Top Law Schools

Does Texas generally have a higher no-offer rate due to the split summer model? The reasoning here is that there is less certainty that SAs will accept an offer since they might instead accept an offer from the other firm that they summered with, thereby leaving the first firm with an understaffed class. To account for this, firms will over-hire a summer class with the expectation of no-offering some and keeping them as alternates in case the firm's first choice candidates choose their other summer firm. I've heard versions of this theory bandied about, but never discussed directly. Is there any truth to this?

I'm curious about this, too. Normally, an offer rate of 80% would be horrible/frightening, but splitting a summer between two firms that each have 80% offer rates should give you a 96% chance of getting an offer from at least one of them (assuming that there's nothing actually shitty about your work product or personality that would get you no-offered at both firms).

While the advantage of being able to try out two firms instead of one should be noted, I still think that firms which play this numbers game are reckless when they rely on the 'other firm' to catch those associates who don't make the cut. There should be a greater appreciation of the predicament that students can be forced in to in the improbable yet devastating event that both firms figured the other would have a spot for them. If you suck and neither want you, then that's one thing and you failed yourself in striking out twice. But if you genuinely did well and are no-offered due to overhiring by both firms, then there should be some alternative to being 'washed up' with six figures of debt by circumstances outside your control.

checkers wrote:While the advantage of being able to try out two firms instead of one should be noted, I still think that firms which play this numbers game are reckless when they rely on the 'other firm' to catch those associates who don't make the cut. There should be a greater appreciation of the predicament that students can be forced in to in the improbable yet devastating event that both firms figured the other would have a spot for them. If you suck and neither want you, then that's one thing and you failed yourself in striking out twice. But if you genuinely did well and are no-offered due to overhiring by both firms, then there should be some alternative to being 'washed up' with six figures of debt by circumstances outside your control.

Agreed, but I don't think the bolded is fundamentally different from someone who summers at a single firm in another market and gets no-offered for no apparent reason; they're equally fucked.

I'd have to see some numbers on the percentage of Texas 2Ls who finish up a split summer without an offer from either firm before I could judge whether the split-summer arrangement is better or worse for students.

ScottRiqui wrote:

checkers wrote:While the advantage of being able to try out two firms instead of one should be noted, I still think that firms which play this numbers game are reckless when they rely on the 'other firm' to catch those associates who don't make the cut. There should be a greater appreciation of the predicament that students can be forced in to in the improbable yet devastating event that both firms figured the other would have a spot for them. If you suck and neither want you, then that's one thing and you failed yourself in striking out twice. But if you genuinely did well and are no-offered due to overhiring by both firms, then there should be some alternative to being 'washed up' with six figures of debt by circumstances outside your control.

Agreed, but I don't think the bolded is fundamentally different from someone who summers at a single firm in another market and gets no-offered for no apparent reason; they're equally fucked.

True. I suppose that portion of my rant was leveled at the process nationwide, not specifically Texas's take on it.

ScottRiqui wrote:I'd have to see some numbers on the percentage of Texas 2Ls who finish up a split summer without an offer from either firm before I could judge whether the split-summer arrangement is better or worse for students.

And we're back to where we started I guess. Does anyone have insight into this? Anecdotal evidence is welcome.

checkers wrote: And we're back to where we started I guess. Does anyone have insight into this? Anecdotal evidence is welcome.

Sorry - didn't realize you were talking about the overall "odds of ending a split summer with no offers" rate in your OP. I thought you were wondering if individual Texas offices had lower offer rates compared to other markets (which they certainly do).

ScottRiqui wrote:

checkers wrote: And we're back to where we started I guess. Does anyone have insight into this? Anecdotal evidence is welcome.

Sorry - didn't realize you were talking about the overall "odds of ending a split summer with no offers" rate in your OP. I thought you were wondering if individual Texas offices had lower offer rates compared to other markets (which they certainly do).

You were right the first time, but a more quantitative look into either would be helpful. One is a product of the other, so both are helpful to discuss.

