Cornell AJF 2014 + Boston / DC Job Fairs, OCI & Mass Mailing Forum

[Arbiter213]

So bidding opens tomorrow - Stupid question, but does when we bid matter? I would think it wouldn't since it's a lottery system but I'd rather play it safe.

Nope- as long as you get them in on time (e.g. before close of bidding) it wont impact the lottery. Technically, since it's possible more information will become available before close of bidding, might be good to wait. But there's like a 1% chance of there being useful new information before close of bidding.

[toothbrush]

So bidding opens tomorrow - Stupid question, but does when we bid matter? I would think it wouldn't since it's a lottery system but I'd rather play it safe.

Pretty sure it doesn't. Much like the class pre-registration.

[Anonymous User]

Quinn CB. Top 10%. Applied a week ago.

[Lincoln]

Quinn CB. Top 10%. Applied a week ago.

Knowing them only as opposing counsel, I'm sorry for your loss.

[Arkham]

So, some firms are listed multiple times for different locations but say that you only interview with one of the offices. Is it a good idea to just rank all those firms in a row, even if you're not likely to get a job at the specified office? For instance, Latham is listed 4 times. There's Latham (London), Latham (Boston/New York), Latham (LA, Orange County, San Diego), and Latham (Chicago, Houston, DC). Let's say I don't really have any ties to California, but really want a job at Latham. Is it a good idea to rank them, for example...

1. Cleary
2. Latham (Boston/New York)
3. Latham (Chicago, Houston, DC)
4. Latham (LA, Orange County, San Diego)
5. Latham (London)
6. Debevoise

That would increase my chances of interviewing at Latham because there are interview spots dedicated to each of those and you can only interview at one of them.

[toothbrush]

You would go to London just for Latham if you didn't get Latham NY? That makes no sense. If you really want Latham - and they want you - rank them high (1-3) and kill the interview.

[Lavitz]

You would go to London just for Latham if you didn't get Latham NY? That makes no sense. If you really want Latham - and they want you - rank them high (1-3) and kill the interview.

Yeah. You're only going to interview with one, and you'd likely get them at #1 or #2 anyway, so why waste three top bidding slots. If anything , bid some of the other offices lower and if you don't get NY, you may still get them because less people are probably interested in the other offices. If you use that example, you probably won't get Debevoise that low.

[Arkham]

You would go to London just for Latham if you didn't get Latham NY? That makes no sense. If you really want Latham - and they want you - rank them high (1-3) and kill the interview.

Yeah. You're only going to interview with one, and you'd likely get them at #1 or #2 anyway, so why waste three top bidding slots. If anything , bid some of the other offices lower and if you don't get NY, you may still get them because less people are probably interested in the other offices. If you use that example, you probably won't get Debevoise that low.

But you wouldn't be wasting bidding spots, because you can only interview with one, right? So as soon as you get one the others would effectively disappear from your list. Listing Debevoise there would effectively be the same as listing it as #3. I guess putting London in there didn't make sense, but I was just using Latham as an example of what a few firms do, not saying I'm actually interested in them (definitely not listing Cleary, Latham, and Debevoise as 1-2-3, I want to maybe actually get a job...).

[Lavitz]

But you wouldn't be wasting bidding spots, because you can only interview with one, right? So as soon as you get one the others would effectively disappear from your list. Listing Debevoise there would effectively be the same as listing it as #3. I guess putting London in there didn't make sense, but I was just using Latham as an example of what a few firms do, not saying I'm actually interested in them (definitely not listing Cleary, Latham, and Debevoise as 1-2-3, I want to maybe actually get a job...).

Would it? If the rest disappear, then I guess it's fine. I don't know how multiple offices works.

[toothbrush]

You have to choose between Latham offices, anyway. You can't bid all the offices.

[Arkham]

But you wouldn't be wasting bidding spots, because you can only interview with one, right? So as soon as you get one the others would effectively disappear from your list. Listing Debevoise there would effectively be the same as listing it as #3. I guess putting London in there didn't make sense, but I was just using Latham as an example of what a few firms do, not saying I'm actually interested in them (definitely not listing Cleary, Latham, and Debevoise as 1-2-3, I want to maybe actually get a job...).

Would it? I guess if the rest disappear, then I guess it's fine. I don't know how multiple offices works.

Yeah, me neither, I'm just kinda assuming that because I think that would make the most sense.

