Columbia EIP 2014 Forum

[Anonymous User]

I know both aren't 100% stone/kent - both just close - but does a GPA around a 3.5 have a realistic shot at Covington NY or SulCrom NY?

Covington NY yes, SullCrom much less so.

I think someone already asked this, but does anyone have a rough idea of what the SullCrom GPA cutoff is?

I'm the person who asked about this above. I haven't found a good concrete answer, but I spent a little time investigating it. My (pretty unhelpful) rough idea is that it's somewhere between 3.6 and 3.8. I base this on someone earlier in this thread mentioning that they did not get an S&C callback at slightly below 3.6, and OCS saying a GPA just under 3.65 was not a huge problem for S&C.

At this point I'm pretty skeptical that the S&C "auto-callback" GPA is a real thing. I'd never heard of it before this thread; I found no mention of it in the previous three years' EIP threads; and OCS told me (for whatever their word is worth) that they're not aware of S&C having an auto-callback GPA. It seems like blind-leading-the-blind wishful thinking, so far. I'd love to be proved wrong though, if anyone has more info.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know when the first callback interviews were last year? Not when they were scheduled, but when they took place. Could they happen as early as during EIP?

yeah, I've heard of people having them the second week of EIP (so for us, August 13-15). I imagine those would be for screeners that took place on August 7/8. Some have suggested taking the rest of that week off from callbacks to recover from EIP, but I think it's better to schedule them ASAP.

Thanks. So I guess you'd say it would be a bad idea to try to put off CBs at all, since most hiring decisions will come out asap as well?

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know when the first callback interviews were last year? Not when they were scheduled, but when they took place. Could they happen as early as during EIP?

yeah, I've heard of people having them the second week of EIP (so for us, August 13-15). I imagine those would be for screeners that took place on August 7/8. Some have suggested taking the rest of that week off from callbacks to recover from EIP, but I think it's better to schedule them ASAP.

Thanks. So I guess you'd say it would be a bad idea to try to put off CBs at all, since most hiring decisions will come out asap as well?

I'm a different person, but I would say yes, it's a bad idea to try to put off CBs at all. In previous EIP threads the consensus seemed to be to schedule CBs for as early as possible, to be seen when there are more total seats left to fill.

The 2012 and 2013 threads are really great for stuff like this. I really recommend reading them straight through if you have time. They basically tell the story of an entire EIP cycle from start to finish.

[Anonymous User]

Similar GPA. Targeting the same NYC firms with similar ordering of them on the list. Consider adding some more NYC firms with larger classes for safety e.g. Willkie Farr.

3.48; 2 years WE; LA focus with NYC firms added in. I'm clearly 2 law firms short so any recommendations on what I should add would be good.

Boies (NYC)
Alston (LA)
Arnold (LA)
Debevoise (NYC)
Mofo (LA)
Weil (NYC)
Jones Day (LA)
Covington (NYC)
Paul, Weiss (NYC)
Cleary (NYC)
Paul Hastings (LA)
Davis Polk (NYC)
Skadden (LA)
Sheppard (LA)
Perkins Coie (LA)
Latham (LA)
Simpson (NYC)
O'Melveny (LA)
Kirkland (LA)
Sidley (LA)
Manatt (LA)
Akin Gump (LA)
White & Case (LA)
S&C (LA)
Proskauer (LA)
Gibson (LA)
Irell (LA)
Munger (LA)

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know when the first callback interviews were last year? Not when they were scheduled, but when they took place. Could they happen as early as during EIP?

yeah, I've heard of people having them the second week of EIP (so for us, August 13-15). I imagine those would be for screeners that took place on August 7/8. Some have suggested taking the rest of that week off from callbacks to recover from EIP, but I think it's better to schedule them ASAP.

Thanks. So I guess you'd say it would be a bad idea to try to put off CBs at all, since most hiring decisions will come out asap as well?

I'm a different person, but I would say yes, it's a bad idea to try to put off CBs at all. In previous EIP threads the consensus seemed to be to schedule CBs for as early as possible, to be seen when there are more total seats left to fill.

The 2012 and 2013 threads are really great for stuff like this. I really recommend reading them straight through if you have time. They basically tell the story of an entire EIP cycle from start to finish.

FWIW, I have heard two things that bear on the decision of when to schedule a callback: First, I have heard from upperyear students that it is a good idea to schedule a CB with a firm that you are less interested in before scheduling CBs with your top firms to get a feel for what a CB is like. However, I have also heard - both from firm hiring people and OCS - that putting off an interview, even for a day or two, can be interpreted as you not being as interested in the firm, which can hurt your application. Not sure how credible either of these two sentiments are, but I'm thinking of scheduling my #1 CB for the Friday of the 2nd week of EIP and trying to squeeze in a practice CB Wednesday or Thursday.

