Cornell 2015 AJF/BOJF/DCJF/OCI Forum

[Lavitz]

Hey guys, I'm sitting on a 3.43, interested in NYC lit (but open to corp as well). Hoping to get my top 4-6 on each day and try my luck at emailing/hospitality suites the rest. Would really appreciate any feedback.

You're at median and interested in lit, so why is Kasowitz not on this list?

What's the consensus on Kasowitz? Another earlier post from ImNoScar indicated some rather negative stuff on them. If you are gunning for lit does that analysis change?

It's not exactly a great firm. But its specialty is litigation and it's better than nothing. And at median, you shouldn't be being picky. I agree with Scar that it shouldn't be a top slot, but you should just toss them somewhere in the bidlist, even if it's at the bottom and your only intention is to go to hospitality suite to try and get an extra interview. They're a useful safety. I bid on them, and they offered interviews to a bunch of people who bid on them but didn't get them.

[hephaestus]

Hey guys, I'm sitting on a 3.43, interested in NYC lit (but open to corp as well). Hoping to get my top 4-6 on each day and try my luck at emailing/hospitality suites the rest. Would really appreciate any feedback.

You're at median and interested in lit, so why is Kasowitz not on this list?

What's the consensus on Kasowitz? Another earlier post from ImNoScar indicated some rather negative stuff on them. If you are gunning for lit does that analysis change?

All they do is lit, and the firm is sort of built around Marc Kasowitz (who is actually a Cornell law alum). However, over the last couple of years they have done some not so good things - they fired a pretty large crop of associates, no offered summers, and last year they called people that had offers and asked them not to accept them if they had any other offers. It rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. I would be hesitant to go to Kasowitz over nearly any other similar firm because of this.

In addition, they also are one of the more accommodating firms about scheduling in screeners if you bid them and did not get them. They generally will do a shorter 10 minute screener in their hospitality suite, and as a result they can fit more of them in. So I think that generally its better to prioritize other firms for these joint reasons.

[Anonymous User]

Anyone want to critique my (heavily) revised Day 2 bid list? 3.50, interested in NYC corporate.

1) White & Case(40)(3.57)
2) Willkie Farr(40)(3.56)
3) Hogan Lovells(40)(3.45)
4) Dechert(60)(3.54)
5) Cadwalader(80)(3.51)
6) Weil Gotshal(40)(3.57)
7) Paul Hastings(80)(3.61)
Linklaters(40)(3.49)
9) Goodwin Procter(20)(3.37)
10) K&L Gates(20)(3.45)
11) Herbert Smith(20)(3.43)
12) Kaye Scholer(20)(3.35)
13) Orrick Herrington(20)(3.35)
14) Foley & Lardner(60)(3.37)
15) ???

I'm a little worried that the high firms on my bid list mostly have average CB GPAs that are a bit above mine.

[Anonymous User]

Edit: delete.

[Anonymous User]

Hey TLS, Top 5%, interested in litigation. Did writing comp, so we'll see about LR. Probably want Boston, but open to NYC. What do you think?

Monday
1) Cleary
2) WilmerHale NY
3) Davis Polk
4) WilmerHale DC
5) S&C
6) Cravath
7) Jones Day
FriedFrank
9) Gibson Dunne DC
10) Winston & Strawn

Tuesday

1 Ropes & Gray Boston
2 Paul Weiss
3 Paul Hastings
4 Debevoise
5 Simpson Thacher
6 Sidley Austin
7 Weil Gotshal
8 Williams & Connolly
9 Skadden
10 Arnold & Porter
11 Dechert

Wednesday
1) (Do I just do Ropes Boston again?)
2) Cooley
3) Clifford Chance


Boston
1 Wilmer Hale
2 Goodwin Procter
3 foley hoag
4 MorganLewis
5 Nutter
6 Proskauer Rose
7 Choate
8 Sull & Worcester
9 Skadden

[Anonymous User]

Just the 3.7 dude above saying thanks again guys.

