Columbia EIP 2014 Forum

[Anonymous User]

~3.2 Bid list (I know it is aggressive, but I'll already have an offer):

1. Boise Schiller NY
2. Kirkland Chi
3. Skadden NY
4. Gibson Dunn NY
5. Weil NY
6. WilmerHale NY
7. Sull Crom NY
8. Arnold & Porter NY
9. Sidley Chi
10. Akin Gump NY
11. Akin Gump DC
12. Cleary NY
13. Paul Weiss NY
14. Davis Polk NY
15. Cravath NY
16. WilmerHale DC
17. Covington DC
18. Arnold & Porter DC
19. Skadden DC
20. Susman NY
21. Kirkland DC
22. Sidley DC
23. Wachtell NY
24. Boise Schiller DC
25. Mayer Brown DC
26. Gibson Dunn DC
27. Weil CA
28. Paul Weiss DC
29. Sidley NY
30. Mayer Brown Chi

Thoughts, comments, lolz?

-Voltron

Just FYI, I will qualify as Kent and my prospective list is far less ambitious; I'm including several less selective firms you don't have on here and not bidding on those competitive DC shops which are tough even with top grades (they won't look below Stone). Why are you bidding on Chicago AND DC, are you from either?

Lastly, just from a bidding perspective, you won't even get an interview with somewhere like Paul Weiss placing it #13. It will have to be third or second. Even if you have an offer in hand and your goal is just to chat up screeners, I would double check the bid popularity for several of these offices so you can at least get in the room.

- little finger

[Anonymous User]

Just FYI, I will qualify as Kent and my prospective list is far less ambitious; I'm including several less selective firms you don't have on here and not bidding on those competitive DC shops which are tough even with top grades (they won't look below Stone). Why are you bidding on Chicago AND DC, are you from either?

Lastly, just from a bidding perspective, you won't even get an interview with somewhere like Paul Weiss placing it #13. It will have to be third or second. Even if you have an offer in hand and your goal is just to chat up screeners, I would double check the bid popularity for several of these offices so you can at least get in the room.

- little finger

I have deep roots in both DC and Chi and am not letting firm selectivity affect my list much. I'm basically only bidding firms/offices I would consider over the one I'll already have. Based on Fred's google doc, I bumped firms 4+ spots up from where the list cutoff was last year (e.g. PW NY 2013 first failed was 20, so I put it at 13). I know that'll vary with popularity year-to-year, but I think most are reasonable bets at their current positions. I have a month to reorder though, so I'll definitely give it more attention.

-Voltron

[officer-rabbit]

~3.2 Bid list (I know it is aggressive, but I'll already have an offer):

1. Boise Schiller NY
2. Kirkland Chi
3. Skadden NY
4. Gibson Dunn NY
5. Weil NY
6. WilmerHale NY
7. Sull Crom NY
8. Arnold & Porter NY
9. Sidley Chi
10. Akin Gump NY
11. Akin Gump DC
12. Cleary NY
13. Paul Weiss NY
14. Davis Polk NY
15. Cravath NY
16. WilmerHale DC
17. Covington DC
18. Arnold & Porter DC
19. Skadden DC
20. Susman NY
21. Kirkland DC
22. Sidley DC
23. Wachtell NY
24. Boise Schiller DC
25. Mayer Brown DC
26. Gibson Dunn DC
27. Weil CA
28. Paul Weiss DC
29. Sidley NY
30. Mayer Brown Chi

Thoughts, comments, lolz?

-Voltron

Just FYI, I will qualify as Kent and my prospective list is far less ambitious; I'm including several less selective firms you don't have on here and not bidding on those competitive DC shops which are tough even with top grades (they won't look below Stone). Why are you bidding on Chicago AND DC, are you from either?

Lastly, just from a bidding perspective, you won't even get an interview with somewhere like Paul Weiss placing it #13. It will have to be third or second. Even if you have an offer in hand and your goal is just to chat up screeners, I would double check the bid popularity for several of these offices so you can at least get in the room.

