Columbia EIP 2015 Forum

[smaug]

I will say reasons anyway:

(1) S&C is notorious for not being fit selective. Notorious.
(2) If a firm were fit selective, why would they make that decision based off of the 20 minute conversation, rather than the series of multiple longer conversations?
(3) Let's consider the other, much simpler possibility—that they care a lot about grades. Given the lottery system, they don't get to see grades before EIP. They can't pre-screen for people they're interested in. So, they play nice but will ding many people for grades, regardless of how charming they are.
(4) You don't have to believe me. You can wait and see who ends up at S&C and draw your own conclusions.

[Anonymous User]

Thoughts on my bidlist? Low stone (3.42). K-JD. Average interviewer. Leaning lit but not fully committed to either.

Some of my firms are a little more ambitious (Skadden, Cravath, Cleary), but i've tried to include mostly big class sized firms and one's with lower honors %. Any suggestions? I'm only targeting NYC, main concern is getting a job.

Firm - (FFB) - (Differential)
1. Kirkland (2) (-1)
2. Skadden (4) (-2)
3. Gibson Dunn (4) (-1)
4. Debevoise (6) (-2)
5. White & Case (7) (-2)
6. Clifford Chance (9) (-3)
7. Millbank (11) (-4)
8. Ropes & Gray (13) (-5)
9. Willkie Farr (14) (-5)
10. Paul Weiss (14) (-4)
11. Schulte Roth (15) (-4)
12. Cahill 16 (-4)
13. Cadwalader (17) (-4)
14. Cleary 17 (-3)
15. Greenberg Taurig (18) (-3)
16. Davis Polk (19) (-3)
17. Fried Frank (20) (-3)
18. Latham Watkins (20) (-2)
19. K&L Gates (21) (-2)
20. Dechert (26) (-6)
21. Cravath (26) (-5)
22. Crowell Moring (26) (-4)
23. Stroock Stroock & Lavan (26) (-3)
24. Simpson (30) (-6)
25. Seward Kissel (27) (-2)
26. Kramer Levin
27. Katten Muchin
28. Hunton Williams
29. Sheppard Mullin
30. Mintz Levin

[Anonymous User]

Personally, I'd be thrilled to have the opportunity to work at SullCrom but I still might not have them on my bidlist because my GPA is about a 3.5. I'd like to base my decision on more than someone's smug comments about their supposed selectivity. It's a legitimate question to ask for any data from upper years, especially given that one poster claimed him and friends got offers as a low stone. So, if anyone has any data on this I think everyone could benefit.

[smaug]

You're totally fine to be thrilled to work at S&C. It's a good firm. You can be angry that some stranger on the Internet said that S&C cares more about grades than about personality.

Thing is, smug or not, I'm just telling you what I know. It is more than what you know. I don't know whether a bid on S&C with a 3.5 is wasted these days. In the years post ITE, it would have been very difficult to get an offer from S&C with those grades.

I'm sorry for laughing at your suggestion. It was earnestly very funny, though I know you didn't intend it to be.

DPW is a good example of a firm that's fit selective. They callback a lot of people. They give relatively few of those people offers.

S&C doesn't give callbacks to people it won't give an offer. You haven't gone through the process yet to know just how superficial your screeners will be, but trust me, those short conversations in the Doubletree aren't enough to winnow out all of the students you'd want gone if that were your goal. And, if you thought you could make that determination in a single 20 minute interview, it would be pretty hubristic.

Again, that's not to say that S&C is a bad firm. They are who they are for a reason. But, a fit-selective firm they are not.

[jbagelboy]

I'm sure S&C screener interviewers do have some degree of discretion to bump a candidate with slightly lower grades to a CB or shy away from someone with high grades who obviously isn't interested in what they have to offer. But they are certainly more cabined that the firms they compete with for talent like Davis Polk and Cravath. That's part of the reason S&C consistently maintains the highest % honors (essentially 100). They also tend to have a notably lower matriculation rate, i.e., acceptances of offers made, than peers (I think DPW and CSM are closer to 40-45%, S&C less than 30), which is the product of a less fit-targeted recruiting strategy.

None of that is a hit against the firm. And yea anyone interested in blue chip transactional work should be very interested in working there.

[Anonymous User]

Now that I've actually started filling in bids on symplicity: for the firms that ask you to rank office by preference, should you do that for all offices listed even if you're only interested in NYC, or just leave ones you have no interest in blank?

[El Pollito]

Thing is, smug or not, I'm just telling you what I know. It is more than what you know. I don't know whether a bid on S&C with a 3.5 is wasted these days.

It is.

[Anonymous User]

What's the credited response to telling your summer government internship you have to leave by 12:30 because you have a CB with a firm? They are a very chill office and I'm sure they wont mind, but I don't want to offend.

[papercut]

What's the credited response to telling your summer government internship you have to leave by 12:30 because you have a CB with a firm? They are a very chill office and I'm sure they wont mind, but I don't want to offend.

Just tell 'em. You'll be just fine. You're not the first, nor the last.

[Anonymous User]

For the firms requiring cover letters for EIP screeners, what are they looking for that they can't get out of the screeners themselves? ..

[Anonymous User]

Thoughts on my bidlist? Low stone (3.42). K-JD. Average interviewer. Leaning lit but not fully committed to either.

Some of my firms are a little more ambitious (Skadden, Cravath, Cleary), but i've tried to include mostly big class sized firms and one's with lower honors %. Any suggestions? I'm only targeting NYC, main concern is getting a job.

