Median(pwned) at P, bidlist help? Forum

[bdubs]

Sorry, by "that low," did you mean my low GPA or the low bid rank (or both ). Either way, I've taken JD off, shifted Hogan up, WH might just be a lost cause, and I realized I meant to label Cleary as the DC office also.

Cleary DC is gonna be a hard sell from slightly above median

You shouldn't bother bidding any of those DC offices from median at P (Hogan is a maybe but certainly not likely).

[quakeroats]

Move kirkland and skadden and ropes out of the top 10. Hogan and Debevoise should be removed or dropped below 20.

[Anonymous User]

It would be a waste of a bid to move skadden down. Not sure why the above poaster would make that suggestion. Skadden is a good reach firm as it seems to be not as grade conscious as some others.

[Anonymous User]

If you're at P, you're not going to get any of those DC firms that low. You're also probably being too aggressive overall.

Sorry, by "that low," did you mean my low GPA or the low bid rank (or both ). Either way, I've taken JD off, shifted Hogan up, WH might just be a lost cause, and I realized I meant to label Cleary as the DC office also.

I meant bidding it that low.

Put Debevoise at 5 over Ropes. Not sure why you have DLA Piper on there that high, isn't their NYC summer class pretty small? Where's Schulte? I would move up Fried Frank/Cadwalader.

PM me if you want OP.

DLA is high up because the data we got says only 14% of bids were successful last year (probably because of the small # of slots/class size). Schulte was down in the 50s because in that row I wrote "sounds terrible" but I will take another look.

You shouldn't bother bidding any of those DC offices from median at P (Hogan is a maybe but certainly not likely).

I only have Hogan and WH as DC now. Maybe I'll switch WH out for the aforementioned Schulte.

Move kirkland and skadden and ropes out of the top 10. Hogan and Debevoise should be removed or dropped below 20.

Same reasoning as above poster. Care to explain why?

[Nelson]

If you're at P, you're not going to get any of those DC firms that low. You're also probably being too aggressive overall.

Sorry, by "that low," did you mean my low GPA or the low bid rank (or both ). Either way, I've taken JD off, shifted Hogan up, WH might just be a lost cause, and I realized I meant to label Cleary as the DC office also.

I meant bidding it that low.

Put Debevoise at 5 over Ropes. Not sure why you have DLA Piper on there that high, isn't their NYC summer class pretty small? Where's Schulte? I would move up Fried Frank/Cadwalader.

PM me if you want OP.

DLA is high up because the data we got says only 14% of bids were successful last year (probably because of the small # of slots/class size). Schulte was down in the 50s because in that row I wrote "sounds terrible" but I will take another look.

I think you could use that DLA slot better, just because they barely take any Penn people, but up to you. Schulte takes a ton of Penn people and isn't that grade selective. I would think they're probably a target if you want to do transactional work.

[JamMasterJ]

Debevoise is closer to being out of your league but Ropes is more popular and may not be available at 5 (at least at my school - P may be different)

[Nelson]

Debevoise is closer to being out of your league but Ropes is more popular and may not be available at 5 (at least at my school - P may be different)

Ropes is going to be tough at 5 because at Penn that schedule is shared between multiple offices, some of them in popular secondary markets. Debevoise it depends on how median OP's median is.

EDIT: RC fail. OP I think you should forget about some of the more selective places in your top ten and move up some of the less grade picky firms you have lower (e.g. Dechert at 22).

[JamMasterJ]

Debevoise is closer to being out of your league but Ropes is more popular and may not be available at 5 (at least at my school - P may be different)

Ropes is going to be tough at 5 because at Penn that schedule is shared between multiple offices, some of them in popular secondary markets. Debevoise it depends on how median OP's median is.

3.34-3.35

[Anonymous User]

Sorry to Hijack, but I am at B with 1 H, 1HH, and the rest Ps. Am I wrong to just copy this entire bid list (where applicable)?

