Columbia EIP 2014 Forum

[Anonymous User]

Interesting. Thank you both. The decision was whether to be safe (3 spots) or super safe (5 spots) for me. I felt it was a popular firm so hoped to ensure that I even wanted this firm enough to justify that.

[Anonymous User]

Interesting. Thank you both. The decision was whether to be safe (3 spots) or super safe (5 spots) for me. I felt it was a popular firm so hoped to ensure that I even wanted this firm enough to justify that.

Based on what I've been hearing, it is a top choice for a lot of people (at least those who went to Boulud Sud), but I doubt many will bid it incredibly high with so many other large class firms having higher first failed bids.

[Anonymous User]

Interesting. Thank you both. The decision was whether to be safe (3 spots) or super safe (5 spots) for me. I felt it was a popular firm so hoped to ensure that I even wanted this firm enough to justify that.

Based on what I've been hearing, it is a top choice for a lot of people (at least those who went to Boulud Sud), but I doubt many will bid it incredibly high with so many other large class firms having higher first failed bids.

To be fair, those desserts were delicious.

[Anonymous User]

First shot at an EIP bid list. Low Stone, 2 years relevant and somewhat well-known work experience, Ivy undergrad. I'm probably an average interviewer. Not a URM. I'm worried that my bid list is a bit aggressive and I'm wasting my bids on firms that I'm not going to have a shot at because of my GPA (I know W&C and WilmerHale are almost certainly in this category). Any feedback will be greatly appreciated!

1 Kirkland & Ellis LLP (New York, NY)
2 Shearman & Sterling LLP (New York, NY)
3 sidley austin llp (New York, NY)
4 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP (New York, NY)
5 Debevoise & Plimpton LLP (New York, NY)
6 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom (New York, NY)
7 paul hastings llp (New York, NY)
8 Kaye Scholer LLP (New York, NY)
9 Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP (New York, NY)
10 Jones Day (New York, NY)
11 Latham & Watkins LLP (New York, NY)
12 Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (New York, NY)
13 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (New York, NY)
14 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (New York, NY)
15 Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (New York, NY)
16 Ropes & Gray (New York, NY)
17 Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (New York, NY)
18 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (New York, NY)
19 Holland & Knight LLP (New York, NY)
20 Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP (New York, NY)
21 Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP (New York, NY)
22 goodwin procter llp (New York, NY)
23 Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP (New York, NY)
24 Simpson Thacher & bartlett llp (New York, NY)
25 cooley llp (New York, NY)
26 Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (New York, NY - Corporate Group)
27 Vinson & Elkins LLP (New York, NY)
28 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP (New York, NY)
29 Williams & Connolly LLP (Washington, DC)
30 WilmerHale LLP (Washington, DC)

Thanks!
~Tom Haverford

[Anonymous User]

What's the general word on Paul Weiss' corporate groups? I know the firm is generally known for litigation, but have heard its corporate is growing quickly. Is it worth bidding it super high if I'm interested in corporate work?

It's not really growing quickly. They have one big client (Apollo) which they "acquired" when they brought in an existing team with the relationship from O'Melveney. Still, there are worse corporate options - Apollo is active.

[Anonymous User]

First shot at an EIP bid list. Low Stone, 2 years relevant and somewhat well-known work experience, Ivy undergrad. I'm probably an average interviewer. Not a URM. I'm worried that my bid list is a bit aggressive and I'm wasting my bids on firms that I'm not going to have a shot at because of my GPA (I know W&C and WilmerHale are almost certainly in this category). Any feedback will be greatly appreciated!

1 Kirkland & Ellis LLP (New York, NY)
2 Shearman & Sterling LLP (New York, NY)
3 Sidley Austin LLP (New York, NY)
4 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP (New York, NY)
5 Debevoise & Plimpton LLP (New York, NY)
6 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom (New York, NY)
7 Paul Hastings LLP (New York, NY)
8 Kaye Scholer LLP (New York, NY)
9 Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP (New York, NY)
10 Jones Day (New York, NY)
11 Latham & Watkins LLP (New York, NY)
12 Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (New York, NY)
13 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (New York, NY)
14 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (New York, NY)
15 Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (New York, NY)
16 Ropes & Gray (New York, NY)
17 Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (New York, NY)
18 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (New York, NY)
19 Holland & Knight LLP (New York, NY)
20 Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP (New York, NY)
21 Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP (New York, NY)
22 Goodwin Procter LLP (New York, NY)
23 Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP (New York, NY)
24 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (New York, NY)
25 Cooley LLP (New York, NY)
26 Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (New York, NY - Corporate Group)
27 Vinson & Elkins LLP (New York, NY)
28 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP (New York, NY)
29 Williams & Connolly LLP (Washington, DC)
30 WilmerHale LLP (Washington, DC)