[Anonymous User]

Hey guys,

Please let me know what you think of this list. GPA is 3.53. I’m interested in NY corporate and worked for a few years before law school.

Day 1

1. Proskauer Rose (20) 3.67, 3.55, 3.38
2. Shearman & Sterling (60) 3.77, 3.48, 3.02
3. Freshfields (20) 3.92, 3.64, 3.43
4. Jones Day (40) 3.88, 3.55, 3.24
5. WilmerHale (40) 3.92, 3.62, 3.24
6. Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson (40) 3.78, 3.58, 3.35
7. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy (20) 3.88, 3.6, 3.43
8. Schulte Roth & Zabel (40) 3.75, 3.46, 3.29
9. Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (60) 3.65, 3.44, 3.19
10. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman (20) --, --, --
11. Reed Smith (20) 3.59, 3.29, 3.05
12. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan (20) 3.39, 3.28, 3.15
13. Latham & Watkins (18) 3.88, 3.63, 3.45
14. Davis Polk & Wardwell (60) 4.01, 3.73, 3.24
15. Morrison & Foerster (20) 3.71, 3.58, 3.28
16. Winston & Strawn (40) --, --, --

Day 2

1. White & Case (40) 3.81, 3.57, 3.35
2. Paul Hastings (80) 4.01, 3.61, 3.29
3. Sidley Austin (20) 3.91, 3.62, 3.43
4. Arnold & Porter (20) --, --, --
5. Willkie Farr & Gallagher (40) 3.81, 3.57, 3.35
6. Linklaters (40) 3.88, 3.49, 3.24
7. Dechert (60) 3.9, 3.54, 3.16
8. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (40) 4.01, 3.68, 3.24
9. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (80) 3.81, 3.51, 3.21
10. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (20) 3.45, 3.35, 3.25
11. Kaye Scholer (20) 3.48, 3.35, 3.24
12. Goodwin Procter (20) 3.49, 3.37, 3.17
13. Kirkland & Ellis (20) 3.91, 3.67, 3.42
14. Weil, Gotshal & Manges (40) 3.91, 3.57, 3.24
15. Debevoise & Plimpton (40) 3.92, 3.69, 3.24
16. O'Melveny & Myers (20) --, --, --

Day 3

1. Clifford Chance (80) 3.92, 3.56, 3.24
2. Cooley (20) 3.48, 3.4, 3.28

Thanks in advance!

[Anonymous User]

Hi! I'm a 3.44, interested in corporate/M&A. I would really appreciate feedback on Days 1 & 2 of my bid list. Thanks!

Day 1
Cahill Gordon, 60, 3.44
Proskauer Rose, 20, 3.55
Davis Polk, 60, 3.73
Shearman & Sterling, 60, 3.48
Jones Day, 40, 3.55
Morrison & Foerster, 20, 3.58
Reed Smith, 20, 3.29
Milbank Tweed, 20, 3.6
Schulte Roth, 40, 3.46
Fried Frank, 40, 3.58
Seward & Kissel, 20, 3.49
Pillsbury Winthrop, 20, 3.5
Stroock & Stroock, 20, 3.28
Winston & Strawn, 40, Flexible
Curtis Mallet-Prevost, 20, 3.2

Day 2
Weil, 40, 3.57
Arnold & Porter, 20, Moderate/Grade
White & Case, 40, 3.57
Linklaters, 40, 3.49
Orrick, 20, 3.35
Herbert Smith Freehills, 20, 3.43
Hogan Lovells, 40, 3.45
Cadwalader, 80, 3.51
Dechert, 60, 3.54
Goodwin Procter, 20, 3.37
Willkie Farr, 40, 3.56
Wilson Sonsini, 40, 3.53
Baker Botts, 20, --
O’Melveny & Myers, 20, --
Foley & Lardner, 20, 3.37

[runinthefront]

Hi! I'm a 3.44, interested in corporate/M&A. I would really appreciate feedback on Days 1 & 2 of my bid list. Thanks!

