below median @ MVP - plan? Forum

[birdlaw117]

What makes no sense is how the people who like to point out the reputation score gaps from US News as a way to justify NYU somehow being stronger for employment always use the US News ACADEMIC reputation scores. If you check the scores given by lawyers/judges it has NEVER had a higher ranking than MVPB and often times it gets a lower score than Michigan and UVA. I've never understood that reasoning. So are you saying that law professor opinions as oposed to practicing lawyers and judges are more indicative of employment prospects??? I've been confused by that for a while.

Tbf, it's all crap. But you're right, that's dumb.

[rayiner]

Penn's suddenly awesome placement relative to M and V is relatively new and shouldn't be seen as a definite trend that's going to continue in the future.

Penn was right up there with Columbia in NLJ 250 placement back for C/O 2005. It's a trend that will continue so long as New York remains the dominant legal market and other markets remain soft: i.e. for the foreseeable future.

Penn's NLJ250 numbers can't be compared to Columbia's. Penn reports their students placement on behalf of firms who withhold this information, Columbia does not.

First, source? Second, for C/O 2011, even according to the schools' own numbers Penn and Columbia placed comparably into big law + clerkships: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=181415.

Third, even if Columbia's numbers should be a little higher doesn't change the relationship between Penn and Michigan/Virginia.

[Greenandgold]

Penn's suddenly awesome placement relative to M and V is relatively new and shouldn't be seen as a definite trend that's going to continue in the future.

Penn was right up there with Columbia in NLJ 250 placement back for C/O 2005. It's a trend that will continue so long as New York remains the dominant legal market and other markets remain soft: i.e. for the foreseeable future.

Penn's NLJ250 numbers can't be compared to Columbia's. Penn reports their students placement on behalf of firms who withhold this information, Columbia does not.

First, source? Second, for C/O 2011, even according to the schools' own numbers Penn and Columbia placed comparably into big law + clerkships: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=181415.

Third, even if Columbia's numbers should be a little higher doesn't change the relationship between Penn and Michigan/Virginia.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=180319

If you read through the thread you'll see that Columbia and NYU both respond by saying that they don't report their students as working at NLJ 250 firms if the firms themselves don't report it. NYU, Columbia, and Harvard seem to be the only schools that are affected by the discrepancy that results from this.

But also, you are correct in that their employment numbers are still similar. However, Columbia's number are better than Penn's when looking at the schools data rather than the NLJ 250. If I'm not mistaken though, Penn had the highest percentage of students working at NLJ 250 firms when looking at the NLJ 250 data, but, as that thread shows, that's misleading.

Edit: Everything in between pages 1 and 5 on that thread is pure speculation. NYU responds on page 5 so it might help to skip the middle junk if you don't want to waste your time.

[Bronck]

First, source? Second, for C/O 2011, even according to the schools' own numbers Penn and Columbia placed comparably into big law + clerkships: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=181415.

Third, even if Columbia's numbers should be a little higher doesn't change the relationship between Penn and Michigan/Virginia.

Even if they place comparable percentages into those areas (firms 101+ and fed clerkships), isn't there at least something to the argument that students at CCN place more heavily into more prestigious firms (e.g., V10) because of the deeper grade cutoffs?

[buckilaw]

ITE the sub-tiers are:

CCNP
DN
MVC

(Sorry for your tiny pink lack of a home market MV bros).

Amusing.

[rayiner]

But also, you are correct in that their employment numbers are still similar. However, Columbia's number are better than Penn's when looking at the schools data rather than the NLJ 250. If I'm not mistaken though, Penn had the highest percentage of students working at NLJ 250 firms when looking at the NLJ 250 data, but, as that thread shows, that's misleading.

I was referring to circa 2007 data, which still showed Penn with a large lead over M/V.

In any case, Columbia did not do better than Penn looking at the schools' own numbers. Columbia placed slightly more in big law, Penn placed slightly more in clerkships.

[rayiner]

First, source? Second, for C/O 2011, even according to the schools' own numbers Penn and Columbia placed comparably into big law + clerkships: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=181415.

Third, even if Columbia's numbers should be a little higher doesn't change the relationship between Penn and Michigan/Virginia.

Even if they place comparable percentages into those areas (firms 101+ and fed clerkships), isn't there at least something to the argument that students at CCN place more heavily into more prestigious firms (e.g., V10) because of the deeper grade cutoffs?