- little finger

I generally agree with what you said but Paul Weiss actually had a first failed bid of 20 last year, so putting it at 13 is probably safe. That said, Voltron's bid list is absurd and I agree with above posters that s/he should not approach EIP with this strategy, both for his/her own sake and that of other candidates who want those screeners and actually have a good chance. I suppose as a tuition-paying student, Voltron can do whatever, but this just seems like an unfortunate waste for all parties involved.

[Anonymous User]

I have deep roots in both DC and Chi and am not letting firm selectivity affect my list much. I'm basically only bidding firms/offices I would consider over the one I'll already have. Based on Fred's google doc, I bumped firms 4+ spots up from where the list cutoff was last year (e.g. PW NY 2013 first failed was 20, so I put it at 13). I know that'll vary with popularity year-to-year, but I think most are reasonable bets at their current positions. I have a month to reorder though, so I'll definitely give it more attention.

-Voltron

I can promise you that the most charming person alive wouldn't get a callback from 90-95% of your listed firms with your grades. Why would you bid a whole series of firms that made offers to only Kent/Stone with a 3.2?

If you strike out, and you seem to be going out of your way to do so, you have only yourself to blame.

Is the offer from your old firm even locked up in writing?

[Anonymous User]

does career services offer anymore insight into the exact breakdown of the % honors report? it seems very unhelpful to say that an "X %" of a firm's offers were made up of Kent/Stone scholars. That only tells me that X% of the offers included students who had at minimum a 3.41. The report only seems helpful to those who fall below stone.

I remember hearing somewhere that career services has their own internal report that they don't publish, but will use to help adjust your rankings?

[Anonymous User]

I really want interviews with Skadden, STB and Paul Weiss. How many spots above the first failed bid position should I bid them in order to get them? I want to be safe but don't want to overdo it / waste spots. Thoughts?

[jbagelboy]

does career services offer anymore insight into the exact breakdown of the % honors report? it seems very unhelpful to say that an "X %" of a firm's offers were made up of Kent/Stone scholars. That only tells me that X% of the offers included students who had at minimum a 3.41. The report only seems helpful to those who fall below stone.

I remember hearing somewhere that career services has their own internal report that they don't publish, but will use to help adjust your rankings?

Not to dismiss your question, but remember that most 1L students, i.e., 65-70%, fall below Stone - even if it doesn't look that way on tls. Career services is interested in helping everyone get *a* job at EIP; they are probably far less concerned about whether you're working at White & Case or DPW. I agree a more granulated survey between 3.5 and 3.8 would be great for us, but its far less relevant to the class as a whole.

[Anonymous User]

any idea how grade selective Latham and Skadden LA are?

[Anonymous User]

does career services offer anymore insight into the exact breakdown of the % honors report? it seems very unhelpful to say that an "X %" of a firm's offers were made up of Kent/Stone scholars. That only tells me that X% of the offers included students who had at minimum a 3.41. The report only seems helpful to those who fall below stone.

I remember hearing somewhere that career services has their own internal report that they don't publish, but will use to help adjust your rankings?

Not to dismiss your question, but remember that most 1L students, i.e., 65-70%, fall below Stone - even if it doesn't look that way on tls. Career services is interested in helping everyone get *a* job at EIP; they are probably far less concerned about whether you're working at White & Case or DPW. I agree a more granulated survey between 3.5 and 3.8 would be great for us, but its far less relevant to the class as a whole.

Yea, that's a good point.

[Anonymous User]

does career services offer anymore insight into the exact breakdown of the % honors report? it seems very unhelpful to say that an "X %" of a firm's offers were made up of Kent/Stone scholars. That only tells me that X% of the offers included students who had at minimum a 3.41. The report only seems helpful to those who fall below stone.