Firm - (FFB) - (Differential)
1. Kirkland (2) (-1)
2. Skadden (4) (-2)
3. Gibson Dunn (4) (-1)
4. Debevoise (6) (-2)
5. White & Case (7) (-2)
6. Clifford Chance (9) (-3)
7. Millbank (11) (-4)
8. Ropes & Gray (13) (-5)
9. Willkie Farr (14) (-5)
10. Paul Weiss (14) (-4)
11. Schulte Roth (15) (-4)
12. Cahill 16 (-4)
13. Cadwalader (17) (-4)
14. Cleary 17 (-3)
15. Greenberg Taurig (18) (-3)
16. Davis Polk (19) (-3)
17. Fried Frank (20) (-3)
18. Latham Watkins (20) (-2)
19. K&L Gates (21) (-2)
20. Dechert (26) (-6)
21. Cravath (26) (-5)
22. Crowell Moring (26) (-4)
23. Stroock Stroock & Lavan (26) (-3)
24. Simpson (30) (-6)
25. Seward Kissel (27) (-2)
26. Kramer Levin
27. Katten Muchin
28. Hunton Williams
29. Sheppard Mullin
30. Mintz Levin

Anyone?

[Tiago Splitter]

^^Looks good to me. I don't see any glaring omissions.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know the percentage of Stone and Kent scholars for 1Ls?

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone know the percentage of Stone and Kent scholars for 1Ls?

No one will be able to tell you exactly. Stone is probably ~40%, and Kent is probably 5-3%.

[Anonymous User]

I was placing bids and saw some firms requiring cover letters or writing samples to be brought to the interview. Are they serious?

[smaug]

I was placing bids and saw some firms requiring cover letters or writing samples to be brought to the interview. Are they serious?

Yes.

[almondjoy]

How long after the bidding deadline do we find out which interviews we got?

[Anonymous User]

July 28: Interview schedules will be available beginning at 12:00 noon

[papercut]

Long shot, but anyone know a Susman SA? PM if they'd be willing to answer a few questions over email. Thanks!

[Anonymous User]

Any last minute advice on my bid list? Sub-Stone but CLR. This is what I have on symplicity right now:

1. Proskauer Rose (1)
2. Paul Hastings (2)
3. Skadden Arps (4)
4. Debevoise (6)
5. White & Case (7)
6. Kaye Scholer (8)
7. Clifford Chance (9)
8. Allen & Overy (10)
9. Milbank (11)
10. Ropes & Gray (14)
11. Willkie, Farr & Gallagher (14)
12. Schulte, Roth & Zabel (15)
13. Cahill & Gordon (16)
14. Cadwalader (17)
15. Akin, Gump, Strauss & Feld (17)
16. Davis Polk (19)
17. Greenberg Traurig (18)
18. Fried Frank (19)
19. Goodwin Procter (21)
20. K&L Gates (21)
21. Pillsbury Shaw (23)
22. Hughes, Hubbard & Reed (24)
23. Crowell & Moring (26)
24. Dechert (26)
25. Vinson & Elkins (26)
26. Wachtell (28)
27. Simpson Thatcher (30)
28. Hunton & Williams (*)
29. Nixon Peabody (*)
30. Winston & Strawn (*)

Debating whether to take Proskauer off since it's just a dice roll, and either 1) bumping Paul Hastings and Skadden up 1 and inserting Gibson Dunn in at 3; or 2) bumping Paul Hastings up 1 and inserting either Kirkland or Sidley Austin in at 2. Also only put Wachtell on there because I had no idea what other firms to slot in at that high a bid number when I only want New York.

-EIP Splitter

[Anonymous User]

EIP Splitter: option (1) is the way to go, but I'd bump everything up by 1 rather than insert Gibson.

[Anonymous User]

Haha "EIP Splitter" is pretty clever. Do you know if OCS has any special insight on how EIP splitters perform? They almost certainly have data on this. I think without some sort of insight like that it's pretty hard to evaluate your bid list.

[Anonymous User]

Haha "EIP Splitter" is pretty clever. Do you know if OCS has any special insight on how EIP splitters perform? They almost certainly have data on this. I think without some sort of insight like that it's pretty hard to evaluate your bid list.

I spoke with OCS but the counselor I was assigned was sort of flighty with her answer/general advice about EIP, so I don't know how much stock to put in it. She said it may let me reach a bit higher but wasn't aware of any data on the matter.

[papercut]

but wasn't aware of any data on the matter.

Huh, that strikes me as plausible, but disappointing. I imagined they had a database with a helluva lot more data than they're willing to release to everyone. Maybe try to ask another CSOer.

[Anonymous User]

Surprisingly, I am not aware of any data that OCS keeps on LR people. Which is why it is sort of unknown. Remember, they will always advise you to be more conservative than you need to be (which is why they might only say its a modest bump). I think, if you are a good interviewer, its a huge bump. LR will get you looked at seriously even with a sub-honors GPA. It will put you in play at some very selective firms (Munger, W&C) that you might not have otherwise had a realistic shot at. Yes, those firms will still care somewhat about grades, but if you got LR and you are a great interview, they can easily justify a callback and ultimately an offer.

If you are a so-so interviewer, its still a bump, but I wouldn't count on leaning on LR for offers. I don't think LR turns a bad candidate into a good one, but it can turn a good one into a standout.