UChi = TTT (employer GPA qualification profiles inside)

[rayiner]

While I personally never bothered to peruse 2002 data, I did go over 2007 numbers rather meticulously when composing my bidlist. Highlights (because I'm too lazy to dig up the sheet): S and C hired as far down as 173 average (bottom third on our scale), Cravath dipped below median (176.4 if memory serves right) and Weil Gotschal required mere 174.X for serious consideration.

I won't comment on grade requirements ITE, but I fail to see how data from boom years establishes us as TTT when pretty much all (Wachtell and Cleary excepted) V10s firms were willing to recruit from the below median crowd (and well below median, at that). Seems to me, having seen comparable data from other schools, that that's basically on par with our ranking insofar as it parallels CLS numbers and outperforms lower T14 placements.

That said, I second however stated that our grade system isn't doing us any favors.

I believe those numbers indicate the minimum GPA that landed a callback. I think that minimum numbers generally tend to be less indicative (especially at the callback stage) as they may be skewed by diversity initiatives and individuals great softs (especially when the number can simply reflect one single low callback over a three year period). The medians probably would have been more helpful.

Because firms don't YP, callback GPAs will have sort of a triangular shape:

179-180 |--------
178-179 |------
177-178 |----
176-177 |-
175-176 |-

This firm's median will be like 178.7 or something, even though you can see from the graph that their soft cut-off is more like 177, with a couple of people below that getting CBs because of URM or great softs. Like with law schools, the firms actual yield will be from the lower part of their CB range, since those people with higher GPAs will go to better firms.

Think of what a firm with a below 177 CB median would look like:

179-180 |-
178-179 |--
177-178 |----
176-177 |-------
175-176 |------

This firms median would probably be 176.6. Even then it looks like a 175+ (and probably lower) has a good shot. Moreover, this firm has to be so bad they couldn't get 10 above-median people to bid on it even as a safety!

[bwv812]

.

[rayiner]

You have a fair point, except that I'm not sure if those who get CBs at S&C and Cravath (DD's examples) are going to better firms. Also, even given your example, a firm with a soft cutoff of 177 is being seriously mischaracterized in the Chicago data if they have extended even one callback to a 175 URM in the past 3 years (which your sample data suggests).

I'm also not sure that firms don't YP on grades. We know they do based on ties, and I suspect some grade-related YPing occurs for students from non-local schools.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. S&C and Cravath are grade-conscious. All the top gunners aiming for NYC will interview with them, and as a result they'll have a high GPA median. What is so surprising about this?

http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ement.html

Chicago has Vault 5 placement on par with Columbia and NYU... I don't think S&C and Cravath are going any deeper into those classes.

As for my example, I'm talking about the median, not minimum numbers. There are not enough URMs to have an impact on the medians. The key observation is that someone with top 10% grades is represented way more times in the data than someone with below-median grades by virtue of getting more callbacks. I think if you looked at the data a different way, by the GPA's of people who ultimately accept an offer from each firm, you'll see much lower numbers than what the medians show.

As for firms YP-ing... I think very few firms will YP someone with high grades who shows an interest in the firm. You have to imagine that most people are savvy enough to go into interviews with their safeties without coming across as uninterested in the firm.

[Anonymous User]

As for firms YP-ing... I think very few firms will YP someone with high grades who shows an interest in the firm. You have to imagine that most people are savvy enough to go into interviews with their safeties without coming across as uninterested in the firm.

Based on my (obviously limited) experience, I would venture to say that firms definitely YP. I am top 2% at DCNG, did screeners with 14 firms (all the firms at OCI from my two target markets). I got 8 callbacks from OCI, and out of my 6 rejections 5 were from the firms with the lowest GPA medians and reputations for being less selective.

[bwv812]

.

[NYAssociate]

.

[rayiner]

You have a fair point, except that I'm not sure if those who get CBs at S&C and Cravath (DD's examples) are going to better firms. Also, even given your example, a firm with a soft cutoff of 177 is being seriously mischaracterized in the Chicago data if they have extended even one callback to a 175 URM in the past 3 years (which your sample data suggests).

I'm also not sure that firms don't YP on grades. We know they do based on ties, and I suspect some grade-related YPing occurs for students from non-local schools.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. S&C and Cravath are grade-conscious. All the top gunners aiming for NYC will interview with them, and as a result they'll have a high GPA median. What is so surprising about this?

Nothing is surprising about this, but it doesn't seem to fit in with your theory that those at the median CB GPA will go to a better firm, and that most people who end up with the firm will come from the lower end of the CB range. It's not like S&C is mostly hiring in the 173-175 range, or most people with Cravath CBs are actually ending up to Wachtell.