Thanks!
~Tom Haverford

I have a 3.49 and almost an identical bid list for what it's worth, except the DC ones. I think it's a solid list.

[Anonymous User]

why no DPW?

[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?

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

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

Thanks for the feedback. Maybe my resume is particularly underwhelming. I think I'm going to keep most of those firms, but maybe ditch one or two to try to find room for Willkie, Milbank, Cadwalader.

Ned S.

[Anonymous User]

for re: the post above, I spoke with career services this week and they acknowledged that no firms were "out" and that GPA wouldn't be a problem (3.7+ kent); however, they still encouraged me to include at least seven or eight non-grade selective firms. And I have WE and some other cool resume stuff. I think it's a policy to urge caution; dismissing the firms altogether is silly, but I'm not surprised even for a solid k-jd candidate that they suggest less aggressive bidding.

CSO also gets antsy when you have more than one, and esp more than two, cities on your list. It's just their MO to craft as NY-heavy/non-selective bid lists as possible. To be fair, it's good advice for more than half the class.

bottom line is take what they say with a grain of salt, as we all know

-little finger

[Anonymous User]

Absolutely, and I went in there feeling my bid list might be a little aggressive, so I was happy get a list of less selective firms. It just was presented a little more starkly than I was planning on, especially given the discussion in here of the mythical S&C autocallback. No worries though.
-Ned S.

[Monochromatic Oeuvre]

for re: the post above, I spoke with career services this week and they acknowledged that no firms were "out" and that GPA wouldn't be a problem (3.7+ kent); however, they still encouraged me to include at least seven or eight non-grade selective firms. And I have WE and some other cool resume stuff. I think it's a policy to urge caution; dismissing the firms altogether is silly, but I'm not surprised even for a solid k-jd candidate that they suggest less aggressive bidding.

CSO also gets antsy when you have more than one, and esp more than two, cities on your list. It's just their MO to craft as NY-heavy/non-selective bid lists as possible. To be fair, it's good advice for more than half the class.

bottom line is take what they say with a grain of salt, as we all know

-little finger

CSO's number one goal is to ensure you have an offer. They could give two shits whether you prefer Simpson or Cleary. They're not exactly wrong. The two main reasons people strike out are over-aggressive bidlists and severe aspieness and well, you can't do much about the latter. People have a tendency to feel safe and just go for the 30 firms they want most but it's really not that hard to find 30 really selective firms. Really only about 10% of the class can bid with total impunity; the rest have to at least consider the downside risk of striking out when constructing a bidlist.

[Tiago Splitter]

Absolutely, and I went in there feeling my bid list might be a little aggressive, so I was happy get a list of less selective firms. It just was presented a little more starkly than I was planning on, especially given the discussion in here of the mythical S&C autocallback. No worries though.
-Ned S.

To be fair if the only NYC offices you had on there were the ones listed then I'd understand. If NYC is just your backup market you need to play it safer than you would if you were bidding all NYC.

[Anonymous User]

First shot at an EIP bid list. Low Stone, 2 years relevant and somewhat well-known work experience, Ivy undergrad. I'm probably an average interviewer. Not a URM. I'm worried that my bid list is a bit aggressive and I'm wasting my bids on firms that I'm not going to have a shot at because of my GPA (I know W&C and WilmerHale are almost certainly in this category). Any feedback will be greatly appreciated!

