Columbia EIP 2015

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15487
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Tiago Splitter » Tue Jun 23, 2015 9:27 pm

@Muppet: Move Willkie up where DPW is, move DPW down to where Cravath is, and move Cravath into Willkie's old spot. Then shitcan Jenner and Block. They have like 40 people in their NYC office.

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Tue Jun 23, 2015 9:40 pm

In general bidding somebody than offers fewer than six students a year is, with limited exceptions, a waste and should be disfavored unless you have over a 3.6 and/or a good reason to target some very particular specialty.

User avatar
Monochromatic Oeuvre
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Monochromatic Oeuvre » Tue Jun 23, 2015 9:44 pm

Also, most of these bidlists are too aggressive. Not to spook you but Step 1 to striking out is being too concerned with which firm you will go to and not concerned enough with make sure there is some firm for you to go to.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12608
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:02 pm

Monochromatic Oeuvre wrote:Also, most of these bidlists are too aggressive. Not to spook you but Step 1 to striking out is being too concerned with which firm you will go to and not concerned enough with make sure there is some firm for you to go to.

I agree with this generally.

I had better grades than many of the (non-Kent) folks who have been posting recently, and my bidlist was less aggressive than most of these. I also knew that I was a poor interviewer.

Recognize your own weaknesses if you have them, and target large classes. I'm hesitant to recommend putting too many bids to SF or DC generally, unless folks are otherwise stellar candidates.

I know some folks who did amazingly well last year—sub Stone people who got offers that normally would have been out of reach. Maybe hiring is getting better and I'm out of touch. Maybe I'm just a pessimist. But, I think most of the 'problems' I see would be fixed by adding one or two larger classes.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15487
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Tiago Splitter » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:12 pm

I don't know what else these people can do. If you are Stone you want to be interviewing with the V20 which hires the lions share of people. Then you fill up the rest with less selective NYC offices that make lots of offers to CLS students year after year. If that's what your bid list looks like you're in good shape. If you're not Stone, remove some of those V20 offices and replace them with even more non-V20 firms that are less selective and make lots of offers.

Note that when I say "V20" I'm talking about far fewer than 20 firms. For the standard Stone guy, take out Wachtell, Williams & Connolly, Covington (fits in the non-V20 category in NYC), Boies, and Quinn. Then, from the looks of it, the realities of the bidding process will cost you a few others out of Skadden, GDC, K&E, Deb, and Sidley.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12608
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:15 pm

yeah maybe i shouldn't say anything

I think that dropping Boies for K&E might be warranted in some situations

I guess it's just some firms that I'd expect to be reasonable to bid in those situations, like Shearman and Willkie aren't really on many lists

I feel like Cahill has been missing from a few as well

maybe my point is just "bidding the firms with large classes that aren't grade selective makes sense even if you have decent grades"

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15487
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Tiago Splitter » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:17 pm

Jason Taverner wrote:maybe my point is just "bidding the firms with large classes that aren't grade selective makes sense even if you have decent grades"

Totally. I think people can do that and interview with the big names. Where they run into problems is when they don't have elite grades and they start trying to fit in other markets.

To your other point I think Shearman needed to be bid 1 or 2 when we went through things. But Willkie and Cahill should be on just about every list.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12608
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:20 pm

Tiago Splitter wrote:
Jason Taverner wrote:maybe my point is just "bidding the firms with large classes that aren't grade selective makes sense even if you have decent grades"

Totally. I think people can do that and interview with the big names. Where they run into problems is when they don't have elite grades and they start trying to fit in other markets.

To your other point I think Shearman needed to be bid 1 or 2 when we went through things. But Willkie and Cahill should be on just about every list.

yeah this is fair, and I think they gave out relatively few offers/did something odd our year as well

i should really have the spreadsheets open when i comment, though, so i'm not suggesting solutions that don't exist

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 23, 2015 10:49 pm

Jon Snow from above (3.5-3.6 bidding almost all NYC).

Thanks for above feedback. Is my list too aggressive? I added Willkie at 10. Are there any other large class NYC firms I should throw in?

1. Skadden (4)
2. Gibson Dunn (4)
3. Debevoise (6)
4. Weil Goshel (8)
5. White & Case (7)
6. JonesDay (9)
7. Milbank Tweed (11)
8. Paul Weiss (14)
9. Sullivan and Cromwell (14)
10. Willkie Farr (14)
11. Ropes & Gray (14)
12. Shulte (15)
13. Cahill (16)
14. Cleary (17)
15. Cadwalader (17)
16. Akin Gump (17)
17. Davis Polk (19)
18. Freshfields (19)
19. Latham (20)
20. K&L Gates (21)
21. Cooley (22)
22. Covington & Burling (25) (DC)
23. Cravath (26)
24. Wachtell (28)
25. Simpson Thatcher (30)
26. Steptoe & Johnson (29) (DC)
27. O’Melveny Meyers (29) (LA)
28. Paul Hastings (29) (SF)
29. Latham Watkins (*) (DC)
30. Morrison Foerster (*) (SF)

