Bid on firms with biggest class size? Forum

[stinger35]

As a T2 transfer to a top 10, I am rapidly trying to get up to speed on bidding.

Should I basically focus on the firms with the larger class sizes? It seems like a double edged sword though as the largest class sizes (Mayer, Sidley, Kirkland, Skadden, Jenner, Latham) are also basically the most selective.

I find it hard to have confidence bidding on those firms with lower selectivity but their class sizes look like 15/8offers, or 4/4, 2/2, 4/3, or even 17/4.

Any advice here would be absolutely fantastic.

[p.s. is there any general consensus that this year will be slightly better than last or is it all up in the air and speculation at this point?]

[Voyager]

1) Vault ranking (proxy for health of firm)

2) Business model/practice diversity and strengths

3) SA offer rate (MUCH more important than class size)

4) Practice areas you are interested in

5) Location

6) Culture? Maybe? ITE is here... and biglaw just generally sucks, so this seems like a silly factor to consider

That's how I would do it.

[stinger35]

Regarding:

1) Agreed. But, look how high Latham is, and we all know what happened there.

2) Can I really afford to be that picky. I am a transfer in a tough market, and really just want any offer I can get....really.

4) Not really interested in anything in particular.

5) As far as location, career services told me not to focus on any places where i dont have significant ties. Is that solid advice as well?

Anyways, thanks for the advice, any AT ALL is much appreciated. I have just a few days to finalize the bids

[Voyager]

Regarding:

1) Agreed. But, look how high Latham is, and we all know what happened there.

2) Can I really afford to be that picky. I am a transfer in a tough market, and really just want any offer I can get....really.

4) Not really interested in anything in particular.

5) As far as location, career services told me not to focus on any places where i dont have significant ties. Is that solid advice as well?

Anyways, thanks for the advice, any AT ALL is much appreciated. I have just a few days to finalize the bids

WHat I mean by 2) is considering the economic health of the firm by evaluating what practices they have (or are strong in). So, despite getting Cadwalader SA offer in 2008, I immediately rejected it after considering their practice focus and the state of the economy (and their recent layoffs).

This goes to your Latham point: sure, Latham fired everyone but so did other firms. What makes Latham a particularly bad bet is their business mode.

[Person]

3) SA offer rate (MUCH more important than class size)

I don't follow this. "SA offer rate" only demonstrates the extent to which the firm over-hired, not realizing the economic shit-storm that was coming. Are you operating under the assumption that, since a firm no-offered a bunch of people last year, they will do the same in a year from now, despite the fact that the causal factors leading to the low offer rate of summer 2009 no longer apply? If so, why?

Number of offers, used in conjunction with class size this year, seems like a good predictor of how many people they are likely to take on, however, so that half of the offer rate might be useful.

[270910]

Large class sizes is a good thing. Think about it: Every firm you bid on that hires 1 SA every year is unlikely to wind up hiring you even before you look at the competition for the spot.

Obviously you shouldn't use it as a primary factor, but amongst the pool of firms for which you know you're within their rough hiring criteria, I'd absolutely counsel you to (try) and pick firms with big class sizes. As last year taught us, it can be hard to know how big a firm expects their summer class to be in advance, however...

[Voyager]

Large class sizes is a good thing. Think about it: Every firm you bid on that hires 1 SA every year is unlikely to wind up hiring you even before you look at the competition for the spot.

Obviously you shouldn't use it as a primary factor, but amongst the pool of firms for which you know you're within their rough hiring criteria, I'd absolutely counsel you to (try) and pick firms with big class sizes. As last year taught us, it can be hard to know how big a firm expects their summer class to be in advance, however...

see that is my concern. the firm I was at way way over hired and we got screwed. I would much prefer to go with a firm that has a small class size AND a high offer rate... a firm like, say, Convington.

[Voyager]

3) SA offer rate (MUCH more important than class size)

I don't follow this. "SA offer rate" only demonstrates the extent to which the firm over-hired, not realizing the economic shit-storm that was coming. Are you operating under the assumption that, since a firm no-offered a bunch of people last year, they will do the same in a year from now, despite the fact that the causal factors leading to the low offer rate of summer 2009 no longer apply? If so, why?

Number of offers, used in conjunction with class size this year, seems like a good predictor of how many people they are likely to take on, however, so that half of the offer rate might be useful.

I think offer rate is ONE indicator that needs to be used in conjunction with others... but it is still a valid indicator... and I would not be gambling on firms that no offered 1/3 or 1/2 of their class.

Small class size and high offer rate shows a safe bet to me.

[stinger35]

3) SA offer rate (MUCH more important than class size)

I don't follow this. "SA offer rate" only demonstrates the extent to which the firm over-hired, not realizing the economic shit-storm that was coming. Are you operating under the assumption that, since a firm no-offered a bunch of people last year, they will do the same in a year from now, despite the fact that the causal factors leading to the low offer rate of summer 2009 no longer apply? If so, why?

Number of offers, used in conjunction with class size this year, seems like a good predictor of how many people they are likely to take on, however, so that half of the offer rate might be useful.

I think offer rate is ONE indicator that needs to be used in conjunction with others... but it is still a valid indicator... and I would not be gambling on firms that no offered 1/3 or 1/2 of their class.


While I definitely agree with that, you have to get to that firm to have a shot at that offer rate. If they are truly only hiring 5-10 summers, it seems like the odds of you being one of them is so incredibly small, it would be better to give it a go at a large class/shitty offer rate to at least give yourself a shot that summer. I obviously have no idea though.
Small class size and high offer rate shows a safe bet to me.

