Leak your school's OCI data here Forum

[Anonymous User]

1) We don't even know what firms are included on that sheet, what offers might be excluded, etc.

All the firms on that sheet are firms that have interviewed at either EIW or OCI, and have given at least 6 offers within the last (I think) 7 years. So not many firms, if any, are excluded.

2) We have total people getting an offer for CLS/NYU but something like total offers (but not really, see: (1)) for Michigan. We can't compare them.

Actually, we do. I added up the CLS numbers. There were 128 V10 offers going out to CLS. There were 31 V10 offers going out to Michigan. I would do more number add-ups, but I'd rather get drunk.

3) We don't have offer distribution so we can't do anything about (2). Anon's attempt to divide by 2 and add 30 or whatever is completely meaningless.

Agreed, though this point was conceded earlier.

4) We don't know anything about offers outside OCI, which could be significant ITR bc of bidding braindamage alluded to before.

Yeah, but then again, neither do the CLS numbers, so we can still compare them. Recall, no one here is trying to measure how many people in the class are employed. If you're wondering about people who got big firm jobs outside of EIW and OCI, I bet you it's trivial at both CLS and Michigan.

[NayBoer]

Where is this raw data coming from? You make it sound like there's some place Vault offers to CLS, Mich and other schools are aggregated. I must be confused.

[Anonymous User]

So CLS's chart tells you how many bids there were for a firm, along with interviews, callbacks extended, callbacks accepted, offers extended, and offers accepted.

Michigan's chart tells you mean,median, highest, and lowest gpa of people given offers by the firms, and also tells you how many offers have been given by the firm in the past ever so many years. you get this year's offer info by subtracting this year's offer number with last year's offer number on last year's chart.

[09042014]

Can you post them?

[Anonymous User]

i feel content posting specific information or aggregate info that can be gleaned from the two documents. i dont feel comfortable doing anything above that, but perhaps someone else here will be braver (though i dont know if posting them actually makes one brave).

the CLS chart doesnt have any GPA info. it just contains the details i mentioned above.

[starstruck393]

So CLS's chart tells you how many bids there were for a firm, along with interviews, callbacks extended, callbacks accepted, offers extended, and offers accepted.

Michigan's chart tells you mean,median, highest, and lowest gpa of people given offers by the firms, and also tells you how many offers have been given by the firm in the past ever so many years. you get this year's offer info by subtracting this year's offer number with last year's offer number on last year's chart.

Does it give you a total number over x years, or individually by year?

[rayiner]

So CLS's chart tells you how many bids there were for a firm, along with interviews, callbacks extended, callbacks accepted, offers extended, and offers accepted.

Michigan's chart tells you mean,median, highest, and lowest gpa of people given offers by the firms, and also tells you how many offers have been given by the firm in the past ever so many years. you get this year's offer info by subtracting this year's offer number with last year's offer number on last year's chart.

"Past X" years? Same X both charts?

[Anonymous User]

"Past X" years? Same X both charts?

Nope. tgat's why i said "x." also because im lazy haha. it's all the data since mich begin collecting the data.

[NayBoer]

Are you a transfer M -> C or did you just happen to get one of them from somebody else?

[Anonymous User]

latter. very generous source.

[NayBoer]

Yeah, I guess a transfer wouldn't get an updated one from the old school.

[rayiner]

All the firms on that sheet are firms that have interviewed at either EIW or OCI, and have given at least 6 offers within the last (I think) 7 years. So not many firms, if any, are excluded.

Are all the firms on the list ones that have given > 6 offers in the last 7 years, or are all the firms that have given > 6 offers in the last 7 years on the list?

Actually, we do. I added up the CLS numbers. There were 128 V10 offers going out to CLS. There were 31 V10 offers going out to Michigan. I would do more number add-ups, but I'd rather get drunk.

This is at least somewhat comparable, but the V10 has always been heavily skewed to CLS. It'd help a lot to get V50, V100, etc, comparisons.