Well, this was from another Texas thread here on TLS:

2012 2L Offer Rates
Firm: # of 2012 SAs/# of offers given - 2012 Offer Rate / 2011 Offer Rate
1. Fulbright Jaworksi: 49/40 - 81.6% / 90%
2. Vinson & Elkins: 71/65 - 91.5% / 94.7%
3. Baker Botts: 67/59 - 88.1% / 89.8%
4. Haynes and Boone: 41/38 - 92.7% / 75%
5. Jackson Walker: 17/14 - 82.4% / 75%
6. Andrews Kurth: 32/30 - 93.8% / 84%
7. Bracewell Guiliani: 27/24 - 88.9% / 78.6%
8. Locke Lord: 25/23 - 92% / 88.2%
9. Winstead: 12/10 - 83.3% / 71.4%
10. Thompson Knight: 18/14 - 77.8% / 77.8%
11. Gardere: 10/5 - 50% / 100%
12. Strasburger & Price: no info
13. Jones Day: 26/26 - 100% / 87%
14. Akin Gump: 11/10 - 90.9% / 92.9%
15. Kelly Hart & Hallman: 5/4 - 80% / N/A
Note: The prior table includes 1L SAs, one of the reasons why the numbers might not match up.

So it looks like for 2011/2012, the offer rates for individual Texas offices were often in the 70s to the low 90s.

If those numbers do include 1L SA's things might not be as bad as we all thought.

Tiago Splitter wrote:If those numbers do include 1L SA's things might not be as bad as we all thought.

Yeah, that's much better than I had thought. Having two bites at the apple with those numbers really isn't so bad.

I know of someone who got no offered at two Texas firms her 2L summer.

baal hadad wrote:I know of someone who got no offered at two Texas firms her 2L summer.

Any hints as to which ones? Cities? And was there a reason why they were no offered?

islandrose0913 wrote:

baal hadad wrote:I know of someone who got no offered at two Texas firms her 2L summer.

Any hints as to which ones? Cities? And was there a reason why they were no offered?

Don't have any details about it other than the fact it happened

Friend of a friend

The "80% offer rates at two firms equals a 96% of getting an offer" makes one huge assumption: No-offers are randomly distributed amongst SAs. Whilst I don't know why these firms are no offering SAs, I'm going to take a wild stab that they're not randomly picking someone because their hat isn't large enough or they didn't wear a bolo, or whatever else goes on in Texas firms.

Instead, they're probably punting poor performers, either because their work product is tripe or because they have the personality of a steer. For those of you who can read, write, follow directions, and have something resembling a personality, you probably don't have much of an issue. But for those of you who have serious issues that would get overlooked at a NY V20, but won't get overlooked at more intimate TX firms, you might be looking at—and this is a complete guesstimate, just for the sake of crunching some numbers— 33% offer rates. Instead, you're looking at about a 56% chance of getting an offer.

pertristis wrote:The "80% offer rates at two firms equals a 96% of getting an offer" makes one huge assumption: No-offers are randomly distributed amongst SAs. Whilst I don't know why these firms are no offering SAs, I'm going to take a wild stab that they're not randomly picking someone because their hat isn't large enough or they didn't wear a bolo, or whatever else goes on in Texas firms.

Instead, they're probably punting poor performers, either because their work product is tripe or because they have the personality of a steer.

Yeah, I acknowledged that assumption in the very same sentence where I talked about a 96% overall offer rate:

"(assuming that there's nothing actually shitty about your work product or personality that would get you no-offered at both firms)"

But that goes to the eternal question regarding no-offers, in Texas or any other market - how many of them are really "bolt out of the blue" no-offers because the SA class was bigger than the number of new associates the firm needed, and how many of them were because of something "wrong" with the summer associate?

ScottRiqui wrote:I'm curious about this, too. Normally, an offer rate of 80% would be horrible/frightening, but splitting a summer between two firms that each have 80% offer rates should give you a 96% chance of getting an offer from at least one of them (assuming that there's nothing actually shitty about your work product or personality that would get you no-offered at both firms).

This assumption makes you conclusion worthless

Desert Fox wrote:

ScottRiqui wrote:I'm curious about this, too. Normally, an offer rate of 80% would be horrible/frightening, but splitting a summer between two firms that each have 80% offer rates should give you a 96% chance of getting an offer from at least one of them (assuming that there's nothing actually shitty about your work product or personality that would get you no-offered at both firms).

This assumption makes you conclusion worthless

My point is that doing a split summer with two firms that each have what would normally be considered terribad offer rates isn't necessarily worse than doing an entire summer with a single firm that has a near-100% offer rate. Of course a shitty performance/personality will increase your chances of a no-offer anywhere, but I was more talking about the "but I did everything right" no-offers we hear so much about on TLS.

ScottRiqui wrote: Of course a shitty performance/personality will increase your chances of a no-offer anywhere, but I was more talking about the "but I did everything right" no-offers we hear so much about on TLS.

