Top Law Schools

There was some criticism about the other thread since the ratio of no-offerees could have been related to people at low ranked schools. Please only fill out this poll if you attend a T14 school.

bump

My bad.

Anonymous User wrote:I'm at Cooley, does that count?

1,000 dicks in your religion

..

Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks (V5, V20, underranked V50), rejected everywhere.
Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.
1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)
2) I had done law review
3) I had targeted the New York market.

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks, rejected everywhere.
Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.
1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)
2) I had done law review
3) I had targeted the New York market.

Cornell?

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks, rejected everywhere.
Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.
1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)
2) I had done law review
3) I had targeted the New York market.

I know people with significantly lower stats, who didn't do any of those three things, and who are sitting on offers in major markets (i.e., not NYC, and not a secondary market).

Anonymous User wrote:

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks, rejected everywhere.
Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.
1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)
2) I had done law review
3) I had targeted the New York market.

I know people with significantly lower stats, who didn't do any of those three things, and who are sitting on offers in major markets (i.e., not NYC, and not a secondary market).

Just because those weren't necessary for others doesn't mean they wouldn't have been sufficient for me.

Hitachi wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks, rejected everywhere.
Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.
1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)
2) I had done law review
3) I had targeted the New York market.

I know people with significantly lower stats, who didn't do any of those three things, and who are sitting on offers in major markets (i.e., not NYC, and not a secondary market).

Just because those weren't necessary for others doesn't mean they wouldn't have been sufficient for me.

That's cute, I suppose. But your list isn't really exhaustive (and I am here anticipating your response, where you will say that it didn't purport to be). Maybe your interviewing skills weren't up to par? We could speculate, for sure, but unless you actually asked for some constructive criticism (which no one will ever give you), you have no way of knowing whether any of the above would have been sufficient either.

Poor interviewing would be my fault too, though. This thread is supposed to be judging the impact of the economy on recruitment so, while my anecdote is relevant, I am merely qualifying my results to show that it is not the economy (at least solely) that is causing it. But good sleuthing there to detect that a list starting with "at least" isn't exhaustive.

Again, very cute. Of course, there's also the other (equally probable) interpretation that the "at least" phrase was meant to indicate that the list was exhaustive, and that its components were each sufficient conditions. But... this is neither here nor there.

Also, your qualification of your results was just as useless as your quip. It does little to absolve the economy. If the economy had been better, for example, your interest in corporate law wouldn't have been seen as a negative, and you would have fulfilled a sufficient condition (as you call it) for your employment. In fact, not being on law review, expressing interest in corporate law, and not targeting a major market would have, in a prior economy, pretty much guaranteed a job (for a person with your credentials). In this instance, I think the economy is the sole cause of your quibbles.

Anonymous User wrote:Again, very cute. Of course, there's also the other (equally probable) interpretation that the "at least" phrase was meant to indicate that the list was exhaustive, and that its components were each sufficient conditions.

Huh? No it really couldn't have meant that, at least in English. The "any" indicated that the components were sufficient conditions, and the "of at least" indicated that those three were the lower limit of possible sufficient conditions.

I agree of course that I would have gotten a job in another economy even with those "mistakes". My point was only that the severity of my bad result exaggerates the severity of the economy.

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks (V5, V20, underranked V50), rejected everywhere.
Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.
1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)
2) I had done law review
3) I had targeted the New York market.

Ouch. My results are perhaps more ridiculous, though there is still some slim hope:

-T14, well within top 5%, LR, want to do IP litigation + have a technical background, 19 screening, 14 callbacks, 0-10 on callbacks so far, with 4 pending...

Not sure what to make of it, as the comparatively favorable ratio of screening interviews to callbacks seems to suggest I am not a horrible interview. But I definitely wouldn't assume that litigation interest or LR would have helped...

Anonymous User wrote:

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks (V5, V20, underranked V50), rejected everywhere.
Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.
1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)
2) I had done law review
3) I had targeted the New York market.