I remember hearing somewhere that career services has their own internal report that they don't publish, but will use to help adjust your rankings?

Not to dismiss your question, but remember that most 1L students, i.e., 65-70%, fall below Stone - even if it doesn't look that way on tls. Career services is interested in helping everyone get *a* job at EIP; they are probably far less concerned about whether you're working at White & Case or DPW. I agree a more granulated survey between 3.5 and 3.8 would be great for us, but its far less relevant to the class as a whole.

Yea, that's a good point.

The scary part's that a lot of the top NY firms made roughly the same amount of offers last year. Davis Polk made 48, Cravath 37, S&C 38, Simpson 48, Cleary 36, etc. It might mean that the vast majority of these offers are probably going to the exact same group of people, who applied across those NY firms and didn't cancel many callbacks.

[smaug_]

does career services offer anymore insight into the exact breakdown of the % honors report? it seems very unhelpful to say that an "X %" of a firm's offers were made up of Kent/Stone scholars. That only tells me that X% of the offers included students who had at minimum a 3.41. The report only seems helpful to those who fall below stone.

I remember hearing somewhere that career services has their own internal report that they don't publish, but will use to help adjust your rankings?

Not to dismiss your question, but remember that most 1L students, i.e., 65-70%, fall below Stone - even if it doesn't look that way on tls. Career services is interested in helping everyone get *a* job at EIP; they are probably far less concerned about whether you're working at White & Case or DPW. I agree a more granulated survey between 3.5 and 3.8 would be great for us, but its far less relevant to the class as a whole.

Yea, that's a good point.

The scary part's that a lot of the top NY firms made roughly the same amount of offers last year. Davis Polk made 48, Cravath 37, S&C 38, Simpson 48, Cleary 36, etc. It might mean that the vast majority of these offers are probably going to the exact same group of people, who applied across those NY firms and didn't cancel many callbacks.

There's a group that cleans up, but there's also just a lot of randomness. You could get one callback and it could end up getting you an offer from Cravath. You could have callbacks at all of them and get no offers. You could end up with offers from all of them.

Don't prognosticate too much. Focus on figuring out which firms you want to put yourself in front of, and then think about how you're going to give the best interview you can give. You're competing against yourself far more than competing against your classmates.

[Anonymous User]

Like a few others here, I'm a little over 3.6 and interested in NYC transactional work. I printed out the honors chart, bid results, and overall 2013 outcomes. Any general advice for creating a low-risk, conservative bidlist? I'm a so-so interviewer.

-Psyduck

[Anonymous User]

any idea how grade selective Latham and Skadden LA are?

Besides the Stone %, anyone have anecdotal knowledge?

[Anonymous User]

Like a few others here, I'm a little over 3.6 and interested in NYC transactional work. I printed out the honors chart, bid results, and overall 2013 outcomes. Any general advice for creating a low-risk, conservative bidlist? I'm a so-so interviewer.

-Psyduck

If you're bidding strictly New York, you can probably hit most of the powerhouses and still give yourself some more conservative options! I'd think the harder part'd be differentiating among the firms, Psyduck, and figuring out what suits your goals.

Kirkland, Simpson, and Debevoise all do extremely high-level private equity work, for example, but may handle slightly different kinds of funds, whereas some firms focus far more on their public company M&A. Davis Polk's capital markets group kills it, and so on. A couple of the major banks are institutional clients, if you have somewhere in particular you want to go (Goldman and SullCrom, etc.)

As far as the bid list, with a 3.6, you should be able to canvas the transactional market pretty well with 30 spots, both the selective and not-as-selective firms. Some of the slightly "safer" firms include Cahill and Milbank, but they still do some pretty great transactional work. Ropes & Gray does hedge funds very well. Willkie does fine. I'm still figuring out my own bid list, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'd say to keep at least 5-10 or so beneath 75% offers to honors. Take a crack at making one though, and see if you really do have too many spots.

