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.
Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:43 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:To people who've heard back from secondaries: were the contacts personalized emails, phone calls, mass "bcc" emails, or other?


Heard back from CBLR. Can't be sure but it read like a mass bcc (no personalized information/greeting and seemed to be a generic congratulations email).


Got it also. It was definitely a mass bcc e-mail.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:07 pm

Hi all. Would appreciate any feedback on my bidlist. GPA on the higher end of 3.7+ , LR, not great interviewer. Thanks in advance if someone could answer my questions: (1) I don't know where to place Cadwalader or if I should include it at all or have it replace Cahill. (2) Should I switch Skadden and K&E? What should I do if I don't get a screener with a firm like Skadden that hires a large class and less picky? Drop my resume during EIP? (3) Many people seem to be mass mailing firms (even those that are coming to the EIP). Is that something worth doing or does not doing it affect my chance at the EIP, for instance, many spots have been taken by the mass-mailers by the time of EIP? If I decide to email the firms to schedule interviews outside of EIP, what do I put in the email if I didn't even bid on them (e.g., Gibson and White & Case, they are good firms but their FFBs are too high that can't fit in anywhere)? Thanks a million!

1 Kirkland & Ellis (2)
2 Skadden (4)
3 Debevoise & Plimpton (6)
4 Weil (8)
5 Jones Day (9)
6 Arnold & Porter (9)
7 Milbank (11)
8 Willkie Farr (14)
9 Sullivan & Cromwell (14)
10 Paul Weiss (14)
11 Ropes & Gray (14)
12 Cleary Gottlieb (17)
13 Cahill (16)
14 Davis Polk (19)
14 Cadwalader (17)
15 Latham (20)
16 Fried Frank (19)
17 Covington & Burling (20)
18 O'Melveny & [deleted] (22)
19 Simpson Thacher (30)
20 Boies (corporate) (24)
21 Cravath (26)
22 Covington Burling (DC) (25)
23 Wachtell (28)
24 Dechert (26)
25 Jones Day (DC) (28)
26 JP Morgan *
27 Winston Strawn *
28 White & Case (DC) *
29 Cleary (DC) *
30 Latham (DC) *

---Happy 1/2 hr

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:05 pm

What's the consensus on bidding a firm in multiple regions. For example, bidding Cleary NY and DC? Is there anyway that could come off as indecisive?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 07, 2015 10:07 pm

For secondaries, do you have to accept if invited? I got invited by my #1 secondaries choice but now am thinking maybe I want #2..

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:01 pm

Anonymous User wrote:(3) Many people seem to be mass mailing firms (even those that are coming to the EIP). Is that something worth doing or does not doing it affect my chance at the EIP, for instance, many spots have been taken by the mass-mailers by the time of EIP? If I decide to email the firms to schedule interviews outside of EIP, what do I put in the email if I didn't even bid on them (e.g., Gibson and White & Case, they are good firms but their FFBs are too high that can't fit in anywhere)?


I am in a similar boat (grades, etc) and would also like to know if people have any ideas (for me, its W&C, Shearman, etc.).

Anonymous User wrote:9 Sullivan & Cromwell (14)
19 Simpson Thacher (30)


I think S&C can be moved down given its grade-consciousness rep and the fact that its FFB did not shift at all last year.
I think Simpsion can be moved down given that they offer ~200 interviews, and also its FFB did not shift at all last year.

User avatar
papercut
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:48 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby papercut » Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:26 pm

Anonymous User wrote:For secondaries, do you have to accept if invited? I got invited by my #1 secondaries choice but now am thinking maybe I want #2..


I think probably not. First, you had a chance to rerank. Second, your number 2 might not want you. Each journal ranks their own applicants.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:30 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Anything besides CBLR, HRLR, and CLR go out? JLSP?


-JTL went out via mass email.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:32 pm

(3) Many people seem to be mass mailing firms (even those that are coming to the EIP). Is that something worth doing or does not doing it affect my chance at the EIP, for instance, many spots have been taken by the mass-mailers by the time of EIP? If I decide to email the firms to schedule interviews outside of EIP, what do I put in the email if I didn't even bid on them (e.g., Gibson and White & Case, they are good firms but their FFBs are too high that can't fit in anywhere)?


Similar situation here.

I emailed some firms. I would definitely email them if you're not bidding. I emailed a few firms I might not get to interview with even though I'm bidding them. I figure it can't really hurt to reach out.

I used a bare bones email. Something like this but even more bare bones: viewtopic.php?t=156659#p4444133

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:01 am

how does being good looking affect one's bidding strategy, and does it differ by gender?

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby jbagelboy » Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:07 am

Anonymous User wrote:Hi all. Would appreciate any feedback on my bidlist. GPA on the higher end of 3.7+ , LR, not great interviewer. Thanks in advance if someone could answer my questions: (1) I don't know where to place Cadwalader or if I should include it at all or have it replace Cahill. (2) Should I switch Skadden and K&E? What should I do if I don't get a screener with a firm like Skadden that hires a large class and less picky? Drop my resume during EIP? (3) Many people seem to be mass mailing firms (even those that are coming to the EIP). Is that something worth doing or does not doing it affect my chance at the EIP, for instance, many spots have been taken by the mass-mailers by the time of EIP? If I decide to email the firms to schedule interviews outside of EIP, what do I put in the email if I didn't even bid on them (e.g., Gibson and White & Case, they are good firms but their FFBs are too high that can't fit in anywhere)? Thanks a million!

