UChicago OCI 2014 Forum

[Mal Reynolds]

Where did someone say grades don't matter?

[Anonymous User]

Where did someone say grades don't matter?

They didn't, though "grades don't mean everything" started to get close. I thought I acknowledged that in the post.

Signed, douche

[20141023]

.

[Anonymous User]

Grades matter. The right qualification is that, S&C/W&C/etc aside, you won't necessarily know ahead of time which firms will autoding you because of bad grades or auto-callback you because of good ones, even using the historical data.

Had a S&C CB with a 177. Friend with a 181 was dinged.

The S&C trolling has got to stop.

[Rahviveh]

Grades matter. The right qualification is that, S&C/W&C/etc aside, you won't necessarily know ahead of time which firms will autoding you because of bad grades or auto-callback you because of good ones, even using the historical data.

Had a S&C CB with a 177. Friend with a 181 was dinged.

The S&C trolling has got to stop.

Ya you guys are so mean to S&C

[Mal Reynolds]

The few posts above pretty strongly insinuated that...

"Grades aren't everything" seems to be pretty accurate. Doesn't mean they don't matter.

[Rahviveh]

I Don't Wanna Be The Guy to provide mildly disagreeing info, but here goes. This is going to be a mega-douchy post but the discussion here is going into a dangerous place, imo - I don't want some future kid with a 176.5 going into OCI thinking he's safe bidding straight DC because "grades don't matter if you're a good interviewer".

I'm basically a huge antisocial fuckwad and have 16 CBs because 181/K&E/LR. Still waiting to hear from 8 and have canceled a couple because I just don't have any days free to schedule them. You can see what interviewers have written on your resume, generally, and "K&E scholar" was circled pretty much every time. Some places would just turn to me and pitch me for ten minutes instead of asking questions. In other words: grades matter. I don't think I would've been that successful at OCI if they didn't.

That said, some firms are weird and some interviews go weird so nothing is guaranteed. Got a Wachtell CB an hour before getting an STB ding. Munger CB and a Paul Weiss ding. Shit happens. I like Reg's formulation of it being like YLS admissions: numbers get you in the door but aren't sufficient, but also there's a second, smaller door for Olympic-level softs (excellent conversationalists, great WE, good personal fit with interviewer/firm).

So I agree with the above posters insofar as the message is, grades don't guarantee or eliminate any one particular employer outside of a certain brand of picky white shoe firm. I just want to push back on what is starting to feel like a "grades don't matter" message. Grades matter. The right qualification is that, S&C/W&C/etc aside, you won't necessarily know ahead of time which firms will autoding you because of bad grades or auto-callback you because of good ones, even using the historical data.

My bigger worry in all of this and what made me post this douche-knob of a comment instead of keeping my damn mouth shut: when you talk too much about the "exceptional softs" kinds of candidates, everyone starts to think they are one and stops doing the work to get callbacks they wouldn't otherwise get. Like, hey, maybe research a firm ahead of time so you know if they mostly do cap markets work, and either cancel the interview or pitch your interest in their specialty based on your actual interest in the subject and __ experience on your resume.

Sorry I hate posts like this where some asshole 2L who had two weeks of interviews now thinks he knows everything there is to know about OCI, and now I'm making one. It just got too happy around here.

I wonder if yield protection happens at some of these firms. STB knows you will not work at their TTT firm with K&E grades. NYC firms have enough trouble getting Chicago students and attracting someone who has Chicago/DC as an easy market will be difficult.

[Anonymous User]

The few posts above pretty strongly insinuated that...

"Grades aren't everything" seems to be pretty accurate. Doesn't mean they don't matter.

-Anon here from last page (not the KE/LR super aspie guy).

Definitely agree with what Mal said100%. My point wasn't that grades don't matter. They definitely matter and I have no doubt, outside of which LS you attend, they're the most important factor for most people.

My point was really that you can at UChicago you can do well at OCI with poor grades, and you can do poorly with good grades

[Anonymous User]

The few posts above pretty strongly insinuated that...

