UChicago OCI 2012 Forum

[Anonymous User]

It's not just a comparison of graduation rank --although that's what your transcript provides for the employers as a reference. The other facts that I alluded to clearly push the median well north of 177.

178 is "well north"? Honestly, I'm not sure an employer would care if you're at 177 or 178 or which one is median. The interviewer would probably look at your grades and guesstimate you at median.

Has anyone ever heard of an employer actually getting out a calculator / spreadsheet and plugging in grades to calculate the average, or do they just guesstimate from the transcript?

[Anonymous User]

deleted

[Anonymous User]

Also, is orientation next Monday mandatory aside from the 2L meeting? Or "mandatory"?

[Anonymous User]

Also, is orientation next Monday mandatory aside from the 2L meeting? Or "mandatory"?

I'd like an answer to this as well. I've stopped reading the many long emails OCS sends out, so maybe I missed some mention of it being mandatory, but the last thing I want to do Monday is spend 6 hours sitting through OCI talk.

[Anonymous User]

Also, is orientation next Monday mandatory aside from the 2L meeting? Or "mandatory"?

I'd like an answer to this as well. I've stopped reading the many long emails OCS sends out, so maybe I missed some mention of it being mandatory, but the last thing I want to do Monday is spend 6 hours sitting through OCI talk.

I believe I read somewhere that you have to go to it or to a make-up on the first day of courses. No OCI talk on the make-up so it will be much shorter and thus bearable.

[Anonymous User]

Also, is orientation next Monday mandatory aside from the 2L meeting? Or "mandatory"?

I'd like an answer to this as well. I've stopped reading the many long emails OCS sends out, so maybe I missed some mention of it being mandatory, but the last thing I want to do Monday is spend 6 hours sitting through OCI talk.

I believe I read somewhere that you have to go to it or to a make-up on the first day of courses. No OCI talk on the make-up so it will be much shorter and thus bearable.

I knew we have to go to the 2L meeting at 2:30 or make it up. I was more curious about any consequences for missing the 5 hours of panel discussions before that.

[Emma.]

30% of the class of 2011 graduated with a 179+, despite what it says on the back of your transcript.

Any backup for this assertion?

(not trying to be a smart ass, genuinely curious)

[yuqq]

Anyone care to critique this bidlist? Around 179, so top 1/3? Have WE, ties to SF/cali. No ties to NY. Available interview slots are listed.

Few comments for the whole thread, quoted this one because it was convenient.

1. Underestimating rank seems to be a common thread (UChi = bitter pessimists? who knows). 179 is worst case top 20% and might be closer to top 15% depending on our year. Everyone who's not sure about their rank should learn what a standard deviation is and figure it out instead of wildly guessing. I can PM my estimates if anyone cares.

2. Bidding on a firm whose lowest callback in the last 3 years is well above your average is a wasted bid (and it screws over your classmates). If you haven't read the sheet with callback info on chalk, go read it.

I would caution people on here about OVERESTIMATING class rank. 179 is NOT worst case top 20%. 30% of the class of 2011 graduated with a 179+, despite what it says on the back of your transcript. While a 177 may be median in a given class, it is well below cumulative median GPA because there are generally a few more As than Cs and most Cs that do occur are high Cs. Furthermore, a professor can give out a ton of 177s and count them towards the bottom end of the distribution. I would guess that a 178 is closer to the median cumulative GPA than a 177. That said, a better question -- and one that I'm sure varies -- is whether firms actually calculate cumulative GPAs. Also, how accurate they can be if they don't, i.e. LRW appears 3 times on your transcript but is only 4 credits while contracts appears twice but is 6 credits. Therefore, a good LRW grade may seem deceptively important.

I think you are confusing average with median here. The median is and always will be 177, while the average may be higher than 177.

[Anonymous User]

As for backup, look to the 2011-12 announcements which show over 60 honors grads. As for confusion, there is none. Just because every 1L class has a 177 median except Lrw does not mean that the median cumulative GPA is 177. given the distribution, it simply won't work out that way.

[yuqq]

As for backup, look to the 2011-12 announcements which show over 60 honors grads. As for confusion, there is none. Just because every 1L class has a 177 median except Lrw does not mean that the median cumulative GPA is 177. given the distribution, it simply won't work out that way.

Not trying to be combative here, just trying to understand. Why does it not simply work out that way? If you can elaborate a little more on how it doesn't work out that way, maybe with a mathematical explanation.
I was personally curious enough to do a spreadsheet, feel free to correct me if I did something wrong. Say the classes give out grades from 1-5, and the students (A-K) are relatively consistent with their grades, which they tend to be. There is one 1, two 2s, five 3s, two 4s, and one 5 per class.