1 Kirkland & Ellis (2)
2 Skadden (4)
3 Debevoise & Plimpton (6)
4 Weil (8)
5 Jones Day (9)
6 Arnold & Porter (9)
7 Milbank (11)
8 Willkie Farr (14)
9 Sullivan & Cromwell (14)
10 Paul Weiss (14)
11 Ropes & Gray (14)
12 Cleary Gottlieb (17)
13 Cahill (16)
14 Davis Polk (19)
14 Cadwalader (17)
15 Latham (20)
16 Fried Frank (19)
17 Covington & Burling (20)
18 O'Melveny & [deleted] (22)
19 Simpson Thacher (30)
20 Boies (corporate) (24)
21 Cravath (26)
22 Covington Burling (DC) (25)
23 Wachtell (28)
24 Dechert (26)
25 Jones Day (DC) (28)
26 JP Morgan *
27 Winston Strawn *
28 White & Case (DC) *
29 Cleary (DC) *
30 Latham (DC) *

---Happy 1/2 hr


I think this looks fine; you could probably afford to be even more aggressive (e.g., remove Winston, Dechert, Cadwalader; if you think you might actually want DC, go A&P DC, Jones day DC, ect, instead of their NY offices). Bad interviewing + great grades don't "balance out" to a non-selective firm. You're still more likely to land an offer at Simpson or S&C.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby jbagelboy » Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:12 am

Anonymous User wrote:how does being good looking affect one's bidding strategy, and does it differ by gender?


Not sure it really effects bidding strategy, but I think this just feeds into interviewing ability. Objectively attractive people tend to project more confidence and make conversation more easily, and as a result, they are better interviewers. You won't squeeze past firms with hard cut offs if your grades suck, but you'll lock up more of your screeners and callbacks into offers than others. So you should bid with the same attention to detail, practice area preference, FFB, honors list, geography, ect., as everyone else, and you'll have more success with those bids as a result.

The impact is probably stronger for women than men on average, but again, its about confidence (without being obnoxious, obviously). Needless to say, attractive/outgoing/sophisticated people who bid smart can have nearly 100% cb->offer (I've seen this happen to others)

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12582
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:19 am

jbagelboy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:how does being good looking affect one's bidding strategy, and does it differ by gender?


Not sure it really effects bidding strategy, but I think this just feeds into interviewing ability. Objectively attractive people tend to project more confidence and make conversation more easily, and as a result, they are better interviewers. You won't squeeze past firms with hard cut offs if your grades suck, but you'll lock up more of your screeners and callbacks into offers than others. So you should bid with the same attention to detail, practice area preference, FFB, honors list, geography, ect., as everyone else, and you'll have more success with those bids as a result.

The impact is probably stronger for women than men on average, but again, its about confidence (without being obnoxious, obviously). Needless to say, attractive/outgoing/sophisticated people who bid smart can have nearly 100% cb->offer (I've seen this happen to others)

Granted you're a far more attractive man than I, but I don't think this is true.

I can think of some attractive women who underperformed (I thought) my year. I don't know if there was an impact on men.

I'd be wary of changing bidding strategy based on this.

User avatar
jbagelboy
Posts: 9635
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 7:57 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby jbagelboy » Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:23 am

smaug wrote:
jbagelboy wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:how does being good looking affect one's bidding strategy, and does it differ by gender?


Not sure it really effects bidding strategy, but I think this just feeds into interviewing ability. Objectively attractive people tend to project more confidence and make conversation more easily, and as a result, they are better interviewers. You won't squeeze past firms with hard cut offs if your grades suck, but you'll lock up more of your screeners and callbacks into offers than others. So you should bid with the same attention to detail, practice area preference, FFB, honors list, geography, ect., as everyone else, and you'll have more success with those bids as a result.

The impact is probably stronger for women than men on average, but again, its about confidence (without being obnoxious, obviously). Needless to say, attractive/outgoing/sophisticated people who bid smart can have nearly 100% cb->offer (I've seen this happen to others)

Granted you're a far more attractive man than I, but I don't think this is true.

I can think of some attractive women who underperformed (I thought) my year. I don't know if there was an impact on men.

I'd be wary of changing bidding strategy based on this.


Ha, well, were what you say to be true (which I'll deny), it would disprove my point significantly since I had a relatively weak CB->offer ratio.

To the point, I completely agree -- as I said, someone who considers them self to be objectively attractive should bid the same way as anyone else. And somewhat surprisingly, it's not always true that attractiveness =/= confidence/ability in interviews. Again, I think this only matters insofar as it impacts interview ability, which it tends to do from what I've seen but there are always counterexamples.

(Also, how can you really be sure about your attractiveness? this is just generally iffy territory)

User avatar
papercut
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 6:48 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby papercut » Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:26 am

Reminds me of this Susman interview:

http://abovethelaw.com/2011/02/law-scho ... ter-shape/

So who’s the ideal fit [for your firm]?

