Bid List Review Forum

[SomeRandomASDF]

Rising 2L at CCN. Can't really mention grades because I'm in a bit of a unique situation (would effectively be doxing myself by talking about this), but let's say they're above median for the sake of simplicity.

I was just wondering if my bidding strategy makes any sense. Bear in mind I'm an international, so H1B-friendliness was a major consideration when putting the bid list together. The list was based on first failed bids from three previous years (I placed the outfits I really wanted 1-4 pegs higher than their highest first failed bid and the ones I wasn't that keen on I just sort of put in the general area within which the first failed bid tends to fluctuate). I'm very much going for a transactional/corporate focus.

The list is as follows:

1 Debevoise (NY)
2 Davis Polk (NY)
3 Latham & Watkins (NY)
4 Skadden (NY)
5 Kirkland & Ellis (NY)
6 Cravath (NY)
7 Baker McKenzie (NY)
8 Allen & Overy (NY)
9 Sullivan & Cromwell (NY)
10 Weil Gotshal (NY)
11 Linklaters (Either NY or London)*
12 Mayer Brown (NY)
13 Shearman & Sterling (NY)
14 Dechert (NY)
15 Fried Frank (NY)
16 Simpson Thacher (NY)
17 Willkie Farr (NY)
18 Reed Smith (NY)
19 Freshfields (NY)
20 Wachtell (NY)
21 DLA Piper (NY)
22 Holland & Knight (NY)
23 Cadwalader (NY)
24 Cahill Gordon & Reindel (NY)
25 McDermott Will & Emery (NY)
26 King & Spalding (NY - Transactional)
27 Baker Botts (NY)
28 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman (NY)
29 Skadden (London)*
30 Herbert Smith (NY)
31 Vinson & Elkins (Austin)
32 Venable (NY)
33 Schulte Roth & Zabel (NY)
34 BCLP (NY)
35 White & Case (Boston)
36 Sidley (London)*
37 Clifford Chance (London)*
38 Squire Patton Boggs (NY)
39 Kirkland & Ellis (Boston)
40 Jones Day (Boston)

*I have ties to London, so I can justify this.

Thanks in advance!

[Anonymous User]

Scattered thoughts in no particular order:

No Cleary? I don’t know the ins and outs of firms’ visa policies, but I had an international friend who ended up at Cleary NY in part because of their willingness to transfer him to one of their many offices abroad if his H1B fell through.

Your general approach makes sense. I was surprised to see A&O so high, but you have the FFB data in front of you. I will say most people try to be >2 buffer ahead of FFB on all or most bids; I haven’t heard of this ‘put some firms in the general area where they fluctuate.’

If I were you, I’d take another look at the list and make sure that you are bidding high enough on “safeties” (less grade selective firms). Baker, Mayer Brown, etc.

The particularities of your grade situation, and exactly how high above median you are, will dictate whether SullCrom and Wachtell are wasted bids.

[Anonymous User]

Without grades, it's pretty hard to assess this list. But this list seems to have no relation to the FFB from last year, which is what really matters. For example, Debevoise and Davis Polk are totally wasted at 1 and 2, you can get them much further down the list. Even if you want to be totally safe, you could still bid them 10 and 11 and get them. Don't waste your most valuable bids on firms you can get farther down.

If you aren't Kent, you should dump Wachtell and put in one of Gibson Dunn, White & Case, MoFo, Milbank, etc.

Also, you should repost this in the Columbia 2021 EIP thread.

[SomeRandomASDF]

Scattered thoughts in no particular order:

No Cleary? I don’t know the ins and outs of firms’ visa policies, but I had an international friend who ended up at Cleary NY in part because of their willingness to transfer him to one of their many offices abroad if his H1B fell through.

Your general approach makes sense. I was surprised to see A&O so high, but you have the FFB data in front of you. I will say most people try to be >2 buffer ahead of FFB on all or most bids; I haven’t heard of this ‘put some firms in the general area where they fluctuate.’

If I were you, I’d take another look at the list and make sure that you are bidding high enough on “safeties” (less grade selective firms). Baker, Mayer Brown, etc.