[toothbrush]

I see what you're saying but I don't think it would work that way. You should ask OCS, they would know how the system works, I think. I don't think it knows to take off your other Latham offices if you get your first shot.

btw, why would you want to work at Latham -that- badly? If that's the case, mail them and express that to them.

[Arkham]

You have to choose between Latham offices, anyway. You can't bid all the offices.

I mean, you can bid on them four times, for each of those groups.

[hephaestus]

So, some firms are listed multiple times for different locations but say that you only interview with one of the offices. Is it a good idea to just rank all those firms in a row, even if you're not likely to get a job at the specified office? For instance, Latham is listed 4 times. There's Latham (London), Latham (Boston/New York), Latham (LA, Orange County, San Diego), and Latham (Chicago, Houston, DC). Let's say I don't really have any ties to California, but really want a job at Latham. Is it a good idea to rank them, for example...

1. Cleary
2. Latham (Boston/New York)
3. Latham (Chicago, Houston, DC)
4. Latham (LA, Orange County, San Diego)
5. Latham (London)
6. Debevoise

That would increase my chances of interviewing at Latham because there are interview spots dedicated to each of those and you can only interview at one of them.

Do you have ties to those 8 cities? This makes no sense to me. I would rank NY/whatever your preferred city is 2nd and then move on to Debevoise or whatever your #3 will be. There is an extremely high chance you get Latham NY at 2. If you don't you can always email and they'll likely fit you in if you are above their GPA median.

Eta: got a Latham NY screener bidding them 8 last year.

[Arkham]

I see what you're saying but I don't think it would work that way. You should ask OCS, they would know how the system works, I think. I don't think it knows to take off your other Latham offices if you get your first shot.

btw, why would you want to work at Latham -that- badly? If that's the case, mail them and express that to them.

I don't, I was just using it as an example for what a few firms do. For instance, some firms list one for NY and one for the rest of their offices and I'm asking if it makes sense to bid on them back-to-back.

[hephaestus]

I see what you're saying but I don't think it would work that way. You should ask OCS, they would know how the system works, I think. I don't think it knows to take off your other Latham offices if you get your first shot.

btw, why would you want to work at Latham -that- badly? If that's the case, mail them and express that to them.

I also don't think that's how it works.

[Arkham]

So, some firms are listed multiple times for different locations but say that you only interview with one of the offices. Is it a good idea to just rank all those firms in a row, even if you're not likely to get a job at the specified office? For instance, Latham is listed 4 times. There's Latham (London), Latham (Boston/New York), Latham (LA, Orange County, San Diego), and Latham (Chicago, Houston, DC). Let's say I don't really have any ties to California, but really want a job at Latham. Is it a good idea to rank them, for example...

1. Cleary
2. Latham (Boston/New York)
3. Latham (Chicago, Houston, DC)
4. Latham (LA, Orange County, San Diego)
5. Latham (London)
6. Debevoise

That would increase my chances of interviewing at Latham because there are interview spots dedicated to each of those and you can only interview at one of them.

Do you have ties to those 8 cities? This makes no sense to me. I would rank NY/whatever your preferred city is 2nd and then move on to Debevoise or whatever your #3 will be. There is an extremely high chance you get Latham NY at 2. If you don't you can always email and they'll likely fit you in if you are above their GPA median.

Eta: got a Latham NY screener bidding them 8 last year.

I don't actually care about Latham, I'm just using it as an example. What I was trying to ask was whether you could use bidding on the different offices in a row as an opportunity to increase your chances of interviewing with a firm you're interested in, even if you don't have ties to the cities specifically listed.

[hephaestus]

Ah ok - I understand your question. In my opinion this isn't a sound strategy because:
1. I don't think that's the way the lottery works and you will jeopardize getting firms further down on your bid list.
2. Interviewing for places you don't have ties in is generally not a great plan if there's no plausible story for you being there, and your interest in a specific firm is not going to suffice as a plausible story.
3. Non-NY/DC slots tend not to go quickly, so you might be able to snag an interview with the Houston office etc by putting them lower on your bid list. The same will not be true with the NY office of another firm you can use the bid on instead.

[Lincoln]

So, some firms are listed multiple times for different locations but say that you only interview with one of the offices. Is it a good idea to just rank all those firms in a row, even if you're not likely to get a job at the specified office? For instance, Latham is listed 4 times. There's Latham (London), Latham (Boston/New York), Latham (LA, Orange County, San Diego), and Latham (Chicago, Houston, DC). Let's say I don't really have any ties to California, but really want a job at Latham. Is it a good idea to rank them, for example...

