Michigan 2014 OCI Thread!!!!!!! Forum

[Anonymous User]

I don't see why we're having this debate about medians at all.

Unless I'm incorrect in my understanding, firms don't see your class ranking or your relation to the median, they only see your gpa. That's a big reason for Michigan upping the curve in the first place.

As for worrying about the number of students with a certain gpa you're competing against, see my post a few up about how there's substantially less students in our class than in previous years, which means less people in each grade range anyways.

IMO you should probably bid within the firms same grade guidelines as I imagine that is the number they are comfortable hiring at, i.e. 3.4+, 3.6+ etc...

[BuckinghamB]

I don't see why we're having this debate about medians at all.

Unless I'm incorrect in my understanding, firms don't see your class ranking or your relation to the median, they only see your gpa. That's a big reason for Michigan upping the curve in the first place.

As for worrying about the number of students with a certain gpa you're competing against, see my post a few up about how there's substantially less students in our class than in previous years, which means less people in each grade range anyways.

IMO you should probably bid within the firms same grade guidelines as I imagine that is the number they are comfortable hiring at, i.e. 3.4+, 3.6+ etc...

I think most firms have a good idea of what GPAs correspond to approximate class rank. I'm guessing they'll figure out the curve was raised (if they haven't already) and adjust their criteria accordingly, but who knows.

[Druid]

I don't see why we're having this debate about medians at all.

Unless I'm incorrect in my understanding, firms don't see your class ranking or your relation to the median, they only see your gpa. That's a big reason for Michigan upping the curve in the first place.

As for worrying about the number of students with a certain gpa you're competing against, see my post a few up about how there's substantially less students in our class than in previous years, which means less people in each grade range anyways.

IMO you should probably bid within the firms same grade guidelines as I imagine that is the number they are comfortable hiring at, i.e. 3.4+, 3.6+ etc...

I think most firms have a good idea of what GPAs correspond to approximate class rank. I'm guessing they'll figure out the curve was raised (if they haven't already) and adjust their criteria accordingly, but who knows.

I mean, I personally know someone at a major firm tasked with figuring out where the new curve sets the median at Michigan. So yeah.

[Anonymous User]

It's 2.9, 3.4 is top 10 percent,

This is a task for someone?

[aladdinismyprince]

Sorry to hijack a bit, but if you are in D.C. this summer and are wavering about whether to do OCI, come to our happy hour next Monday to talk with people who didn't do OCI.

Here are the details:
Monday, July 7, 6-8 pm
Iron Horse Taproom (507 7th St NW)

Good luck to everyone doing OCI (and everyone not doing OCI).

[Anonymous User]

I don't see why we're having this debate about medians at all.

Unless I'm incorrect in my understanding, firms don't see your class ranking or your relation to the median, they only see your gpa. That's a big reason for Michigan upping the curve in the first place.

As for worrying about the number of students with a certain gpa you're competing against, see my post a few up about how there's substantially less students in our class than in previous years, which means less people in each grade range anyways.

IMO you should probably bid within the firms same grade guidelines as I imagine that is the number they are comfortable hiring at, i.e. 3.4+, 3.6+ etc...

I think most firms have a good idea of what GPAs correspond to approximate class rank. I'm guessing they'll figure out the curve was raised (if they haven't already) and adjust their criteria accordingly, but who knows.

I mean, I personally know someone at a major firm tasked with figuring out where the new curve sets the median at Michigan. So yeah.

Yeah. This. This type of reasoning only works if you assume firms don't know about the new curve. At least the more savvy firms are well aware of the upwards adjustment and are taking that into consideration when interviewing.

[Anonymous User]

Generally

I don't see why we're having this debate about medians at all.

Unless I'm incorrect in my understanding, firms don't see your class ranking or your relation to the median, they only see your gpa. That's a big reason for Michigan upping the curve in the first place.

As for worrying about the number of students with a certain gpa you're competing against, see my post a few up about how there's substantially less students in our class than in previous years, which means less people in each grade range anyways.

IMO you should probably bid within the firms same grade guidelines as I imagine that is the number they are comfortable hiring at, i.e. 3.4+, 3.6+ etc...

I think most firms have a good idea of what GPAs correspond to approximate class rank. I'm guessing they'll figure out the curve was raised (if they haven't already) and adjust their criteria accordingly, but who knows.