"Grades aren't everything" seems to be pretty accurate. Doesn't mean they don't matter.

Ok we can rehash this if you want. Please just reread the post next time.

My problem with emphasizing that grades aren't everything are that I think it might lead to people in future years, reading this thread, to get too comfortable if they don't have great grades. Above posters and I agree that there will be some subset of firms for which you're in play even if below general cutoff, and at those places, the prep you put into the interviews probably matters.

Maybe it's better if below-median-bros are comfortable and confident that they'll end up with something, so it's good to get these stories out there. Or maybe I'm right and it will have the opposite effect. That's something worth discussing. What's not worth discussing is whether "grades aren't everything" or "grades don't matter" was the exact set of words spoken by posters on the last page.

I wonder if yield protection happens at some of these firms. STB knows you will not work at their TTT firm with K&E grades. NYC firms have enough trouble getting Chicago students and attracting someone who has Chicago/DC as an easy market will be difficult.

It's possible but knowing which firms I got dinged at, I think I just fucked up the interviews. Also did not want to be so egotistical as to think I got dinged for being too good for a firm. They're all good firms and probably just didn't like me very much.

Signed, douche

[Mal Reynolds]

I read your post but I just don't think you're giving our future classmates a whole lot of credit. I don't know what the other anons said that made you think someone else will read those posts and bid all DC with below median grades. Like if you don't do your research before a screener you're just a fucking idiot. But it's probably encouraging to see people having success below median here.

[Anonymous User]

I Don't Wanna Be The Guy to provide mildly disagreeing info, but here goes. This is going to be a mega-douchy post but the discussion here is going into a dangerous place, imo - I don't want some future kid with a 176.5 going into OCI thinking he's safe bidding straight DC because "grades don't matter if you're a good interviewer".

I'm basically a huge antisocial fuckwad and have 16 CBs because 181/K&E/LR. Still waiting to hear from 8 and have canceled a couple because I just don't have any days free to schedule them. You can see what interviewers have written on your resume, generally, and "K&E scholar" was circled pretty much every time. Some places would just turn to me and pitch me for ten minutes instead of asking questions. In other words: grades matter. I don't think I would've been that successful at OCI if they didn't.

That said, some firms are weird and some interviews go weird so nothing is guaranteed. Got a Wachtell CB an hour before getting an STB ding. Munger CB and a Paul Weiss ding. Shit happens. I like Reg's formulation of it being like YLS admissions: numbers get you in the door but aren't sufficient, but also there's a second, smaller door for Olympic-level softs (excellent conversationalists, great WE, good personal fit with interviewer/firm).

So I agree with the above posters insofar as the message is, grades don't guarantee or eliminate any one particular employer outside of a certain brand of picky white shoe firm. I just want to push back on what is starting to feel like a "grades don't matter" message. Grades matter. The right qualification is that, S&C/W&C/etc aside, you won't necessarily know ahead of time which firms will autoding you because of bad grades or auto-callback you because of good ones, even using the historical data.

My bigger worry in all of this and what made me post this douche-knob of a comment instead of keeping my damn mouth shut: when you talk too much about the "exceptional softs" kinds of candidates, everyone starts to think they are one and stops doing the work to get callbacks they wouldn't otherwise get. Like, hey, maybe research a firm ahead of time so you know if they mostly do cap markets work, and either cancel the interview or pitch your interest in their specialty based on your actual interest in the subject and __ experience on your resume.

Sorry I hate posts like this where some asshole 2L who had two weeks of interviews now thinks he knows everything there is to know about OCI, and now I'm making one. It just got too happy around here.

I wonder if yield protection happens at some of these firms. STB knows you will not work at their TTT firm with K&E grades. NYC firms have enough trouble getting Chicago students and attracting someone who has Chicago/DC as an easy market will be difficult.

Doubt it. I know friends with similar (and even better) grades that had callbacks at these firms. Maybe they were skeptical of legitimate interest, but otherwise it may have been a personality thing.