[Anonymous User]

Rising 3L at Penn.

Ropes NYC is a weird pick. Their prestige and cultural reputation stem from their Boston office; their New York office is smaller, not super prestigious within New York, and not as chill.

That said, I would be surprised if you were above Debevoise's grade floor. Even if you were, it'll be hard to justify hiring the median Penn guy when there are 50 other Penn interviewees with a higher GPA.

This bid list is still way too optimistic. It's maybe a decent bid list for someone in the top 25% on law review.

[Anonymous User]

CLSer here, but I also think it's too aggressive. Not sure why firms like Cleary and Simpson are on here. I also think places like Skadden, Paul Weiss, and DPW are probably a bit of a reach.

What's the point of even having DLA? They don't take many students, and the bid wastes a high spot.

[Anonymous User]

This bid list is still way too optimistic. It's maybe a decent bid list for someone in the top 25% on law review.

Thanks for the response but these types of posts aren't that helpful to me. (edit: that sounds petulant. I only meant to ask if you had specific things to point out.) I based my revised list on those stupid pie charts of grade distributions of offers provided by CP&P and thought I had a decent balance, in my top 25 at least, between reaches and targets. CP&P told me those distributions are skewed slightly higher (not sure how much I buy that) and also that I could reach a tiny bit further since I have a hard science bg.

24-29 are a bit ridiculous, I admit, but I reserved those for firms with a large number of interview slots that would probably just result in no interview at all through lottery if I put different firms in. I've been looking some more and will probably wedge Stroock & Stroock and possibly Schulte in somewhere.

CLSer here, but I also think it's too aggressive. Not sure why firms like Cleary and Simpson are on here. I also think places like Skadden, Paul Weiss, and DPW are probably a bit of a reach.

Thanks. All of the firms you listed are identified as reaches on my list. Cleary, Simpson, Paul Weiss, DPW are on because of what I said above.

[Anonymous User]

I would definitely find a way to add Schulte since the actually have some pretty solid practice areas.

I understand that you want to add reaches, but I think you may have too many. At the very least I'd leave it to the less selective V10s (think Weil, KE and sort of Skadden and DPW). Cleary and Simpson seem like a stretch to me. When I made my precautionary median bid list at V10, I avoided putting both those firms on since they're a bit more selective.

At median your goal is to get a solid firm job, not to try to get the most prestigious thing out there.

[Anonymous User]

To the rising 3L-- Did you bid with a similar GPA?

[Anonymous User]

What's the point of even having DLA? They don't take many students, and the bid wastes a high spot.

Oops, I'm falling behind here. I liked them based on what I checked (I know it isn't the best way to get a feel for a firm, but with all these different firms, have to make some concessions). Their % successful bids was really low so I wanted them higher, and there are 3 people from Penn there this year, which is really comparable to most firms, it seems. DPW, JD, Dechert, Morgan Lewis, Skadden, S&C, and Weil are the only ones where there are noticeably larger numbers of Penn students clustered, and as we've discussed, most of those are reaches for me.

- OP

[quakeroats]

It would be a waste of a bid to move skadden down. Not sure why the above poaster would make that suggestion. Skadden is a good reach firm as it seems to be not as grade conscious as some others.

Skadden usually has a cutoff greater than median, plus it typically does more interviews than firms the OP has a better shot with.

[Anonymous User]

I've inserted Stroock/Schulte. Thanks to everyone for the feedback.

Skadden usually has a cutoff greater than median, plus it typically does more interviews than firms the OP has a better shot with.

Really? What I've heard is that Skadden has a median higher than median, not a cutoff. Skadden has been widely touted (in my experience) as a relatively less grade selective firm, which is why a ton of people bid Skadden NY. the NY office has 40 oci slots this year and only about a quarter of the people who bid it last year got it.

- OP

[Anonymous User]

To the rising 3L-- Did you bid with a similar GPA?