I think there is something to this, yes, but not enough to draw tiers. Sullivan has a similar number of Penn and NYU lawyers, per capita. Davis Polk has way more from NYU, per capita. Overall, NYU definitely has an edge in the V10, but not uniformly throughout the V10. Is that enough to really support a sub-tier?

[Greenandgold]

But also, you are correct in that their employment numbers are still similar. However, Columbia's number are better than Penn's when looking at the schools data rather than the NLJ 250. If I'm not mistaken though, Penn had the highest percentage of students working at NLJ 250 firms when looking at the NLJ 250 data, but, as that thread shows, that's misleading.

I was referring to circa 2007 data, which still showed Penn with a large lead over M/V.

In any case, Columbia did not do better than Penn looking at the schools' own numbers. Columbia placed slightly more in big law, Penn placed slightly more in clerkships.

Clerkships:

Columbia- 9.77%
Penn- 10.14%

Big Law (Firms with 250+):

Columbia- 65.82%
Penn- 53.98%

I'd say that's a pretty easy call. Nearly identical clerkship numbers with a significant difference in big law placement.

Source: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=183053

[rayiner]

But also, you are correct in that their employment numbers are still similar. However, Columbia's number are better than Penn's when looking at the schools data rather than the NLJ 250. If I'm not mistaken though, Penn had the highest percentage of students working at NLJ 250 firms when looking at the NLJ 250 data, but, as that thread shows, that's misleading.

I was referring to circa 2007 data, which still showed Penn with a large lead over M/V.

In any case, Columbia did not do better than Penn looking at the schools' own numbers. Columbia placed slightly more in big law, Penn placed slightly more in clerkships.

Clerkships:

Columbia- 9.77%
Penn- 10.14%

Big Law (Firms with 250+):

Columbia- 65.82%
Penn- 53.98%

I'd say that's a pretty easy call. Nearly identical clerkship numbers with a significant difference in big law placement.

Source: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=183053

I was referring to 2011 data: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 1&t=181415

C/O 2010 data isn't very useful because they did OCI pre-ITE and the drops in their placement were largely the result of no-offers and rescinded offers. That makes the data very noisy.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

Penn's suddenly awesome placement relative to M and V is relatively new and shouldn't be seen as a definite trend that's going to continue in the future.

Penn was right up there with Columbia in NLJ 250 placement back for C/O 2005. It's a trend that will continue so long as New York remains the dominant legal market and other markets remain soft: i.e. for the foreseeable future.

What makes you think that New York is going to remain dominant relative to the other legal markets?

NY has always been dominant, having the lion's share of financial activity and thus legal in the country. The bubble actually represented an anomaly. Construction/lending dramatically increased the amount of financial and legal activity in the South. That state of affairs is not returning for a long time. The midwest outside of Chicago has been in decline for a long time, and even during the boom firms in those areas weren't exactly thriving. Chicago itself isn't declining, but isn't growing at more than a snail's pace. During the boom firms in Chicago picked up a lot of financial work, but that doesn't seem to be recovering any time soon either. DC will of course continue to be a huge legal market, but it's certainly not growing in this era of federal belt-tightening. If we're not in a tech bubble right now, but rather something sustainable, Berkeley's prospects might continue to rise with the economy in SF.

What we're really in now is the new normal. New York is the only city with enough financial activity to support a dozen firms with 100+ student SA classes. Firms elsewhere will continue to hire at a reduced headcount, but the popping of the mortgage-backed securities bubble means even the biggest Chicago or LA firms don't need more than 50-60 SA's.

I guess it just doesn't make sense to me to think that New York will have a never-ending, unlimited supply of high-end finance work given the fact that foreigners, along with US states and municipalities, bought into high finance's bullshit before the crash and I have a hard time believing they're just going to keep shoveling money into the big banks. Couple that with Dodd-Frank and the high probability (IMO) that Obama will be re-elected and will turn off the QE spicket and I think your prediction is optimistic at best and biased by hindsight at worst.

[Greenandgold]

But also, you are correct in that their employment numbers are still similar. However, Columbia's number are better than Penn's when looking at the schools data rather than the NLJ 250. If I'm not mistaken though, Penn had the highest percentage of students working at NLJ 250 firms when looking at the NLJ 250 data, but, as that thread shows, that's misleading.