I mean, I personally know someone at a major firm tasked with figuring out where the new curve sets the median at Michigan. So yeah.

Yeah. This. This type of reasoning only works if you assume firms don't know about the new curve. At least the more savvy firms are well aware of the upwards adjustment and are taking that into consideration when interviewing.

I don't think this is right. People are really overestimating interviewers' familiarity with old curve. I came to OCI during 3L to help recruit for my V5 a couple years back. When we closed the door to discuss candidates during lunch, the conversation went something like this:

A: I really liked Steve, did any of you get to talk to him?
B: Yeah, he seemed smart. What are his grades like?
A: (digs transcript from pile)... 3.6
B: Is that good? What is his rank?
A: Yeah I think it's pretty good. It doesn't say his rank.
B: Does anybody know where we find a student's rank?
(Various people explain that Michigan doesn't rank)
A: All right, let's keep him in mind. Who else?

After a half day of interviewing (and countless years of Michigan doing it the same way), some interviewers don't even understand that we don't rank. I also doubt many firms are different from mine. Think about it: not only does Michigan not rank, it doesn't even publish historical data about class distributions after 1L. You guys have access to more information than anybody (and more time/desire to analyze it), and even you are having trouble figuring it out. There is just no way for firms to do the kinds of granular analysis that you guys think they are doing, even if they cared enough to do it. The interviewers, even if they went to Michigan, are years removed from their OCIs, clerkship searches, and other experiences that put them in contact with this kind of information. Even among those who were once familiar with the old curve, few will remember.

Remember, though, you are still competing against your classmates in a way. A below-median student might look more attractive this year, but so does everyone else. More people will be above the firm's GPA cutoff--not just you--and there are usually a finite number of callbacks available. I think the real benefit is that it gives you a chance to succeed through the interview more than before because, for a firm with a 3.5 GPA cutoff, the difference between a 3.45 and a 3.55 (old curve) is much bigger than the difference between a 3.55 and a 3.65 (new curve). On the old curve, that interviewer might have to really put himself out there to get you to the next round. On the new curve, he might just have to say you were better than the other guy.

[Anonymous User]

Hi everyone! This looks like it's full of useful info and helpful people, so I'll give this a shot.

I'm sitting at just over a 3.2 - not ideal by any means. I'm aware that bidding NYC gives me my best shot. Can anyone list maybe 10 or so NYC firms that I should bid? I've picked up that I should bid firms with large class sizes (and obviously those within my GPA range...), but not all firms on the GPA data sheet have info listed. So I'm stuck wondering what NYC firms are best for my GPA.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think this is right. People are really overestimating interviewers' familiarity with old curve. I came to OCI during 3L to help recruit for my V5 a couple years back. When we closed the door to discuss candidates during lunch, the conversation went something like this:

A: I really liked Steve, did any of you get to talk to him?
B: Yeah, he seemed smart. What are his grades like?
A: (digs transcript from pile)... 3.6
B: Is that good? What is his rank?
A: Yeah I think it's pretty good. It doesn't say his rank.
B: Does anybody know where we find a student's rank?
(Various people explain that Michigan doesn't rank)
A: All right, let's keep him in mind. Who else?

After a half day of interviewing (and countless years of Michigan doing it the same way), some interviewers don't even understand that we don't rank. I also doubt many firms are different from mine. Think about it: not only does Michigan not rank, it doesn't even publish historical data about class distributions after 1L. You guys have access to more information than anybody (and more time/desire to analyze it), and even you are having trouble figuring it out. There is just no way for firms to do the kinds of granular analysis that you guys think they are doing, even if they cared enough to do it. The interviewers, even if they went to Michigan, are years removed from their OCIs, clerkship searches, and other experiences that put them in contact with this kind of information. Even among those who were once familiar with the old curve, few will remember.

Remember, though, you are still competing against your classmates in a way. A below-median student might look more attractive this year, but so does everyone else. More people will be above the firm's GPA cutoff--not just you--and there are usually a finite number of callbacks available. I think the real benefit is that it gives you a chance to succeed through the interview more than before because, for a firm with a 3.5 GPA cutoff, the difference between a 3.45 and a 3.55 (old curve) is much bigger than the difference between a 3.55 and a 3.65 (new curve). On the old curve, that interviewer might have to really put himself out there to get you to the next round. On the new curve, he might just have to say you were better than the other guy.

