Top 50 go-to law schools 2012 Forum

[IAFG]

My school really is embarrassing in these results as much as I want to explain them away (PUBLIC INTEREST! OCS ERRORS! lolno). Should've gone to NU with their generous curve and their less humiliating NLJ250 numbers. As much as I know people did well this year, and maybe it was all just a giant OCS error, there is really still no excuse. These numbers make us look like GeorgeTTTown. Awful. (And, of course, they're just another reason to be sad Penn rejected my sorry ass ).

Here's why I don't think it makes sense to shit on Mich on the basis of these numbers: if their placement really were weakening, it would be weakening along the curve: top 10% wouldn't be able to get V5, top 1/3 wouldn't be able to get biglaw at all, etc. From what I can tell, Michigan is a peer school to MVPDCN in this regard. So I am prone to dismiss 2011 as an outlier for many reasons that have already been noted (no inherent ties to a major market, bad bidding, etc).

[Sherwood2014]

Does anyone have a published projection on how many law firm positions will be available this year?

A while back I saw a stat claiming 25k law openings would be available for 45k job seekers (the 45k seems plausible). While the numbers look discouraging overall, the T-14 only needs to fill 5,000 of those positions for all to be happy. . . of course, there are tons of variables in that summary (way too much for this one note). The top 50 would need to fill roughly around 18k of those jobs for everyone to be satisfied.

[LawIdiot86]

I did the USNWR/NLJ250 differential. Obviously the underperformance chart looks weird because we don't know how bad some of the USNWR schools actually did in placing, hence the "+" symbol where they are worse than the 50 reported by the NLJ250:



*I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW, Yale places into AIII, I was trying to maintain the data integrity.

[sunynp]

Does anyone have a published projection on how many law firm positions will be available this year?

A while back I saw a stat claiming 25k law openings would be available for 45k job seekers (the 45k seems plausible). While the numbers look discouraging overall, the T-14 only needs to fill 5,000 of those positions for all to be happy. . . of course, there are tons of variables in that summary (way too much for this one note). The top 50 would need to fill roughly around 18k of those jobs for everyone to be satisfied.

I doubt that "everyone" will be satisfied if only people at the Top 50 schools get all the jobs. There are more than 100 law schools out there that you are willing to leave out? You know that isn't how hiring works, right? People don't start hiring down the list of ranked schools until one school is done and then go on the next school. A non-negligible number of students at the top schools won't get jobs or at least the job they want. (See the chart in the OP of this thread) I know that TLS is prestige driven, as is the profession, but I've never seen anyone willing to throw out about 2/3 of their fellow law students and claim that "all" will be happy.

I think that you can add up the jobs listed by firms in NALP if you want to get a basic total. No idea how to calculate the number of government or PI jobs around the country. I think you can find the number of clerk jobs somewhere.

[Anonymous User]

Michigan always prided itself on not being wedded to a particular market, and offering truly national prestige in terms of firm placement. What happened in 2009 has nothing to do with a fall from grace or diminishing prestige.

It has everything to do with an incompetent OCS and a shitty bidding system.

(1) They would give out the shittiest advice as far as bidding strategy was concerned. As has been noted in this thread, they highly recommended focusing bids on Chicago, when in fact Chicago was the worst market to focus on at the time.
(2) They hired these "market analysts" to guide prospective interviewees throughout the process: to give analyses of the markets, projected hiring, do individual resume and transcript reviews, etc. I attended only the Chicago and New York ones, so I can't peak to the other consultants. I thought the Chicago one was excellent (the late Frank Kimball--god bless him), and I thought the New York one was useless (I won't mention her name, but you can guess). Her individualized prep sessions were also awful, since she gave everyone the exact same advice. I know this because after my session, she completely reassured me that I would do fine at OCI... I later expressed my relief to fellow classmates, who themselves got the exact same talk... even classmates in the bottom 10%.
(3) OCS gave absolutely no data on how many interview slots each firm had, or statistics from previous years as to how many students bid on a particular firm. There's no reason not to give this information, and it's incredibly useful to know. For example, if you know Skadden is coming to do 300 interviews, but Cravath is coming to do only 100, and you're having trouble deciding between which one should go first, having that information is helpful.
(4) You only received thirty bids. When combined with (3) above and ultra paranoia and therefore oversubscription of "safe" firms, people ended up with around 11 interviews on average (as opposed to the pre-ITE of around 18-19). My friend at a T6 ended up with 30...
(5) A shitty open sign-up program. You basically signed up for remaining interview slots by waking up early in the morning and running around the hotel to put your name in. By the end of the day, the same gunners signed up for all the interviews out there. Other schools have online programs for this stuff and better methods for making sure other people who want interviews can get them.
(6) OCS basically hid behind their desks when students weren't getting offers. I know other OCSs that call firms on behalf of students who are in callback purgatory, who hustles through their connections for more interviews (and was not a sham; it actually worked), who offered comprehensive and constructive sessions for helping students get jobs.