1 Kirkland & Ellis LLP (New York, NY)
2 Shearman & Sterling LLP (New York, NY)
3 Sidley Austin LLP (New York, NY)
4 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP (New York, NY)
5 Debevoise & Plimpton LLP (New York, NY)
6 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom (New York, NY)
7 Paul Hastings LLP (New York, NY)
8 Kaye Scholer LLP (New York, NY)
9 Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP (New York, NY)
10 Jones Day (New York, NY)
11 Latham & Watkins LLP (New York, NY)
12 Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (New York, NY)
13 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (New York, NY)
14 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (New York, NY)
15 Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (New York, NY)
16 Ropes & Gray (New York, NY)
17 Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (New York, NY)
18 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (New York, NY)
19 Holland & Knight LLP (New York, NY)
20 Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP (New York, NY)
21 Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP (New York, NY)
22 Goodwin Procter LLP (New York, NY)
23 Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP (New York, NY)
24 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (New York, NY)
25 Cooley LLP (New York, NY)
26 Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (New York, NY - Corporate Group)
27 Vinson & Elkins LLP (New York, NY)
28 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP (New York, NY)
29 Williams & Connolly LLP (Washington, DC)
30 WilmerHale LLP (Washington, DC)

Thanks!
~Tom Haverford

I have a 3.49 and almost an identical bid list for what it's worth, except the DC ones. I think it's a solid list.

Thanks! Good to know that my list isn't completely off the mark. Anyone have an idea of what firms are out for someone with a 3.4-3.5 GPA (notwithstanding WE, resume softs, wtvr)? I'm worried that my GPA's going to keep me from getting callbacks at firms like DPW, Paul Weiss, and Cleary.

~Tom Haverford

[Anonymous User]

First shot at an EIP bid list. Low Stone, 2 years relevant and somewhat well-known work experience, Ivy undergrad. I'm probably an average interviewer. Not a URM. I'm worried that my bid list is a bit aggressive and I'm wasting my bids on firms that I'm not going to have a shot at because of my GPA (I know W&C and WilmerHale are almost certainly in this category). Any feedback will be greatly appreciated!

1 Kirkland & Ellis LLP (New York, NY)
2 Shearman & Sterling LLP (New York, NY)
3 Sidley Austin LLP (New York, NY)
4 Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP (New York, NY)
5 Debevoise & Plimpton LLP (New York, NY)
6 Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, & Flom (New York, NY)
7 Paul Hastings LLP (New York, NY)
8 Kaye Scholer LLP (New York, NY)
9 Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP (New York, NY)
10 Jones Day (New York, NY)
11 Latham & Watkins LLP (New York, NY)
12 Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (New York, NY)
13 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (New York, NY)
14 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (New York, NY)
15 Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (New York, NY)
16 Ropes & Gray (New York, NY)
17 Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP (New York, NY)
18 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (New York, NY)
19 Holland & Knight LLP (New York, NY)
20 Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson LLP (New York, NY)
21 Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP (New York, NY)
22 Goodwin Procter LLP (New York, NY)
23 Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP (New York, NY)
24 Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (New York, NY)
25 Cooley LLP (New York, NY)
26 Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP (New York, NY - Corporate Group)
27 Vinson & Elkins LLP (New York, NY)
28 Bracewell & Giuliani LLP (New York, NY)
29 Williams & Connolly LLP (Washington, DC)
30 WilmerHale LLP (Washington, DC)

Thanks!
~Tom Haverford

I have a 3.49 and almost an identical bid list for what it's worth, except the DC ones. I think it's a solid list.

Thanks! Good to know that my list isn't completely off the mark. Anyone have an idea of what firms are out for someone with a 3.4-3.5 GPA (notwithstanding WE, resume softs, wtvr)? I'm worried that my GPA's going to keep me from getting callbacks at firms like DPW, Paul Weiss, and Cleary.

~Tom Haverford

Good shot at Paul Weiss, it's in your range. DPW and Cleary might be a little bit of reach but certainly possible. Only ones that are "out" are Wachtell and S&C. Maybe Cravath, too. But strong interviewing and other skills are huge factors so who knows.

[brazleton]

.

[Anonymous User]

As someone who went through this a few years back I wanted to add that I think people are parsing grades a little too much (still very relevant for identifying targets, reaches and safeties). In granting callbacks, these screener-interviewers are glancing at grades and looking for Kent, Stone, median and below. Maybe they can parse low stone and high stone with a glance. My point is that if you are, say, low Stone, you absolutely have a solid shot a DPW and Clearly. It will be entirely interview-based at that point. Might they take a Kent over you though they liked you better? Yes. But will they take the 3.55 over the 3.45 despite fit? No way.