I was referring to circa 2007 data, which still showed Penn with a large lead over M/V.

In any case, Columbia did not do better than Penn looking at the schools' own numbers. Columbia placed slightly more in big law, Penn placed slightly more in clerkships.

Clerkships:

Columbia- 9.77%
Penn- 10.14%

Big Law (Firms with 250+):

Columbia- 65.82%
Penn- 53.98%

I'd say that's a pretty easy call. Nearly identical clerkship numbers with a significant difference in big law placement.

Source: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=183053

I was referring to 2011 data: http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... 1&t=181415

C/O 2010 data isn't very useful because they did OCI pre-ITE and the drops in their placement were largely the result of no-offers and rescinded offers. That makes the data very noisy.

Fair enough, I was just using the most recent one stickied to the top of the "choosing a law school" page, but that makes sense. It'll be interesting to see how the next few years of employment data turn out since everything pre-2008 is basically useless now.

[rayiner]

I guess it just doesn't make sense to me to think that New York will have a never-ending, unlimited supply of high-end finance work given the fact that foreigners, along with US states and municipalities, bought into high finance's bullshit before the crash and I have a hard time believing they're just going to keep shoveling money into the big banks. Couple that with Dodd-Frank and the high probability (IMO) that Obama will be re-elected and will turn off the QE spicket and I think your prediction is optimistic at best and biased by hindsight at worst.

New York has already contracted a lot post bubble. But financial activity still needs to happen, and post-bubble that activity has consolidated even more strongly in NYC. A lot of the worst bubble activity was actually outside NYC in places like Charlotte. It was associated with the construction industry which has just been decimated and is not coming back any time soon. Dodd-Frank might lead to a contraction of some aspects of the business in NYC, but will lead to more work in financial regulatory areas, and you'll note that it has been NYC firms that have taken the lead on that.

I don't disagree that there might be contraction ahead for NYC, but there is just such a huge gap between NYC and any other market that I don't think it will matter. I can't find the TLS thread, but IIRC the SA counts in various markets last year were something like:

NYC - 2300
DC - 750
Chicago - 350
SF - 200
LA - 200
...

The other question is whether any market has the potential to grow in the foreseeable future. SF might continue to grow, but it might also collapse if we're in another tech bubble. DC might grow slightly, but more regulation is a hard sell ITE and places like DPW and S&C have captured the financial regulatory market that might be brought on by Dodd-Frank.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

I guess it just doesn't make sense to me to think that New York will have a never-ending, unlimited supply of high-end finance work given the fact that foreigners, along with US states and municipalities, bought into high finance's bullshit before the crash and I have a hard time believing they're just going to keep shoveling money into the big banks. Couple that with Dodd-Frank and the high probability (IMO) that Obama will be re-elected and will turn off the QE spicket and I think your prediction is optimistic at best and biased by hindsight at worst.

New York has already contracted a lot post bubble. But financial activity still needs to happen, and post-bubble that activity has consolidated even more strongly in NYC. A lot of the worst bubble activity was actually outside NYC in places like Charlotte. It was associated with the construction industry which has just been decimated and is not coming back any time soon. Dodd-Frank might lead to a contraction of some aspects of the business in NYC, but will lead to more work in financial regulatory areas, and you'll note that it has been NYC firms that have taken the lead on that.

I don't disagree that there might be contraction ahead for NYC, but there is just such a huge gap between NYC and any other market that I don't think it will matter. I can't find the TLS thread, but IIRC the SA counts in various markets last year were something like:

NYC - 2300
DC - 750
Chicago - 350
SF - 200
LA - 200
...

The other question is whether any market has the potential to grow in the foreseeable future. SF might continue to grow, but it might also collapse if we're in another tech bubble. DC might grow slightly, but more regulation is a hard sell ITE and places like DPW have captured the financial regulatory market that might be brought on by Dodd-Frank.

How did you enjoy your DPW SA gig? I think there are some SullCrom partners who might have something to say about your assertion that DPW has "captured the financial regulatory market."

Anyways... I think the foundation of your argument: that things are going to stay the same as they have been because that's the way it's always been, is weak. Who knows what's going to happen. All I know is that Silicon Valley tech companies have cash reserves greater than the entirety of the market capitalizations of the big banks. ITE, I'd bet on places that make tangible things (and quasi-tangible things like software) instead of people in NYC pushing around ever-shrinking piles of the same idiots' money.