If anyone who's already been through EIP and has any experience with the DC market sees this, would you be willing to field a couple questions? If you could post a response, I'd really like to PM you, thanks!

- Captain Falcon

[Anonymous User]

Like a few others here, I'm a little over 3.6 and interested in NYC transactional work. I printed out the honors chart, bid results, and overall 2013 outcomes. Any general advice for creating a low-risk, conservative bidlist? I'm a so-so interviewer.

-Psyduck

If you're bidding strictly New York, you can probably hit most of the powerhouses and still give yourself some more conservative options! I'd think the harder part'd be differentiating among the firms, Psyduck, and figuring out what suits your goals.

Kirkland, Simpson, and Debevoise all do extremely high-level private equity work, for example, but may handle slightly different kinds of funds, whereas some firms focus far more on their public company M&A. Davis Polk's capital markets group kills it, and so on. A couple of the major banks are institutional clients, if you have somewhere in particular you want to go (Goldman and SullCrom, etc.)

As far as the bid list, with a 3.6, you should be able to canvas the transactional market pretty well with 30 spots, both the selective and not-as-selective firms. Some of the slightly "safer" firms include Cahill and Milbank, but they still do some pretty great transactional work. Ropes & Gray does hedge funds very well. Willkie does fine. I'm still figuring out my own bid list, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'd say to keep at least 5-10 or so beneath 75% offers to honors. Take a crack at making one though, and see if you really do have too many spots.

If anyone who's already been through EIP and has any experience with the DC market sees this, would you be willing to field a couple questions? If you could post a response, I'd really like to PM you, thanks!

- Captain Falcon

Thanks! Looks like I have to spend a little time with Chambers. 5-10 beneath 75% seems like a good starting point.

-Psyduck

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

~3.2 Bid list (I know it is aggressive, but I'll already have an offer):

1. Boise Schiller NY
2. Kirkland Chi
3. Skadden NY
4. Gibson Dunn NY
5. Weil NY
6. WilmerHale NY
7. Sull Crom NY
8. Arnold & Porter NY
9. Sidley Chi
10. Akin Gump NY
11. Akin Gump DC
12. Cleary NY
13. Paul Weiss NY
14. Davis Polk NY
15. Cravath NY
16. WilmerHale DC
17. Covington DC
18. Arnold & Porter DC
19. Skadden DC
20. Susman NY
21. Kirkland DC
22. Sidley DC
23. Wachtell NY
24. Boise Schiller DC
25. Mayer Brown DC
26. Gibson Dunn DC
27. Weil CA
28. Paul Weiss DC
29. Sidley NY
30. Mayer Brown Chi

Thoughts, comments, lolz?

-Voltron

I would not put this bidlist in with a 3.2 unless I literally had the offer, and had it in writing (not a promise, not a strong feeling that my old firm would give me an offer). This bidlist is incredibly aggressive, and I think you're almost certain to not get anything out of EIP

+1 to this. I'm not going to white-knight like everyone else did--if you don't want to give up your interview spot so you can hail mary to SullCrom and Boies, I guess that's your choice (although it would be kind if you did). The odds of you converting anything on this list (slim to none--everything besides Sidley NY is a fairly elementary ding) are lower than the odds that you have misunderstood/overestimated the odds of you getting an offer from your V50. Especially telling is that you said "I'll already have an offer" rather than "I already have an offer." If you have in fact misunderstood, this bid list essentially torpedoes your chances of being hired, and ITE nothing and nobody is a sure thing. I'd have that offer written in blood before I gave up the chance for realistic bids.

Also, if you have a 3.2 and an offer (again, if you actually have that offer) you'd only give up for basically V15, I might just skip EIP all together. I don't think it's worth the planning and four days of interviews when the odds of an upgrade are so small.