[Voyager]

fair. such firms are more difficult to get in to.... so you would use the other factors I listed to figure out which firms with larger class sizes were also good bets. Unfortunately, those tend to be V10 or maybe V20.

[270910]

Large class sizes is a good thing. Think about it: Every firm you bid on that hires 1 SA every year is unlikely to wind up hiring you even before you look at the competition for the spot.

Obviously you shouldn't use it as a primary factor, but amongst the pool of firms for which you know you're within their rough hiring criteria, I'd absolutely counsel you to (try) and pick firms with big class sizes. As last year taught us, it can be hard to know how big a firm expects their summer class to be in advance, however...

see that is my concern. the firm I was at way way over hired and we got screwed. I would much prefer to go with a firm that has a small class size AND a high offer rate... a firm like, say, Convington.

*face palm*

Covington had one of the largest class sizes in the country last year.

Small compared to how many Skadden was hiring in 2007? Yes.

Still probably one of the 10 largest classes in the entire damn country? Yes.

[Voyager]

Large class sizes is a good thing. Think about it: Every firm you bid on that hires 1 SA every year is unlikely to wind up hiring you even before you look at the competition for the spot.

Obviously you shouldn't use it as a primary factor, but amongst the pool of firms for which you know you're within their rough hiring criteria, I'd absolutely counsel you to (try) and pick firms with big class sizes. As last year taught us, it can be hard to know how big a firm expects their summer class to be in advance, however...

see that is my concern. the firm I was at way way over hired and we got screwed. I would much prefer to go with a firm that has a small class size AND a high offer rate... a firm like, say, Convington.

*face palm*

Covington had one of the largest class sizes in the country last year.

Small compared to how many Skadden was hiring in 2007? Yes.

Still probably one of the 10 largest classes in the entire damn country? Yes.

Their NY office was tiny and that is the only one I know anything about. So chill.

[nealric]

1) Vault ranking (proxy for health of firm)

Vault is a terrible proxy for the health of a firm. While it's true that WLRK (#1) is healthier than White and Case (#20), it certainly does not follow that White and Case is stronger than Irell (#37).

[stinger35]

Anyone know if I should bother with firms like Skadden, Kirkland, Mayer, as a transfer student?

[Voyager]

1) Vault ranking (proxy for health of firm)

Vault is a terrible proxy for the health of a firm. While it's true that WLRK (#1) is healthier than White and Case (#20), it certainly does not follow that White and Case is stronger than Irell (#37).

I disagree. As one moved down the vault rankings last year, offer rates became worse. So as a rough indicator of health, I think it is a good one.

[270910]

Anyone know if I should bother with firms like Skadden, Kirkland, Mayer, as a transfer student?

From Columbia to Harvard? Probably.

From somewhere in The Abyss to Case Western? Probably not.

[stinger35]

Anyone know if I should bother with firms like Skadden, Kirkland, Mayer, as a transfer student?

From Columbia to Harvard? Probably.

From somewhere in The Abyss to Case Western? Probably not.

I fall in between that - T2 -> top 10.

[270910]

Tough call. Context is key - which offices? What firms would you replace them with if not them? Is your list reach heavy or not? Just how high were you at your T2? How did transfers fare last year? What is your zodiac sign? Have you offended Bob Dell lately?

[stinger35]

Tough call. Context is key - which offices? What firms would you replace them with if not them? Is your list reach heavy or not? Just how high were you at your T2? How did transfers fare last year? What is your zodiac sign? Have you offended Bob Dell lately?

Hahahahahaha.

Basically, Chicago offices. I went to a T2 in Chicago (honestly not sure if that hurts or helps), list isnt really reach heavy (in my opinion, but I don't really know what would be considered a reach) - at the same time, if I put those firms low on my list, I am guessing I won't even get the interview. Damnit. Transfers "generally do as well as any other student" is the stock line I've been given. Taurus. As for Bob Dell, no, but I am sure he has.

What do you think?

[270910]

*sips tea thoughtfully*

Maybe.



Seriously though - I'd not avoid them entirely, but I might only bid on the ones you're most enthusiastic about / most likely to get a bid at / look to be the healthiest in terms of near-term hiring since they are likely to be a bit of a reach. It's so hard to predict for transfers even before the economy blows up, neh? And also so hard to give advice without being mired in data from your school, from transfers, seeing your grades, your background, your current list of firms, your ambitions, etc.

So I'd say the general advice is: you would probably not be wasting your time to bid on some of those offices, but they are also probably somewhat difficult to obtain. I believe TToN xfered from midwest to T10 and landed one of the fancier chicago firms, you may want to get in touch with him/her.

[nealric]

I disagree. As one moved down the vault rankings last year, offer rates became worse. So as a rough indicator of health, I think it is a good one.

Not uniformly. That's why it's a terrible proxy. Much better to look at offer history.

And if you are looking for overall firm health, look at PPP and RPL changes as well as overall headcount changes. Amlaw provides those numbers.

[stinger35]

I disagree. As one moved down the vault rankings last year, offer rates became worse. So as a rough indicator of health, I think it is a good one.

Not uniformly. That's why it's a terrible proxy. Much better to look at offer history.

And if you are looking for overall firm health, look at PPP and RPL changes as well as overall headcount changes. Amlaw provides those numbers.

Man this is complicated. I wish there was just a list someone would give me and say give it a go.