Re: Columbia EIP 2012 Superthread
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2012 6:56 pm
Anon from before. Mine was a CB ding.Anonymous User wrote:Were the Kirkland dings callback dings or offer dings?
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=187757
Anon from before. Mine was a CB ding.Anonymous User wrote:Were the Kirkland dings callback dings or offer dings?
Really sorry to hear that. Where did you xfer from? How did you bid? What do you think happened? I'd start mailing ASAP if you haven't already. There's still some time. The Columbia name will help in mailing secondary markets where you have ties.Anonymous User wrote:failed miserably. transfer strike out. sigh.
I like to lament the transfers occasionally, but this analysis is correct.AppsAbound wrote:As a non-transfer, I get irritated when people complain that transfers took their jobs. Firms aren't charities and EIP isn't the soup line. In the absence of transfers (who firms typically view as desirable because they are successful law students) there wouldn't necessarily be more callbacks for CLS students who are "less desirable" (because of grades or whatever other factors). If CLS didn't have transfers, firms could just offer fewer callbacks at CLS and pick up more transfer-esque students from other schools. Or you could just find more of the top students at CLS with more callbacks---I'm not seeing how there is much trickle down possibility here.
I know a guy with a CB there, fwiwAnonymous User wrote:Anyone hear from Latham San Diego?
Anonymous User wrote:The idea of transfers' effect on EIP really annoys me. Without 50 extra people in our class, there would likely be more callbacks given to the original 2L class. It's true, let's make some room for those 'burgers who wouldn't get a job regardless. But even then, there are a lot of people with average grades and mediocre interview skills that are going to get cut for some guy who just got here and stole spots that he could've taken up at his old school. I doubt if CLS refused transfers employers would reduce the number of callbacks they typically extend to CLS students.
But ultimately, if 85% of people have an offer, doesn't the math suggest that this number would be higher if we just got rid of transfers? Don't transfers do better most of the time? Why won't they just stay at their old schools
Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but the LSAT thing is a bad example. The more there are transferring in, the less spots there are for the current students to interview. There's less spots to be picked up and thus less of an opportunity to get yourself out there. I also don't think that the poster is blaming them, they're blaming the administration for allowing that many transfers in, in the first place. With that said, I doubt transfers are the reason any individual will fail or succeed during this process.Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:The idea of transfers' effect on EIP really annoys me. Without 50 extra people in our class, there would likely be more callbacks given to the original 2L class. It's true, let's make some room for those 'burgers who wouldn't get a job regardless. But even then, there are a lot of people with average grades and mediocre interview skills that are going to get cut for some guy who just got here and stole spots that he could've taken up at his old school. I doubt if CLS refused transfers employers would reduce the number of callbacks they typically extend to CLS students.
But ultimately, if 85% of people have an offer, doesn't the math suggest that this number would be higher if we just got rid of transfers? Don't transfers do better most of the time? Why won't they just stay at their old schools
Fun fact: Going to Columbia doesn't entitle you to a job. If a person transferred in and got a CB where you didn't I suspect they did something better. Also most transfers didn't have the same opportunities that he/she would've had at CLS EIP, why blame them for trading up? That's like blaming people who retook the LSAT, got a better score the second time, and beat out someone who got a good score the first time.
You're (at least in part) responsible for your own success or failure. It's fine to blame macro factors (the economy, excessive debt among some firms, etc.) but when you start blaming individuals who are just trying to improve their prospects you just sound entitled.
Fair enough. The LSAT might be a different case. However you could make the same argument that T14 schools should reduce class sizes in general so that higher percentage of students get a biglaw jerb.Anonymous User wrote:Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but the LSAT thing is a bad example. The more there are transferring in, the less spots there are for the current students to interview. There's less spots to be picked up and thus less of an opportunity to get yourself out there. I also don't think that the poster is blaming them, they're blaming the administration for allowing that many transfers in, in the first place. With that said, I doubt transfers are the reason any individual will fail or succeed during this process.Anonymous User wrote:Anonymous User wrote:The idea of transfers' effect on EIP really annoys me. Without 50 extra people in our class, there would likely be more callbacks given to the original 2L class. It's true, let's make some room for those 'burgers who wouldn't get a job regardless. But even then, there are a lot of people with average grades and mediocre interview skills that are going to get cut for some guy who just got here and stole spots that he could've taken up at his old school. I doubt if CLS refused transfers employers would reduce the number of callbacks they typically extend to CLS students.
But ultimately, if 85% of people have an offer, doesn't the math suggest that this number would be higher if we just got rid of transfers? Don't transfers do better most of the time? Why won't they just stay at their old schools
Fun fact: Going to Columbia doesn't entitle you to a job. If a person transferred in and got a CB where you didn't I suspect they did something better. Also most transfers didn't have the same opportunities that he/she would've had at CLS EIP, why blame them for trading up? That's like blaming people who retook the LSAT, got a better score the second time, and beat out someone who got a good score the first time.
You're (at least in part) responsible for your own success or failure. It's fine to blame macro factors (the economy, excessive debt among some firms, etc.) but when you start blaming individuals who are just trying to improve their prospects you just sound entitled.