These all seem like small factors. But in the aggregate, they made for the most god awful clusterfuck in OCI experience. Whoever ended up jobless after that, for the most part, need not have blamed themselves. Many good people slipped through the cracks.

Edit: I have reason to believe things are at least somewhat better for classes that interviewed after mine, but I can't tell if that was just the improving market or an improved OCS or both.

[LawIdiot86]

Does anyone have a published projection on how many law firm positions will be available this year?

A while back I saw a stat claiming 25k law openings would be available for 45k job seekers (the 45k seems plausible). While the numbers look discouraging overall, the T-14 only needs to fill 5,000 of those positions for all to be happy. . . of course, there are tons of variables in that summary (way too much for this one note). The top 50 would need to fill roughly around 18k of those jobs for everyone to be satisfied.

I doubt that "everyone" will be satisfied if only people at the Top 50 schools get all the jobs. There are more than 100 law schools out there that you are willing to leave out? You know that isn't how hiring works, right? People don't start hiring down the list of ranked schools until one school is done and then go on the next school. A non-negligible number of students at the top schools won't get jobs or at least the job they want. (See the chart in the OP of this thread) I know that TLS is prestige driven, as is the profession, but I've never seen anyone willing to throw out about 2/3 of their fellow law students and claim that "all" will be happy.

I think that you can add up the jobs listed by firms in NALP if you want to get a basic total. No idea how to calculate the number of government or PI jobs around the country. I think you can find the number of clerk jobs somewhere.

You're probably thinking of http://www.nalp.org/law_firm_jobs_in_2010. That's 18,300 jobs in everything from Skadden to solo tax lien practitioner and 4,850 in firms of 251+ (which comprises 2/3 of the NLJ250 and the bulk of it's new hiring). So, we're talking something in the range of 5,500-6,000 slots at NLJ250 (probably only 50% of those at market/160k) for 45k graduates. Assuming even class sizes through 200 law schools, that means ~11,000 students for those 6,000 slots (and this ignores magna/EICs at the other 150 law schools). Also, this means less than half of those 45k will get private practice and ITE, most won't get gov't/PI.

[LawIdiot86]

(1) They would give out the shittiest advice as far as bidding strategy was concerned. As has been noted in this thread, they highly recommended focusing bids on Chicago, when in fact Chicago was the worst market to focus on at the time.
(2) They hired these "market analysts" to guide prospective interviewees throughout the process: to give analyses of the markets, projected hiring, do individual resume and transcript reviews, etc. I attended only the Chicago and New York ones, so I can't peak to the other consultants. I thought the Chicago one was excellent (the late Frank Kimball--god bless him), and I thought the New York one was useless (I won't mention her name, but you can guess). Her individualized prep sessions were also awful, since she gave everyone the exact same advice. I know this because after my session, she completely reassured me that I would do fine at OCI... I later expressed my relief to fellow classmates, who themselves got the exact same talk... even classmates in the bottom 10%.

My DCNG OCI gives similarly generic advice unless you make the effort to get to know your counselor. In three years I've have over 30 formal meetings and dozens of emails/calls. Despite my non-stellar academic performance, I got the same "you'll be fine advice as a 1L/bidding 2L, but by 3L they knew me and my performance well enough to give me specific firms, practices, approaches, etc. I'm not surprised she gave poor one-on-one advice with only one meeting.

(3) OCS gave absolutely no data on how many interview slots each firm had, or statistics from previous years as to how many students bid on a particular firm. There's no reason not to give this information, and it's incredibly useful to know. For example, if you know Skadden is coming to do 300 interviews, but Cravath is coming to do only 100, and you're having trouble deciding between which one should go first, having that information is helpful.

This is truly stupid. We don't have the best data systems, but we did know #slots and the number of bids for last year's slots. I didn't look at this as a 2L and only got 10-12 interviews and bid terribly based on generic advice and GPA cutoffs. As a 3L redoing it because of the LL.M, I got 20 interviews (apparently the most the system would let you, the average was 12-16) by using several spreadsheets to project the expected bid pattern based on prior years' data.

