Top Law Schools

Hi all,

Here's a Q--I'm a student at HY, and I'm going to be working in LA/SF. I've got 4 CBs lined up for a trip next week. One of them was an absolute top choice, while the other three are V75-100 firms that were not at the top of my list (frankly, I'm doing CBs with them because OCI just ended and they are the only ones that have responded, along with this other firm).

This might be a silly concern, but will it reflect poorly on me at this one top choice that I'm also doing CBs on this trip with firms that this firm would not consider to be 'in its league'?

They won't care where else you are interviewing. Its a bad economy out there. No one is going to hold it against you that you go to interviews that were given to you. They won't give a damn about whether the other firms are "in their league". Don't even think like this, dude. It will make you come across poorly.

Anonymous User wrote:They won't care where else you are interviewing. Its a bad economy out there. No one is going to hold it against you that you go to interviews that were given to you.

QFT

If you can stand interviewing with firms so clearly beneath you, I don't think the firm will mind. Just make sure to shower before going to the superior firm.

Btw, this is why I absolutely despise speaking with the H student "friends" of mine. Their arrogance and snobbery is insufferable, even when they don't mean to be arrogant.

Anonymous User wrote:Btw, this is why I absolutely despise speaking with the H student "friends" of mine. Their arrogance and snobbery is insufferable, even when they don't mean to be arrogant.

OP Here--Let's not pretend like HLS students are the only ones who bid on firms that they don't know much about because they are desperate for getting an offer in hand. That's what I meant by saying that I accepted the CBs for that reason. Many of my bids were on firms that didn't jump out to me as "Oh, I'd love to work there," whether they would be great places to work or not. I would be damn happy if I were lucky enough to get an offer from any of the other three firms. I'm not worried about what I think of the three firms; I was concerned about the first firm's possible attitude.

I would be more worried about the "lower" firms finding out about the "higher" firm than the other way around.

Also, I really don't get the hate for the OP. It seems like a legit question.

They will absolutely hold it against you.

In fact, if I were you, I would fly no less than Economy Plus lest you brush up against the unwashed masses en route to the lavatory.

It actually frightens me that you even conjured up the potential problem of telling firms about the lesser firms you will be visiting. Not sure how that would even dawn on a normal person.

Why do you have to tell the good firm about the bad ones?

Anonymous User wrote:They will absolutely hold it against you.

In fact, if I were you, I would fly no less than Economy Plus lest you brush up against the unwashed masses en route to the lavatory.

It actually frightens me that you even conjured up the potential problem of telling firms about the lesser firms you will be visiting. Not sure how that would even dawn on a normal person.

Firms are aware where they are on the food chain. The OP's question might as well be "Is Wachtell going to raise an eyebrow when I tell them I'm also in town for my OMM, Cadwalader, and dla piper callbacks?"—which seems like a pretty valid question to me.

Helmholtz wrote:I would be more worried about the "lower" firms finding out about the "higher" firm than the other way around.

+1

Anonymous User wrote:Btw, this is why I absolutely despise speaking with the H student "friends" of mine. Their arrogance and snobbery is insufferable, even when they don't mean to be arrogant.

Truth.

traydeuce wrote:Why do you have to tell the good firm about the bad ones?

One firm will be the host firm that contacts all the other firms to take care of expenses of the trip. They'll likely all know of each other.

Anonymous User wrote:They will absolutely hold it against you.

In fact, if I were you, I would fly no less than Economy Plus lest you brush up against the unwashed masses en route to the lavatory.

It actually frightens me that you even conjured up the potential problem of telling firms about the lesser firms you will be visiting. Not sure how that would even dawn on a normal person.

OP Here: Really? Let's take NYC as an example, and say you're a student as SLS. Let's say you schedule a flyback with Wachtell then a bunch of firms that are way off the radar. You don't think it would occur to a normal person that one possible Q during the Wachtell interview would be what other firms you're visiting while in NYC? And you don't think that they ask that question for a reason? Sure, it could just be small talk, but that sort of question doesn't really pass the smell test of small talk.

Edit: Helmholtz and I apparently have a nasty case of hive mind at the moment.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:They will absolutely hold it against you.

In fact, if I were you, I would fly no less than Economy Plus lest you brush up against the unwashed masses en route to the lavatory.

It actually frightens me that you even conjured up the potential problem of telling firms about the lesser firms you will be visiting. Not sure how that would even dawn on a normal person.

OP Here: Really? Let's take NYC as an example, and say you're a student as SLS. Let's say you schedule a flyback with Wachtell then a bunch of firms that are way off the radar. You don't think it would occur to a normal person that one possible Q during the Wachtell interview would be what other firms you're visiting while in NYC? And you don't think that they ask that question for a reason? Sure, it could just be small talk, but that sort of question doesn't really pass the smell test of small talk.

Then they know that if they give you an offer, you'll almost certainly accept it. There have been people who have admitted to V5 firms they have callbacks with that they're pretty much OCI-striking-out, and they still got the job. Yield protection is a real thing in legal hiring.

There is nothing wrong with this question. I think the OP is wise to consider this. If a top-tier firm thinks that all of your other options are well beneath them, they may begin to have doubts about whether you're really top-tier talent. How is this controversial?

Not sure how this shows that HLS students are snobs...

Helmholtz wrote: Then they know that if they give you an offer, you'll almost certainly accept it. There have been people who have admitted to V5 firms they have callbacks with that they're pretty much OCI-striking-out, and they still got the job. Yield protection is a real thing in legal hiring.