Day 1
Cahill Gordon, 60, 3.44
Proskauer Rose, 20, 3.55
Davis Polk, 60, 3.73
Shearman & Sterling, 60, 3.48
Jones Day, 40, 3.55
Morrison & Foerster, 20, 3.58
Reed Smith, 20, 3.29
Milbank Tweed, 20, 3.6
Schulte Roth, 40, 3.46
Fried Frank, 40, 3.58
Seward & Kissel, 20, 3.49
Pillsbury Winthrop, 20, 3.5
Stroock & Stroock, 20, 3.28
Winston & Strawn, 40, Flexible
Curtis Mallet-Prevost, 20, 3.2

Day 2
Weil, 40, 3.57
Arnold & Porter, 20, Moderate/Grade
White & Case, 40, 3.57
Linklaters, 40, 3.49
Orrick, 20, 3.35
Herbert Smith Freehills, 20, 3.43
Hogan Lovells, 40, 3.45
Cadwalader, 80, 3.51
Dechert, 60, 3.54
Goodwin Procter, 20, 3.37
Willkie Farr, 40, 3.56
Wilson Sonsini, 40, 3.53
Baker Botts, 20, --
O’Melveny & Myers, 20, --
Foley & Lardner, 20, 3.37

Hey,

I would definitely remove lower DPW on day 1. You're squarely median at a 3.44 and it's just too risky to bid it that high. Even if you had a 3.9, id still say that it could probably safely go anywhere from 5-7 and you'd still cop it. I'm just going to say that I would advise taking it out of your list altogether. For c/o 2015, their median was also a 3.77 so the odds of it happening for you are slim.

You also don't need Cahill at 1.

I'm at work so I can't really give more specific comments but I think MoFo or Proskauer needs to be #1 or #2 if you want any shot at getting them and Winston + Schulte probably need to move up. Although you want to keep Jones Day/Shearman somewhere in the mix

Yeah actually you should take out DPW

The first day of your bidlist seems a little aggressive to me--have you gotten feedback from CSO about it? Day 2 seems more reasonable though but I'll let someone else speak on that

[Anonymous User]

.

[Anonymous User]

This definitely has to be one of the lowest GPAs I've seen so far on this thread (3.30). But, here it goes.

Day 1:

Stroock Stroock Lavan
Cahill Gordon Reindel
Curtis Mallet-Provost Colt Mosle
Schulte Roth Zabel
Jones Day
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Greenberg Traurig
Shearman Sterling
Seward Kissel
Reed Smith
Carter Ledyard Milburn
Morrison Foerster
Fried Frank Harris Shriver Jacobson
Proskauer Rose

Day 2:

Dechert
Cadwalader
King Spalding
Hughes Hubbard Reed
Kaye Scholer
Orrick Harrington Sutcliffe
Willkie Farr Gallagher
Duval Stachenfeld
Linklaters
Hogan Lovells
Baker Botts
Arnold Porter
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati
Veneable
Herbert Smith Freehills

Day 3:

Dentons
Crowell Moring
Clifford Chance
Hunton Williams
Cooley
Haynes Boone
Pepper Hamilton
Perkins Coie
Fox Rothschild

[Lavitz]

Day 2:

Dechert
Cadwalader
King Spalding
Hughes Hubbard Reed
Kaye Scholer
Orrick Harrington Sutcliffe
Willkie Farr Gallagher
Duval Stachenfeld
Linklaters
Hogan Lovells
Baker Botts
Arnold Porter
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati
Veneable
Herbert Smith Freehills

I don't understand why you would put a 60 slot firm and an 80 slot firm as your top 2. They can both go lower and you still get them, so then you can put other firms in those slots. Not sure exactly how far for Dechert, but Cadwalader should definitely be safe at #5.

[runinthefront]

This definitely has to be one of the lowest GPAs I've seen so far on this thread (3.30). But, here it goes.

