Top Law Schools

Is this the consensus?

scared2L wrote:Is this the consensus?

How would anyone know this when interviews haven't even started yet?

I thought the consensus was that it is tougher to get interviews this year in NYC.

scared2L wrote:I thought the consensus was that it is tougher to get interviews this year in NYC.

Because people overbid. Says nothing about the competitiveness of the market compared to last year. I mean, there aren't going to be fewer SA positions in NYC than last year...probably not very many more, either, but not fewer.

scared2L wrote:I thought the consensus was that it is tougher to get interviews this year in NYC.

Maybe. But if people are just halfheartedly using NYC as a backup (which I guess is where a lot of the UVA sheeple come in), and get offers elsewhere, those SA spots are still going to be there for people who actually want to be in the city (or, I guess, didn't get anything else out of their desired market). NYC is definitely recovering a lot quicker than other markets, so I have to doubt the claim that NYC is going to necessarily be tougher this year. It's not like Chicago or the California markets are going to be experiencing any type of hiring bonanza anytime soon.

Consensus is that it's still the easiest market to get hired in...

Aston2412 wrote:Consensus is that it's still the easiest market to get hired in...

Doesn't really answer question........

On a related note: It does seem to me, after talking to a number of V15 people over the summer, that giving a preference as to transactional work instead of litigation isn't going to be the advantage that it was last year. As far as I can tell, a lot of firms have corrected for the over-firing in their corporate departments and there is much more of a corp/lit equilibrium in place.

This poster really lives up to his name.

Helmholtz wrote:

Aston2412 wrote:Consensus is that it's still the easiest market to get hired in...

Doesn't really answer question........

On a related note: It does seem to me, after talking to a number of V15 people over the summer, that giving a preference as to transactional work instead of litigation isn't going to be the advantage that it was last year. As far as I can tell, a lot of firms have corrected for the over-firing in their corporate departments and there is much more of a corp/lit equilibrium in place.

I've had the same conversations, but with different conclusions. Outside of that, have you noticed that firms hiring 3Ls tend to have a caveat? I think that's a better indicator than what SAs convey.

Helmholtz wrote:On a related note: It does seem to me, after talking to a number of V15 people over the summer, that giving a preference as to transactional work instead of litigation isn't going to be the advantage that it was last year. As far as I can tell, a lot of firms have corrected for the over-firing in their corporate departments and there is much more of a corp/lit equilibrium in place.

This is true further down the line as well. For my V30, they are looking to hire equal lit/corp people this year, where last year it was 65/35 corp.

What about D.C.? Looking good at all?

Sup Kid wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:On a related note: It does seem to me, after talking to a number of V15 people over the summer, that giving a preference as to transactional work instead of litigation isn't going to be the advantage that it was last year. As far as I can tell, a lot of firms have corrected for the over-firing in their corporate departments and there is much more of a corp/lit equilibrium in place.

This is true further down the line as well. For my V30, they are looking to hire equal lit/corp people this year, where last year it was 65/35 corp.

Are people sure about this? This may impact my answers during interviews so if someone has a definitive answer, it would be greatly helpful.

Anonymous User wrote:

Sup Kid wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:On a related note: It does seem to me, after talking to a number of V15 people over the summer, that giving a preference as to transactional work instead of litigation isn't going to be the advantage that it was last year. As far as I can tell, a lot of firms have corrected for the over-firing in their corporate departments and there is much more of a corp/lit equilibrium in place.

This is true further down the line as well. For my V30, they are looking to hire equal lit/corp people this year, where last year it was 65/35 corp.

Are people sure about this? This may impact my answers during interviews so if someone has a definitive answer, it would be greatly helpful.

Yes, does the calculus now say to express and interest in both so you seem more fluid within the firm or to declare a strong interest in one so that they know you're passionate about one kind of work in particular?

Aston2412 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Sup Kid wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:On a related note: It does seem to me, after talking to a number of V15 people over the summer, that giving a preference as to transactional work instead of litigation isn't going to be the advantage that it was last year. As far as I can tell, a lot of firms have corrected for the over-firing in their corporate departments and there is much more of a corp/lit equilibrium in place.