STB is tops for private equity and PW is tops for litigation, I can't imagine them assuming someone won't accept so they decide not to take a shot...

[20141023]

.

[Rahviveh]

It's possible but knowing which firms I got dinged at, I think I just fucked up the interviews. Also did not want to be so egotistical as to think I got dinged for being too good for a firm. They're all good firms and probably just didn't like me very much.

Signed, douche

maybe you fucked up the interviews because you didnt care and you knew you wouldnt work at paul weiss with k&e grades

Scarier for 1L's is what was posted in the other thread that 40% of people don't get something out of oci. I did not know that but that seems way higher than i thought, even if thats not counting the quinn (lol) offers

[Anonymous User]

It's possible but knowing which firms I got dinged at, I think I just fucked up the interviews. Also did not want to be so egotistical as to think I got dinged for being too good for a firm. They're all good firms and probably just didn't like me very much.

Signed, douche

maybe you fucked up the interviews because you didnt care and you knew you wouldnt work at paul weiss with k&e grades

Scarier for 1L's is what was posted in the other thread that 40% of people don't get something out of oci. I did not know that but that seems way higher than i thought, even if thats not counting the quinn (lol) offers

Actually liked them a fair bit, more than some other NYC for which I have scheduled CBs.

Basically agree with all of Reg's post and the anon above. As I'm proving, probably a number of the dings were personality dings.

I read your post but I just don't think you're giving our future classmates a whole lot of credit. I don't know what the other anons said that made you think someone else will read those posts and bid all DC with below median grades. Like if you don't do your research before a screener you're just a fucking idiot. But it's probably encouraging to see people having success below median here.

That's more fair but I definitely know people who pulled that shit.

[20141023]

.

[Rahviveh]

Scarier for 1L's is what was posted in the other thread that 40% of people don't get something out of oci. I did not know that but that seems way higher than i thought, even if thats not counting the quinn (lol) offers

Step 1: Spend a year posting lots of stats until people start trusting you
Step 2: Build up a reputation of being extremely derpy and assburgerish
Step 3: Slowly start posting fake-ass stats to see how many people believe you
Step 4: When questioned about the source of the stats, vaguely state "file on Chalk"
Step 5: Successfully troll classmates for no reason other than because you can

Step 6: Summer at Irell & Manella

[Anonymous User]

Congratulations to both the 175.5 and 181 persons. For future 1L's, here are the facts:

1) The two main factors employers consider are grades and work experience. 3 years of work experience may compensate for mediocre grades in the same way law review may compensate for going straight to law school from undergrad. Provided you are not socially awkward, you will do well at OCI if you have both.

2) Having neither puts you in a bad place, so anyone K-JD thinking about going to DC with 176 and "a winning personality" needs to rethink their bidding strategy.

3) If you do not bid NYC at all, you risk striking out regardless of grades.

Edit: Did not mean to be anonymous

- Professor Strahilevitz

[Anonymous User]

+1 to anon above

I hate to even post this, because I definitely don't want to seem like I'm bragging, and I think I've been pretty lucky, but I really wish I had seen a post like this in the previous UChicago OCI threads. I have roughly a 175.5 and am sitting on 9 CBs (I'll probably strike out but whatever).

But - point here is that there really is hope for pretty much all students at U of C. Outside of possibly SullCrom and a few other firms, great grades don't guarantee anything and poor grades don't end all hope. I'm sure there are plenty of firms that dinged me for grades, but there are obviously plenty that look at more than your transcript.

Another datapoint - I've had better luck with higher "ranked" firms, particularly in the V30, than with lower ranked firms, despite what OCS's callback data indicates we should expect, so whatever that means.

Good luck to everyone with CBs and congrats to everyone with offers already

if you don't mind sharing, what field is your work experience in? also, market + major?

[20141023]

.

[Anonymous User]

I'm the poster who struck out in Chicago above.