Day 1:

Stroock Stroock Lavan
Cahill Gordon Reindel
Curtis Mallet-Provost Colt Mosle
Schulte Roth Zabel
Jones Day
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Greenberg Traurig
Shearman Sterling
Seward Kissel
Reed Smith
Carter Ledyard Milburn
Morrison Foerster
Fried Frank Harris Shriver Jacobson
Proskauer Rose

Day 2:

Dechert
Cadwalader
King Spalding
Hughes Hubbard Reed
Kaye Scholer
Orrick Harrington Sutcliffe
Willkie Farr Gallagher
Duval Stachenfeld
Linklaters
Hogan Lovells
Baker Botts
Arnold Porter
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich Rosati
Veneable
Herbert Smith Freehills

Day 3:

Dentons
Crowell Moring
Clifford Chance
Hunton Williams
Cooley
Haynes Boone
Pepper Hamilton
Perkins Coie
Fox Rothschild

disclaimer: 1L

I don't think you'll get Shearman/Jones Day at any of the spots you have them now...so you may as well 1) move them way up, or 2) *and this is my suggestion* take Jones day out, move Shearman to #4-5

Cahill could likely move down a spot too, but I would still keep it in the top 4 or so if I were you since it's a great firm kinda sortaish within your range

Last, but not least, I would probably bid all the way down to 18 or so, just to be able to try and email/call firms saying "hey i bid on you and I didn't get a an interview...do you have time to squeeze me in?" since (apparently) firms can't see what spot you bid them in, but they can see whether you bid them at all or not

[hephaestus]

Anyone want to critique my (heavily) revised Day 2 bid list? 3.50, interested in NYC corporate.

1) White & Case(40)(3.57)
2) Willkie Farr(40)(3.56)
3) Hogan Lovells(40)(3.45)
4) Dechert(60)(3.54)
5) Cadwalader(80)(3.51)
6) Weil Gotshal(40)(3.57)
7) Paul Hastings(80)(3.61)
Linklaters(40)(3.49)
9) Goodwin Procter(20)(3.37)
10) K&L Gates(20)(3.45)
11) Herbert Smith(20)(3.43)
12) Kaye Scholer(20)(3.35)
13) Orrick Herrington(20)(3.35)
14) Foley & Lardner(60)(3.37)
15) ???

I'm a little worried that the high firms on my bid list mostly have average CB GPAs that are a bit above mine.

If that's your worry, I think you can be a little more risk averse and put a firm that you are a fair bit above at 1, like Goodwin. If you do that then I would make your current 1-5 your 2-6. There's no way Weil happens at 7 (or 6, TBF), so I recommend putting PH and Linklaters in the next two slots. Besides that, looks good!

[hephaestus]

Hey TLS, Top 5%, interested in litigation. Did writing comp, so we'll see about LR. Probably want Boston, but open to NYC. What do you think?

Monday
1) Cleary
2) WilmerHale NY
3) Davis Polk
4) WilmerHale DC
5) S&C
6) Cravath
7) Jones Day
FriedFrank
9) Gibson Dunne DC
10) Winston & Strawn

Obviously you do not need to be conservative in constructing your bid list. Its totally your call how much you want to make sure you still interview with moderately grade selective firms like FF and JD. I think the way your list is now its guaranteed to get you a screener with all the elite firms, and thats a perfectly defensible way to structure your bid list. That being said, Cleary and DPW do not need to be that high. You could put both WH DC and NY 1/2, followed by FF or JD, GDC, Cleary, S&C, Cravath, DPW, and still likely get all of those firms. However, I understand the desire for security in getting all the top firms, so I think you can leave it as is, but just now you are likely voluntarily giving up screeners with moderately selective firms.

Tuesday

1 Ropes & Gray Boston
2 Paul Weiss
3 Paul Hastings
4 Debevoise
5 Simpson Thacher
6 Sidley Austin
7 Weil Gotshal
8 Williams & Connolly
9 Skadden
10 Arnold & Porter
11 Dechert

I would put Skadden 4 here to make sure you get a screener, and maybe move up A&P and W&C above Weil because it isnt happening at 7. You should easily get Debevoise and STB at 5/6, so you may consider dropping those 2 below Sidley, but I would probably leave it where it is. Again, your call based on how much you want to make sure you get all the elite firms.