Do you really think that the people who say that actually did everything right?

pertristis wrote:

ScottRiqui wrote: Of course a shitty performance/personality will increase your chances of a no-offer anywhere, but I was more talking about the "but I did everything right" no-offers we hear so much about on TLS.

Do you really think that the people who say that actually did everything right?

Like I said earlier, that's the eternal question - "Do most SAs who are no-offered somehow 'deserve it', and the rest of us can tell ourselves we have nothing to worry about, or are a significant number of no-offers just bad luck, or decided based upon inconsequential differences between candidates?"

pertristis wrote:The "80% offer rates at two firms equals a 96% of getting an offer" makes one huge assumption: No-offers are randomly distributed amongst SAs. Whilst I don't know why these firms are no offering SAs, I'm going to take a wild stab that they're not randomly picking someone because their hat isn't large enough or they didn't wear a bolo, or whatever else goes on in Texas firms.

Instead, they're probably punting poor performers, either because their work product is tripe or because they have the personality of a steer. For those of you who can read, write, follow directions, and have something resembling a personality, you probably don't have much of an issue. But for those of you who have serious issues that would get overlooked at a NY V20, but won't get overlooked at more intimate TX firms, you might be looking at—and this is a complete guesstimate, just for the sake of crunching some numbers— 33% offer rates. Instead, you're looking at about a 56% chance of getting an offer.

When you're in the south and firms that do split summers overhired every year knowing they don't have work for everyone because that's the model, they're probably not just punting poor performers

You should also know yourself. Personally, I tend to struggle at first in new environments, and then about a month in it clicks, and I rise to or near the top. This was the case in elementary school, high school, college, law school, and in big law. The economics of any given firm are a concern, but if it is 80% then it'd likely be 95%-99% for me if it's based off a full summer. If you're the type who is likely to blow the first few assignments then it may be under 50% at each firm so you're worse off. In addition, statistics would say that the summer who gets no offered at Firm A is more likely to get no offered at Firms B, C and D than the random summer.

ScottRiqui wrote:

pertristis wrote:

ScottRiqui wrote: Of course a shitty performance/personality will increase your chances of a no-offer anywhere, but I was more talking about the "but I did everything right" no-offers we hear so much about on TLS.

Do you really think that the people who say that actually did everything right?

Like I said earlier, that's the eternal question - "Do most SAs who are no-offered somehow 'deserve it', and the rest of us can tell ourselves we have nothing to worry about, or are a significant number of no-offers just bad luck, or decided based upon inconsequential differences between candidates?"

I was in a clerkship interview when another judge came in. He told me that there was one thing I needed to know about the first year of practice at a major firm: Do no harm.

Every SA screws up. At my SA firm, I knew who some of the superstars were. They screwed up just like everyone else. Firms expect SAs to screw up. But there are different levels of screw-ups. Some involve partners who wanted a bit more research when helping to write an article. Some—from another thread here—involve butchering a filing and causing their firm to ask for an extension. Some involve serious lapses of decorum or what have you. I'm apt to believe that no offers, when they happen, generally come from the more egregious fuck ups. (That's not to say that there aren't some people who get hit out of the blue. I'm just guessing that most of those people were at the bottom of the production of SAs, however light that production pool is.)

baal hadad wrote:When you're in the south and firms that do split summers overhired every year knowing they don't have work for everyone because that's the model, they're probably not just punting poor performers

From the posts before, it looked like offer rates in 2012 hovered around 85–90%. Admittedly, this might not be an apt analogy, but when I was in management in a different industry before law school, I could easily tell you who my bottom 10-15% were. If I had a glut of employees, I would have gladly gotten rid of them.

baal hadad wrote:

pertristis wrote:The "80% offer rates at two firms equals a 96% of getting an offer" makes one huge assumption: No-offers are randomly distributed amongst SAs. Whilst I don't know why these firms are no offering SAs, I'm going to take a wild stab that they're not randomly picking someone because their hat isn't large enough or they didn't wear a bolo, or whatever else goes on in Texas firms.

Instead, they're probably punting poor performers, either because their work product is tripe or because they have the personality of a steer. For those of you who can read, write, follow directions, and have something resembling a personality, you probably don't have much of an issue. But for those of you who have serious issues that would get overlooked at a NY V20, but won't get overlooked at more intimate TX firms, you might be looking at—and this is a complete guesstimate, just for the sake of crunching some numbers— 33% offer rates. Instead, you're looking at about a 56% chance of getting an offer.

