Top Law Schools

Are preselects really that advantageous? How much better are your odds compared to a lottery interview with the same firm?

The firms picked the students they wanted to interview and were given others based on an algorithm (bidding). TLS wisdom says pre selects are at an advantage because the firm is already interested in them based on whatever factors, grades, WE, connections, etc., but a good interview by a lottery can still get you where you want to be

Anonymous User wrote:Are preselects really that advantageous? How much better are your odds compared to a lottery interview with the same firm?

I suppose this is anecdotal, but the fact that firms have pushed some schools* to abandon their lottery systems and to move to a 100% pre-select model suggests that the odds are indeed more favorable for pre-selects.

However, if the lottery candidate knocks it out the park in her interview, you can bet that not having been pre-selected will not deter the firm from giving her a callback. Moreover, I can't imagine that any of the CB interviewers will be apprised of the distinction.

(* At my T30, for example, Career Services recently went from an 80% pre-select/20% lottery model to 100% preselects. An Associate Dean explained that certain firms threatened to withdraw from the school's OCI completely if they were forced to interview lottery selections.)

Stop reading tea leaves and start mass mailing

People get CBs from pre selects, lottery, alternates, and whatever we other weird system your school may have. Stay focused.

Desert Fox wrote:For any single preselect interview: If you are solidly in that firms hiring range for GPA, preselect is worse for you. Because lottery will fill the firm up with students who probably have a slim shot. If a firm is going to CB 2 out of 20. And that 20 is filled with 10 kids bidding on a hope and prayer. Well now you got a 2/10 shot. Instead of a preselect where, you are 2 out of 20 people the firm thinks are potential hires.

In general though preselect helps the top because you'll get more interviews total.

This doesn't make a lot of sense DF.

If the school has both, lottery interviews are at a massive disadvantage compared to preselects. They literally already dinged you but some creative type in career services is forcing them to chat with you for 20 minutes anyway. People still get CBs/offers, but the odds are not good.

It can depend on circumstances, of course - sometimes a firm will be heavily screening for yield/interest when they choose preselects, so if you're otherwise qualified then it's not a kiss of death to be a lottery interview or else shoehorn your way into their schedule.

Thrive wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:For any single preselect interview: If you are solidly in that firms hiring range for GPA, preselect is worse for you. Because lottery will fill the firm up with students who probably have a slim shot. If a firm is going to CB 2 out of 20. And that 20 is filled with 10 kids bidding on a hope and prayer. Well now you got a 2/10 shot. Instead of a preselect where, you are 2 out of 20 people the firm thinks are potential hires.

In general though preselect helps the top because you'll get more interviews total.

This doesn't make a lot of sense DF.

It does, but he is talking about preselect vs lottery school systems rather than one individual looking at a preselected or a lottery interview.

Edit: To clarify, pretend you have great grades and want to work at Skadden. If your school is 100% lottery, then your competition will be all over the place, since students (including those without a prayer) got to choose who to speak with. If your school is 100% pre-select, then your competition have all already passed a smell test from the firm. All else being equal, you'd rather be at the lottery school.

But I believe OP's question was about the few schools that have a hybrid system, where some interviews are preselect and some are lottery, in which case it's generally true that the people who were preselected have better odds than those who got the interview via the lottery.

thesealocust wrote:If the school has both, lottery interviews are at a massive disadvantage compared to preselects. They literally already dinged you but some creative type in career services is forcing them to chat with you for 20 minutes anyway. People still get CBs/offers, but the odds are not good.

It can depend on circumstances, of course - sometimes a firm will be heavily screening for yield/interest when they choose preselects, so if you're otherwise qualified then it's not a kiss of death to be a lottery interview or else shoehorn your way into their schedule.

Thrive wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:For any single preselect interview: If you are solidly in that firms hiring range for GPA, preselect is worse for you. Because lottery will fill the firm up with students who probably have a slim shot. If a firm is going to CB 2 out of 20. And that 20 is filled with 10 kids bidding on a hope and prayer. Well now you got a 2/10 shot. Instead of a preselect where, you are 2 out of 20 people the firm thinks are potential hires.

In general though preselect helps the top because you'll get more interviews total.

This doesn't make a lot of sense DF.

It does, but he is talking about preselect vs lottery school systems rather than one individual looking at a preselected or a lottery interview.

Edit: To clarify, pretend you have great grades and want to work at Skadden. If your school is 100% lottery, then your competition will be all over the place, since students (including those without a prayer) got to choose who to speak with. If your school is 100% pre-select, then your competition have all already passed a smell test from the firm. All else being equal, you'd rather be at the lottery school.

But I believe OP's question was about the few schools that have a hybrid system, where some interviews are preselect and some are lottery, in which case it's generally true that the people who were preselected have better odds than those who got the interview via the lottery.

Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

Thrive wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:For any single preselect interview: If you are solidly in that firms hiring range for GPA, preselect is worse for you. Because lottery will fill the firm up with students who probably have a slim shot. If a firm is going to CB 2 out of 20. And that 20 is filled with 10 kids bidding on a hope and prayer. Well now you got a 2/10 shot. Instead of a preselect where, you are 2 out of 20 people the firm thinks are potential hires.

In general though preselect helps the top because you'll get more interviews total.

This doesn't make a lot of sense DF.

Yes it does. It makes perfect sense. Woul you rather run a race against people that qualified for the race based on previous races or a random mix of the population.

JohannDeMann wrote:

Thrive wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:For any single preselect interview: If you are solidly in that firms hiring range for GPA, preselect is worse for you. Because lottery will fill the firm up with students who probably have a slim shot. If a firm is going to CB 2 out of 20. And that 20 is filled with 10 kids bidding on a hope and prayer. Well now you got a 2/10 shot. Instead of a preselect where, you are 2 out of 20 people the firm thinks are potential hires.

In general though preselect helps the top because you'll get more interviews total.

This doesn't make a lot of sense DF.

Yes it does. It makes perfect sense. Woul you rather run a race against people that qualified for the race based on previous races or a random mix of the population.

I know but DF's first sentence threw me off. I didn't understand how being a preselect is worse than a lottery. However, if the context is a preselect only school, then yea it makes sense.

*DF deletes post incorrectly explaining what he meant*