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:24 pm

Posted this previously but made some changes, at 3.1x, targeting NYC only:

Firm Name (First Fail) (% Honors) (# of offers)
1. Paul Hastings (2) (21%) (15)
2. Sidley Austin (2) (8%) (14)
3. Mayer Brown (5) (0%) (10)
4. Hogan Lovells (6) (40%) (10)
5. Kaye Scholer (8) (25%) (9)
6. Clifford Chance (9) (29%) (13)
7. Milbank (11) (29%) (30)
8. Allen & Overy (10) (20%) (6)
9. Willkie, Farr & Gallagher (14) (20%) (31)
10. Ropes & Gray (14) (48%) (33)
11. Cahill & Gordon (16) (40%) (10)
12. Schulte, Roth & Zabel (15) (26%) (36)
13. Cadwalader (17) (15%) (15)
14. Greenberg Traurig (18) (18%) (12)
15. Akin, Gump, Strauss & Feld (17) (20%) (5)
16. Fried Frank (19) (10%) (11)
17. Chadbourne and Park (22) (25%) (5)
18. Goodwin Procter (21) (14%) (7)
19. Kramer Levin (20) (25%) (9)
20. K&L Gates (21) (9%) (14)
21. Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (22) (0%) (5)
22. Pillsbury Shaw (23) (25%) (8)
23. Hughes, Hubbard & Reed (24) (14%) (7)
24. Dechert (26) (0%) (13)
25. Crowell & Moring (26) (0%) (1)
26. Seward Kissel (27) (20%) (5)
27.
28.
29. Winston (*) (0%) (4)
28. Shepard Mullin (*) (0%) (0)


I need to add two more firms, but am not really sure what to add at this point. I also feel like it gets pretty tight as it goes near the bottom.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:57 pm

3.73 (A, A, A-, A-, A-, A-, B+)
WE (paralegal) at V5 firm
Looking exclusively at NYC/corporate (LA ties)

Bidlist:

1 Kirkland 2
2 Shearman & Sterling 2
3 Skadden 4
4 Gibson Dunn 4
5 Debevoise 6
6 White & Case 7
7 Weil 8
8 Milbank 11
9 S&C 14
10 Paul Weiss 14
11 Ropes & Gray 14
12 Willkie 14
13 Cahill Gordon 16
14 Cleary 17
15 Davis Polk 19
16 Freshfields 19
17 Latham 20
18 Fried Frank 19
19 Covington 20
20 Goodwin Proctor 21
21 Chadbourne 22
22 Cravath 26
23 Dechert 26
24 Wachtell 28
25 Simpson Thatcher 30
26 Sidley (LA) 27
27 Proskauer (LA) 28
28 Kirkland (LA) 29
29 O'Melveny (LA) 29
30 Gibson Dunn (LA) *

Questions:
1. Should I drop either Kirkland and Shearman and move everything up 1-7, given that they are all at most 1 above FFB from the previous year?
2. Any suggestions for dropping firms on 18-21? Not too hot about any of these firms.
3. What are my alternatives for 26-30? I have LA ties but I am not committed to working there. Would be open to NY firm suggestions.

Thank you very much.

-Fat Man Jungle

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:03 am

Edit: Nvm.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 24, 2015 3:19 am

Has anyone received offers to become Moot Court Editor? Results are coming out in June right?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:59 am

Fat man jungle -- I would drop Shearman. You don't need to get that interview, and you'll have a better chance of securing everyone else you want to get into the room with.

For firms 18-21, nothing stands out; maybe chop Chadbourne if you need one out.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:34 pm

A lot of the incoming 2Ls I've spoken to see more than usually-obsessed with vault, and less conscious than they should be about practice areas. PSA: vault is only one of many metrics you should consider when a) building a bid list and more importantly b) choosing firms, and far from the most important one.

I think it might take a class-wide intervention, because the bullshit appears to have taken root at some dark, kitshy core.

TheoO
Posts: 537
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 1:28 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby TheoO » Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:48 pm

TLS is really unrepresentative of the class in general. Generally, it attracts those with very good grades worried abiut bidding on the super selective, or those with low grades worried in general. Speaking with friends, I have been amazed at how many really didn't know some of the basics about EIP. One girl was ranking the firms based on what she wanted mainly, paying little attention to 1st fail until I told her of that. I think there is a general amount of complacency among the students of the school wrt EIP.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12608
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:52 pm

Anonymous User wrote:A lot of the incoming 2Ls I've spoken to see more than usually-obsessed with vault, and less conscious than they should be about practice areas. PSA: vault is only one of many metrics you should consider when a) building a bid list and more importantly b) choosing firms, and far from the most important one.

I think it might take a class-wide intervention, because the bullshit appears to have taken root at some dark, kitshy core.

this has always been true and will always be true

not much you can do about it

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:29 pm

Alright. Probably final version of my bidlist. Will not be making changes unless there are significant errors (please let me know if there are).