Yes, when I said "GRADES AREN'T EVERYTHING", I meant what I said. When you see someone in the top ~20% doing poorly and someone in the bottom ~20% doing extremely well, as you've seen in this thread, I think that's pretty clear.

What I didn't say was "GRADES ARE NOTHING". Grades are something, and they're important, so work your ass off, and bid a healthy mix of safeties, reaches, and fits, just like you did applying to law school.

And, honestly, this is probably how it should be. Grades are so fucking random, I can't see them having any correlation to anything meaningful.

[Anonymous User]

Offers at Katten, Schiff, and Skadden (all Chi). Dings from Jenner and McDermott.

Also, I just did a CB in Chicago where every time an interviewer asked me if I was only bidding Chi, I "blamed" OCS for telling us that you can't get away with just doing that so I had also bid a little of another market. None of them understood - and I'm not 180/LR so it wasn't bc my grades make me safe to just bid here -and they said they'd been getting that line from tons of candidates (not just UChi folk) this year, more so even than earlier years where the economy was much worse. Dunno about their observations, but it just reinforced the whole "don't place your future in OCS's hands" theme (at least without a second and third outside opinion) that I've been warming to over the past year.

[Strahilevitz]

Offers at Katten, Schiff, and Skadden (all Chi). Dings from Jenner and McDermott.

Also, I just did a CB in Chicago where every time an interviewer asked me if I was only bidding Chi, I "blamed" OCS for telling us that you can't get away with just doing that so I had also bid a little of another market. None of them understood - and I'm not 180/LR so it wasn't bc my grades make me safe to just bid here -and they said they'd been getting that line from tons of candidates (not just UChi folk) this year, more so even than earlier years where the economy was much worse. Dunno about their observations, but it just reinforced the whole "don't place your future in OCS's hands" theme (at least without a second and third outside opinion) that I've been warming to over the past year.

OCS does its best, but there are limitations to what a team of school administrators can predict. Many factors go into consideration for callbacks and offers, among which are GPA, work experience, and personality -- this is not a conclusive list. OCS's job is to help all of you; it doesn't take into account that all else being equal, some of you might come across as more likable than others; you might be one of these people.

[Mal Reynolds]

How have you already done five callbacks? Did you start during OCI?

[Neal Patrick Harris]

Offers at Katten, Schiff, and Skadden (all Chi). Dings from Jenner and McDermott.

Also, I just did a CB in Chicago where every time an interviewer asked me if I was only bidding Chi, I "blamed" OCS for telling us that you can't get away with just doing that so I had also bid a little of another market. None of them understood - and I'm not 180/LR so it wasn't bc my grades make me safe to just bid here -and they said they'd been getting that line from tons of candidates (not just UChi folk) this year, more so even than earlier years where the economy was much worse. Dunno about their observations, but it just reinforced the whole "don't place your future in OCS's hands" theme (at least without a second and third outside opinion) that I've been warming to over the past year.

You should have a better answer than "OCS told me so." I'm not an interviewer, but to me that screams "I can't think for myself."

[Anonymous User]

Offers at Katten, Schiff, and Skadden (all Chi). Dings from Jenner and McDermott.

Also, I just did a CB in Chicago where every time an interviewer asked me if I was only bidding Chi, I "blamed" OCS for telling us that you can't get away with just doing that so I had also bid a little of another market. None of them understood - and I'm not 180/LR so it wasn't bc my grades make me safe to just bid here -and they said they'd been getting that line from tons of candidates (not just UChi folk) this year, more so even than earlier years where the economy was much worse. Dunno about their observations, but it just reinforced the whole "don't place your future in OCS's hands" theme (at least without a second and third outside opinion) that I've been warming to over the past year.

You should have a better answer than "OCS told me so." I'm not an interviewer, but to me that screams "I can't think for myself."

I hope no one actually said something along those lines. Most people say something like "I prefer X market, but OCS advised me that it would be too risky not to diversify/bid elsewhere, so I also put a few bids on Y market."