[Anonymous User]

I'm a different person, but I would say yes, it's a bad idea to try to put off CBs at all. In previous EIP threads the consensus seemed to be to schedule CBs for as early as possible, to be seen when there are more total seats left to fill.

The 2012 and 2013 threads are really great for stuff like this. I really recommend reading them straight through if you have time. They basically tell the story of an entire EIP cycle from start to finish.

FWIW, I have heard two things that bear on the decision of when to schedule a callback: First, I have heard from upperyear students that it is a good idea to schedule a CB with a firm that you are less interested in before scheduling CBs with your top firms to get a feel for what a CB is like. However, I have also heard - both from firm hiring people and OCS - that putting off an interview, even for a day or two, can be interpreted as you not being as interested in the firm, which can hurt your application. Not sure how credible either of these two sentiments are, but I'm thinking of scheduling my #1 CB for the Friday of the 2nd week of EIP and trying to squeeze in a practice CB Wednesday or Thursday.

Thanks, all. I have a family reunion of sorts in that time (no one told me this until last week, thanks fam) but my guess is, "I'll be out of town for the next couple weeks" won't fly with the top firms. Good to know.

(FYI -- I did ask this question of OCS and the reply I got was, "Plenty of firms are still hiring in September, just tell them something important came up but you're absolutely interested in them and want to interview when you are available." But I think I'll go with you guys instead...)

[Anonymous User]

I'm the person who asked about this above. I haven't found a good concrete answer, but I spent a little time investigating it. My (pretty unhelpful) rough idea is that it's somewhere between 3.6 and 3.8. I base this on someone earlier in this thread mentioning that they did not get an S&C callback at slightly below 3.6, and OCS saying a GPA just under 3.65 was not a huge problem for S&C.

At this point I'm pretty skeptical that the S&C "auto-callback" GPA is a real thing. I'd never heard of it before this thread; I found no mention of it in the previous three years' EIP threads; and OCS told me (for whatever their word is worth) that they're not aware of S&C having an auto-callback GPA. It seems like blind-leading-the-blind wishful thinking, so far. I'd love to be proved wrong though, if anyone has more info.

3L here. Had a low-mid 3.7 and got a callback/offer from S&C FWIW. When people are saying "auto-callback," I don't think anyone means literally automatic. However, their reputation (confirmed by my experience) is that they put more emphasis on grades and less on fit/personality than peer firms. Look at their callback to offer ratio--it's much higher than any other similar firm.

FWIW, I have heard two things that bear on the decision of when to schedule a callback: First, I have heard from upperyear students that it is a good idea to schedule a CB with a firm that you are less interested in before scheduling CBs with your top firms to get a feel for what a CB is like. However, I have also heard - both from firm hiring people and OCS - that putting off an interview, even for a day or two, can be interpreted as you not being as interested in the firm, which can hurt your application. Not sure how credible either of these two sentiments are, but I'm thinking of scheduling my #1 CB for the Friday of the 2nd week of EIP and trying to squeeze in a practice CB Wednesday or Thursday.

As far as this stuff is concerned, it's whatever you think will work for you. If you are the nervous type, it might make sense to do a less stressful callback first. My strategy was getting the callbacks I wanted most out of the way first with the hope of getting an offer and being able to cancel callbacks at places I was less interested in. No right formula here.

[Anonymous User]

Would bidding all DC be at all reasonable below median? I wouldn't necessarily care what firm I ended up at.

[Anonymous User]

Would bidding all DC be at all reasonable below median? I wouldn't necessarily care what firm I ended up at.

General consensus is that DC is a hard nut to crack, and below median isn't a great place to be. My advice would be not to do it. But if you're set on dc, at least bid 5-10 nyc firms that are less selective and have large class sizes. Stay away from the very selective DC firms (W&C, Covington)

[NYSprague]

I'm a different person, but I would say yes, it's a bad idea to try to put off CBs at all. In previous EIP threads the consensus seemed to be to schedule CBs for as early as possible, to be seen when there are more total seats left to fill.

The 2012 and 2013 threads are really great for stuff like this. I really recommend reading them straight through if you have time. They basically tell the story of an entire EIP cycle from start to finish.