(4) You only received thirty bids. When combined with (3) above and ultra paranoia and therefore oversubscription of "safe" firms, people ended up with around 11 interviews on average (as opposed to the pre-ITE of around 18-19). My friend at a T6 ended up with 30...

This is normal ITE, the key is to weed out "safe" firms using the data your school should be providing above.

(5) A shitty open sign-up program. You basically signed up for remaining interview slots by waking up early in the morning and running around the hotel to put your name in. By the end of the day, the same gunners signed up for all the interviews out there. Other schools have online programs for this stuff and better methods for making sure other people who want interviews can get them.

Ours was in person as a 2L and online as a 3L. Even though I got "worse" firms as a 3L because of fast clickers, this was so much better then the prior rule that first person in the interview center after midnight got to pick first.

(6) OCS basically hid behind their desks when students weren't getting offers. I know other OCSs that call firms on behalf of students who are in callback purgatory, who hustles through their connections for more interviews (and was not a sham; it actually worked), who offered comprehensive and constructive sessions for helping students get jobs.

Again, did you (or these people) befriend the OCSs? It took about 20 meetings before they offered to call people for me and those calls paid off bigtime. They only do it for people they know and feel invested in personally.

[09042014]

Does anyone have a published projection on how many law firm positions will be available this year?

A while back I saw a stat claiming 25k law openings would be available for 45k job seekers (the 45k seems plausible). While the numbers look discouraging overall, the T-14 only needs to fill 5,000 of those positions for all to be happy. . . of course, there are tons of variables in that summary (way too much for this one note). The top 50 would need to fill roughly around 18k of those jobs for everyone to be satisfied.

How many of those 25K are litigating slip and falls?

[Anonymous User]

Again, did you (or these people) befriend the OCSs?

That shouldn't be necessary to get solid advice in the first place. It doesn't take 20 meetings to determine that you probably will have to do mass mailing (which OCS didn't advice us to do until it was too fucking late). You just have to look at GPA and resume. That's it.

Aside from that, it was almost impossible to set up meetings with OCS. And even more difficult to set up meetings with OCS to discuss EIW until after a certain arbitrary date.

I'm not super butthurt because I did fine at EIW, but I'm still extremely disappointed with how Michigan handled the situation. You pay $60,000 a year for that shit. You deserve more. And no, I'm not saying that you deserve a job. I'm saying you deserve the best possible platform for being able to secure a job. OCS didn't give it.

[09042014]

So other than the T14 discussion, does anyone else glean much from this data? I mean, I think these numbers are worse than I thought they would be. I know that people think it is better now, is there anyway to quantify that? I don't know where to look for data from last fall's OCI and this year's summer class of SAs. The lag in data is a problem, both when things are good and when things are bad. Why is it so hard to get accurate numbers of class sizes that are starting this summer?

This data isn't useful for a 1L. Even knowing if summer classes increased isn't that big of a deal. If you don't go to a T12 (Michigone) you better get some A's this semester. Your school will have data about how firms recruit at your school.

My school really is embarrassing in these results as much as I want to explain them away (PUBLIC INTEREST! OCS ERRORS! lolno). Should've gone to NU with their generous curve and their less humiliating NLJ250 numbers. As much as I know people did well this year, and maybe it was all just a giant OCS error, there is really still no excuse. These numbers make us look like GeorgeTTTown. Awful. (And, of course, they're just another reason to be sad Penn rejected my sorry ass ).

I doubt you would have ended up at a better firm had you gone to NU instead. And I believe firms treat NU and Michigan virtually the same. But, their career services go beyond the normal useless into the outright harmful territory. And it is worse than just giving bad advice, their advice would harm students who did know better. Because telling everyone to bid the same firms fucks over EVERYone.

[Sherwood2014]

I doubt that "everyone" will be satisfied if only people at the Top 50 schools get all the jobs. There are more than 100 law schools out there that you are willing to leave out? . . . but I've never seen anyone willing to throw out about 2/3 of their fellow law students and claim that "all" will be happy.

Lol. . . plz use a tiny amount of common sense. Everybody happy meant the top 50 . . not the whole world of law schools!! And yes, plz note the part where I wrote, too many variables to mention in my little comment. Got it?

[NYC Law]

This thread is awful and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

[Lincoln]

Michigan always prided itself on not being wedded to a particular market, and offering truly national prestige in terms of firm placement. What happened in 2009 has nothing to do with a fall from grace or diminishing prestige.