3) We don't have offer distribution so we can't do anything about (2). Anon's attempt to divide by 2 and add 30 or whatever is completely meaningless.

Agreed, though this point was conceded earlier.

Conceding this point renders your final number meaningless. All you have is:

1) X number of offers at Mich.
2) ???
3) 35-40% of people got offers at OCI.

Yeah, but then again, neither do the CLS numbers, so we can still compare them. Recall, no one here is trying to measure how many people in the class are employed. If you're wondering about people who got big firm jobs outside of EIW and OCI, I bet you it's trivial at both CLS and Michigan.

Ultimately, what we're concerned about is total people employed. If Michigan's OCS steered people too far towards Chicago, we could very well be seeing a lot of people getting interviews outside of OCI. As for your conjecture that the number is trivial, I've heard exactly the opposite from other sources, so that point isn't conclusive either.

You gave one somewhat useful data point, but it spawned a really foolish and meaningless thread in response, full of conjecture that's not supportable based on the data we have. I have no dog in the hunt (Michigan sucks, etc) but the point of this thread is to increase the knowledge of the employment situation, not muddle it further with unsubstantiated conjecture.

[Anonymous User]

Are all the firms on the list ones that have given > 6 offers in the last 7 years, or are all the firms that have given > 6 offers in the last 7 years on the list?

Latter.

As for your conjecture that the number is trivial, I've heard exactly the opposite from other sources, so that point isn't conclusive either.

Careful buddy. I never said the number of students employed outside of EIW was trivial. I said that the number of students who scored big firm jobs outside of EIW and OCI (that is, who scored them through resume-mailings) was trivial. I wouldn't be surprised if close to 99% of the class is employed.

You gave one somewhat useful data point, but it spawned a really foolish and meaningless thread in response, full of conjecture that's not supportable based on the data we have. I have no dog in the hunt (Michigan sucks, etc) but the point of this thread is to increase the knowledge of the employment situation, not muddle it further with unsubstantiated conjecture.

Whoa man. Calm down.

First, I am not the OP. I am just defending him. Second, his methodology was made quite clear from the outset. The people who participated in the "meaningless thread" (I hope) knew about the assumptions the OP was making. People here are free to post what they want (within the terms of service). Moreover, people here frequently post incorrect and blatantly false information. At least the information above, while likely extrapolated poorly because of a terrible assumption, was given with that caveat in mind. Your post just belabors the assumption that was conceded earlier, and as such contributes nothing else to this discussion.

[miamiman]

woah. itt, ray takes the gloves off.

[rayiner]

Careful buddy. I never said the number of students employed outside of EIW was trivial. I said that the number of students who scored big firm jobs outside of EIW and OCI (that is, who scored them through resume-mailings) was trivial. I wouldn't be surprised if close to 99% of the class is employed.

Right. My point is that I've heard the opposite from other sources. We have no concrete data.

Whoa man. Calm down.

First, I am not the OP. I am just defending him. Second, his methodology was made quite clear from the outset. The people who participated in the "meaningless thread" (I hope) knew about the assumptions the OP was making. People here are free to post what they want (within the terms of service). Moreover, people here frequently post incorrect and blatantly false information. At least the information above, while likely extrapolated poorly because of a terrible assumption, was given with that caveat in mind. Your post just belabors the assumption that was conceded earlier, and as such contributes nothing else to this discussion.

I'm not not calm. Conceding the flawed methodology doesn't make jumping to his conclusion any less nonsensical. He basically said "Based on A and B I think C --- *but* I completely made up B." Law students, being the sheep they are, quickly jumped on the meaningless conclusion and ran with it for several pages. Now sure people are well within their rights to do that, but I'm also well within mine to point out the speciousness of the data on which they're basing their conjectures.

[imchuckbass58]

Conceding this point renders your final number meaningless. All you have is:

1) X number of offers at Mich.
2) ???
3) 35-40% of people got offers at OCI.

Why is this meaningless? The only number you need to get from the first number to the second number is the average number of offers per person. We have this information for CLS, and it is 2.6 - why is it unreasonable to assume that Michigan is similar?