FWIW, I have heard two things that bear on the decision of when to schedule a callback: First, I have heard from upperyear students that it is a good idea to schedule a CB with a firm that you are less interested in before scheduling CBs with your top firms to get a feel for what a CB is like. However, I have also heard - both from firm hiring people and OCS - that putting off an interview, even for a day or two, can be interpreted as you not being as interested in the firm, which can hurt your application. Not sure how credible either of these two sentiments are, but I'm thinking of scheduling my #1 CB for the Friday of the 2nd week of EIP and trying to squeeze in a practice CB Wednesday or Thursday.

Thanks, all. I have a family reunion of sorts in that time (no one told me this until last week, thanks fam) but my guess is, "I'll be out of town for the next couple weeks" won't fly with the top firms. Good to know.

(FYI -- I did ask this question of OCS and the reply I got was, "Plenty of firms are still hiring in September, just tell them something important came up but you're absolutely interested in them and want to interview when you are available." But I think I'll go with you guys instead...)

Remember you are competing for the same job against people who are available. Getting a callback at most firms just means you get to continue interviewing. Don't delay callbacks unless you are in the ER at the time the interview was scheduled.
I'm not sure why you need to practice callbacks. If you need to practice, practice interviewing.

[Anonymous User]

If you do a CB during the summer, do most firms generally notify you regarding an offer before or after OCI? Or is it completely different for each firm?

[Anonymous User]

Ok, here's my first try at a bidlist--OCS has already had a look but would be helpful to get others' input as well. Kent, strong ties to DC, definitely focused on DC but interested in some NYC as well. Bolded are ones I want to make sure I get.

1 Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom New York, NY
2 Debevoise & Plimpton New York, NY
3 hogan lovells Washington, DC
4 Davis Polk & Wardwell New York, NY
5 Weil Gotshal Manges New York, NY
6 Sidley Austin Washington, DC
7 Sullivan & Cromwell New York, NY
8 Williams & Connolly Washington, DC
9 Ropes & Gray New York, NY/Washington, DC
10 Morgan Lewis & Bockius Washington, DC
11 Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison New York, NY
12 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Washington, DC
13 Arnold & Porter Washington, DC
14 Covington & Burling Washington, DC
15 Cravath Swaine & Moore New York, NY
16 WilmerHale Washington, DC
17 Crowell & Moring Washington, DC
18 Kirkland & Ellis Washington, DC
19 Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz New York, NY
20 Jones Day Washington, DC
21 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Washington, DC
22 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton Washington, DC
23 King & Spalding Washington, DC
24 Mayer Brown Washington, DC
25 Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Washington, DC
26 Munger Tolles & Olson Los Angeles, CA
27 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett New York, NY
28 Boies Schiller & Flexner Washington, DC
29 Latham & Watkins Washington, DC
30 Willkie Farr & Gallagher Washington, DC

Thanks all for your input!

-Barkevious Mingo

[Anonymous User]

I'm a 3.7+ with no work experience. I met with career services the other day and they advised me to seriously think about removing the following firms from my bid list because of that lack of work experience.

Wachtell
Simpson Thacher
Boies Schiller (Corporate)
Cravath
Davis Polk & Wardwell
Sullivan & Cromwell
Skadden

I realize some of those are uphill climbs even with impeccable credentials, which I certainly don't think I have, but still I wonder if they were being -understandably- a little conservative. Any thoughts?

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

At this point I'm pretty skeptical that the S&C "auto-callback" GPA is a real thing. I'd never heard of it before this thread; I found no mention of it in the previous three years' EIP threads; and OCS told me (for whatever their word is worth) that they're not aware of S&C having an auto-callback GPA. It seems like blind-leading-the-blind wishful thinking, so far. I'd love to be proved wrong though, if anyone has more info.

As was mentioned above, it doesn't mean literally automatic. That's why I put the qualifier "with average social skills" upthread because, well, that can tank anybody anywhere. And even then, you can quibble with what exact odds are necessary to call something "automatic." But an S&C callback at a high GPA is as close to automatic as you're going to find. We can do the math here:

1. Their callback-to-offer ratio is traditionally 90%. Last year for us it was 38 offers out of 40 accepted callbacks.
2. They gave 52 callbacks last year in a class of 368. Subtract maybe six or seven transfers.
3. A 3.6 is somewhere around top 15% of the class, or 56 students.
4. We know that callbacks are almost basically offers there. And we have the data that 32/33 (97%) were Kent/Stone. So now this involved some guesswork as to what percentage of the callbacks went to ~3.6+. We know that people seem to generally have trouble below that, so would you be comfortable saying 80%? 85%? I'm going to say that out of the ~45 1L callbacks, about 36 were to 3.6+.
5. So out of those fairly conservative assumptions, I've got an a priori chance of 36/56 (64%) of a callback at Sullcrom given that someone has at least a 3.6, and note that even that assumes that every single 3.6+ interviewed there (which is almost certainly not true). Your chances with at least average social skills would be higher still.
6. So subtracting out the non-interviewed and the weirdos, I'm going to guess that about 75% of 3.6+ students who interviewed at S&C got a callback. What do you think that number is for 3.7+? What about Kent? I'm willing to say Kent + average social skills is an auto-offer, even if it's not literally true.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

I'm a 3.7+ with no work experience. I met with career services the other day and they advised me to seriously think about removing the following firms from my bid list because of that lack of work experience.

