Cornell AJF 2014 + Boston / DC Job Fairs, OCI & Mass Mailing Forum

[hephaestus]

Sorry for the long wait - I noted comments below parenthetically:

Also thanks for listing the GPAs, it makes it so much easier.

Can someone critique my bid list please? Sitting at about 3.6.

Monday August 4
1. Paul Hastings 3.43-3.83 (3.6) 40 (
2. Sidley Austin 3.43-3.73 (3.56) 20 (I would put number 1 to make sure you get an interview)
3. Willkie Farr 3.08-3.83 (3.48) 40 (would make number 2)
4. Cooley 36
5. Morrison & Foerster 3.15-3.54 (3.39) 20 (too low to get)
6. Greenberg Traurig 3.10-4.0 (3.59) 20
7. Latham & Watkins 3.47-3.83 (3.66) 38
8. Ropes & Gray 3.37-3.79 (3.63) 20 (I would put 3 depending on preference, the other 5)
9. Proskauer Rose 3.43-3.78 (3.56) 20 (I would put 3 depending on preference)
10. Kasowitz Benson 3.21-3.78 (3.55) 20
11. Morgan Lewis 3.28-3.48 (3.38) 20
12. Wilson Sonsini 3.51-4.0 (3.68) 40 (I would put 6 because you will get it sooner than you would get Latham)
13. Schulte Roth 3.08-3.63 (3.43) 40 (I would put 4)
14. Stroock & Stroock 3.17-3.45 (3.35) 20

Tuesday August 5
1. Pillsbury 3.39-3.73 (3.52) 20
2. Paul Weiss 3.15-3.86 (3.65) 40
3. WilmerHale NY 3.08-3.81 (3.56) 40
4. Goodwin Procter NY 3.28-3.47 (3.39) 20 (too low, move way down)
5. Alston & Bird 3.11-3.77 (3.35) 20 (too low, move way down)
6. Shearman & Sterling 3.08-3.73 (3.47) 60 (I would put 4/5 - I think you will not get Goodwin)
7. Freshfields 3.22-3.53 (3.4) 40 (London)
8. Hughes Hubbard 3.06-3.33 (3.22) 40 (I would put 7)
9. Akin Gump 3.39-3.7 (3.52) 20
10. Foley & Lardner 20
11. Clifford Chance 3.08-3.83 (3.52) 80 (I would put 6)
12. Jones Day 3.15-3.86 (3.63) 40 (I would put 4/5)
13. Hogan Lovells 3.16-3.81 (3.46) 40 (I would put
14. Chadbourne and Parke 3.43-3.83 (3.58) 20
15. Reed Smith 20

Wednesday August 6
1. Linklaters 3.33-3.65 (3.51) 40 (I would put 3)
2. Kaye Scholer 3.36-3.71 (3.5) 20 (I would put 2)
3. Perkins Coie 20
4. Weil 3.37-3.86 (3.63) 40 (I would put 1)
5. Herbert Smith 20
6. Pepper Hamilton 20
7. Cleary D.C. 3.47-3.96 (3.75) 18
8. Epstein, Becker, and Green 3.28-3.56 (3.42) 20
9. Kirkland & Ellis 3.23-4.0 (3.57) 20
10. Blank Rome 3.08-3.53 (3.25) 20
11. Dentons 20 (I would put 4 because firms with no track record don't attract quite as many bids, same with Pepper/Herbert Smith)

[Lincoln]

I don't really have much to say regarding the order of bid lists. Too much has changed since I was bidding three years ago. But a few firm-specific comments:

(1) Why the love for Sidley? Assuming this is for the NY office, you are using your #1 or #2 bids for a satellite office of a decent, but not spectacular firm that works their associates pretty hard, from what I'm seeing. Also 20 slots and a relatively small summer class just seems like not great chances to me.

(2) Pillsbury? Is there something I'm missing?

(3) Kirkland is a top-notch firm with a stellar reputation for lit and a booming corporate practice. They're currently dying for corporate associates, including offering their existing associates $25k for referrals that lead to lateral hires. They also snagged a Cravath M&A partner about 18 months ago, which is almost unheard of. Not to mention they pay bigger bonuses (on average) than any other firm coming to AJF.