My GPA was higher; my bid list was more selective though not by much.

I only meant to ask if you had specific things to point out. I based my revised list on those stupid pie charts of grade distributions of offers provided by CP&P and thought I had a decent balance, in my top 25 at least, between reaches and targets. CP&P told me those distributions are skewed slightly higher (not sure how much I buy that) and also that I could reach a tiny bit further since I have a hard science bg.

24-29 are a bit ridiculous, I admit, but I reserved those for firms with a large number of interview slots that would probably just result in no interview at all through lottery if I put different firms in. I've been looking some more and will probably wedge Stroock & Stroock and possibly Schulte in somewhere.

OK, here's some more specific advice:

1) I get that you want to target some reach firms, but you're still overreaching. Literally half of your first 30 bids are V25 firms. That's not even close to a "decent balance." As a median Penn student, you face a substantial risk of striking out at OCI; you should be targeting firms where you'll be competitive.

2) The DC firms are pretty much out of the question. There were people from my year on law review, with much better grades, who struck out when they bid only on DC firms. The class sizes are too small and there's way too many competitive applicants for a median Penn student to have much of a chance.

3) Firms you should remove: DPW, Simpson, WilmerHale DC (all below grade threshold), Paul Weiss (below grade threshold unless you're 100% corporate; if you are 100% corporate, then keep as a reach), Latham (class size too small and too competitive in NYC), maybe Weil (layoffs indicate their class size will be very small).

4) I would rearrange so that the less selective firms are higher (e.g. Milbank, Cahill, Kasowitz).

[Anonymous User]

I updated the OP, but I don't think the shift was as significant this time.

OK, here's some more specific advice:

1) I get that you want to target some reach firms, but you're still overreaching. Literally half of your first 30 bids are V25 firms. That's not even close to a "decent balance." As a median Penn student, you face a substantial risk of striking out at OCI; you should be targeting firms where you'll be competitive.

2) The DC firms are pretty much out of the question. There were people from my year on law review, with much better grades, who struck out when they bid only on DC firms. The class sizes are too small and there's way too many competitive applicants for a median Penn student to have much of a chance.

3) Firms you should remove: DPW, Simpson, WilmerHale DC (all below grade threshold), Paul Weiss (below grade threshold unless you're 100% corporate; if you are 100% corporate, then keep as a reach), Latham (class size too small and too competitive in NYC), maybe Weil (layoffs indicate their class size will be very small).

4) I would rearrange so that the less selective firms are higher (e.g. Milbank, Cahill, Kasowitz).

Hello, thanks again for your advice. I hope you’ll answer some questions, as I am very open to modifying my bid list according to the tips I get but I won’t do so blindly.
1) This argument seems based on vault rankings, whereas I ordered my list based on the grade distributions of offers. From that data, I thought about 8 in my new top 25 were reaches (K&E, Skadden, Debevoise, White & Case, Goodwin, Weil, Akin Gump, Willkie). From what I’ve heard from others in your class, basically anything below 30 you won’t get anyway, and the ones who got stuff in the high 20s were because they bid the firms with large number of interview slots in those bids.
2) I only have Hogan as DC on my top 30 now, that’s hardly bidding only DC. I guess I don’t mind switching it to NY, but is it really worth bidding the NY office when the DC class is 3x the size (40-some vs. teens)?
3) WH/Latham are gone (or so low they’re essentially gone). My understanding is that it isn’t worth bidding any other firms in the DPW/STB slots solely due to interview slots. Keeping Weil though.
4) Cahill is already pretty high and I can probably shift Milbank a few spots but it wasn’t one of the most popular firms last year so I don’t want to use a really high bid on it. I would not prefer to move Kasowitz much as I have noted that it is heavy lit and at this point, I only want lit for one area (IP). Of course, I haven’t really tried many practice areas so I’m kind of shooting in the dark here.