This is true further down the line as well. For my V30, they are looking to hire equal lit/corp people this year, where last year it was 65/35 corp.

Are people sure about this? This may impact my answers during interviews so if someone has a definitive answer, it would be greatly helpful.

Yes, does the calculus now say to express and interest in both so you seem more fluid within the firm or to declare a strong interest in one so that they know you're passionate about one kind of work in particular?

The "calculus" is probably one of the things that fucked UVA kids over in terms of number of preselects. Whenever there is "common wisdom" floating around out there, it's only a matter of time before people desperately flock to it, creating congestion. Right now, I'm just hoping that law students don't fall sway to some UVA-style groupthink and parrot back the virtues of corporate work because they heard from some 3Ls that's what to say--forcing firms to be more selective about corporate spots and conversely, dig deeper for litigation associates.

Edit: to answer your question more specifically, I have heard of some people going into V5 interviews, not express a strong preference and get an offer; on the other hand, I know people who got V5 offers and cited a strong preference to lit/corp in their interview. I think the key is just to be honest and don't act too sure of practice area, but on the other hand, not too wishy-washy.

Helmholtz wrote:The "calculus" is probably one of the things that fucked UVA kids over in terms of number of preselects. Whenever there is "common wisdom" floating around out there, it's only a matter of time before people desperately flock to it, creating congestion. Right now, I'm just hoping that law students don't fall sway to some UVA-style groupthink and parrot back the virtues of corporate work because they heard from some 3Ls that's what to say--forcing firms to be more selective about corporate spots and conversely, dig deeper for litigation associates.

Really hope this doesn't happen because I legit want corporate over lit .

Anonymous User wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:The "calculus" is probably one of the things that fucked UVA kids over in terms of number of preselects. Whenever there is "common wisdom" floating around out there, it's only a matter of time before people desperately flock to it, creating congestion. Right now, I'm just hoping that law students don't fall sway to some UVA-style groupthink and parrot back the virtues of corporate work because they heard from some 3Ls that's what to say--forcing firms to be more selective about corporate spots and conversely, dig deeper for litigation associates.

Really hope this doesn't happen because I legit want corporate over lit .

Ditto, but I'm sure there were people who legitimately wanted NYC from UVA but were crowded out of slots by people using it as a backup without actually wanting to go there. Such is the life of a law student.

Helmholtz wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:The "calculus" is probably one of the things that fucked UVA kids over in terms of number of preselects. Whenever there is "common wisdom" floating around out there, it's only a matter of time before people desperately flock to it, creating congestion. Right now, I'm just hoping that law students don't fall sway to some UVA-style groupthink and parrot back the virtues of corporate work because they heard from some 3Ls that's what to say--forcing firms to be more selective about corporate spots and conversely, dig deeper for litigation associates.

Really hope this doesn't happen because I legit want corporate over lit .

Ditto, but I'm sure there were people who legitimately wanted NYC from UVA but were crowded out of slots by people using it as a backup without actually wanting to go there. Such is the life of a law student.

Person who legitamtely wanted NYC from UVA that was crowded out reporting for duty.

Helmholtz wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:The "calculus" is probably one of the things that fucked UVA kids over in terms of number of preselects. Whenever there is "common wisdom" floating around out there, it's only a matter of time before people desperately flock to it, creating congestion. Right now, I'm just hoping that law students don't fall sway to some UVA-style groupthink and parrot back the virtues of corporate work because they heard from some 3Ls that's what to say--forcing firms to be more selective about corporate spots and conversely, dig deeper for litigation associates.

Really hope this doesn't happen because I legit want corporate over lit .

Ditto, but I'm sure there were people who legitimately wanted NYC from UVA but were crowded out of slots by people using it as a backup without actually wanting to go there. Such is the life of a law student.