Ouch. My results are perhaps more ridiculous, though there is still some slim hope:

-T14, well within top 5%, LR, want to do IP litigation + have a technical background, 19 screening, 14 callbacks, 0-10 on callbacks so far, with 4 pending...

Not sure what to make of it, as the comparatively favorable ratio of screening interviews to callbacks seems to suggest I am not a horrible interview. But I definitely wouldn't assume that litigation interest or LR would have helped...

Rejected from 10 callbacks? That is freaking brutal. My condolences.

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks (V5, V20, underranked V50), rejected everywhere.
Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.
1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)
2) I had done law review
3) I had targeted the New York market.

I expressed zero interest in litigation but did ok. I think your choice of market may have been a bigger problem. I know dudes at CCN in the top 5% + LR who got shut out of DC/Chi.

Anonymous User wrote:

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks (V5, V20, underranked V50), rejected everywhere.
Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.
1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)
2) I had done law review
3) I had targeted the New York market.

Ouch. My results are perhaps more ridiculous, though there is still some slim hope:

-T14, well within top 5%, LR, want to do IP litigation + have a technical background, 19 screening, 14 callbacks, 0-10 on callbacks so far, with 4 pending...

Not sure what to make of it, as the comparatively favorable ratio of screening interviews to callbacks seems to suggest I am not a horrible interview. But I definitely wouldn't assume that litigation interest or LR would have helped...

What kind of "technical" background do you have?

Things worked out pretty well for me:

CCN, probably around top 1/3, secondary journal, extensive prior public interest WE, expressed interest in relatively niche area of practice and desire for career in both private and public sectors. 17 screening interviews, 4 CBs, went to 2, accepted an offer from my top choice, a V20, in my specific area of interest.

Anonymous User wrote:

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks (V5, V20, underranked V50), rejected everywhere.
Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.
1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)
2) I had done law review
3) I had targeted the New York market.

Ouch. My results are perhaps more ridiculous, though there is still some slim hope:

-T14, well within top 5%, LR, want to do IP litigation + have a technical background, 19 screening, 14 callbacks, 0-10 on callbacks so far, with 4 pending...

Not sure what to make of it, as the comparatively favorable ratio of screening interviews to callbacks seems to suggest I am not a horrible interview. But I definitely wouldn't assume that litigation interest or LR would have helped...

jesusmaryandjoseph. that is brutal. what market?

Anonymous User wrote:

Hitachi wrote:Final Result: T14, well within top 5%, 21 screening, 3 callbacks (V5, V20, underranked V50), rejected everywhere.
Only myself to blame, really, though. I think I could have gotten an offer if I had done any of at least three things.
1) I had expressed an interest in litigation rather than wishy-washy transactional (just the bad judgment to go for corporate in this climate might be bad enough)
2) I had done law review
3) I had targeted the New York market.

Ouch. My results are perhaps more ridiculous, though there is still some slim hope:

-T14, well within top 5%, LR, want to do IP litigation + have a technical background, 19 screening, 14 callbacks, 0-10 on callbacks so far, with 4 pending...

Not sure what to make of it, as the comparatively favorable ratio of screening interviews to callbacks seems to suggest I am not a horrible interview. But I definitely wouldn't assume that litigation interest or LR would have helped...

What'd you do on your callbacks?

CE2JD wrote:What kind of "technical" background do you have?

I don't want to outmyself, so I'll just say BS, engineering (not EE) & 5+ years WE

As for the other questions, market was CA, and on my callbacks I talked with some attorneys and maybe had a nice lunch. I really have no inkling as to the source of my lousy callback success.

Final Stats -

T14 + top 10% + secondary journal
Only market DC
31 screening interviews
15 callbacks
7 offers

Final Results:

MVP + top 40-30%
No Journal
Not a URM

Target Market: NYC
Screening Interviews: 29
Callbacks Extended: 10
Callbacks Taken: 9
Offers Extended: 3
Callback Rejections: 5

Will be at a V10 this summer. Woo.

Are there seriously 91 people on TLS in T14s?

Philo38 wrote:Are there seriously 91 people on TLS in T14s?

?