I'm trying to explain McDermott Chicago's 178 median, not Cravath's 180 median. As you go up the chain yield will go up and the CB and offer-accepted medians will get closer together, just like with law schools and LSAT/GPA medians.

The point is that very few firms are shitty enough to actively recruit only below-median people, or have only below-median people interview with them. Eg: if you've got great grades and target Chicago, your ~20 interviews will cover everything from Kirkland/Sidley to Schiff Hardin. If you look like you're interested you will get callbacks at those lower-ranked firms, but the people who actually accept their offers at places like Schiff will come out of the lower-tail of those people to which they extend callbacks.

[BruceWayne]

You have a fair point, except that I'm not sure if those who get CBs at S&C and Cravath (DD's examples) are going to better firms. Also, even given your example, a firm with a soft cutoff of 177 is being seriously mischaracterized in the Chicago data if they have extended even one callback to a 175 URM in the past 3 years (which your sample data suggests).

I'm also not sure that firms don't YP on grades. We know they do based on ties, and I suspect some grade-related YPing occurs for students from non-local schools.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. S&C and Cravath are grade-conscious. All the top gunners aiming for NYC will interview with them, and as a result they'll have a high GPA median. What is so surprising about this?

http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ement.html

Chicago has Vault 5 placement on par with Columbia and NYU... I don't think S&C and Cravath are going any deeper into those classes.

As for my example, I'm talking about the median, not minimum numbers. There are not enough URMs to have an impact on the medians. The key observation is that someone with top 10% grades is represented way more times in the data than someone with below-median grades by virtue of getting more callbacks. I think if you looked at the data a different way, by the GPA's of people who ultimately accept an offer from each firm, you'll see much lower numbers than what the medians show.

As for firms YP-ing... I think very few firms will YP someone with high grades who shows an interest in the firm. You have to imagine that most people are savvy enough to go into interviews with their safeties without coming across as uninterested in the firm.

What's with this URM thing? Being URM doesn't give you a boost in getting a firm job. I've been told by multiple URM 3L's (including those with no job) that this is just a myth. The idea of the URM boost only applies in regards to the law school admissions process. The people getting the offers on these charts from firms where their GPA is normally considered too low are getting it through work experience, interviewing well, connections etc.

[bwv812]

.

[BruceWayne]

I don't know how else to explain Howard's biglaw placement other than URM benefits. Perhaps this benefit was more evident in the boom years, I don't know.

I would agree that URMs don't see the employment benefit that they do see in admissions (and that ORMs, who firms will also count as minorities) probably do see a benefit in hiring that they didn't see in admissions), but I still think they do see (or saw) some benefit.

But no matter what the low end is attributable to, I don't think that the minimum GPA for callbacks is a great metric for anyone to rely on.

Biglaw firms only take the very top of the class at Howard (I've been told even higher than top 10 percent). So yes they will make recruiting efforts to reach out for URMs, but they are not lowering their GPA standards by going deep into the class for URMs.

[bwv812]

.

[Anonymous User]

I got 8 callbacks from OCI, and out of my 6 rejections 5 were from the firms with the lowest GPA medians and reputations for being less selective.

This is not proof of yield protection.

PSA: Some firms will ding you because they don't like you. I know it soothes your ego to think they rejected you because they thought you were too good for them, but that doesn't happen.

But doesn't it make sense that a certain level of firms has to YP in order to ensure that some offers will actually result in acceptances? The firms that pay below market can't callback all people who will likely get offers at market-paying firms, or they will have no summer program.

[rayiner]

I got 8 callbacks from OCI, and out of my 6 rejections 5 were from the firms with the lowest GPA medians and reputations for being less selective.

This is not proof of yield protection.

PSA: Some firms will ding you because they don't like you. I know it soothes your ego to think they rejected you because they thought you were too good for them, but that doesn't happen.

But doesn't it make sense that a certain level of firms has to YP in order to ensure that some offers will actually result in acceptances? The firms that pay below market can't callback all people who will likely get offers at market-paying firms, or they will have no summer program.

We're not really talking about those firms here (besides MWE I guess). By and large they don't recruit at Chicago OCI. The ones that do often have other characteristics (low partner/associate ratios, specific type of work) that draw people with decent grades. They also have tiny summer classes and only need a few people to accept.

[Anonymous User]

But doesn't it make sense that a certain level of firms has to YP in order to ensure that some offers will actually result in acceptances? The firms that pay below market can't callback all people who will likely get offers at market-paying firms, or they will have no summer program.

But what about the second wave of callbacks?

Ha. Hahaha. Ha. Ha. Sob. Sob. Broken sobs.

Don't go to law school unless you get T14 ... and you're smart enough to do your bidding/OCI properly.

[ToTransferOrNot]

I don't know how else to explain Howard's biglaw placement other than URM benefits. Perhaps this benefit was more evident in the boom years, I don't know.