OP Here: That's probably the right answer. It's not something I'm hugely worried about--my many responses are mostly just a result of people jumping down my throat for thinking to ask.

edit

romothesavior wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Btw, this is why I absolutely despise speaking with the H student "friends" of mine. Their arrogance and snobbery is insufferable, even when they don't mean to be arrogant.

Truth.

LIES! And I know that for a fact because I R WINNER.

Why is yield protection such a real issue in legal hiring?

Yield protection is the concept that a law school wont admit someone because their likelihood of attending is low given that they are more likely to attend a better ranked school. There is a real incentive to do this- if their acceptance rate is too high, they get dinged by US News.

Firms don't have this incentive. If a firm really wants someone but is thinking they won't come, why would they not offer the person? It isn't like the offers are some sort of zero sum game to the extent that giving one to Person A would preclude them from giving one to Person B. What do they care if their "yield" suffers? Where is that reported and how could it possible hurt them aside from sore feelings that the candidate wanted a firm better than theirs?

I think Yield Protection is bandied about way too often on this board. People use it to explain why someone doesn't get into a school as a transfer (another place where acceptance rate means nothing and schools have no incentive not to admit someone they like but are afraid will go elsewhere), and they explain why "lower tier" firms don't offer someone. I don't see why they would do such a thing without any incentive to. Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

Anonymous User wrote:Why is yield protection such a real issue in legal hiring?

Yield protection is the concept that a law school wont admit someone because their likelihood of attending is low given that they are more likely to attend a better ranked school. There is a real incentive to do this- if their acceptance rate is too high, they get dinged by US News.

Firms don't have this incentive. If a firm really wants someone but is thinking they won't come, why would they not offer the person? It isn't like the offers are some sort of zero sum game to the extent that giving one to Person A would preclude them from giving one to Person B. What do they care if their "yield" suffers? Where is that reported and how could it possible hurt them aside from sore feelings that the candidate wanted a firm better than theirs?

I think Yield Protection is bandied about way too often on this board. People use it to explain why someone doesn't get into a school as a transfer (another place where acceptance rate means nothing and schools have no incentive not to admit someone they like but are afraid will go elsewhere), and they explain why "lower tier" firms don't offer someone. I don't see why they would do such a thing without any incentive to. Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

Having to leave an offer open for 28 days for somebody who is almost certainly not going to accept that offer muddies things up. 28 days is practically an eternity in the OCI / legal hiring process. Maybe "yield protection" was a poor choice of phrases.

Anonymous User wrote:Why is yield protection such a real issue in legal hiring?

Yield protection is the concept that a law school wont admit someone because their likelihood of attending is low given that they are more likely to attend a better ranked school. There is a real incentive to do this- if their acceptance rate is too high, they get dinged by US News.

Firms don't have this incentive. If a firm really wants someone but is thinking they won't come, why would they not offer the person? It isn't like the offers are some sort of zero sum game to the extent that giving one to Person A would preclude them from giving one to Person B. What do they care if their "yield" suffers? Where is that reported and how could it possible hurt them aside from sore feelings that the candidate wanted a firm better than theirs?

I think Yield Protection is bandied about way too often on this board. People use it to explain why someone doesn't get into a school as a transfer (another place where acceptance rate means nothing and schools have no incentive not to admit someone they like but are afraid will go elsewhere), and they explain why "lower tier" firms don't offer someone. I don't see why they would do such a thing without any incentive to. Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

You seem dumb.

If I give you an offer, and you sit on it, then don't take it, now I have to go to my second choice people. If you sit on my offer for 20 days, my second choice people already committed to other firms, because they are sick of waiting on me, and are probably also getting offers from my peers. So now I either get no one, or my 3rd or 4th choice people.

IAFG wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Why is yield protection such a real issue in legal hiring?

Yield protection is the concept that a law school wont admit someone because their likelihood of attending is low given that they are more likely to attend a better ranked school. There is a real incentive to do this- if their acceptance rate is too high, they get dinged by US News.

Firms don't have this incentive. If a firm really wants someone but is thinking they won't come, why would they not offer the person? It isn't like the offers are some sort of zero sum game to the extent that giving one to Person A would preclude them from giving one to Person B. What do they care if their "yield" suffers? Where is that reported and how could it possible hurt them aside from sore feelings that the candidate wanted a firm better than theirs?

I think Yield Protection is bandied about way too often on this board. People use it to explain why someone doesn't get into a school as a transfer (another place where acceptance rate means nothing and schools have no incentive not to admit someone they like but are afraid will go elsewhere), and they explain why "lower tier" firms don't offer someone. I don't see why they would do such a thing without any incentive to. Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

You seem dumb.

If I give you an offer, and you sit on it, then don't take it, now I have to go to my second choice people. If you sit on my offer for 20 days, my second choice people already committed to other firms, because they are sick of waiting on me, and are probably also getting offers from my peers. So now I either get no one, or my 3rd or 4th choice people.

You're missing the larger point.

Why wouldn't the firm just offer the second person at the same time it offered the first? If the firm is basically certain that the first choice person wouldn't accept, where is the harm in offering them and then offering the "second choice" person who is more likely to accept at the same time? If the first person unexpectedly accepts, then why is the firm in trouble? It has 1 extra summer associate?

Do firms have to report the % of offers that were accepted thus creating an incentive to yield protect?

Anonymous User wrote:If the first person unexpectedly accepts, then why is the firm in trouble? It has 1 extra summer associate?

Huge facepalm.

romothesavior wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:If the first person unexpectedly accepts, then why is the firm in trouble? It has 1 extra summer associate?

Huge facepalm.

Why?