3.73 (A, A, A-, A-, A-, A-, B+)
WE (paralegal) at V5 firm
Looking exclusively at NYC/corporate (LA ties)

1 Kirkland 2
2 Skadden 4
3 Gibson Dunn 4
4 Debevoise 6
5 White & Case 7
6 Weil 8
7 Clifford Chance 9
8 Milbank 11
9 S&C 14
10 Paul Weiss 14
11 Ropes & Gray 14
12 Willkie 14
13 Cahill Gordon 16
14 Cleary 17
15 Davis Polk 19
16 Freshfields 19
17 Fried Frank 19
18 Latham 20
19 Covington 20
20 Goodwin Proctor 21
21 Chadbourne 22
22 Boies (corporate) 24
23 Cravath 26
24 Dechert 26
25 Wachtell 28
26 Simpson Thatcher 30
27 Sidley (LA) 27
28 Proskauer (LA) 28
29 Kirkland (LA) 29
30 O'Melveny (LA) 29

-Fat Man Jungle

philepistemer
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:43 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby philepistemer » Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:22 am

This goes against the grain a little bit, but some people bid conservatively to the point that they reduce their chances at an offer. If you're minimum stone and you want transactional, you can get the ny office of any V10 other than wachtell. You should therefore bid in order to guarantee interviews at every V10 because those places hire the most people. i would go so far as to say that you should cut non-grade-selective firms to guarantee huge class selective-firm interviews. This is even more true if you're minimum stone and a bad interviewer because you won't have to make up some bullshit story about why you want to work at Sidley.

As an aside, the way first failed bid numbers affect the next class's bids is an interesting example of mimetic desire. Like, why do so many people bid proskauer #1? You aren't going to be a sports agent (unless you're Mario) so why do you want to work there so bad? Just throw out Sidley and proskauer and enjoy 28 interviews. The places that seem unselective because they hire non-honors students, like Sidley and proskauer, are actually similarly selective as more grade-selective firms, just on other more qualitative factors. You should assume you have a median personality unless you get like 100+ likes on everything you put on Facebook or otherwise have good reason to believe that you are a very attractive woman.

Tl;dr if you're any level of stone and want transactional, you need to be interviewing with all non-wachtell v10s.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:39 am

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.

philepistemer
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:43 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby philepistemer » Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:50 am

If you have a 3.7 you should only be bidding grade selective places because you have exactly what those firms are looking for, with the proviso that it's fine to bid non grade selective places if it won't cost you anything. If you have a 3.7 you have a better chance at getting Davis than Willkie, even though people assume the latter is less selective.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12608
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:02 am

I'm not sure what you two are going on about. Fat Man Jungle did bid all of the V10.

Also, people bid Proskauer high for a number of reasons. Yes, there's the sports thing, but they have killer offices, are known for being somewhat humane, are stable, and aren't grade selective.

That said "if you're any level of stone and want transactional, you need to be interviewing with all non-WLRK V10s" will lead to a number of folks probably wasting their time with S&C (unless their numbers have changed some) and possibly wasting their time with Cravath.

I'm not saying you can't interview with either of those (they interview a lot of people and are cheap bids) but you should have reasonable expectations.

Regarding Sidley, maybe the non-BS answer is "I like hedge funds." Firms are somewhat angular. If you think there's a clearcut BEST for every applicant you're probably not digging very deep into what the firm does, or thinking about what you want to do.

I"m not saying you need to decide right now whether you want to do PE or Cap Markets or do International Arb or Securities Lit or anything else. But, you're doing yourself a disservice if you categorically assume that practice groups don't differ, or that fit doesn't exist.

philepistemer wrote:If you have a 3.7 you should only be bidding grade selective places because you have exactly what those firms are looking for, with the proviso that it's fine to bid non grade selective places if it won't cost you anything. If you have a 3.7 you have a better chance at getting Davis than Willkie, even though people assume the latter is less selective.


This isn't entirely true. Davis is also fairly fit selective (generally at the callback stage as they give a heck of a lot of them). (Maybe they went on a hiring spree last year given their good numbers so you're seeing something that I can't see with my older data.) Thinking you necessarily have a better shot at one or another is generally foolish.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273254
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:04 am

Anonymous User wrote: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
Last edited by Anonymous User on Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12608
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:05 am

And, again, pretty much everyone who doesn't have an offer in hand should be doing something to maximize their chances at an offer.

I know folks whose only offer was Cravath. There was a Kent scholar who struck out at EIP. You can do things painfully wrong.

You should find solace in the fact that people tend to make mistakes and believe somewhat silly things (like the poster above) and still do fine.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12608
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:09 am

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote: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.


Could you advise on how to revise my list?

Thanks!

-Fat Man Jungle


I'm not anon and I have a feeling he'll disagree. I think your bidlist is very, very good. The only change I'd consider is maybe cutting Goodwin or Chadborne so you have some more space and consider cutting Fried Frank if you're not jazzed about them. You can see if there are any oddballs or other markets that fit well on the bottom




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.