Is that really true?

I'd have thought that the difference between mid- and low-Stone was noteworthy. I think it would matter, at least to firms like Davis Polk, Simpson, and so on. For a firm that traditionally reaches just slightly lower, say Debevoise Paul Weiss, I can see fit being prized more highly, but even then... Could you still say that once you hit Stone, grades matter much less for most firms?

[Anonymous User]

As someone who went through this a few years back I wanted to add that I think people are parsing grades a little too much (still very relevant for identifying targets, reaches and safeties). In granting callbacks, these screener-interviewers are glancing at grades and looking for Kent, Stone, median and below. Maybe they can parse low stone and high stone with a glance. My point is that if you are, say, low Stone, you absolutely have a solid shot a DPW and Clearly. It will be entirely interview-based at that point. Might they take a Kent over you though they liked you better? Yes. But will they take the 3.55 over the 3.45 despite fit? No way.

Is that really true?

I'd have thought that the difference between mid- and low-Stone was noteworthy. I think it would matter, at least to firms like Davis Polk, Simpson, and so on. For a firm that traditionally reaches just slightly lower, say Debevoise Paul Weiss, I can see fit being prized more highly, but even then... Could you still say that once you hit Stone, grades matter much less for most firms?

Rising 3L here - I have heard similar from many people who interview for the firms (including DPW, STB, S&C, Cravath, etc). This forum places too big of an emphasis on very small GPA differences. Ultimately it does not matter as much given that interviewers glance at your transcript quickly. You will make much more of an impression through what you communicate during the interview, not a mere a 0.05 or 0.1 difference in GPA. Law firms are not all about numbers. This is why work experience, and particularly interesting work experience, can help an interviewee.

One thing that recruiting told me to keep in mind is that when you start at the firms and they publish your bios, they don't post your GPA, just whatever honors you have (if that). Take all of this with a grain of salt but I really do think TLS' focus on GPA (and autocallbacks, etc etc) isn't completely credited. You all should focus much more on telling a compelling story.

Edit: This might not apply to the super selective firms like Wachtell or W&C in DC - just to most NY firms.

[Anonymous User]

"telling a compelling story."

[brazleton]

.

[Anonymous User]

"telling a compelling story."

Credited advice actually.

Law firms have huge amounts of turnover. A not insignificant number of people start working, hate it, and leave in 2 years. These firms don't actually make much money off of 1st years / 2nd years -- its the mid / senior associates who are handling multiple deals / cases who are most profitable from a partner's perspective.

With that in mind, if they can weed out people who won't be into working at a law firm (and it's certainly not for everyone), it's a plus for them. That's why it can be important to tell at least a credible story about why you chose to go to law school, why you want to work in biglaw, why this firm, etc.

[itbdvorm]

As someone who went through this a few years back I wanted to add that I think people are parsing grades a little too much (still very relevant for identifying targets, reaches and safeties). In granting callbacks, these screener-interviewers are glancing at grades and looking for Kent, Stone, median and below. Maybe they can parse low stone and high stone with a glance. My point is that if you are, say, low Stone, you absolutely have a solid shot a DPW and Clearly. It will be entirely interview-based at that point. Might they take a Kent over you though they liked you better? Yes. But will they take the 3.55 over the 3.45 despite fit? No way.

Is that really true?

I'd have thought that the difference between mid- and low-Stone was noteworthy. I think it would matter, at least to firms like Davis Polk, Simpson, and so on. For a firm that traditionally reaches just slightly lower, say Debevoise Paul Weiss, I can see fit being prized more highly, but even then... Could you still say that once you hit Stone, grades matter much less for most firms?

As the poster above mentioned, firms care less about GPA and more about honors. This is especially the case at Columbia where your GPA will be nowhere to be found. You think they break out a calculator at the end of the evening? Again, 3.45 Stone looks different than 3.78 Stone in terms of the amount of A and A- in front of them. But 3.55 and 3.45 are indistinguishable. Those candidates will be competing for a spot on everything but grades.
Do not underestimate the massive variable that is interviewing.