If there were 260 offers, and 2.6 offers per person on average, that means 100 people got offers (out of a 350 person class). Even if you say that Michigan averages fewer offers per person than CLS, I find it hard to believe that this number is less than 2, which would mean 130 people got offers, or just shy of 40% of the Michigan class.

If you accept the upper bound is 2.6, and the lower bound is 2, then that means roughly 25%-40% of the Michigan class got offers. Even bumping this down to 1.5 (which I think is totally unrealistic), you are still hovering below 50%.

I realize the offers per student number is an assumption, but it is a reasonable assumption, based on comparable data from similar schools.

[Anonymous User]

Right. My point is that I've heard the opposite from other sources. We have no concrete data.

Eh. That's just my intuition, admittedly. Though you're smarter than this, I'm sure, I hope you don't think that knowing 5 people who got a big firm job from a resume mail-in constitutes a non-trivial number (then again, what does?). My intuition is that it isn't beyond a single figure.

Conceding the flawed methodology doesn't make jumping to his conclusion any less nonsensical.

We're not disagreeing here. I think the conclusion is pretty "nonsensical" too because of that assumption.

" Law students, being the sheep they are, quickly jumped on the meaningless conclusion and ran with it for several pages.

So you're blaming me (or the OP) because other people got stupid? That sounds dumb. They choose to reply on their own free will.

And now you're being a sheep for engaging in a meaningless discussion over something that's super-duper obvious (that an argument made a ridiculous assumption, which the arguer openly conceded). I don't know what's worse, the "meaningless thread" that ensued or your blatant attempt to prove that you're smarter than the typical "law student sheep" here, which itself spawned another meaningless digression!

but I'm also well within mine to point out the speciousness of the data on which they're basing their conjectures.

And I wasn't denying this either. The funny thing I was pointing out earlier is that:

IT'S BLOODY OBVIOUS!!!! I don't get why you want brownie points so bad for pointing out something in plain sight.

[miamiman]

Ray, your general point is credited. I'd agree that basing a conclusion which rests upon two major premises, and lacking one of those fundamental premises, is probably sloppy and maybe even reckless. But, the fundamental assumption B as you termed it I don't think will prove too terribly far off. To assume an offer rate which closely approximated but slightly underperforms Columbia ITE strikes me as reasonable.

If you were to do a sensitivity analysis, I'd guess -- absent a more rigorous analysis -- that the percentage of the class receiving offers through OCI would still not break 50%. Let me look though..

[rayiner]

Conceding this point renders your final number meaningless. All you have is:

1) X number of offers at Mich.
2) ???
3) 35-40% of people got offers at OCI.

Why is this meaningless? The only number you need to get from the first number to the second number is the average number of offers per person. We have this information for CLS, and it is 2.6 - why is it unreasonable to assume that Michigan is similar?

If there were 260 offers, and 2.6 offers per person on average, that means 100 people got offers (out of a 350 person class). Even if you say that Michigan averages fewer offers per person than CLS, I find it hard to believe that this number is less than 2, which would mean 130 people got offers, or just shy of 40% of the Michigan class.

If you accept the upper bound is 2.6, and the lower bound is 2, then that means roughly 25%-40% of the Michigan class got offers. Even bumping this down to 1.5 (which I think is totally unrealistic), you are still hovering below 50%.

I realize the offers per student number is an assumption, but it is a reasonable assumption, based on comparable data from similar schools.

The problem is that the offer distributions are likely quite different as you increase the percentage of the class getting offers. If people below median are mostly getting offers, top 1/3 probably has several to choose from, jacking up the average. If people around median are striking out, then people in the top 10-33% probably only have 1-2 to choose from.

[rayiner]

Eh. That's just my intuition, admittedly. Though you're smarter than this, I'm sure, I hope you don't think that knowing 5 people who got a big firm job from a resume mail-in constitutes a non-trivial number (then again, what does?). My intuition is that it isn't beyond a single figure.

