Making a Decision About Offers Forum

[Anonymous User]

What factors are you taking into account when making a decision? I mean beyond the obvious factors like city, practice areas, and culture?

I'm looking a lot at factors like recent layoffs, offer rates from this summer and prior summers, salary cuts, and offer deferrals, to the extent that I can actually find any of this information.

On one hand, the firms that had great offer rates this summer look the most appealing, but I'm wondering if perhaps over-hiring in summer 2009 could lead to lower offer rates next summer. On the other hand, I could imagine that a low offer rate from summer 2009 could lead to a higher offer rate in summer 2010.

Any ideas on how to approach all of this? I guess ultimately, it's impossible to predict what's going to happen next summer, but these firms that had < 75% offer rates this summer just don't look that appealing, no matter how much I like them otherwise.

[M51]

If a firm cannot sustain hiring 10 people this summer, but hiring 10 anyway... you know they REALLY don't want to look bad by no offering people. Next summer, expect the class size to be smaller, but the offer rate to stay high. If you have an offer, you're fine.

If a firm cannot sustain hiring 10 people this summer, so hires 5... you know they don't really care that much about looking bad (no offering a SA ITE is pretty cruel, I mean they don't even get severance ). So, they're actually more likely to no offer a % of next year's summers. Although, this is also unlikely because they can just cut down their summer size, which is much easier, cheaper, and looks better.

That's how I see it.

[LawSchoolWannaBe]

If a firm cannot sustain hiring 10 people this summer, so hires 5... you know they don't really care that much about looking bad (no offering a SA ITE is pretty cruel, I mean they don't even get severance ). So, they're actually more likely to no offer a % of next year's summers. Although, this is also unlikely because they can just cut down their summer size, which is much easier, cheaper, and looks better.

Or they are just running a business. Why give 10 offers when you know you'll only need 5? Out of pity? Isn't it better to not string people along knowing you won't be able to support them later? We're already seeing deferrals turn into rescissions, so this is definitely a real possibility.

[ChattelCat]

If a firm cannot sustain hiring 10 people this summer, but hiring 10 anyway... you know they REALLY don't want to look bad by no offering people. Next summer, expect the class size to be smaller, but the offer rate to stay high. If you have an offer, you're fine.

If a firm cannot sustain hiring 10 people this summer, so hires 5... you know they don't really care that much about looking bad (no offering a SA ITE is pretty cruel, I mean they don't even get severance ). So, they're actually more likely to no offer a % of next year's summers. Although, this is also unlikely because they can just cut down their summer size, which is much easier, cheaper, and looks better.

That's how I see it.

I don't understand this comment. How does only hiring 5 summers equate to "not caring about looking bad" by no offering them? If they usually hire 10 and are only hiring 5 it would seem logical that the chances of those 5 getting an offer after the summer are far greater than at a firm that's hiring 10 when they can't sustain 10.

[NewHere]

ChattelCat, I think M51 is talking about offers for employment after the summer. If they hire 10 summers and give only 5 offers, that looks bad.

As for "Why give 10 offers when you know you'll only need 5? Out of pity? Isn't it better to not string people along knowing you won't be able to support them later? We're already seeing deferrals turn into rescissions, so this is definitely a real possibility."

It might be good for business, but if you're a 2L deciding where you want to work, don't you prefer a place where you're likely to be able to come back? If you have a summer offer from a firm that doing everything not to look bad by no-offering people, that has the appearance of being a safe place to be. I agree with M51.

[LawSchoolWannaBe]

I'd rather have a firm be upfront with me instead of stringing me along for 12+ months. Obviously not all firms who have high offer rates will do this, but the possibility is still there. Offer after the summer != job when you graduate.

[ChattelCat]

ChattelCat, I think M51 is talking about offers for employment after the summer. If they hire 10 summers and give only 5 offers, that looks bad.

As for "Why give 10 offers when you know you'll only need 5? Out of pity? Isn't it better to not string people along knowing you won't be able to support them later? We're already seeing deferrals turn into rescissions, so this is definitely a real possibility."

It might be good for business, but if you're a 2L deciding where you want to work, don't you prefer a place where you're likely to be able to come back? If you have a summer offer from a firm that doing everything not to look bad by no-offering people, that has the appearance of being a safe place to be. I agree with M51.

ahhhh - got it. that certainly makes more sense

[M51]

Yes, I assumed "summer offer rates" meant offers given to this year's SAs, and OP is a 2L deciding whether to take a SA offer from these firms.

I'd rather have a firm be upfront with me instead of stringing me along for 12+ months. Obviously not all firms who have high offer rates will do this, but the possibility is still there. Offer after the summer != job when you graduate.

Again, if a firm is stringing anyone along it's the 3Ls who they gave offers to this year. Knowing that they overhired, they would cut down on class size for next year's summer. It may be much harder to get a SA offer this year at these firms, but if you do, it's pretty safe imo.

Take Skadden. 250 summers '09 (something like a 98% offer rate I think). But, knowing that they don't really need that many people, they cut this year's expected SA class size down to 120 (announced on ATL a while ago). If anyone's not safe it's the 250 3Ls. If Skadden really didn't feel able to sustain even a 120 2L class, they would have just given out even less offers to be SAs in '10 (like Cravath is doing). It makes no sense for them to commit to 250 3Ls (who they were being less selective on) if they were just going to can a portion of the 120 2Ls (the more selective group due to ITE). Such a move would make no business sense. Law firms may not be the most efficiently managed things out there, but they're not THAT bad.

Firms that offered 100% are no less upfront than those that offered 50%. Their way to mitigate is to cut down summer '10 class size, not 3L offer rates.