Student A B C D E F G H I J K
Class 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5
Class 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 5 4
Class 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 4 5 3 3 4
Class 4 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 5 4 4
Class 5 2 1 4 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 5
Total 11 9 14 11 13 14 17 17 18 19 22
Cumulative 2.2 1.8 2.8 2.2 2.6 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.4

Ordered 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.4
median = 2.8, which is pretty close to 3. Why would the cumulative median be higher than the median for each individual class? It seems pretty much the same to me. The only thing different is that the distribution and amount of people at the median are different, but that alone doesn't change the median, nor does it seem to change the fact that a 179, which would be around a 3.5/4, is still at least top 20-25% of the class.

Also, the graduation data is far from an accurate reflection of the cumulative median during 1L year. As you go through law school, the curve generally gets easier, so I'm not surprised that 30% of the class graduated with a 179. However, I highly highly doubt that 30% of the 1L class has a 179; I think 179=top 20-25% is a better estimation.

[Anonymous User]

So scared of striking out ahhhh
I wish my grades were higher

[funkyturds]

As for backup, look to the 2011-12 announcements which show over 60 honors grads. As for confusion, there is none. Just because every 1L class has a 177 median except Lrw does not mean that the median cumulative GPA is 177. given the distribution, it simply won't work out that way.

Not trying to be combative here, just trying to understand. Why does it not simply work out that way? If you can elaborate a little more on how it doesn't work out that way, maybe with a mathematical explanation.
I was personally curious enough to do a spreadsheet, feel free to correct me if I did something wrong. Say the classes give out grades from 1-5, and the students (A-K) are relatively consistent with their grades, which they tend to be. There is one 1, two 2s, five 3s, two 4s, and one 5 per class.

Student A B C D E F G H I J K
Class 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5
Class 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 5 4
Class 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 4 5 3 3 4
Class 4 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 5 4 4
Class 5 2 1 4 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 5
Total 11 9 14 11 13 14 17 17 18 19 22
Cumulative 2.2 1.8 2.8 2.2 2.6 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.4

Ordered 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.4
median = 2.8, which is pretty close to 3. Why would the cumulative median be higher than the median for each individual class? It seems pretty much the same to me. The only thing different is that the distribution and amount of people at the median are different, but that alone doesn't change the median, nor does it seem to change the fact that a 179, which would be around a 3.5/4, is still at least top 20-25% of the class.

Also, the graduation data is far from an accurate reflection of the cumulative median during 1L year. As you go through law school, the curve generally gets easier, so I'm not surprised that 30% of the class graduated with a 179. However, I highly highly doubt that 30% of the 1L class has a 179; I think 179=top 20-25% is a better estimation.

bolded is where youre fucking up.

[yuqq]

As for backup, look to the 2011-12 announcements which show over 60 honors grads. As for confusion, there is none. Just because every 1L class has a 177 median except Lrw does not mean that the median cumulative GPA is 177. given the distribution, it simply won't work out that way.

Not trying to be combative here, just trying to understand. Why does it not simply work out that way? If you can elaborate a little more on how it doesn't work out that way, maybe with a mathematical explanation.
I was personally curious enough to do a spreadsheet, feel free to correct me if I did something wrong. Say the classes give out grades from 1-5, and the students (A-K) are relatively consistent with their grades, which they tend to be. There is one 1, two 2s, five 3s, two 4s, and one 5 per class.

Student A B C D E F G H I J K
Class 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5
Class 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 5 4
Class 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 4 5 3 3 4
Class 4 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 5 4 4
Class 5 2 1 4 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 5
Total 11 9 14 11 13 14 17 17 18 19 22
Cumulative 2.2 1.8 2.8 2.2 2.6 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.4

Ordered 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.4
median = 2.8, which is pretty close to 3. Why would the cumulative median be higher than the median for each individual class? It seems pretty much the same to me. The only thing different is that the distribution and amount of people at the median are different, but that alone doesn't change the median, nor does it seem to change the fact that a 179, which would be around a 3.5/4, is still at least top 20-25% of the class.

Also, the graduation data is far from an accurate reflection of the cumulative median during 1L year. As you go through law school, the curve generally gets easier, so I'm not surprised that 30% of the class graduated with a 179. However, I highly highly doubt that 30% of the 1L class has a 179; I think 179=top 20-25% is a better estimation.

bolded is where youre fucking up.