It has everything to do with an incompetent OCS and a shitty bidding system.

(1) They would give out the shittiest advice as far as bidding strategy was concerned. As has been noted in this thread, they highly recommended focusing bids on Chicago, when in fact Chicago was the worst market to focus on at the time.
(2) They hired these "market analysts" to guide prospective interviewees throughout the process: to give analyses of the markets, projected hiring, do individual resume and transcript reviews, etc. I attended only the Chicago and New York ones, so I can't peak to the other consultants. I thought the Chicago one was excellent (the late Frank Kimball--god bless him), and I thought the New York one was useless (I won't mention her name, but you can guess). Her individualized prep sessions were also awful, since she gave everyone the exact same advice. I know this because after my session, she completely reassured me that I would do fine at OCI... I later expressed my relief to fellow classmates, who themselves got the exact same talk... even classmates in the bottom 10%.
(3) OCS gave absolutely no data on how many interview slots each firm had, or statistics from previous years as to how many students bid on a particular firm. There's no reason not to give this information, and it's incredibly useful to know. For example, if you know Skadden is coming to do 300 interviews, but Cravath is coming to do only 100, and you're having trouble deciding between which one should go first, having that information is helpful.
(4) You only received thirty bids. When combined with (3) above and ultra paranoia and therefore oversubscription of "safe" firms, people ended up with around 11 interviews on average (as opposed to the pre-ITE of around 18-19). My friend at a T6 ended up with 30...
(5) A shitty open sign-up program. You basically signed up for remaining interview slots by waking up early in the morning and running around the hotel to put your name in. By the end of the day, the same gunners signed up for all the interviews out there. Other schools have online programs for this stuff and better methods for making sure other people who want interviews can get them.
(6) OCS basically hid behind their desks when students weren't getting offers. I know other OCSs that call firms on behalf of students who are in callback purgatory, who hustles through their connections for more interviews (and was not a sham; it actually worked), who offered comprehensive and constructive sessions for helping students get jobs.

These all seem like small factors. But in the aggregate, they made for the most god awful clusterfuck in OCI experience. Whoever ended up jobless after that, for the most part, need not have blamed themselves. Many good people slipped through the cracks.

Edit: I have reason to believe things are at least somewhat better for classes that interviewed after mine, but I can't tell if that was just the improving market or an improved OCS or both.

Wow. This makes me appreciate Cornell's career office in a whole new way.

[Anonymous User]

I doubt you would have ended up at a better firm had you gone to NU instead. And I believe firms treat NU and Michigan virtually the same. But, their career services go beyond the normal useless into the outright harmful territory. And it is worse than just giving bad advice, their advice would harm students who did know better. Because telling everyone to bid the same firms fucks over EVERYone.

It's almost shocking that most T14 OCSs are either useless or outright harmful. Just bewildering.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Michigan always prided itself on not being wedded to a particular market, and offering truly national prestige in terms of firm placement. What happened in 2009 has nothing to do with a fall from grace or diminishing prestige.

It has everything to do with an incompetent OCS and a shitty bidding system.

(1) They would give out the shittiest advice as far as bidding strategy was concerned. As has been noted in this thread, they highly recommended focusing bids on Chicago, when in fact Chicago was the worst market to focus on at the time.
(2) They hired these "market analysts" to guide prospective interviewees throughout the process: to give analyses of the markets, projected hiring, do individual resume and transcript reviews, etc. I attended only the Chicago and New York ones, so I can't peak to the other consultants. I thought the Chicago one was excellent (the late Frank Kimball--god bless him), and I thought the New York one was useless (I won't mention her name, but you can guess). Her individualized prep sessions were also awful, since she gave everyone the exact same advice. I know this because after my session, she completely reassured me that I would do fine at OCI... I later expressed my relief to fellow classmates, who themselves got the exact same talk... even classmates in the bottom 10%.
(3) OCS gave absolutely no data on how many interview slots each firm had, or statistics from previous years as to how many students bid on a particular firm. There's no reason not to give this information, and it's incredibly useful to know. For example, if you know Skadden is coming to do 300 interviews, but Cravath is coming to do only 100, and you're having trouble deciding between which one should go first, having that information is helpful.
(4) You only received thirty bids. When combined with (3) above and ultra paranoia and therefore oversubscription of "safe" firms, people ended up with around 11 interviews on average (as opposed to the pre-ITE of around 18-19). My friend at a T6 ended up with 30...
(5) A shitty open sign-up program. You basically signed up for remaining interview slots by waking up early in the morning and running around the hotel to put your name in. By the end of the day, the same gunners signed up for all the interviews out there. Other schools have online programs for this stuff and better methods for making sure other people who want interviews can get them.
(6) OCS basically hid behind their desks when students weren't getting offers. I know other OCSs that call firms on behalf of students who are in callback purgatory, who hustles through their connections for more interviews (and was not a sham; it actually worked), who offered comprehensive and constructive sessions for helping students get jobs.