[Bronck]

First, source? Second, for C/O 2011, even according to the schools' own numbers Penn and Columbia placed comparably into big law + clerkships: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 1&t=181415.

Third, even if Columbia's numbers should be a little higher doesn't change the relationship between Penn and Michigan/Virginia.

Even if they place comparable percentages into those areas (firms 101+ and fed clerkships), isn't there at least something to the argument that students at CCN place more heavily into more prestigious firms (e.g., V10) because of the deeper grade cutoffs?

I think there is something to this, yes, but not enough to draw tiers. Sullivan has a similar number of Penn and NYU lawyers, per capita. Davis Polk has way more from NYU, per capita. Overall, NYU definitely has an edge in the V10, but not uniformly throughout the V10. Is that enough to really support a sub-tier?

Fair point, especially when your average person is going to be concerned with merely getting a market paying job.

[IAFG]

I guess it just doesn't make sense to me to think that New York will have a never-ending, unlimited supply of high-end finance work given the fact that foreigners, along with US states and municipalities, bought into high finance's bullshit before the crash and I have a hard time believing they're just going to keep shoveling money into the big banks. Couple that with Dodd-Frank and the high probability (IMO) that Obama will be re-elected and will turn off the QE spicket and I think your prediction is optimistic at best and biased by hindsight at worst.

New York has already contracted a lot post bubble. But financial activity still needs to happen, and post-bubble that activity has consolidated even more strongly in NYC. A lot of the worst bubble activity was actually outside NYC in places like Charlotte. It was associated with the construction industry which has just been decimated and is not coming back any time soon. Dodd-Frank might lead to a contraction of some aspects of the business in NYC, but will lead to more work in financial regulatory areas, and you'll note that it has been NYC firms that have taken the lead on that.

I don't disagree that there might be contraction ahead for NYC, but there is just such a huge gap between NYC and any other market that I don't think it will matter. I can't find the TLS thread, but IIRC the SA counts in various markets last year were something like:

NYC - 2300
DC - 750
Chicago - 350
SF - 200
LA - 200
...

The other question is whether any market has the potential to grow in the foreseeable future. SF might continue to grow, but it might also collapse if we're in another tech bubble. DC might grow slightly, but more regulation is a hard sell ITE and places like DPW have captured the financial regulatory market that might be brought on by Dodd-Frank.

How did you enjoy your DPW SA gig? I think there are some SullCrom partners who might have something to say about your assertion that DPW has "captured the financial regulatory market."

Anyways... I think the foundation of your argument: that things are going to stay the same as they have been because that's the way it's always been, is weak. Who knows what's going to happen. All I know is that Silicon Valley tech companies have cash reserves greater than the entirety of the market capitalizations of the big banks. ITE, I'd bet on places that make tangible things (and quasi-tangible things like software) instead of people in NYC pushing around ever-shrinking piles of the same idiots' money.

LOL at your RC fail that misses the bigger picture. He said "places like," meaning NY is stealing market share from DC for regulatory practice.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

I guess it just doesn't make sense to me to think that New York will have a never-ending, unlimited supply of high-end finance work given the fact that foreigners, along with US states and municipalities, bought into high finance's bullshit before the crash and I have a hard time believing they're just going to keep shoveling money into the big banks. Couple that with Dodd-Frank and the high probability (IMO) that Obama will be re-elected and will turn off the QE spicket and I think your prediction is optimistic at best and biased by hindsight at worst.

New York has already contracted a lot post bubble. But financial activity still needs to happen, and post-bubble that activity has consolidated even more strongly in NYC. A lot of the worst bubble activity was actually outside NYC in places like Charlotte. It was associated with the construction industry which has just been decimated and is not coming back any time soon. Dodd-Frank might lead to a contraction of some aspects of the business in NYC, but will lead to more work in financial regulatory areas, and you'll note that it has been NYC firms that have taken the lead on that.

I don't disagree that there might be contraction ahead for NYC, but there is just such a huge gap between NYC and any other market that I don't think it will matter. I can't find the TLS thread, but IIRC the SA counts in various markets last year were something like:

NYC - 2300
DC - 750
Chicago - 350
SF - 200
LA - 200
...