[jbagelboy]

~3.2 Bid list (I know it is aggressive, but I'll already have an offer):

1. Boise Schiller NY
2. Kirkland Chi
3. Skadden NY
4. Gibson Dunn NY
5. Weil NY
6. WilmerHale NY
7. Sull Crom NY
8. Arnold & Porter NY
9. Sidley Chi
10. Akin Gump NY
11. Akin Gump DC
12. Cleary NY
13. Paul Weiss NY
14. Davis Polk NY
15. Cravath NY
16. WilmerHale DC
17. Covington DC
18. Arnold & Porter DC
19. Skadden DC
20. Susman NY
21. Kirkland DC
22. Sidley DC
23. Wachtell NY
24. Boise Schiller DC
25. Mayer Brown DC
26. Gibson Dunn DC
27. Weil CA
28. Paul Weiss DC
29. Sidley NY
30. Mayer Brown Chi

Thoughts, comments, lolz?

-Voltron

I would not put this bidlist in with a 3.2 unless I literally had the offer, and had it in writing (not a promise, not a strong feeling that my old firm would give me an offer). This bidlist is incredibly aggressive, and I think you're almost certain to not get anything out of EIP

+1 to this. I'm not going to white-knight like everyone else did--if you don't want to give up your interview spot so you can hail mary to SullCrom and Boies, I guess that's your choice (although it would be kind if you did). The odds of you converting anything on this list (slim to none--everything besides Sidley NY is a fairly elementary ding) are lower than the odds that you have misunderstood/overestimated the odds of you getting an offer from your V50. Especially telling is that you said "I'll already have an offer" rather than "I already have an offer." If you have in fact misunderstood, this bid list essentially torpedoes your chances of being hired, and ITE nothing and nobody is a sure thing. I'd have that offer written in blood before I gave up the chance for realistic bids.

Also, if you have a 3.2 and an offer (again, if you actually have that offer) you'd only give up for basically V15, I might just skip EIP all together. I don't think it's worth the planning and four days of interviews when the odds of an upgrade are so small.

I agree with this - I'd add that it's sad because 3.2 is not a terrible gpa and there are a lot of good firms that would be happy to have a CLS student just shy of median - just not any of these firms. This kind of stuff is a large part of why even top schools always have a % strike out rate.

[Anonymous User]

does career services offer anymore insight into the exact breakdown of the % honors report? it seems very unhelpful to say that an "X %" of a firm's offers were made up of Kent/Stone scholars. That only tells me that X% of the offers included students who had at minimum a 3.41. The report only seems helpful to those who fall below stone.

I remember hearing somewhere that career services has their own internal report that they don't publish, but will use to help adjust your rankings?

Not to dismiss your question, but remember that most 1L students, i.e., 65-70%, fall below Stone - even if it doesn't look that way on tls. Career services is interested in helping everyone get *a* job at EIP; they are probably far less concerned about whether you're working at White & Case or DPW. I agree a more granulated survey between 3.5 and 3.8 would be great for us, but its far less relevant to the class as a whole.

.

[Anonymous User]

Can anyone speak to what's a good split for bids on two markets? 20/10 or closer to 15/15, here with NY/DC?

Also, if we don't get Law Review, how soon do we find out which of the other journals we might have?

[Anonymous User]

Alright, so I fully expect that I did this completely incorrectly, so I gratefully welcome any and all advice.
I have a 3.75 and managed to snag a Kent on the sly. I am focused on LA/CC, in particular Latham/Gibson/OMM/Sheppard.