My point is that I've heard peoples' intuitions saying both sets of things. Whose is right? People on XOXO were conjecturing that CLS would be ~50% biglaw this year, that intuition was off as well. Your intuition on the issue doesn't really add much to the discussion.

So you're blaming me (or the OP) because other people got stupid? That sounds dumb. They choose to reply on their own free will.

Attack ideas, not people, etc. The OP made a conjecture about the data in a way that suggested substantially more validity in his methodology than was warranted. If people go off that, it's reasonable to attack the original conjecture.

And now you're being a sheep for engaging in a meaningless discussion over something that's super-duper obvious (that an argument made a ridiculous assumption, which the arguer openly conceded).

Apparently wasn't that obvious from the 3 pages of comments taking the OP's conjecture as fact!

[AngryAvocado]

Normally I agree with Ray, but I see no problem in trying to piece together information from what data is available as long as people are clear about where the data is coming from and what assumptions they're making. Sometimes waiting for foolproof data isn't always an option, and at least this way we have some new information to share and discuss. I agree, though, that we should all be careful about how much faith we put in numbers based on assumptions, however reasonable they might be.

[Anonymous User]

The OP made a conjecture about the data in a way that suggested substantially more validity in his methodology than was warranted. If people go off that, it's reasonable to attack the original conjecture.

Now I think you're just making up shit to win a stupid argument.

Anyways, I'm out to drink. Today was my first day of work and I'm not gonna let some online power struggle get in the way of RELAXATION.

[d34d9823]

Conceding this point renders your final number meaningless. All you have is:

1) X number of offers at Mich.
2) ???
3) 35-40% of people got offers at OCI.

Why is this meaningless? The only number you need to get from the first number to the second number is the average number of offers per person. We have this information for CLS, and it is 2.6 - why is it unreasonable to assume that Michigan is similar?

If there were 260 offers, and 2.6 offers per person on average, that means 100 people got offers (out of a 350 person class). Even if you say that Michigan averages fewer offers per person than CLS, I find it hard to believe that this number is less than 2, which would mean 130 people got offers, or just shy of 40% of the Michigan class.

If you accept the upper bound is 2.6, and the lower bound is 2, then that means roughly 25%-40% of the Michigan class got offers. Even bumping this down to 1.5 (which I think is totally unrealistic), you are still hovering below 50%.

I realize the offers per student number is an assumption, but it is a reasonable assumption, based on comparable data from similar schools.

This seems solid to me. I mean, ray is right that we don't KNOW what the number is for Michigan, but it seems out of the realm of possibility that it's not between 1.5 and 3, which gives ~20-50% offer rate.

[rayiner]

The OP made a conjecture about the data in a way that suggested substantially more validity in his methodology than was warranted. If people go off that, it's reasonable to attack the original conjecture.

Now I think you're just making up shit to win a stupid argument.

Anyways, I'm out to drink. Today was my first day of work and I'm not gonna let some online power struggle get in the way of RELAXATION.

I am looking at the CLS stats, and there were 695 offers for 266 accepts, or roughly 2.6 offers per accept. 153 offers in the V10 for 77 accepts. Assume it's a little lower at Michigan, maybe 2 offers per accept.

If there were 260 total offers, that's 130 people, or just over a third of the class. If the number of offers/accept is more than two that number goes even lower.

Do you see any sort of caveats about the methodology here?

My point isn't to win some silly pissing match. My point is inject some reason into the 4 pages of inanity that went on in this thread based on OP's conjecture. I absolutely agree with Avacodo --- it's nice to have the raw data. But it's also nice to not lose sight of the fact that we have very little context about the data, a point which needed to be stressed because a number of people obviously didn't understand it. Since people seem to have by and large backed off on the point I see no reason to pursue the issue further.

[miamiman]

In other news...Ray, I know you said NU had emailed the student body in the wake of OCI with a rough figure. I'm assuming they haven't updated the employment statistics? I know in April when I sat down with career services they said they were still consolidating their data.