some years

[Anonymous User]

Thanks for the response. 1/3 is still pretty hefty.

Is diversity for LR purposes URM based or is it broader?

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know the approximate weight grades are given for LR? Are Kents pretty much sure to get it?

From what i heard, it is definitely not a lock just because you're Kent.

-Fat Man Jungle

[Anonymous User]

GPA: ~3.15 (B, A-, B+, B, B, B, B)

I'm in utter disbelief that I could bomb so badly in the Spring after a (relatively) successful Fall that put me on the cusp of Stone, especially since I studied as much if not more than I did in the Fall and felt significantly more confident during exams, but this is the hand I've been dealt. I'm K-JD so I have no significant work experience prior to law school (though I have some softs that always turn a few heads). Feels like I'm staring down a double-barreled shotgun at point blank with GradPlus in one chamber and Stafford in the other. Probably a slight overreaction, but I just got bombarded with 3/4 of these grades yesterday so I'm still reeling; the thought of looking at lawnet still makes me sick. I met with OCS and got the standard advice that I should generally avoid the more grade-conscious firms (no shit), so I thought I'd run my first draft of my bid list by y'all to get some advice on firms to add, drop, rearrange, etc (FFB in parens, all are NYC offices because I'm from the area and would prefer to stay here):

1. Proskauer Rose (1)
2. Paul Hastings (2)
3. Sidley Austin (2)
4. Mayer Brown (5)
5. Debevoise (6)
6. Hogan Lovells (6)
7. Kaye Scholer (8)
8. Clifford Chance (9)
9. Milbank (11)
10. Ropes & Gray (14)
11. Willkie, Farr & Gallagher (14)
12. Schulte, Roth & Zabel (15)
13. Cadwalader (17)
14. Cahill & Gordon (16)
15. Cleary Gottlieb (17)
16. Akin, Gump, Strauss & Feld (17)
17. Greenberg Traurig (18)
18. Fried Frank (19)
19. Kramer Levin (20)
20. Goodwin Procter (21)
21. K&L Gates (21)
22. Pillsbury Shaw (23)
23. Hughes, Hubbard & Reed (24)
24. Crowell & Moring (26)
25. Dechert (26)
26. ?
27. ?
28. ?
29. ?
30. ?

Also: should one's URM status influence their bidding strategy? Does it have a measurable effect on interview/callback/offer chances? Don't mean to fan the flames of debate on this subject, but I genuinely don't know and the answer might influence my bidding strategy.

[Anonymous User]

Yeah it definitely makes sense that Kent isn't enough on its own. I can imagine you could write a really inappropriate personal statement, or botch the writing component.

I was wondering more how much of the weight they would place on grades.