The other question is whether any market has the potential to grow in the foreseeable future. SF might continue to grow, but it might also collapse if we're in another tech bubble. DC might grow slightly, but more regulation is a hard sell ITE and places like DPW have captured the financial regulatory market that might be brought on by Dodd-Frank.

How did you enjoy your DPW SA gig? I think there are some SullCrom partners who might have something to say about your assertion that DPW has "captured the financial regulatory market."

Anyways... I think the foundation of your argument: that things are going to stay the same as they have been because that's the way it's always been, is weak. Who knows what's going to happen. All I know is that Silicon Valley tech companies have cash reserves greater than the entirety of the market capitalizations of the big banks. ITE, I'd bet on places that make tangible things (and quasi-tangible things like software) instead of people in NYC pushing around ever-shrinking piles of the same idiots' money.

LOL at your RC fail that misses the bigger picture. He said "places like," meaning NY is stealing market share from DC for regulatory practice.

My point is that DPW doesn't even come to mind as the first firm that his statement would apply to. It's like claiming that appellate practice has been captured by DC offices like Kirkland's.

[IAFG]

My point is that DPW doesn't even come to mind as the first firm that his statement would apply to. It's like claiming that appellate practice has been captured by DC offices like Kirkland's.

uh wat? DPW has done an amazing job carving out Dodd-Frank for themselves. Just because it doesn't come to YOUR mind doesn't mean they aren't obviously dominating in Dodd-Frank work.

[Julio_El_Chavo]

My point is that DPW doesn't even come to mind as the first firm that his statement would apply to. It's like claiming that appellate practice has been captured by DC offices like Kirkland's.

uh wat? DPW has done an amazing job carving out Dodd-Frank for themselves. Just because it doesn't come to YOUR mind doesn't mean they aren't obviously dominating in Dodd-Frank work.

The only big NYC partner involved in the actual framing of Dodd Frank works at SullCrom. DPW is wedded to JPMorgan which is obviously a TTT in decline. Also, sorry about your tiny pink partnership prospects, bro.

[rayiner]

My point is that DPW doesn't even come to mind as the first firm that his statement would apply to. It's like claiming that appellate practice has been captured by DC offices like Kirkland's.

uh wat? DPW has done an amazing job carving out Dodd-Frank for themselves. Just because it doesn't come to YOUR mind doesn't mean they aren't obviously dominating in Dodd-Frank work.

The only big NYC partner involved in the actual framing of Dodd Frank works at SullCrom. DPW is wedded to JPMorgan which is obviously a TTT in decline. Also, sorry about your tiny pink partnership prospects, bro.

I really have no interest in an S&C versus DPW pissing match. My point was that financial regulation is one of the only regulatory areas likely to expand in the coming years and NYC firms have captured most of that work.

[Anonymous User]

network your ass off.

Someone in your situation at my school is working at Weil. She knew 1st semester her grades would suck so she contacted a partner who pulled her through.

Do it now, before OGIs even start.

[Anonymous User]

My point is that DPW doesn't even come to mind as the first firm that his statement would apply to. It's like claiming that appellate practice has been captured by DC offices like Kirkland's.

uh wat? DPW has done an amazing job carving out Dodd-Frank for themselves. Just because it doesn't come to YOUR mind doesn't mean they aren't obviously dominating in Dodd-Frank work.

The only big NYC partner involved in the actual framing of Dodd Frank works at SullCrom. DPW is wedded to JPMorgan which is obviously a TTT in decline. Also, sorry about your tiny pink partnership prospects, bro.

This is just flat out wrong. DPW has ALL of the DFA living wills-- and is bringing in new corporate clients based upon the living will work (something that never happens). Citi is coming more and more to DPW in the last several years. Other major banks (which I can't name) are giving more matters to DPW this year than they have in the last 100 years. Goldman's internal people have even told their BOD that DPW is handling their DF work, when in fact DPW is not. Uh....

As far as partners involved in framing DF, see Meg Tahyar, Randy Guynn, and many others. Keep in mind that DF is implicated in many IMG, M&A, Cap Markets, SEG, and other corporate practices. Which means that for, e.g., bank M&A work, banks have been coming to DPW because they know that DPW can handle both the M&A work and the DF regulatory work in one swoop.

As far as JPMorgan-- I think that their balance sheet is in a lot better shape than many of their peer institutions.