1. Latham (LA)
2. MoFo (LA)
3. Sheppard Mullin (LA)
4. Paul Hastings (LA)
5. Debevoise (NY)
6. Jones Day (LA)
7. Skadden (LA)
8. Arnold & Porter (LA)
9. O’Melveny Myers (CC)
10. Gibson Dunn (LA)
11. Wachtell (NY)
12. Weil (NY)
13. Paul Weiss (NY)
14. Cleary (NY)
15. Davis Polk (NY)
16. Cravath (NY)
17. Sheppard Mullin (CC)
18. O’Melveny Myers (LA)
19. Munger (LA)
20. Irell (LA)
21. Proskauer (LA)
22. Sidley Austin (LA)
23. Manatt (LA)
24. Kirkland & Ellis (LA)
25. Cooley (LA)
26. Greenberg Traurig (LA)
27. Sullivan & Cromwell (LA)
28. White & Case (LA)
29. Akin Gump (LA)
30. Simpson Thacher (LA)

-Daario Naharis

[Anonymous User]

This is generally bad advice. Please don't post as if you know what you are talking about if you don't know what you're talking about.
----midlevel transactional associate who will be doing lots of recruiting from one of the firms listed below this fall, and is a CLS alum

Like a few others here, I'm a little over 3.6 and interested in NYC transactional work. I printed out the honors chart, bid results, and overall 2013 outcomes. Any general advice for creating a low-risk, conservative bidlist? I'm a so-so interviewer.

-Psyduck

If you're bidding strictly New York, you can probably hit most of the powerhouses and still give yourself some more conservative options! I'd think the harder part'd be differentiating among the firms, Psyduck, and figuring out what suits your goals.

Kirkland, Simpson, and Debevoise all do extremely high-level private equity work, for example, but may handle slightly different kinds of funds, whereas some firms focus far more on their public company M&A. Davis Polk's capital markets group kills it, and so on. A couple of the major banks are institutional clients, if you have somewhere in particular you want to go (Goldman and SullCrom, etc.)

As far as the bid list, with a 3.6, you should be able to canvas the transactional market pretty well with 30 spots, both the selective and not-as-selective firms. Some of the slightly "safer" firms include Cahill and Milbank, but they still do some pretty great transactional work. Ropes & Gray does hedge funds very well. Willkie does fine. I'm still figuring out my own bid list, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'd say to keep at least 5-10 or so beneath 75% offers to honors. Take a crack at making one though, and see if you really do have too many spots.

If anyone who's already been through EIP and has any experience with the DC market sees this, would you be willing to field a couple questions? If you could post a response, I'd really like to PM you, thanks!

- Captain Falcon

[Anonymous User]

This is generally bad advice. Please don't post as if you know what you are talking about if you don't know what you're talking about.
----midlevel transactional associate who will be doing lots of recruiting from one of the firms listed below this fall, and is a CLS alum

Like a few others here, I'm a little over 3.6 and interested in NYC transactional work. I printed out the honors chart, bid results, and overall 2013 outcomes. Any general advice for creating a low-risk, conservative bidlist? I'm a so-so interviewer.

-Psyduck

If you're bidding strictly New York, you can probably hit most of the powerhouses and still give yourself some more conservative options! I'd think the harder part'd be differentiating among the firms, Psyduck, and figuring out what suits your goals.

Kirkland, Simpson, and Debevoise all do extremely high-level private equity work, for example, but may handle slightly different kinds of funds, whereas some firms focus far more on their public company M&A. Davis Polk's capital markets group kills it, and so on. A couple of the major banks are institutional clients, if you have somewhere in particular you want to go (Goldman and SullCrom, etc.)

As far as the bid list, with a 3.6, you should be able to canvas the transactional market pretty well with 30 spots, both the selective and not-as-selective firms. Some of the slightly "safer" firms include Cahill and Milbank, but they still do some pretty great transactional work. Ropes & Gray does hedge funds very well. Willkie does fine. I'm still figuring out my own bid list, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'd say to keep at least 5-10 or so beneath 75% offers to honors. Take a crack at making one though, and see if you really do have too many spots.

If anyone who's already been through EIP and has any experience with the DC market sees this, would you be willing to field a couple questions? If you could post a response, I'd really like to PM you, thanks!

- Captain Falcon

Could you correct it? Am interested in the response (I assume you're correcting the firm-specific notes).

