Anonymous User wrote:rayiner wrote:Anonymous User wrote:Desert Fox wrote:Maybe this is just bias, but I can't imagine firms no offer for reasons like this. Who would get an offer? Unless you are at firms who do 50% each year, this can't be the only reason.
It may be the only reason they tell you, but there has to be another. Even if it's that the firm can't afford it.
it doesn't really matter what the real reason is. the point is that this story and others in this thread go against "common wisdom" on TLS that to get no-offered, you either 1) have to really fuck up assignments; or 2) have major social/aspie problems. here, none of these elements were apparently present.
I think (from observation) that doing sub-par work and having social problems are the major reason people get no-offered. Not the only reason--politics, economics, luck, etc, can all play a role, but those two are the major reasons.
Are that many SAs truly capable of doing work that can't be criticized?
Just a hunch, but I think economics plays a bigger role in all of this. Dewey went under, there is good reason to believe that a NYC-based V20 recently laid off first-year associates, M&A work is down, a Texas Big 3 firm continues to lift its skirt for anybody willing to talk merger, GT just made that capital call. And that's just the stuff we know about. Sure, any one of these issues can be explained in isolation, but it appears to me some firms are struggling right now.
FWIW, I spent my second-half at a market-paying lit boutique (2-5 SAs). During recruitment, they boasted about their near 100% offer rate, and made it clear that fit is what they look for. During the second week, the hiring partner took the SAs out to lunch. He told us that the firm might not make offers to all of us because business has been slow for the past six months. He apologized for the situation, and then strongly hinted that any of us who did not get an offer from our first-half firm would get an offer from the lit boutique.bdubs wrote:"Good" reviews are subjective. No one wants to give mainly negative feedback. When feedback is mixed, i.e. this is good, but x, y, and z need improvement, that can be a sign of a negative perception. Most people will actually strive to give mixed feedback, but its key to distinguis whether they had to struggle to come up with things to do better, or if they had to stretch to find the positives. I imagine some K-JDs are probably going to have a hard time distinguishing because they've never received feedback from anyone who wasn't a professor.
If you see 2 no-offers in 5 SA's, I think it's fair to chalk it up to economics. But if you're looking at 2 out of 30, then it's not likely to be economics. At least the last couple of years, it's the latter we've been seeing. Remember, offer rates the last couple of years have been higher in the V100 than they were during the boom. Those no offers in 2006, even at the higher level they were, weren't economic.
As for mixed feedback, one of the classical management techniques is to actually preface bad feedback with positive feedback. Another technique is to give one point of positive feedback for every negative point. I can see SA's who have never had a job before think there getting good feedback when they're not.