When you're in the south and firms that do split summers overhired every year knowing they don't have work for everyone because that's the model, they're probably not just punting poor performers

Second half programs are becoming less common. The average student who can pull off a split summer at two market-paying firms in Texas is going to have stronger credentials than the average Texas summer associate. Generally speaking, that student will probably have at least one SA offer from a 90%+ FT offer rate firm.

pertristis wrote:

ScottRiqui wrote:

pertristis wrote:

ScottRiqui wrote: Of course a shitty performance/personality will increase your chances of a no-offer anywhere, but I was more talking about the "but I did everything right" no-offers we hear so much about on TLS.

Do you really think that the people who say that actually did everything right?

Like I said earlier, that's the eternal question - "Do most SAs who are no-offered somehow 'deserve it', and the rest of us can tell ourselves we have nothing to worry about, or are a significant number of no-offers just bad luck, or decided based upon inconsequential differences between candidates?"

I was in a clerkship interview when another judge came in. He told me that there was one thing I needed to know about the first year of practice at a major firm: Do no harm.

Every SA screws up. At my SA firm, I knew who some of the superstars were. They screwed up just like everyone else. Firms expect SAs to screw up. But there are different levels of screw-ups. Some involve partners who wanted a bit more research when helping to write an article. Some—from another thread here—involve butchering a filing and causing their firm to ask for an extension. Some involve serious lapses of decorum or what have you. I'm apt to believe that no offers, when they happen, generally come from the more egregious fuck ups. (That's not to say that there aren't some people who get hit out of the blue. I'm just guessing that most of those people were at the bottom of the production of SAs, however light that production pool is.)

baal hadad wrote:When you're in the south and firms that do split summers overhired every year knowing they don't have work for everyone because that's the model, they're probably not just punting poor performers

From the posts before, it looked like offer rates in 2012 hovered around 85–90%. Admittedly, this might not be an apt analogy, but when I was in management in a different industry before law school, I could easily tell you who my bottom 10-15% were. If I had a glut of employees, I would have gladly gotten rid of them.

I had some pretty bad fuck ups (not decorum). But the partners are people. They're not out to fuck anybody. If you acknowledge your fuck up, and correct it in a way that doesn't make the partner's life more difficult it's very likely the partner isn't going to mention it to anybody. As far as decorum, the vibe I got was that if you're just weird or made a foolish decision, people let it go - this goes back to being likable. The issue is if it becomes a thing either in office gossip or on Above The Law then you're in hot water. Summers are so fungible that if your behavior even threatens the firm's reputation it's likely you're done. Everyone there contributes and has a lot of stock in the firm's reputation so it's also pretty selfish to screw with it.

pertristis wrote:

ScottRiqui wrote:

pertristis wrote:

ScottRiqui wrote: Of course a shitty performance/personality will increase your chances of a no-offer anywhere, but I was more talking about the "but I did everything right" no-offers we hear so much about on TLS.

Do you really think that the people who say that actually did everything right?

Like I said earlier, that's the eternal question - "Do most SAs who are no-offered somehow 'deserve it', and the rest of us can tell ourselves we have nothing to worry about, or are a significant number of no-offers just bad luck, or decided based upon inconsequential differences between candidates?"

I was in a clerkship interview when another judge came in. He told me that there was one thing I needed to know about the first year of practice at a major firm: Do no harm.

Every SA screws up. At my SA firm, I knew who some of the superstars were. They screwed up just like everyone else. Firms expect SAs to screw up. But there are different levels of screw-ups. Some involve partners who wanted a bit more research when helping to write an article. Some—from another thread here—involve butchering a filing and causing their firm to ask for an extension. Some involve serious lapses of decorum or what have you. I'm apt to believe that no offers, when they happen, generally come from the more egregious fuck ups. (That's not to say that there aren't some people who get hit out of the blue. I'm just guessing that most of those people were at the bottom of the production of SAs, however light that production pool is.)

baal hadad wrote:When you're in the south and firms that do split summers overhired every year knowing they don't have work for everyone because that's the model, they're probably not just punting poor performers

From the posts before, it looked like offer rates in 2012 hovered around 85–90%. Admittedly, this might not be an apt analogy, but when I was in management in a different industry before law school, I could easily tell you who my bottom 10-15% were. If I had a glut of employees, I would have gladly gotten rid of them.

There are reasons to no offer other than just mediocre employees

If SA primarily works in group XYZ and there's not that much work in group XYZ then that dude gets cut