The particularities of your grade situation, and exactly how high above median you are, will dictate whether SullCrom and Wachtell are wasted bids.

Thanks for the reply, first of all!

The thing with Cleary is that it's consistently at 4-5 FFB, whereas I am absolutely aiming for DPW, Skadden, Debevoise, Latham and Kirkland. If I placed Cleary on there, it'd have to end up at 7 or something, which would clearly (no pun intended) be a wasted bid. Latham, Skadden and Kirkland all do office transfers too based on what I've heard.

A&O is probably getting removed tbh, their callback offer rate is really low, so I think that should get me an opportunity to shift the list 1 up and maybe add 1 last safety at the bottom.

Re: Wachtell; Let's say I was top 40% (which is an approximation). Wasted bid or no?

[SomeRandomASDF]

Without grades, it's pretty hard to assess this list. But this list seems to have no relation to the FFB from last year, which is what really matters. For example, Debevoise and Davis Polk are totally wasted at 1 and 2, you can get them much further down the list. Even if you want to be totally safe, you could still bid them 10 and 11 and get them. Don't waste your most valuable bids on firms you can get farther down.

If you aren't Kent, you should dump Wachtell and put in one of Gibson Dunn, White & Case, MoFo, Milbank, etc.

Also, you should repost this in the Columbia 2021 EIP thread.

Quick question; how was it so obvious I was at CLS, lol?

It is true that Davis Polk and Debevoise (and Skadden) were way lower last year, but in previous years they tended to be way higher up (DPW was 7, 5, 37 in the last 3 years, whereas Debevoise was 2, 2, 29). Is there a particular reason to only rely on last year's data?

Also, thanks for the heads up on Wachtell, tossing it off the list.

[Anonymous User]

Without grades, it's pretty hard to assess this list. But this list seems to have no relation to the FFB from last year, which is what really matters. For example, Debevoise and Davis Polk are totally wasted at 1 and 2, you can get them much further down the list. Even if you want to be totally safe, you could still bid them 10 and 11 and get them. Don't waste your most valuable bids on firms you can get farther down.

If you aren't Kent, you should dump Wachtell and put in one of Gibson Dunn, White & Case, MoFo, Milbank, etc.

Also, you should repost this in the Columbia 2021 EIP thread.

Quick question; how was it so obvious I was at CLS, lol?

It is true that Davis Polk and Debevoise (and Skadden) were way lower last year, but in previous years they tended to be way higher up (DPW was 7, 5, 37 in the last 3 years, whereas Debevoise was 2, 2, 29). Is there a particular reason to only rely on last year's data?

Also, thanks for the heads up on Wachtell, tossing it off the list.

You are clearly not from Chicago, and listing 40 bids is a bit of a giveaway for CLS, as well as calling it an FFB. And you only want to rely on last year's data because FFBs creep up consistently until they fall off a cliff because it becomes impossible to bid all firms #1. Everyone is trying to bid maximize, so there is no point in bidding a Debovoise #1 and missing on high FFB firms.

[SomeRandomASDF]

Without grades, it's pretty hard to assess this list. But this list seems to have no relation to the FFB from last year, which is what really matters. For example, Debevoise and Davis Polk are totally wasted at 1 and 2, you can get them much further down the list. Even if you want to be totally safe, you could still bid them 10 and 11 and get them. Don't waste your most valuable bids on firms you can get farther down.

If you aren't Kent, you should dump Wachtell and put in one of Gibson Dunn, White & Case, MoFo, Milbank, etc.

Also, you should repost this in the Columbia 2021 EIP thread.

Quick question; how was it so obvious I was at CLS, lol?

It is true that Davis Polk and Debevoise (and Skadden) were way lower last year, but in previous years they tended to be way higher up (DPW was 7, 5, 37 in the last 3 years, whereas Debevoise was 2, 2, 29). Is there a particular reason to only rely on last year's data?

Also, thanks for the heads up on Wachtell, tossing it off the list.

