Cobretti wrote: Anonymous User wrote:
cookiejar1 wrote: . . . inflating the median CB GPA tremendously (i.e., Jones Day will CB 20 people and only 2 (all below median CB GPA) will accept the JD offer).
FWIW, the several people I know who decided on Jones Day in recent years were all 3.7+. They may not have a firm GPA cutoff, but implying they readily hire below median from NU is misleading and will likely lead to poor bidding choices.
He wasn't saying below median GPA for the class. He was saying that when the median CB GPA data is released for firms by OCS, the number you see will most likely be higher than the median GPA of people that accepted offers there, because firms always try to attract the best candidates and will throw CBs to "reaches" for them with stellar GPAs.
Sorry, I meant to use them as merely an example. Jones Day's Chicago office is quite competitive, as the median CB GPA data will suggest. What I'm trying to say, however, is that that number--as are all the other numbers--are slightly inflated due to the fact that the same high GPA players are gathering CBs across the board (for example, a top Chicago candidate will probably score CBs at KE/Sidley/MB/Jenner/JD/Winston/etc but say the candidate chooses Barack instead. His/her 4.0+ GPA is skewing the median CB at KE/Sidley/MB/Jenner/JD/Winston even though these firms don't typically land 4.0+ students from NU). Of course this is only meaningful in aggregate (its a median, not an average) and it's impossible to truly quantify exactly how much the cb median data should be discounted. It's just something to note. Also consider that some firms tend to keep hiring to a narrow brand of grades -- in this case the cb gpa number is a considerably better proxy.
Anonymous User wrote: I also guess I should say I'm open to giving lit a shot in my interviews? Or should I emphasize I'm really interested in area X (think bankruptcy/real estate/tax), which I am? Or say both things (as they're not mutually exclusive and are not lies)? Or does it entirely depend on the firm and/or interviewer?
Okay, I think you should be honest but I also think you shouldn't be above "playing the game" so to speak when it comes to interviews. So, for example, if you're really into bankruptcy but you're interviewing with a firm with a tiny creditor-side bankruptcy practice . . . ehhhh I don't know if I'd tell them that I'm particularly interested in bankruptcy.
What I did is that I researched each form thoroughly (internet, networking, going to those weird market legal series). I figured out what each major firm's bread and butter practices were. I tried to guess which practice areas were in need of bodies. And I hit them. I hit them hard. It helped too when explaining "why this firm?" It helped with my narrative.
Anonymous User wrote: So... same question as above: Any good ways to spot sweatshops/assess fit at OCI/callbacks?
So, by and large, every "top" firm is more or less a sweatshop. That's why I don't think that ranking firms by sweatshopiness is necessarily a good way to go about planning your career. Granted, the sweatshopiness of firms are on somewhat of a spectrum and you'll definitely have firms that expect much more work on one end. However, if you're going into OCI with top grades you'd be surprised how much prestige (whether you admit or not) will end up becoming a factor. And if you your top choices post-OCI end up being "top" firms (using TLS prestige as a proxy), I think that comparing sweatshops on the basis of their sweatshopiness is pretty stupid. When you make your decision, consider everything else. Your impression of a firm's sweatshopiness will be meaningful but I think other factors should be much, much more important. Location, the culture, the type of people you may be working with (provided, of course, that they're still there when you start work) are important. The WORK is important too. Your exit options might be most important as well if you're already questioning how our service-oriented profession demands work past dinner daily.
Just don't be the person who chooses to work at DPW based solely on the impression that DPW somehow works associates less than other firms. Don't be the person who chooses to go to KE Chicago because of all the sweatshoppy things you've heard about Skadden. Etc, etc. Go to a firm for much more tangible reasons than, "I think I'll work less there!" But this is just me. Maybe I, personally, don't give sweatshopiness enough credit.