+1 completely agree with all of this, the only point I take issue with and where I think students bidding should be willing to take slightly more risk is that "More people will be above the firm's GPA cutoff--not just you--and there are usually a finite number of callbacks available."

As I stated earlier Michigan has DRASTICALLY reduced its class size in the past year or two, so even with the increased curve the number of students above the firm's GPA cutoff should be about the same.

For a numerical example, when the class size was 400 two years ago, 100 students were in the top 25% at around a 3.6+ for the old curve.
Now with the class size at 315, 100 students are still at 3.6+, but it is the top 1/3 instead of top 25%. These numbers are rough estimates but demonstrate how a reduced class size coupled with a higher curve result in the same number of students with top grades, it really was ingenious by Michigan to raise the curve right as they reduced the class size, I'm predicting really great employment outcomes for Michigan's 1L class as a whole because of this.

[Anonymous User]

Should also note that the new curve helps on the comparison to other schools, the other T14 schools that have hard curves pretty much all had easier curves than Michigan last year. At the end of the day if a firm was deciding to hire one of two applicats, one from UVA with a 3.5 and one from Michigan with a 3.45, it was unlikely that they were really going to dive into figuring out the underlying unstated rank.

[Anonymous User]

I don't think this is right. People are really overestimating interviewers' familiarity with old curve. I came to OCI during 3L to help recruit for my V5 a couple years back. When we closed the door to discuss candidates during lunch, the conversation went something like this:

A: I really liked Steve, did any of you get to talk to him?
B: Yeah, he seemed smart. What are his grades like?
A: (digs transcript from pile)... 3.6
B: Is that good? What is his rank?
A: Yeah I think it's pretty good. It doesn't say his rank.
B: Does anybody know where we find a student's rank?
(Various people explain that Michigan doesn't rank)
A: All right, let's keep him in mind. Who else?

After a half day of interviewing (and countless years of Michigan doing it the same way), some interviewers don't even understand that we don't rank. I also doubt many firms are different from mine. Think about it: not only does Michigan not rank, it doesn't even publish historical data about class distributions after 1L. You guys have access to more information than anybody (and more time/desire to analyze it), and even you are having trouble figuring it out. There is just no way for firms to do the kinds of granular analysis that you guys think they are doing, even if they cared enough to do it. The interviewers, even if they went to Michigan, are years removed from their OCIs, clerkship searches, and other experiences that put them in contact with this kind of information. Even among those who were once familiar with the old curve, few will remember.

Remember, though, you are still competing against your classmates in a way. A below-median student might look more attractive this year, but so does everyone else. More people will be above the firm's GPA cutoff--not just you--and there are usually a finite number of callbacks available. I think the real benefit is that it gives you a chance to succeed through the interview more than before because, for a firm with a 3.5 GPA cutoff, the difference between a 3.45 and a 3.55 (old curve) is much bigger than the difference between a 3.55 and a 3.65 (new curve). On the old curve, that interviewer might have to really put himself out there to get you to the next round. On the new curve, he might just have to say you were better than the other guy.

+1 completely agree with all of this, the only point I take issue with and where I think students bidding should be willing to take slightly more risk is that "More people will be above the firm's GPA cutoff--not just you--and there are usually a finite number of callbacks available."

As I stated earlier Michigan has DRASTICALLY reduced its class size in the past year or two, so even with the increased curve the number of students above the firm's GPA cutoff should be about the same.

For a numerical example, when the class size was 400 two years ago, 100 students were in the top 25% at around a 3.6+ for the old curve.
Now with the class size at 315, 100 students are still at 3.6+, but it is the top 1/3 instead of top 25%. These numbers are rough estimates but demonstrate how a reduced class size coupled with a higher curve result in the same number of students with top grades, it really was ingenious by Michigan to raise the curve right as they reduced the class size, I'm predicting really great employment outcomes for Michigan's 1L class as a whole because of this.

I agree that employment outcomes will generally improve. But the size of the class really doesn't matter for any given employer because all interview slots will still get taken. Cadwalader is still going to interview about 60 people, for example--same as last year. So if you interview with Cadwalader, you are still competing with 59 others like your predecessor did the year before. The only difference for your purposes is that this year, the average GPA of your your competitors is a 3.4 instead of a 3.25.

The smaller class size just means each student will receive more screener interviews on average.