(4) Cleary DC is excellent for antitrust and some other DC-focused practices, but it's a small summer class and it's very selective.

Also a general comment: Don't stare yourself blind at the Vault rankings. Fried Frank, for example, is a great NYC firm with excellent pedigree that doesn't show in the rankings. Ropes is a great, venerable Boston firm, but their NYC office has a reputation that's not as stellar as that of the Boston office. Happy to answer firm-specific questions if I can and have the time.

[Anonymous User]

Sorry for the long wait - I noted comments below parenthetically:

Also thanks for listing the GPAs, it makes it so much easier.

Can someone critique my bid list please? Sitting at about 3.6.

Monday August 4
1. Paul Hastings 3.43-3.83 (3.6) 40 (
2. Sidley Austin 3.43-3.73 (3.56) 20 (I would put number 1 to make sure you get an interview)
3. Willkie Farr 3.08-3.83 (3.48) 40 (would make number 2)
4. Cooley 36
5. Morrison & Foerster 3.15-3.54 (3.39) 20 (too low to get)
6. Greenberg Traurig 3.10-4.0 (3.59) 20
7. Latham & Watkins 3.47-3.83 (3.66) 38
8. Ropes & Gray 3.37-3.79 (3.63) 20 (I would put 3 depending on preference, the other 5)
9. Proskauer Rose 3.43-3.78 (3.56) 20 (I would put 3 depending on preference)
10. Kasowitz Benson 3.21-3.78 (3.55) 20
11. Morgan Lewis 3.28-3.48 (3.38) 20
12. Wilson Sonsini 3.51-4.0 (3.68) 40 (I would put 6 because you will get it sooner than you would get Latham)
13. Schulte Roth 3.08-3.63 (3.43) 40 (I would put 4)
14. Stroock & Stroock 3.17-3.45 (3.35) 20

Tuesday August 5
1. Pillsbury 3.39-3.73 (3.52) 20
2. Paul Weiss 3.15-3.86 (3.65) 40
3. WilmerHale NY 3.08-3.81 (3.56) 40
4. Goodwin Procter NY 3.28-3.47 (3.39) 20 (too low, move way down)
5. Alston & Bird 3.11-3.77 (3.35) 20 (too low, move way down)
6. Shearman & Sterling 3.08-3.73 (3.47) 60 (I would put 4/5 - I think you will not get Goodwin)
7. Freshfields 3.22-3.53 (3.4) 40 (London)
8. Hughes Hubbard 3.06-3.33 (3.22) 40 (I would put 7)
9. Akin Gump 3.39-3.7 (3.52) 20
10. Foley & Lardner 20
11. Clifford Chance 3.08-3.83 (3.52) 80 (I would put 6)
12. Jones Day 3.15-3.86 (3.63) 40 (I would put 4/5)
13. Hogan Lovells 3.16-3.81 (3.46) 40 (I would put
14. Chadbourne and Parke 3.43-3.83 (3.58) 20
15. Reed Smith 20

Wednesday August 6
1. Linklaters 3.33-3.65 (3.51) 40 (I would put 3)
2. Kaye Scholer 3.36-3.71 (3.5) 20 (I would put 2)
3. Perkins Coie 20
4. Weil 3.37-3.86 (3.63) 40 (I would put 1)
5. Herbert Smith 20
6. Pepper Hamilton 20
7. Cleary D.C. 3.47-3.96 (3.75) 18
8. Epstein, Becker, and Green 3.28-3.56 (3.42) 20
9. Kirkland & Ellis 3.23-4.0 (3.57) 20
10. Blank Rome 3.08-3.53 (3.25) 20
11. Dentons 20 (I would put 4 because firms with no track record don't attract quite as many bids, same with Pepper/Herbert Smith)

Great, thanks a lot for the feedback. I just updated my list with a lot of your advice. One question I had is what's the logic in, "too low, move way down"? According to what Arkham just said, moving it down doesn't improve your chances of getting the ones below if the firm you're moving down would have been full at that slot anyway. For instance, if Goodwiin Procter was full when my name's drawn at #4, I would just get Alston & Bird, and if that was full I would get Shearman & Sterling. Is he/she wrong about that?