Wednesday
1) (Do I just do Ropes Boston again?)
2) Cooley
3) Clifford Chance

I doubt they'll let you screen with them twice, so they may drop you from one of the two schedules if you get both.

Boston
1 Wilmer Hale
2 Goodwin Procter
3 Foley Hoag
4 MorganLewis
5 Nutter
6 Proskauer Rose
7 Choate
8 Sull & Worcester
9 Skadden

In my opinion Skadden should be higher on this list, because I doubt that you would sincerely accept an offer at the lower numbered places on this list over an elite firm in NY, so you might as well make sure you get a Skadden Bos screener, but again this based on your personal geographic and practice preferences.

[hephaestus]

Hey guys,

Please let me know what you think of this list. GPA is 3.53. I’m interested in NY corporate and worked for a few years before law school.

Day 1

1. Proskauer Rose (20) 3.67, 3.55, 3.38
2. Shearman & Sterling (60) 3.77, 3.48, 3.02
3. Freshfields (20) 3.92, 3.64, 3.43
4. Jones Day (40) 3.88, 3.55, 3.24
5. WilmerHale (40) 3.92, 3.62, 3.24
6. Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson (40) 3.78, 3.58, 3.35
7. Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy (20) 3.88, 3.6, 3.43
8. Schulte Roth & Zabel (40) 3.75, 3.46, 3.29
9. Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (60) 3.65, 3.44, 3.19
10. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman (20) --, --, --
11. Reed Smith (20) 3.59, 3.29, 3.05
12. Stroock & Stroock & Lavan (20) 3.39, 3.28, 3.15
13. Latham & Watkins (18) 3.88, 3.63, 3.45
14. Davis Polk & Wardwell (60) 4.01, 3.73, 3.24
15. Morrison & Foerster (20) 3.71, 3.58, 3.28
16. Winston & Strawn (40) --, --, --

Freshfields strikes me as a bit of an odd bid at 3 (small class size, a reach, not as strong in corporate as some others on this list). I would keep Proskauer there, then probably put Milbank (my first instinct) or Pillsbury at 2, then Schulte, JD, FF, Shearman, Cahill, WilmerHale. Alternatively, I would forgo another 20 slot firm at 2, then put the list above at 2-7. Also to make sure you get both Shearman and Cahill you may consider dropping one of Schulte/JD/FF down below those 2, but thats a personal call based on risk aversion (maximizing screeners vs. maximizing screeners with target firms). I would move Winston up to the next slot but it probably won't happen that low anyway.

Day 2

1. White & Case (40) 3.81, 3.57, 3.35
2. Paul Hastings (80) 4.01, 3.61, 3.29
3. Sidley Austin (20) 3.91, 3.62, 3.43
4. Arnold & Porter (20) --, --, --
5. Willkie Farr & Gallagher (40) 3.81, 3.57, 3.35
6. Linklaters (40) 3.88, 3.49, 3.24
7. Dechert (60) 3.9, 3.54, 3.16
8. Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (40) 4.01, 3.68, 3.24
9. Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft (80) 3.81, 3.51, 3.21
10. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe (20) 3.45, 3.35, 3.25
11. Kaye Scholer (20) 3.48, 3.35, 3.24
12. Goodwin Procter (20) 3.49, 3.37, 3.17
13. Kirkland & Ellis (20) 3.91, 3.67, 3.42
14. Weil, Gotshal & Manges (40) 3.91, 3.57, 3.24
15. Debevoise & Plimpton (40) 3.92, 3.69, 3.24
16. O'Melveny & Myers (20) --, --, --

I think either Sidley (reach) or Kaye Scholer/Goodwin (conservative) should go first. Follow that with White & Case, WIllkie, Linklaters, Dechert, Cadwalader. Then whichever of Sidley or Kaye Scholer/Goodwin you did not put. A&P strikes me as an incredibly random bid, and likely out of your grade range, so I would drop it entirely.

Day 3

1. Clifford Chance (80) 3.92, 3.56, 3.24
2. Cooley (20) 3.48, 3.4, 3.28

Thanks in advance!

