APHill wrote:Lude000 wrote:APHill wrote:I think the real question is - does Lude think he would have had those 20 interviews and 2 offers for 1 L internship if he did not have the work xp and CPA. If the answer is - "No I probably would not" then work xp is a game changer as a necessary factor.
Like I said, I think it helped get me some interviews but I don't think it was a game changer. There are plenty of people with similar stats without work experience that got jobs too.
I underand that "like you said" you feel that way, just curious how statistically significant the differences between you and a comparable student without work experience are. For example, if probability for a top 25% w/o work experience to get a job was 50%(which would still be "plenty") but for a top 25% w work experience the probability would be 80%, then the work xp would be a game changer.
If in that case it would not be not a game changer then probability of getting a biglaw offer from top 10 (top 40-50% of class) is not a game changer over same probability at top 30 school (top 20-30% of class) because at University of Iowa there is still a "plenty" of students getting top jobs when compared to Harvard.
I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. Quite possibly it comes from the fact that statistically significant inferences simply cannot be made from a sample of just me. My definition of a game changer is that given my certification and work experience, the probability of my getting a job offer was higher by some quantitative measure when compared to my peers with similar stats, less the work experience/certification. In the alternative, it could be defined as pulling job offers that my other statistics would typically say I should not get. Either way, drawing off of what other people in my class experienced, with similar stats of course, my conclusion was that I did not fare significantly better. Was there quantitative analysis done? Of course not.