[Anonymous User]

I don't really have much to say regarding the order of bid lists. Too much has changed since I was bidding three years ago. But a few firm-specific comments:

(1) Why the love for Sidley? Assuming this is for the NY office, you are using your #1 or #2 bids for a satellite office of a decent, but not spectacular firm that works their associates pretty hard, from what I'm seeing. Also 20 slots and a relatively small summer class just seems like not great chances to me.

(2) Pillsbury? Is there something I'm missing?

(3) Kirkland is a top-notch firm with a stellar reputation for lit and a booming corporate practice. They're currently dying for corporate associates, including offering their existing associates $25k for referrals that lead to lateral hires. They also snagged a Cravath M&A partner about 18 months ago, which is almost unheard of. Not to mention they pay bigger bonuses (on average) than any other firm coming to AJF.

(4) Cleary DC is excellent for antitrust and some other DC-focused practices, but it's a small summer class and it's very selective.

Also a general comment: Don't stare yourself blind at the Vault rankings. Fried Frank, for example, is a great NYC firm with excellent pedigree that doesn't show in the rankings. Ropes is a great, venerable Boston firm, but their NYC office has a reputation that's not as stellar as that of the Boston office. Happy to answer firm-specific questions if I can and have the time.

1. The reason I put Sidley high was that it was a highly ranked firm that didn't have prohibitive standards. I actually heard that it had a reputation of working associates relatively less hard. The small number of interview slots was another reason I had it very high, because I thought if it was lower my chances would be slimmer. Also, according to NALP, they're expecting 31 associates for their NY office, which is comparable to the NY offices of Cadwalader, White & Case, Gibson Dunn, and Latham.

2. I just thought Pillsbury fit well with my grade range and according to ATL and Vault has good quality of life for associates.

3. Didn't know that about Kirkland, thanks!

4. Yeah, I think I'll move it down. I don't really imagine I'd have much of a chance.

[hephaestus]

Sorry for the long wait - I noted comments below parenthetically:

Also thanks for listing the GPAs, it makes it so much easier.

Can someone critique my bid list please? Sitting at about 3.6.

Monday August 4
1. Paul Hastings 3.43-3.83 (3.6) 40 (
2. Sidley Austin 3.43-3.73 (3.56) 20 (I would put number 1 to make sure you get an interview)
3. Willkie Farr 3.08-3.83 (3.48) 40 (would make number 2)
4. Cooley 36
5. Morrison & Foerster 3.15-3.54 (3.39) 20 (too low to get)
6. Greenberg Traurig 3.10-4.0 (3.59) 20
7. Latham & Watkins 3.47-3.83 (3.66) 38
8. Ropes & Gray 3.37-3.79 (3.63) 20 (I would put 3 depending on preference, the other 5)
9. Proskauer Rose 3.43-3.78 (3.56) 20 (I would put 3 depending on preference)
10. Kasowitz Benson 3.21-3.78 (3.55) 20
11. Morgan Lewis 3.28-3.48 (3.38) 20
12. Wilson Sonsini 3.51-4.0 (3.68) 40 (I would put 6 because you will get it sooner than you would get Latham)
13. Schulte Roth 3.08-3.63 (3.43) 40 (I would put 4)
14. Stroock & Stroock 3.17-3.45 (3.35) 20