CC is a good call here, as it seems to be for most people on day 3.

[hephaestus]

Hi! I'm a 3.44, interested in corporate/M&A. I would really appreciate feedback on Days 1 & 2 of my bid list. Thanks!

Day 1
Cahill Gordon, 60, 3.44
Proskauer Rose, 20, 3.55
Davis Polk, 60, 3.73
Shearman & Sterling, 60, 3.48
Jones Day, 40, 3.55
Morrison & Foerster, 20, 3.58
Reed Smith, 20, 3.29
Milbank Tweed, 20, 3.6
Schulte Roth, 40, 3.46
Fried Frank, 40, 3.58
Seward & Kissel, 20, 3.49
Pillsbury Winthrop, 20, 3.5
Stroock & Stroock, 20, 3.28
Winston & Strawn, 40, Flexible
Curtis Mallet-Prevost, 20, 3.2

As others have said, I would remove DPW to the bottom of the list. I think a smart bid 1 would be either Proskauer (a bit of a reach) or Seward/Pillsbury (more conservative/realistic). Then Schulte, Shearman, Cahill, Winston, JD, Fried Frank. Your call as to how to arrange those, but I think they should roughly be in that order. The first four are all prime target firms. I do think that Schulte should be before Cahill and Shearman, but that's your call. Cahill and Shearman both have better corporate departments in NY, but I would lean towards trying to get all 3, and I think that requires putting the 40 slot firm first.

Day 2
Weil, 40, 3.57
Arnold & Porter, 20, Moderate/Grade
White & Case, 40, 3.57
Linklaters, 40, 3.49
Orrick, 20, 3.35
Herbert Smith Freehills, 20, 3.43
Hogan Lovells, 40, 3.45
Cadwalader, 80, 3.51
Dechert, 60, 3.54
Goodwin Procter, 20, 3.37
Willkie Farr, 40, 3.56
Wilson Sonsini, 40, 3.53
Baker Botts, 20, --
O’Melveny & Myers, 20, --
Foley & Lardner, 20, 3.37

Weil is a pretty big reach for you, so I would lean towards putting a 20 slot safety firm first, like Goodwin or Orrick. Then, White & Case or Willkie, Hogan, Linklaters, White & Case or Willkie, Dechert, Cadwalader. I think while that is more conservative than what you have here, its the smarter play. The alternative, and perhaps even more conservative move to maximize screeners with big classes, is to move Linklaters below Cadwalader along with the second of White & Case or Willkie. I like my first proposal better, but something to keep in mind.

[Lavitz]

Tuesday

1 Ropes & Gray Boston
2 Paul Weiss
3 Paul Hastings
4 Debevoise
5 Simpson Thacher
6 Sidley Austin
7 Weil Gotshal
8 Williams & Connolly
9 Skadden
10 Arnold & Porter
11 Dechert

I would put Skadden 4 here to make sure you get a screener, and maybe move up A&P and W&C above Weil because it isnt happening at 7. You should easily get Debevoise and STB at 5/6, so you may consider dropping those 2 below Sidley, but I would probably leave it where it is. Again, your call based on how much you want to make sure you get all the elite firms.

I'd put Skadden at 3. It only has 20 slots, so I'm not sure if #4 will cut it. On the other hand, there are so many good firms on Tuesday that bids may be dispersed enough that you could get it. But still, no reason to put PH at 3 and Skadden at 9 when you could probably get PH at 7. Personally, I'd just drop Weil and do:
1 Ropes
2 PW
3 Skadden
4 Debevoise
5 Simpson
6 Sidley
7 PH
8 Williams
9 Other Stuff
Would also consider moving Sidley above Debevoise and Simpson like Scar suggested because I'm not sure how low Sidley can go.

[Anonymous User]

m

[Anonymous User]

After lurking the Columbia/NYU OCI threads, I kind of wish that Cornell had a "first failed bid" list. Basically, it appears like the aforementioned school's Career Services gives them a list of firms and a rough guide as to how high you probably should bid them depending on your interest level (e.g., "the highest a person bid on Cahill and failed to receive a screening interview was at #5").