[Anonymous User]

And if people get more interviews on average and the probability for a callback from each interview remains the same, students will get more callbacks, and if the probaility of a callback leading to an offer is unchanged, Michigan students will get more offers. I don't see what you're saying.

[Anonymous User]

And if people get more interviews on avage and the probability from a callback from each interview remains the same, students will get more callback, and if the probaility of a callback leading to an offer is unchanged, Michigan students will get more offers. I don't see what you're saying.

Again, I agree Michigan students will do better on the whole. My issue was with your advice to take more risk. I think a student with a 3.4 should bid as if he had a 3.25 last year. Bidding as though you have a 3.4 on last year's scale can be a trap because a 3.4 will look more pedestrian to a given firm in the pile of 30 resumes than last year, when there were probably 50% fewer people with that GPA.

[Anonymous User]

Grain of salt and all that, but OCP specifically told me that I shouldn't make any adjustments to my target firms based on the new curve. Not entirely sure whether I trust that, but the Chicago recruiter also said my 3.57 makes me competitive pretty much everywhere there, which aligns with OCP's advice and old GPA info. I mean, maybe it's a conspiracy, but my guess (and it's just a guess) is that the lower curve from prior years was hurting Michigan folks for precisely the same reason it'll help us out now: most interviewers aren't digging much deeper than the number itself.

[Anonymous User]

Grain of salt and all that, but OCP specifically told me that I shouldn't make any adjustments to my target firms based on the new curve. Not entirely sure whether I trust that, but the Chicago recruiter also said my 3.57 makes me competitive pretty much everywhere there, which aligns with OCP's advice and old GPA info. I mean, maybe it's a conspiracy, but my guess (and it's just a guess) is that the lower curve from prior years was hurting Michigan folks for precisely the same reason it'll help us out now: most interviewers aren't digging much deeper than the number itself.

obligatory post coming from the one V10 Mich. alum who says his/her firm does adjust.

In other news, I actually think OCP has been pretty transparent and helpful the last four weeks in helping people get ready for EIW. Kudos to them.

[Anonymous User]

And if people get more interviews on avage and the probability from a callback from each interview remains the same, students will get more callback, and if the probaility of a callback leading to an offer is unchanged, Michigan students will get more offers. I don't see what you're saying.

Again, I agree Michigan students will do better on the whole. My issue was with your advice to take more risk. I think a student with a 3.4 should bid as if he had a 3.25 last year. Bidding as though you have a 3.4 on last year's scale can be a trap because a 3.4 will look more pedestrian to a given firm in the pile of 30 resumes than last year, when there were probably 50% fewer people with that GPA.

lol just no we have already refuted this. the reduced class size means that the same number of students should have higher gpas, i.e. 3.4's, because while the increased curve means you have a higher percentage chance of getting a 3.4, there are less total students so the amount of 3.4's is exactly the same.

[Anonymous User]

Grain of salt and all that, but OCP specifically told me that I shouldn't make any adjustments to my target firms based on the new curve. Not entirely sure whether I trust that, but the Chicago recruiter also said my 3.57 makes me competitive pretty much everywhere there, which aligns with OCP's advice and old GPA info. I mean, maybe it's a conspiracy, but my guess (and it's just a guess) is that the lower curve from prior years was hurting Michigan folks for precisely the same reason it'll help us out now: most interviewers aren't digging much deeper than the number itself.

That same Chicago recruiter said my 3.2 would be "very competitive" at "most" Chicago firms (sans Kirkland, Sidley, Latham, and a couple others). I think those bid consultants are paid to be overly optimistic and paint quite a pretty picture. I know the reality is my 3.2 puts me at an extreme disadvantage not only in Chicago, but for all firms coming to OCI.

[Anonymous User]

And if people get more interviews on avage and the probability from a callback from each interview remains the same, students will get more callback, and if the probaility of a callback leading to an offer is unchanged, Michigan students will get more offers. I don't see what you're saying.

Again, I agree Michigan students will do better on the whole. My issue was with your advice to take more risk. I think a student with a 3.4 should bid as if he had a 3.25 last year. Bidding as though you have a 3.4 on last year's scale can be a trap because a 3.4 will look more pedestrian to a given firm in the pile of 30 resumes than last year, when there were probably 50% fewer people with that GPA.

lol just no we have already refuted this. the reduced class size means that the same number of students should have higher gpas, i.e. 3.4's, because while the increased curve means you have a higher percentage chance of getting a 3.4, there are less total students so the amount of 3.4's is exactly the same.