Tuesday August 5
1. Pillsbury 3.39-3.73 (3.52) 20
2. Paul Weiss 3.15-3.86 (3.65) 40
3. WilmerHale NY 3.08-3.81 (3.56) 40
4. Goodwin Procter NY 3.28-3.47 (3.39) 20 (too low, move way down)
5. Alston & Bird 3.11-3.77 (3.35) 20 (too low, move way down)
6. Shearman & Sterling 3.08-3.73 (3.47) 60 (I would put 4/5 - I think you will not get Goodwin)
7. Freshfields 3.22-3.53 (3.4) 40 (London)
8. Hughes Hubbard 3.06-3.33 (3.22) 40 (I would put 7)
9. Akin Gump 3.39-3.7 (3.52) 20
10. Foley & Lardner 20
11. Clifford Chance 3.08-3.83 (3.52) 80 (I would put 6)
12. Jones Day 3.15-3.86 (3.63) 40 (I would put 4/5)
13. Hogan Lovells 3.16-3.81 (3.46) 40 (I would put
14. Chadbourne and Parke 3.43-3.83 (3.58) 20
15. Reed Smith 20

Wednesday August 6
1. Linklaters 3.33-3.65 (3.51) 40 (I would put 3)
2. Kaye Scholer 3.36-3.71 (3.5) 20 (I would put 2)
3. Perkins Coie 20
4. Weil 3.37-3.86 (3.63) 40 (I would put 1)
5. Herbert Smith 20
6. Pepper Hamilton 20
7. Cleary D.C. 3.47-3.96 (3.75) 18
8. Epstein, Becker, and Green 3.28-3.56 (3.42) 20
9. Kirkland & Ellis 3.23-4.0 (3.57) 20
10. Blank Rome 3.08-3.53 (3.25) 20
11. Dentons 20 (I would put 4 because firms with no track record don't attract quite as many bids, same with Pepper/Herbert Smith)

Great, thanks a lot for the feedback. I just updated my list with a lot of your advice. One question I had is what's the logic in, "too low, move way down"? According to what Arkham just said, moving it down doesn't improve your chances of getting the ones below if the firm you're moving down would have been full at that slot anyway. For instance, if Goodwiin Procter was full when my name's drawn at #4, I would just get Alston & Bird, and if that was full I would get Shearman & Sterling. Is he/she wrong about that?

I meant that it was too low to get an interview. At the lower levels you should prioritize firms with a higher numbers of slots. Especially because in this case these firms will fill up quick because they are very flexible GPA wise.
And yes I think arkham is right to a degree. However, like arbiter said the odds of a firm with 20 slots and a flexible GPA still having space at bid 6 or 7 is quite unlikely.

[Anonymous User]

Anon, sorry for the long wait time, but hope you are still following the thread:

Top third, anyone care to critique?

Day 1
1. Sidley Austin
2. MoFo (with how low their average is I feel like its close to get them at 2, maybe put Proskauer here since they are more in your grade range and move down substantially)
3. Proskauer Rose
4. Latham
5. Paul Hastings
6. Wilkie
7. Kasowitz
8. Milbank
9. Fried Frank (should be significantly higher - I would put 4 or 5)
10. Cahill (I would move right below Fried Frank, I would at have my 567 be FF/Wilkie/Cahill)
11. Greenberg (too few interview slots to get at 11)
12. Stroock (too few slots to get here)
13. Debevoise
14. Cravath

Day 2 (Where is Paul Weiss? I feel like that is a good reach firm to have)
1. Ropes & Gray
2. WilmerHale
3. Alston & Bird (no way you get this at 3 due to their very low GPA/20 slots)
4. K&L Gates (such a small summer class that I wouldn't rank this high)
5. Jones Day (I would put 3r)
6. Chadbourn
7. White & Case (I would put 4)
8. Akin (I would put 7)
9. Freshfields
10. Simpson Thatcher
11. Shearman (I would put 5/6)
12. Cadwalader (this should be way higher - 5 or 6 probably)
13. Clifford Chance

Day 3
1. Skadden (too much of a reach - I would go with Weil)
2. Kirkland (put either this or Weil 1, and the other 2)
3. A&O
4. Weil
5. Linklaters
6. Orrick
7. Cleary (DC)
8. Perkins Coie
9. Blank Rome

This is excellent, thank you

[toothbrush]

imnoscar is killing this thread, atm. Arbiter needs to step it up, imo. Bar prep is easier than 2L SA, c'mon.