- OP

[JamMasterJ]

I'd drop Hogan, Deb, move Shearman way up, and drop a few of the firms in the 20s (JDay and/or PW).

[Anonymous User]

I'd drop Hogan, Deb, move Shearman way up, and drop a few of the firms in the 20s (JDay and/or PW).

I will always ask for reasons. I think if I dropped Hogan/Debevoise any significant amount, I might as well not bid them based on how popular they were last year. If I move Shearman, it would probably only be one spot up. But PW is dead to me (jk, it's just basically off top 30) and I’ve switched JD/Goodwin (down 4-5) with Schulte/Allen & Overy (up 4-5 spots) so that’s hopefully a bit better.

Will leave this open a tad longer but I think I am basically done with editing this. Thanks to everyone for their help. I would buy (most of) all y’all drinks if I knew who you were.

[gnuwheels]

I'm at M and just wanted to say that I think some advice regarding the selectivity of specific firms is relative to certain schools. For example Skadden is way more selective at M than it is at P, and the opposite is true with regard to Weil. So when someone from X school says you're not going to get Y firm and Z spot, you might want to double check how that advice lines up with your schools data.

[JamMasterJ]

I'd drop Hogan, Deb, move Shearman way up, and drop a few of the firms in the 20s (JDay and/or PW).

I will always ask for reasons. I think if I dropped Hogan/Debevoise any significant amount, I might as well not bid them based on how popular they were last year. If I move Shearman, it would probably only be one spot up. But PW is dead to me (jk, it's just basically off top 30) and I’ve switched JD/Goodwin (down 4-5) with Schulte/Allen & Overy (up 4-5 spots) so that’s hopefully a bit better.

Will leave this open a tad longer but I think I am basically done with editing this. Thanks to everyone for their help. I would buy (most of) all y’all drinks if I knew who you were.

I meant remove (Debevoise and Hogan). Hogan because the NY class isn't big enough to use one of your reach bids and the DC office is way too selective, Debevoise b/c there are other big, selective options that you have a better chance at (so since you seem to have too many, it's the one I'd pick to get rid of). My advice with Shearman is based on their popularity at CCN - so it may not be quite as accurate at P.

[Anonymous User]

I meant remove (Debevoise and Hogan). Hogan because the NY class isn't big enough to use one of your reach bids and the DC office is way too selective, Debevoise b/c there are other big, selective options that you have a better chance at (so since you seem to have too many, it's the one I'd pick to get rid of). My advice with Shearman is based on their popularity at CCN - so it may not be quite as accurate at P.

Don't know if you'll check again/still see this but: Debevoise is one of the ones I really like actually, so I would prefer to keep it on. Which are the other firms you are specifically thinking of?

I put Hogan there based on what the grade distribution of offers for the DC office is reported as at Penn, and it looks really similar to my grade distribution. If there's evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in knowing. Shearman was not hugely popular last year but I've noticed the numbers shift and I suspect it may be more so this year. (the numbers flip on some of the firms between years, makes sense.)

[Anonymous User]

I meant remove (Debevoise and Hogan). Hogan because the NY class isn't big enough to use one of your reach bids and the DC office is way too selective, Debevoise b/c there are other big, selective options that you have a better chance at (so since you seem to have too many, it's the one I'd pick to get rid of). My advice with Shearman is based on their popularity at CCN - so it may not be quite as accurate at P.

Don't know if you'll check again/still see this but: Debevoise is one of the ones I really like actually, so I would prefer to keep it on. Which are the other firms you are specifically thinking of?

I put Hogan there based on what the grade distribution of offers for the DC office is reported as at Penn, and it looks really similar to my grade distribution. If there's evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in knowing. Shearman was not hugely popular last year but I've noticed the numbers shift and I suspect it may be more so this year. (the numbers flip on some of the firms between years, makes sense.)

I know someone just posted on the 2015 Facebook group hawking Shearman. Maybe ask them about grade cut-offs?