Wachtell
Simpson Thacher
Boies Schiller (Corporate)
Cravath
Davis Polk & Wardwell
Sullivan & Cromwell
Skadden

I realize some of those are uphill climbs even with impeccable credentials, which I certainly don't think I have, but still I wonder if they were being -understandably- a little conservative. Any thoughts?

This is dumb. Each and every one of these firms is attainable by a 3.7 K-JD.

[Tiago Splitter]

Yeah someone in career services should be fired if they gave that advice.

Regarding callbacks, career services will push you not to do any during EIP, but people start doing them the very next day, and even doing one on the final day of EIP if your schedule clears up is fine. Might as well get the ball rolling ASAP. That said, firms aren't really going to know that you pushed back the callback so if you want to take the route mentioned earlier of scheduling favorites early so that you can cancel ones you're less interested in later I wouldn't worry about offending anyone. The problem is that setting up the ideal schedule isn't quite as easy as you'd like. Sometimes you just have to take what you can get, and at a firm that calls back a lot of people there might only be 1-2 open days in the two weeks after EIP.

[Anonymous User]

Any advice on the below? Would be much appreciated, as I find OCS less than useless these days.

Thoughts on my list below? At high Stone, work experience, will likely go into EIP with an offer from a firm. Also won't be too heartbroken if I don't work big law next summer. I doubt I will use all of my bids. All New York. Bolded are my top choices. Not too fussed about Corporate vs. Litigation, but likely leaning towards litigation.

1. Baker and McKenzie
2. Shearman and Sterling
3. Sidley Austin
4. Gibson Dunn
5. Skadden
6. Debevoise
7. WilmerHale
8. Weil Gotshal
9. Sullivan & Cromwell
10. Davis Polk
11. Simpson Thacher
12. Cleary Gottlieb
13. Paul Weiss
14. Akin Gump
15. Cadwalader
16. Covington
17. Cravath
18. Wachtell

Much appreciated.

-Tek Jansen

[Anonymous User]

Any advice on the below? Would be much appreciated, as I find OCS less than useless these days.

Thoughts on my list below? At high Stone, work experience, will likely go into EIP with an offer from a firm. Also won't be too heartbroken if I don't work big law next summer. I doubt I will use all of my bids. All New York. Bolded are my top choices. Not too fussed about Corporate vs. Litigation, but likely leaning towards litigation.

1. Baker and McKenzie
2. Shearman and Sterling
3. Sidley Austin
4. Gibson Dunn
5. Skadden
6. Debevoise
7. WilmerHale
8. Weil Gotshal
9. Sullivan & Cromwell
10. Davis Polk
11. Simpson Thacher
12. Cleary Gottlieb
13. Paul Weiss
14. Akin Gump
15. Cadwalader
16. Covington
17. Cravath
18. Wachtell

Much appreciated.

-Tek Jansen

Looks good. You could maybe afford to push S&C and Simpson down a few spots, if only just to get Davis Polk up (since they're removed a few interview schedules this year).

[Anonymous User]

Any advice on the below? Would be much appreciated, as I find OCS less than useless these days.

Thoughts on my list below? At high Stone, work experience, will likely go into EIP with an offer from a firm. Also won't be too heartbroken if I don't work big law next summer. I doubt I will use all of my bids. All New York. Bolded are my top choices. Not too fussed about Corporate vs. Litigation, but likely leaning towards litigation.

1. Baker and McKenzie
2. Shearman and Sterling
3. Sidley Austin
4. Gibson Dunn
5. Skadden
6. Debevoise
7. WilmerHale
8. Weil Gotshal
9. Sullivan & Cromwell
10. Davis Polk
11. Simpson Thacher
12. Cleary Gottlieb
13. Paul Weiss
14. Akin Gump
15. Cadwalader
16. Covington
17. Cravath
18. Wachtell

Much appreciated.

-Tek Jansen

Looks good. You could maybe afford to push S&C and Simpson down a few spots, if only just to get Davis Polk up (since they're removed a few interview schedules this year).

