Anonymous User wrote:NYU student above:
The statistics include:
1) A bifurcated grade chart on firms. They are more guidelines than anything else, though.
2) A list of how many students ended up at each firm.
3) statistics on how many callbacks and offers were given to students in specific grade ranges.
Also, the handbooks are pretty informative. And the dean makes it a point to maintain rapport with firms across the nation-she actually travels to them. And my year, she solicited comments she should take with her to those meetings.
Just to be clear, the gpa statistics we have are very general, based on 3 grade brackets (roughly top 20%, below that but top half, bottom half). So firms are split into only three groups - those that hire (on average) from each bracket - but we're given no further differentiation within brackets.
Based on TLS, I've had the sense that CLS students have more statistics. And this thread is calling for more, but I don't think that's the answer - too many statistics and students will act like it's a numbers game. It's not.
NYU's OCS does do a good job. It is in the rapport they have, the training (including Martindale, which is essentially the spreadsheet called for in this thread), the handbooks we're given (which pretty strongly recommend mailings if you're targeting non-NYC firms, eg), and the outreach to us and firms during OCI season (for example, the Dean personally called me to ask about my anticipated timeline for an open offer I had with a firm that other students were still waiting to hear from), but I don't think their successes (whatever they may be) are because of extra statistics.
At CLS we have almost no statistics. Just a spreadsheet with firm name, # of bids, # screeners received, # callbacks given, callbacks accepted, offers given, and offers accepted. There is no interpretation of this data by OCS. Students draw their own conclusions, for example, the 60-70% figure floated around here is based on adding up the total # of offers accepted in 2009 and dividing them by an estimated number of people who did OCI.
There is also a binder in the OCS office with the number of offers given to people who are Stone Scholars over total offers. Again, the school holds fast to the Stone/non-stone designation, so we don't know if making Stone (top 1/3, GPA 3.41) is a hard and fast line, if a person just below Stone has the same opportunities as someone just above, or if it differs firm to firm and if so, which firms.
Personally, I would like more stats to be released to the students, specifically to allow them to structure their bid lists better. At a meeting last year OCS said something to the effect of "don't try and game the system to get more screening interviews" which is downright hostile to the interests of a median student who needs to hustle to get a job (by hustling, I mean getting her name into enough piles of resumes, at firms where her resume will be looked at, to increase her shot at an offer). But I understand this is more than just a numbers game and there is a point of diminishing returns.
However, there is no evidence that OCS number crunches the stats (in office) in order to give people better advice. This in my view is unacceptable. Here's how I think the data (call backs, offers, and the resumes and transcripts of every student) should be used.
Say you have three firms, each in NY, none you would immediately think of as highly selective. Firm A has a strict grade cutoff- i.e. they mostly call back people above a 3.3., meaning someone sits in a room with a calculator and calculates GPAs. Firm B has a target number- they'll take back 15 students from CLS for callbacks, and below Stone Scholar the distribution is random (i.e. someone .05 below Stone has about the same chance as someone .3 below Stone at getting a callback). Firm C's cbs have a very low correlation with GPA, meaning they care more about fit during the screener. So high grade students should be encouraged to bid on firm A as a safety, and low grade students on firms B and C. If a student sends his or her bidlist to OCS, they should tell that student it is unwise to bid on Firm A unless they have a very good reason for doing so (i.e. connection, firm has a very specific practice area they can't get at most other firms, relevant WE).
Maybe there are markets where 90% of the cbs go to the same 6 or 7 students and 5 of those students have a certain GPA. So a student placing 10 bids into that market, thinking it will be great because she's from there, less CLS students are bidding on that market, and so she will pick up more screening interviews is actually ending up with less of a chance than having 5 screening interviews with firms like B and C above. That student should bid on NY firms and pick up the home market interviews later during add-drop (would reward those students who care enough to sit at the computer frantically scheduling interviews).
Or maybe all this will be a waste of time, in which case it's better to have OCS do this type of analysis and be able to tell students, look, don't spend time trying to over analyze this process, we've done our own analysis and there are no magic trends that will help you.