That would be super helpful

[hephaestus]

After lurking the Columbia/NYU OCI threads, I kind of wish that Cornell had a "first failed bid" list. Basically, it appears like the aforementioned school's Career Services gives them a list of firms and a rough guide as to how high you probably should bid them depending on your interest level (e.g., "the highest a person bid on Cahill and failed to receive a screening interview was at #5").

That would be super helpful

Yeah that would be helpful, but that's what 2Ls and 3Ls are for. However, what is super helpful that Columbia does publish are callback to offer ratios for firms. Search the prior years thread for that, I'll also try to track the one down from our year.

[Lavitz]

After lurking the Columbia/NYU OCI threads, I kind of wish that Cornell had a "first failed bid" list. Basically, it appears like the aforementioned school's Career Services gives them a list of firms and a rough guide as to how high you probably should bid them depending on your interest level (e.g., "the highest a person bid on Cahill and failed to receive a screening interview was at #5").

That would be super helpful

Yeah that would be helpful, but that's what 2Ls and 3Ls are for. However, what is super helpful that Columbia does publish are callback to offer ratios for firms. Search the prior years thread for that, I'll also try to track the one down from our year.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =399774523

http://www.law.columbia.edu/null/downlo ... _id=611272

[Anonymous User]

After lurking the Columbia/NYU OCI threads, I kind of wish that Cornell had a "first failed bid" list. Basically, it appears like the aforementioned school's Career Services gives them a list of firms and a rough guide as to how high you probably should bid them depending on your interest level (e.g., "the highest a person bid on Cahill and failed to receive a screening interview was at #5").

That would be super helpful

Yeah that would be helpful, but that's what 2Ls and 3Ls are for. However, what is super helpful that Columbia does publish are callback to offer ratios for firms. Search the prior years thread for that, I'll also try to track the one down from our year.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =399774523

http://www.law.columbia.edu/null/downlo ... _id=611272

Washington DC firms/offices seem to be as competitive as their reputation.

[runthetrap1990]

After lurking the Columbia/NYU OCI threads, I kind of wish that Cornell had a "first failed bid" list. Basically, it appears like the aforementioned school's Career Services gives them a list of firms and a rough guide as to how high you probably should bid them depending on your interest level (e.g., "the highest a person bid on Cahill and failed to receive a screening interview was at #5").

That would be super helpful

Yeah that would be helpful, but that's what 2Ls and 3Ls are for. However, what is super helpful that Columbia does publish are callback to offer ratios for firms. Search the prior years thread for that, I'll also try to track the one down from our year.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =399774523

http://www.law.columbia.edu/null/downlo ... _id=611272

I'm surprised Cornell wouldn't offer something like this. It doesn't seem like it would be too much trouble to do so and is certainly insightful and useful to know and can only help, no?

Oh well.

[hephaestus]

After lurking the Columbia/NYU OCI threads, I kind of wish that Cornell had a "first failed bid" list. Basically, it appears like the aforementioned school's Career Services gives them a list of firms and a rough guide as to how high you probably should bid them depending on your interest level (e.g., "the highest a person bid on Cahill and failed to receive a screening interview was at #5").

That would be super helpful

Yeah that would be helpful, but that's what 2Ls and 3Ls are for. However, what is super helpful that Columbia does publish are callback to offer ratios for firms. Search the prior years thread for that, I'll also try to track the one down from our year.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... =399774523

http://www.law.columbia.edu/null/downlo ... _id=611272

Washington DC firms/offices seem to be as competitive as their reputation.

Yeah, and with DC and Cornell you also have to keep in mind a lot of it is self-selection. Only a very small contingent targets DC at all, so its hard to infer results based on prior years. What we do know is that DC firms generally care more about LR, and actually do call references (not a single NY firm I know of does this). In addition, they are not too tie sensitive, but be prepared to articulate why DC well.

Finally, I would not read too much into this info generally, but its helpful to have. Also, thanks to Lavitz for digging up this information.