Makes sense! I forgot they're removing, like, 40 spots. Thank you.

[Anonymous User]

Looks good. You could maybe afford to push S&C and Simpson down a few spots, if only just to get Davis Polk up (since they're removed a few interview schedules this year).

I still don't think he'll have problems getting Davis Polk where it is. It went at 21 last year, and despite the reduced number of interview slots moving it to 10's already a marked increase. Can do whichever if he's only bidding through 18.

Why no Latham, though, if you're bidding Weil?

[Anonymous User]

Looks good. You could maybe afford to push S&C and Simpson down a few spots, if only just to get Davis Polk up (since they're removed a few interview schedules this year).

I still don't think he'll have problems getting Davis Polk where it is. It went at 21 last year, and despite the reduced number of interview slots moving it to 10's already a marked increase. Can do whichever if he's only bidding through 18.

Why no Latham, though, if you're bidding Weil?

I've read that it's highly leveraged and a little fratty, although I really don't know all that much about it. Do you draw the parallel to Weil in terms of hiring chances or work / culture?

Again, thank you all.

[Anonymous User]

Didn't someone map out all the firms that increased/decreased interview schedules? Where did that go?

[Anonymous User]

Didn't someone map out all the firms that increased/decreased interview schedules? Where did that go?

Not OP, but from pg 9:

Cravath: 30
Willkie Farr: 20
Skadden: 20
Shearman: 20
Goodwin Procter: 20
Cooley: 10
Paul Hastings: 10
Latham: 10
Milbank: (10)
Boies Corporate: (20)
K&E: (20)
Kelley Drye & Warren: (20)
Jones Day: (20)
Chadbourne & Parke: (20)
Orrick: (20)
DLA: (30)
Davis Polk: (40)
Hughes Hubbard: (60)

[Anonymous User]

S&C associate here:

(1) I'm not aware of any auto-callback number - not that I'm privy to any special recruiting info that you guys don't know. Definitely most folks I've interviewed have honors, but I've seen without honors, albeit with compelling "softs" (a strong finance background before law school, ex-military guy who hadn't been in school for years , etc.).

(2) That being said, in my experience its true that S&C puts more weight on credentials (be it grades or otherwise) than "fit". I don't think that's because we think "fit" is less important; more that accurately assessing "fit" based on a 20 minute interview is mostly BS and leads to a lot of interviewers boosting folks who have similar backgrounds to the interviewer. S&C takes meritocracy seriously - you'll hear that during recruiting as part of the firm's pitch and in my experience it is true.

(3) I've interviewed tons of K-JDs. It nuts to think that a K-JD with good grades wouldn't get a CB or offer at S&C because they didn't have an employment history - you think a firm wants to turn away talented folks because they didn't spend 2 years working some BS analyst job? Can't imagine why career services is giving that advice.
(To be fair, it's generally assumed that the long term yield at firms for K-JDs is lower than for folks with an employment history, because some fraction of K-JDs arrive at a professional workplace for the first time in their lives and realize that it isn't for them. But some of the most talented folks are K-JD and firms want to recruit those folks.)

[Anonymous User]

S&C associate here:

(1) I'm not aware of any auto-callback number - not that I'm privy to any special recruiting info that you guys don't know. Definitely most folks I've interviewed have honors, but I've seen without honors, albeit with compelling "softs" (a strong finance background before law school, ex-military guy who hadn't been in school for years , etc.).

(2) That being said, in my experience its true that S&C puts more weight on credentials (be it grades or otherwise) than "fit". I don't think that's because we think "fit" is less important; more that accurately assessing "fit" based on a 20 minute interview is mostly BS and leads to a lot of interviewers boosting folks who have similar backgrounds to the interviewer. S&C takes meritocracy seriously - you'll hear that during recruiting as part of the firm's pitch and in my experience it is true.

(3) I've interviewed tons of K-JDs. It nuts to think that a K-JD with good grades wouldn't get a CB or offer at S&C because they didn't have an employment history - you think a firm wants to turn away talented folks because they didn't spend 2 years working some BS analyst job? Can't imagine why career services is giving that advice.
(To be fair, it's generally assumed that the long term yield at firms for K-JDs is lower than for folks with an employment history, because some fraction of K-JDs arrive at a professional workplace for the first time in their lives and realize that it isn't for them. But some of the most talented folks are K-JD and firms want to recruit those folks.)

Thanks for your input -- really helpful. Can you speak as to the "screamer" rep of the firm? I'm sure this has been asked before and differs per experience, but any additional "insider" information would be nice.