Someone who’s clerked at the Supreme Court, is brilliant, and has theatrical presence. There’s a theatrical aspect to trial work. We’ve also had phenomenal female lawyers who have great personality, are smart, and are pleasant to look at.

Aren’t you afraid some might find that last comment a bit sexist?

You can ask anyone who has ever worked with me or at SG about whether we are [sexist], and I’m sure they will say no. I do think that any firm that tries jury cases needs a group of lawyers who have courtroom — i.e., theatrical — presence. A person’s appearance, male or female, contributes to their presence.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:31 am

How's this for mid stone wanting lit?

1. Skadden (4)
2. Gibson Dunn (4)
3. Debevoise (6)
4. Hogan Lovells (6)
5. Weil Goshel (8)
6. Arnold Porter (9)
7. Milbank Tweed (11)
8. Morrison Foerster (12)
9. Paul Weiss (14)
10. Sullivan and Cromwell (14)
11. Ropes & Gray (14)
12. Wilkie Farr (14)
13. Cleary (17)
14. Davis Polk (19)
15. Freshfields (19)
16. Fried Frank (19)
17. Covington & Burling (20)
18. Latham (20)
19. O’Melveny & Meyers (22)
20. Covington & Burling (25) (DC)
21. Cravath (26)
22. Dechert (26)
23. Boies (DC) (27)
24. Wachtell (28)
25. JonesDay (28) (DC)
26. Mayer Brown (28) (DC)
27. Simpson Thatcher (30)
28. WilmerHale (DC)*
29. Winston Strawn *
30. White & Case (DC) *
Last edited by Anonymous User on Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12582
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:36 am

It's (too) aggressive.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:18 am

@smaug. mid-stone from above.

what are some less grade selective firms I can put in? And what should I drop from it? I understand the DC firms at the end are unlikely but they don't have a FFB and I figured why not.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12582
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:13 pm

Anonymous User wrote:@smaug. mid-stone from above.

what are some less grade selective firms I can put in? And what should I drop from it? I understand the DC firms at the end are unlikely but they don't have a FFB and I figured why not.


I'd try to fit in Cahill and Kirkland NY.

I'm kinda confused by the DC bids. I think WilmerHale might be tough to get. I don't know how big Boies DC is, but that one also seemed aggressive to me.

I don't know where you have to bid DC firms, but I'm a little surprised by the choices (no Hogan, but White & Case; Jones Day makes sense, but Mayer but no Sidley confuses me a bit)

but I'm not super familiar with that market so maybe I'm way way off.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 2:58 pm

Any more secondary journal decisions came out? Specifically, any CJEL or any more HRLR?

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 3:33 pm

Rev'd CJEL email late yesterday.

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:12 pm

Guy from above, got a call from HRLR, so they're still calling today, if anyone is interested

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:34 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Based on the experience of me and my friends, S&C will take low Stone. FWIW.


Anybody, have any anecodotal evidence of SullCrom giving offers to 3.5s? Starting to wonder if this whole, you won't get SullCrom if you have under a 3.6 thing is a myth. Maybe they screen very heavily on fit, and that's why they give offers to almost all the callbacks.... who knows.

User avatar
smaug
Posts: 12582
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:31 pm

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby smaug » Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:06 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Anonymous User wrote:Based on the experience of me and my friends, S&C will take low Stone. FWIW.


Anybody, have any anecodotal evidence of SullCrom giving offers to 3.5s? Starting to wonder if this whole, you won't get SullCrom if you have under a 3.6 thing is a myth. Maybe they screen very heavily on fit, and that's why they give offers to almost all the callbacks.... who knows.


hahahahahaha

hahahahaha

hahahahahahahaha

tyft

Anonymous User
Posts: 273140
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Anonymous User » Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:25 pm

Why, hahahahah. What are you actually basing that on. Are you on the hiring committee. It actually would make sense that since call backs are mostly about fit in the first place, than they would be unimportant if the screener interview was all about personality and fit. My point is no one knows shit and according to the person above, him and his friends actually got offers without high stone. All I'm asking is for more actual data.

User avatar
Tiago Splitter
Posts: 15464
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:20 am

Re: Columbia EIP 2015

Postby Tiago Splitter » Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:28 pm

Anonymous User wrote:Why, hahahahah. What are you actually basing that on. Are you on the hiring committee. It actually would make sense that since call backs are mostly about fit in the first place, than they would be unimportant if the screener interview was all about personality and fit. My point is no one knows shit and according to the person above, him and his friends actually got offers without high stone. All I'm asking is for me actual data.

Calm down. We all know lots of people with excellent grades who got offers at S&C. They don't make that many offers. So while we don't have detailed data, it's safe to say that getting an offer from S&C with mid-Stone grades is a real challenge. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen, as it certainly does, but it does mean that for someone south of the excellent grade cutoff (whatever that is) it's a firm you have to think long and hard about putting inside the top 10 of your bidlist.

And smaug is saying hahaha for reasons you can probably figure out and that don't need to be repeated here.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.