[hephaestus]

I don't really have much to say regarding the order of bid lists. Too much has changed since I was bidding three years ago. But a few firm-specific comments:

(1) Why the love for Sidley? Assuming this is for the NY office, you are using your #1 or #2 bids for a satellite office of a decent, but not spectacular firm that works their associates pretty hard, from what I'm seeing. Also 20 slots and a relatively small summer class just seems like not great chances to me.

(2) Pillsbury? Is there something I'm missing?

(3) Kirkland is a top-notch firm with a stellar reputation for lit and a booming corporate practice. They're currently dying for corporate associates, including offering their existing associates $25k for referrals that lead to lateral hires. They also snagged a Cravath M&A partner about 18 months ago, which is almost unheard of. Not to mention they pay bigger bonuses (on average) than any other firm coming to AJF.

(4) Cleary DC is excellent for antitrust and some other DC-focused practices, but it's a small summer class and it's very selective.

Also a general comment: Don't stare yourself blind at the Vault rankings. Fried Frank, for example, is a great NYC firm with excellent pedigree that doesn't show in the rankings. Ropes is a great, venerable Boston firm, but their NYC office has a reputation that's not as stellar as that of the Boston office. Happy to answer firm-specific questions if I can and have the time.

My understanding with Sidley is that they are similar to Wilkie/Fried Frank/Cahill/Cadwalader in that they have relatively large summer classes and are not overly selective. 30+ SAs is pretty big for a firm with a 3.5/3.6 GPA average.

[Anonymous User]

Does anyone have any information about Jones Day generally, and specifically re: firm culture? Thanks a lot!

[toothbrush]

Does anyone have any information about Jones Day generally, and specifically re: firm culture? Thanks a lot!

I've heard it's a "white-shoe firm" or whatever they call it. Very formal.

Also is nicknamed Jones Day "nights and weekends" because they work a lot. But everywhere does, so who knows.

There are a lot of posts about firm culture on TLS, try searching "jones day" or "jones day culture" and many threads pop up.

Of course, people in the know can chime in here as well.

[Anonymous User]

Need some TLS help: I've got no idea how this "bidding strategy" thing works, so I just listed in general order of preference. Please let me know what you think.

(1) I have a 3.865 - thinking I'm somewhere in the top 5% since c/o 2015 5% was 3.836. (2) NYC is my market of choice but I threw a few Philly/DC in there just to "keep those doors open."

Monday, 8/4
Cravath
Davis Polk
Cleary
Debevoise
Latham & Watkins
Gibson Dunn
Sidley Austin
Paul Hastings
MoFo
Proskauer Rose
Fried Frank
Wilkie Farr

Tuesday, 8/5
SullCrom
Simpson Thacher
Paul Weiss
White & Case
WilmerHale
Jones Day
Clifford Chance
Akin Gump
hogan lovells
Freshfields
Fox Rothschild
Williams & Connolly

Wednesday, 8/6
Skadden
Weil
Kirkland & Ellis
Orrick
Allen & Overy
Baker Botts
Kaye Scholer
Blank Rome
Pepper Hamilton
Perkins Cole

[Arbiter213]

Need some TLS help: I've got no idea how this "bidding strategy" thing works, so I just listed in general order of preference. Please let me know what you think.

(1) I have a 3.865 - thinking I'm somewhere in the top 5% since c/o 2015 5% was 3.836. (2) NYC is my market of choice but I threw a few Philly/DC in there just to "keep those doors open."

Monday, 8/4
Cravath
Davis Polk
Cleary
Debevoise
Latham & Watkins
Gibson Dunn
Sidley Austin
Paul Hastings
MoFo
Proskauer Rose
Fried Frank
Wilkie Farr

Tuesday, 8/5
SullCrom
Simpson Thacher
Paul Weiss
White & Case
WilmerHale
Jones Day
Clifford Chance
Akin Gump
Hogan Lovells
Freshfields
Fox Rothschild
Williams & Connolly

Wednesday, 8/6
Skadden
Weil
Kirkland & Ellis
Orrick
Allen & Overy
Baker Botts
Kaye Scholer
Blank Rome
Pepper Hamilton
Perkins Cole

I'd move Freshfields up on day 2, otherwise is probably fine.