Last post about this. Here's a quick illustration of my point:

2013: 400 students. 3.4 = Top 1/3. Therefore about 133 students at or above 3.4. 20 slots per interviewer. 6.6 students per interviewer at or above 3.4.
2014: 300 students. 3.5 = Top 1/2. Therefore about 150 students at or above 3.4. 20 slots per interviewer. 10 students per interviewer at or above 3.4 (increase of 50%).

Even assuming a 100-person class reduction (and I know it's not that big), there are still probably more total 3.4s now. But anyway, class reduction is irrelevant because the excess interview spots are distributed proportionately throughout the rest of the class in a blind bidding system.

Agree that at a base level, class size reduction = more interviews per student = more callbacks per student (assuming callback rate is the same) = more offers per student. My point is that if you bid as though you had a 3.4 last year, there are suddenly between 8 and 11 transcripts as good or better than yours in each interview room instead of 5-6. Remember, the same top students can (and often do) receive the callback offers from each firm. The kid with the 3.8 is going to get 5X as many callbacks as the kid with the 3.4. My assumption is that the comparatively weaker position in the stack of 20 will hurt your callback rate, so bid a little bit conservatively to avoid this.

Like the poster above said, a 3.57 is probably just as "competitive" for the top Chicago firms as before. The difference is that there are simply more people who are also competitive this time. Kirkland isn't going to call back 45 people when they're used to calling back 30 just because there are 50% more applicants who meet their cutoffs this year.

[Anonymous User]

And if people get more interviews on avage and the probability from a callback from each interview remains the same, students will get more callback, and if the probaility of a callback leading to an offer is unchanged, Michigan students will get more offers. I don't see what you're saying.

Again, I agree Michigan students will do better on the whole. My issue was with your advice to take more risk. I think a student with a 3.4 should bid as if he had a 3.25 last year. Bidding as though you have a 3.4 on last year's scale can be a trap because a 3.4 will look more pedestrian to a given firm in the pile of 30 resumes than last year, when there were probably 50% fewer people with that GPA.

lol just no we have already refuted this. the reduced class size means that the same number of students should have higher gpas, i.e. 3.4's, because while the increased curve means you have a higher percentage chance of getting a 3.4, there are less total students so the amount of 3.4's is exactly the same.

Last post about this. Here's a quick illustration of my point:

2013: 400 students. 3.4 = Top 1/3. Therefore about 133 students at or above 3.4. 20 slots per interviewer. 6.6 students per interviewer at or above 3.4.
2014: 300 students. 3.5 = Top 1/2. Therefore about 150 students at or above 3.4. 20 slots per interviewer. 10 students per interviewer at or above 3.4 (increase of 50%).

Even assuming a 100-person class reduction (and I know it's not that big), there are still probably more total 3.4s now. But anyway, class reduction is irrelevant because the excess interview spots are distributed proportionately throughout the rest of the class in a blind bidding system.

Agree that at a base level, class size reduction = more interviews per student = more callbacks per student (assuming callback rate is the same) = more offers per student. My point is that if you bid as though you had a 3.4 last year, there are suddenly between 8 and 11 transcripts as good or better than yours in each interview room instead of 5-6. Remember, the same top students can (and often do) receive the callback offers from each firm. The kid with the 3.8 is going to get 5X as many callbacks as the kid with the 3.4. My assumption is that the comparatively weaker position in the stack of 20 will hurt your callback rate, so bid a little bit conservatively to avoid this.

Like the poster above said, a 3.57 is probably just as "competitive" for the top Chicago firms as before. The difference is that there are simply more people who are also competitive this time. Kirkland isn't going to call back 45 people when they're used to calling back 30 just because there are 50% more applicants who meet their cutoffs this year.

First, lol at 3.5 being top 1/2 when the median is ~3.36. Second, I agree with you closer to the median, but I think as a student moves higher up away from the median this number experiment fails. Also, the data is for the class of 2013 from LST which had 400 graduates, and our class does have ~315 graduates, I don't care if you don't think it's that drastic or not, it actually is.

Here's numbers illustrating my point:
2013: 400 students. 3.4 = Top 1/3. Therefore about 133 students at or above 3.4. 20 slots per interviewer. 6.6 students per interviewer at or above 3.4.
2014: 300 students. 3.4 = Top 1/2. Therefore about 150 students at or above 3.4. 20 slots per interviewer. 10 students per interviewer at or above 3.4 (increase of 50%).