1. Cleary
2. Latham (Boston/New York)
3. Latham (Chicago, Houston, DC)
4. Latham (LA, Orange County, San Diego)
5. Latham (London)
6. Debevoise

That would increase my chances of interviewing at Latham because there are interview spots dedicated to each of those and you can only interview at one of them.

Do you have ties to those 8 cities? This makes no sense to me. I would rank NY/whatever your preferred city is 2nd and then move on to Debevoise or whatever your #3 will be. There is an extremely high chance you get Latham NY at 2. If you don't you can always email and they'll likely fit you in if you are above their GPA median.

Eta: got a Latham NY screener bidding them 8 last year.

I don't actually care about Latham, I'm just using it as an example. What I was trying to ask was whether you could use bidding on the different offices in a row as an opportunity to increase your chances of interviewing with a firm you're interested in, even if you don't have ties to the cities specifically listed.

Also this makes no sense the commonalities between different offices of a firm will be a lot fewer than those between similar firms in the same city. So in more cases it makes more sense to bit, say, STB after Latham NY because the work you do at Latham NY and the (shitty) work environment is more likely to be similar to STB than to Latham Houston.

[Anonymous User]

I was hoping for some feedback on my bid list. Any comments would be super helpful as I don't really know what firms are considered popular or not. Furthermore, my GPA is not stellar at 3.44. One year work experience but nothing significant. Bidding NYC unless otherwise noted. I don't think I'm screwed but not in a great place for AJF either...
I know I don't have a real shot at firms like Skadden, Kirkland, etc., but I bid them low because I figured fewer people would bid on them due to their selectivity and more interviews can only be a good thing.

Day 1:
1. MoFo
2. Wilkie
3. Schulte
4. Stroock
5. Greenberg
6. Fried Frank
7. Cahill Gordon
8. Winston & Strawn
9. Bryan Cave
10. Cooley
11. Seward
12. Carter
13. Proskauer
14. Milbank
15. Wilson Sonsini
16. Holland & Knight
17. Latham (London)

Day 2:
1. Goodwin
2. Alston
3. hogan lovells
4. Fox Rothschild
5. White & Case
6. Clifford Chance
7. Cadwalader
8. Hughes Hubbard
9. Dechert
10. Freshfields
11. Shearman & Sterling
12. Reed Smith
13. Foley
14. Simpson Thacher
15. WilmerHale

Day 3:
1. Linklaters
2. Blank Rome
3. Weil
4. Herbert Smith
5. Dentons
6. Allen & Overy
7. Kaye Scholer
8. Perkins Coie
9. Pepper Hamilton
10. Baker Botts
11. Orrick
12. Duval & Stachenfeld
13. Skadden
14. Kirkland

[Anonymous User]

I was hoping for some feedback on my bid list. Any comments would be super helpful as I don't really know what firms are considered popular or not. Furthermore, my GPA is not stellar at 3.44.

Day 1:
1. MoFo
2. Wilkie
3. Schulte
4. Stroock
5. Greenberg
6. Fried Frank
7. Cahill Gordon
8. Winston & Strawn
9. Bryan Cave
10. Cooley
11. Seward
12. Carter
13. Proskauer
14. Milbank
15. Wilson Sonsini
16. Holland & Knight
17. Latham (London)

I'm in a similar bubble but why are you tossing MoFo so high? They're extremely popular and well-liked for . . . some reason. I know a lot of people are bidding them and there class size is only 8. Might be a risky play, but again, I'm your peer so take what I say with a grain of salt. Also, you can bid as many firms as you want. Why not throw some low bids at N/A firms for the same reason your bidding grade-hard firms low? People will probably be bailing on Kasowitz because of the recent news there, ironically, that may make it a better place to bid because risky big law > no big law.

[Anonymous User]

Same anon as before.

Day 2:
1. Goodwin
2. Alston
3. Hogan Lovells
4. Fox Rothschild
5. White & Case
6. Clifford Chance
7. Cadwalader
8. Hughes Hubbard
9. Dechert
10. Freshfields
11. Shearman & Sterling
12. Reed Smith
13. Foley
14. Simpson Thacher
15. WilmerHale

Again fellow student but why isn't Loewenstein Sandler on your list? Why is Fox so high? Why isn't Withers worth a low bid? No love for Pillsbury & K&L Gates?