[Anonymous User]

Alright, so I fully expect that I did this completely incorrectly, so I gratefully welcome any and all advice.
I have a 3.75 and managed to snag a Kent on the sly. I am focused on LA/CC, in particular Latham/Gibson/OMM/Sheppard.

1. Latham (LA)
2. MoFo (LA)
3. Sheppard Mullin (LA)
4. Paul Hastings (LA)
5. Debevoise (NY)
6. Jones Day (LA)
7. Skadden (LA)
8. Arnold & Porter (LA)
9. O’Melveny Myers (CC)
10. Gibson Dunn (LA)
11. Wachtell (NY)
12. Weil (NY)
13. Paul Weiss (NY)
14. Cleary (NY)
15. Davis Polk (NY)
16. Cravath (NY)
17. Sheppard Mullin (CC)
18. O’Melveny Myers (LA)
19. Munger (LA)
20. Irell (LA)
21. Proskauer (LA)
22. Sidley Austin (LA)
23. Manatt (LA)
24. Kirkland & Ellis (LA)
25. Cooley (LA)
26. Greenberg Traurig (LA)
27. Sullivan & Cromwell (LA)
28. White & Case (LA)
29. Akin Gump (LA)
30. Simpson Thacher (LA)

-Daario Naharis

I don't know anything about Cali, so I'll comment on the NY ones. Wachtell is way too high at 11. People don't bid them since they know they're so grade conscious. Move them towards the bottom of your list. Cravath could also come down a few spots for similiar reasons. I'd push Weil up a few spots too. All the other NYC ones look reasonable.

[Anonymous User]

This is generally bad advice. Please don't post as if you know what you are talking about if you don't know what you're talking about.
----midlevel transactional associate who will be doing lots of recruiting from one of the firms listed below this fall, and is a CLS alum

Like a few others here, I'm a little over 3.6 and interested in NYC transactional work. I printed out the honors chart, bid results, and overall 2013 outcomes. Any general advice for creating a low-risk, conservative bidlist? I'm a so-so interviewer.

-Psyduck

If you're bidding strictly New York, you can probably hit most of the powerhouses and still give yourself some more conservative options! I'd think the harder part'd be differentiating among the firms, Psyduck, and figuring out what suits your goals.

Kirkland, Simpson, and Debevoise all do extremely high-level private equity work, for example, but may handle slightly different kinds of funds, whereas some firms focus far more on their public company M&A. Davis Polk's capital markets group kills it, and so on. A couple of the major banks are institutional clients, if you have somewhere in particular you want to go (Goldman and SullCrom, etc.)

As far as the bid list, with a 3.6, you should be able to canvas the transactional market pretty well with 30 spots, both the selective and not-as-selective firms. Some of the slightly "safer" firms include Cahill and Milbank, but they still do some pretty great transactional work. Ropes & Gray does hedge funds very well. Willkie does fine. I'm still figuring out my own bid list, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'd say to keep at least 5-10 or so beneath 75% offers to honors. Take a crack at making one though, and see if you really do have too many spots.

If anyone who's already been through EIP and has any experience with the DC market sees this, would you be willing to field a couple questions? If you could post a response, I'd really like to PM you, thanks!

- Captain Falcon

Could you correct it? Am interested in the response (I assume you're correcting the firm-specific notes).

It's just so gloriously clueless. It reads like someone who read chambers and made a list of firms that are Band 1 in certain practice areas.

[Anonymous User]

Re: Daario

I'm not sure I see the rhyme and reason to your list. I think you need to take another look at the FFB chart. A&P LA for example cut off at 8 last year and Paul Hastings at 20. At a minimum, instances like that in your bid list need to swap places. You are burning unnecessarily high bids on places like Wachtell, which can be got in the low 20s or even post-interview cancellations, but leaving Cooley (6 FFB) and the like too low to stand a chance barring a large swing in class sentiment.

-Lester Nygaard