You are clearly not from Chicago, and listing 40 bids is a bit of a giveaway for CLS, as well as calling it an FFB. And you only want to rely on last year's data because FFBs creep up consistently until they fall off a cliff because it becomes impossible to bid all firms #1. Everyone is trying to bid maximize, so there is no point in bidding a Debovoise #1 and missing on high FFB firms.

All right, that makes sense.

Although if we're talking specifically about the Davis Polk + Debevoise situation, what would be the optimal bid? You seem to suggest 1-4 is too high for either of them; whereas I doubt they'll be at 37 or 29 again this year (potentially because people will place it higher on the list as a bigger buffer?)

[Anonymous User]

Without grades, it's pretty hard to assess this list. But this list seems to have no relation to the FFB from last year, which is what really matters. For example, Debevoise and Davis Polk are totally wasted at 1 and 2, you can get them much further down the list. Even if you want to be totally safe, you could still bid them 10 and 11 and get them. Don't waste your most valuable bids on firms you can get farther down.

If you aren't Kent, you should dump Wachtell and put in one of Gibson Dunn, White & Case, MoFo, Milbank, etc.

Also, you should repost this in the Columbia 2021 EIP thread.

Quick question; how was it so obvious I was at CLS, lol?

It is true that Davis Polk and Debevoise (and Skadden) were way lower last year, but in previous years they tended to be way higher up (DPW was 7, 5, 37 in the last 3 years, whereas Debevoise was 2, 2, 29). Is there a particular reason to only rely on last year's data?

Also, thanks for the heads up on Wachtell, tossing it off the list.

You are clearly not from Chicago, and listing 40 bids is a bit of a giveaway for CLS, as well as calling it an FFB. And you only want to rely on last year's data because FFBs creep up consistently until they fall off a cliff because it becomes impossible to bid all firms #1. Everyone is trying to bid maximize, so there is no point in bidding a Debovoise #1 and missing on high FFB firms.

All right, that makes sense.

Although if we're talking specifically about the Davis Polk + Debevoise situation, what would be the optimal bid? You seem to suggest 1-4 is too high for either of them; whereas I doubt they'll be at 37 or 29 again this year (potentially because people will place it higher on the list as a bigger buffer?)

Firms, especially large class NYC firms, simply don't shift that dramatically upward between years. 6-7 is the most you ever see, so anything covering that type of increase would be sufficient. If you are very risk-averse -- which is pretty unnecessary for both DP and Debovoise given that they are offering a huge number of pre-EIP interviews right now -- you can bid them 10 higher than last year's FFB and still get them.

[Anonymous User]

Some thoughts, assuming you're top 40% like you said and non-URM. I do'nt have any bidlist data or anything, now practicing

You should be doing pre-OCI, like laser-focused on it. Your goal is to get (a) as many interviews as possible, (b) with NY firms that make a ton of offers. the "safety" firm thing is nice, but it's not really a safety--even if it's not grade-selective--if it's only making a few offers each year at your school.

That in mind....

No Gibson, Paul Weiss, Cleary, White & Case, Milbank, Sidley, Schulte, Ropes ... ? Those are (rough) matches for someone with your grades + school, have big NY summer classes. You should be prioritizing them + firms like that (there may be others but those jumped out). Looks like you're writing them off entirely, I don't get that unless you have early interviews or it completely fucks up your bidlist "ranking"

How many people did Baker and A&O actually offer from your school (looks like Columbia) last year/two years ago? How many went there? I get having safeties--they're not grade-selective--but you're using a pretty high bid on them at the expense of the firms I mentioned earlier. Not worth including them vs a firm that's gonna offer like 25+ people from your school assuming you meet the grade cutoff (which it sounds like you do). you said you're interested only in corporate which helps. (Maybe Baker does offer 25+ CLS but I didn't think so?)

Ideally you'd do S&C AND the firms I mentioned, but I would drop S&C (and potentially Cravath) for those others if you're barely over the grade cutoff and would fuck up the FFB range otherwise

How many people does Dechert NY actually offer from CLS? This seems like another bid that makes sense based on grades but might be a trap if they do'nt offer very many from CLS.

you have no shot at WLRK, sorry. only thing you'er gonna do is make small-talk while the partner counts down the minutes til the end of the interview

if you don't have Boston ties the Boston bids seem like a waste

[Anonymous User]

Mostly agree with this. If you do have Boston ties, you should probably add Ropes to the list.