How so? Elaborate

[Anonymous User]

As for backup, look to the 2011-12 announcements which show over 60 honors grads. As for confusion, there is none. Just because every 1L class has a 177 median except Lrw does not mean that the median cumulative GPA is 177. given the distribution, it simply won't work out that way.

Not trying to be combative here, just trying to understand. Why does it not simply work out that way? If you can elaborate a little more on how it doesn't work out that way, maybe with a mathematical explanation.
I was personally curious enough to do a spreadsheet, feel free to correct me if I did something wrong. Say the classes give out grades from 1-5, and the students (A-K) are relatively consistent with their grades, which they tend to be. There is one 1, two 2s, five 3s, two 4s, and one 5 per class.

Student A B C D E F G H I J K
Class 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5
Class 2 2 1 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 5 4
Class 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 4 5 3 3 4
Class 4 3 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 5 4 4
Class 5 2 1 4 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 5
Total 11 9 14 11 13 14 17 17 18 19 22
Cumulative 2.2 1.8 2.8 2.2 2.6 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.4

Ordered 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.8 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.4
median = 2.8, which is pretty close to 3. Why would the cumulative median be higher than the median for each individual class? It seems pretty much the same to me. The only thing different is that the distribution and amount of people at the median are different, but that alone doesn't change the median, nor does it seem to change the fact that a 179, which would be around a 3.5/4, is still at least top 20-25% of the class.

Also, the graduation data is far from an accurate reflection of the cumulative median during 1L year. As you go through law school, the curve generally gets easier, so I'm not surprised that 30% of the class graduated with a 179. However, I highly highly doubt that 30% of the 1L class has a 179; I think 179=top 20-25% is a better estimation.

bolded is where youre fucking up.

How so? Elaborate

Because, as previously mentioned, the grade distribution is not symmetrical. There are more As than Cs, and virtually all of the Cs are going to be high Cs. While students' grades tend to be somewhat consistent, to the extent that they deviate, there is a greater likelihood of an upward deviation than a downward one and the extent of that deviation is also likely to be greater.
Thus a distribution of ten students is more apt to look like 173 177 177 177 177 179 179 179 182 184 than 173 173 176 176 177 177 178 178 181 181. Over time, the student in the middle of the class will likely get more 179s than 175s and more 182s than 172s. This will pull up this median student's cumulative GPA. I also don't think the higher graduation grades can merely be attributed to seminar grading. The 179 curve is optional(professors can always keep the median at 177) and only applies to seminars with papers -- seminars with exams are still 177. Furthermore, there is a limit of 4 seminars per year, and many seminars are only 2 credits. There are a few additional nuances which you can read about in the student handbook, but the difference is not really enough to account for the large number of honors and high honors grads.

[Anonymous User]

^^ This.

If you were in Stone's Elements class, look at his grade distribution on the e-mail he sent out in January.

I wouldn't fear too hard, though. The mean grade is probably more than 177.0, but it's very doubtfully at or above 180.0

If you have a 177 point anything, you can consider yourself at median. 178+ers are above, 176-ers are below.

The ones that are lying to themselves are the ones that have 176.8 and consider themselves at 55%ish of the class. They're likely a bit lower than that. There are a whole, whole, lot of people with a 177 something.

[Haymarket]

Jesus, will you two stop this asinine conversation?

This is all a solid use of anon.

[Anonymous User]

Jesus, will you two stop this asinine conversation?

This is all a solid use of anon.

tyft.

edit: nvm, they un-canceled.

[Bildungsroman]

Good luck to everyone tomorrow!

[Haymarket]

Happy hunting.

I think most people similarly feel that I genuinely want people to do well and get to firms they want, to the extent that it doesn't interfere with mine.

[Anonymous User]

when people start getting callbacks, could they anonymously post them here so others have an idea of the time frame?

[Haymarket]

when people start getting callbacks, could they anonymously post them here so others have an idea of the time frame?

I think that's the general idea of the thread, when we get to that point.

[Anonymous User]

Latham CB

[Emma.]

Guys, please try not to freak out as CB notifications roll in. Almost all firms last year did rolling callbacks, with the LR folks generally hearing almost immediately then callbacks for everyone else coming quite a bit slower. Just because someone posts here that they got a CB doesn't mean you struck out with that firm.

[Anonymous User]

Latham CB

Which office?

[Anonymous User]

Latham CB

Which office?

NY