Don't take too much from UVA. NYC firms were not crowded out here. Their CSO--which has much more influence on student decisions than TLS--seems to have given advice that too many people followed.

quakeroats wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:The "calculus" is probably one of the things that fucked UVA kids over in terms of number of preselects. Whenever there is "common wisdom" floating around out there, it's only a matter of time before people desperately flock to it, creating congestion. Right now, I'm just hoping that law students don't fall sway to some UVA-style groupthink and parrot back the virtues of corporate work because they heard from some 3Ls that's what to say--forcing firms to be more selective about corporate spots and conversely, dig deeper for litigation associates.

Really hope this doesn't happen because I legit want corporate over lit .

Ditto, but I'm sure there were people who legitimately wanted NYC from UVA but were crowded out of slots by people using it as a backup without actually wanting to go there. Such is the life of a law student.

Don't take too much from UVA. NYC firms were not crowded out here. Their CSO--which has much more influence on student decisions than TLS--seems to have given advice that too many people followed.

What advice was that?

rad law wrote:

quakeroats wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Helmholtz wrote:The "calculus" is probably one of the things that fucked UVA kids over in terms of number of preselects. Whenever there is "common wisdom" floating around out there, it's only a matter of time before people desperately flock to it, creating congestion. Right now, I'm just hoping that law students don't fall sway to some UVA-style groupthink and parrot back the virtues of corporate work because they heard from some 3Ls that's what to say--forcing firms to be more selective about corporate spots and conversely, dig deeper for litigation associates.

Really hope this doesn't happen because I legit want corporate over lit .

Ditto, but I'm sure there were people who legitimately wanted NYC from UVA but were crowded out of slots by people using it as a backup without actually wanting to go there. Such is the life of a law student.

Don't take too much from UVA. NYC firms were not crowded out here. Their CSO--which has much more influence on student decisions than TLS--seems to have given advice that too many people followed.

What advice was that?

Something like: New York is an easy market to get, so make sure to throw bids there, interest/grades/general bidding strategy notwithstanding.

Anecdotally, it's tough as fuck to get looks this year from my position: Very tip top of the class at a school b/t 25-40. Still in town until the end of this week, mailed about a hundred firms, followed up, and got exactly two looks.

If they aren't coming to your OCI and you're at a school lower than, say, Notre Dame...good fucking luck.

Anonymous User wrote:Anecdotally, it's tough as fuck to get looks this year from my position: Very tip top of the class at a school b/t 25-40. Still in town until the end of this week, mailed about a hundred firms, followed up, and got exactly two looks.

If they aren't coming to your OCI and you're at a school lower than, say, Notre Dame...good fucking luck.

Is this really that unusual for somebody coming from a non-NY (presumably regional) school trying to get something in NYC?

Helmholtz wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Anecdotally, it's tough as fuck to get looks this year from my position: Very tip top of the class at a school b/t 25-40. Still in town until the end of this week, mailed about a hundred firms, followed up, and got exactly two looks.

If they aren't coming to your OCI and you're at a school lower than, say, Notre Dame...good fucking luck.

Is this really that unusual for somebody coming from a non-NY (probably regional) school trying to get something in NYC?

Seems like the mantra on here has been that NYC firms would be plenty of interested in someone who is top 1-2% at a regional T1 if they expressed an interest and had ties.

Not saying getting something is impossible in that predicament, but it's tough going.

Anonymous User wrote: Seems like the mantra on here has been that NYC firms would be plenty of interested in someone who is top 1-2% at a regional T1 if they expressed an interest and had ties.

I never realized that was a mantra. I personally thought there might be a chance that somebody at the top of their class from Wisconsin or Arizona State could get NYC, but I always thought it was very far from even "probable." Maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe times have changed.

Helmholtz wrote:

Anonymous User wrote: Seems like the mantra on here has been that NYC firms would be plenty of interested in someone who is top 1-2% at a regional T1 if they expressed an interest and had ties.

I never realized that was a mantra. I personally thought there might be a chance that somebody at the top of their class from Wisconsin or Arizona State could get NYC, but I always thought it was very far from even "probable." Maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe times have changed.

Fair point. I imagine a lot of it comes from ITE, unsurprisingly. My school used to place anywhere from 8-12 kids each year in NY biglaw but hasn't sent anyone (at all) the last two years.