[Anonymous User]

If your heart is set on any particular firms - bid them much higher than FFB. In my year (2017) there were some big FFB jumps. Similarly - include every firm with a large class size regardless of FFB - high FFBs often fall off cliffs from year to year as someone else pointed out. Don't bother with S&C or Cravath without at least 3.6 (3.7 more realistically) and erase WLRK from your mind unless you are Kent.

[Anonymous User]

If your heart is set on any particular firms - bid them much higher than FFB. In my year (2017) there were some big FFB jumps. Similarly - include every firm with a large class size regardless of FFB - high FFBs often fall off cliffs from year to year as someone else pointed out. Don't bother with S&C or Cravath without at least 3.6 (3.7 more realistically) and erase WLRK from your mind unless you are Kent.

The advice on 3.6 for S&C and Cravath isn't accurate anymore. I know plenty of people who got Cravath with lower than that; Cravath is really not that grade sensitive. S&C is definitely grade sensitive, but it's probably around a 3.5.

[Anonymous User]

Mostly agree with this. If you do have Boston ties, you should probably add Ropes to the list.

Yeah if you are doing Boston firms why not actually bid the big 3 (Ropes, Goodwin, WilmerHale)?

[SomeRandomASDF]

Some thoughts, assuming you're top 40% like you said and non-URM. I do'nt have any bidlist data or anything, now practicing

You should be doing pre-OCI, like laser-focused on it. Your goal is to get (a) as many interviews as possible, (b) with NY firms that make a ton of offers. the "safety" firm thing is nice, but it's not really a safety--even if it's not grade-selective--if it's only making a few offers each year at your school.

That in mind....

No Gibson, Paul Weiss, Cleary, White & Case, Milbank, Sidley, Schulte, Ropes ... ? Those are (rough) matches for someone with your grades + school, have big NY summer classes. You should be prioritizing them + firms like that (there may be others but those jumped out). Looks like you're writing them off entirely, I don't get that unless you have early interviews or it completely fucks up your bidlist "ranking"

How many people did Baker and A&O actually offer from your school (looks like Columbia) last year/two years ago? How many went there? I get having safeties--they're not grade-selective--but you're using a pretty high bid on them at the expense of the firms I mentioned earlier. Not worth including them vs a firm that's gonna offer like 25+ people from your school assuming you meet the grade cutoff (which it sounds like you do). you said you're interested only in corporate which helps. (Maybe Baker does offer 25+ CLS but I didn't think so?)

Ideally you'd do S&C AND the firms I mentioned, but I would drop S&C (and potentially Cravath) for those others if you're barely over the grade cutoff and would fuck up the FFB range otherwise

How many people does Dechert NY actually offer from CLS? This seems like another bid that makes sense based on grades but might be a trap if they do'nt offer very many from CLS.

you have no shot at WLRK, sorry. only thing you'er gonna do is make small-talk while the partner counts down the minutes til the end of the interview

if you don't have Boston ties the Boston bids seem like a waste

So the number of historically extended offers is relevant? Is there a particular reason for that? Does it really make a difference if A&O only extended offers to 2 people (out of 12 callbacks) whereas S&C extended them to 41 (out of 50 callbacks)? I thought that what mattered is how you sell yourself. I'd really appreciate a brief explanation of this if you have the time.

Also, re: Gibson, Paul Weiss, Cleary, White & Case, Milbank, Sidley, Schulte, Ropes

The trouble with most of those is that they cluster around the 1-5 first failed bid (a range that's already filled with the usual suspects: Skadden, DPW, etc.)