[hephaestus]

Need some TLS help: I've got no idea how this "bidding strategy" thing works, so I just listed in general order of preference. Please let me know what you think.

(1) I have a 3.865 - thinking I'm somewhere in the top 5% since c/o 2015 5% was 3.836. (2) NYC is my market of choice but I threw a few Philly/DC in there just to "keep those doors open."

Monday, 8/4
Cravath
Davis Polk
Cleary
Debevoise
Latham & Watkins
Gibson Dunn
Sidley Austin
Paul Hastings
MoFo
Proskauer Rose
Fried Frank
Wilkie Farr

Tuesday, 8/5
SullCrom
Simpson Thacher
Paul Weiss
White & Case
WilmerHale
Jones Day
Clifford Chance
Akin Gump
Hogan Lovells
Freshfields
Fox Rothschild
Williams & Connolly

Wednesday, 8/6
Skadden
Weil
Kirkland & Ellis
Orrick
Allen & Overy
Baker Botts
Kaye Scholer
Blank Rome
Pepper Hamilton
Perkins Cole

In addition to what arbiter said I would move Kirkland up on day 3 to 2 instead of Weil. Also if you want a W&C interview I would rank them higher than last on day 2. I don't think there's any reason for them to be last - you're not going to get Fox Rothschild etc at slot 11 so you may as well pick up a W&C screener. I would put them 7/8 depending on how much you move Freshfields up.

[Anonymous User]

Honestly, your list looks extremely lazy. For example why rank DPW over Cleary when Cleary has 20 less slots than DPW and is probably more popular? That doesn't make sense. Adjust for amount of interview slots they have. Yes, you will probably get all of your top picks, but not a lot of screeners in total. Seems risky. You can still get your top picks and other screeners if you adjust a bit.

[Lincoln]

Need some TLS help: I've got no idea how this "bidding strategy" thing works, so I just listed in general order of preference. Please let me know what you think.

(1) I have a 3.865 - thinking I'm somewhere in the top 5% since c/o 2015 5% was 3.836. (2) NYC is my market of choice but I threw a few Philly/DC in there just to "keep those doors open."

Monday, 8/4
Cravath
Davis Polk
Cleary
Debevoise
Latham & Watkins
Gibson Dunn
Sidley Austin
Paul Hastings
MoFo
Proskauer Rose
Fried Frank
Wilkie Farr

Tuesday, 8/5
SullCrom
Simpson Thacher
Paul Weiss
White & Case
WilmerHale
Jones Day
Clifford Chance
Akin Gump
Hogan Lovells
Freshfields
Fox Rothschild
Williams & Connolly

Wednesday, 8/6
Skadden
Weil
Kirkland & Ellis
Orrick
Allen & Overy
Baker Botts
Kaye Scholer
Blank Rome
Pepper Hamilton
Perkins Cole

(1) Do you want corp or lit? If the latter, and you'd consider DC, move Williams & Connolly up. It should also affect some of your other rankings.
(2) I don't understand picking Skadden over Kirkland on day 3 unless you really hate a free market system (which is a legit concern).
(3) Orrick? No reason for you to bid them at all.
(4) Switch Freshfields for clifford chance. I had CBs at both and have lots of friends at CC. Just take my word for it.
(5) On day 1, I like Wilkie and MoFo, so I'd place them higher, but that's just my personal preference?
(6) On day 3, if you want A&O you're gonna have to bid them higher. In my year some ppl bid them #1 and didn't get a screener.
(7) Any top firms you don't get, email. They'll probably fit you in with your grades.
(8) You're obviously a bit of a rankings whore (which is fine), so get ready to work hard. I'm at one of the firms you have high up, and I'm on track to bill 3200 hrs this year.

[Arbiter213]

imnoscar is killing this thread, atm. Arbiter needs to step it up, imo. Bar prep is easier than 2L SA, c'mon.