Agree with everything...except for the fact that our recruiting staff absolutely does break out a calculator at the end of the day

[Anonymous User]

A bit off topic, but has anyone received journal notifications yet?

[Anonymous User]

A bit off topic, but has anyone received journal notifications yet?

I doubt they'll come out until after July 7, when Law Review notifies people. It's hard for any of the journals to know how many people they'll have to select from until then.

[Anonymous User]

As someone who went through this a few years back I wanted to add that I think people are parsing grades a little too much (still very relevant for identifying targets, reaches and safeties). In granting callbacks, these screener-interviewers are glancing at grades and looking for Kent, Stone, median and below. Maybe they can parse low stone and high stone with a glance. My point is that if you are, say, low Stone, you absolutely have a solid shot a DPW and Clearly. It will be entirely interview-based at that point. Might they take a Kent over you though they liked you better? Yes. But will they take the 3.55 over the 3.45 despite fit? No way.

Is that really true?

I'd have thought that the difference between mid- and low-Stone was noteworthy. I think it would matter, at least to firms like Davis Polk, Simpson, and so on. For a firm that traditionally reaches just slightly lower, say Debevoise Paul Weiss, I can see fit being prized more highly, but even then... Could you still say that once you hit Stone, grades matter much less for most firms?

As the poster above mentioned, firms care less about GPA and more about honors. This is especially the case at Columbia where your GPA will be nowhere to be found. You think they break out a calculator at the end of the evening? Again, 3.45 Stone looks different than 3.78 Stone in terms of the amount of A and A- in front of them. But 3.55 and 3.45 are indistinguishable. Those candidates will be competing for a spot on everything but grades.
Do not underestimate the massive variable that is interviewing.

Agree with everything...except for the fact that our recruiting staff absolutely does break out a calculator at the end of the day

Wow that's super helpful. Thank you all for your answers- it's good to hear from ppl who've been through EIP and have an idea of what's going on!

~Tom Haverford

[Anonymous User]

As someone who went through this a few years back I wanted to add that I think people are parsing grades a little too much (still very relevant for identifying targets, reaches and safeties). In granting callbacks, these screener-interviewers are glancing at grades and looking for Kent, Stone, median and below. Maybe they can parse low stone and high stone with a glance. My point is that if you are, say, low Stone, you absolutely have a solid shot a DPW and Clearly. It will be entirely interview-based at that point. Might they take a Kent over you though they liked you better? Yes. But will they take the 3.55 over the 3.45 despite fit? No way.

Is that really true?

I'd have thought that the difference between mid- and low-Stone was noteworthy. I think it would matter, at least to firms like Davis Polk, Simpson, and so on. For a firm that traditionally reaches just slightly lower, say Debevoise Paul Weiss, I can see fit being prized more highly, but even then... Could you still say that once you hit Stone, grades matter much less for most firms?

Rising 3L here - I have heard similar from many people who interview for the firms (including DPW, STB, S&C, Cravath, etc). This forum places too big of an emphasis on very small GPA differences. Ultimately it does not matter as much given that interviewers glance at your transcript quickly. You will make much more of an impression through what you communicate during the interview, not a mere a 0.05 or 0.1 difference in GPA. Law firms are not all about numbers. This is why work experience, and particularly interesting work experience, can help an interviewee.

One thing that recruiting told me to keep in mind is that when you start at the firms and they publish your bios, they don't post your GPA, just whatever honors you have (if that). Take all of this with a grain of salt but I really do think TLS' focus on GPA (and autocallbacks, etc etc) isn't completely credited. You all should focus much more on telling a compelling story.

Edit: This might not apply to the super selective firms like Wachtell or W&C in DC - just to most NY firms.

This isn't quite right. GPA is being used not just as a prestige measure, but as a proxy for intelligence / competence. There is - believe it or not - a noticeable difference in the caliber of work you can expect from a low-Stone and a high-Stone. Do hundreths of a point matter? Certainly not. But firms hire for the highest GPAs because they believe GPA provides meaningful information about your talent, not just so they can post your honors on their website. (To use a couple of obvious examples, neither S&C or Cravath posts honors on associate bio pages, and they are both extremely grade-conscious.)