2013: 400 students. 3.6 = top 1/4. Therefore 100 students at or above a 3.6. 20 slots per interviewer. 5 students per interviewer at or above a 3.6
2014. 300 students. 3.6 = top 1/3. Therefore 100 students at or above a 3.6. 20 slots per interviewer. 5 students per interviewer at or above a 3.6
TL;DR It's a wash.

[Anonymous User]

First, lol at 3.5 being top 1/2 when the median is ~3.36. Second, I agree with you closer to the median, but I think as a student moves higher up away from the median this number experiment fails. Also, the data is for the class of 2013 from LST which had 400 graduates, and our class does have ~315 graduates, I don't care if you don't think it's that drastic or not, it actually is.

Here's numbers illustrating my point:
2013: 400 students. 3.4 = Top 1/3. Therefore about 133 students at or above 3.4. 20 slots per interviewer. 6.6 students per interviewer at or above 3.4.
2014: 300 students. 3.4 = Top 1/2. Therefore about 150 students at or above 3.4. 20 slots per interviewer. 10 students per interviewer at or above 3.4 (increase of 50%).

2013: 400 students. 3.6 = top 1/4. Therefore 100 students at or above a 3.6. 20 slots per interviewer. 5 students per interviewer at or above a 3.6
2014. 300 students. 3.6 = top 1/3. Therefore 100 students at or above a 3.6. 20 slots per interviewer. 5 students per interviewer at or above a 3.6
TL;DR It's a wash.

3.5 was a type-o. And while the class of 2013 had 400 students, OCI in 2013 was for the class of 2015, which is much smaller.

Anyway that's not how the math works. Dividing 100/20 only tells you that there are 5 students over 3.6 bidding for each spot. Meanwhile, there are 200/20=10 students in the bottom 2/3 bidding for each spot. 5/(5+10) = 0.33, or 33% of available interview slots. Out of 20 spots, that's 6.6 spots for students with a 3.6 or higher and 13.3 for students with under 3.6. 1/3 of the spots for 1/3 of the students is pretty intuitive. Think about it, why would students in the top 1/3 of the class get just 1/4 of the interviews, while students in the bottom 2/3 get 3/4 of the interviews? That would mean a student in the bottom 2/3 of the class receives, on average, 18% more interviews than students in the top 1/3. In the bidding system, students across the board should each receive roughly the same number of interviews.

You are right, however, that the difference gets smaller as you get closer to the top. Say 3.8 was top 5% and now it's top 10%, that's now just one extra person ahead of you in a given interview room. Doubt that makes much of a difference.

Hope this helps.

[Anonymous User]

Whatever, the exact distribution doesn't really matter.

3.1: Struggle for NYC, smaller markets, gotta sell yourself well
3.2: Struggle for NYC , smaller markets, got a decent chance
3.3: Competitive for lower NYC firms, less selective Chicago firms, and other secondary markets
3.4: Competitive for middle NYC firms, some Chicago firms, and other midwest markets
3.5: Competitive for non top-20 firms in NYC, most Chicago firms, some DC firms, some CA firms, other secondary market
3.6: Competitive for non top-10 firms in NYC, most Chicago firms, most DC firms, most CA firms, other secondary markets
3.7+: Competitive for all firm

[84651846190]

Whatever, the exact distribution doesn't really matter.

3.1: Struggle for NYC, smaller markets, gotta sell yourself well
3.2: Struggle for NYC , smaller markets, got a decent chance
3.3: Competitive for lower NYC firms, less selective Chicago firms, and other secondary markets
3.4: Competitive for middle NYC firms, some Chicago firms, and other midwest markets
3.5: Competitive for non top-20 firms in NYC, most Chicago firms, some DC firms, some CA firms, other secondary market
3.6: Competitive for non top-10 firms in NYC, most Chicago firms, most DC firms, most CA firms, other secondary markets
3.7+: Competitive for all firm

Yeah, this is bullcrap. There are definitely people with 3.5s who get V10s.

[Anonymous User]

At their main offices, only Weil and maybe Latham.

3.5 in our class is only top third.

[Anonymous User]

At their main offices, only Weil and maybe Latham.

3.5 in our class is only top third.

How do you know this?

[Anonymous User]

The amount of stupidity coming out of this grade curve talk is pretty startling