Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:So you want to have less information rather than more? You'd be very happy at Columbia.
I would think the best strategy would be to collect as much information as possible and, with a healthy dose of skepticism, discount the value of the information for the reasons you listed above. It may not be perfect after scrutinizing the data for possible diversity hires, etc., but it's better than nothing--especially if you learn to appreciate exactly what it tells you.
UVA provides lowest, median, and highest. It also provides the total number offered, so you can surmise whether a single outlier is bringing the median down just a little bit. It also provides multi-year data, so you can see how firms have changed their hiring practices from before to after the recession.
I am at Columbia.
I don't think I'd ever advocate providing less data, more I wanted to make the point that people seem to think if they had more data they would have been able to bid siginificantly better, which I don't think is the case.
Edit: I'll add that if someone with median grades still wants to bid on V10 firms for whatever reason, they are walking into it. But I doubt less than 5% of the class is that dumb.
Columbia's data, while not perfect and not as good as UVA's (it seems). Allows you to make pretty decent judgments, at least about the firms that tend to take more than a few Columbia students year in and year out. That said, the overaggressiveness with which some people bid was crazy. It confounds me that more than half the class bid on GDC and Cleary last year despite the fact that the data clearly shows they almost never take someone who is not Stone. And this year it was very surprising to see who was interviewing at S&C, Wachtell, Cravath, etc.
I guess my point is there's a general tendency to see the stats, see that a firm took two non-stones, and think "that could be me," when really the way to think about it is that 2 non-stones out of the 100 who screened got offers.
Remember, last year's class did not have the benefit of a year of ITE data, even the little bit of data we get. Try looking at the 2008 numbers to see why they thought those firms were still a decent choice. People bid much more conservatively this year (by vault rank, although not necessarily in market choice).