These all seem like small factors. But in the aggregate, they made for the most god awful clusterfuck in OCI experience. Whoever ended up jobless after that, for the most part, need not have blamed themselves. Many good people slipped through the cracks.

Edit: I have reason to believe things are at least somewhat better for classes that interviewed after mine, but I can't tell if that was just the improving market or an improved OCS or both.

Wow. This makes me appreciate Cornell's career office in a whole new way.

Yup. Same for NYU's. Sounds like Michigan basically just got complacent and didn't adjust to the new realities of ITE quickly enough. And the anon poster's right, it's inexcusable.

This is the kind of school-specific info that it would be great to have as a 0L.

[rad lulz]

.

[IAFG]

I think it's clear from the outcomes that Mich handled it particularly badly, but they weren't the only school to give bad advice, or tell students that everything was fine (when it wasn't) and that they could rely on OCI (when they couldn't). In fact, HLS dropped the ball in similar ways for c/o 2011.

I think all of the T14 doesn't do a good job teaching people how to massmail. For all the OCI prep we got, I know people who never had their massmail cover letters proofed, never figured out how to pitch themselves to markets they had a reasonable shot at, just said vague things about ties and their attraction to firms... T14s seem to think the sun rises and sets on OCI.

[rad lulz]

.

[ahnhub]

The NLJ placement numbers sometimes don't match up with schools' self-reported employment, in a significant way.

Count up the number of graduates Penn reports as being employed in firms of 250+ for c/2009: http://www.law.upenn.edu/cpp/prospectiv ... stics.html

Compare it to what the NLJ reports for Penn's placement into NLJ 250 firms in 2009:
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... 2443758843

Self reported: 167/258= 65% working in firms of at least 250.
NLJ: 131/258= 51% working in NLJ 250 firms (and the cut-off is around 170 lawyers, I believe)

It's not just Penn--multiple schools have occasional discrepancies that large. I have no idea what it means. I only picked Penn as an example because they seem to have done outrageously well for themselves recently.

2009 was a weird year. I'd bet the discrepancy has to do with Penn counting people who got offers out of their summer programs (technically got jobs, in a sense) but were deferred, while the firms didn't count those people.

The deferrals thing sorta makes sense, except I had no idea that many people were deferred in 2009, and also a few schools had numbers match up closely that year (NU reported 60% to NLJ's 55.9%).

Anyways, I'm not gonna beat a dead horse. I've concluded that NLJ f***ed up their count and under-reported for many, many schools including Penn, NYU and Chicago in 2009. They also under-reported NYU by 10+ points in 2010.

[FlightoftheEarls]

Yup. Same for NYU's. Sounds like Michigan basically just got complacent and didn't adjust to the new realities of ITE quickly enough. And the anon poster's right, it's inexcusable.

This is the kind of school-specific info that it would be great to have as a 0L.

I think it very much was the bolded. Generally speaking, I've had solid interactions with our OCS. I know some people that love certain members of the office for the advice they've given them and will recommend these people to anyone. And I know some people that consistently express their disappointment with the office. To what degree this perception is caused by the individual's current job-search status is unclear, but I've noticed that at least some degree of correlation seems to exists, even if it's not determinative.

Apart from those general impressions from members of the c/o 2012 (and my generally positive opinion of them), Michigan's OCS has definitely dropped the ball in some areas. I believe that they legitimately want to help their students (and do for a large number of them), but they really need to recognize these areas and correct them soon:

1.) Not telling students how many rooms each OCS employer has requested is probably not the best decision. They've attributed this to the fact that they're working to get employers to reserve more rooms (which I'm sure is true), but that's no reason to not provide the present information to give students a rough estimate. Another argument may be that students will try to game the system based on the number of interviews rather than selecting the firms they actually want to work at. While this may be true, students (and not OCS) should be the ones deciding whether increasing their chance at landing any job is preferable to landing a job at a specific firm.