This is credited. Having fewer people in the interview pool does not change the fact that you still may fall below a firm's grade cutoff. Having fewer qualified people on our interview schedule does not mean we call back more unqualified people, it just means we issue fewer callbacks than we otherwise would.AppsAbound wrote:As a non-transfer, I get irritated when people complain that transfers took their jobs. Firms aren't charities and EIP isn't the soup line. In the absence of transfers (who firms typically view as desirable because they are successful law students) there wouldn't necessarily be more callbacks for CLS students who are "less desirable" (because of grades or whatever other factors). If CLS didn't have transfers, firms could just offer fewer callbacks at CLS and pick up more transfer-esque students from other schools. Or you could just find more of the top students at CLS with more callbacks---I'm not seeing how there is much trickle down possibility here.
Somebody give this guy a hand.Loose Seal wrote:This is credited. Having fewer people in the interview pool does not change the fact that you still may fall below a firm's grade cutoff. Having fewer qualified people on our interview schedule does not mean we call back more unqualified people, it just means we issue fewer callbacks than we otherwise would.AppsAbound wrote:As a non-transfer, I get irritated when people complain that transfers took their jobs. Firms aren't charities and EIP isn't the soup line. In the absence of transfers (who firms typically view as desirable because they are successful law students) there wouldn't necessarily be more callbacks for CLS students who are "less desirable" (because of grades or whatever other factors). If CLS didn't have transfers, firms could just offer fewer callbacks at CLS and pick up more transfer-esque students from other schools. Or you could just find more of the top students at CLS with more callbacks---I'm not seeing how there is much trickle down possibility here.
Anonymous User wrote:Somebody give this guy a hand.Loose Seal wrote:This is credited. Having fewer people in the interview pool does not change the fact that you still may fall below a firm's grade cutoff. Having fewer qualified people on our interview schedule does not mean we call back more unqualified people, it just means we issue fewer callbacks than we otherwise would.AppsAbound wrote:As a non-transfer, I get irritated when people complain that transfers took their jobs. Firms aren't charities and EIP isn't the soup line. In the absence of transfers (who firms typically view as desirable because they are successful law students) there wouldn't necessarily be more callbacks for CLS students who are "less desirable" (because of grades or whatever other factors). If CLS didn't have transfers, firms could just offer fewer callbacks at CLS and pick up more transfer-esque students from other schools. Or you could just find more of the top students at CLS with more callbacks---I'm not seeing how there is much trickle down possibility here.
Super 180.Loose Seal wrote:Anonymous User wrote: Somebody give this guy a hand.
It's getting pretty hard for me to tell when people are trolling on the topic of transfer students. This comment, for instance, I assume is troll bait because a) I like to think that all CLS students are smart enough to realize that actually fighting your way to the top of the class at a lower law school > LSAT and undergrad GPA, and b) no one would seriously suggest talking to the administration, because they are incompetent across the board.Anonymous User wrote:I think we just need to ask the administration to stop allowing so many people in that coudln't get in the way we all did.
+1Anonymous User wrote:It's getting pretty hard for me to tell when people are trolling on the topic of transfer students. This comment, for instance, I assume is troll bait because a) I like to think that all CLS students are smart enough to realize that actually fighting your way to the top of the class at a lower law school > LSAT and undergrad GPA, and b) no one would seriously suggest talking to the administration, because they are incompetent across the board.Anonymous User wrote:I think we just need to ask the administration to stop allowing so many people in that coudln't get in the way we all did.
If any CLS transfers are reading this, please know that we are happy to have you. You obviously performed amazingly at your previous school, and I for one look forward to meeting you. Chalk up any stupid anti-transfer posts on this thread to the stress of EIP, and realize that we are all brothers-in-arms since surviving the hell that is the Doubletree Hotel elevator system.
As already mentioned in this thread, it is annoying that core 2L classes are so hard to get, but this has far more to do with the dearth of professors teaching these classes than it does with another ~50 transfers. When people are #240 on the waitlist for evidence, then it is absurd to think having fewer transfers would make any substantive difference.
Everyone who is doing callbacks this week, good luck! Everyone who is waiting for callbacks, keep the hope alive!
I can tell who authored this post just based on the caring and supportive language.Anonymous User wrote:It's getting pretty hard for me to tell when people are trolling on the topic of transfer students. This comment, for instance, I assume is troll bait because a) I like to think that all CLS students are smart enough to realize that actually fighting your way to the top of the class at a lower law school > LSAT and undergrad GPA, and b) no one would seriously suggest talking to the administration, because they are incompetent across the board.Anonymous User wrote:I think we just need to ask the administration to stop allowing so many people in that coudln't get in the way we all did.
If any CLS transfers are reading this, please know that we are happy to have you. You obviously performed amazingly at your previous school, and I for one look forward to meeting you. Chalk up any stupid anti-transfer posts on this thread to the stress of EIP, and realize that we are all brothers-in-arms since surviving the hell that is the Doubletree Hotel elevator system.
As already mentioned in this thread, it is annoying that core 2L classes are so hard to get, but this has far more to do with the dearth of professors teaching these classes than it does with another ~50 transfers. When people are #240 on the waitlist for evidence, then it is absurd to think having fewer transfers would make any substantive difference.
Everyone who is doing callbacks this week, good luck! Everyone who is waiting for callbacks, keep the hope alive!