I found a way to shoehorn Cleary in there, but the only way to get any others is by shifting Skadden, DPW, Kirkland or Debevoise downwards (all of these have big intakes and are presumably good targets). I think this goes to an earlier point that both Skadden and Davis Polk for some reason took a huge dive in terms of their respective first failed bids (5 to 33 and 5 to 37, respectively). In your view, does that fall justify placing them lower on the list? Also worth noting is that Skadden will be doing fewer interviews this year (1 schedule less, i.e. 20 fewer interviews), which I assume means their FBB is going to pop back up a bit (though I really have no clue whether it's going to go back to what it was prior to the fall).

I guess it all comes down to the initial question: Do I disregard historical data (as one anon suggested) and just rely on the previous year (i.e., place DPW at somewhere around 28) or do I play it safe and bid higher than the historical average/lows? I get the reasoning of both, but I'm really unsure which is the more tried and tested method.

[Anonymous User]

So the number of historically extended offers is relevant? Is there a particular reason for that? Does it really make a difference if A&O only extended offers to 2 people (out of 12 callbacks) whereas S&C extended them to 41 (out of 50 callbacks)? I thought that what mattered is how you sell yourself. I'd really appreciate a brief explanation of this if you have the time.

if you have the # of CBs given, use that, probably better proxy. but yes, firms target a rough # of CLS/HLS/whatever students for their SA classes. it may move around a little from year to year, but a firm that has historically given CBs to 10 CLS students a year probably isn't gonna do 50 this year, and vice versa.

if A&O did 12 CBs last year, don't bid it. that's a waste.

Also, re: Gibson, Paul Weiss, Cleary, White & Case, Milbank, Sidley, Schulte, Ropes

The trouble with most of those is that they cluster around the 1-5 first failed bid (a range that's already filled with the usual suspects: Skadden, DPW, etc.)

ok got it. assuming you're not URM, I'd prob Cravath and S&C for the two firms that in that list that gave most # of CBs over last few years. bit safer.

I found a way to shoehorn Cleary in there, but the only way to get any others is by shifting Skadden, DPW, Kirkland or Debevoise downwards (all of these have big intakes and are presumably good targets). I think this goes to an earlier point that both Skadden and Davis Polk for some reason took a huge dive in terms of their respective first failed bids (5 to 33 and 5 to 37, respectively). In your view, does that fall justify placing them lower on the list? Also worth noting is that Skadden will be doing fewer interviews this year (1 schedule less, i.e. 20 fewer interviews), which I assume means their FBB is going to pop back up a bit (though I really have no clue whether it's going to go back to what it was prior to the fall).

those two firms are incredibly desirable bids---they have big classes, market pay, great brands, and offer a lot of people at ~Stone level. I would assume they'll be jumping up again.

the way I *think* FFB crashes happen is the firms get bid so high up that one year enough people assume they won't be available even in top 3, all rank them low, they drop precipitously?

but I'm not positive---someone should correct me on that

I guess it all comes down to the initial question: Do I disregard historical data (as one anon suggested) and just rely on the previous year (i.e., place DPW at somewhere around 28) or do I play it safe and bid higher than the historical average/lows? I get the reasoning of both, but I'm really unsure which is the more tried and tested method.

DPW is no more or less desirable than it was 3 years ago or w/e when it was a very high FFB--probably more given the special bonuses. assume people are rational actors, they're gonna see it as a "value" bid and bid it up. it's probably not gonna be there at 28, but who knows how far it'll go up.

personally, I'd probably put it at 18 or whatever---very healthy premium to last year, but not at like ~5, because you need those spots for others.

but I do'nt think there's a "right" answer to this, you're trying to anticipate the behavior of ~400 other people

if you can find some precedents for this I guess go off that but idk

[SomeRandomASDF]

if A&O did 12 CBs last year, don't bid it. that's a waste.

Hmm, I suppose this also rules out outfits like DLA (15 CB invitations), Dechert (16), Linklaters (13) and Reed Smith (8).

But what I don't understand about this is that the number of screeners already varies from firm to firm. Surely that's the metric for the "cap" on HLS/CLS/NYU/(...). Skadden, for instance, did 154 screeners at CLS, whereas Reed Smith did 21. Obviously, this means that Skadden is looking for more recruits from CLS, whereas Reed Smith is looking for fewer. I just don't get why that filter would take place after screeners at the CB offer stage rather than the filter being the reduced number of screeners per se.