2.) The school does not release the firms you have been scheduled with until just a few days prior to EIW. Again, they attribute this to their attempts to secure more interviews. Once again, it means students who are in their target markets for their summer cannot contact the particular law firm(s) they're interested in and request interviews once they find out they haven't been selected. I cannot fathom an explanation for why the harms of releasing the information earlier outweighs the benefits, and this drew significant complaints this year. As far as I'm aware, Michigan's OCS still hasn't fixed this. In my mind, this is by far the most damaging of OCS's policies.

3.) OCS does not provide any information on the number of screeners to callbacks to offers for particular firms. This information may be of questionable value for any given student, but I would still want to know if only 10% of my school's students are receiving callbacks at a particular firm, rather than 40%.

4.) As has often been mentioned on these boards, OCS provides data over a several-year span rather than by year. The purpose of the data, according to OCS, is to ensure that students have an idea of the relative selectivity of the firms, rather than viewing the information as if there's a certain cutoff that they need to reach for a firm. I think they might have a point here, as gauging the selectivity of a firm relative to its peers is valuable information and using c/o 2011's data, for example, will mean rather little for students from c/o 2014 doing EIW this fall. Even still, I personally would much rather have c/o 2011's data and know what an extremely conservative bidding strategy would look like, as compared to knowing how much easier some V10s were to land in 2006. In an attempt to protect students from misusing the information, OCS has failed to provide a resource that could be particularly valuable for those students who put significant time into their bidding strategies.

These four items are the big areas of concern that I have, and I wish our OCS would pay some attention to them. Even with those deficiencies, I've been satisfied with my experience with OCS. Of course, that's also information coming from somebody who was fortunate enough to end up at his first choice firm, so I might be slightly more happy with my outcomes than others within my class. It is still rough out there for students, and Michigan's OCS needs to be actively revising their policies to assist their students. I think one look at this thread should be motivation enough for OCS to see that they will very quickly begin losing admits to other peer schools if they believe they can be complacent.

[Old Gregg]

In fact, HLS dropped the ball in similar ways for c/o 2011.

HLS actually made some smart moves, like moving OCI to a much earlier date and banning S&C from future OCIs for failing to follow the NALP rules.

[ahnhub]

In fact, HLS dropped the ball in similar ways for c/o 2011.

HLS actually made some smart moves, like moving OCI to a much earlier date and banning S&C from future OCIs for failing to follow the NALP rules.

They just threatened to ban them, right? Then S&C caved. It would be pretty sweet for S&C to be banned permanently from Harvard's OCI--like watching Warren Buffett in a cage match with George Soros.

[Old Gregg]

In fact, HLS dropped the ball in similar ways for c/o 2011.

HLS actually made some smart moves, like moving OCI to a much earlier date and banning S&C from future OCIs for failing to follow the NALP rules.

They just threatened to ban them, right? Then S&C caved. It would be pretty sweet for S&C to be banned permanently from Harvard's OCI--like watching Warren Buffett in a cage match with George Soros.

I was under the impression that they actually banned, and then S&C caved, and then HLS unbanned, but I could have my timeline wrong.

[Old Gregg]

In fact, HLS dropped the ball in similar ways for c/o 2011.

HLS actually made some smart moves, like moving OCI to a much earlier date and banning S&C from future OCIs for failing to follow the NALP rules.

They just threatened to ban them, right? Then S&C caved. It would be pretty sweet for S&C to be banned permanently from Harvard's OCI--like watching Warren Buffett in a cage match with George Soros.

I was under the impression that they actually banned, and then S&C caved, and then HLS unbanned, but I could have my timeline wrong.

Never mind. You were right:

Law school higher-ups had varying reactions to the move, but none reacted more strongly than Harvard, according to all six sources. Harvard quickly told S&C that, if it stuck with its plan to leave offers open for just two weeks, the firm would not be invited to recruit on campus this year. Mark Weber, assistant dean for career services at Harvard, declined to comment when we reached him this week. A Sullivan & Cromwell spokeswoman did not return messages, but a S&C source familiar with the firm's recruiting strategy says the firm believed it could make more offers under the two-week rule because of the greater certainty it would provide. The source also points out that S&C was prepared to promise students that the firm would make offer decisions within two days of a second interview.

Still kind of funny that other law schools just accepted it while HLS actually had some cajones.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Still kind of funny that other law schools just accepted it while HLS actually had some cajones.

I bet HLS is the only school that had enough individual leverage to make S&C reconsider. Maybe if you get NYU and CLS together to ban S&C that would work, but it's hard to imagine many schools where this move would do anything except harm their own students.