Yes, obviously I am at DPW and am drunk on kool aid, but the above is simply facts. I have simply not heard of S&C on the other side of the table in a long, long time. Yes, Rodge is a big deal, but S&C just doesn't have that much behind Rodge whereas DPW is growing a small army. Hell, this year's summer class is doing so much FIG work that they can't believe it.

[Anonymous User]

This is just flat out wrong. DPW has ALL of the DFA living wills-- and is bringing in new corporate clients based upon the living will work (something that never happens). Citi is coming more and more to DPW in the last several years. Other major banks (which I can't name) are giving more matters to DPW this year than they have in the last 100 years. Goldman's internal people have even told their BOD that DPW is handling their DF work, when in fact DPW is not. Uh....

As far as partners involved in framing DF, see Meg Tahyar, Randy Guynn, and many others. Keep in mind that DF is implicated in many IMG, M&A, Cap Markets, SEG, and other corporate practices. Which means that for, e.g., bank M&A work, banks have been coming to DPW because they know that DPW can handle both the M&A work and the DF regulatory work in one swoop.

As far as JPMorgan-- I think that their balance sheet is in a lot better shape than many of their peer institutions.

Yes, obviously I am at DPW and am drunk on kool aid, but the above is simply facts. I have simply not heard of S&C on the other side of the table in a long, long time. Yes, Rodge is a big deal, but S&C just doesn't have that much behind Rodge whereas DPW is growing a small army. Hell, this year's summer class is doing so much FIG work that they can't believe it.

The talent at DPW, at least at the associate rank, is just not up to par to SullCrom's. DPW hires people with some pretty shitty resumes for a supposedly top tier firm. Hell, there are some people at my firm (V50) who have better credentials than many associates at DPW.

[IAFG]

This is just flat out wrong. DPW has ALL of the DFA living wills-- and is bringing in new corporate clients based upon the living will work (something that never happens). Citi is coming more and more to DPW in the last several years. Other major banks (which I can't name) are giving more matters to DPW this year than they have in the last 100 years. Goldman's internal people have even told their BOD that DPW is handling their DF work, when in fact DPW is not. Uh....

As far as partners involved in framing DF, see Meg Tahyar, Randy Guynn, and many others. Keep in mind that DF is implicated in many IMG, M&A, Cap Markets, SEG, and other corporate practices. Which means that for, e.g., bank M&A work, banks have been coming to DPW because they know that DPW can handle both the M&A work and the DF regulatory work in one swoop.

As far as JPMorgan-- I think that their balance sheet is in a lot better shape than many of their peer institutions.

Yes, obviously I am at DPW and am drunk on kool aid, but the above is simply facts. I have simply not heard of S&C on the other side of the table in a long, long time. Yes, Rodge is a big deal, but S&C just doesn't have that much behind Rodge whereas DPW is growing a small army. Hell, this year's summer class is doing so much FIG work that they can't believe it.

The talent at DPW, at least at the associate rank, is just not up to par to SullCrom's. DPW hires people with some pretty shitty resumes for a supposedly top tier firm. Hell, there are some people at my firm (V50) who turned down DPW for my firm.

That seems pretty relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Pate]

Either way, you need a mailing campaign. Put together a list of every NLJ250 firm in NYC outside the V25, and send targeted letters to them in August/September. Be systematic about this, and personalize each mail. Seriously consider expanding your search to nearby markets like NJ, upper NY, CT, etc.

I have no opinion on this, just asking.

I have to estimate my GPA (which I think is middle third). That said, is there a point to mailing a firm like Duane Morris, given that I am under their cutoff. Even if they agreed to an interview wouldn’t it just be a waste of everyone’s time?

I have been given a numerous opinions about cutoffs ― most say they are real.

[rayiner]

Either way, you need a mailing campaign. Put together a list of every NLJ250 firm in NYC outside the V25, and send targeted letters to them in August/September. Be systematic about this, and personalize each mail. Seriously consider expanding your search to nearby markets like NJ, upper NY, CT, etc.

I have no opinion on this, just asking.

I have to estimate my GPA (which I think is middle third). That said, is there a point to mailing a firm like Duane Morris, given that I am under their cutoff. Even if they agreed to an interview wouldn’t it just be a waste of everyone’s time?

I have been given a numerous opinions about cutoffs ― most say they are real.

Cut-offs mentioned in Symplicity? Those are totally fictitious.