I would agree that URMs don't see the employment benefit that they do see in admissions (and that ORMs, who firms will also count as minorities) probably do see a benefit in hiring that they didn't see in admissions), but I still think they do see (or saw) some benefit.

But no matter what the low end is attributable to, I don't think that the minimum GPA for callbacks is a great metric for anyone to rely on.

Biglaw firms only take the very top of the class at Howard (I've been told even higher than top 10 percent). So yes they will make recruiting efforts to reach out for URMs, but they are not lowering their GPA standards by going deep into the class for URMs.

At the height of the market (i.e., at the same time as the Chicago stats being discussed here) Howard was placing approximately the same percentage in the V100 as GW, BU, and BC, while placing approximately 1.4x as many as WUSTL. It sounds like firms have become much more strict with respect to grades recently, regardless of the effect on diversity, which is unfortunate.

In before AA shitshow

[XxSpyKEx]

You have a fair point, except that I'm not sure if those who get CBs at S&C and Cravath (DD's examples) are going to better firms. Also, even given your example, a firm with a soft cutoff of 177 is being seriously mischaracterized in the Chicago data if they have extended even one callback to a 175 URM in the past 3 years (which your sample data suggests).

I'm also not sure that firms don't YP on grades. We know they do based on ties, and I suspect some grade-related YPing occurs for students from non-local schools.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. S&C and Cravath are grade-conscious. All the top gunners aiming for NYC will interview with them, and as a result they'll have a high GPA median. What is so surprising about this?

http://lawfirmaddict.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ement.html

Chicago has Vault 5 placement on par with Columbia and NYU... I don't think S&C and Cravath are going any deeper into those classes.

As for my example, I'm talking about the median, not minimum numbers. There are not enough URMs to have an impact on the medians. The key observation is that someone with top 10% grades is represented way more times in the data than someone with below-median grades by virtue of getting more callbacks. I think if you looked at the data a different way, by the GPA's of people who ultimately accept an offer from each firm, you'll see much lower numbers than what the medians show.

As for firms YP-ing... I think very few firms will YP someone with high grades who shows an interest in the firm. You have to imagine that most people are savvy enough to go into interviews with their safeties without coming across as uninterested in the firm.

What's with this URM thing? Being URM doesn't give you a boost in getting a firm job. I've been told by multiple URM 3L's (including those with no job) that this is just a myth. The idea of the URM boost only applies in regards to the law school admissions process. The people getting the offers on these charts from firms where their GPA is normally considered too low are getting it through work experience, interviewing well, connections etc.

Actually being a URM does give you a boost. Look at just about any large law firm's website. They all have diversity initiatives. The only way to achieve those diversity initiatives is for the firms to lower their standards for URMs (unless you were too assume that this small and heavily under represented population of URM students mostly do really well gradewise in comparison to their Caucasian counterparts and that is why there is a decent number of URMs in law firms).

As for firms YP-ing... I think very few firms will YP someone with high grades who shows an interest in the firm. You have to imagine that most people are savvy enough to go into interviews with their safeties without coming across as uninterested in the firm.

Based on my (obviously limited) experience, I would venture to say that firms definitely YP. I am top 2% at DCNG, did screeners with 14 firms (all the firms at OCI from my two target markets). I got 8 callbacks from OCI, and out of my 6 rejections 5 were from the firms with the lowest GPA medians and reputations for being less selective.

Firms definitely yield-protect. It makes no sense to waste a half a day of partner's time (collectively) to callback students that are likely to not accept an offer if one is made. Last year when the CSO at my school distributed information about bidding they made the issues that people that did well with grades would face -- i.e. they will want to bid for a lot more "reach" firms with lower GPAs, but they will also really need to be able to articulate their enthusiasm and desire to work at these lower ranking/less selective firms in order to get the firms to call them back.

Although, I will admit that lower ranking/less selective firms tend to be more random and based on factors besides grades. For the really selective firms, a lot of them seem to just hire based on who has the best grades, best journal, etc. with little concern about personality fit (typically v10-15 firms). A lot of these firms will even tell you that if you ask them what they are looking for during the screening interview. So students that had really high grades, law review, etc can typically feel safe bidding with these firms because they will most likely select them. The less selective firms care less about grades (obviously), so they are more random based on who the interviewer "likes" (i.e. personality fit), and that very well may not be the person with the really high grades.

[bwv812]

.

[Anonymous User]

As an aside, I don't think the grading system does any favors.

It does favors for the top half, who can proudly show they are above median. They deserve it, for sure.

The bottom half of the class, however, is as disadvantaged as the above-median folks are advantaged. It's a conscious decision by the administration so that the top of the class can get really coveted jobs.