[toothbrush]

imnoscar is killing this thread, atm. Arbiter needs to step it up, imo. Bar prep is easier than 2L SA, c'mon.

it's beautiful

[Anonymous User]

So, is it the credited strategy to attempt to make your top 6-8 slots as tight as possible (as in, as likely that you'll get them all based on grades, slots, etc.), and then just randomly fill up the next few slots with firms you like but can't fit into the top 6-8? What is the point of having a bid list of 12 if it doesn't seem like you'll get anything past 8?

[Arbiter213]

So, is it the credited strategy to attempt to make your top 6-8 slots as tight as possible (as in, as likely that you'll get them all based on grades, slots, etc.), and then just randomly fill up the next few slots with firms you like but can't fit into the top 6-8? What is the point of having a bid list of 12 if it doesn't seem like you'll get anything past 8?

They get your resume and can either reach out to you themselves (sometimes), or you can reach out to them and say "I bid you but didn't get you (darn lottery!), can you fit me in?"

[Anonymous User]

So, is it the credited strategy to attempt to make your top 6-8 slots as tight as possible (as in, as likely that you'll get them all based on grades, slots, etc.), and then just randomly fill up the next few slots with firms you like but can't fit into the top 6-8? What is the point of having a bid list of 12 if it doesn't seem like you'll get anything past 8?

They get your resume and can either reach out to you themselves (sometimes), or you can reach out to them and say "I bid you but didn't get you (darn lottery!), can you fit me in?"

Thanks! So would you say it's a smarter decision to just fill the last few slots with firms you like (but have smaller class sizes) or firms you may not really be interested in (but have larger class sizes in order to maximize the number of screeners you get)

[Arbiter213]

So, is it the credited strategy to attempt to make your top 6-8 slots as tight as possible (as in, as likely that you'll get them all based on grades, slots, etc.), and then just randomly fill up the next few slots with firms you like but can't fit into the top 6-8? What is the point of having a bid list of 12 if it doesn't seem like you'll get anything past 8?

They get your resume and can either reach out to you themselves (sometimes), or you can reach out to them and say "I bid you but didn't get you (darn lottery!), can you fit me in?"

Thanks! So would you say it's a smarter decision to just fill the last few slots with firms you like (but have smaller class sizes) or firms you may not really be interested in (but have larger class sizes in order to maximize the number of screeners you get)

That depends on your risk aversion.

[hephaestus]

So, is it the credited strategy to attempt to make your top 6-8 slots as tight as possible (as in, as likely that you'll get them all based on grades, slots, etc.), and then just randomly fill up the next few slots with firms you like but can't fit into the top 6-8? What is the point of having a bid list of 12 if it doesn't seem like you'll get anything past 8?

They get your resume and can either reach out to you themselves (sometimes), or you can reach out to them and say "I bid you but didn't get you (darn lottery!), can you fit me in?"

Thanks! So would you say it's a smarter decision to just fill the last few slots with firms you like (but have smaller class sizes) or firms you may not really be interested in (but have larger class sizes in order to maximize the number of screeners you get)

I would prioritize firms with a larger number of slots, or firms that historically get a low number of bids (I'm thinking specifically of the Delaware firms here, as well as firms with no callback GPA data). And I had a screener with a firm I bid 11th - it happens even though it's unlikely.

[BullShitWithBravado]

Don't waste your bids on Skadden and Kirkland on Day 3- you won't get anything you listed after it that low, and you wont get either of those with top third grades.

Isn't this a little pessimistic, or did things get more selective since I interviewed?

Maybe both.

I know people who got offers at both of those firms with top third or below top third grades. It's unlikely, but it happens.

[hephaestus]

Don't waste your bids on Skadden and Kirkland on Day 3- you won't get anything you listed after it that low, and you wont get either of those with top third grades.

Isn't this a little pessimistic, or did things get more selective since I interviewed?

Maybe both.

I know people who got offers at both of those firms with top third or below top third grades. It's unlikely, but it happens.

In general it's not a good idea to expect to be the outlier.

Eta: to clarify I don't think that's what your advice is, but for the 1Ls planning to perform at the average is the right thing to do.

[Anonymous User]

So bidding opens tomorrow - Stupid question, but does when we bid matter? I would think it wouldn't since it's a lottery system but I'd rather play it safe.