Could it be useful to look at the ratio of callback invitations to screeners X the ratio of extended offers to actual callbacks? Seems to me like that represents a sort of final success rate.

I'm a bit reticent to exclude certain outfits especially because I have some experience with them already. The London ties I was referring to were "vacation schemes" (essentially the London version of SA's, but for undergrads and usually only 1-3 weeks) at a few firms which have a low number of CB offers. I was rather hoping to somehow leverage that experience at OCI.

[Anonymous User]

if A&O did 12 CBs last year, don't bid it. that's a waste.

Hmm, I suppose this also rules out outfits like DLA (15 CB invitations), Dechert (16), Linklaters (13) and Reed Smith (8).

But what I don't understand about this is that the number of screeners already varies from firm to firm. Surely that's the metric for the "cap" on HLS/CLS/NYU/(...). Skadden, for instance, did 154 screeners at CLS, whereas Reed Smith did 21. Obviously, this means that Skadden is looking for more recruits from CLS, whereas Reed Smith is looking for fewer. I just don't get why that filter would take place after screeners at the CB offer stage rather than the filter being the reduced number of screeners per se.

Could it be useful to look at the ratio of callback invitations to screeners X the ratio of extended offers to actual callbacks? Seems to me like that represents a sort of final success rate.

if you can calculate an "offer per interview" rate that's stable over a few years and has a decent sample size, go for it. I don't remember having access to all three of: # of screeners, # of callbacks, # of offers. but if you do, cool.

I'm a bit reticent to exclude certain outfits especially because I have some experience with them already. The London ties I was referring to were "vacation schemes" (essentially the London version of SA's, but for undergrads and usually only 1-3 weeks) at a few firms which have a low number of CB offers. I was rather hoping to somehow leverage that experience at OCI.

I do'nt know what this means. are you saying your London "ties" are "having done several 1-3 week internships in London as an undergrad"?

I, personally, would focus on large-SA-class NY firms. but I, personally, would have no interest in working in London, either during my SA or after graduation. if you do, personal choice--you have to weigh your London interest vs lower probability of receiving an offer

[SomeRandomASDF]

I do'nt know what this means. are you saying your London "ties" are "having done several 1-3 week internships in London as an undergrad"?

I, personally, would focus on large-SA-class NY firms. but I, personally, would have no interest in working in London, either during my SA or after graduation. if you do, personal choice--you have to weigh your London interest vs lower probability of receiving an offer

Should have clarified this a bit, sorry about that. I'm not so much referring to my interest in working in London, but more so to my interest in the relevant firms. Let me put it this way: I did an internship at X in London and I am also considering applying for SA at X in NY. There are convincing reasons to exclude X from my final bid list (low number of CBs/offers/whatever) but I don't want to do so because I feel like I have a potential boost in the fact that I previously did an internship with them (although at a different office). Would you exclude them regardless of this fact? Is there a way for me to leverage my prior internships in London for NY offices?

[SomeRandomASDF]

DPW is no more or less desirable than it was 3 years ago or w/e when it was a very high FFB--probably more given the special bonuses. assume people are rational actors, they're gonna see it as a "value" bid and bid it up. it's probably not gonna be there at 28, but who knows how far it'll go up.

personally, I'd probably put it at 18 or whatever---very healthy premium to last year, but not at like ~5, because you need those spots for others.

but I do'nt think there's a "right" answer to this, you're trying to anticipate the behavior of ~400 other people

if you can find some precedents for this I guess go off that but idk

I spoke to OCS about this and realized one uber-important thing: It appears that, based on the bid list appointments OCS has done in the past few weeks, most people are bidding based on historical data and ignoring last year (presumably because OCS has represented last year as an anomaly due to COVID and the schedules being moved to January, although I really don't see how this would change anything in reality...). This means that even a large buffer wouldn't help here (as a predominant chunk of the cohort will just be bidding on the basis of historical performance).