somewhatwayward wrote:It is funny I am the poster going to bat for this position because I am usually the one arguing with BruceWayne about his Eeyore opinions that there is no difference between CCN and the rest of the T-14, but it is absolutely not true that the "vast majority" of median or slightly below median students get an offer. Let's use your statistic that 20% of people receive no offer and assume that the grade distribution of the people doing EIW mirrors the class. Even if the 20% who don't get offers were perfectly spread throughout the grade distribution, that would only be 80% of medianish kids getting offers, which is a questionable "vast majority" in my book. But of course a disproportionate number of the kids who land offers have high grades. Sure, sometimes a top third kid who is a terrible interviewer strikes out. But top 5% kids, even with terrible personalities, usually get at least S&C (LOL) or something. Thus, the offer rate for above median, especially way above median, is going to be 90%+, thereby dropping the offer rate for the medianish kids. You are right to some extent that this decrease is offset by the fact that a disproportionate number of kids who get no offers are in the bottom third.
But it is not a perfect cutoff line where the top 80% participating are the kids with offers while the bottom 20% participating walk away with nothing. A couple factors make it so some bottom of the class kids land offers and some medianish kids don't. The first one is dumb luck, which plays a bigger role than we realize. The second is the impact of WE, URM, interviewing ability, bidding, markets targeted, etc. The last is that firms do not draw as fine distinctions between a 3.28, a 3.17, and a 3.06 as law students think. The other factors start to play a bigger role. A kid without top grades is effectively shut out of many firms whether he has a 3.28 or a 2.9. The 3.28, the 3.17, the 3.06, and the 2.9 all go on to fight over the same type of unselective firms who may have a very forgiving cut off (maybe the 2.9 gets thrown out), but for the others, all the other factors come into play. At the end of the day, 3.06 and 3.17 may get offers while 3.28 does not.
I've been going on way too long about this, but I stick with my original estimate that if 80-90% get offers, a medianish kid has maybe a 30% chance of striking out, and that has been true throughout the bad economy. Thus, I don't think a T6 below median striking out means that this year is worse than last, especially since it is all anecdotal as IAFG has been pointing out over and over again.
Based on OCS data, your chances of getting an offer decrease as your grades decrease in a fairly logarithmic fashion. If we assume half of the bottom 20% strikes out, a quarter of the next 20% strikes out, and noone in the top 20% strikes out (which are estimates very, very generous to your argument), the remaining 40% (which includes 10% below median and 30% above median) stand an 87.5% chance of getting an offer, which constitutes a vast majority to me.
That said, these are all made-up numbers and flawed assumptions on both your side and mine. I agree that median NYU students aren't safe and that many of them will strike out. Let's move past mostly semantic differences and get to the real point-- this hiring period at the very least doesn't seem significantly better than last year's and is probably worse.