Day 3:
1. Linklaters
2. Blank Rome
3. Weil
4. Herbert Smith
5. Dentons
6. Allen & Overy
7. Kaye Scholer
8. Perkins Coie
9. Pepper Hamilton
10. Baker Botts
11. Orrick
12. Duval & Stachenfeld
13. Skadden
14. Kirkland

Why is Orrick so low and Allen & Overy so high? I wouldn't do that. Why is Epstein Becker not bid on? Might need to reassess this day. Might want to * consider * bidding a government office low.

Sorry dude, I'm not much use: What can I do besides ask questions?

[Lincoln]

I was hoping for some feedback on my bid list. Any comments would be super helpful as I don't really know what firms are considered popular or not. Furthermore, my GPA is not stellar at 3.44. One year work experience but nothing significant. Bidding NYC unless otherwise noted. I don't think I'm screwed but not in a great place for AJF either...
I know I don't have a real shot at firms like Skadden, Kirkland, etc., but I bid them low because I figured fewer people would bid on them due to their selectivity and more interviews can only be a good thing.

Day 1:
1. MoFo
2. Wilkie
3. Schulte
4. Stroock
5. Greenberg
6. Fried Frank
7. Cahill Gordon
8. Winston & Strawn
9. Bryan Cave
10. Cooley
11. Seward
12. Carter
13. Proskauer
14. Milbank
15. Wilson Sonsini
16. Holland & Knight
17. Latham (London)

Day 2:
1. Goodwin
2. Alston
3. Hogan Lovells
4. Fox Rothschild
5. White & Case
6. Clifford Chance
7. Cadwalader
8. Hughes Hubbard
9. Dechert
10. Freshfields
11. Shearman & Sterling
12. Reed Smith
13. Foley
14. Simpson Thacher
15. WilmerHale

Day 3:
1. Linklaters
2. Blank Rome
3. Weil
4. Herbert Smith
5. Dentons
6. Allen & Overy
7. Kaye Scholer
8. Perkins Coie
9. Pepper Hamilton
10. Baker Botts
11. Orrick
12. Duval & Stachenfeld
13. Skadden
14. Kirkland

Drop the firms that are obviously beyond your reach, like Skadden (and probably WilmerHale and Kirkland). You're not going to get MoFo with those grades, I think, and the A&O spots will be gone at 6th.

[Arbiter213]

I was hoping for some feedback on my bid list. Any comments would be super helpful as I don't really know what firms are considered popular or not. Furthermore, my GPA is not stellar at 3.44. One year work experience but nothing significant. Bidding NYC unless otherwise noted. I don't think I'm screwed but not in a great place for AJF either...
I know I don't have a real shot at firms like Skadden, Kirkland, etc., but I bid them low because I figured fewer people would bid on them due to their selectivity and more interviews can only be a good thing.

Day 1:
1. MoFo
2. Wilkie
3. Schulte
4. Stroock
5. Greenberg
6. Fried Frank
7. Cahill Gordon
8. Winston & Strawn
9. Bryan Cave
10. Cooley
11. Seward
12. Carter
13. Proskauer
14. Milbank
15. Wilson Sonsini
16. Holland & Knight
17. Latham (London)

Day 2:
1. Goodwin
2. Alston
3. Hogan Lovells
4. Fox Rothschild
5. White & Case
6. Clifford Chance
7. Cadwalader
8. Hughes Hubbard
9. Dechert
10. Freshfields
11. Shearman & Sterling
12. Reed Smith
13. Foley
14. Simpson Thacher
15. WilmerHale

Day 3:
1. Linklaters
2. Blank Rome
3. Weil
4. Herbert Smith
5. Dentons
6. Allen & Overy
7. Kaye Scholer
8. Perkins Coie
9. Pepper Hamilton
10. Baker Botts
11. Orrick
12. Duval & Stachenfeld
13. Skadden
14. Kirkland

You need to put Dechert a lot higher - they have a history of being very grades flexible.

[Anonymous User]

The person who posted the last bid list here. Thanks for the feedback. Even asking questions is helpful. I'll definitely move Orrick and Dechert up and reconsider MoFo. I will say that the reason that I omitted Epstein Becker is because I was under the impression that they were looking only for students interested in labor/employment and health care law per what they listed in symplicity, but after perusing their website again, I guess that's not the case?